|
|
Post by Merlot Joe on Dec 10, 2012 18:06:46 GMT -6
The new Star Trek trailer is out and it looks good. Star Trek |
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Jake on Dec 11, 2012 0:37:23 GMT -6
I was hoping they'd just stop.
|
|
|
|
Post by Irish Stu on Dec 11, 2012 10:24:52 GMT -6
I haven't missed a Star Trek movie in the cinema so I won't be starting with this one.
But... this isn't the Star Trek that I know. This looks like a dark (okay so I know there is a clue in the title) action packed thriller. I just hope they haven't removed the soul and gentle humour that we know and love.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Dec 11, 2012 10:47:55 GMT -6
I would like to see the 9 minute preview.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Dec 11, 2012 10:49:09 GMT -6
I was hoping they'd just stop. With the current trend in movie making, I would expect a third part to a contrived "trilogy". Edited: followed of course by another "reboot" |
|
|
|
Post by Merlot Joe on Dec 11, 2012 11:42:49 GMT -6
This is going to be like James Bond. Just ch-ch-change the actors reboot the story and the way we go. Don't forget they still have TNG, DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise to remake movies with. I was hoping they'd just stop. |
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Jake on Dec 11, 2012 13:06:55 GMT -6
The original producers knew that Star Trek was a universe, not just a set of characters. So when they wanted to make a second TV series, they didn't recast Kirk and company; they made up new characters, new situations, but still true to the same concept. Same with the following series.
But the makers of the movies don't get this. Even from the very first movie, they tried to shoe-horn the characters and situations from a long-term television series into a series of one-shot movies. It doesn't work, at least not for me. I disliked most of the movies, and even the ones I tolerated I consider vastly inferior to the TV versions.
If they can't stop making the movies, I wish they'd at least come up with some new characters and new ships and new races; stop trying to retread the old ones. They've already been done!
|
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Jake on Dec 11, 2012 13:10:54 GMT -6
"I have returned, to have my vengeance...."
Anyone know who this is supposed to be in the trailer?
Edited: a quick peek at IMDb lists Benedict Cumberbatch as "Khan (rumored)"
I note that he is the same actor who is playing the voice of Smaug in the Hobbit movies.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Dec 11, 2012 15:26:11 GMT -6
Also rumored to be Lt Gary Mitchell played by Gary Lockwood in the second pilot of TOS. A much more appealing option than another rehash of Khan
|
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Jake on Mar 27, 2013 9:15:41 GMT -6
New, longer trailer, with a nice (albeit too brief) cheesecake scene......
|
|
|
|
Post by Merlot Joe on Mar 27, 2013 12:07:09 GMT -6
I seen that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Irish Stu on May 13, 2013 16:39:15 GMT -6
Saw this today in 3D and what an amazing job Into Darkness does of picking up the Star Trek retelling and running with it. This really is a Trekkie's movie and one too for fans of space/action adventure movies. The plot has numerous twists and turns and makes plenty of nods to the original series, and also includes a clever re-working of a classic scene from one of the movies. Scotty and Uruha have bigger roles than previously making this one less about just Spock and Kirk, and even Bones gets a piece of the action, with Karl Urban as convincing a replacement for DeForrest Kelly's McCoy as Zachary Quinto could be a young Leonard Nimoy. I always loved Star Trek episodes set on Earth, so the scenes of the Enterprise out of control in the Earth's atmosphere over San Fransisco were pure joy for me.
Well worth a trip to the theatre.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Jake on May 13, 2013 17:46:08 GMT -6
Let me guess.... there's time travel in it?
|
|
|
|
Post by Irish Stu on May 13, 2013 18:02:27 GMT -6
It wouldn't be fair of me to say yay or nay to that Jake so I'll let you find out for yourselves.
For me, as a kid growing up watching the original series, the Enterprise was always the star of the show. Now in this, and the previous movie, the brightly lit bridge and industrial looking engineering deck were somewhat off putting, in fact I much preferred the TNG sets. But it's the attention to the exterior detail that grabbed me today, making the Enterprise's little excursion into the familiar territory of Earth's atmosphere so much more satisfying and 'real'.
|
|
|
|
Post by Merlot Joe on May 13, 2013 23:59:01 GMT -6
We plan on seeing it this weekend. Sounds like a good one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Merlot Joe on May 19, 2013 23:11:33 GMT -6
If you are a Star Trek fan this is a must see. Denice and I just got home from seeing it and it is the best one yet to continue to telling the story. Magnificent special effects, great acting, and a very very good story line. It's a must see. Spend the $10.00 you won't regret it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Diana on May 20, 2013 21:14:26 GMT -6
We saw it yesterday in 3D and loved it....well worth the price of admission.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Jake on May 21, 2013 13:13:31 GMT -6
I hated the last one, and hated most of the previous ones. I'm sure I'll see it, as I haven't missed one yet, but I don't expect to like this one either!
|
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Jake on May 28, 2013 18:36:14 GMT -6
Well, I didn't dislike this as much as I expected to. If it had been a Star Wars movie, I'd have said it was a good one. If it had just been a generic space opera movie, it would have been quite a good one.
