Star Trek Into Darkness, in theaters May 17, 2013

[TehPW]

the first thing i thought of was.... Sovereign-class. some of those pics imply a triangular shaped bussard collector...

[JetJockey]

After watching the latest trailer which looks cool but is just about as far from Star Trek as possible. I finally realized something. It doesn't matter if this is Khan or not. This is Abrams alternate universe that he created to play around with the Star Trek characters. Anything can happen for whatever crazy reason. In this universe, Khan (if it's him) could be a genetically engineered soldier working for the Federation (which it seems like).

[myk]

After watching the latest trailer which looks cool but is just about as far from Star Trek as possible. I finally realized something. It doesn't matter if this is Khan or not. This is Abrams alternate universe that he created to play around with the Star Trek characters. Anything can happen for whatever crazy reason. In this universe, Khan (if it's him) could be a genetically engineered soldier working for the Federation (which it seems like).

I think Abrams sorta' made that clear the minute the Kelvin encountered Nero and his planet-cracker-ship...

[taksraven]

The last time we picked apart a trailer like this it was bloody Prometheus and look at the pile of shite that landed us in!

[Duke Togo]

The last time we picked apart a trailer like this it was bloody Prometheus and look at the pile of shite that landed us in!

I enjoy Prometheus.

[taksraven]

I enjoy Prometheus.

Why??

[Duke Togo]

Why??

Same reason a lot of other people do: I'm not hung up on the whole "Alien" thing. Yeah, the geologist and biologist were stupid. I don't care, the mythos intrigues me. And it's a gorgeous film.

[taksraven]

Same reason a lot of other people do: I'm not hung up on the whole "Alien" thing. Yeah, the geologist and biologist were stupid. I don't care, the mythos intrigues me. And it's a gorgeous film.

It looks great FX wise and I am not hung up on the "Alien" thing either. I just think that the script stunk (needed a lot more revision, to me it looks like it must have been too close to the first draft, clunky dialogue and exposition) and I also think that Ridley Scott is very overrated.

[Duke Togo]

It looks great FX wise and I am not hung up on the "Alien" thing either. I just think that the script stunk (needed a lot more revision, to me it looks like it must have been too close to the first draft, clunky dialogue and exposition) and I also think that Ridley Scott is very overrated.

Well, we will definitely not agree on Ridley. Blade Runner is what got me into film as a kid, and I love his work.

Edited March 24, 2013 by Duke Togo

[Dynaman]

I liked Prometheus as well. Granted, it has problems which some script rewrites could have taken care of (scientists could have taken proper precautions and something still went wrong for instance) but it was fun to watch.

[Duke Togo]

I liked Prometheus as well. Granted, it has problems which some script rewrites could have taken care of (scientists could have taken proper precautions and something still went wrong for instance) but it was fun to watch.

And it was bloody brilliant to watch on IMAX

[EXO]

not another Prometheus thread.

[Duke Togo]

not another Prometheus thread.

So, it's certainly starting to sound like Abrams made Khan film without Khan.

[JetJockey]

So, it's certainly starting to sound like Abrams made Khan film without Khan.

You know what would be clever? But probably won't happen. If the main bad guy in this movie is just one of Khan's people and the final scene/reveal is of Khan. But that's not going to happen.

I think Abrams sorta' made that clear the minute the Kelvin encountered Nero and his planet-cracker-ship...

True, but I didn't really realize Abrams almost I don't give a crap feeling on the whole thing until seeing the last parts in the trailer and Spock as action hero.

I enjoy Prometheus.

Me too. Beautiful movie with a few problems. But far more Alien and Aliens compared to this Star Trek reboot/alternate universe.

[Keith]

I just don't get where people come off saying the new ST is less ST than ST. If anything, "I" think it's more ST TV / Movie like than TNG and everything after were.

[Kanedas Bike]

I just don't get where people come off saying the new ST is less ST than ST. If anything, "I" think it's more ST TV / Movie like than TNG and everything after were.

Agree 110%. The original series made an impact in the story department by making a social commentary via a utopian future with a mutli-cultural, multi-national crew. But each episode was action on top of action.

I'm really happy with the reboot and I truly can't wait to catch this one in the theater.

-b.

[taksraven]

Lets just hope that they spend a bit of money on an engine room set this time.....

[Keith]

Oh f^ck yeah, the engine room was awful.

[JetJockey]

I just don't get where people come off saying the new ST is less ST than ST. If anything, "I" think it's more ST TV / Movie like than TNG and everything after were.

