TREKS IN SCI-FI FORUM

Main Decks => Star Trek => Topic started by: Rico on June 17, 2009, 04:46:54 AM

Title: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on June 17, 2009, 04:46:54 AM
Yes - it's never too soon to start a thread for the next movie!  So - let us begin.  A few basic "facts" so far:

"STAR TREK Into Darkness"
Main Cast:  all returning...
Guest Cast:  Benedict Cumberbatch, Noel Clarke, Peter Weller, Nazneen Contractor, Alice Eve
Filming Start:  Jan. 12, 2012....
Probable release:  May 17, 2013
Writers:  Orci & Kutzman (same as XI)
Music:  Michael Giacchino
Director:  JJ Abrams
Budget: 150 mill-ish ?

Rumored possible characters:  Janice Rand, Harry Mudd, Khan??, member of TSF forum???

So - here we go again,....

(edited on Nov. 14, 2012)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2011
Post by: Rico on June 17, 2009, 04:48:29 AM
Interview with the writer's as they start their process:

.J. Abrams' newly rebooted Star Trek is still in theaters, but writers Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman tell SCI FI Wire that they're already thinking about the sequel, and they know their dilemma: whether to come up with an original story or go back into Trek lore to retell a story that's been dealt with before.

In either case, the writers say they learned a few lessons from the first movie, which has become an international hit.

"I think the major lesson we learned is that fans were willing to accept differences and surprises, provided that they were somehow echoes or inspired by canon," Orci said in an exclusive interview earlier this month. He added: "We still have to be true to Star Trek the next time around, but we've also been blessed with being able to be unpredictable. And that doesn't mean we can just be shocking for no good reason and just throw everything away. ... It still has to echo everything that Star Trek has been."

At this point, the writers don't have a story or even a premise. "We have agreed to write another one," Orci said. "We're going to start thinking about it any second now. But we're still just having a mental sorbet before we jump back in. And, you know, just seeing all the reactions to the movie. We want to make sure we take it all in and really figure out what worked and what didn't and proceed from there. But now that we have ... an open canvas, ... anything can happen."

Following is an edited version of our exclusive interview. Orci and Kurtzman also wrote the upcoming sequel film Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (with Ehren Kruger); it opens June 24.

Tell me about your reactions to the reactions to Star Trek. What surprised you, what were you pleased with, what were you disappointed with?

Kurtzman: Well, you know, it was sort of stunning for us, actually, because ... we did not know how people were going to react to the movie in general. ... The last version of Trek was fairly unsuccessful at the box office, and, ... in talking to people, there was such a stigma against Star Trek [and] sci-fi: how polarizing it was, it wasn't accessible to women, it was too cold, any number of things that people have to say about it.

So in aiming to make a movie that both reached a broad base and ... satisfied the fans, ... A, we weren't sure we were going to be able to accomplish both, and, B, we just didn't know if people were going to show up. And the tracking for the movie, which we all watch religiously right before the movie comes out, was telling us that the movie was going to do fine but not great.

And usually, in our experience, tracking has been extremely accurate. You know? Like within a margin of, like, a couple of million bucks. It's pretty close. So we were told that we were probably going to be on track for, like, a $50 million weekend, which frankly was going to be a disappointment to the studio. And, you know, we were bummed. The movie was a labor of love for us, and we tried very hard to make it work.

The night before the movie came out, literally hours before, there was a 36 percent spike in tracking.

It was, like, shocking. And all of a sudden, ... everyone went, "Wow. Now we have no idea what kind of a number we're going to have this weekend." So by Friday night everyone kind of knew where we were going.

Orci: And they attributed that to word of mouth, right?

Kurtzman: Yeah.

Orci: It was the fact that people were reacting well, and it was impossible to [predict]. It was the first time we had seen word of mouth in action, so that was fascinating. And we're so grateful that most of the fan base was open about it, and that new people were willing to risk being in a room with people who speak Klingon. ...

I think people were willing to go with you with the time incursion to reboot everything, and they're willing to give you the benefit of the doubt now if you change things. Do you think that's true?

Orci: Yes. But ... [you] just can't use old things willy-nilly, you know. There's still an internal logic that has to be followed. ... We could still cross some lines [if] we think, "Oh, we can do anything now." And a savvy fan will go, "Well, technically, [you can't]." ...

In thinking of a story, the inclination for a fan would be to see a new version of a story that's been told in some fashion. Or to pick up tropes from one of the TV episodes or the films and maybe combine them. Or is your inclination to do a completely original story this time?

Orci: Well, that is the debate, literally. And that is going to be one of the first conversations that we have. But that's exactly the question.

Because it's such a rich mythology. I mean, you could pick any villain or situation or whatever and exploit that. But, again, the risk is that you're going to be compared to what came before.

Orci: Exactly. That's right. That is the question.

I don't envy your job, I'll tell you that.

Orci: Yup.

Anything else about Star Trek that you want to say about how the first film was received or how it's affected how you think about Star Trek?

Orci: We just want to say thank you.


source:
http://scifiwire.com/2009/06/how-will-the-writers-of-s.php (http://scifiwire.com/2009/06/how-will-the-writers-of-s.php)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2011
Post by: billybob476 on June 17, 2009, 05:35:59 AM
Woohoo! Time for another 100 page thread!

Here's a small post confirming that Jack Black is NOT in talks to play Harry Mudd (though if they did do Harry Mudd he'd be awesome as him!)

http://trekweb.com/articles/2009/06/09/JJ-Abrams-Says-Jack-Black-is-Not-Harry-Mudd-in-Star-Trek-XII.shtml (http://trekweb.com/articles/2009/06/09/JJ-Abrams-Says-Jack-Black-is-Not-Harry-Mudd-in-Star-Trek-XII.shtml)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2011
Post by: Feathers on June 17, 2009, 05:56:05 AM
Still not sure I want to see a rehash of anything that's gone before - certainly not Khan.

I hope they jump the right way with this.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2011
Post by: Rico on June 17, 2009, 05:57:48 AM
Quote from: billybob476 on June 17, 2009, 05:35:59 AM
Woohoo! Time for another 100 page thread!

Here's a small post confirming that Jack Black is NOT in talks to play Harry Mudd (though if they did do Harry Mudd he'd be awesome as him!)

http://trekweb.com/articles/2009/06/09/JJ-Abrams-Says-Jack-Black-is-Not-Harry-Mudd-in-Star-Trek-XII.shtml (http://trekweb.com/articles/2009/06/09/JJ-Abrams-Says-Jack-Black-is-Not-Harry-Mudd-in-Star-Trek-XII.shtml)

Yeah - I saw that too.  Just thought I'd toss it out to stir stuff up!  I frankly hope the new movie features a very new and original story, bad guy(s), and so on.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2011
Post by: billybob476 on June 17, 2009, 06:00:34 AM
I have a feeling they'll do something original. I don't think the writers are dumb enough to rehash Khan. They seem pretty on the ball.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2011
Post by: Bryancd on June 17, 2009, 06:05:55 AM
I think the Yoeman Rand angle has a lot of potential.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2011
Post by: billybob476 on June 17, 2009, 06:12:17 AM
Quote from: Bryancd on June 17, 2009, 06:05:55 AM
I think the Yoeman Rand angle has a lot of potential.

Hmm...who would play Ms. Rand...
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2011
Post by: Rico on June 17, 2009, 06:19:03 AM
Quote from: billybob476 on June 17, 2009, 06:12:17 AM
Quote from: Bryancd on June 17, 2009, 06:05:55 AM
I think the Yoeman Rand angle has a lot of potential.

Hmm...who would play Ms. Rand...

Do you even need to ask who I want for Yeoman Janice Rand?  Here's a hint below:    :wub

Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2011
Post by: billybob476 on June 17, 2009, 06:21:38 AM
Dunno if I want Katee bringing Chris Pine his coffee. :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2011
Post by: Rico on June 17, 2009, 06:26:01 AM
Quote from: billybob476 on June 17, 2009, 06:21:38 AM
Dunno if I want Katee bringing Chris Pine his coffee. :)

I think actually if she ends up in the movie, she will be much more than, "sign this captain and hold me when the enemy ship is firing on us."  They did a lot with Uhura and I'd expect the same for Rand.  She should kick butt and be a "red shirt" that actually doesn't get killed!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2011
Post by: Bryancd on June 17, 2009, 06:34:27 AM
They had some interesting actress choices in a thread over at the RPF.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2011
Post by: sheldor on June 17, 2009, 06:39:12 AM
Quote from: Rico on June 17, 2009, 06:26:01 AM
a "red shirt" that actually doesn't get killed!

That would truly be an alternate universe !! :)  I for one would like to see Katee bring Pine his coffee.  Maybe we can get a look at her legs too? :D

I agree - this is a different enterprise so a new story would be better.  Please, no more time travel plots.  I think a continuing story/cliffhanger would work.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2011
Post by: Yeoman Mara on June 17, 2009, 11:58:58 AM
OHHH - I can't wait for the next one!  More Chris and Zach!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2011
Post by: Dangelus on June 18, 2009, 12:00:58 AM
It's got to be Klingons in this one surely!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2011
Post by: Feathers on June 18, 2009, 02:10:03 AM
I tend to agree.

Having 'done' Romulans (sort of) surely Klingons must be the next 'Big Bad'.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2011
Post by: Bryancd on June 18, 2009, 05:16:35 AM
Quote from: Feathers on June 18, 2009, 02:10:03 AM
I tend to agree.

Having 'done' Romulans (sort of) surely Klingons must be the next 'Big Bad'.


Well, they did actually film Klingon's for the new movie but that entire sequence was cut out of the final film. Wouldn't be suprised to see that scene show up on a DVD release. So I am going to go with a new baddie for the next film.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2011
Post by: iceman on June 18, 2009, 06:08:24 AM
Im with you especially since this is a revamping of the original series, they will probably want to be familiar but still be different from the original.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2011
Post by: Feathers on June 18, 2009, 06:27:31 AM
Quote from: Bryancd on June 18, 2009, 05:16:35 AM
Quote from: Feathers on June 18, 2009, 02:10:03 AM
I tend to agree.

Having 'done' Romulans (sort of) surely Klingons must be the next 'Big Bad'.
Well, they did actually film Klingon's for the new movie but that entire sequence was cut out of the final film. Wouldn't be suprised to see that scene show up on a DVD release. So I am going to go with a new baddie for the next film.

Ah yes. I'd forgotten about that...it's got to be Daleks then.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2011
Post by: Rico on June 18, 2009, 06:39:21 AM
A cut scene isn't really enough to rule out Klingons.  Frankly, I think it's a good possibility we will see some Klingons in the next movie.  Not sure if they will be the main threat, but I bet we still see some.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2011
Post by: Bryancd on June 18, 2009, 06:43:46 AM
Oh, I think we will certainly see them this time, I would think, I just don't think they would be the main antagonist. These guy's seem pretty creative and now thatthey have established this new universe it's time to get crazy!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2011
Post by: billybob476 on June 18, 2009, 06:44:41 AM
Thing with Klingons is they're probably the most recognizable Trek race after Vulcans, so good for new fans as well.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2011
Post by: cassious on June 18, 2009, 08:05:40 AM
Personally, I would love to see Borg or Dominion as the bad guys, but, I suppose they can't take the mirror universe thing too far  ;). I'll just have to wait for like....the 17th movie.

I'd like it if they made something like the Borg, something actually kind of scary where you're sitting there thinking "If these things were real....".

Sorta kinda off topic, still sticking to sequels however, do you guys think they'll make other movies with the young versions of, say, TNG (Picard with hair LOL) or something, or just stick to TOS?
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2011
Post by: SPOCKFAN on June 18, 2009, 08:57:32 AM
I think they will stick with TOS. But what I would love to see is a new TV series. They could do a series based on the TNG crew in the new alternate timeline. Recast the roles and show that crew starting off.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2011
Post by: Jaames on June 18, 2009, 09:21:30 AM
I also think they'll stick with the TOS crew in future movies. As far as a new TV series, I'm hoping for fresh material. I would still love to see a Starfleet Academy Series.

And as far as the next group of bad guys, I'm hoping they'll come up with a new race but have a subplot with a well known enemy as well. I've heard some talk of revisiting Khan, but as much as I love Khan, I really hope they don't go there.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2011
Post by: Jobydrone on June 18, 2009, 01:11:19 PM
I'd bet a million dollars that we will see Klingons prominently featured in the next movie, most likely as the primary villian.

I'll place a side bet of any amount that it will be freaking awesome.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2011
Post by: M-5 on June 18, 2009, 01:36:25 PM
I'd like to see Klingons.  I want Kirk and the Klingon Commander go head to head in a fist fight.  Except, I want Kirk to kick some Klingon back. :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2011
Post by: billybob476 on June 18, 2009, 03:09:52 PM
I...HAVE HAD...ENOUGH OF...YOUUUUUU!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2011
Post by: Data on June 28, 2009, 06:22:21 AM
I would love to see Lieutenant Arex it would just be a really cool touch 
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2011
Post by: Rico on June 28, 2009, 06:30:54 AM
The latest talk floating around is that having Khan in it is at about a 50:50 chance.  sigh....
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2011
Post by: Ktrek on June 28, 2009, 11:59:51 AM
Quote from: Rico on June 28, 2009, 06:30:54 AM
The latest talk floating around is that having Khan in it is at about a 50:50 chance.  sigh....

I sure hope they don't go down that road. I would much rather they develop new and completely original story ideas from here on out.
Kevin
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2011
Post by: Feathers on June 28, 2009, 02:08:50 PM
Absolutely!

We have a new timeline at vast theatrical expense. Lets have some new stories to go with it.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2011
Post by: wraith1701 on June 28, 2009, 05:32:47 PM
I'm with you guys.  Trying to recapture the magic of TWOK seems like a BIG gamble.  The writers have created a huge, new playground with unlimited possibilities.  They need to take advantage of that and make something NEW.  That was the whole point of the reboot, wasn't it?
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2011
Post by: Rico on September 17, 2009, 06:25:20 AM
New talk about the next movie from the writers:

Star Trek on TV and in the feature films has famously dealt with issues of the day. And apparently Bob Orci and JJ Abrams are looking to bring some of that allegorical element to the next Trek. Firstly JJ told the LA Times:

    "The ambition for a sequel to 'Star Trek' is to make a movie that's worthy of the audience and not just another movie, you know, just a second movie that feels tacked on. The first movie was so concerned with just setting up the characters — their meeting each and galvanizing that family — that in many ways a sequel will have a very different mission. it needs to do what [the late 'Trek' creator Gene] Roddenberry did so well, which is allegory. It needs to tell a story that has connection to what is familiar and what is relevant. It also needs to tell it in a spectacular way that hides the machinery and in a primarily entertaining and hopefully moving story. There needs to be relevance, yes, and that doesn't mean it should be pretentious. If there are simple truths — truths connected to what we live — that elevates any story — that's true with any story."   

And Bob Orci added:

    We've literally had two meetings now. We haven't decided anything but we're starting to circle around some ideas. We got a lot of fan response from the first one and a considerable amount of critical response and one of the things we heard was, 'Make sure the next one deals with modern-day issues.' We're trying to keep it as up-to-date and as reflective of what's going on today as possible. So that's one thing, to make it reflect the things that we are all dealing with today.

So what modern day issues? Is War and Torture in our Trek future?, Here is another excerpt:

    I asked Orci somewhat flippantly if that meant we might see Starfleet grappling with the ethics of torture or dealing with a rising terrorist threat or perhaps a painful, politicized war with the Klingons.

        "Well yeah, those are the kind of issues we're talking about. Wow, you're good! But seriously that's the way we're thinking, that's an approach. So if you have any ideas ... "

More at LA Times
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2011
Post by: Bryancd on September 17, 2009, 06:36:43 AM
Sweet! The new crew has to save the Federation from a crushing economic collapse by using replicator technology to create trillions in fake Starfleet long term bonds which they turn around and sell to unwitting Klingons until the Ferengi's realize it's all a house of cards and they swoop in and buy Earth for $.10 on the dollar! ;)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2011
Post by: Rico on September 17, 2009, 06:47:33 AM
Hehe!  But seriously, I'm actually hoping they can blend action, character development, modern problems and the Prime Directive.  I think it can be done and if pulled off, people will really know what Trek is all about.  An easy idea would be to have the Klingons perhaps be involved, perhaps exploiting some planet of people, torturing them, etc. and the Enterprise is sent in to stop them.  Just a quick thought.  I'm very excited by this development.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2011
Post by: Bryancd on September 17, 2009, 06:53:30 AM
Quote from: Rico on September 17, 2009, 06:47:33 AM
An easy idea would be to have the Klingons perhaps be involved, perhaps exploiting some planet of people, torturing them, etc.

..or just looking for job's and free health care.... ;)

Yes, I think, and have always felt, that the writting team would look to really not only expand the scope of the story, but also put their own unique stamp on the franchise while adhering to Treks most basic tenants. I never thought they would rehash old stories like Kahn, they have so much potential, no way they don't go for it.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2011
Post by: Ktrek on September 17, 2009, 01:45:37 PM
One of the problems I see of using "issues of the day" might be a lack of moral compass. The moral ambiguity portrayed in much of Hollywood is likely to affect how they approach such a film and the result would be a film that addresses an issue but has no real answers. Up until DS9 Star Trek did a fine job at seeing good and evil in more black and white. Since DS9 the moral worldview became more grey and indistinguishable. I would like to see a return to where the good guys are more clearly distinguished. Not  "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" amoral type of storytelling. That has it's place but I think Star Trek works best when it draws the lines clearly.

Kevin
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2011
Post by: Bryancd on September 17, 2009, 01:51:02 PM
Quote from: Ktrek on September 17, 2009, 01:45:37 PM
One of the problems I see of using "issues of the day" might be a lack of moral compass. The moral ambiguity portrayed in much of Hollywood is likely to affect how they approach such a film and the result would be a film that addresses an issue but has no real answers. Up until DS9 Star Trek did a fine job at seeing good and evil in more black and white. Since DS9 the moral worldview became more grey and indistinguishable. I would like to see a return to where the good guys are more clearly distinguished. Not  "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" amoral type of storytelling. That has it's place but I think Star Trek works best when it draws the lines clearly.

Kevin

I agree, but then you look at what they did with BSG and it was that ambiguity which I thought made it so riveting. They already have established the new Trek characters as emotionally flawed, but then again so did TOS to a lesser degree, I would be surprised if they deviated much from that and I think a story whcih has that gray element may not be as emotionally satifying, but it does make you think.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2011
Post by: Rico on September 17, 2009, 02:04:15 PM
"Star Trek" has always reflected the times it is made in.  This is the nature of all forms of entertainment - to a degree.  So, I would be surprised if any script they come up with isn't reflective of the type of world we all live in.  And these days, things are just not as black & white as they once were.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2011
Post by: Ktrek on September 17, 2009, 04:47:03 PM
Quote from: Rico on September 17, 2009, 02:04:15 PM
"Star Trek" has always reflected the times it is made in.  This is the nature of all forms of entertainment - to a degree.  So, I would be surprised if any script they come up with isn't reflective of the type of world we all live in.  And these days, things are just not as black & white as they once were.
Actually I do think things are pretty black and white for the most part. It's the introduction of moral relativism that is to blame for the current lack of discernment as to right and wrong in our society that is to blame.

Kevin
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2011
Post by: Ktrek on September 17, 2009, 04:49:28 PM
Quote from: Bryancd on September 17, 2009, 01:51:02 PM


I agree, but then you look at what they did with BSG and it was that ambiguity which I thought made it so riveting. They already have established the new Trek characters as emotionally flawed, but then again so did TOS to a lesser degree, I would be surprised if they deviated much from that and I think a story whcih has that gray element may not be as emotionally satifying, but it does make you think.

I agree that BSG was a riveting show but I would hate to see Star Trek - BSG. If you know what I mean. Trek has always been brighter, lighter and more positive and I would prefer it remains distinct in that way.

Kevin
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2011
Post by: Bryancd on September 17, 2009, 04:51:20 PM
Quote from: Ktrek on September 17, 2009, 04:49:28 PM
Quote from: Bryancd on September 17, 2009, 01:51:02 PM


I agree, but then you look at what they did with BSG and it was that ambiguity which I thought made it so riveting. They already have established the new Trek characters as emotionally flawed, but then again so did TOS to a lesser degree, I would be surprised if they deviated much from that and I think a story whcih has that gray element may not be as emotionally satifying, but it does make you think.

I agree that BSG was a riveting show but I would hate to see Star Trek - BSG. If you know what I mean. Trek has always been brighter, lighter and more positive and I would prefer it remains distinct in that way.

Kevin

Agreed, I don't need a drunk Spock to feel the character is "real"! LOL!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2011
Post by: Rico on September 17, 2009, 04:56:54 PM
2009 is quite a different world than 1966.  Again, the last movie reflected this and the next one will as well - perhaps even more since they won't need to spend as much time "getting the gang" together and so forth.  Trust the writers, it's the same team as the last film.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2011
Post by: Bryancd on September 17, 2009, 04:59:07 PM
Quote from: Ktrek on September 17, 2009, 04:47:03 PM
Quote from: Rico on September 17, 2009, 02:04:15 PM
"Star Trek" has always reflected the times it is made in.  This is the nature of all forms of entertainment - to a degree.  So, I would be surprised if any script they come up with isn't reflective of the type of world we all live in.  And these days, things are just not as black & white as they once were.
Actually I do think things are pretty black and white for the most part. It's the introduction of moral relativism that is to blame for the current lack of discernment as to right and wrong in our society that is to blame.

Kevin

I think reality has never been black or white, however in the past, popular culture reflected it to be so and I have always found that refreshing. Certainly the "Leave it to Beaver" ideal reflected society in the 1950's, but that society had plenty of issue's which entertainment ignored. I often look at TV programming and film form the "40's, "50's, and '60's and wish we could be more like that today and then I realize that they likely weren't ever really that way at all.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2011
Post by: X on September 17, 2009, 05:18:02 PM
Quote from: Bryancd on September 17, 2009, 04:59:07 PM
I think reality has never been black or white, however in the past, popular culture reflected it to be so and I have always found that refreshing. Certainly the "Leave it to Beaver" ideal reflected society in the 1950's, but that society had plenty of issue's which entertainment ignored. I often look at TV programming and film form the "40's, "50's, and '60's and wish we could be more like that today and then I realize that they likely weren't ever really that way at all.
Yeah, this is the problem with looking at the past with lenses tainted by the television experience. What I find most interesting about the lens of the tv is that it affects us for the rest of out lives. There are studies out there that say many of those born in the generation of black and white tv have most of their dreams in black and white.  (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3353504/Black-and-white-TV-generation-have-monochrome-dreams.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3353504/Black-and-white-TV-generation-have-monochrome-dreams.html))

If you think about it, more people that grew up through the 80's don't quite remember all of the problems (they were too young for news to be the focus), but seems to remember the time more through the lens of fashion, growing pains, and the cosby show. I think it's the innate hope that we can be better that taints the rosy past that we imagine.

Just think if you actually remember things for what they were. It would be depressing. Things are getting progressively better, but we sort of need the moral outrage of our time being the worst time for many of us to get active and do something about it.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2011
Post by: Rico on October 10, 2009, 06:40:01 AM
Some more tidbits from the writing team.  These guys still seem to be on the right track to me....

Kurtzman And Orci – Making A Good Star Trek Sequel
Posted by T'Bonz - 09/10/09 at 01:10 pm

When planning the next Star Trek movie, Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci want to recreate what they loved about Star Trek when they were children watching the show.

One of the common elements of a good movie sequel is when a character or several characters are tested in some way. "Every franchise has a different need, so you have to look at them differently, based on whatever the mandate is. You need to be able to not have seen the first movie to appreciate the second one," explained Kurtzman.

"So, there's Empire Strikes Back, Superman 2, Aliens, Terminator 2, Star Trek 2," said Kurtzman. "What do all those movies have in common? Well, they're amazing stories, all on their own. You didn't have to see the first movie. And, there was some incredible, emotional test of character, in all of those movies. Superman has to give up his powers for love. The Spock and Kirk relationship is tested by Khan. Ripley finds a daughter. All of those things are such big ideas, in and of themselves, and you really can't tell those stories in movie #1 because movie #1 is very much about establishing a world."

It's possible that the next two Star Trek movies might be made back-to-back, but Kurtzman is more concerned with making a good sequel first. "It's very, very important to us to make sure that each movie is good, not 'Hey, let's do as many as possible.' We feel like we've inherited this incredible honor and this mantle of Star Trek, and the most important thing is to make sure that we're protecting that first."

"So, if the studio wants more than one, great," added Kurtzman. "But, our thinking is going to be very much about the story and whether the story prescribes that there will be more than one. Part of what is great about Star Trek is that it's a continuing adventure, so you naturally think that there will be many, hopefully, but we only focus on what comes next, and then build off of that. Right now, we're not thinking specifically about making 2 and 3. It may come up, but it's not where our heads are at right now."

The writing duo haven't figured out a specific story yet, but discussed having the events of the Star Trek future represent what's happening in the world today. "The torture thing was just a for instance," said Orci. "Someone asked, 'Modern day issues?,' and we said, 'Yeah, sure, modern day issues.' But, we're not doing a story about Gitmo. I read on some site that it was going to be about Guantanamo Bay. But, now that we've established the characters, we can have a more philosophical allegory, where what's happening in the future represents our world, like the best versions of it in the '60's did with women's rights and racial equality."

What about Khan? "Where we're starting is, 'Okay, where are our characters now? What are interesting complications that we can put in their lives? What feels like an organic emotional place for us to get to? How do we want to test them?," said Kurtzman. "And then, you look at everything and start asking, 'Who would be the best foe?'"

" There are mental exercises we play," said Orci. "You can't be a fan of this and not sit around and wonder."

Kurtzman and Orci are also working on remakes other than Star Trek. They will be teaming with CSI:NY producer Peter Lenkov to work on a new Hawaii Five-O for CBS, where the pair will be executive producers.

Hawaii Five-O aired from 1968 to 1980. The reboot is said to center on the son of Steve McGarrett (Jack Lord) from the original series.


source:
http://www.trektoday.com/content/2009/10/kurtzman-and-orci-making-a-good-star-trek-sequel/ (http://www.trektoday.com/content/2009/10/kurtzman-and-orci-making-a-good-star-trek-sequel/)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2011
Post by: Rico on October 18, 2009, 06:10:24 AM
Well, it's not by any means official, but it's looking more like a three year wait until 2012 for the next Trek film.  Not really too surprising.  Read on...

Earlier this week TrekMovie reported that, based on the Paramount's release slate and the schedules of the filmmakers, the chances of a Star Trek sequel in 2011 were shrinking. Now comes the first (sort of) confirmation of this, with comments from screenwriters Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman made at the Screenwriting Expo held in Los Angeles this week. More details below




Star Trek 12 in 2012?
The comments come from a brief interview with ComingSoon.net, where Roberto Orci noted they are still in research mode, but regarding the timing he stated:

    Orci: We think it's going to be a 2012 release, but I'm not sure.

His writing partner went further noting:

    Kurtzman: Originally we thought we were going to have to have the script in by Christmas, but the release changed so certainly within the next eight months I'd say

This comes as no surprise, as noted in articles recently at TrekMovie, Paramount already have four 'tentpole' releases lined up for the Summer of 2011 (Thor, Captain America, Kung Fu Panda 2, and Transformers 3). That summer only has a couple of open weekends, with the rest full of major films, including films from the Spider-man, Pirates of the Caribbean and Harry Potter franchises. Plus both the film makers, and the film stars have very busy schedules, with their 2010 plans filling up quickly (especially Chris Pine and JJ Abrams).

A two year gap, while not uncommon, is still a short time frame between franchise films. Three out of ten of the Star Trek sequels had a two year gap(Star Trek III , Star Trek First Contact, and Star Trek Insurrection). Most of the rest had 2 1/2 year gaps or longer, with the longest being 6 1/2 years (between Nemesis and Star Trek 2009).

Increases chances of Abrams directed sequel
In addition to giving the team more time to prepare the film, 2012 also increases the likelihood that JJ Abrams would return to direct. In his interview with TrekMovie in May, Abrams made it clear that he would not want to direct two Star Trek movies back to back, preferring to do something in between. In his Q&A last week, Abrams stated that he hopes to direct another movie in 2010 which he is writing now. That film can be his 'in between' film, allowing him to return to Star Trek in 2011.

TrekMovie will have more on the Star Trek sequel as news becomes available.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: X on October 18, 2009, 08:26:17 AM
I'm actually fine with this. Take your time and give me something good. I don't want this to become like the Saw franchise where movies seem to be filmed as soon as the one before it hits the box office.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Ktrek on October 18, 2009, 08:34:45 AM
I'm fine with it too but I think it's a huge mistake not building on the momentum of the first film while you have a fresh and interested audience. A lot of interest can wane in three years. Especially in the targeted young audience.

Kevin
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: X on October 18, 2009, 08:54:18 AM
Quote from: Ktrek on October 18, 2009, 08:34:45 AM
I'm fine with it too but I think it's a huge mistake not building on the momentum of the first film while you have a fresh and interested audience. A lot of interest can wane in three years. Especially in the targeted young audience.

Kevin
When you weigh that against a rushed script and filming and serious competition from other movies in that timeframe, you could do the franchise more harm by not waiting. Also, with the 2.5 year turn around having been average with the other films, that makes sense. The Star Wars prequels and the original trilogy each moved on a three year cycle and I don't think that they lost any momentum with those. Three years seem to be a tried and true turn around for the special effect ladened sci-fi genre.