Unfortunately, it was billed as a Star Trek movie. It is one of the better ones (most of them suck in my opinion), but it was only good because it blatantly ripped off all the best parts of the only really GOOD Star Trek movie! Hardly something to be proud of.
I won't even bother to catalog all the plot holes (such as, why was there gravity when they were in free fall? and can you really place a communicator call from Kronos to Earth?), as all movies have those and you have to learn to disregard them if you want to enjoy the show. But I still miss the philosophy and psychology that dominated all of the TV incarnations. That's real Star Trek. Not explosions and fist fights atop a flying dump truck.
At least there wasn't any time travel for a ch-ch-change.
|
|
|
|
Post by Irish Stu on May 28, 2013 19:09:17 GMT -6
The biggest plot holes for me were at the beginning... why park a Star Ship in the ocean? There was no explanation given for this. And how did they get it there without the locals noticing? And why didn't they just beam Spock's box of tricks into the volcano?
Apart from these though, as I has previously said, I loved it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Jake on May 28, 2013 23:05:45 GMT -6
Those particular items didn't bother me. They hid at the bottom of the ocean so the natives wouldn't see their ship. Presumably they slipped in at night under the cover of darkness. And they did mention how there was too much disturbance in the atmosphere (from the volcano) to beam stuff to Spock (or to beam Spock out) without a direct line-of-sight.
To me, Star Trek has always been about philosophy and psychology and Big Questions. The TV shows were great at exploring those kinds of issues. Movies are tougher, naturally; you need to appeal to a bigger audience, and you need to do it within two hours, which means you need to dumb it down. The way the early movies dealt with that was to exploit the relationships between the characters. But the characters had known each other for decades! So it made sense. When Kirk watched Spock die in TWOK, you could feel his pain. But new-Spock watching new-Kirk in STID left me cold: they barely knew each other, let alone liked each other. It just isn't there for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Merlot Joe on May 29, 2013 9:26:14 GMT -6
The whole franchise has plot holes. From the original series right up to Enterprise. What I have always like about Star Trek is that nothing is ever permanent. Characters die but they always come back, ship are destroyed but they really are not.
If I am not mistaken in the original series, TNG and the prior movies was that the Enterprise 1701 to 1701E could not enter the atmosphere of a planet. It wasn't until Voyager that we seen that done. With the ch-ch-change of the time line everything is different and I can of like those ch-ch-changes, it puts a new face on the whole franchise.
I also think that they have started to create a relationship of other than hatred to one of friendship between The New Kirk and the New Spock.
Hey I am ready for a New StarTrek 3. It is lot better than some of the other crap that is out there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Irish Stu on May 30, 2013 8:03:11 GMT -6
Those particular items didn't bother me. They hid at the bottom of the ocean so the natives wouldn't see their ship. Presumably they slipped in at night under the cover of darkness. And they did mention how there was too much disturbance in the atmosphere (from the volcano) to beam stuff to Spock (or to beam Spock out) without a direct line-of-sight. I must admit I did miss the explanation for parking the Enterprise in the ocean but, nevertheless, if they couldn't use the transporters then they should have used a shuttle... they've always been good enough for the job in the past. They could have just flown it straight from the Enterprise, into the planet's atmosphere and then into the volcano. |
|
|
|
Post by Irish Stu on May 30, 2013 8:17:42 GMT -6
If I am not mistaken in the original series, TNG and the prior movies was that the Enterprise 1701 to 1701E could not enter the atmosphere of a planet There is an episode in the original series called 'Tomorrow Is Yesterday' in which the Enterprise is thrown back in time and ends up in the Earth's atmosphere in the 1960s where it is identified as a UFO. A fighter jet is sent to intercept it but is ripped apart when the Enterprise uses a tractor beam on it. The pilot is beamed aboard and then comes the problem of what to do with him now he has seen the future... |
|
|
|
Post by Merlot Joe on Jun 1, 2013 0:16:14 GMT -6
I remember that one Simon. Didn't they have to climb back into orbit because they could maintain their speed or something? I don't really remember. I have to pull that one up and watch it. Thanks for reminding me of that episode.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Jake on Jun 1, 2013 0:33:45 GMT -6
The thing I remember most about that episode is that Teri Garr is in it. I remember thinking, man, I didn't know she was THAT old!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Irish Stu on Jun 4, 2013 13:59:26 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Jake on Jun 5, 2013 9:12:21 GMT -6
That is funny. And they agree with ME about the whole Spock/Kirk thing lacking any impact because they barely know each other or even like each other!
|
|
|
|
Post by Irish Stu on Jun 5, 2013 10:58:29 GMT -6
Having thought about it I now agree with you too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Exildo Wonsetler Briggs III on Jun 6, 2013 21:33:39 GMT -6
Saw the movie in 3D Imax this past weekend. WOW!!!
|
|