Because Star Trek is supposed to be a moral tale and the new Star Trek lacks that. It completely missed the point of why Kirk and Spock are cool too. Of course, people will say this is a alternate universe. A retelling, etc. But why not make new characters with these new character traits instead of changing Star Trek. It's lazy and shows a lack of creativity.

I actually like the Next Generation TV show. I thought the movies were bad. Nothing but movie length TV shows. But TNG didn't have that character interaction like the original with Kirk, Spock, and Bones. I didn't like Deep Space Nine that much. I stopped watching it about 2 or so seasons in. Voyager I started watching it when the blonde borg with big youknowwhats showed up. I thought the show was ok. I think I put it on my list to watch from the beginning. I watched Enterprise from the first season. I stopped after the beginning of the second season I think. Boring show. The fact that originally they didn't want to call it Star Trek Enterprise says a lot about how Star Trek was trying to get a new audience. I guess they have that new audience now with this reboot.

Another thing, when I was watching the end part of the trailer. I felt nothing. I thought wow that looks cool. But not man that's happening or any sort of real emotion. Why? Because there is no attachment to the ship like in the originals. Kirk hasn't been developed to love this ship. Maybe it will happen in the beginning on this movie. But even if you never saw the TV show. And I probably only watched a good handful of episodes before seeing Wrath of Khan in theaters and Search for Spock on VHS. But both times I felt like that shouldn't be happening. I felt more for the Next Generation Enterprise in Generations and that was destroyed just so they could make a new ship. La Forge pretty much turned in his cool engineering badge with his "coolant leak, there's nothing I can do" line. Something I use everytime I see a disaster and get away as fast as possible. And Generations is a bad movie by the way.

Agree 110%. The original series made an impact in the story department by making a social commentary via a utopian future with a mutli-cultural, multi-national crew. But each episode was action on top of action.

I'm really happy with the reboot and I truly can't wait to catch this one in the theater.

-b.

But it was good rewatchable action in the originals. Stuff like the Khan fight and how both Kirk and Khan have a thing for hiding in door corners. Kirk's crazy fight with the Andorian when he kind of jumps off the wall. I wanted to like this Star Trek movie but it still felt like Abrams doing cool stuff but not memorable stuff. If you get what I'm saying. It's like the difference between the Maverick motorcycle shots in Top Gun vs the Ethan Hunt motorcycle shots in Mission: Impossible III. And this is even though I like the motorcycle stuff in Mission: Impossible II.

Oh f^ck yeah, the engine room was awful.

Second that. So many interiors were "modern" that it was disappointing.

[taksraven]

The original Trek series had an engine room more impressive than Abrams version, FFS!!

[EXO]

lol!!!

[anime52k8]

>snip<

you have some very odd tastes in trek man.

[Dynaman]

The original Trek series had an engine room more impressive than Abrams version, FFS!!

Come on now, EVERY engine room in every ship ever made had a hidden still...

[mechaninac]

I don't know about a still in "every" ship, but in Scotty's bairn, you better believe it...

Edited March 26, 2013 by mechaninac

[Dobber]

Nice.

http://londonist.com/2013/03/mini-drones-form-star-trek-logo-over-london.php

Chris

[Duke Togo]

Because Star Trek is supposed to be a moral tale and the new Star Trek lacks that. It completely missed the point of why Kirk and Spock are cool too. Of course, people will say this is a alternate universe. A retelling, etc. But why not make new characters with these new character traits instead of changing Star Trek. It's lazy and shows a lack of creativity.

Supposed to be a moral tale? Who says? I'd wager there are a thousand interpretations of the franchise, which yours is just one of many. As far as new characters goes, I think the answer is rather obvious: people are attached to these particular characters. Of course, there is also that they've tried new characters several times and fallen flat on their face. The franchise has always had a limited appeal--that is, until J.J. Abrams and his merry bunch came along and turned it on its head (and injected a healthy dose of Star Wars into it... just sayin').

[JetJockey]

Supposed to be a moral tale? Who says? I'd wager there are a thousand interpretations of the franchise, which yours is just one of many. As far as new characters goes, I think the answer is rather obvious: people are attached to these particular characters. Of course, there is also that they've tried new characters several times and fallen flat on their face. The franchise has always had a limited appeal--that is, until J.J. Abrams and his merry bunch came along and turned it on its head (and injected a healthy dose of Star Wars into it... just sayin').