The bigger mistake would be to try to put it against a bunch of other big films made by the same company and have them fight it out for movie profits. When that happens, someone usually loses and it becomes a death knell for a franchise. Better safe than sorry. Also with Bluray and DVD, it won't be as if the movie vanishes for three years. I wouldn't be surprised it they dropped a director's cut with the footage added to keep the home fires burning during that drought.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Rico on October 18, 2009, 09:26:58 AM
While I'd love to see a sequel in two years, I frankly thought that was kind of wishful thinking.  These people are busy and deciding when to place the release for movies is very key to their success.  I think Paramount thinks they made the right choice delaying the last one by six months from Dec. 2008 to May 2009.  I'm sure it made them more money that way and turned out to be a good move.  And making money is VERY important to keeping the series going.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Jobydrone on October 19, 2009, 07:09:17 AM
Quote from: Rico on October 18, 2009, 09:26:58 AM
While I'd love to see a sequel in two years, I frankly thought that was kind of wishful thinking.  These people are busy and deciding when to place the release for movies is very key to their success.  I think Paramount thinks they made the right choice delaying the last one by six months from Dec. 2008 to May 2009.  I'm sure it made them more money that way and turned out to be a good move.  And making money is VERY important to keeping the series going.

It would have been nice if the eight month delay in releasing the most recent movie allowed for them to bring us the sequel in a shorter amount of time.  They could have spent that time developing/filming the sequel.  Unfortunately a sequel didn't seem to be a foregone conclusion until after opening weekend.  I'm disappointed Abrams doesn't want to do two movies back to back, that would have given us not more than a year between 12 and 13.  Weren't they talking about doing the next two sequels back to back LOTR style at one point?
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Rico on October 19, 2009, 08:46:24 AM
There has been just a lot of rumor and speculation and one of those was the idea of filming two movies at once, but I tend to doubt that will happen.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Rico on November 09, 2009, 05:27:20 AM
Ok - this is just a rumor at this point, but it looks like there is a possibility we might see Shatner in the next Trek film.  Again, just a rumor for now.  Read on,...

It is probably one of the worst kept secrets in science fiction film history, but finally news is coming out from the JJ Abrams camp that Captain Kirk or how he is also known as, William Shatner, will be appearing in Star Trek 2.


The director has made it no secret that he wanted William Shatner on board with the next film, one thing that highlighted the interest of both parties was when Kirk picked up the award for Star Trek at the Scream 2009 awards.


There could never have been a bigger indication that things are rolling, in fact, it seems that JJ is planning to meet with Bill to discuss how things can progress.


Of course, there is one thing talking about it and another actually putting into practice, if the part is right then yes it could happen.

Read more here:  http://www.sffchronicles.co.uk/2009/11/william-shatner-will-be-in-star-trek-2/ (http://www.sffchronicles.co.uk/2009/11/william-shatner-will-be-in-star-trek-2/)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Bryancd on November 09, 2009, 05:37:15 AM
I wouldn't be surprised to see that. I think Shatner realizes he can't play Kirk, but that doesn't mean he can't have some other and likely smaller role in the new franchise for one film.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: cosmonaut on November 09, 2009, 05:46:13 AM
I wonder if they use the idea from the last movie to include him in form of a recorded speech, I think that would have worked.

What I don't like is his present look, I think in the 23rd century the very last couch potato in his nineties will look like Bryan today, but there's CGI, I think they could make him look like that wax figure he unveiled recently.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Ktrek on November 09, 2009, 09:19:35 AM
I don't see how they can bring the Shat onboard without it looking forced and contrived. It's just a move to satisfy all the fanboys who refuse to grow up and move on. I'm happy with the new cast and I think it would be a mistake to put Shatner in the next film. He had seven films and he's dead. Let the new cast carry things forward without the baggage of the past. Having Nimoy in the last film was enough.

Kevin
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Bryancd on November 09, 2009, 09:50:03 AM
I couldn't see him playing "Kirk" in any way, be that past Kirk, future Kirk, whatever. I could see Shatner having a nice, juicy, over the top smaller part, not a recurring role, just something where he can let loose. I think his success in Boston Legal has shown he has some chops and isn't a one trick pony.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Omra on November 09, 2009, 09:53:35 AM
Shatner would rock as a Harry Fenton Mudd type character. 

It might even be enough to make me endure another JJ Trek film...
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Rico on November 18, 2009, 06:41:55 AM
Some updates on Trek 2 or Trek 12 - or whatever they are going to call it:

Director J.J. Abrams confirmed to us that the follow-up to his hit Star Trek won't hit theaters until 2012, speaking last night at a party at the Griffith Observatory in Los Angeles to celebrate today's DVD/Blu-ray release. But that could change. And the creators gave us tantalizing hints about the sequel's timeframe and other story points.
Producer/writer Damon Lindelof told us that he thinks it's impossible to be done sooner. "Yeah, I think that we would be hard pressed to get it on screens by 2011," Lindelof said. "If that's the case, we'd better get to writing right now."

But Abrams believes more time will benefit the creative process. "It's like closet space," Abrams said. "You use what you've got. The more time you have, the more time you have to use to hopefully make it a better movie."

For his part, co-writer Roberto Orci wouldn't talk about release dates. "Who knows? It could still be whenever," Orci said. "I haven't heard any firm dates. It could be sooner or later."

What about the story?

Time shifts. Lindelof suggested that the sequel may play with time in relation to the first film, much as The Bourne Ultimatum takes place largely in between events from The Bourne Supremacy. "One of the things we like to do as storytellers is drop you in the middle of something," Lindelof said. "And the question that you're asking yourself is: Where am I in relation to the last time I left these guys? Could this be something that predated even, perhaps, some of the adventures that they had in the first movie? Does it happen five years later? Is it happening two seconds later? Who knows? So we're not going to tell you."

Whatever you're expecting, you're wrong. One way to combat sequilitis is to avoid the cliche of bigger, louder and more explosions. "Do we have to do that?" Lindelof pondered. "Is there something else that we can do that's a little bit off the beaten path? When you buy your ticket and your popcorn and you go and sit and watch the second movie that we're all working on together, we want to give the audience an experience that feels like it's not a sequel in all the best ways."
Spock (Zachary Quinto) and Uhura (Zoe Saldana) will reach the next level. "Now that we've done that, you can't play that same joke again," Abrams said. "It's got to be about 'What is their relationship?' and 'Who are these people?' That's why the next one, hopefully while still maintaining the sense of fun and adventure, can go a little bit deeper in terms of the script."

Khaaaan! Abrams, Orci and his writing partner Alex Kurtzman keep hinting that they may introduce the character of Khan Noonien Singh, but haven't committed to anything. We asked Abrams to weigh the pros and cons of revamping a classic Trek villain. "We're not even at that stage yet, but the fun of where we are on the sequel is we could use some of what was done before in a new way," Abrams said. "But we haven't even figured out what we would use yet, so it's very early on." Orci added that the creative team would vote on whether Khan works for their new story. "That'll be kind of a groupthink decision," Orci said.

It's getting close. They are narrowing the ideas down, really. If it sounds like they're just not committing because they don't have anything, don't worry. They're down to the big-picture decisions, like what the philosophical theme of the sequel could be. "There's a couple themes up in the air that we're debating about," Orci said. "But we want them to be invisible, so it won't be until the movie comes out that you'd ever hear what they were. We're zeroing in some compass directions. It's still the story phase."
Abrams still wants to direct it. The last time Abrams gave a press conference, he cause a lot of speculation with the phrase "If I, in fact, direct the Star Trek sequel." Abrams clarified that he has every intention of doing it, but there's nothing to commit to. "In theory, I would be available, and it would be fun to do," Abrams said. "Since there's no script, it's hard to talk about directing a movie that the story doesn't even exist."

Could Star Trek 2 be 2012's The Dark Knight? Star Trek is already the highest-grossing Trek movie ever. It's been so well received universally that Abrams expects to have an even bigger audience for the sequel, by the time more fans discover the film on DVD. Another example of that was Batman Begins. "Certainly no one is looking to expect any kind of Dark Knight numbers on a Star Trek sequel," Abrams conceded. "Hopefully the quality of the cast of the first film, the fun of the movie, will eventually, over time, touch people who would not normally have gone to see the film in theaters. When a sequel comes out, they're converts, because they'd actually seen the film that was made originally. That would be the goal."

Start the A-list casting rumors now. Star Trek featured major stars like Winona Ryder and Tyler Perry in supporting roles. Abrams is open to bringing a movie star in to attract even more viewers. "I think that it's not a bad idea to begin thinking practically in that way," Abrams said. "What can be done to help open it up? In terms of casting, sure. Casting an international star would be a really good idea."


source: http://scifiwire.com/2009/11/8-big-spoilers-for-star-t.php (http://scifiwire.com/2009/11/8-big-spoilers-for-star-t.php)

If they go with using Khan (not a great idea, in my view), this actor from "Lost" is rumored to be their front runner choice for him.  Nestor Carbonell.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Bryancd on November 18, 2009, 07:33:38 AM
Nestor Carbonell, too funny. His parent used to live in my hometown of Greenwich, CT. His parents and my beast friends parents are Cuban, and I met Nestor and his family at a party back int he late '80's. Nestor told me about his budding acting career. I had seen him in a few roles since and then obviously his success on "LOST" was great to watch. He would make a great Khan.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: moyer777 on November 18, 2009, 08:41:49 AM
Yeah, I guess in this case being a "Kahn" man would be a good thing.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: wraith1701 on November 21, 2009, 03:47:57 PM
Quote from: moyer777 on November 18, 2009, 08:41:49 AM
Yeah, I guess in this case being a "Kahn" man would be a good thing.
*face-palm / rimshot*  :D

Very interesting article; thanks for the information!  Two things that have me pretty excited-

- Now that the crew has been introduced, the writers have space to explore the characters. I'm wondering if the Spock/Uhura thing might cool off & head towards a more professional relationship.  Opens the door to some nice interpersonal drama.

- I'm thrilled that the writers are trying to avoid falling into the 'sequal-itis' trap. It sounds like they care about the property as much as us fans do. Trying to break the mold & try a new approach sounds great to me. :)

I share Rico's trepidation over the possible re-booting of Khan. R.M. Owns that character; I find it hard to imagine anyone else in the role.  On the other hand, lots of folks were nervous about the reboot idea as a whole, and the writers managed to preserve the spirit of the classic show while exploring new ground & opening it up to new audiences.

I'm not going to give up faith in the writers yet. :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: cosmonaut on November 21, 2009, 03:58:54 PM
Quote from: wraith1701 on November 21, 2009, 03:47:57 PM
Quote from: moyer777 on November 18, 2009, 08:41:49 AM
Yeah, I guess in this case being a "Kahn" man would be a good thing.
*face-palm / rimshot*  :D

Very interesting article; thanks for the information!  Two things that have me pretty excited-

- Now that the crew has been introduced, the writers have space to explore the characters. I'm wondering if the Spock/Uhura thing might cool off & head towards a more professional relationship.  Opens the door to some nice interpersonal drama.

- I'm thrilled that the writers are trying to avoid falling into the 'sequal-itis' trap. It sounds like they care about the property as much as us fans do. Trying to break the mold & try a new approach sounds great to me. :)

I share Rico's trepidation over the possible re-booting of Khan. R.M. Owns that character; I find it hard to imagine anyone else in the role.  On the other hand, lots of folks were nervous about the reboot idea as a whole, and the writers managed to preserve the spirit of the classic show while exploring new ground & opening it up to new audiences.

I'm not going to give up faith in the writers yet. :)
What he said! :)

Also, trekmovie says there's nothing about that Nestor Carbonell rumor, and this site was founded to get the facts!
(It's pretty obvious they have pretty good connections.)
http://trekmovie.com/2009/11/18/rumor-control-nestor-carbonell-not-being-eyed-for-khan-in-star-trek-sequel/ (http://trekmovie.com/2009/11/18/rumor-control-nestor-carbonell-not-being-eyed-for-khan-in-star-trek-sequel/)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Rico on January 09, 2010, 06:23:29 AM
So set your Google Calendar's now!  The next movie has a "tentative" release date of June 29th, 2012.  Looks like they might be shooting for the mid-summer, 4th of July weekend box office this time.  I like that idea a lot!  So - start the countdown now!  Only about 2.5 years to go!!!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: billybob476 on January 09, 2010, 08:54:41 AM
Set up the new countdown timer!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Feathers on January 09, 2010, 09:12:17 AM
Yay! Bring the countdown timer back!

Hmmm. 4th July...why would we celebrate that again?
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: VaeVictis1701 on January 12, 2010, 10:00:40 AM
June 29th can't come soon enough.  I loved the latest movie and have complete confidence in JJ's ability to produce a good Star Trek movie.

Quote from: Feathers on January 09, 2010, 09:12:17 AM
Hmmm. 4th July...why would we celebrate that again?

Wasn't that the day that Will Smith destroyed an Alien mother ship with a computer virus?
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: startrekfan on January 30, 2010, 06:59:24 AM
I can't wait until the next installment and I hope it will be as exciting and fun as Trek XI
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: psikeyhackr on February 08, 2010, 10:00:36 AM
Will there be any 10 foot blue aliens?  LOL
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: startrekfan on April 01, 2010, 07:50:26 AM
this is getting a bit boring, why are they really taking their time at this haven't they thought up a story yet for Trek XII
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Meds on April 01, 2010, 08:25:23 AM
Best not to rush, look at how rubbish Quantum of Solace was, they rushed it.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: billybob476 on September 13, 2010, 06:17:13 AM
Some more info from an interview with the writers. Looks like they are still trying to hammer things down

QuoteOrci: Introducing a new villain in the sequel is tempting because we now have this incredible new sandbox to play in. On the other hand, some fans really want to see Klingons and it's hard not to listen to that. The trick is not to do something that's been seen before just because you think it will be a short cut to likeability.

http://trekmovie.com/2010/09/11/star-trek-sequel-update-abrams-orci-kurtzman-talk-khan-klingons-more/ (http://trekmovie.com/2010/09/11/star-trek-sequel-update-abrams-orci-kurtzman-talk-khan-klingons-more/)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Rico on September 13, 2010, 06:35:44 AM
Quote from: billybob476 on September 13, 2010, 06:17:13 AM
Some more info from an interview with the writers. Looks like they are still trying to hammer things down

QuoteOrci: Introducing a new villain in the sequel is tempting because we now have this incredible new sandbox to play in. On the other hand, some fans really want to see Klingons and it's hard not to listen to that. The trick is not to do something that's been seen before just because you think it will be a short cut to likeability.

http://trekmovie.com/2010/09/11/star-trek-sequel-update-abrams-orci-kurtzman-talk-khan-klingons-more/ (http://trekmovie.com/2010/09/11/star-trek-sequel-update-abrams-orci-kurtzman-talk-khan-klingons-more/)

Discussed this on yesterday's podcast too.  ;)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: billybob476 on September 13, 2010, 06:55:58 AM
Next up in the queue!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: wraith1701 on September 13, 2010, 08:43:44 AM
Kingons in the mix would be cool. It would be a kick to see New Kirk face off with New Kor, or New Kang. :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: RickPeete on September 13, 2010, 10:34:30 AM
I would love to see Klingons in the sequel. They are essential villain in TOS and we are in that time period.  Butni have to say that an updated encounter with the Doomsday Machine would look cool.  The original Doomsday device was a prototype (based upon a TNG novel that was really cool!) so battling the full model could be fair game.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: wraith1701 on September 13, 2010, 11:56:03 AM
That would be a cool idea as well.  The plot allows the possibility for some really intense drama.

No matter what the main storyline is, they should still throw in some klingon action. Maybe open the film with a semi-comical run-in between Enterprise & a Klingon ship. This could start to establish The Empire's animosity towards Kirk, and the way he consistently vexes them.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: RickPeete on September 13, 2010, 12:44:12 PM
The novel I mentioned was called "Vendetta" and was written by Peter David.  In it, the Doomsday Device was a weapon of last resort against the Borg by a now-extinct race known only as Species 4672 to the Borg.  The device is controlled by telepathic link to it's pilot (the prototype was automated).

In another Voyager book, Janeway had to battle another Planet Killer, this time without another starship to use as a bomb.  It has also appeared in several Trek video games for the PC.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: RickPeete on September 13, 2010, 12:52:52 PM
Another thought: what about the Organians?

Ooooooooo!  What if the Vulcans who are now struggling to repatriate themselves on a new planet get really pissed and depressed and a branch of them decide to return to "the old ways".  They contact the Romulans to forge a new alliance with their cousins who are in a better position to offer protection.  This of course offers the Romulans improved technology thereby scaring the Federation/Starfleet to respond to this potential threat.  The Klingons wouldn't like this alliance either so they increase hostilities against both groups.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Feathers on September 13, 2010, 02:18:13 PM
I think the Organians are still pretty much too powerful to have much of a story built around them although they could end a different story pretty effectively.

I do like the Doomsday scenarios but then I always like dangerous automated machine type tales.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: wraith1701 on September 13, 2010, 02:51:52 PM
My money is still on at least an appearance of Klingons. Just look at the 'in-universe' political climate at the end of the last film:

-The Federation has been arguably thrown off balance by the destruction of one of its founding worlds

-A large number of Starfleet ships have been wiped out by the same threat that eliminated Vulcan

-This same threat has touched the Klingon Empire, resulting in the destruction of several warships and a prison revolt/escape on Rura Penthe

-A new ship called Enterprise single-handedly eliminates the threat, presumably with the aid of some new Super-Weapon called 'Red Matter'

It seems to me that the Klingons would be interested in finding out exactly how the Federation could succeed where they failed. Rising tension between the Federation & Klingon Empire... I imagine they'd also be interested in exactly what Red Matter is and how the Federation intends to use it. I'm imagining a scenario similar to the Genesis situation from Trek III.  But with a new flavor, of course.

Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: RickPeete on September 13, 2010, 03:12:49 PM
Since they have no more Red Matter, the movie would be "The Corbomite Maneuver" part duex. Lol
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: billybob476 on September 13, 2010, 03:14:05 PM
Not to mention that the Klingons were in the first movie and later cut out.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Rico on October 13, 2010, 02:40:00 PM
Well, Bob Orci and Alex Kurtzman have started to write the script to the next Trek film.  This means the basics of the story are now done and they have the ideas in place to continue.  Awesome!

Regarding details on what the story is for the Star Trek sequel, the filmmakers have talked about how the sequel will be "bigger" in terms of scale and go "deeper" into the characters, but there are no specific plot details. It has been confirmed that the USS Enterprise crew cast will be back (Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Zoe Saldana, Karl Urban, Simon Pegg, John Cho, and Anton Yelchin). But there are many big questions remaining to be answered, here are just a few:

    * Who will direct (if Abrams decides not to do it, then who?)
    * What will it be called (and will it have "Star Trek" in the title)?
    * Budget (bigger than 2009 film, smaller? the same?)
    * 3-D or not 3-D
    * Who/what is the villain (Khan, Klingons, both, others?)
    * Will we see new familiar Trek characters (Nurse Chapel, Harry Mudd, others?)
    * Will William Shatner be in it?
    * Who else will be returning from 2009 movie (Greenwood, Ben Cross, others?)
    * Who will be cast for key new roles (possibly big name star to boost int'l box office?)
    * Will there be any changes to the look (ship, sets, uniforms, props)
    * Will/how much will sequel carry on storylines from first film (Spock/Uhura, destruction of Vulcan, Spock Prime's knowledge, etc.)

And of course...will there be more or less lens flares?


more here:
http://trekmovie.com/2010/10/12/exclusive-scripting-started-for-star-trek-sequel/ (http://trekmovie.com/2010/10/12/exclusive-scripting-started-for-star-trek-sequel/)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: loutzee on October 13, 2010, 06:34:41 PM
Lol ,if there was any more lens flare you wouldn't be able to see the actors,they would save money on the sets
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Geekyfanboy on October 13, 2010, 06:38:01 PM
I don't know why but I can't get excited over this new Trek.. I mean I enjoyed the movie but it's so not my Star Trek. I miss my Star Trek.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Rico on October 13, 2010, 07:18:21 PM
Quote from: Geekyfanboy on October 13, 2010, 06:38:01 PM
I don't know why but I can't get excited over this new Trek.. I mean I enjoyed the movie but it's so not my Star Trek. I miss my Star Trek.

Perhaps you can just view it as a new, fun Sci-Fi movie series Kenny.  For me at least, it hasn't replaced any of the Trek that has come before or what I loved about it.  It's just a cool new thing that I enjoyed a lot and hope the next one is even more awesome than the first film was.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: ElfManDan on October 13, 2010, 11:49:42 PM
I agree with Kenny. It's not that the new Trek movie wasn't great, but it's not what I want when it comes to Trek.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Rico on October 14, 2010, 05:14:13 AM
But, you have to ask yourself - is it better than no Trek at all?  Of course, I completely respect what you guys are saying.  But, the movie did so much more box office and DVD/Blu-Ray sales than most of the previous films I think we are now on this new path.  I'm actually pretty pumped and excited by it.  This is the main reason....

Trek had sort of turned into this little, geeky club.  There were many that enjoyed it, but it was slowly losing members overall.  A few new people were joining the party, but not enough to cover those leaving it.  "Enterprise" and "Nemesis" showed this very clearly.  They knew they had to shake things up to bring in more Trek lovers.  So, they got a good director/story teller, a new, younger, solid cast and went for it.  My kids & Lynn both really enjoyed the last movie, and they are certainly not big Trek fans.  Now they have a whole new group of fans to keep things going forward.  With most likely at least two more movies with this crew/cast and hopefully a new series.

Kenny always says it's about the ratings.  And this is exactly why they revamped Trek.  So, I guess all I'm pointing out is there were very big reasons for this change.  Hopefully you might come to enjoy it at some point for what it's trying to do.  And that's is to keep Trek alive in the 21st century.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: billybob476 on October 14, 2010, 05:56:46 AM
Agreed. I'm the first to say this Trek is different, but I don't see that as a bad thing. It can go both ways, I mean look what they did with Galactica. They took something essentially silly (original BSG) and made it amazing. With Star Wars the prequels were arguably not as great as the originals. For me this Trek reboot is successful.

As Rico said, it's bringing in new blood and it's a fun ride. Social commentary aside, Trek has always been a fun ride.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Rico on October 14, 2010, 06:04:02 AM
Exactly.  There is always a danger when you change something like this that you will lose some fans.  But the question is will they gain more fans than they lose?  I think the answer is certainly a big YES for that.  I think they did an amazing job of bridging the two era's, without ignoring what had come before.  And that's a VERY hard thing to pull off.  I say, warp speed ahead!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Bryancd on October 14, 2010, 07:15:56 AM
Quote from: Rico on October 13, 2010, 07:18:21 PM
Perhaps you can just view it as a new, fun Sci-Fi movie series Kenny.  For me at least, it hasn't replaced any of the Trek that has come before or what I loved about it.  It's just a cool new thing that I enjoyed a lot and hope the next one is even more awesome than the first film was.

That's me attitude towards it as well. It's not STAR TREK to me, it's a totally different film franchise that just shares some names and places with the original. It doesn't feel like old TREK, doesn't look like it, doesn't act like it, but that's ok because it's NOT it. As such, I can leave my TREK fandom at the door and just enjoy the story for what it is. I felt the same way about "Enterprise". That barley felt like TREK to me but it was a fun show.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Dangelus on October 14, 2010, 09:25:49 AM
My fear in all this is it likely to be a LONG time before we see another Trek TV series, if ever. By going down this route what sort if series could they produce? Most likely it would be set in the alternate universe or it would confuse new fans. Do we want that?

I've always enjoyed the movies but they were always complimentary to the TV series. Star Trek belongs on episodic television in my opinion.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: ElfManDan on October 14, 2010, 10:20:12 AM
Quote from: Bryancd on October 14, 2010, 07:15:56 AM
Quote from: Rico on October 13, 2010, 07:18:21 PM
Perhaps you can just view it as a new, fun Sci-Fi movie series Kenny.  For me at least, it hasn't replaced any of the Trek that has come before or what I loved about it.  It's just a cool new thing that I enjoyed a lot and hope the next one is even more awesome than the first film was.

That's me attitude towards it as well. It's not STAR TREK to me, it's a totally different film franchise that just shares some names and places with the original. It doesn't feel like old TREK, doesn't look like it, doesn't act like it, but that's ok because it's NOT it. As such, I can leave my TREK fandom at the door and just enjoy the story for what it is. I felt the same way about "Enterprise". That barley felt like TREK to me but it was a fun show.

I get that and I have to differentiate the two myself in order to enjoy it, cause when I compare it to the older stuff I don't like it, but as it's own thing I enjoy it a lot. Though when it comes down to it I know I'll probably be there opening weekend to see the new film when it releases none the less.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Meds on October 14, 2010, 02:30:31 PM
Well TNG wasn't TOS was it, i mean to me it was totally different. I loved the film, to me it was the updated 'today' version of Trek. I can see why some are a bit off with it, I was like that when the new series of Dr Who came on, its never going to beat 'my' Doctor Who but it has brought it back to the public eye bigger than it was before. Same with the new film. Look at all the young kids watching the movie, these are the ones to keep Trek alive.

Anyway we don't know anything about the new film, its not even script finished. Lets wait till we get actual facts and screen shots etc and i bet the excitement will grow. :D
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: X on October 14, 2010, 05:37:34 PM
I love it. Like all good trek after tos, it build on the bones of it's predecessors. They took a staple of the Movie franchise (Epic enemy set to destroy earth: motion pic, voyage home, first contact, nemesis) and made it great.

It's the core of the franchise. None of the other series are really much like their later counter parts, but combining the tos characters with DS9 / Enterprise type battles was like coming home to a new house. It might be new, but it's mine and it doesn't take away memories of the old place.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: X on October 14, 2010, 05:41:11 PM
Quote from: Dangelus on October 14, 2010, 09:25:49 AM
My fear in all this is it likely to be a LONG time before we see another Trek TV series, if ever. By going down this route what sort if series could they produce? Most likely it would be set in the alternate universe or it would confuse new fans. Do we want that?

I've always enjoyed the movies but they were always complimentary to the TV series. Star Trek belongs on episodic television in my opinion.
I don't think we'll be getting another series any time soon. As much as I'd like to have one, they are canceling new universe books so as to not confuse the fans. I don't think a new series stands a chance.

If it did stand a chance, it would more than likely be regulated to the CW where it will wither and die.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Rico on October 26, 2010, 06:27:17 PM
Label the info below with a big RUMOR stamp.

RUMOR: NO Khan – but a TOS villain

The Khan or no Khan has been one of the biggest subjects of discussion regarding the Star Trek sequel. Now a report in Badass News (from former CHUD editor Devin Faraci) says an "informant close to the production" has confirmed Khan will NOT be in the Star Trek sequel, but the villain will be a known character, quoting the source:

   It's definitely a character that will make fans of TOS excited. Think along the lines of Harry Mudd or Trelane or Gary Mitchell or the Talosians or the Horta. Actually it's one of those that I named.

For now treat this entirely as a rumor. But if true, then it would mean that the team agrees with most Trek fans, and that Khan is not the best choice for their second film.


About the only possible out of this list I could see would be the Talosians.  If done properly, it could lead to some great character stuff.  I could maybe see Trelane as a possibility too.  Time will tell.

source:
http://trekmovie.com/2010/10/25/rumor-no-khan-for-star-trek-sequel-but-known-tos-villain/ (http://trekmovie.com/2010/10/25/rumor-no-khan-for-star-trek-sequel-but-known-tos-villain/)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Bryancd on October 26, 2010, 06:34:51 PM
Agreed, Rico, I think you named the two most likely.  The Horta is to monster of the week and Harry Mudd too much comedy.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: orangegorn on October 26, 2010, 10:46:51 PM
Aww mannn... no Gorn captain?   :'(

;D
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: jonno8339 on October 26, 2010, 11:06:00 PM
I like the idea of a remake of the 2nd pilot. I always like Gary Mitchell as a character and the power he had, remainded me of Q
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: moyer777 on October 27, 2010, 12:04:52 AM
and who didn't want the cool silver contacts?
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Rico on October 27, 2010, 05:02:50 AM
Keep in mind, it's just a RUMOR for now.  I actually think it's maybe a bit of misdirection or one of the above villains will be in it, but not the primary threat.  But that's just a guess.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Meds on November 06, 2010, 07:38:03 AM
Saw this the other day :D
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Rico on November 06, 2010, 07:47:26 AM
Awesome!  I see a Trek Pic of the day for that one!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Meds on November 06, 2010, 08:30:33 AM
It's a awesome picture isn't it. I think emailed you this yesterday Rico.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: wraith1701 on November 08, 2010, 11:17:01 AM
SWEET.  Just 2 years to go. :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Bryancd on November 08, 2010, 11:27:26 AM
Is it a fan made composite or an actual Paramount release, Meds?
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Meds on November 08, 2010, 12:31:41 PM
I have no idea Bry, and neither does the site i found it at lol

http://www.heyuguys.co.uk/2010/11/07/the-first-promotional-image-from-j-j-abrams-star-trek-2/ (http://www.heyuguys.co.uk/2010/11/07/the-first-promotional-image-from-j-j-abrams-star-trek-2/)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Meds on November 08, 2010, 12:33:33 PM
Another one popped up.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: wraith1701 on November 08, 2010, 01:52:36 PM
Very cool.  :)  Fanmade or not, I dig 'em.  Anything that serves to drum up interest in Trek is cool in my book.  8)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Meds on November 08, 2010, 02:01:38 PM
Darn right Eric :D
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: wraith1701 on November 08, 2010, 02:18:42 PM
Quote from: HawkeyeMeds on November 08, 2010, 02:01:38 PM
Darn right Eric :D

;D *High-Five*

Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Rico on November 08, 2010, 03:07:35 PM
Nice!  The suspense is building already.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Rico on January 24, 2011, 02:49:28 PM
An interesting new spin on the directing spot.  JJ is still undecided, but it looks like others are trying to convince him.  I personally think he will be back as director.

As previously reported, producer JJ Abrams is awaiting the script for the 2012 Star Trek sequel, before deciding if he will also direct the film. However that isn't stopping others involved from weighing in. Star Trek's new Checkov Anton Yelchin says it would be "bizarre" without JJ Abrams in the director's chair. And co-writer Roberto Orci says he is trying to solicit Steven Spielberg to help convince Abrams.

more here:
http://trekmovie.com/2011/01/23/anton-yelchin-it-would-be-bizarre-for-abrams-to-not-direct-star-trek-sequel-bob-orci-soliciting-steven-spielberg-to-help-convince-abrams/ (http://trekmovie.com/2011/01/23/anton-yelchin-it-would-be-bizarre-for-abrams-to-not-direct-star-trek-sequel-bob-orci-soliciting-steven-spielberg-to-help-convince-abrams/)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Ktrek on January 24, 2011, 04:29:22 PM
At the moment I can't think of anyone else who should direct Trek 12 but I'm not opposed to bringing in a different director. I'm not a huge fan of some of his directorial decisions in the first one but to change directions might be the wrong decision if you want a feeling of continuity.Meh...I'll just go with whatever they decide. I'll be there regardless.

Kevin
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Rico on January 25, 2011, 05:11:39 AM
I think it would be helpful in this case to have the same director.  He obviously got along well with the actors and knows how to craft an exciting movie.  Come on JJ, you know you want to!  ;)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: KingIsaacLinksr on January 25, 2011, 08:30:06 AM
JJ is teasing us, making us guess, he'll be back :)

King
Title: Re: star trek 12?
Post by: Rico on March 05, 2011, 01:52:55 PM
There is a whole thread already started on this.  And I also usually update what I have heard and know on each podcast.  I'm going to merge this with the other thread.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: turtlesrock on March 05, 2011, 01:58:52 PM
oh man i'm so embarrassed right now :wallbash:
i really ought to look through all of the posts....
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Rico on March 05, 2011, 01:59:57 PM
Quote from: turtlesrock on March 05, 2011, 01:58:52 PM
oh man i'm so embarrassed right now :wallbash:
i really ought to look through all of the posts....

Just use the search box in the upper right.  It helps a lot.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Meds on March 06, 2011, 12:42:32 AM
Tutlesrock, we've all done it, hell I even deleted a whole thread I started once which had about 4 pages on. Lol
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Dangelus on March 06, 2011, 07:26:55 AM
Quote from: HawkeyeMeds on March 06, 2011, 12:42:32 AM
Tutlesrock, we've all done it, hell I even deleted a whole thread I started once which had about 4 pages on. Lol


Yes that was very amusing. And it was a good thread too! ;)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: moyer777 on March 06, 2011, 07:37:34 AM
how did I miss this? ;)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: turtlesrock on March 07, 2011, 08:10:13 AM
honestly, i have no idea. (i just hope nobody's posted something else about vulcan, alberta, canada!)
if they have please pleas tell me
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: turtlesrock on March 07, 2011, 08:13:44 AM
and i did use the search button!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: wraith1701 on March 07, 2011, 04:50:54 PM
^ It's all good, turtlesrock.

BTW; wasn't there some discussion about the new film possibly including a mega-character like The SQuire Of Gothos?

Last week's podcast episode has me dreaming about all kinds of TNG/Reboot Tie-In possibilities. ;D ;D
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: turtlesrock on March 11, 2011, 07:35:35 PM
ooh that would be awesome :D! q and treleane are just the best (did i spell that right?)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Rico on March 14, 2011, 03:36:06 PM
In a recent short interview, Simon Pegg has been asked by Paramount to set aside August - Sept. of this year for shooting the sequel film.  Keep in mind Pegg may not be needed as long on set as some of the other cast members, so shooting the movie certainly may take longer than 2 months (the last film took four months to shoot it).
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Meds on March 14, 2011, 03:42:36 PM
I should think Pegg is writing the third corneto film now so this is good timing.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Rico on April 19, 2011, 02:27:33 PM
A few new tidbits from Bob Orci, one of the writers of the next Trek film.

In yet another Wondercon snippet from Roberto Orci, the co-writer/producer says the 2012 Star Trek sequel  will be "building on" the 2009 Star Trek movie, but will not require viewers to be Trek fans or even to have seen the 2009 movie. Watch the video below. He starts off talking about "Cowboys & Aliens" - which he wrote as well.

http://video.about.com/movies/Robert-Orci-Cowboys-Star-Trek.htm (http://video.about.com/movies/Robert-Orci-Cowboys-Star-Trek.htm)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Rico on May 25, 2011, 03:28:52 PM
Some rumors are floating around that it is possible the next Trek film might indeed get delayed from June 2012 to the holiday time period of 2012.  There is suppose to be an announcement soon with both good news and bad news.  The current estimated guess is that the good news is that JJ is going to be back to direct, but the bad news would be the delay.  The writers and of course JJ have been pretty darn busy with many other projects - this summer's "Super 8" film being a big one of them.  Personally, I think it's likely the film will be delayed and in a way I'm kind of hoping for it.  The original release date set for next June 29th, 2012 is just a couple days before the Spidey Reboot movie is coming out now.  I also think more time will give them the chance to craft a better film.  Anyway, I'll keep you guys posted when I hear more.  Nice article and breakdown of this situation here:

http://trekmovie.com/2011/05/24/rumor-star-trek-sequel-to-move-to-holiday-2012-release/ (http://trekmovie.com/2011/05/24/rumor-star-trek-sequel-to-move-to-holiday-2012-release/)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Bryancd on May 25, 2011, 03:50:46 PM
Yeah, I don't see a delay as that big a deal, to be honest.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Quarks Ally on May 25, 2011, 04:01:37 PM
On the one hand we all want our Trek, but on the other hand it wasn't that long ago when some were complaining when we went right from Voyager to Enterprise so fast that there was too much Trek coming to fast.  Maybe a break between movies is good.  Though having said that.... I still want my Trek!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: KingIsaacLinksr on May 25, 2011, 05:20:21 PM
Never going to please everyone ;)

King
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: turtlesrock on May 25, 2011, 09:05:30 PM
ain't that the truth! :) i think a 3 year gap is nice. seems like a good amount of time to mellow down. that being said, we still want our trek.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: jedijeff on May 27, 2011, 12:31:02 AM
If they delay the movie that is fine by me. To me, Star Trek should be a movie that they take their time on, so the effects look the best they can. My Opinion is should not be a movie that is pushed through in a year. But I am guessing as well, depending on the script, they might already be working on some of the effects.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: iceman on May 27, 2011, 01:51:07 AM
It most likely wont come out until 2013


Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Rico on May 27, 2011, 05:37:44 AM
Quote from: iceman on May 27, 2011, 01:51:07 AM
It most likely wont come out until 2013


It won't get delayed that long.  The most might be Nov-Dec 2012.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Poodyglitz on May 27, 2011, 05:39:10 AM
For quality, I'll be content to wait.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: WillEagle on May 27, 2011, 05:58:32 AM
I'd like to have one every year, but I'm willing to wait for them to make a great movie.  
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: turtlesrock on May 27, 2011, 07:47:37 AM
better late than never, as with math homework it is with movies.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Rico on May 27, 2011, 08:30:59 AM
You know what I would love them to do if the next film is a big success again is to do a 2 or 3 movie series and film them all at the same time.  Make it big - make it epic!  And then release them one per year.  That would be awesome!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Jobydrone on May 27, 2011, 09:54:57 AM
^^^ Agreed
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Meds on May 27, 2011, 01:56:41 PM
Worked with Lord of the rings, i'd be up for that.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: WillEagle on May 29, 2011, 08:03:27 AM
That would be cool!! 3 Trek movies in 3 years! I think our heads would explode!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: turtlesrock on May 29, 2011, 10:00:09 AM
in a good way, that is.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Poodyglitz on May 31, 2011, 09:41:05 AM
Yes, but what would Harve Bennet say?

http://youtu.be/KKGHF2B1eB0 (http://youtu.be/KKGHF2B1eB0)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: turtlesrock on May 31, 2011, 07:19:35 PM
interesting. i wondered why the enterprise was built in iowa too. my trading cards say it was built in the "san francisco fleet yards", not iowa.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: X on May 31, 2011, 07:47:45 PM
Quote from: turtlesrock on May 31, 2011, 07:19:35 PM
interesting. i wondered why the enterprise was built in iowa too. my trading cards say it was built in the "san francisco fleet yards", not iowa.
I would hazard to guess that since Kirk was born in space instead of Iowa, the enterprise was born in Iowa instead of space in the alternate time line.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: RickPeete on May 31, 2011, 08:20:33 PM
In one of the Trek non-fiction books on the evolution of the series, it was written that the Enterprise saucer section was built in space because the construction would not have withstood the stresses to launch it into space once completed.

We know from the "Tomorrow is Yesterday" episode, that the Enterprise was in a suborbital position in the sky and had to climb because ship was not designed to operate within atmosphere.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: turtlesrock on June 01, 2011, 07:02:01 AM
Quote from: RickPeete on May 31, 2011, 08:20:33 PM

We know from the "Tomorrow is Yesterday" episode, that the Enterprise was in a suborbital position in the sky and had to climb because ship was not designed to operate within atmosphere.


i should probably watch that episode, come to think of it. might clear some things up.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Rico on June 01, 2011, 08:40:40 AM
Remember not to mix universes.  The Roddenberry universe is quite a bit different than the JJ Abrams version.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Poodyglitz on June 01, 2011, 09:58:29 AM
Quote from: Rico on June 01, 2011, 08:40:40 AM
Remember not to mix universes.  The Roddenberry universe is quite a bit different than the JJ Abrams version.

Apparent incongruities aside (I still don't understand how a Bird of Prey can go to warp in Earth's atmosphere and not cause damage...but I've made my peace with it), I just don't see the Enterprise's design allowing it to fly in an atmosphere. That is, unless it's in a Star Wars (fantasy) universe.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Quarks Ally on June 01, 2011, 02:16:26 PM
Frankly I'm still trying to deal with bald tattooed Romulans.  Which seem to annoy me more than anything else in the movie.  Yes, I know the Klingons in the movies didn't look like Roddenberry's Klingons, but they seemed to take the basic look of the Klingons and advanced them, if you will.  But Abrams just erased the Romulan look and redesigned then completely.  Not to mention Mark Lenard could act circles around Eric Bana, who I personally thought was the weak link in the movie.  (In my opinion.)



Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: X on June 01, 2011, 02:30:08 PM
Quote from: Quarks Ally on June 01, 2011, 02:16:26 PM
Frankly I'm still trying to deal with bald tattooed Romulans.  Which seem to annoy me more than anything else in the movie.  Yes, I know the Klingons in the movies didn't look like Roddenberry's Klingons, but they seemed to take the basic look of the Klingons and advanced them, if you will.  But Abrams just erased the Romulan look and redesigned then completely.  Not to mention Mark Lenard could act circles around Eric Bana, who I personally thought was the weak link in the movie.  (In my opinion.)




The baldness and tattoos were part of Romulan death rites, which were supposed to be painted on. Instead of mourning until the paint wore off, they made the paint into tattoos to show that they would never stop mourning the death of their race.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Rico on June 01, 2011, 03:33:43 PM
The prequel to the movie comic book miniseries fleshes out Nero's story and character quite a bit.  I highly recommend it!

http://www.amazon.com/Star-Trek-Countdown-TPB-IDW/dp/1600104207/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1306967598&sr=1-1 (http://www.amazon.com/Star-Trek-Countdown-TPB-IDW/dp/1600104207/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1306967598&sr=1-1)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Rico on June 01, 2011, 04:33:16 PM
Licensing Entertainment Expo recently had a press conference in Las Vegas for an upcoming convention they have there.  Here's a promo item they handed out.  Based on this, it looks like they are still targeting next summer for the movie - but I still have my doubts they can make that.

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=78285&offset=10#commentLstTop (http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=78285&offset=10#commentLstTop)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Quarks Ally on June 01, 2011, 04:51:14 PM
Since I'm new here I'll take this moment to give a mini review of the last Star Trek film.  I take it by the post by most of those here that I am in the minority.  Yes I liked the movie for what it was, a fun mindless summer film.  But as a Star Trek film I thought is was... so so.  Not a bad movie, but I didn't think it was a five star movie.  I would say 3 out of 5 stars.  I still think the Romulans were the weakest part of the movie when they should have been the strongest. 

Star Trek has always been plot heavy and basically (okay here it comes!) I've always thought of Star Wars as Star Trek without a plot.  I was never that big of a fan of Abrams to start with and I thought his weaknesses as a director showed through.   

I guess I'm one of those stubborn fans who thought they trashed the Trek universe a little too much.  Yes the franchise needed a kick in the pants, but I don't think it needed to be dynamited and rebuilt. 

I know most of you will disagree, that's just my take.  So in my mind there is no (alternate universe)  just Abrams fanfic.  I just don't consider it canon.  Kirk was born on Earth, Vulcan and Romulas are still there.  I guess I'm old fashioned.  Like I said, I basically enjoyed the movie... but...

Now you can all proceed to come get me!     :boxing
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Quarks Ally on June 01, 2011, 04:56:07 PM
Having said all that, I'm still looking forward to the next movie, so go figure!    :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Bryancd on June 01, 2011, 05:08:25 PM
Quote from: Quarks Ally on June 01, 2011, 04:51:14 PM
Since I'm new here I'll take this moment to give a mini review of the last Star Trek film.  I take it by the post by most of those here that I am in the minority.  Yes I liked the movie for what it was, a fun mindless summer film.  But as a Star Trek film I thought is was... so so.  Not a bad movie, but I didn't think it was a five star movie.  I would say 3 out of 5 stars.  I still think the Romulans were the weakest part of the movie when they should have been the strongest. 

Star Trek has always been plot heavy and basically (okay here it comes!) I've always thought of Star Wars as Star Trek without a plot.  I was never that big of a fan of Abrams to start with and I thought his weaknesses as a director showed through.   

I guess I'm one of those stubborn fans who thought they trashed the Trek universe a little too much.  Yes the franchise needed a kick in the pants, but I don't think it needed to be dynamited and rebuilt. 

I know most of you will disagree, that's just my take.  So in my mind there is no (alternate universe)  just Abrams fanatic.  I just don't consider it canon.  Kirk was born on Earth, Vulcan and Romulas are still there.  I guess I'm old fashioned.  Like I said, I basically enjoyed the movie... but...

Now you can all proceed to come get me!     :boxing


Nope, I think that's a very fair assessment. Had you been here back prior to it's release, I was VERY critical of what it seemed to be setting up. When I saw it, I was very pleased with the final product and think it ranks up with some of the best STAR TREK has to offer...but it wasn't my STAR TREK, it's a different thing entirely and as such I can enjoy it. I do agree that a lot of people are far too kind to JJ as a genius, he's fine but loose the frackin' lens flare. :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: X on June 01, 2011, 05:15:59 PM
Quote from: Quarks Ally on June 01, 2011, 04:51:14 PM
Since I'm new here I'll take this moment to give a mini review of the last Star Trek film.  I take it by the post by most of those here that I am in the minority.  Yes I liked the movie for what it was, a fun mindless summer film.  But as a Star Trek film I thought is was... so so.  Not a bad movie, but I didn't think it was a five star movie.  I would say 3 out of 5 stars.  I still think the Romulans were the weakest part of the movie when they should have been the strongest.  

Star Trek has always been plot heavy and basically (okay here it comes!) I've always thought of Star Wars as Star Trek without a plot.  I was never that big of a fan of Abrams to start with and I thought his weaknesses as a director showed through.  

I guess I'm one of those stubborn fans who thought they trashed the Trek universe a little too much.  Yes the franchise needed a kick in the pants, but I don't think it needed to be dynamited and rebuilt.  

I know most of you will disagree, that's just my take.  So in my mind there is no (alternate universe)  just Abrams fanfic.  I just don't consider it canon.  Kirk was born on Earth, Vulcan and Romulas are still there.  I guess I'm old fashioned.  Like I said, I basically enjoyed the movie... but...

Now you can all proceed to come get me!     :boxing

You are entitled to the opinions you have and that's fine. I think it's a little harsh to call it fanfic, but I will continue to enjoy it. Here is the thing, they went out of their way to make it were the two universes can exist side by side. They didn't blow up your universe or anything other than destroy romulus in the standard universe.

The only downside to your opinion is that it's pretty much never going to matter. Whatever you thought about the new movie doesn't matter because it did something that has been missing for a while. It brought in new fans. I'd rather new fans brought in than a long slow death of attrition, but that's just me.

Had they not bent over backwards to respect the universe, I'd see where you were coming from, but again, that's not the case. Lastly, it doesn't matter what you or I consider to be canon because our opinions don't matter. You can not like it, but you can't shift the laws of the universe and make something that is canon into something that is not.

This was perhaps one of the best ways to respect the old and create something new that the news generations would fall in love with. In the end, you might not like JJ, but could you deliver a better product that would pull in new people like he did? I love to write and speculate, but I think the writers nailed this one. They delivered on the contract that they created. This is not your or my Trek, this is not your father's Trek. It was never meant to be.

This was new Trek for a new generation and we could either hope aboard the train and enjoy the ride or sit home and watch reruns of something that has pretty much no chance of coming back in the form that it was.

It was a no brainer for me to embrace Trek 2.0, but then again I went in expecting it to not be my Trek.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Bryancd on June 01, 2011, 05:17:26 PM
I agree the writers nailed it, I would suggest JJ's direction was average.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: X on June 01, 2011, 05:19:10 PM
Quote from: Bryancd on June 01, 2011, 05:17:26 PM
I agree the writers nailed it, I would suggest JJ's direction was average.
Yeah, I only give JJ props because he was the director/producer and had to approve the story. I wasn't 100% thrilled with the actual film directing
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Bryancd on June 01, 2011, 05:23:57 PM
Quote from: X on June 01, 2011, 05:19:10 PM
Quote from: Bryancd on June 01, 2011, 05:17:26 PM
I agree the writers nailed it, I would suggest JJ's direction was average.
Yeah, I only give JJ props because he was the director/producer and had to approve the story. I wasn't 100% thrilled with the actual film directing

Right, that's where I was going. Besides the lens flare, to much hand held camera work for me. Oh, and I would have spent the $ and made a real set for Engineering instead of a practical real world one that didn't work for me. Oh, and loose the Scotty in tubes of water nonsense....
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: X on June 01, 2011, 05:39:27 PM
Quote from: Bryancd on June 01, 2011, 05:23:57 PM
Quote from: X on June 01, 2011, 05:19:10 PM
Quote from: Bryancd on June 01, 2011, 05:17:26 PM
I agree the writers nailed it, I would suggest JJ's direction was average.
Yeah, I only give JJ props because he was the director/producer and had to approve the story. I wasn't 100% thrilled with the actual film directing

Right, that's where I was going. Besides the lens flare, to much hand held camera work for me. Oh, and I would have spent the $ and made a real set for Engineering instead of a practical real world one that didn't work for me. Oh, and loose the Scotty in tubes of water nonsense....
No disagreements here. I think that there was enough damage to the ship to justify a real set now that the power know that they can get a return on the investment.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Rico on June 01, 2011, 05:58:49 PM
Wow - it's like 2009 all over again.  ;)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: davekill on June 01, 2011, 06:54:28 PM
Quote from: Quarks Ally on June 01, 2011, 04:51:14 PM
Since I'm new here I'll take this moment to give a mini review of the last Star Trek film.  I take it by the post by most of those here that I am in the minority.  Yes I liked the movie for what it was, a fun mindless summer film.  But as a Star Trek film I thought is was... so so.  Not a bad movie, but I didn't think it was a five star movie.  I would say 3 out of 5 stars.  I still think the Romulans were the weakest part of the movie when they should have been the strongest. 

Star Trek has always been plot heavy and basically (okay here it comes!) I've always thought of Star Wars as Star Trek without a plot.  I was never that big of a fan of Abrams to start with and I thought his weaknesses as a director showed through.   

I guess I'm one of those stubborn fans who thought they trashed the Trek universe a little too much.  Yes the franchise needed a kick in the pants, but I don't think it needed to be dynamited and rebuilt. 

I know most of you will disagree, that's just my take.  So in my mind there is no (alternate universe)  just Abrams fanfic.  I just don't consider it canon.  Kirk was born on Earth, Vulcan and Romulas are still there.  I guess I'm old fashioned.  Like I said, I basically enjoyed the movie... but...

Now you can all proceed to come get me!     :boxing


Abrams fanfic - hmmmmm.

I had not considered Trek 2.0 as a fan film with an extremely large budget.
Maybe the next movie will prove that assessment wrong.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: turtlesrock on June 01, 2011, 07:32:27 PM
Quote from: Bryancd on June 01, 2011, 05:23:57 PM
Quote from: X on June 01, 2011, 05:19:10 PM
Quote from: Bryancd on June 01, 2011, 05:17:26 PM
I agree the writers nailed it, I would suggest JJ's direction was average.
Yeah, I only give JJ props because he was the director/producer and had to approve the story. I wasn't 100% thrilled with the actual film directing

Right, that's where I was going. Besides the lens flare, to much hand held camera work for me. Oh, and I would have spent the $ and made a real set for Engineering instead of a practical real world one that didn't work for me. Oh, and loose the Scotty in tubes of water nonsense....

i kinda liked the scotty water thing. sure, it was a bit of a waste of time. indeed there was too much lens flare.
Star Trek (2009) in 5 Seconds (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQOqQZOOz2Y#) XD perfect
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Bryancd on June 01, 2011, 07:54:26 PM
Quote from: Rico on June 01, 2011, 05:58:49 PM
Wow - it's like 2009 all over again.  ;)

Let's do the Time Warp again!!! :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: X on June 01, 2011, 08:32:16 PM
It's just a step to the left.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: stonut on June 02, 2011, 12:33:08 AM
I heard yesterday on twitter that the new film will not be released until the later half of 2012 now, due to JJ's other commitments.still all good things to those that wait, i hope!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Rico on June 02, 2011, 05:01:13 AM
Quote from: stonut on June 02, 2011, 12:33:08 AM
I heard yesterday on twitter that the new film will not be released until the later half of 2012 now, due to JJ's other commitments.still all good things to those that wait, i hope!

Twitter isn't exactly a reliable news source, but this is certainly a good possibility still since the script isn't even ready.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Poodyglitz on June 02, 2011, 06:13:32 AM
All things considered, the Abrams version ranks as one of the top three best Star Trek movies up to this point. Let's face it, our Star Trek didn't quite live up to what it could have been in the movies.  So, let's see where this goes. If the quality is kept up, it could be very compelling.

I squirm a little bit at a Trek without Vulcan and Kirk's father (as well as an amorous Spock), but if the series builds a strong bond between Kirk, Spock and McCoy, then it's Star Trek. If they achieve this with great special effects, it's still Star Trek. If there are good, engaging stories, it's still Star Trek.

Perhaps the next installment will determine whether Star Trek XI was merely a fun homage or the best Star Trek ever.

My take on the Star Trek/Star Wars issue is that the former is science fiction, the latter is fantasy (I guess with the introduction of the Midichlorian, one could label Star Wars science fantasy  :dry).
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Poodyglitz on June 02, 2011, 06:18:10 AM
Quote from: Bryancd on June 01, 2011, 05:23:57 PM
Oh, and I would have spent the $ and made a real set for Engineering instead of a practical real world one that didn't work for me.

I'm with you on that one!

However, I did appreciate the lens flare and handheld camera. It made the film feel closer to "reality".
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Poodyglitz on June 02, 2011, 06:25:41 AM
Quote from: X on June 01, 2011, 08:32:16 PM
It's just a step to the left.

And a jump to the right
Put your hands on your hips
And bend your knees in tight

But it's the Star Trek banter
That really drives you insay-yay-yayayayayne...

Let's do the "Time Warp" again!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Jobydrone on June 02, 2011, 07:13:51 AM
I can understand where the detractors are coming from.  Taking a history and universe you love and cherish and basically saying " Nope, none of that ever happened" can be a bitter pill to swallow.  But I'm just glad to know that the characters we love will have their stories continue to be told on screen for years to come.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: turtlesrock on June 02, 2011, 07:16:24 AM
sorry, with all of the time warp stuff i just have to post this:
Star Trek: Time Warp (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfx8Nc6VKnI#)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Rico on June 02, 2011, 08:28:10 AM
Quote from: Jobydrone4of20 on June 02, 2011, 07:13:51 AM
I can understand where the detractors are coming from.  Taking a history and universe you love and cherish and basically saying " Nope, none of that ever happened" can be a bitter pill to swallow.  But I'm just glad to know that the characters we love will have their stories continue to be told on screen for years to come.

They didn't say none of that ever happened.  These are TWO universes.  The only ones that crossed over are Nero and his ship/crew and Spock.  All the other folks are still back there doing their thing.  In any case, you guys do know this is the NEXT Trek movie thread - right?  :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Quarks Ally on June 02, 2011, 03:35:35 PM
Having had my say on the last film I will leave it at that.  I will take my queue from the (master of the universe) and move on.

So what would I like to see in the next Trek film.  Hum?  Well first I would love to see the ramifications of the loss of Vulcan.  I mean for the most part they have been the backbone of the federation.  It would seem logical(no pun intended) that there would be a gaping hole in the federation.  It would seem that the cat would pounce on the mouse.  That the Klingons or Cardassians or someone would pounce on this huge opportunity. 

Second I also think that the Romulans would be going crazy knowing that their home world will vanish.  Yes that is still a long way off, but I just don't think they would sit around and do nothing.  We all know the Romulans and I think it would be interesting to see how they react to the events of the last movie. 

I would also like to see Captain Pikes reaction to apparently loosing his ship.  Which from what I've read the writers have already stated that that subject will be dealt with.  Having said all that, we're likely to get what we least suspect.


Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: turtlesrock on June 02, 2011, 07:17:29 PM
good point. the greatest thing about there being multiple universes and the 2 crossing is the fact that now we can do what ever we want in this new universe! a whole new TOS, TNG, and more! just imagine the potential! the possibility!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Feathers on June 03, 2011, 02:38:19 AM
I agree and think it will lead to an 'edgier' federation than we've ever seen before. That's probably a good thing from the point of view of attracting and holding an audience (I suspect the startfleet I've lived with for years is just a little too 'do-gooder' for wide appeal with a modern audience).

I don't know where it will go but I hope they do it justice this time around. I think the 'first' film would have got by on goodwill alone with people willing to give it a go. It certainly did more than that but this one needs to seal the deal. To that end, I'd prefer tham not to have to rush anything so if that means a Christmas release then that's fine with me.

The attraction of doing a three film epic is also the availability of the actors. It would surely be easier to tie them up for a long session in New Zealand (OK, maybe somewhere else :D) than try and schedule one every few years. It would have the added advantage that they wouldn't age too much between films either. (although that may catch up with them if a further sequal were required.)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Rico on June 03, 2011, 05:57:17 AM
I actually don't think we are going to see much of a continuation of things that happened in the 2009 film into the next Trek movie.  I think the story will be pretty self-contained.  It's likely to pick up 2-3 years down the road from the previous movie and the crew will have grown a bit closer.  As far as the numbers of films, I'm pretty sure this group of actors was signed up for three films.  So, one is done and two left to go.  After that, who knows?
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Poodyglitz on June 03, 2011, 06:20:42 AM
Quote from: Rico on June 03, 2011, 05:57:17 AM
So, one is done and two left to go.  After that, who knows?

Star Trek Babies?
Star Trek XIII: The Wrath of Harve (Bennet)?
Star Trek: The Religion?
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: turtlesrock on June 03, 2011, 06:23:56 AM
i drew a doodle of star trek: the baby generation yesterday! :D
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Poodyglitz on June 03, 2011, 08:17:24 AM
Tee-hee-hee!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Geekyfanboy on June 06, 2011, 05:14:36 PM
Abrams Talks Star Trek Sequel "Cool Story", Directing & Release + Is Paramount Already Planning Delay? June 6, 2011
by Rosario T. Calabria , Filed under: Abrams, Paramount, Star Trek sequel (2012) , trackback

There is more from JJ Abrams about the Star Trek sequel, with the producer talking about a "cool" story as well as discussing decisions on the release date and his directing of the film. Plus another report adds to speculation that Paramount may already be planning for a delay on the Star Trek sequel. Details on all that below, plus analysis on a new possible release date.   

Abrams on 'super cool' sequel story, possible directing & release date

Another comment on the Star Trek sequel has emerged from JJ Abrams Super 8 publicity tour, this time coming from HitFix where Abrams talks up the story for the next Star Trek, and again keeps the questions of the release date and his directing open:

    We are still working on story. Some super cool stuff — but I won't be able to make a decision on directing until we have our script and I know what I'm being asked to direct. As for release date, that is not a concern of mine. Perhaps we could still make the date the studio wants. But we are focusing on making a great movie: the guys I'm collaborating with are the best and we all want the same thing

JJ Abrams still can't say if he will direct Star Trek sequel or when it will be released – but does say it has a "super cool" story

GI Joe 2 progress another hint that the Star Trek sequel will be delayed?