Says the creator of the show. Gene Roddenberry said it in an interview I watched a while back. Some of the influences of Star Trek are also in moral tales like Forbidden Planet.

I think Star Trek started to lose people when they started the heavy techno babble in Next Generation. Then they continually wanted to show that the Star Trek universe isn't perfect so we got Deep Space Nine then Voyager. I believe the original Voyager premise was they had to work with their enemies and were far away from The Federation just like Deep Space Nine.

Enterprise they probably realized they were losing people and wanted to restart. Calling it just Enterprise at first to get new people.

Star Trek to me isn't just Kirk, Spock, and McCoy. It's cool characters and adventures. That was lost with all the so so TV series. The reboot kind of gets back to that but misses the moral part. I don't want to get into the character problem again. But it is a big problem that I don't understand how fans of Star Trek ignore.

[Duke Togo]

Says the creator of the show. Gene Roddenberry said it in an interview I watched a while back.

Oh, so short memories. Gene Roddenberry almost killed the franchise--perhaps permanently--with his handling of TNG before he died. Roddenberry was a tone-def idealist whose ideas reached a limited audiance. The franchise hit its peak with TNG after he died, and likely would have faded again had J.J. not come along.

[Mommar]

Says the creator of the show. Gene Roddenberry said it in an interview I watched a while back. Some of the influences of Star Trek are also in moral tales like Forbidden Planet.

I think Star Trek started to lose people when they started the heavy techno babble in Next Generation. Then they continually wanted to show that the Star Trek universe isn't perfect so we got Deep Space Nine then Voyager. I believe the original Voyager premise was they had to work with their enemies and were far away from The Federation just like Deep Space Nine.

Enterprise they probably realized they were losing people and wanted to restart. Calling it just Enterprise at first to get new people.

Star Trek to me isn't just Kirk, Spock, and McCoy. It's cool characters and adventures. That was lost with all the so so TV series. The reboot kind of gets back to that but misses the moral part. I don't want to get into the character problem again. But it is a big problem that I don't understand how fans of Star Trek ignore.

If Star Trek to you is cool characters and adventures you must not have been watching the same DS9 as me because they had some VERY memorable stories/characters.

Oh, so short memories. Gene Roddenberry almost killed the franchise--perhaps permanently--with his handling of TNG before he died. Roddenberry was a tone-def idealist whose ideas reached a limited audiance. The franchise hit its peak with TNG after he died, and likely would have faded again had J.J. not come along.

While that's true, JJ's version does lack most of the heart of the originals regardless of how popular the spectacle is. There's a chance they will get better. The captains lecture to Kirk about his Dad in the first movie was actually a pretty good start to that. We'll see if they continue. Certainly Gene's vision for TNG wasn't great and it improved after his death, there were still kernels of his ideas there.

[EXO]

Compared to other Sci-Fi movies about space explorations or even space sci-fi in general, I thought the last movie was really good. Except for the part where they shoot Kirk to a moon/planet (forgot which) that can survive a singularity even thought the planet is within naked eye's view, and on the same rock is Old Spock and Scotty are on, I thought it was a good adventure. J.J. needs to learn how to do an ending that matches his openings. I think, the years of continuously abandoning his TV series in the middle meant that he really never had to think of a smart ending ever. Super8 just bit the big one in terms of movie endings. Star Trek's ending was pretty typical when it comes to summer movies.

[UN Spacy]

I see the last movie three times in theaters.

I haven't done that since First Contact.

[JetJockey]

Oh, so short memories. Gene Roddenberry almost killed the franchise--perhaps permanently--with his handling of TNG before he died. Roddenberry was a tone-def idealist whose ideas reached a limited audiance. The franchise hit its peak with TNG after he died, and likely would have faded again had J.J. not come along.

Honestly, I would rather have a series die then for it to be rebooted like Star Trek. Maybe the next movie will be good. Maybe. But putting a spin on Khan (if it's him) and one of the best revenge/sci-fi movies of all time is not the best idea for even the best directors. Abrams tried to introduce a bit of Khan in the Nero character. So this will be attempt number two.

If Star Trek to you is cool characters and adventures you must not have been watching the same DS9 as me because they had some VERY memorable stories/characters.

While that's true, JJ's version does lack most of the heart of the originals regardless of how popular the spectacle is. There's a chance they will get better. The captains lecture to Kirk about his Dad in the first movie was actually a pretty good start to that. We'll see if they continue. Certainly Gene's vision for TNG wasn't great and it improved after his death, there were still kernels of his ideas there.