Today also has another tea leaf to read regarding the release date of the Star Trek sequel. In an article about casting for Paramount's G.I. Joe: Cobra Strikes, Deadline has a throw-away line that casually implies that a decision may have already been made internally at Paramount that the sequel will be delayed:

    "[G.I. Joe 2] has become an important one for Paramount, which will have to scratch the Star Trek sequel from its summer 2012 schedule and will likely put this film in its place." (Emphasis added)

The casual way in which this comment is presented certainly leads one to believe a decision has already been made. But it's important to note that Paramount Pictures has not confirmed any change in plans for the Star Trek sequel, which is currently set to release on June 29, 2012. However, as TrekMovie.com has been reporting, rumors persist that the film could be delayed, possibly to a Holiday 2012 date.

Analysis: Is Holiday 2012 an option? If not, when?

While a move to a Holiday 2012 release is the prevailing rumor, that period is already crowded and leaves Paramount with few options. Here are the films already scheduled for the Holiday 2012 season:

    * Bond 23 (November 9)
    * Ouija (November 9)
    * The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 2 (November 16)
    * 47 Ronin (Wednesday, November 21)
    * Rise of the Guardians (Wednesday, November 21) — Paramount DreamWorks
    * The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (December 14)
    * Hunter Killer (December 21)
    * Life of Pi (December 21)
    * Superman: Man of Steel (December TBA)

Another option could be for the Star Trek sequel to swap spots with G.I. Joe 2 which is currently slated for release on August 10, 2012. With Abrams' Super 8 soon in theaters, the director can turn his focus to Star Trek and do pre-production over the summer and start shooting (as scheduled) in September. In theory Abrams could make the original release date of June 29, 2012, as it is a few weeks less than Abrams had for Super 8. But if it proves not to be, then the extra six weeks could make a difference, and that way Paramount doesn't lose a Summer 2012 film.

If neither of those options pan out, the next likeliest option would be summer 2013 which at the moment is mostly open. Here are the films currently scheduled:

    * Iron Man 3 (May 3, 2012)
    * The Dark Tower (May 17, 2012)
    * Turbo (June 7)
    * Monsters University (June 21)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Bryancd on June 06, 2011, 05:18:58 PM
A bit bummed but not surprising. Thanks to Rico's coverage of this production, clearly it is way behind schedule and JJ's not yet committed. I love TREK, but I honestly don't think it will damage the new franchise to delay an extra year to be sure the movie has the right story and the rught director.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Rico on June 06, 2011, 05:19:46 PM
Paramount if you do this, stay the heck out of the way of "The Hobbit" please!  Other than that, bump anything else you want.  
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Bryancd on June 06, 2011, 05:23:43 PM
Quote from: Rico on June 06, 2011, 05:19:46 PM
Paramount if you do this, stay the heck out of the way of "The Hobbit" please!  Other than that, bump anything else you want. 

Agreed, although I think LOTR and Peter Jackoson have made them so much $$$ there is little chance of that. "The Hobbit" is money in the bank, more so then a new TREK film.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Rico on June 06, 2011, 05:29:35 PM
Quote from: Bryancd on June 06, 2011, 05:23:43 PM
Quote from: Rico on June 06, 2011, 05:19:46 PM
Paramount if you do this, stay the heck out of the way of "The Hobbit" please!  Other than that, bump anything else you want.  

Agreed, although I think LOTR and Peter Jackoson have made them so much $$$ there is little chance of that. "The Hobbit" is money in the bank, more so then a new TREK film.
Quote from: Bryancd on June 06, 2011, 05:23:43 PM
Quote from: Rico on June 06, 2011, 05:19:46 PM
Paramount if you do this, stay the heck out of the way of "The Hobbit" please!  Other than that, bump anything else you want.  

Agreed, although I think LOTR and Peter Jackoson have made them so much $$$ there is little chance of that. "The Hobbit" is money in the bank, more so then a new TREK film.

I didn't mean that Paramount would move "The Hobbit."  That's not a Paramount film.  I meant for them to steer clear of that release date and bump movies they are backing to anywhere else they want.  Personally, I like a Thanksgiving 2012 release for Trek.  I REALLY hope we don't end up waiting until the summer of 2013.  That is two more years away and it will be four years since the 2009 film came out.  That's a mistake and they may well loose whatever momentum they have going right now.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Bryancd on June 06, 2011, 05:41:16 PM
Do you really think they still have any momentum beyond already established TREK fans who liked the film?  It's been 2 year going on 3, I think most of that good will from new fans is long gone. I get the feeling Paramount is treating the property as an every now and then money maker as opposed to a tent pole franchise. Although I don't like that position. I'm not sure that I am wrong in the assessment.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Rico on June 06, 2011, 05:52:20 PM
Yes, they have momentum.  I know of many non-Trek fans that really want to see the next film.  And you really need to keep in mind, all of this delay stuff has VERY little to do with Paramount.  The writers and JJ have been WAY too busy with other projects and it's been seriously cutting into the time they can spend on this.  I've spoken about this on the podcast several times over the last few months.  They've got TV projects, other films, even video games they are working on now.  So, that is the cause of the delay plain and simple.  Whether it hurts them or not in the long run, only time will answer that one.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Quarks Ally on June 07, 2011, 06:28:46 AM
Trek Today has a brief article posted June 6th, that quotes Abrams as saying, now that Super 8 is done, he will turn his attention to Star Trek.  Though it probably will not speed up the release date, with Super 8 finished, the Star Trek pot should start to boil.  

Trek Today's Link is http://www.trektoday.com/ (http://www.trektoday.com/)
The article is at  http://www.trektoday.com/content/2011/06/abrams-next-up-is-trek/ (http://www.trektoday.com/content/2011/06/abrams-next-up-is-trek/)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: stonut on June 08, 2011, 08:27:02 AM
The "new", trek fans that the last film grabbed, may not still be into it after a 3 or maybe 4 year wait. So the response from the next Gilmore could be a lot different. I hope not, I hope it again has a good box office. Then hopefully we will get another series. Now that would be cool, no lens flare though. That would be a bit much week in week out lol.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: turtlesrock on June 08, 2011, 08:03:39 PM
indeed. who knows, the new star trek movie sure got us all thinking about star trek in the future (or at least i thought about it a lot)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Rico on June 12, 2011, 01:44:37 PM
Some good info at the link below and updates on the state of the sequel.  No definite dates, or big announcements except - they are "working on it still."  I like where these guys have their heads at for this movie.  I think it's going to be great!

http://trekmovie.com/2011/06/11/star-trek-sequel-writers-give-script-update-promise-no-remake-talk-vulcan-arcs-more/ (http://trekmovie.com/2011/06/11/star-trek-sequel-writers-give-script-update-promise-no-remake-talk-vulcan-arcs-more/)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Rico on June 15, 2011, 03:50:52 PM
JJ Abrams was recently on Howard Stern and stated the movie is about six months behind schedule.  Still nothing official, but it's looking more and more like a delay from the planned June 2012 release.

http://trekmovie.com/2011/06/15/jj-abrams-star-trek-is-six-months-behind-admits-might-be-spread-too-thin/ (http://trekmovie.com/2011/06/15/jj-abrams-star-trek-is-six-months-behind-admits-might-be-spread-too-thin/)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: stonut on June 16, 2011, 07:15:38 AM
Maybe they will Pishpek it back to 2013 now, hope not.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: turtlesrock on June 16, 2011, 09:14:22 AM
6 months... 2013 is fine with me (to some degree). i'd wait forever for the best movie ever.
eek, now i sound like a poet :O

i sure hope the whole "end of the world thing" doesn't happen in 2012.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: stonut on June 16, 2011, 03:36:51 PM
well if they rush it we could get a nad movie,which has happened before. Then the franchise could go on a long break again. A good return may trigger a new tv show.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Rico on July 25, 2011, 03:49:22 PM
Well, the new unofficial filming date may now be January 2012.  There really is no way this movie is coming out next summer at this point.

http://trekmovie.com/2011/07/24/orci-kurtzman-star-trek-sequel-to-shoot-january-2012-more-on-trek-from-lindelof-cho/ (http://trekmovie.com/2011/07/24/orci-kurtzman-star-trek-sequel-to-shoot-january-2012-more-on-trek-from-lindelof-cho/)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: turtlesrock on July 25, 2011, 05:28:39 PM
aww man! :(
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Bryancd on July 25, 2011, 07:22:45 PM
Well, no crap they aren't organized. They couldn't even get the scale of the ship right and thought it would be fine to film in a brewery. Duh.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Quarks Ally on July 25, 2011, 07:45:41 PM
@ Bryancd You tell em!   >:(
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: X on July 25, 2011, 10:33:20 PM
Quote from: stonut on June 16, 2011, 03:36:51 PM
well if they rush it we could get a nad movie,which has happened before. Then the franchise could go on a long break again. A good return may trigger a new tv show.
A good return most certainly won't trigger a new series. They are too controlling of the franchise now in regards to the reboot. They have canceled the publication of several books in the new universe so as not to step on the toes of the movies in the future. I don't think they'd risk a tv show and the possible bad blood it could create for the movies if it isn't a hit.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Rico on July 26, 2011, 08:09:16 AM
Again, you guys have to keep in mind that Paramount is the Trek movie keeper and CBS is in charge of any TV Trek we might get.  They have different agendas and interests.  It was also pretty clearly stated that when Enterprise ended that we mostly like wouldn't see any new Trek on TV for probably a decade.  That series ended in 2005.  So, in my view the soonest a new series might pop up is 2014-15.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Dangelus on July 26, 2011, 08:33:10 AM
Quote from: Rico on July 26, 2011, 08:09:16 AM
Again, you guys have to keep in mind that Paramount is the Trek movie keeper and CBS is in charge of any TV Trek we might get.  They have different agendas and interests.  It was also pretty clearly stated that when Enterprise ended that we mostly like wouldn't see any new Trek on TV for probably a decade.  That series ended in 2005.  So, in my view the soonest a new series might pop up is 2014-15.

Which begs the question if / when we do get a new series will it be from a separate continuity to the new movies? To be honest I could live with that. Keep a new TV show in the "prime" universe, whatever time frame they like.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Rico on July 26, 2011, 08:38:03 AM
That's hard to say.  I personally would prefer them to be separate, I think.  There are pros and cons to both ways.  Also, there really hasn't been much of a direct connection ever between TV series Trek and movie Trek.  TNG films started after the series.  Even back when Paramount was in control of both they didn't overlap much in any way.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Poodyglitz on July 26, 2011, 08:51:52 AM
Quote from: Bryancd on July 25, 2011, 07:22:45 PM
Well, no crap they aren't organized. They couldn't even get the scale of the ship right and thought it would be fine to film in a brewery. Duh.

ROTFL!

Nice to know there's someone out there on the same wavelength. :-D
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: billybob476 on July 26, 2011, 08:57:43 AM
Frnakly a new show in the prime timeline with occasional cameos from "TNG era" alums would be pretty cool. The timeframe of Trek Online is really interesting (despite the issues of the game itself).
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Bryancd on July 26, 2011, 10:44:49 AM
Quote from: Rico on July 26, 2011, 08:38:03 AM
That's hard to say.  I personally would prefer them to be separate, I think.  There are pros and cons to both ways.  Also, there really hasn't been much of a direct connection ever between TV series Trek and movie Trek.  TNG films started after the series.  Even back when Paramount was in control of both they didn't overlap much in any way.

Good point, and while TNG was on TV they had the TOS crew doing movies, so there was no time continuity there either.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Meds on July 26, 2011, 12:58:11 PM
I'd like to see a new series of Voyager doing another five year mission. :D
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: X on July 26, 2011, 02:48:24 PM
Quote from: Rico on July 26, 2011, 08:09:16 AM
Again, you guys have to keep in mind that Paramount is the Trek movie keeper and CBS is in charge of any TV Trek we might get.  They have different agendas and interests.  It was also pretty clearly stated that when Enterprise ended that we mostly like wouldn't see any new Trek on TV for probably a decade.  That series ended in 2005.  So, in my view the soonest a new series might pop up is 2014-15.
I get what you're saying, but as far as I remember, CBS owns all of Star Trek and has a license agreement with Paramount for them to make movies. I also know that CBS holds the book rights and they were the ones to pull the "new" Trek Books to keep them from stepping on the toes of the movies. Because it's a license deal, CBS gets to make money from the movies without having to pay anything  for the production. I don't see them rushing to spend money for a tv show that will need a nice budget for it to be successful and given the current state of television viewership.

My prediction is that we will not see a new trek series until after the movie franchise completely wraps any ideas of a new movie. I'm going to say we won't see a new trek series for at least another decade or a decade and a half. I'm projecting 2024 - 2025 at the earliest.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: X on July 26, 2011, 02:56:27 PM
Quote from: Rico on July 26, 2011, 08:38:03 AM
That's hard to say.  I personally would prefer them to be separate, I think.  There are pros and cons to both ways.  Also, there really hasn't been much of a direct connection ever between TV series Trek and movie Trek.  TNG films started after the series.  Even back when Paramount was in control of both they didn't overlap much in any way.
I want to disagree with you on this part. When TNG movies were going on, they made references to the events on the shows that were on the air and in the same timeline and vice versa. When Voyager ended, they took from those elements to have Janeway in the last TNG movie briefly. Even the reasoning behind insurrection was directly tied to the war storylines generated by DS9.

I think that they were in the same setting and when you see Geordi's new eyes on Voyager. The Borg Queen from the movies returning to Voyager. I can't comment on the new movies because of their unique place in the franchise, but the other movies had a big cause and effect relationship with the tv universe.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Rico on July 26, 2011, 03:31:54 PM
There were very minor connections between the movies and the TV series.  And that was only even in the later films.  The first six movies had no connection to what was going on in the TV series.  With regards to the ownership issues of Trek in general, the TV and films are separate.  There is nothing keeping CBS from making a new series, except of course the high cost involved and possible failure of not making their money back.  Trust me, if they thought they could make money off a new series at this point, they would do it.  And Chris,  you really think we are at least 13-14 years away from a new TV version of Trek?  That would give us about a 20 year gap between series.  It will happen sooner than that - easily.  Heck, they are bringing "Dallas" back and "Charlie's Angels."  I think we deserve a new Trek series sooner than 20 years.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: X on July 26, 2011, 04:12:58 PM
Quote from: Rico on July 26, 2011, 03:31:54 PM
There were very minor connections between the movies and the TV series.  And that was only even in the later films.  The first six movies had no connection to what was going on in the TV series.  With regards to the ownership issues of Trek in general, the TV and films are separate.  There is nothing keeping CBS from making a new series, except of course the high cost involved and possible failure of not making their money back.  Trust me, if they thought they could make money off a new series at this point, they would do it.  And Chris,  you really think we are at least 13-14 years away from a new TV version of Trek?  That would give us about a 20 year gap between series.  It will happen sooner than that - easily.  Heck, they are bringing "Dallas" back and "Charlie's Angels."  I think we deserve a new Trek series sooner than 20 years.
Yeah, I picked 20 years because that's been the cycle time for all of the shows that are making a come back. What was it 30 years between series for the new charlie's angels? 20 years for BSG, 20+ Knightrider and 30+ for Bionic woman. 20 years doesn't seem that big a wait when you compare it to other shows.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Rico on July 26, 2011, 04:21:34 PM
I can see your point, but "Star Trek" isn't like those other shows really.  They've had five different series (not counting the animated run).  Even more importantly, there are certainly MANY more Trek fans out there than those other shows.  And with the recent film and next the fan base is even bigger.  We'll see what happens but I think it will be a lot sooner than 20 years.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: WillEagle on July 26, 2011, 06:38:01 PM
There is a new comic series based on the JJ Trek movie coming out from IDW. And I was wondering what happened to the books that were supposed to come out.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Poodyglitz on July 26, 2011, 07:30:41 PM
Quote from: Dangelus on July 26, 2011, 08:33:10 AMWhich begs the question if / when we do get a new series will it be from a separate continuity to the new movies? To be honest I could live with that. Keep a new TV show in the "prime" universe, whatever time frame they like.

I don't see that happening. If they do a TV series, it's going to be based on the current Trek sensibility (hopefully, minus the sewage treatment plants as filming locations). That's just common business sense. My take is that any new "prime" Trek we get from now on will be from the fan-produced series. For better or worse, the Trek we grew up with is history.

Though it would be interesting to do classic Trek as an anthology series, much like "Twilight Zone" and "Masters of Sci-Fi". Then, you could do self-contained "short stories" based on different eras, different societies, different ships. It would be one way to get back to the sociological message aspect of the franchise. You know, stuff that makes you think.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Poodyglitz on July 26, 2011, 07:35:50 PM
Quote from: Rico on July 26, 2011, 04:21:34 PM
I can see your point, but "Star Trek" isn't like those other shows really.  They've had five different series (not counting the animated run).  Even more importantly, there are certainly MANY more Trek fans out there than those other shows.  And with the recent film and next the fan base is even bigger.  We'll see what happens but I think it will be a lot sooner than 20 years.

Within the next five years, I'll bet. But that's only if the movies continue to perform well. I'm anticipating the next film and hope it's a strong sequel. The fact that it's taking so long to get done bodes well. Good to know that they respect it enough to not crank it out to meet a deadline.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Rico on July 27, 2011, 03:26:17 PM
Looks like JJ is getting close to deciding on whether he will be back in the director's chair for ST2.  I'm guessing he will be.  It looks like things are finally starting to move on the next movie, which is great news!

http://trekmovie.com/2011/07/27/jj-abrams-close-to-directing-decision-for-star-trek-sequel/ (http://trekmovie.com/2011/07/27/jj-abrams-close-to-directing-decision-for-star-trek-sequel/)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Rico on July 28, 2011, 04:08:36 PM
Well, "G.I. Joe II" has now taken the June 29th, 2012 spot by Paramount and bumped Trek out.  So, it is official that it won't be out then, or most likely at all in the summer of 2012.  This opens up either the holidays of 2012 or summer of 2013.  To get a feel for what competition is out there and when, here's a run down of what is coming:

Here is how it is shaping up:

Holiday 2012

Nov. 9: Bond 23, Ouija
Nov. 16: The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn (Part Two)
Nov. 21 (Thanksgiving Wed): 47 Ronin, Rise of the Guardians
Nov. 30: OPEN
Dec. 7: OPEN
Dec. 14: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
Dec. 21: Hunter Killer, Life of Pi, Lone Ranger
Dec. 25 (Xmas): Django Unchained

Summer 2013

May 3: Iron Man 3
May 10: OPEN (except for comedy Mommy and Me)
May 17: Singularity
May 24 (Mem. Day wkd): Fast & Furious 6
May 31: OPEN
June 7: Turbo
June 14: Man of Steel
June 21: Monsters University
Jun28: R.I.P.D.
July 3 (4th July wkd): Despicable Me 2
July 12: Pacific Rim
July 19: Oblivion
July 26: Thor 2
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: WillEagle on July 31, 2011, 05:50:28 PM
Holiday 2012 seems better to me. Other movies dont seem that great except for The Hobbit.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: stonut on August 01, 2011, 03:04:34 AM
Think  Holiday 2012 is pushing it from whats floating round the net but i hope so too.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: jedijeff on September 13, 2011, 07:05:02 PM
Looks like Abrams will direct

http://trekmovie.com/2011/09/13/j-j-abrams-will-direct-star-trek-sequel-pre-production-underway/ (http://trekmovie.com/2011/09/13/j-j-abrams-will-direct-star-trek-sequel-pre-production-underway/)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Poodyglitz on September 13, 2011, 07:36:13 PM
Yahoooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Rico on September 13, 2011, 07:49:25 PM
Awesome!!!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: turtlesrock on September 13, 2011, 07:56:36 PM
yay! :D
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Ktrek on September 13, 2011, 08:07:50 PM
I'm glad for continuity's sake that he is directing the sequel but please NO MORE LENS FLARES!!!!! They are so annoying and not in keeping with the quality of Star Trek filmography.

Kevin
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: KingIsaacLinksr on September 13, 2011, 09:44:06 PM
Quote from: Ktrek on September 13, 2011, 08:07:50 PM
I'm glad for continuity's sake that he is directing the sequel but please NO MORE LENS FLARES!!!!! They are so annoying and not in keeping with the quality of Star Trek filmography.

Kevin

Yeah....anything he directs has lens flares...so get ready for it...

King
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Rico on September 14, 2011, 08:43:24 AM
EW confirming this story here as well.  Woot!

J.J. Abrams is ready to engage. EW has confirmed that the insatiable media multi-hyphenate has signed on to direct the sequel to his 2009 hit Star Trek. (Vulture first reported the story.) The first film's screenwriters Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci are penning the screenplay with producer Damon Lindelof, and the main cast — including Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto (pictured, right, with Abrams on the set of the 2009 Trek) — are all set to return. The untitled sequel was originally scheduled to come out June 2012, but the film has moved off of that date to give the writers enough time to polish the script.
Abrams' first crack in the captain's chair netted the reboot the highest-ever grosses for a Trek movie, pulling in $257 million domestically, and $385 million worldwide.


http://insidemovies.ew.com/2011/09/13/j-j-abrams-directing-star-trek-2/?cnn=yes (http://insidemovies.ew.com/2011/09/13/j-j-abrams-directing-star-trek-2/?cnn=yes)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Poodyglitz on September 14, 2011, 09:29:09 AM
Lens flares and cinema verite shaky cameras, I don't mind. As long as the story is solid, I'm good. I'll even put up with sewage treatment plants masquerading as Engineering.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: stansnig on September 14, 2011, 12:40:45 PM
looking forward to it!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: turtlesrock on September 14, 2011, 07:02:27 PM
i can't wait! eeek! ;D
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Dangelus on September 14, 2011, 08:26:37 PM
Style is one thing and it cones down to personal taste. I didn't care much for the changes he made to staple Trek things like warp travel, star dates and phasers in the last movie personally.

Now we gave the origin story out of the way I hope they concentrate on giving us a great story and villain.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: X on September 14, 2011, 09:02:28 PM
Quote from: Dangelus on September 14, 2011, 08:26:37 PM
Style is one thing and it cones down to personal taste. I didn't care much for the changes he made to staple Trek things like warp travel, star dates and phasers in the last movie personally.

Now we gave the origin story out of the way I hope they concentrate on giving us a great story and villain.
I love the changes to stardates since they now make sense. Before it was just conversions of the production numbers or some random string of numbers.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Dangelus on September 14, 2011, 11:46:40 PM
Quote from: X on September 14, 2011, 09:02:28 PM
Quote from: Dangelus on September 14, 2011, 08:26:37 PM
Style is one thing and it cones down to personal taste. I didn't care much for the changes he made to staple Trek things like warp travel, star dates and phasers in the last movie personally.

Now we gave the origin story out of the way I hope they concentrate on giving us a great story and villain.
I love the changes to stardates since they now make sense. Before it was just conversions of the production numbers or some random string of numbers.

True, especially in TOS. The TNG era is where they became a little more structured and I liked that. You could tell where the in the timeline the episode came across all the TNG era Trek shows. Of course the other problem with the new system is the dates are very Earth centric as they are based on our dates. Would the whole Federation really adopt this?
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: X on September 15, 2011, 05:22:25 AM
Quote from: Dangelus on September 14, 2011, 11:46:40 PM
Quote from: X on September 14, 2011, 09:02:28 PM
Quote from: Dangelus on September 14, 2011, 08:26:37 PM
Style is one thing and it cones down to personal taste. I didn't care much for the changes he made to staple Trek things like warp travel, star dates and phasers in the last movie personally.

Now we gave the origin story out of the way I hope they concentrate on giving us a great story and villain.
I love the changes to stardates since they now make sense. Before it was just conversions of the production numbers or some random string of numbers.

True, especially in TOS. The TNG era is where they became a little more structured and I liked that. You could tell where the in the timeline the episode came across all the TNG era Trek shows. Of course the other problem with the new system is the dates are very Earth centric as they are based on our dates. Would the whole Federation really adopt this?
The answer is a resounding yes. There's nothing that prevents planets from keeping local time and if you look at how we keep time and dates now, we are following standards that have nothing to do with some individual nations or cultures. As Starfleet is based in San Fran, people in the service of it would probably keep time based on the time of the "head office". The Federation has adopted English as the default language and Earth as the home of the Federation, including where the President of the Federation lives. Having days that match only make sense.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Dangelus on September 15, 2011, 05:29:40 AM
Quote from: X on September 15, 2011, 05:22:25 AM
Quote from: Dangelus on September 14, 2011, 11:46:40 PM
Quote from: X on September 14, 2011, 09:02:28 PM
Quote from: Dangelus on September 14, 2011, 08:26:37 PM
Style is one thing and it cones down to personal taste. I didn't care much for the changes he made to staple Trek things like warp travel, star dates and phasers in the last movie personally.

Now we gave the origin story out of the way I hope they concentrate on giving us a great story and villain.
I love the changes to stardates since they now make sense. Before it was just conversions of the production numbers or some random string of numbers.

True, especially in TOS. The TNG era is where they became a little more structured and I liked that. You could tell where the in the timeline the episode came across all the TNG era Trek shows. Of course the other problem with the new system is the dates are very Earth centric as they are based on our dates. Would the whole Federation really adopt this?
The answer is a resounding yes. There's nothing that prevents planets from keeping local time and if you look at how we keep time and dates now, we are following standards that have nothing to do with some individual nations or cultures. As Starfleet is based in San Fran, people in the service of it would probably keep time based on the time of the "head office". The Federation has adopted English as the default language and Earth as the home of the Federation, including where the President of the Federation lives. Having days that match only make sense.

Ok fair enough. I suppose what bugged me was although it is only a small change it is a BIG change in Trek universe terms. The warp and phaser changes can be put down to stylistic choice a lot easier.

As the producers didn't want to confirm this was a reboot or re-imagining (which we all know it is) it made it harder to accept in my head. If they'd come out and said it was a reboot ( ala BSG) and Spock was now a girl I wouldnt have a problem with it.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Rico on September 16, 2011, 06:25:11 PM
Dan,

The writers, producers, directors, actors, have all said this is a different universe than the "Prime" Trek universe.  This has been said in many interviews, even in the film, comics, etc.  So basically, all bets are off.  They can do anything they want to do in terms of Stardates, looks, ships, aliens, etc.  I find it much, much easier to accept and handle this way rather than if they tried to do some alternate/time/changed main Trek universe.  Anyway, I think the main, familiar elements are still all there.  And certainly the casual movie goer won't know the difference between one set of phasers or stardates from the other.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: turtlesrock on September 16, 2011, 06:31:33 PM
Quote from: Rico on September 16, 2011, 06:25:11 PM
And certainly the casual movie goer won't know the difference between one set of phasers or stardates from the other.

...but we will :) that's what i find so great about being a trekkie. :) knowing little details like that.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: stonut on September 17, 2011, 09:46:12 AM
I think the thing with the Stardates is more easily understood from the casual movie goer. But us Trek nuts see things with a different slant. I have said to other Trekkies that the new Stardates make sense from an Earth point of view only. But you have to factor in that Star Fleet head quarters are on Earth.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: ChrisMC on November 05, 2011, 04:24:37 AM
Looks like JJ wants Benicio Del Toro to be the villain in Star Trek (2?). I think he's a great choice for a villain...I could even see him as Khan, though I doubt that's where they are going.


http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118045646?refCatId=13 (http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118045646?refCatId=13)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Rico on November 05, 2011, 05:02:48 AM
Interesting idea.  I could see him as Khan (but PLEASE don't go there) or perhaps a Klingon.  Time will tell.

http://trekmovie.com/2011/11/04/j-j-abrams-wants-benicio-del-toro-as-next-star-trek-villain/ (http://trekmovie.com/2011/11/04/j-j-abrams-wants-benicio-del-toro-as-next-star-trek-villain/)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Dangelus on November 05, 2011, 06:25:57 AM
Quote from: Rico on September 16, 2011, 06:25:11 PM
Dan,

The writers, producers, directors, actors, have all said this is a different universe than the "Prime" Trek universe.  This has been said in many interviews, even in the film, comics, etc.  So basically, all bets are off.  They can do anything they want to do in terms of Stardates, looks, ships, aliens, etc.  I find it much, much easier to accept and handle this way rather than if they tried to do some alternate/time/changed main Trek universe.  Anyway, I think the main, familiar elements are still all there.  And certainly the casual movie goer won't know the difference between one set of phasers or stardates from the other.

Well that makes a lot more sense. I always thought they were using the events in the 2009 movie to try and explain the changes. How did I miss this?! Lol
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Meds on November 05, 2011, 02:19:38 PM
Benito was awesome as a Bond villain back in Licence to kill.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Rico on November 15, 2011, 03:44:06 PM
Looking even more likely these days that the next Trek film will slip to a 2013 release date.  Nothing is certain yet, but it wouldn't surprise me to see it for the summer of 2013.  :(

http://trekmovie.com/2011/11/14/j-j-abrams-star-trek-sequel-could-be-released-in-2013/#comment-4150328 (http://trekmovie.com/2011/11/14/j-j-abrams-star-trek-sequel-could-be-released-in-2013/#comment-4150328)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Poodyglitz on November 15, 2011, 04:36:28 PM
Quote from: Rico on November 15, 2011, 03:44:06 PM
Looking even more likely these days that the next Trek film will slip to a 2013 release date.  Nothing is certain yet, but it wouldn't surprise me to see it for the summer of 2013.  :(

http://trekmovie.com/2011/11/14/j-j-abrams-star-trek-sequel-could-be-released-in-2013/#comment-4150328 (http://trekmovie.com/2011/11/14/j-j-abrams-star-trek-sequel-could-be-released-in-2013/#comment-4150328)

That's O.K. As long as we get "The (not Steed/Emma) Avengers".

'Nuff said!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Ktrek on November 15, 2011, 08:03:44 PM
The farther they push it the less interest I am having. I'm actually more excited about TNG in high def than I am in seeing another movie. That may change in 2013 but I would say my interest in Star Trek in general is about half of what it was two years ago and in another two years it may not matter much to me at all.

Kevin
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Dangelus on November 16, 2011, 04:40:08 AM
Quote from: Rico on November 15, 2011, 03:44:06 PM
Looking even more likely these days that the next Trek film will slip to a 2013 release date.  Nothing is certain yet, but it wouldn't surprise me to see it for the summer of 2013.  :(

http://trekmovie.com/2011/11/14/j-j-abrams-star-trek-sequel-could-be-released-in-2013/#comment-4150328 (http://trekmovie.com/2011/11/14/j-j-abrams-star-trek-sequel-could-be-released-in-2013/#comment-4150328)

There was plenty of time for a new TV series to start up and get cancelled while we waited for the sequel! ;)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: turtlesrock on November 16, 2011, 07:11:34 AM
aww 2013? that just sounds too distant in the future, but if it really takes that long to make a great movie the new release date is fine with me.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Poodyglitz on November 16, 2011, 10:00:35 AM
Quote from: Dangelus on November 16, 2011, 04:40:08 AM
There was plenty of time for a new TV series to start up and get cancelled while we waited for the sequel! ;)

Ha!  :laugh:

There's a bit of truth to that, my friend.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Rico on November 16, 2011, 03:47:55 PM
An exclusive movie update over at Trek movie has some good news:

- Filming is set to start on Jan. 15, 2012
- Hawaii might be used for a "jungle planet" location (we know JJ loves Hawaii, aka "Lost")
- 3rd draft of the script is done
- A museum in L.A. may be used for a "famous" Trek location
- more casting news to come

Now I'm starting to get excited!

Full article:
http://trekmovie.com/2011/11/16/exclusive-star-trek-sequel-filming-starts-january-15th-locations-pre-production-update/ (http://trekmovie.com/2011/11/16/exclusive-star-trek-sequel-filming-starts-january-15th-locations-pre-production-update/)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2012
Post by: Bryancd on November 16, 2011, 04:39:09 PM
My guess for the L.A. museum location...the new Engine room! ;)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on November 23, 2011, 04:35:11 PM
Some more news - not completely official, but pretty darn close.

Release date:  May 17, 2013
And in 3D!

Star Trek sequel in 3D – May 17, 2013

TrekMovie has confirmed a report at Deadline that Paramount Pictures has officially picked Friday May 17th, 2013 as a release date for JJ Abrams Star Trek sequel. The choice is to take advantage of Sony recently moving Roland Emmerich's Singularity away from that date to to Nov 1, 2013. The May would give Star Trek a prime spot in the pre-Memorial Day Weekend. This date falls four years and one week after the May 8, 2009 release date of JJ Abrams Star Trek.

TrekMovie has also confirmed that the Star Trek sequel will be released in 3D. A trusted source tells TrekMovie that the studio feels 3D will be helpful in overseas sales for the film. Star Trek films have traditionally not done as well overseas as other tentpoles and while 3D has lost some favor in the US, it is still proving popular in international markets.

It has also been confirmed that the Star Trek sequel will again have a co-financing partner. This time Skydance Productions will be chipping in. The 2009 Star Trek film was co-financed by Spyglass Entertainment. It has become very common with big budget tentpoles to have co-financing partners.

Delayed but finally moving along

As TrekMovie recently reported, the Star Trek sequel will kick off production on January 15, 2012. And last week co-writer producer Bob Orci confirmed that the team were already on their 3rd draft of the script.  Pre-production for the film has been underway for months and some effects shots are already being worked on by ILM. A source tells TrekMovie that the Abrams team would have been able to deliver the film for a Holiday 2012 release, but Paramount preferred a Summer release date (like they did with the 2009 Star Trek film).

The May 2013 date is the second official release date for this twelfth entry in the Star Trek franchise. In early 2010 Paramount set June 29, 2012 as the release date, but in June of 2011 the studio officially put the GI Joe 2 film into that slot – leaving the Star Trek release date into limbo. While there are a number of factors that led to that decision, the biggest is director/producer JJ Abrams lack of availability in early 2011 while he was in post-production on Super 8. Without sufficient availability of Abrams (and producing partner Bryan Burk) the team could not move forward on finalizing the script andstarting pre-production in enough time to deliver a film by Summer 2012.


http://trekmovie.com/2011/11/23/star-trek-sequel-to-be-released-may-17-2013-in-3d/#comment-4192061 (http://trekmovie.com/2011/11/23/star-trek-sequel-to-be-released-may-17-2013-in-3d/#comment-4192061)

Oh, and at least Michael Giacchino will be returning to score the film.
http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=84605 (http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=84605)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on November 23, 2011, 07:20:50 PM
Impossible! 3D is a fad!! ;)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on November 24, 2011, 05:36:35 AM
Quote from: Bryancd on November 23, 2011, 07:20:50 PM
Impossible! 3D is a fad!! ;)

I see you are catching on Bryan - it is a fad.  :)

But, I am happy we are finally getting some movement on this film - even if it's going to be a longer wait.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: DrKankles on November 24, 2011, 06:28:54 AM
If they drag it out much longer the cast will look like the Undiscovered Country.  I have an extreme fear of JJ for this film.  The second film make or breaks you.

Jeff  :usflag
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on November 24, 2011, 06:35:45 AM
Quote from: Rico on November 24, 2011, 05:36:35 AM
Quote from: Bryancd on November 23, 2011, 07:20:50 PM
Impossible! 3D is a fad!! ;)

I see you are catching on Bryan - it is a fad.  :)

But, I am happy we are finally getting some movement on this film - even if it's going to be a longer wait.

Yeah me too, although I am surprised they are going to film it in 3D. I recall we talked about that possibility last year and I didn't think they would. The studio seems to feel that even in almost 2 years, 3D provides additional revenue for a feature release like this globally. That's interesting.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on November 24, 2011, 07:02:35 AM
The comment they make in the article on the 3D is that they feel it will help the movie generate more overseas business - not business here in the US where 3D hasn't helped as much at the box office as some hoped it would.  I'm happy that at least if they are doing it in 3D, at least they are filming it in that format with the proper equipment.

Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: turtlesrock on November 24, 2011, 10:58:46 AM
3D is good. just imagine it, the enterprise zooming through space, with the amazing battle music in the background....
"dun, dun DUN DUN DUN dun...." :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Meds on November 24, 2011, 12:25:23 PM
I don't know where they get that info from because 3D has been flagging over here and in Europe for quite a while.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on November 24, 2011, 12:29:43 PM
Well, as Jamie is in market research, I think it is safe to say the studios know full well what global box office receipts actually are and clearly feel the economics are there to incur the added expense of 3D filming for a major release like ST.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Meds on November 24, 2011, 12:38:55 PM
I don't think they do mate. I honestly think that they are blinkered fools. My disdain for major studios grows with every news segment that i read. If i hear of another bastardisation of a old film i will break down and cry. I can only comment on what i see here in England and every cinema we go to the cues are bigger for 2D than 3D. The majority of people i talk to about what they have seen have regretted seeing the film in 3D (bar Avatar and the odd animation film) and refuse to go again. Only last month our local multiplex put on more films in 2D screenings than 3D. A clear move that people want 2D more.
As I say though, this is only through observations here in England and some of my friends in Europe.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on November 24, 2011, 12:44:47 PM
I wouldn't presume to debate you as to the quality of product or blatant attempts to wring every available pence out of film franchises the studios undertake. :) I know how strongly you feel about it.

At the end of the day, there is an element of the global film viewing market which does pay up for 3D and the economics of that are favorable to the studios. Also, it's likely they are looking further down the road and the growth of 3D home TV's and video and want big properties like ST to be available in that format for the home market.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Meds on November 24, 2011, 01:09:05 PM
LOl I see your point Bry and I do hope they are looking down the road. Cinema is a beautiful medium for enjoyment but with modern tech growing there is a fear that the future will be home cinema. By that I mean that a film will come out and you will just download it and stream it and as much as i adore the big screen i'm bound to be one of the people who decide to stream a new film than go to the cinema.
I will say this though, you know my views on 3D and you know I'm not a fan of The Phantom Menace but I will end up going to see it in 3D purely so I can see SW in the cinema again..... and also so i can rip the backside out of it again just for fun ;)  (i'm joking there lol)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on November 24, 2011, 04:40:24 PM
Quote from: HawkeyeMeds on November 24, 2011, 01:09:05 PM
I will say this though, you know my views on 3D and you know I'm not a fan of The Phantom Menace but I will end up going to see it in 3D purely so I can see SW in the cinema again..... and also so i can rip the backside out of it again just for fun ;)  (i'm joking there lol)

Yeah, it's not my fave Star Wars movie but I think it's better than Ep. 2. Maybe that will get me stoned, I dunno. I think things like the podrace will be pretty cool to see in 3d.

4 years between Star Trek movies, I hope the wait pays off. I think fans' reactions will be much more negative than ususal if it doesn't live up to the wait and the eventual hype.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Meds on November 24, 2011, 11:44:54 PM
I agree. It's easy to rip into TPM because of Jar Jar but TCW has some of the worst editing and acting (fields of love) I've ever seen. Of course the prequels have some amazing scenes but on a tech point the CGI looks very dated compared to say Lord of the Rings which still maintain a air of realism even though it's totally fantastical.

The last Trek movie's CGI kept with the Rings style in the way everything looked like you could touch it.

Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: DrKankles on November 25, 2011, 03:02:42 AM
I think my main concern is with the writers and Abrams.  Sometimes when you hit the big time and you suddenly have dozens of projects in front of you, your quality can suffer.  I don't need JJ worried about the 31 other shows he producing or pre producing his next movie starring the Cloverfield Monster, I just need him to oversee a good star TREK, not star wars homage, film. 
The same goes for the writers, the've been so busy writing everything under the sun since Lost ended they haven't had time for a minor little franchise like Star Trek.  I feel like a bit of a worry wort, and I'm only on about a 3 of 10 of real worry, but if worrying and complaning weren't allowed, why would I be on the forum lol.

Jeff
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on November 25, 2011, 03:35:40 AM
Quote from: DrKankles on November 25, 2011, 03:02:42 AM

The same goes for the writers, the've been so busy writing everything under the sun since Lost ended they haven't had time for a minor little franchise like Star Trek.  I feel like a bit of a worry wort, and I'm only on about a 3 of 10 of real worry, but if worrying and complaning weren't allowed, why would I be on the forum lol.

Jeff

If you've read or heard interviews with the writers and producers, you know that they don't consider Star Trek a minor franchise. The longer wait is purely due to the fact that they wanted a great story and wanted to focus on Star Trek, and had to wait for JJ to be done with all his Super 8 stuff.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on November 25, 2011, 03:37:09 AM
Quote from: HawkeyeMeds on November 24, 2011, 11:44:54 PM
I agree. It's easy to rip into TPM because of Jar Jar but TCW has some of the worst editing and acting (fields of love) I've ever seen.


I wish I could just WISH my feelings away...*hork*
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Meds on November 25, 2011, 06:23:09 AM
Blurghhhhhhhhhh
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on November 25, 2011, 06:32:14 AM
I'm not feeling particularly alarmed or concerned about the delay in getting this going, to be honest. I hope the finished product reflects the time and effort put in, that's what matters most at the end of the day. i would rather have great ST content every 5 years then bad content every 2 to 3.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on November 25, 2011, 06:38:25 AM
I kinda of agree Bryan.  But honestly the delay I think is really due to these guys all just having too much going on.  I don't think it has anything to do with the quality of the end product.  JJ and the writers have a ton of TV projects going this year, along with his work on "Super 8" and other film projects too.  I'm not especially concerned either but I do feel they missed a great chance to build on the momentum of the 2009 film.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on November 25, 2011, 06:53:31 AM
Oh, yeah I didn't mean to imply they have been spending all this time working exclusively on Trek, just that I am satisfied at this point that they are giving it the attention it deserves and rather then rush it they seem to be taking a more methodical approach.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Meds on November 25, 2011, 12:37:54 PM
Yeah I'm happy to wait. Remember what happened to Bond where they tried to keep bringing a new film every 2 to 3 years slowly the contents got crap which was a shame for Brosnan. If it takes them 5 years to get it right and get a solid script then fair play.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Ktrek on November 25, 2011, 04:01:08 PM
Quote from: HawkeyeMeds on November 25, 2011, 12:37:54 PM
Yeah I'm happy to wait. Remember what happened to Bond where they tried to keep bringing a new film every 2 to 3 years slowly the contents got crap which was a shame for Brosnan. If it takes them 5 years to get it right and get a solid script then fair play.

I would strongly STRONGLY disagree here! The Moore films were a breed of their own making and catered to Moore's talents. The Dalton films are two of the best films in the entire franchise history and are far more faithful to Fleming's Bond than any of the films that came before. The Brosnan films, although fun in their own right, are an actual step backwards to the Moore style and feel and not a step forward, or faithful, at all. The Craig films so far are the most faithful to the books and I hope that trend continues. I'm really looking forward to the fall of 2012 because I have great hopes that this will be the greatest Bond film ever made!

Kevin
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Meds on November 26, 2011, 01:19:10 AM
Yeah Kevin do you actualy read the posts before you disagree. I don't think you do. I mention Brosnan films in my quote because I'm referring to his films so how can you disagree with me when you in your post knock Brosnan. Do I mention Moore? Do I mention Dalton or Craig? No.

If you want to know my thoughts on the Bond franchise them chose one of the many podcasts I've presented on the franchise including one I did here.

Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: DrKankles on November 26, 2011, 03:12:47 AM
And Meds smashes one down the line for the point.
'
Anyway, I don't equate length of time between movies as any indicator of quality.  Godfather 1 and 2, 2 years, 2 and 3, 20 years.  I think the problem is if your forced to put out a movie, i.e. 90's Bond, every so many years.  If it takes 5 years for a good script than I'm fine with that.  Despite what they have said, I still feel they don't give Star Trek quite as might attention as they could... But there is the possiblity I'm entering whiny fanboy territory. 

Jeff :usflag
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Jobydrone on November 26, 2011, 04:41:39 AM
Quote from: DrKankles on November 26, 2011, 03:12:47 AM
And Meds smashes one down the line for the point.
'
Anyway, I don't equate length of time between movies as any indicator of quality.  Godfather 1 and 2, 2 years, 2 and 3, 20 years.  I think the problem is if your forced to put out a movie, i.e. 90's Bond, every so many years.  If it takes 5 years for a good script than I'm fine with that.  Despite what they have said, I still feel they don't give Star Trek quite as might attention as they could... But there is the possiblity I'm entering whiny fanboy territory. 

Jeff :usflag
hey Jeff I just noticed your profile pic, and got a good laugh.  I'm guessing that's from a local coffee shop where they have a SW fan on staff?  Whats the story behind it?
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on November 26, 2011, 04:46:37 AM
I think the point we can all agree on is we want a quality, Trek film but maybe just a tiny bit quicker next time!  :)

P.S.  Hey JJ, less TV - more movie making!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Ktrek on November 26, 2011, 06:24:48 AM
Quote from: HawkeyeMeds on November 26, 2011, 01:19:10 AM
Yeah Kevin do you actualy read the posts before you disagree. I don't think you do. I mention Brosnan films in my quote because I'm referring to his films so how can you disagree with me when you in your post knock Brosnan. Do I mention Moore? Do I mention Dalton or Craig? No.

If you want to know my thoughts on the Bond franchise them chose one of the many podcasts I've presented on the franchise including one I did here.



I do read the posts Meds and I take offense at you saying I don't. I may have misread what you were intending. Having only had 4 hours of sleep in 48 hours can do that to a person. Sorry that I took you the wrong way.

Kevin
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Poodyglitz on November 29, 2011, 01:01:18 PM
I wish they'd release this thing as a purely digital release. By the time the movie is out, overseas audiences will probably be done with 3D. I don't want to see the film as a slightly darkened presentation.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on November 29, 2011, 01:32:46 PM
I think i am in the minority here in terms of this new Trek movie franchise.

It's OK, I've seen Star Trek (2009) twice and that's it. It's not "real" Star Trek to me but I'll take what I can get. Because of this it doesn't bother me too much that there is a delay.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Meds on November 29, 2011, 01:49:41 PM
Quote from: Ktrek on November 26, 2011, 06:24:48 AM


I do read the posts Meds and I take offense at you saying I don't. I may have misread what you were intending. Having only had 4 hours of sleep in 48 hours can do that to a person. Sorry that I took you the wrong way.

Kevin

No worries Kevin, all good. E..r 4 hours sleep in 48 hours??? Blimey I hate to ask why? I can only hope you are having a serious movie marathon.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Ktrek on November 29, 2011, 05:10:04 PM
Quote from: HawkeyeMeds on November 29, 2011, 01:49:41 PM

No worries Kevin, all good. E..r 4 hours sleep in 48 hours??? Blimey I hate to ask why? I can only hope you are having a serious movie marathon.

I could only wish that was the case but it's called retail business and Black Friday!

Kevin
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: X on November 30, 2011, 06:24:43 AM
I don't see why everyone is excited. They planned to release this five months after the end of the world ... maybe they will finish the edits by December and those left standing can quest for the last Star Trek.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on November 30, 2011, 02:28:41 PM
Variety is reporting that actress Alice Eve will have a major role in the next Trek film.  So, how about some guesses: 

Yeoman Rand?
Nurse Chapel?
Carol Marcus?
Marla McGivers?

http://trekmovie.com/2011/11/30/actress-alice-eve-chosen-for-major-star-trek-sequel-role-del-toro-deal-pending-for-villain/#comment-4221758 (http://trekmovie.com/2011/11/30/actress-alice-eve-chosen-for-major-star-trek-sequel-role-del-toro-deal-pending-for-villain/#comment-4221758)

 
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: QuadShot on November 30, 2011, 02:54:29 PM
Quote from: X on November 30, 2011, 06:24:43 AM
I don't see why everyone is excited. They planned to release this five months after the end of the world ... maybe they will finish the edits by December and those left standing can quest for the last Star Trek.

LOL Chris!!!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: X on November 30, 2011, 06:50:01 PM
Quote from: Rico on November 30, 2011, 02:28:41 PM
Variety is reporting that actress Alice Eve will have a major role in the next Trek film.  So, how about some guesses: 

Yeoman Rand?
Nurse Chapel?
Carol Marcus?
Marla McGivers?

http://trekmovie.com/2011/11/30/actress-alice-eve-chosen-for-major-star-trek-sequel-role-del-toro-deal-pending-for-villain/#comment-4221758 (http://trekmovie.com/2011/11/30/actress-alice-eve-chosen-for-major-star-trek-sequel-role-del-toro-deal-pending-for-villain/#comment-4221758)

 
They said someone new to canon, so it's going to be hard to guess that one.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: turtlesrock on November 30, 2011, 07:54:30 PM
i'd guess carol marcus.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: bevs_plaything on November 30, 2011, 09:22:37 PM
Quote from: Rico on November 30, 2011, 02:28:41 PM
Variety is reporting that actress Alice Eve will have a major role in the next Trek film.  So, how about some guesses: 

Yeoman Rand?
Nurse Chapel?
Carol Marcus?
Marla McGivers?

http://trekmovie.com/2011/11/30/actress-alice-eve-chosen-for-major-star-trek-sequel-role-del-toro-deal-pending-for-villain/#comment-4221758 (http://trekmovie.com/2011/11/30/actress-alice-eve-chosen-for-major-star-trek-sequel-role-del-toro-deal-pending-for-villain/#comment-4221758)

 

Gosh, whatever role she ends up playing I now hope it's in 3D!!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on December 01, 2011, 04:31:43 AM
Quote from: X on November 30, 2011, 06:50:01 PM
Quote from: Rico on November 30, 2011, 02:28:41 PM
Variety is reporting that actress Alice Eve will have a major role in the next Trek film.  So, how about some guesses: 

Yeoman Rand?
Nurse Chapel?
Carol Marcus?
Marla McGivers?

http://trekmovie.com/2011/11/30/actress-alice-eve-chosen-for-major-star-trek-sequel-role-del-toro-deal-pending-for-villain/#comment-4221758 (http://trekmovie.com/2011/11/30/actress-alice-eve-chosen-for-major-star-trek-sequel-role-del-toro-deal-pending-for-villain/#comment-4221758)

 
They said someone new to canon, so it's going to be hard to guess that one.

It says "believed to be new to canon."  So nothing is confirmed yet.  I was taking guesses obviously if it turns out she is a character we have seen before.  I'm starting to think they are doing Khan again.  But, we'll know for sure soon enough.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Bromptonboy on December 01, 2011, 06:11:45 AM
I am pulling for an Orion Slave Girl...

Yeoman Rand is the most likely I would guess.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on December 01, 2011, 06:14:48 AM
Quote from: bevs_plaything on November 30, 2011, 09:22:37 PM
Quote from: Rico on November 30, 2011, 02:28:41 PM
Variety is reporting that actress Alice Eve will have a major role in the next Trek film.  So, how about some guesses: 

Yeoman Rand?
Nurse Chapel?
Carol Marcus?
Marla McGivers?

http://trekmovie.com/2011/11/30/actress-alice-eve-chosen-for-major-star-trek-sequel-role-del-toro-deal-pending-for-villain/#comment-4221758 (http://trekmovie.com/2011/11/30/actress-alice-eve-chosen-for-major-star-trek-sequel-role-del-toro-deal-pending-for-villain/#comment-4221758)

 

Gosh, whatever role she ends up playing I now hope it's in 3D!!

Hahaha!!

Could be anybody I suppose. I hope they don't do Khan. Some things just don't need a reboot.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: X on December 01, 2011, 06:22:26 AM
Quote from: Dangelus on December 01, 2011, 06:14:48 AM
Quote from: bevs_plaything on November 30, 2011, 09:22:37 PM
Quote from: Rico on November 30, 2011, 02:28:41 PM
Variety is reporting that actress Alice Eve will have a major role in the next Trek film.  So, how about some guesses: 

Yeoman Rand?
Nurse Chapel?
Carol Marcus?
Marla McGivers?

http://trekmovie.com/2011/11/30/actress-alice-eve-chosen-for-major-star-trek-sequel-role-del-toro-deal-pending-for-villain/#comment-4221758 (http://trekmovie.com/2011/11/30/actress-alice-eve-chosen-for-major-star-trek-sequel-role-del-toro-deal-pending-for-villain/#comment-4221758)

 

Gosh, whatever role she ends up playing I now hope it's in 3D!!

Hahaha!!

Could be anybody I suppose. I hope they don't do Khan. Some things just don't need a reboot.
Agreed! I wouldn't want to see Khan and I think a retelling of Space Seed would be kind of boring on the big screen. I want something fresh because if I want to see Khan, I can just turn on netflix or toss on a DVD. There is far too much unknown for us to go right back to the well. If we did go to the well, I'd hope it would be with things that we have seen only hinted at before on the shows. Like the Breen, Tzenkethi, Bluegills, or Gorn in the role of adversary and fleshed out. With the Federation hurting from the Nero incident, I could see a story of others trying to test their defenses.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on December 01, 2011, 08:25:27 AM
I certainly would not prefer Khan.  BUT, I have no doubt that if they did redo it that it certainly wouldn't simply be a retelling of the old story.  I keep hearing comments out there that this film will have a "bigger scope" that the previous one.  That gives me hope that it might not be the Khan story.  We'll know soon as more cast announcements pop up.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on December 01, 2011, 08:39:14 AM
I'm actually kind of ambivalent about a reboot of the Khan story. I can see why they might go that routes as it's a good touchstone for all Trek fans, even the most casual. But i also agree the number of untold stories is pretty good fodder and it shouldn't take much to create a compelling original story.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on December 01, 2011, 08:40:41 AM
Well if they do it it will be more "Wrath of Khan" than "Space Seed" I'm sure, probably taking elements from both.

I'm hoping they don't retread old ground but go drastically different, even they they use some old characters, to establish this as I completely new universe with a new story to tell.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on December 01, 2011, 08:44:26 AM
Keep in mind "Wrath of Khan" is 30 years old next year.  That means probably a lot of the movie going audience has never even seen that film or know the story.  For people like us, a new story would be better.  But in a way, they need to do what they think will generate the most box office.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on December 01, 2011, 08:56:41 AM
Agreed, Rico. I wonder if they do go down that path how will they handle the Eugenics War and all of that? Could be interesting to explore that event as i assume it predates Nero's incursion into the new time line.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on December 01, 2011, 09:02:51 AM
Quote from: Bryancd on December 01, 2011, 08:56:41 AM
Agreed, Rico. I wonder if they do go down that path how will they handle the Eugenics War and all of that? Could be interesting to explore that event as i assume it predates Nero's incursion into the new time line.

I'm still confused after 3 years as to what this universe is supposed to be. I've read that the timeline split after Nero entered the timeline and I've read that is was always supposed to be an alternate universe.

I would be much happier with the latter as there are a lot of elements in the first film that are different and predate any timeline disruption.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on December 01, 2011, 09:07:07 AM
Wasn't Nero skulking about the new universe for many years prior to attacking the Kelvin?
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: X on December 01, 2011, 09:16:01 AM
Quote from: Bryancd on December 01, 2011, 08:56:41 AM
Agreed, Rico. I wonder if they do go down that path how will they handle the Eugenics War and all of that? Could be interesting to explore that event as i assume it predates Nero's incursion into the new time line.
I think that my issue with Khan was summed up with what Rico said. The story is 30+ years old. Now granted, there are a ton of new faces that have never seen the old story, but part of the magic of Khan was that he was a pre-existing character that came from the series. That would be a lot of screen time introducing Khan, establishing his backstory and turning him into a threat for one film to pull off.

If anything, I'd rather see V'ger introduced because we saw that it exists in the Countdown series or the Nero series.

Speaking of rehashing, here are a few things that I would like to see...

-The Fall of El Aloria, something never seen on screen and would be around a similar time. Maybe we see the doomsday machine fighting the borg
- Klingon Invasion of the Federation to make use of the weakened military might.


I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the next movie will be about the Klingon testing the Federation in some way. Del Toro would make a great Klingon General and it wouldn't be hard pressed to develop that kind of story. I'm even willing to go so far as say.

- Klingons have some new tech thanks to two decades of studying Nero's ship.
- To recover the lose of honor and Nero stomping them, they attack the Federation, who they blame for Nero and because the Federation is weak from the battle with Nero.
- Spock and Kirk will bond more because of another Away mission that builds the friendship that we need to happen.
- Maybe toss in the Organans as part of the story to create the treaty, but instead of a planet, they are fighting over a sector or some major resource.
- This will have a good number of both space and land battles and might even involve Kirk and Spock trying to sabotage something critical in the story to generate the previously mentioned bonding scene.
- Kirk will meet a new woman, but won't become a baby daddy anytime in the near future.
- Story will end with a major change in the fabric of the Federation.

In summary ... Klingon and war, with major ramifications at the end.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: X on December 01, 2011, 09:16:54 AM
Quote from: Bryancd on December 01, 2011, 09:07:07 AM
Wasn't Nero skulking about the new universe for many years prior to attacking the Kelvin?
Between finding V'Ger and sitting in a Klingon jail, yeah he was around.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on December 01, 2011, 09:18:52 AM
Quote from: X on December 01, 2011, 09:16:54 AM
Quote from: Bryancd on December 01, 2011, 09:07:07 AM
Wasn't Nero skulking about the new universe for many years prior to attacking the Kelvin?
Between finding V'Ger and sitting in a Klingon jail, yeah he was around.

Right, so that would account for how different the time line already was by the time of the film.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on December 01, 2011, 09:21:39 AM
Ah I guess I didn't read the Nero series where perhaps they is a bit more information.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: X on December 01, 2011, 09:26:56 AM
Quote from: Dangelus on December 01, 2011, 09:02:51 AM
Quote from: Bryancd on December 01, 2011, 08:56:41 AM
Agreed, Rico. I wonder if they do go down that path how will they handle the Eugenics War and all of that? Could be interesting to explore that event as i assume it predates Nero's incursion into the new time line.

I'm still confused after 3 years as to what this universe is supposed to be. I've read that the timeline split after Nero entered the timeline and I've read that is was always supposed to be an alternate universe.

I would be much happier with the latter as there are a lot of elements in the first film that are different and predate any timeline disruption.
It was always an alternate timeline, which would explain the differences in ships. As morbid as this sounds, when trying to explain it, I hear Kevin Cosner in my head saying "Back and to the left... back and to the left ... back and to the left"

Nero went back in time, but jumped train tracks in the process.

It also gets around that pesky time travel paradox thing. Time travel isn't possible, but moving to similar dimensions are. Hell, as far as the quantum mechanics of it goes, they could have just went sideways in time where it "looked" like they went back in time, but the other universe just started later. (Sliders has an episode like that)

So your answer in a nutshell is that it was both and neither. It could be several things or none of them.