Some stories in Deep Space Nine were good. But around here is where I stopped watching:

That heart you talk about is what is in many of the great movies. They allow characters to develop. They don't string along action sequences that don't have much meaning because you don't care about the characters. Aliens is like this. James Cameron talks about it a bit in the intro and commentary. Many will say that young people can't watch older movies. I saw a post on Neogaf from a first watcher of Wrath of Khan talking about how the movie is slow. I saw Wrath of Khan in theaters and I wasn't even near ten years old. I remember being scared. Not bored. I vaguely remembered the Khan TV episode I think.

Compared to other Sci-Fi movies about space explorations or even space sci-fi in general, I thought the last movie was really good. Except for the part where they shoot Kirk to a moon/planet (forgot which) that can survive a singularity even thought the planet is within naked eye's view, and on the same rock is Old Spock and Scotty are on, I thought it was a good adventure. J.J. needs to learn how to do an ending that matches his openings. I think, the years of continuously abandoning his TV series in the middle meant that he really never had to think of a smart ending ever. Super8 just bit the big one in terms of movie endings. Star Trek was pretty typical when it comes to summer movies.

I think Prometheus is a far better space exploration movie. It looks beautiful too. There were a few pretty shots in Star Trek but every shot in Prometheus is stunning. I just checked wiki and Prometheus cost less and made more than Star Trek. I haven't seen Super 8 yet. Maybe it will surprise me.

Edited March 27, 2013 by JetJockey

[Mog]

Some stories in Deep Space Nine were good. But around here is where I stopped watching:

And that right there is precisely why I LOVE DS9. Arguably one of the best damn episodes of the entire franchise. Yes, Trek is supposed to be about an ideal society that has grown beyond the ugliness that has and still mars our current society.

But DS9 took that ideal image, made it face some harsh realities, and made us appreciate the hard work needed to maintain that society even more.

Here's this uber-great Starfleet captain (and a major religious figure for the Bajorans). He's in the middle of a massive war that threatens all he holds dear. And he becomes complicit in doing the unthinkable. In the end, Captain Sisko helps to turn the tide of the war, "And all it cost was the life of one Romulan senator, one criminal, and the self-respect of one Starfleet officer."

Was it worth it? Did he make the right decision? Does that morally wrong decision make everything the Federation stand for a lie? The episode is a great discussion starter and forces people to think. Two things I've got no issue with.

I could go on and on about DS9. But getting back to the reboot and the next JJ-Trek movie, it may not be my thing. But whatever.

It's not like anyone's going out there and destroying copies of TOS, TNG, DS9, Voyager, or Enterprise or saying those versions are invalid (or that only this authorized "special edition" is the correct one ). If I want to, I can always que those series up or watch 'em on DVD or Blu-ray, unaltered and as they originally aired.

Just because there's a reboot (that I personally don't like) doesn't mean that the old series are now somehow debased, demeaned, or brought down in value. If I enjoyed 'em prior to the reboot, I'm still gonna enjoy TOS, TNG and DS9 regardless of my opinion of the reboot.

To each their own.

[taksraven]

Oh, so short memories. Gene Roddenberry almost killed the franchise--perhaps permanently--with his handling of TNG before he died. Roddenberry was a tone-def idealist whose ideas reached a limited audiance. The franchise hit its peak with TNG after he died, and likely would have faded again had J.J. not come along.

Not so sure about him causing problems with TNG. I heard a story that Q was primarily his idea and that the writers hated the character. He was made to cop the perceived "failure" of TMP (which I think was flawed but not *that* bad) and it's also said that he had major issues with The Undiscovered Country right before he died.....

[Duke Togo]

Not so sure about him causing problems with TNG.

Do a little digging, Taks, the info is out there. Much like Lucas with Star Wars, Roddenberry became a deteriment to the franchise he created. Star Wars could weather it because of the size of the fanbase and the variety of media is spread out into; it's possible Trek would not have recovered from Roddenberry's meddling.

J.J. Abrams has breathed new life into a stalled franchise, and a portion of its fanbase wants to lynch him for it. I just don't get it. He made Star Trek relevant, and the response is "BLARGH, DEEP SPACE NINE, HARUMPH HARUMPH HARUMPH!" No one has heard of Deep Space Nine. Just sayin'. Just because I am not a "fan" does not mean I am totally disconnected from the franchise. I really like Khan. I dig the whales movie. I even watched some TNG back in the day. The franchise needs to widen its audiance and keep people like me coming to see the movies to continue to succeed in the future.