- Alternate universe that was changed by subjective time travel and will change the future of the universe
- Alternate universe that just runs slower than ours and the lag between Spock and Nero has more to do with relativistic travel than temporal travel. Larger ship getting pulled faster to the event horizon than the smaller ship of less mass.
- Alternate time line where the time travel was always predestined to happen, so nothing is changed
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: X on December 01, 2011, 09:28:03 AM
Quote from: Bryancd on December 01, 2011, 09:18:52 AM
Quote from: X on December 01, 2011, 09:16:54 AM
Quote from: Bryancd on December 01, 2011, 09:07:07 AM
Wasn't Nero skulking about the new universe for many years prior to attacking the Kelvin?
Between finding V'Ger and sitting in a Klingon jail, yeah he was around.

Right, so that would account for how different the time line already was by the time of the film.
Mostly, but not for the look and design of the Kelvin.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on December 01, 2011, 09:31:21 AM
Quote from: X on December 01, 2011, 09:26:56 AM
Quote from: Dangelus on December 01, 2011, 09:02:51 AM
Quote from: Bryancd on December 01, 2011, 08:56:41 AM
Agreed, Rico. I wonder if they do go down that path how will they handle the Eugenics War and all of that? Could be interesting to explore that event as i assume it predates Nero's incursion into the new time line.

I'm still confused after 3 years as to what this universe is supposed to be. I've read that the timeline split after Nero entered the timeline and I've read that is was always supposed to be an alternate universe.

I would be much happier with the latter as there are a lot of elements in the first film that are different and predate any timeline disruption.
It was always an alternate timeline, which would explain the differences in ships. As morbid as this sounds, when trying to explain it, I hear Kevin Cosner in my head saying "Back and to the left... back and to the left ... back and to the left"

Nero went back in time, but jumped train tracks in the process.

It also gets around that pesky time travel paradox thing. Time travel isn't possible, but moving to similar dimensions are. Hell, as far as the quantum mechanics of it goes, they could have just went sideways in time where it "looked" like they went back in time, but the other universe just started later. (Sliders has an episode like that)

So your answer in a nutshell is that it was both and neither. It could be several things or none of them.

- Alternate universe that was changed by subjective time travel and will change the future of the universe
- Alternate universe that just runs slower than ours and the lag between Spock and Nero has more to do with relativistic travel than temporal travel. Larger ship getting pulled faster to the event horizon than the smaller ship of less mass.
- Alternate time line where the time travel was always predestined to happen, so nothing is changed

I'm much happier with this explanation. It frees up the writing a heck of a lot and we don't have to worry about how they are trying to shoehorn things in. :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on December 01, 2011, 09:36:01 AM
Oh, right, didn't the Kelvin encounter Nero's ship just as they entered the new universe from the prime universe?
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on December 01, 2011, 09:42:31 AM
I think I should rewatch Star Trek (2009) soon lol.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Zarabeth32 on December 01, 2011, 09:45:54 AM
Ok. Let's say they have a Khan-like movie again. What would happen to Spock? Would he die? Would there be a genesis type planet? If he died and regenerated, how would the whole katra story play out and where would the ceremony take place now that Vulcan no longer exists? Would Spock even die?

If they really go the Khan route, they need to take a different angle. It would be good to see some kind of nemesis bonding take place with this Kirk and Khan because they end up becoming mortal enemies. Something dynamic has to happen between these two characters.

Just curious.
Z
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Jobydrone on December 01, 2011, 10:06:17 AM
Where was V'Ger mentioned in the reboot?  Did I completely miss that?  I saw that movie three times at least!

I would be shocked beyond words if the Klingons don't have a major role in the next film.  They were barely mentioned in the last movie and they are THE iconic Trek villians.  While I'd love to see Benecio Deltoro's take on Khan, I think he'd be great in that role, I think it is more likely that they cover him in makeup as a Klingon like Chris guessed.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on December 01, 2011, 10:08:08 AM
No, V'ger wasn't mentioned in the JJ film, Chris was just speculating on interesting story directions based on the comics.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: X on December 01, 2011, 11:00:14 AM
Quote from: Jobydrone4of20 on December 01, 2011, 10:06:17 AM
Where was V'Ger mentioned in the reboot?  Did I completely miss that?  I saw that movie three times at least!

I would be shocked beyond words if the Klingons don't have a major role in the next film.  They were barely mentioned in the last movie and they are THE iconic Trek villians.  While I'd love to see Benecio Deltoro's take on Khan, I think he'd be great in that role, I think it is more likely that they cover him in makeup as a Klingon like Chris guessed.
What Bryan said. It wasn't in the film, but the comics that showed what he did before and after he destroyed the Kelvin and up to when Spock arrives.

Basically they fleshed out several things

- The tribal tattoos weren't just for show. They are mourning face pant the Romulans wear for their dead during the mourning period. Nero and crew got their tattooed on because they could never get over losing their world and their people
- Nero, who had been friends with Spock and melded with him, kept a connection from that meld and used it to find V'Ger, who then calculated the arrival time and location of Spock.
- Nero lost his ear on the Romulan prison camp he was at after the Kelvin battle. His ship had not fully healed by then and I guess he wanted to pass the time with free room and board. Which was reflected in some of the commercials when he says "It's time."
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Jobydrone on December 01, 2011, 11:24:12 AM
You're talking about the comic "Countdown"?   I read that but don't remember much, definitely not the V'Ger stuff.  I do remember them going into great detail about what that red goop was that blew up Nero's ship.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: turtlesrock on December 01, 2011, 07:52:52 PM
twas the first star trek book they got at the school library. good times.... :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: KingIsaacLinksr on December 01, 2011, 08:48:16 PM
Personally, if they reboot Khan, then I'll lose faith in the Star Trek franchise of having any potential new stuff.  I mean, this is space that we are talking about, surely we can bring something new to the table than a 30 year old villain who I think did well enough the first time around.  Plus, I just don't really see how they could redo the magic like Khan and Kirk had back in the Original series. 

Don't get me wrong, I'll see the movie even if its Khan-esque, (unless its horrible ofc) but I won't hold any hope for a TV series afterwards.  I mean, these writers will have had years to work on a script and the best they can do is a reboot?....

Granted, this is all speculation so I will just wait and wait and wait and wait ;).  Hopefully its good stuff, as I rather enjoyed the 2009 flick.

King
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: DrKankles on December 02, 2011, 03:08:58 AM
While Khan is a famous one off villain, the Klingons are pretty famous in their own right to the general public.  I think they will split the difference on the storylines.  I think it will be a battle of wills, lots of outwitting each other, but it will be a new Klingon bad guy.
Note to this:  Anyone else worried we're gonna end up with some crap Klingon makeup.  I could definitely see the JJ boys thinking the KLingons need a minor (by minor I mean total) change.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Poodyglitz on December 02, 2011, 08:50:21 AM
Quote from: DrKankles on December 02, 2011, 03:08:58 AM
Anyone else worried we're gonna end up with some crap Klingon makeup.  I could definitely see the JJ boys thinking the KLingons need a minor (by minor I mean total) change.

I do get a little concerned when I think about it, especially after seeing outtakes from the 2009 film. Although I wouldn't mind if they fixed the teeth. They tended to make many of the actors sound funny.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on December 02, 2011, 10:55:44 AM
Quote from: Darmok on December 02, 2011, 08:50:21 AM
Quote from: DrKankles on December 02, 2011, 03:08:58 AM
Anyone else worried we're gonna end up with some crap Klingon makeup.  I could definitely see the JJ boys thinking the KLingons need a minor (by minor I mean total) change.

I do get a little concerned when I think about it, especially after seeing outtakes from the 2009 film. Although I wouldn't mind if they fixed the teeth. They tended to make many of the actors sound funny.

There not going for black wigs, moustaches and spray tan for this one? ;)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on December 03, 2011, 10:57:40 AM
JJ Abrams has denied a report that Benicio del Toro would play Khan.  So, I think this nearly confirms the villain is not Khan but probably someone new.  YESSSSS!!!

http://trekmovie.com/2011/12/02/rumor-star-trek-sequel-villain-role-revealed/ (http://trekmovie.com/2011/12/02/rumor-star-trek-sequel-villain-role-revealed/)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on December 03, 2011, 12:37:49 PM
Quote from: Rico on December 03, 2011, 10:57:40 AM
JJ Abrams has denied a report that Benicio del Toro would play Khan.  So, I think this nearly confirms the villain is not Khan but probably someone new.  YESSSSS!!!

http://trekmovie.com/2011/12/02/rumor-star-trek-sequel-villain-role-revealed/ (http://trekmovie.com/2011/12/02/rumor-star-trek-sequel-villain-role-revealed/)

Beat me to it! I also get the feeling he has zero desire to rehash old Trek stories.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on December 03, 2011, 12:39:05 PM
Quote from: Rico on December 03, 2011, 10:57:40 AM
JJ Abrams has denied a report that Benicio del Toro would play Khan.  So, I think this nearly confirms the villain is not Khan but probably someone new.  YESSSSS!!!

http://trekmovie.com/2011/12/02/rumor-star-trek-sequel-villain-role-revealed/ (http://trekmovie.com/2011/12/02/rumor-star-trek-sequel-villain-role-revealed/)

Well this is good news.

I'd love to see a big Klingon presence in the next movie but the is also a huge opportunity to do a lot more with the Romulans too. I always thought they were underused especially in the movies. With Vulcan gone and the knowledge that Romulus is on borrowed time I would expect the Romulans to take more of an aggressive stance on the Federation.

How about seeing the Klingon / Romulan alliance?   :metallica:
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on December 03, 2011, 03:50:48 PM
Much can be done with the Klingons.  There's a big, wide universe out there.  Go explore it! 
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: MARKO on December 03, 2011, 04:08:14 PM
I vote Romulans and Klingons ..... maybe even a Borg Cube???? Ya never know.

Marko
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: turtlesrock on December 03, 2011, 07:03:23 PM
a borg cube, that would be GREAT! it's a mirror universe, anything is possible!
romulans and klingons would be cool to.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Poodyglitz on December 04, 2011, 05:13:05 PM
Quote from: Dangelus on December 03, 2011, 12:39:05 PM
Well this is good news.

I'd love to see a big Klingon presence in the next movie but the is also a huge opportunity to do a lot more with the Romulans too. I always thought they were underused especially in the movies. With Vulcan gone and the knowledge that Romulus is on borrowed time I would expect the Romulans to take more of an aggressive stance on the Federation.

Romulans got short-shrift in Trek prime movies. They weren't even done justice in "Nemesis", IMHO.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: M-5 on December 04, 2011, 05:51:50 PM
Quote from: Darmok on December 04, 2011, 05:13:05 PM
Quote from: Dangelus on December 03, 2011, 12:39:05 PM
Well this is good news.

I'd love to see a big Klingon presence in the next movie but the is also a huge opportunity to do a lot more with the Romulans too. I always thought they were underused especially in the movies. With Vulcan gone and the knowledge that Romulus is on borrowed time I would expect the Romulans to take more of an aggressive stance on the Federation.

Romulans got short-shrift in Trek prime movies. They weren't even done justice in "Nemesis", IMHO.
Agreed.  I wouldn't mind seeing some more Romulans.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: billybob476 on December 05, 2011, 08:14:46 AM
Looks like Robocop has joined the cast!

http://www.firstshowing.net/2011/peter-weller-the-latest-to-join-the-growing-star-trek-2-ensemble-cast/ (http://www.firstshowing.net/2011/peter-weller-the-latest-to-join-the-growing-star-trek-2-ensemble-cast/)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on December 05, 2011, 08:28:17 AM
That's cool news.  He plays a very convincing bad guy (assuming he'll be on that side of things in the movie).  Plus he has some Trek history too from being on Enterprise.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on December 05, 2011, 08:58:02 AM
Ooh he'd make a great Romulan! :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on December 05, 2011, 12:40:01 PM
Ooooh. Great casting. He was a fun bad guy on Dexter. I think he could also be cool as like some kind of badass starship captain.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on December 05, 2011, 07:04:53 PM
Benicio Del Toro OUT of Star Trek 2...bummer.

http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2011/12/benicio-del-toro-star-trek-sequel-khan.html (http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2011/12/benicio-del-toro-star-trek-sequel-khan.html)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: turtlesrock on December 05, 2011, 07:12:14 PM
aww dang!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on December 06, 2011, 01:28:13 AM
Maybe he WAS going to be Khan after all.....
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Feathers on December 06, 2011, 01:49:15 AM
Quote from: Dangelus on December 06, 2011, 01:28:13 AM
Maybe he WAS going to be Khan after all.....

That's what the article says...
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on December 06, 2011, 02:05:11 AM
Quote from: Feathers on December 06, 2011, 01:49:15 AM
Quote from: Dangelus on December 06, 2011, 01:28:13 AM
Maybe he WAS going to be Khan after all.....

That's what the article says...

Well it just restates the rumours but nothing official. Looks like his casting fell through over $$. Also I can't see Peter Weller playing Khan so either he is not the main baddie, they are hastily rewriting the script or Khan was never in the movie at all.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on December 06, 2011, 05:36:47 AM
JJ Abrams has stated recently that Khan wasn't going to be the villain - ever.  So, the easy guess now is Benicio might have played whatever ever bad guy role is now going to Peter Weller.  At least maybe.  They seem like different types of actors, ages, looks, etc.  Unless the villain is in pretty heavy makeup maybe, as in a Klingon, Romulan, etc.  We'll know soon enough.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on December 06, 2011, 06:04:19 AM
Quote from: Rico on December 06, 2011, 05:36:47 AM
JJ Abrams has stated recently that Khan wasn't going to be the villain - ever.  So, the easy guess now is Benicio might have played whatever ever bad guy role is now going to Peter Weller.  At least maybe.  They seem like different types of actors, ages, looks, etc.  Unless the villain is in pretty heavy makeup maybe, as in a Klingon, Romulan, etc.  We'll know soon enough.

Lol just because he said it doesn't mean it's true! :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on December 06, 2011, 08:30:24 AM
Well, when it comes right from the man himself I try to take him on his word.  :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on December 06, 2011, 09:05:16 AM
I hope you're right as a major change of direction and rewriting at this stage would have a major impact on the quality of the product IMHO.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on December 06, 2011, 09:13:19 AM
There was never any tangible proof Kahn was even considered beyond silly internet chatter. There is 100% undeniable proof JJ has said he's not remaking Khan. I think the Khan thing was a total red herring.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on December 06, 2011, 09:23:53 AM
I hope so. :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on December 06, 2011, 02:53:56 PM
Well, I for one would like to see JJ's take on Klingons. Another thing I've always wanted to see was a rogue starship captain and his crew going bad and having to be hunted down. There's just so many possibilities in this new universe, I wish there was an active tv show right now.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on December 06, 2011, 03:09:19 PM
Ok, a little commentary and update.  I think JJ Abrams may have been slightly misinterpreted in some internet reports.  So, I did a little more digging.  The story is that JJ was told that a report online said Benicio del Toro would be playing Khan in the next film.  JJ responded and said "not true."  Now, some people (me included) took this as JJ saying Khan wouldn't be the villain.  But what if it meant that just Benicio wouldn't be playing Khan??  That's a little tricky and coy and a very Obi-Wan way of answering this rumor ("from a certain point of view").

So, with this in mind maybe Peter Weller is in the movie, but maybe not the main baddie.  Who knows?  Maybe he is the genetic scientist that creates Khan and his people.  Anyway, right now not a lot is certain.  Again, we'll shall see how this all plays out.

http://www.hitfix.com/blogs/motion-captured/posts/is-benecio-del-toro-playing-khan-in-star-trek-2-or-not (http://www.hitfix.com/blogs/motion-captured/posts/is-benecio-del-toro-playing-khan-in-star-trek-2-or-not)

http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2011/12/benicio-del-toro-star-trek-sequel-khan.html (http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2011/12/benicio-del-toro-star-trek-sequel-khan.html)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on December 06, 2011, 03:19:54 PM
Well there's no such thing as bad publicity.

The thing is if the Khan rumour is true then Del Toro would be a pretty good choice. Like I said before I REALLY hope that the whole Khan story wasn't hinged on Del Toro signing up and now that he's pulled out they are frantically rewriting. This would be bad.

I guess we will see pretty soon.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on December 06, 2011, 03:30:58 PM
The guy who played Richard on "Lost" was rumored for a long time to be a front runner if they did a Khan story (especially since he knows JJ).  They are plenty of good actors who could play Khan (none as good as Ricardo of course).  I highly doubt that any big movie script would hinge on only one actor for a role.

Here's a guy I would consider for Khan.  He plays on "True Blood" and beside certainly having the physique for Khan, he's a pretty good actor too.  His name is Joe Manganiello. 

Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on December 07, 2011, 01:57:58 PM
Weller's agent let slip this little nugget about his role in Star Trek 2013

"Of course J.J. Abrams is very tight-lipped about his projects," said agent Todd Eisner, "but I do know that it's a substantial role and that Peter is playing a C.E.O."

http://www.slashfilm.com/peter-wellers-role-star-trek-sequel-revealed/ (http://www.slashfilm.com/peter-wellers-role-star-trek-sequel-revealed/)

Hmm. Interesting...a corporate guy in the Star Trek universe?
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Ktrek on December 07, 2011, 07:34:50 PM
If the Abrams team is so unimaginative that all they can come up with for their second flick is a ripoff of the most loved Star Trek movie of all time then I hate to say it but I'll likely be through with Trek.

Kevin
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on December 08, 2011, 03:32:22 AM
Well, it doesn't sound like that's what's happening. Even if they used Khan it wouldn't necessary be a ripoff of Wrath of Khan. The character would most likely be used in a different way.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: stonut on December 08, 2011, 10:00:11 AM
I for one cannot see the point of creating a whole new universe,time line and so. Then re do old stories. Especially an epic one like Khan
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Jobydrone on December 08, 2011, 10:30:17 AM
I'm not sure I agree with the majority here...I think Space Seed would be awesome material for an excellent reboot. 
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on December 08, 2011, 02:17:46 PM
I did like the way they used the Augments in Enterprise. A fresh spin would be fine. Using Khan again doesn't delete Wrath of Khan or Space Seed. Those still exist. they are excellent. This is just a new spin on the universe.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on December 08, 2011, 03:51:55 PM
While I'm sure there are new and interesting ways to tell a compelling Khan story and do a movie, I still would prefer something more original and fresh.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: turtlesrock on December 08, 2011, 06:58:11 PM
i have a feeling that it's going to have something to do with klingons. maybe kahn, but probably not. kahn has been done time and time again, i think they'll think of something new. though a new spin, something like the augments, that could work too. it wouldn't feel like something tried over and over. we'll just have to wait and see.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Zarabeth32 on December 09, 2011, 04:13:04 AM
I know that they are doing another original character Star Trek movie, but it would be great to have a Q type villain. I miss Q! He would have been great to see in a TNG movie. But he is Q so he could turn up anywhere and if this is the alternate universe then certainly Q could show up.  ;)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Bromptonboy on December 09, 2011, 10:15:58 AM
Hmm, Q would be good.  Didn't we have a thread going that speculated that 'Trelaine' was a Q?
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on December 09, 2011, 10:18:38 AM
Quote from: Bromptonboy on December 09, 2011, 10:15:58 AM
Hmm, Q would be good.  Didn't we have a thread going that speculated that 'Trelaine' was a Q?

We did.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: X on December 09, 2011, 10:53:31 AM
Quote from: Bryancd on December 09, 2011, 10:18:38 AM
Quote from: Bromptonboy on December 09, 2011, 10:15:58 AM
Hmm, Q would be good.  Didn't we have a thread going that speculated that 'Trelaine' was a Q?

We did.
It's also in the books and he might be one of Q's illegitimate kids.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Jobydrone on December 09, 2011, 11:15:00 AM
Aye there was a Peter David book about Q that featured Trelane prominently and if I remember right there was no doubt he was a Q...I forget, was it Q Squared?
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: X on December 09, 2011, 11:24:45 AM
Quote from: Jobydrone4of20 on December 09, 2011, 11:15:00 AM
Aye there was a Peter David book about Q that featured Trelane prominently and if I remember right there was no doubt he was a Q...I forget, was it Q Squared?
yep
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on December 09, 2011, 05:16:06 PM
Quote from: X on December 09, 2011, 11:24:45 AM
Quote from: Jobydrone4of20 on December 09, 2011, 11:15:00 AM
Aye there was a Peter David book about Q that featured Trelane prominently and if I remember right there was no doubt he was a Q...I forget, was it Q Squared?
yep

That is hands down one of the best Trek novels ever written.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: turtlesrock on December 09, 2011, 09:07:48 PM
Quote from: Chris-El on December 09, 2011, 05:16:06 PM
Quote from: X on December 09, 2011, 11:24:45 AM
Quote from: Jobydrone4of20 on December 09, 2011, 11:15:00 AM
Aye there was a Peter David book about Q that featured Trelane prominently and if I remember right there was no doubt he was a Q...I forget, was it Q Squared?
yep

That is hands down one of the best Trek novels ever written.

agreed
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: stonut on December 10, 2011, 07:47:11 AM
Well the latest rumour is Klingon, possibly Kor as the baddie. I think a Klingon movie would be good . We had a hint of them in the deleted scenes on rura, so you never know
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on December 11, 2011, 09:50:02 AM
Quote from: stonut on December 10, 2011, 07:47:11 AM
Well the latest rumour is Klingon, possibly Kor as the baddie. I think a Klingon movie would be good . We had a hint of them in the deleted scenes on rura, so you never know

Not sure where you saw this rumor at but I haven't seen anything like that anywhere.  Hopefully some solid info will be coming soon.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on December 13, 2011, 03:08:23 PM
Here are some nice tidbits from Simon Pegg and Bryan Burke (one of the producers).  I like what I'm reading....

While promoting his latest movie "Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol", Simon Pegg (Star Trek's Scotty) recently spoke to the Danish movie website Filmz and revealed that he knows the story for the Star Trek sequel.

Pegg says he knows part of Star Trek 2 story

Here's an excerpt from the interview with Filmz [via TrekWeb] where Pegg reveals that although he still hasn't read the script, he does know what the story will be, or at least part of the Star Trek sequel's story:

"I haven't seen a script yet. I do know the story, though. I know PART of the story, but we haven't seen a script yet. We're gonna see it soon. I think next week."

Pegg added he's confident the story is something the fans will really enjoy:
"Absolutely. It's more of what we love as Star Trek fans, you know. What's not to love?"

Speaking more generally about what he'd like to see happen with his character Scotty, Pegg says he wouldn't mind reciting more classic lines — like he did with "I'm giving it all she's got Captain" in Star Trek– but only if "done properly for the right situation and not just be done as a sly wink".

Khan in Star Trek sequel? Both Pegg and Bryan Burk cast doubt on rumors

Recently rumors have surfaced online that the villain in the sequel would be Khan (see recent stories here and here). However, director/producer J.J. Abrams has downplayed those rumors and now Pegg is echoing those statements, telling MTV he "[hasn't] heard the name Khan come up":

"Not to say it won't come up, but I have heard no mention of him whatsoever...He is a great villain. I don't want to say too much and then have to eat my words as I often do, but we've seen Khan [in a 'Trek' movie before]. To see him again, how much value is there in that? I don't know."

Bryan Burk: Sequel will be original, unique and different

Star Trek producer Bryan Burk offered a similar, albeit more concrete response, saying they chose "to do something we thought would be original and unique and different" for the sequel adding: "I think on paper, we made the right choice. Now we have to go shoot."

Burk also revealed that the the sequel will pick up after the events of 2009's Star Trek: [...W]e're going to jump right back in, and we don't have to set up everybody and we can go right in it."

For the complete MTV interviews with Burk and Pegg click here.

As previously reported, filming on the Star Trek sequel is scheduled to begin on January 15, 2012. The film — still without an official released title — is scheduled to hit conventional and 3D theaters on May 17, 2013.


http://trekmovie.com/2011/12/12/simon-pegg-says-he-knows-star-trek-2-story-more-villain-rumors/ (http://trekmovie.com/2011/12/12/simon-pegg-says-he-knows-star-trek-2-story-more-villain-rumors/)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Jobydrone on December 14, 2011, 01:14:04 AM
That all sounds really good to me...especially the original, unique, and different part
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on December 14, 2011, 02:14:33 AM
I love it when they give these interviews that tell us nothing. Of course I'm sure all the actors and crew are under NDAs so they can't talk about it but it amuses me how they answer these questions. :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Jobydrone on December 14, 2011, 07:47:47 AM
Well it's interesting that they've pretty much all but negated the Khan rumors.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Bromptonboy on December 14, 2011, 07:54:09 AM
Hmmmm, who would you vote for as the re-imagined Khan?  I am thinking Javier Bardem (of 'No Country For Old Men' fame).
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on December 14, 2011, 07:57:28 AM
Yeah, I mean this is pretty clear and considering the source, likely valid:

"Bryan Burk: Sequel will be original, unique and different

Star Trek producer Bryan Burk offered a similar, albeit more concrete response, saying they chose "to do something we thought would be original and unique and different" for the sequel adding: "I think on paper, we made the right choice. Now we have to go shoot."

Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on December 14, 2011, 08:19:56 AM
Doesn't have to be so original, unique and different this time. I wouldn't mnd getting my warp drive, phasers and star dates back ;)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on December 14, 2011, 08:35:51 AM
Quote from: Dangelus on December 14, 2011, 08:19:56 AM
Doesn't have to be so original, unique and different this time. I wouldn't mnd getting my warp drive, phasers and star dates back ;)

Dan - did you somehow miss the warping around the galaxy and phasers firing in the 2009 film?
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on December 14, 2011, 08:40:04 AM
Quote from: Rico on December 14, 2011, 08:35:51 AM
Quote from: Dangelus on December 14, 2011, 08:19:56 AM
Doesn't have to be so original, unique and different this time. I wouldn't mnd getting my warp drive, phasers and star dates back ;)

Dan - did you somehow miss the warping around the galaxy and phasers firing in the 2009 film?

Yes, what I saw were blasters and hyper drive.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: X on December 14, 2011, 10:31:31 AM
Quote from: Dangelus on December 14, 2011, 08:40:04 AM
Quote from: Rico on December 14, 2011, 08:35:51 AM
Quote from: Dangelus on December 14, 2011, 08:19:56 AM
Doesn't have to be so original, unique and different this time. I wouldn't mnd getting my warp drive, phasers and star dates back ;)

Dan - did you somehow miss the warping around the galaxy and phasers firing in the 2009 film?

Yes, what I saw were blasters and hyper drive.
That would almost be true if the Warp and phaser effects didn't change with every movie series and every tv series. It also makes sense that if you are creating a bubble of space distortion around you, visibility would be something of an issue.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on December 14, 2011, 11:19:28 AM
Quote from: X on December 14, 2011, 10:31:31 AM
Quote from: Dangelus on December 14, 2011, 08:40:04 AM
Quote from: Rico on December 14, 2011, 08:35:51 AM
Quote from: Dangelus on December 14, 2011, 08:19:56 AM
Doesn't have to be so original, unique and different this time. I wouldn't mnd getting my warp drive, phasers and star dates back ;)

Dan - did you somehow miss the warping around the galaxy and phasers firing in the 2009 film?

Yes, what I saw were blasters and hyper drive.
That would almost be true if the Warp and phaser effects didn't change with every movie series and every tv series. It also makes sense that if you are creating a bubble of space distortion around you, visibility would be something of an issue.

Phasers are generally portrayed as a continuous stream of energy despite various differences in the effects. The phasers in the 2009 movie seem to work a lot more like Star Wars blasters (with their short little bursts) IMHO. Even the SHIP phasers were portrayed like this which I didn't like. The only example of this sort of effect on ship phasers I can think of was on the Defiant. Not saying its "wrong" just not my preference.

I was annoyed by how warping worked because it was so quick like a BSG hyper drive "wink". Also it is implied that they have no sensors while at warp (the only way I can explain them coming out of warp into a major debris field).
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: X on December 14, 2011, 11:43:00 AM
Quote from: Dangelus on December 14, 2011, 11:19:28 AM
Quote from: X on December 14, 2011, 10:31:31 AM
Quote from: Dangelus on December 14, 2011, 08:40:04 AM
Quote from: Rico on December 14, 2011, 08:35:51 AM
Quote from: Dangelus on December 14, 2011, 08:19:56 AM
Doesn't have to be so original, unique and different this time. I wouldn't mnd getting my warp drive, phasers and star dates back ;)

Dan - did you somehow miss the warping around the galaxy and phasers firing in the 2009 film?

Yes, what I saw were blasters and hyper drive.
That would almost be true if the Warp and phaser effects didn't change with every movie series and every tv series. It also makes sense that if you are creating a bubble of space distortion around you, visibility would be something of an issue.

Phasers are generally portrayed as a continuous stream of energy despite various differences in the effects. The phasers in the 2009 movie seem to work a lot more like Star Wars blasters (with their short little bursts) IMHO. Even the SHIP phasers were portrayed like this which I didn't like. The only example of this sort of effect on ship phasers I can think of was on the Defiant. Not saying its "wrong" just not my preference.

I was annoyed by how warping worked because it was so quick like a BSG hyper drive "wink". Also it is implied that they have no sensors while at warp (the only way I can explain them coming out of warp into a major debris field).
Good points and allow me to counter them. Later trek, DS9 specifically used the pulse because it's more powerful. It's also better a better cinematic. If we actually used the continuous beam effect as it would display, no one would ever miss in trek because you can just walk the beam to your target like a giant lightsaber. It also would allow for more shots and less overheating in story.

As for the warp, it was shown on screen that it takes time to travel. Time did pass when they were doing their thing. Bones managed to check in and change clothing after getting Jim aboard. It wasn't instant at all, it as just cut to where unimportant time passing wasn't displayed. It also makes just a tad more sense from the physics side. I don't think that any of these changes were done just to do them, they all make some sense.

I think it also makes sense to differentiate Phasers from Lasers. Phasers have far more going for them and having the burst ability really does set it apart from the laser that was imported and renamed after the failed TOS pilot. I think we've come far enough with our tech to make the effect work better. I also think that it's something Gene might have approved of given how he changed the romulans and klingons because the cost for the effects became more cost effective.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on December 14, 2011, 12:16:42 PM
Yep, I agree with what you say. It is more cinematic etc and there is absolutely nothing wrong with these changes. For me it just takes me out of my Trek comfort zone, takes me out of the universe I'm used too which I suppose is literally what they are doing. :)

Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: X on December 14, 2011, 02:07:35 PM
Quote from: Dangelus on December 14, 2011, 12:16:42 PM
Yep, I agree with what you say. It is more cinematic etc and there is absolutely nothing wrong with these changes. For me it just takes me out of my Trek comfort zone, takes me out of the universe I'm used too which I suppose is literally what they are doing. :)


LOL! Yeah, that's exactly it.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: DrKankles on December 14, 2011, 03:53:58 PM
All excellent points.  But I want my phasers anyway.  If we are going to operate on Star Trek Logic why not keep my friendly phasers.  Also a nitpick with the phasers, please do away with the blue for stun, red for kill hand phaser thing... that was difficult to watch. 

I don't think it bothered as me as much until I listened to the commentary, that really burned me up a little... This is an homage to star wars, they did this on star wars... I know it's fan boy whining, but I don't care.  But I still enjoy the hell out of it, and I hope his star trek 2 is his khan in terms of quality.

Jeff :usflag
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Data on December 15, 2011, 06:00:00 AM
Dan ...... I know where you are coming from, we as trek fans have all watched things like phasers and the way the starships warp developed over the many years of trek.
The emotional attachment is so strong its a bit of a ask to take it all in.

I feel like I have been a part of these things in the trek timeline but all in all I need to keep focus on the fact that if i don't go with the changes then I'm missing out on the overall enjoyment.

I love the new movie but I'm with Dan I miss the small touches that make me think THIS IS OUR TREK!!!!!!! but who is to say we won't see new ideas in the new movie.

Is it wrong to keep wishing for things to be the way they used to be? ;)



Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on December 15, 2011, 08:19:41 AM
One thing I find a bit odd is you guys talk about missing the way phasers shoot or the way the Enterprise warps, but I think you might be missing a few bigger things.  Like NEW actors for all the TOS characters!  Once I saw that I had no trouble thinking of this as a different version of Trek.  :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: KingIsaacLinksr on December 15, 2011, 10:51:09 AM
Personally, I still have difficulty believing that Pine is Kirk.  But I guess that's how Shatner played the part that's throwing me.

*oh well* *shrug*

King
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: QuadShot on December 15, 2011, 11:03:41 AM
Quote from: KingIsaacLinksr on December 15, 2011, 10:51:09 AM
Personally, I still have difficulty believing that Pine is Kirk.  But I guess that's how Shatner played the part that's throwing me.

*oh well* *shrug*

King

What's wrong with Chris Pine? I thought he was fantastic as Kirk...
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: KingIsaacLinksr on December 15, 2011, 11:07:15 AM
Quote from: QuadShot on December 15, 2011, 11:03:41 AM
Quote from: KingIsaacLinksr on December 15, 2011, 10:51:09 AM
Personally, I still have difficulty believing that Pine is Kirk.  But I guess that's how Shatner played the part that's throwing me.

*oh well* *shrug*

King

What's wrong with Chris Pine? I thought he was fantastic as Kirk...

I'm just not sure.   Its just that I don't see Kirk out of Pine like I do spock out of Quinto....

King
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on December 15, 2011, 11:07:31 AM
Quote from: QuadShot on December 15, 2011, 11:03:41 AM
Quote from: KingIsaacLinksr on December 15, 2011, 10:51:09 AM
Personally, I still have difficulty believing that Pine is Kirk.  But I guess that's how Shatner played the part that's throwing me.

*oh well* *shrug*

King

What's wrong with Chris Pine? I thought he was fantastic as Kirk...

I don't think he's saying there is anything wrong with Chris Pine beyond him not being William Shatner. :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: KingIsaacLinksr on December 15, 2011, 11:21:12 AM
Quote from: Bryancd on December 15, 2011, 11:07:31 AM
Quote from: QuadShot on December 15, 2011, 11:03:41 AM
Quote from: KingIsaacLinksr on December 15, 2011, 10:51:09 AM
Personally, I still have difficulty believing that Pine is Kirk.  But I guess that's how Shatner played the part that's throwing me.

*oh well* *shrug*

King

What's wrong with Chris Pine? I thought he was fantastic as Kirk...

I don't think he's saying there is anything wrong with Chris Pine beyond him not being William Shatner. :)

Pretty much this.  :)

King
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on December 15, 2011, 11:26:52 AM
Quote from: Rico on December 15, 2011, 08:19:41 AM
One thing I find a bit odd is you guys talk about missing the way phasers shoot or the way the Enterprise warps, but I think you might be missing a few bigger things.  Like NEW actors for all the TOS characters!  Once I saw that I had no trouble thinking of this as a different version of Trek.  :)

The thing is over the years we have seen many actors in different Trek shows and movies so we are used to that. I think it was easier to accept new actors in these roles for this reason and because of course it is a contempory reboot and had to have new young actors.

It just doesn't "feel" like Trek to me, it's hard to explain. It feels like an a very well made action Sci Fi movie with familiar elements from the Trek universe. Perhaps part of the problem for me is that I see these movies as the reason we won't be getting Trek TV series anytime soon. I know this isn't the real reason but I can't help feeling a little of that. :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on December 15, 2011, 12:05:49 PM
I hear you Dan and I have a similar reaction to it.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on December 15, 2011, 03:51:38 PM
Yeah i kinda agree....it's the 30 plus years of previous Trek clouding my perceptions.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: WillEagle on December 17, 2011, 06:15:26 AM
I have said this before but here I go again. When I starting watching the 2009 Trek I didn't fully jump in until they mentioned this being in an alternate universe. Then I was all in and really enjoyed it! I can't wait for the new movie and I do hope it doesn't use Khan. I know its a different universe but we already had a Khan movie and there is nobody better than the original Khan. There are so many possibilities out there for them to just come out with another Khan movie. May of 2013 can't get here soon enough.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: stonut on December 19, 2011, 07:28:07 AM
Simon Pegg and one if the exec producer recently did an interview and said the baddy is not Khan.
In fact the exec said what is the point of creating a new universe to do an old story.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on December 22, 2011, 08:41:13 AM
It's becoming more and more confirmed that this WILL NOT be a Khan story.  It will be an original story for this new group.  Also, JJ Abrams is not filming it in 3-D, it will be post-converted later.  Why - oh why?!?!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on December 22, 2011, 08:43:21 AM
Quote from: Rico on December 22, 2011, 08:41:13 AM
  Also, JJ Abrams is not filming it in 3-D, it will be post-converted later.  Why - oh why?!?!

THAT is a big mistake and missed opportunity. Makes you wonder how much faith the studio has with the franchise. They should provide the budget to film this in native 3D.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: turtlesrock on December 22, 2011, 08:49:27 AM
what's the difference between filmed in 3D and converted later? it's going to end up in 3D either way, so why not do whichever is more cost-effective?
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on December 22, 2011, 08:50:03 AM
Agreed.

We're shooting on film, 2-D, and then we'll do a good high-end conversion like the 'Harry Potter' movie and all that. Luckily, with our release date now we have the months needed to do it right because if you rush it, it never looks good.... "We were talking about [shooting in IMAX] and I would love to do it. IMAX is my favorite format; I'm a huge fan," he added.

http://trekmovie.com/2011/12/20/jj-abrams-gives-star-trek-sequel-update-to-be-shot-in-2-d-converted/ (http://trekmovie.com/2011/12/20/jj-abrams-gives-star-trek-sequel-update-to-be-shot-in-2-d-converted/)

Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on December 22, 2011, 08:53:44 AM
Quote from: Rico on December 22, 2011, 08:50:03 AM
Agreed.

We’re shooting on film, 2-D, and then we’ll do a good high-end conversion like the ‘Harry Potter’ movie and all that. Luckily, with our release date now we have the months needed to do it right because if you rush it, it never looks good…. "We were talking about [shooting in IMAX] and I would love to do it. IMAX is my favorite format; I’m a huge fan," he added.

http://trekmovie.com/2011/12/20/jj-abrams-gives-star-trek-sequel-update-to-be-shot-in-2-d-converted/ (http://trekmovie.com/2011/12/20/jj-abrams-gives-star-trek-sequel-update-to-be-shot-in-2-d-converted/)

Hmmm. Even with time I just don't see how up converting will ever look as good, although i did not see the last Harry Potter movie. I did hear the 3D in that was pretty good, though.

Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: bevs_plaything on December 30, 2011, 01:43:14 PM
Quote from: Rico on December 22, 2011, 08:41:13 AM
  It's becoming more and more confirmed that this WILL NOT be a Khan story.
[/quote]

That is great news!  Trying to remake Khan is like trying to remake Star Wars, or The Wizard of Oz...a complete waste of time!  :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: X on December 31, 2011, 05:48:43 PM
Quote from: bevs_plaything on December 30, 2011, 01:43:14 PM
Quote from: Rico on December 22, 2011, 08:41:13 AM
  It's becoming more and more confirmed that this WILL NOT be a Khan story.

That is great news!  Trying to remake Khan is like trying to remake Star Wars, or The Wizard of Oz...a complete waste of time!  :)

Star wars could use a good remake by now. Rather than trying to shoehorn GL's vision into a 30 year old film, he needs to just get new actors to film what he seems to think he wanted.

Also, think the wizard of oz needs a good make over so that they can actually do the subsequent books as a franchise.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: X on December 31, 2011, 05:50:45 PM
Quote from: Bryancd on December 22, 2011, 08:53:44 AM
Quote from: Rico on December 22, 2011, 08:50:03 AM
Agreed.

We're shooting on film, 2-D, and then we'll do a good high-end conversion like the 'Harry Potter' movie and all that. Luckily, with our release date now we have the months needed to do it right because if you rush it, it never looks good.... "We were talking about [shooting in IMAX] and I would love to do it. IMAX is my favorite format; I'm a huge fan," he added.

http://trekmovie.com/2011/12/20/jj-abrams-gives-star-trek-sequel-update-to-be-shot-in-2-d-converted/ (http://trekmovie.com/2011/12/20/jj-abrams-gives-star-trek-sequel-update-to-be-shot-in-2-d-converted/)

Hmmm. Even with time I just don't see how up converting will ever look as good, although i did not see the last Harry Potter movie. I did hear the 3D in that was pretty good, though.

The last potter was good and I thought it was native when I knew it wasn't It wasn't as layered as the native stuff, but they did it tastefully.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: stonut on January 02, 2012, 01:43:00 AM
Well they have confirmed the imax version as well now. They start shooting soon so the rumours will be flying
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: turtlesrock on January 02, 2012, 07:56:21 AM
shooting soon? whoo! =D
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Meds on January 04, 2012, 12:03:49 PM
Some cool  :tardis casting news.

'Quote'


With details very, very scarce about J.J. Abrams' Star Trek 2, even as it gears up for production this spring, we can only rely on the handful of new cast members to make guesses about what the sequel has in store. Now we've got our first casting announcement for the film this year; according to Variety, Dr. Who star Noel Clarke has taken a role in the film. Naturally, the part is fairly under wraps, but Variety hears he "will play a family man with a wife and a young daughter." Star Trek cynics may assume a guy with love for his family is a doomed redshirt with a target on his back, but really, there's no telling where they might go with this.

Clarke is familiar to Who fans as Mickey Smith, but he also had a small role in Neil Marshall's Centurion and the Andy Serkis-starring biopic Sex & Drugs & Rock & Roll. The Trek role, if it turns out to be significant, could be a huge break for the British actor, who won the BAFTA Rising Star Award in 2009. He joins the Trek 2 as a newbie without too much company-- though Alice Eve and Peter Weller are both confirmed for unspecified new roles, there's still no official word on whether Edgar Ramirez will in fact play the villain, as was rumored last December after Benicio del Toro left the project.

The movie is set for release on May 17, 2013, which is already enough to have some of us looking straight past the summer of 2012 and wondering when next summer will get here already. Even without knowing how big a role Clarke will have, this cross-over between geek-friendly franchises should already be enough to have people even more excited.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Feathers on January 04, 2012, 12:42:07 PM
OK... That does surprise me... Not in a bad way though.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Meds on January 04, 2012, 12:48:02 PM
I'm a huge fan of Noel, i've been really impressed with not only his acting but hos writing and directing skills are amazing.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: bevs_plaything on January 04, 2012, 01:16:25 PM
Gosh, that suprises me...but in a good way.  :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on January 04, 2012, 02:10:03 PM
I think it's great casting!  They sure are trickling the news out on this.  Less than 2 weeks away from the start of production.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Meds on January 04, 2012, 03:02:10 PM
I think we are going to get some great surprises over the next few weeks. I love the fact that Noel has been cast. I'd love to know if he will be playing a human or a alien.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on January 04, 2012, 03:41:02 PM
That's cool. He made a potentially unlikeably goofy-type character cool on Doctor Who. Just makes you wonder if that alternate universe he and Rose end up in is the JJ verse...
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: X on January 04, 2012, 05:13:31 PM
Quote from: Chris-El on January 04, 2012, 03:41:02 PM
That's cool. He made a potentially unlikeably goofy-type character cool on Doctor Who. Just makes you wonder if that alternate universe he and Rose end up in is the JJ verse...
Nope, he came back and left here there pining after another guy.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on January 04, 2012, 06:04:32 PM
Hmmm of the top of my head, could he be playing a younger Richard Daystrom?

That might be interesting! :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Meds on January 04, 2012, 11:44:22 PM
More sleuthing casting news (see what I did there)

'Quote'

Already set to play the evil Smaug the dragon in The Hobbit, up-and-coming British actor Benedict Cumberbatch looks to have landed another huge villainous role: the main baddie in Star Trek 2. Deadline got the scoop that he had been cast in a "a lead role," and Variety adds that it is indeed the villain role that Edgar Ramirez auditioned for last month. At the time Ramirez was considered the top choice, but for whatever reason things have changed, and Cumberbatch is now the guy.

You can see Cumberbatch practically everywhere these days, from a pivotal supporting role in Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy to a crusading soldier in War Horse to playing the lead character on BBC's Sherlock, which just premiered for its second season. While he's undeniably well-qualified to play the Trek villain, and his British snootiness should make an excellent contrast to Chris Pine's cocky American Captain Kirk, his casting seems to belie the recurring rumor that the film's major villain is Khan. As played by Ricardo Montalban in the original TV series and Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan, Khan was Indian and played by a Mexican-American actor; the rumors that del Toro and Ramirez, both Spanish-speaking actors, seemed to confirm that Khan was the guy.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on January 04, 2012, 11:46:31 PM
Ha you beat me to it! :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Meds on January 04, 2012, 11:52:39 PM
Lol hee hee geek racing
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Feathers on January 05, 2012, 02:35:49 AM
This should be a fun film!

Are they casting anyone not associated with a current Moffatt BBC show?

(yes, I know Mickey Smith was an RTD creation) ;)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on January 05, 2012, 04:40:09 AM
At this rate there'll be a cameo by Matt Smith's Doctor too! Haven't they always wanted to do a Trek / Who crossover? What better time? ;)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: WillEagle on January 05, 2012, 08:31:50 PM
You can see a picture of Benedict Cumberbatch here along with a little info about some other films he will be in.www.imbd.com/news/ni20594353/ (http://www.imbd.com/news/ni20594353/)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Poodyglitz on January 06, 2012, 07:28:30 AM
Quote from: WillEagle on January 05, 2012, 08:31:50 PM
You can see a picture of Benedict Cumberbatch here along with a little info about some other films he will be in.www.imbd.com/news/ni20594353/ (http://www.imbd.com/news/ni20594353/)

404 error.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on January 06, 2012, 08:30:00 AM
Looks like you reversed some letters in the link.  Here's the correct link:

http://www.imdb.com/news/ni20594353/ (http://www.imdb.com/news/ni20594353/)

Interesting choice.  Remember, it's been stated that this will be a new and original story.  So I don't think he will be playing a character we already know.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on January 06, 2012, 08:34:06 AM
Quote from: Rico on January 06, 2012, 08:30:00 AM
Looks like you reversed some letters in the link.  Here's the correct link:

http://www.imdb.com/news/ni20594353/ (http://www.imdb.com/news/ni20594353/)

Interesting choice.  Remember, it's been stated that this will be a new and original story.  So I don't think he will be playing a character we already know.

He will make a great Klingon.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on January 06, 2012, 08:39:11 AM
Well, he should do well in whatever the role happens to be.  It seems he's a very well regarded actor.  I guess I really need to finally watch "Sherlock" now.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on January 06, 2012, 08:42:15 AM
Quote from: Rico on January 06, 2012, 08:39:11 AM
I guess I really need to finally watch "Sherlock" now.

That's so funny, I just saw that show on Netflix streaming and was wondering what it was.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on January 06, 2012, 08:44:08 AM
Quote from: Rico on January 06, 2012, 08:39:11 AM
Well, he should do well in whatever the role happens to be.  It seems he's a very well regarded actor.  I guess I really need to finally watch "Sherlock" now.

Yep he has great "presence", great actor.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on January 06, 2012, 08:54:23 AM
Quote from: Rico on January 06, 2012, 08:30:00 AM
Remember, it's been stated that this will be a new and original story.  So I don't think he will be playing a character we already know.

Original story, yes, but I think the jury is still out as to whether or not we see a TOS character.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on January 06, 2012, 09:08:21 AM
Possibly.  But how original would it really be if this actor plays Khan, or Kor, or Trelane, or Q, or whatever?  I certainly wouldn't call that very original.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on January 06, 2012, 09:49:26 AM
Quote from: Rico on January 06, 2012, 09:08:21 AM
Possibly.  But how original would it really be if this actor plays Khan, or Kor, or Trelane, or Q, or whatever?  I certainly wouldn't call that very original.

Yeah, I know, I hear you, but with the exception of Khan or Q, the other options might be a bit more obscure and fresh to a wider audience...just not us.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Poodyglitz on January 06, 2012, 10:00:47 AM
Quote from: Rico on January 06, 2012, 09:08:21 AM
Possibly.  But how original would it really be if this actor plays Khan, or Kor, or Trelane, or Q, or whatever?  I certainly wouldn't call that very original.

Agreed. No Trelaine, Harry Mudd, Cyrano Jones, etc.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on January 06, 2012, 10:04:49 AM
There are so many possibilities for an original story on this universe that I'd be very disappointed if a known character was the main focus of the story.

I'm sure we will see a known character in the movie as a "nod" to TOS and the fans but I really hope it is more of a cameo.

Think about it:

1) they could do a great Klingon story without resorting to using a character we have already seen. There is a lot they could explore here as the Klingons were pretty one dimensional in TOS.

2) the Romulans and their origins are known to the Federation in this universe (at this point in time). We could get a great Romulan story.

3) how about an insane Vulcan survivor or something involving the vacuum created in the destruction of Vulcan in this universe?

Lots of potential, I just hope they do it right. I'm not a fan of the first movie but i can accept this is a new universe and forget about the inconsistencies in the first movie as to how this universe came about so that I can really get stuck into the meat of what JJ actually wants to do with Trek now he has established his universe.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on January 06, 2012, 10:10:37 AM
Yeah, it would be a great little chuckle for the crew to run into a Harry Mudd character for a quick little fun scene but not the entire story.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Jobydrone on January 06, 2012, 10:30:45 AM
Well when Benicio was briefly attached we were told that he would be playing a character that was familiar to fans of the original series.  That could mean anything, of course. 
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Meds on January 06, 2012, 11:50:32 AM
I think this would be a good time for them to turn away from TOS and come up with all new characters etc. that way they can start afresh and maybe in say three films time bring in a TOS character.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: QuadShot on January 06, 2012, 12:07:35 PM
I agree with you Meds. If JJ is "branching" the history off into another universe, wouldn't it be logical that they would be just as likely to encounter different bad guys? Since they're now aware that they're in an alternate universe, they may make different decisions. Like for example, maybe instead of marooning Khan, Kirk would find a way to integrate Khan into their society? Hmm?
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on January 06, 2012, 12:12:19 PM
Let's hope they fork this universe as much as possible.

One of the themes of the first movie (at least when it came to the main crew) was that certain things were just "meant to be" so I hope they don't try to reconcile too much to the prime universe.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on January 06, 2012, 02:53:22 PM
Quote from: Dangelus on January 06, 2012, 10:04:49 AM

3) how about an insane Vulcan survivor or something involving the vacuum created in the destruction of Vulcan in this universe?

THIS. When I was watching Sherlock the other night (before the announcement oddly enough) I had the thought he would be an awesome Vulcan. What an interesting villain that could be.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on January 06, 2012, 03:32:00 PM
For a long time fan like me who greatly enjoyed the 2009 film, I think that still have to find that balance of old and new.  I really doubt they will stray too far from the "Trekverse" that we know and love.  This is in relation to the main crew, Starfleet, the Federation and so forth.  But, they can certainly have new aliens and new villains to deal with that we haven't seen before.  Keep in mind, it's certainly likely that Kirk and crew dealt with a lot more than we ever saw in 79 TOS episodes and 22 animated episodes.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: davekill on January 06, 2012, 05:36:02 PM
The 2009 movie had enough action and humor to keep it light, almost campy.
Not so different from TOS but young Kirk takes command of his first duty - yeah that's comic book over the top.

Should the next movie then try to 'reel it in' with more drama to give these new characters more dimension? Or would that scare off the audience of none geeks who are there for a fun date movie?

I'd hate to see the new Trek franchise turn into the next series of Transformer movies.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: turtlesrock on January 06, 2012, 06:40:34 PM
Quote from: Jobydrone on January 06, 2012, 10:30:45 AM
Well when Benicio was briefly attached we were told that he would be playing a character that was familiar to fans of the original series.  That could mean anything, of course. 
true that. there could be mr. atoz, or maybe landru. probably something more well known though.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: X on January 06, 2012, 07:25:56 PM
My whole issue with them retreading old stories is that it shouldn't happen. Kirk made captain decades earlier than he did in the Prime Universe and the destruction of vulcan pretty much insured that things were not going to play out the same. I'd hate to see them squander what they created by going back to any of the old stories.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on January 07, 2012, 03:27:33 AM
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/James_T._Kirk_%28alternate_reality%29 (http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/James_T._Kirk_%28alternate_reality%29)

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/James_T._Kirk (http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/James_T._Kirk)

He made it to Captain 8 years ealier than in the Prime universe, Kirk was still a pretty young Captain in TOS. Still, it would be pretty unlikely to have to retread old stiff. Familiar things, winks to the fans yes, but retreads would be out of place.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: WillEagle on January 07, 2012, 08:15:01 AM
Thank you for correcting the webpage link I posted. I thought it would be interesting to see what the actor looked like. I think he would make a great Romulan! He does have that Vulcan/Romulan look. There are not to many Vulcans left in JJ's universe so wouldn't it be easier to make him a Romulan. And wouldn't it be cool to see a JJ version of a Romulan Warbird!
And I agree with what alot of you are saying about having an original character and story.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on January 07, 2012, 08:21:26 AM
Quote from: WillEagle on January 07, 2012, 08:15:01 AM
Thank you for correcting the webpage link I posted. I thought it would be interesting to see what the actor looked like. I think he would make a great Romulan! He does have that Vulcan/Romulan look. There are not to many Vulcans left in JJ's universe so wouldn't it be easier to make him a Romulan. And wouldn't it be cool to see a JJ version of a Romulan Warbird!
And I agree with what alot of you are saying about having an original character and story.

Haven't you heard? He's going to play Sybok. They are remaking Star Trek V!! ;)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: WillEagle on January 07, 2012, 08:27:20 AM
Quote from: Dangelus on January 07, 2012, 08:21:26 AM
Quote from: WillEagle on January 07, 2012, 08:15:01 AM
Thank you for correcting the webpage link I posted. I thought it would be interesting to see what the actor looked like. I think he would make a great Romulan! He does have that Vulcan/Romulan look. There are not to many Vulcans left in JJ's universe so wouldn't it be easier to make him a Romulan. And wouldn't it be cool to see a JJ version of a Romulan Warbird!
And I agree with what alot of you are saying about having an original character and story.

Haven't you heard? He's going to play Sybok. They are remaking Star Trek V!! ;)
NOOOOOOO! I didn't mind that movie but if he was playing a character from a previous movie that would not be a good choice.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on January 07, 2012, 10:18:54 AM
The thing I can't quite understand yet is how Benicio del Toro and this English guy were up for the same role?  They seem to be very different types - physically especially.  It makes me really think this part will involve makeup - like a Klingon or Romulan.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on January 07, 2012, 12:31:00 PM
Quote from: Rico on January 07, 2012, 10:18:54 AM
The thing I can't quite understand yet is how Benicio del Toro and this English guy were up for the same role?  They seem to be very different types - physically especially.  It makes me really think this part will involve makeup - like a Klingon or Romulan.

Which makes me think they did a u-turn somewhere. I wouldn't be surprised that del Toro WAS going to be Khan and then they went with plan-B.

They only categorically denied the Khan was in the movie around the same time del Toro's association with the movie ended.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on January 07, 2012, 12:48:25 PM
More casting news.  The wife of Noel Clarke is revealed....

EW has  learned that Nazneen Contractor (24) has been cast in the upcoming sequel to J.J. Abrams' 2009 Star Trek reboot. The actress has been tapped to play the wife of Noel Clarke's character in the film. (Variety reported earlier this week that the Doctor Who star has signed on as "a family man with a wife and young daughter.")
Contractor is just one of the newcomers to come on board for the yet-to-be-titled Star Trek sequel. In addition to Contractor and Clarke, Benedict Cumberbatch, Peter Weller, and Alice Eve will all appear in the film, which will also feature original cast members Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto. The eagerly anticipated follow-up, which has Abrams at the helm again with screenwriters Damon Lindelof, Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci, is scheduled to engage moviegoers May 17, 2013.


http://insidemovies.ew.com/2012/01/06/nazneen-contractor-star-trek/ (http://insidemovies.ew.com/2012/01/06/nazneen-contractor-star-trek/)


Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on January 07, 2012, 12:50:41 PM
Can't they just tell us the plot already?!! Lol :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on January 07, 2012, 12:59:31 PM
Quote from: Dangelus on January 07, 2012, 12:50:41 PM
Can't they just tell us the plot already?!! Lol :)

Just hope the story is better than the story of four years of work to get us this sequel!  LOL!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on January 08, 2012, 12:33:31 PM
Here's a breakdown and picture showing the guest cast actors that we know of so far for the movie.

Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: turtlesrock on January 08, 2012, 01:15:36 PM
Quote from: Dangelus on January 07, 2012, 12:50:41 PM
Can't they just tell us the plot already?!! Lol :)
well you know what they say, the best kind of prize is a sur-prize! :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on January 10, 2012, 02:14:10 PM
Great interview with JJ at the link below about some of the recent casting.  Shooting starts this Thursday!!!  (1/12/12)

http://collider.com/jj-abrams-star-trek-2-3d-interview/136236/ (http://collider.com/jj-abrams-star-trek-2-3d-interview/136236/)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on January 10, 2012, 02:34:39 PM
I have a good feeling, I think this sequel will exist in the Godfather 2, Dark Knight, and Wrath of Khan territory...I think the creative team of this movie make good choices and the casting shows it.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on January 11, 2012, 05:40:08 AM
I agree completely Chris.  I think it's going to rock even more than the last film. 
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: QuadShot on January 11, 2012, 06:35:02 AM
Ok, I just got the scoop on the plot of the next Trek movie! Seems as if JJ is going to do some cross-franchising here. The crew of the Enterprise will find the worm hole through time that Nero used and go back to Earth on September 22 2004 and bump an airplane as it enters the Earth's atmosphere. Oddly enough, that airplane is an Oceanic Air flight # 815, and causes it to break up and crash land on an island. Of course, Kirk feeling quite guilty for causing this disaster decides to live on the island and help the survivors under the name "Jacob". Now, Spock, citing the Prime Directive, argues with Kirk and this disagreement develops into a serious battle in which Kirk, being more "powerful", imprisions Spock in a "smoke-like" form.
:) Hey, it could happen!!! :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on January 15, 2012, 11:39:16 AM
Paramount's official announcement of the start of filming....

Press Release

JJ Abrams Begins Production  On Next "Star Trek" Movie

Paramount Pictures announced that principal photography has commenced in Los Angeles, CA on the sequel to STAR TREK from director J.J. Abrams. The film will be released on May 17, 2013 in 3D. The 2009 re-launch of the "Star Trek" franchise by Abrams was met with critical acclaim and a worldwide gross of over $385 million at the box office.

Paramount Pictures and Skydance Productions present a Bad Robot Production of a J.J. Abrams Film. Returning to their posts on the Enterprise are John Cho, Bruce Greenwood, Simon Pegg, Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Zoe Saldana, Karl Urban, and Anton Yelchin. They are joined by new cast members Benedict Cumberbatch, Alice Eve and Peter Weller.

Based upon "Star Trek" created by Gene Roddenberry, the film is produced by J.J. Abrams, Bryan Burk, Damon Lindelof, Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci. The script was written by Alex Kurtzman & Robert Orci & Damon Lindelof.

Jeffrey Chernov, David Ellison, Dana Goldberg and Paul Schwake are the executive producers. The director of photography is Dan Mindel, ASC, BSC. The production designer is Scott Chambliss. The film is edited by Maryann Brandon, A.C.E. and Mary Jo Markey, A.C.E. The costume designer is Michael Kaplan. The music is by Michael Giacchino.


Also, nice LA Times story on it here too...

http://herocomplex.latimes.com/2012/01/13/star-trek-sequel-a-cosmic-cast-reunion-on-the-sony-lot/ (http://herocomplex.latimes.com/2012/01/13/star-trek-sequel-a-cosmic-cast-reunion-on-the-sony-lot/)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: turtlesrock on January 15, 2012, 01:55:40 PM
AAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWEEEEEEEESSSSSSSOOOOOMMMMMMMMEEEE!!!!!!!
PARTY! PARTY! :laugh: WHOOOOO!!!!!!!
this is a start to something AWESOME!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: davekill on January 15, 2012, 06:00:35 PM
Maybe Peter Weller is going to reprise his role as John Paxton, CEO of the Orpheus Mining Authority seen on Enterprise.
He was taken into custody at the end.
They could pick up that thread if he was put in stasis or did a little time travel.

His xenophobic 'Terra Prime' movement is could be back.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Poodyglitz on January 17, 2012, 02:51:25 PM
Quote from: Chris-El on January 10, 2012, 02:34:39 PM
I have a good feeling, I think this sequel will exist in the Godfather 2, Dark Knight, and Wrath of Khan territory...I think the creative team of this movie make good choices and the casting shows it.

Yeah, agree with you and Rico. I think they're smart and talented enough to pull this off. They've had enough time to think about it. :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on January 18, 2012, 06:09:56 AM
Quote from: davekill on January 15, 2012, 06:00:35 PM
Maybe Peter Weller is going to reprise his role as John Paxton, CEO of the Orpheus Mining Authority seen on Enterprise.
He was taken into custody at the end.
They could pick up that thread if he was put in stasis or did a little time travel.

His xenophobic 'Terra Prime' movement is could be back.

Hmmm I wonder if they'd go there?
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Poodyglitz on January 18, 2012, 06:38:05 AM
Quote from: Dangelus on January 18, 2012, 06:09:56 AM
Quote from: davekill on January 15, 2012, 06:00:35 PM
Maybe Peter Weller is going to reprise his role as John Paxton, CEO of the Orpheus Mining Authority seen on Enterprise.
He was taken into custody at the end.
They could pick up that thread if he was put in stasis or did a little time travel.

His xenophobic 'Terra Prime' movement is could be back.

Hmmm I wonder if they'd go there?

No more time travel. I'm sure he'll be a different character.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on January 18, 2012, 08:35:36 AM
Quote from: Darmok on January 18, 2012, 06:38:05 AM
Quote from: Dangelus on January 18, 2012, 06:09:56 AM
Quote from: davekill on January 15, 2012, 06:00:35 PM
Maybe Peter Weller is going to reprise his role as John Paxton, CEO of the Orpheus Mining Authority seen on Enterprise.
He was taken into custody at the end.
They could pick up that thread if he was put in stasis or did a little time travel.

His xenophobic 'Terra Prime' movement is could be back.

Hmmm I wonder if they'd go there?

No more time travel. I'm sure he'll be a different character.

His son! :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Poodyglitz on January 18, 2012, 09:43:54 PM
Good one, Dan!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on February 11, 2012, 04:45:58 AM
Some cool comments from Zachary Quinto about filming the next movie...

Getting back together with everybody was amazing. It was a little bit awkward because we've been away for four years, so for all of us to kind of find our footing again, just in relationship to shooting the movie [was a challenge]. But there's such a great connection between all of us that we were able to find our way pretty quickly.

Well, it's bigger and bolder. And I think in some ways more dynamic. And it's so exciting to be back. And the first time there was a writer's strike when we were shooting the movie so nothing was able to be changed – the script was locked. And this time Bob [Orci] and Alex [Kurtzman] and Damon [Lindeloff] and J.J.[Abrams] are really getting in and working on the story and sort of allowing it to expand and evolve – and bringing us into the process. So there's a real collaboration that wasn't even legally permitted the first time that I feel really grateful for. We're having a really great time.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Feathers on February 12, 2012, 06:46:57 AM
It's probably easier to have that sort of script collaboration once they've all played the parts for a movie. Locking it down for the first one may not have been too bad a thing.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on February 23, 2012, 03:12:40 PM
Here's a cool little video from the set with Simon Pegg and Karl Urban wishing Judge Dredd a Happy Birthday.  You don't get to see much at all about the Trek movie, but it's still neat.

http://youtu.be/elmeQVFKe8c (http://youtu.be/elmeQVFKe8c)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Meds on February 23, 2012, 03:15:11 PM
Al posted this earlier on another thread called Dredd talks. Great little video, you see a  bit of Urbans uniform.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on February 23, 2012, 03:43:59 PM
Quote from: HawkeyeMeds on February 23, 2012, 03:15:11 PM
Al posted this earlier on another thread called Dredd talks. Great little video, you see a  bit of Urbans uniform.

Ahh, I see that now.  The video has kind of dual purposes so it's cool to have both up. 
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Geekyfanboy on February 24, 2012, 10:27:02 AM
First Set Photos From the Next Star Trek Movie!
Source: MTV
February 24, 2012

MTV has posted these first two photos from the set of J.J. Abrams' next Star Trek movie that feature Spock (Zachary Quinto) and Uhura (Zoe Saldana) facing Benedict Cumberbatch.

The film also stars John Cho, Bruce Greenwood, Simon Pegg, Chris Pine, Karl Urban, Anton Yelchin, Alice Eve and Peter Weller.

The movie is scheduled for a May 17, 2013 release.

Read more: First Set Photos From the Next Star Trek Movie! - ComingSoon.net http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=87434#ixzz1nKDkO4GB (http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=87434#ixzz1nKDkO4GB)

Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on February 24, 2012, 10:29:39 AM
And we're off!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on February 24, 2012, 11:03:41 AM
Looks like he's human then.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Poodyglitz on February 24, 2012, 11:34:29 AM
Thanks for sharing, Kenny.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Feathers on February 24, 2012, 01:18:57 PM
Is that a new phaser?
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on February 24, 2012, 02:51:18 PM
WOO-HOO!!  Phaser looks maybe slightly different.  Spock's communicator looks about the same, but a bit hard to tell for both.  Glad to see they are keeping much of the look in terms of uniforms from the last movie since I liked those costumes a lot.  I'm expecting now the floodgates are going to open up with a bit more info as we go forward.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: turtlesrock on February 24, 2012, 06:07:39 PM
O.O WAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!
super excited! whooo!!!!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on February 25, 2012, 04:23:17 AM
Looks like Cumberpatch is a Starfleet cadet, or at least is wearing one of their uniforms. You can make out the insignia on his shirt.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on February 25, 2012, 04:35:25 AM
They look like they could be brothers.  If Cumberbatch is fighting Spock like that, he can't be an ordinary human.  I keep thinking Gary Mitchell - or even Gary Seven.  But I don't think they are reusing a TOS character.  Could even still be Khan.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: WillEagle on February 25, 2012, 06:01:23 AM
 :kewlpics  Can't wait, can't wait!! The phaser does look cool but for some reason it seems too big. It's probably just me. And as far as a human fighting a Vulcan, humans can get at it pretty good and not back down from anyone, see Kirk and Sisko, they can worry about the bruises later. So he can still be a normal human. Of course he could be from a planet that we don't know of yet. Oh, the possibilities!  
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on February 25, 2012, 06:32:15 AM
I still think he's not quite human.  More pics!  Notice the stunt doubles for Cumberbatch and Quinto.

Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on February 25, 2012, 07:01:08 AM
I put up a post on the main website grouping all the pics together.  Feel free to pop a comment there too.  :)

http://treksinscifi.com/podcast_notes/?p=2036 (http://treksinscifi.com/podcast_notes/?p=2036)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Feathers on February 25, 2012, 01:06:46 PM
Quote from: Dangelus on February 25, 2012, 04:23:17 AM
Looks like Cumberpatch is a Starfleet cadet, or at least is wearing one of their uniforms. You can make out the insignia on his shirt.

I think thy all wear those black layers under the coloured shirt don't they? I think it was that cadets (or at least those not assigned to the ship) didn't have the colours layer.

He could be any starfleet rank is what I'm suggesting.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on February 25, 2012, 01:18:36 PM
Quote from: Feathers on February 25, 2012, 01:06:46 PM
Quote from: Dangelus on February 25, 2012, 04:23:17 AM
Looks like Cumberpatch is a Starfleet cadet, or at least is wearing one of their uniforms. You can make out the insignia on his shirt.

I think thy all wear those black layers under the coloured shirt don't they? I think it was that cadets (or at least those not assigned to the ship) didn't have the colours layer.

He could be any starfleet rank is what I'm suggesting.

I get you, yes could be.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Feathers on February 25, 2012, 03:06:21 PM
I want to know!

OK, I'll wait for a year or so :(
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on February 25, 2012, 04:48:33 PM
Those phasers are defiantly the same as last film, which I agree is good. I like they start to establish some continuity...excpet for that Engineering Section. I bet they change that know that they have some more $ to spend and hearing fan reaction to it.

By the way, it's funny looking at still shots of action sequences shot against practical sets and a green screen. Look so lame!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on February 27, 2012, 06:02:02 AM
Here's a thought they are discussing on the RPF. What if Cumberpatch is playing a character along the lines of Gary Mitchell and they are doing something similar to the TOS epsidode "Where No Man Has Gobe Before"? That could explain why he is human, in what appears to be a Starfleet uniform, and has the physical strenghth to go toe to toe with Spock. And haven't they been to Delta Vega already? Maybe we get the Talosians as the bad guys.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: QuadShot on February 27, 2012, 08:08:07 AM
Awesome theory Bryan. I was wondering how Sherlock could stand toe to toe with Spock. That's an excellent idea!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on February 27, 2012, 08:31:27 AM
Think I mentioned Gary Mitchell several posts back.  But I'm still pretty sure this will be a completely new character.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: QuadShot on February 27, 2012, 08:46:31 AM
Quote from: Rico on February 27, 2012, 08:31:27 AM
Think I mentioned Gary Mitchell several posts back.  But I'm still pretty sure this will be a completely new character.

Gary's brother...Barry??? :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on February 27, 2012, 09:20:36 AM
Quote from: Rico on February 27, 2012, 08:31:27 AM
Think I mentioned Gary Mitchell several posts back.  But I'm still pretty sure this will be a completely new character.

I think one of the writters had dropped that name a while back as one of the potential villians or somthing along those lines.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on February 27, 2012, 02:21:41 PM
I guess JJ Abrams isn't too happy about the "leaked" pictures.  A couple comments from Quinto and Saldana at the Oscars at the link below.  And one more pic I found.

http://trekmovie.com/2012/02/27/saldana-quinto-talk-leaked-sequel-photos-say-abrams-is-upset/ (http://trekmovie.com/2012/02/27/saldana-quinto-talk-leaked-sequel-photos-say-abrams-is-upset/)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on February 28, 2012, 08:43:41 AM
Set video.  Watch it fast before it's gone!

http://youtu.be/WFAsQVa9UPo (http://youtu.be/WFAsQVa9UPo)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on February 28, 2012, 08:58:00 AM
Cool!!!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: billybob476 on February 28, 2012, 09:29:34 AM
Ohh...JJ must be upset!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: X on February 28, 2012, 10:42:37 AM
I would be
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Data on February 28, 2012, 12:51:50 PM
For those of you that have seen the video......... has anyone got any ideas about the markings you can see of what i should imagine is the hull of a ship ?

Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Meds on February 28, 2012, 01:34:11 PM
Awesome video. No idea about those markings though.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: billybob476 on February 28, 2012, 01:41:51 PM
annnd it's been pulled.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: X on February 28, 2012, 01:59:46 PM
What I don't get is how they can claim copyright on it to have it pulled. If someone films something, regardless of what it is they filmed, the person filming is the copyright holder. It's like trying to get someone's home video pulled because it has labeled products in it.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on February 28, 2012, 02:04:11 PM
Did anyone save the video?
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on February 28, 2012, 02:13:14 PM
Quote from: billybob476 on February 28, 2012, 01:41:51 PM
annnd it's been pulled.

And it's back.  In a slightly different form.

Star Trek 2 - Zachary Quinto and Benedict Cumberbatch Fight - Trailer - Movie Review (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqa8LP5S7NA#ws)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on February 28, 2012, 02:17:36 PM
And here too...

Exclusive: Behind The Scenes Of Star Trek 2 - Video (http://www.metacafe.com/watch/8156728/)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: billybob476 on February 28, 2012, 02:17:50 PM
and since it's now in the form of a news report, they can't pull it :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on February 28, 2012, 02:29:24 PM
Quote from: billybob476 on February 28, 2012, 02:17:50 PM
and since it's now in the form of a news report, they can't pull it :)

Not to mention it's been on the web for several hours.  Good luck at getting it back now.

P.S.  I think the fight might be on "New Vulcan."  The set and architecture looks similar to some things they showed of us of Vulcan in the 2009 movie.  But, just a guess.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Data on February 28, 2012, 03:04:41 PM
That would make sense the mixture of human and alien symbols on a "New Vulcan".

I cant wait for this film. 
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Feathers on March 01, 2012, 12:46:51 AM
Well, that certainly isn't Sherlock is it! Actually, from that distance and with that hair it looks more like Matt Smith to me.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on March 01, 2012, 03:42:30 PM
And some more pics.  These don't reveal very much at all, but still kind of cool to see.  Whole set at the link below.

http://www.justjared.com/2012/02/29/zachary-quinto-chris-pine-zoe-saldana-star-trek-trio/ (http://www.justjared.com/2012/02/29/zachary-quinto-chris-pine-zoe-saldana-star-trek-trio/)

Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on March 01, 2012, 03:55:09 PM
Uh oh! Kirk's putting the moves on Uhura!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on March 01, 2012, 05:03:48 PM
Drop that zero and get wit da hero!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on March 19, 2012, 05:38:02 PM
A couple new images showing what looks like maybe some kind of new uniform (grey, with some colored trim) on Sulu and Uhura.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: turtlesrock on March 19, 2012, 07:05:16 PM
new uniform, snazzy!
looks more like a mission-active suit to me though, like something similar to the sky-dive suits. not sure.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on March 20, 2012, 02:14:26 AM
Interesting. Yeah perhaps it's an "all weather" uniform or a heavy duty uniform. It's nice that they are thinking of these touches, adds a dose of reality.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: billybob476 on March 20, 2012, 05:30:49 AM
Yeah the uniforms look a little more resilient then their shipboard cotton shirts :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on March 20, 2012, 05:40:07 AM
I'm thinking they might be some kind of training outfit, or Academy uniform of some type.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: davekill on March 20, 2012, 06:10:25 AM
Quote from: Rico on March 19, 2012, 05:38:02 PM
A couple new images showing what looks like maybe some kind of new uniform (grey, with some colored trim) on Sulu and Uhura.


Minus the overcoat right?

Zoe was wearing that earlier in the golf cart over her street clothes
  :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on March 20, 2012, 08:30:35 AM
Quote from: davekill on March 20, 2012, 06:10:25 AM
Quote from: Rico on March 19, 2012, 05:38:02 PM
A couple new images showing what looks like maybe some kind of new uniform (grey, with some colored trim) on Sulu and Uhura.


Minus the overcoat right?

Zoe was wearing that earlier in the golf cart over her street clothes
  :)

Yes, the overcoats are to try and cover up the costumes underneath from the paparazzi.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on April 16, 2012, 03:20:59 PM
A new pic has slipped out of Spock in an EV suit.  Neat!

Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on April 17, 2012, 08:33:15 AM
Although i appreciate the nod to the TOS design, that looks a bit goofy. :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on April 17, 2012, 08:34:37 AM
The suit looks fine to me.  I also like the big "lunchbox" he's carrying.  :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on April 17, 2012, 08:35:29 AM
Dude, it looks like he's wearing a giant jockstrap with a cup! LOL!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: billybob476 on April 17, 2012, 08:35:55 AM
Quote from: Bryancd on April 17, 2012, 08:33:15 AM
Although i appreciate the nod to the TOS design, that looks a bit goofy. :)

Like with all the Batman/Avengers photos, take these with a grain of salt. There's going to be so much post production that things may look nothing like they do in this cell phone pic.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on April 17, 2012, 08:44:21 AM
Quote from: Bryancd on April 17, 2012, 08:35:29 AM
Dude, it looks like he's wearing a giant jockstrap with a cup! LOL!

Of course, he is a Vulcan!  :)

And Joe is correct, there is TON that will be added in post to this.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: billybob476 on April 17, 2012, 08:46:20 AM
Quote from: Rico on April 17, 2012, 08:44:21 AM
Quote from: Bryancd on April 17, 2012, 08:35:29 AM
Dude, it looks like he's wearing a giant jockstrap with a cup! LOL!

Of course, he is a Vulcan!  :)

And Joe is correct, there is TON that will be added in post to this.

Protecting sensitive areas is only logical! :D
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on April 17, 2012, 08:50:30 AM
"It's all that damn, green Vulcan blood!"  ;)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Zarabeth32 on April 19, 2012, 04:04:32 AM
Quote from: Rico on April 17, 2012, 08:50:30 AM
"It's all that damn, green Vulcan blood!"  ;)

That is hysterical!  :roflmao
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on April 25, 2012, 03:41:44 PM
A little teaser bit of info from two of the lead actors:

With production nearing an end on J.J. Abram's much-anticipated (and still officially untitled) Star Trek sequel, returning star Chris Pine and newcomer villain Benedict Cumberbatch spoke with Access Hollywood and Zap2It, respectively, about the May 17th release (via Trekweb).

"Of course I'm gonna tell you I think it's gonna be better," Pine laughs, "You pick up the characters from where they left off, and the development of the characters, I think, is just as exciting as the first one... And it's relentless. I think that's the best adjective I can use."

As far as Cumberbatch's role, the "Sherlock" star only teased the faintest of details.

"I've gone up two suit sizes," he says, "The character I'm playing, he's strong. I can say that much. I've changed my physique a bit, so that requires eating like a foie gras goose, well beyond your appetite, And, providing I don't feel too ill, I then work out two hours a day with a phenomenal trainer. It's the L.A. way."

Also starring John Cho, Bruce Greenwood, Simon Pegg, Zachary Quinto, Zoe Saldana, Karl Urban, Anton Yelchin, Alice Eve and Peter Weller, Star Trek 2 (or XII, depending on how you're counting), is planning both 2D, 3D and IMAX 3D release.


http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=89623 (http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=89623)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on April 29, 2012, 05:32:05 AM
Leonard Nimoy might still yet pop up in this next Trek movie.  Read this short bit of conversation Leonard had with an interviewer in New York at the Shuttle Enterprise arrival.

CAROL COSTELLO: Could I just say that I admire you? And in the new Star Trek movie [the 2009 version] you had a very prominent role, Leonard Nimoy, and I enjoyed it very much. You're fantastic.

JASON CARROLL: In fact, Carol, we were talking about that ... [to Nimoy] Carol, Carol Costello, the anchor ... remember we were talking about the new Star Trek movie. It was great, you did a great job in it. And we were just about talking about that just before ... will you be in another Star Trek movie?

NIMOY: Uhh, we're talking. We're talking. 
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on April 29, 2012, 05:42:42 AM
Watching him retire is exhausting! :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: turtlesrock on April 29, 2012, 06:29:32 AM
ah hahahahaha i'm imagining it all stuttery, "uhh... we're talking. we're talking. YEP sure thing, we're talking. What are we doing now? STILL TALKING! whee-oo! talking talking talking, it almost doesn't sound like a word anymore, every realized that the brain is the only organ that named itself? Duuuuuuuuuuuuuude!" XD
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Meds on April 30, 2012, 01:45:54 PM
SPOILERS from Trek Movie .com


http://trekmovie.com/2012/04/30/major-star-trek-sequel-spoilers-confirmed/ (http://trekmovie.com/2012/04/30/major-star-trek-sequel-spoilers-confirmed/)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on May 01, 2012, 02:06:05 AM
Quote from: HawkeyeMeds on April 30, 2012, 01:45:54 PM
SPOILERS from Trek Movie .com


http://trekmovie.com/2012/04/30/major-star-trek-sequel-spoilers-confirmed/ (http://trekmovie.com/2012/04/30/major-star-trek-sequel-spoilers-confirmed/)


Really? This is what they're doing?!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on May 01, 2012, 05:28:05 AM
I have heard some rumblings in the "trek-o-sphere" and yeah, I think what we are hearing is true.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Bromptonboy on May 01, 2012, 06:26:36 AM
Gah!  I cannot get to that link through our company firewall.  Can someone put the details in a spoiler tag here?  Thanks in advance.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: billybob476 on May 01, 2012, 06:34:05 AM
Here's the text of the article.

[spoiler]
There have been a lot of rumors and spoilers floating around the web in the last few months, including some new ones today. So TrekMovie has checked with sources and can confirm some of these reports as well as adding some new info into the mix. See below for 3 spoilers about the Star Trek sequel but do not click below if you don't want to spoil the fun (seriously don't...just for Spoiler-fans).

Star Trek Sequel SPOILERS

Before we start it is important to note that it is still the case that no plot or character information for the Star Trek sequel has been officially confirmed by Paramount or anyone associated with the movie. The following based on reports from other outlets and/or TrekMovie sources. As always, Paramount's policy is to not comment on what they consider rumors.

you have been warned

Spoiler 1: Leonard Nimoy returns as Spock Prime

The first spoiler was actually let out of the bag by the actor himself when talking to CNN last week (see video), and now AICN is reporting that Nimoy returning for the sequel. TrekMovie sources have confirmed that Nimoy indeed is back as Spock Prime and he has already completed his work for the film. Spock Prime was last seen at the end of the 2009 movie sending off the new crew of the USS Enterprise, leaving him to help the Vulcans who survived Nero's destruction of their home planet.

This spoiler comes as somewhat of a surprise, as Nimoy himself had previously indicated that he was happy to let the new cast take the reigns of the franchise forward. But apparently JJ Abrams and crew were able to convince the actor and Star Trek legend to come out of retirement one last time to play Spock. On a historic note, this would be Nimoy's eighth  appearance in a Star Trek feature film, which will be a record (he and Shatner are now tied with seven movies each).


Leonard Nimoy in the 2009 "Star Trek" – returns for the sequel


Want more?

keep scrolling

Spoiler 2: Cumberbatch is playing Khan

TrekMovie was first in reporting that Benedict Cumberbatch had joined the Star Trek sequel cast, to play a villain (originally a role offered to Benecio del Toro). A few outlets have also reported (including today's AICN) that this villain was Trek's most famous bad guy – the exiled Eugenics War leader Khan Noonien Singh (originally played by Ricardo Montalban). TrekMovie has also confirmed this with a number of sources so we no longer consider it to be a rumor. Khan is back in 2013, however sources indicate that the film is not a rehash of "Space Seed," the original Star Trek episode where Kirk and crew first encounter the genetic superman from the past.

While big news, this is actually not a huge surprise. Trek's new filmmakers have often cited the Christopher Nolan's Batman series as their model, with the second film The Dark Knight successfully brining back the Joker and Khan is the closest to Trek gets to Batman's Joker. And again the team kind of already let the cat out of the bag on this one when they recorded the DVD commentary back in 2009 and said they had considered a post-credits sceene showing the Botany Bay, Khan's sleeper ship. Then of course there is Abrams widely reported casting process which began with Benecio del Toro and went through a number other prominent Latino (like Montalban) actors before he ended up picking Cumberbatch, after what has been said to be a very powerful audition.



Want more?

keep scrolling


Spoiler 3: Klingons featured in Star Trek sequel

This third spoiler is not something from the new AICN report, but multiple TrekMovie sources have confirmed that the Klingons will be featured in the Star Trek sequel. Of course Klingons were were originally going to be part of the 2009 movie as well – in a subplot where they had captured Nero and his crew after the destruction of the USS Kelvin, however those scenes were cut from the final release (but did appear on the DVD/Blu-ray). TrekMovie sources indicate that this time the Klingons are not a sub-plot that could be easily cut out of the film, so we will finally see the JJ-verse version of Klingons on the big screen.

This spoiler seems to be a no brainer. The Klingons are likely Star Trek's best known adversary aliens, and they appeared in most of the movies featuring the original cast. The intent was to put them in the last one and fans have been asking for Klingons to make the cut for the sequel. 


Klingons in deleted scene from the 2009 "Star Trek" movie – but they should make the final cut of the 2013 sequel

Sequel production enters final stretch

TrekMovie has also confirmed that the Star Trek sequel has wrapped up shooting on stages and on location in southern califormia. The film remains on schedule with a couple more weeks of shooting on  on location in northern California.

That's it for now, stay tuned to TrekMovie for all your Star Trek sequel news.



POLL: Spoiler thoughts?

So now that you have been spoiled – what are you thinking? Weigh in below and vote in the poll.
[/spoiler]
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Bromptonboy on May 01, 2012, 06:54:13 AM
Thanks.  Interesting stuff.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Jobydrone on May 01, 2012, 07:14:30 AM
Cool

[spoiler]I was pretty much 99% positive back when Benicio Deltoro was briefly attached to the project that he was going to play Khan.  It would have been phenominal casting and I'm really sorry it fell through.  He's one of my favorite actors.[/spoiler]
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on May 01, 2012, 07:39:44 AM
Well....

[spoiler]They palyed around with the Eugenics War stuff in "Enterprise" but it's not a well known part of Trek to the very casual fan or fan of the first movie, so it is pretty fertile and unsowed ground for them to tread. A young, genius, Kahn running aorund causing trouble. It will be interesting to see if he's from the past and is found in cryo or is he a contemprary. I think this could be great fun BUT I am a bit dissapointed they felt the need to rehash this sotry line as opposed to so many other options.[/spoiler]
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on May 01, 2012, 08:37:05 AM
I'm pretty mixed on all this...

[spoiler]My first reaction was - really...that's what you decided to do?  That's all you could come up with in 2+ years?  But I'm hoping they just can do it well enough and different enough to make it cool and interesting.  It will have to be quite a bit different than Wrath of Khan since this will most likely be the first meeting of the new Kirk and Khan.  Bryan is right that to many this will all be new and I'm guessing that's one of the big reasons they decided to go down this path.  But I'm still a bit disappointed right now.[/spoiler]
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on May 01, 2012, 09:20:15 AM
Well...

[spoiler]Although i would havebprefered a different story I don't have a problem with the Eugenics storyline, it's a big part of Trek Earth history. I just don't see Cumberpatch as Khan. Del Torro yes, he has the ethnic "look" but a white British posh guy? Perhaps they are going to make this Khan come from another part of the world?

Perhaps they should have made him a different Augment entirely? [/spoiler]

We shall see! :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on May 01, 2012, 11:01:49 AM
A rumor floating around is...[spoiler]That another antagonist this time around will be the Klingons, and that Khan is somehow helping Starfleet with that problem, hence him wearing SF duds in the pics we have seen. Some kind of SpecOps or something. That could be interesting. I'm not jazzed about Khan, don't really see Cumberbatch as Khan, but I'm looking forward to see how differently he is utilized.

http://www.thehollywoodnews.com/2012/05/01/cumberbatch-star-trek-role-confirmed/ (http://www.thehollywoodnews.com/2012/05/01/cumberbatch-star-trek-role-confirmed/) Hollywood Reporter is doing a story now, looking more and more real.[/spoiler]
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: bevs_plaything on May 01, 2012, 11:45:44 AM
Quote from: Bryancd on April 29, 2012, 05:42:42 AM
Watching him retire is exhausting! :)

Indeed! ;D
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: wraith1701 on May 01, 2012, 05:27:50 PM
Sounds like it's going to be a pretty kick-butt film.

[spoiler] Having Spock-prime play a role is interesting.  I wonder what his reaction would be if he happened to encounter the guy who kills him in an alternate future? [/spoiler]  :wacko
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: bevs_plaything on May 01, 2012, 10:31:24 PM
The news does fill me with dread!  If this news is correct I am convinced that to be a Star Trek producer you [spoiler]only need one orginal thought in your mind!  What's next will Star Trek 4 will involve whales?!!!  Benedict Cumberbatch is a good actor, but to play an ethic character??!!!  Rant over, getting up for work now!! :([/spoiler]
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: billybob476 on May 02, 2012, 03:51:07 AM
Quote from: wraith1701 on May 01, 2012, 05:27:50 PM
Sounds like it's going to be a pretty kick-butt film.

[spoiler] Having Spock-prime play a role is interesting.  I wonder what his reaction would be if he happened to encounter the guy who kills him in an alternate future? [/spoiler]  :wacko

Hadn't thought of that, very interesting....
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: X on May 02, 2012, 05:21:41 AM
Quote from: bevs_plaything on May 01, 2012, 10:31:24 PM
The news does fill me with dread!  If this news is correct I am convinced that to be a Star Trek producer you [spoiler]only need one orginal thought in your mind!  What's next will Star Trek 4 will involve whales?!!!  Benedict Cumberbatch is a good actor, but to play an ethic character??!!!  Rant over, getting up for work now!! :([/spoiler]
I think that...

[spoiler] It's absolutely fine. Khan was never an ethnic character, but a product of science and the best genes they could find. If he was ethnic, was he Indian or Latin? I think in the case of the show, they went with the best actor for the role and not the heritage of said actor. I have no problems with another person playing Khan because that could just be a slight shift in the genetic cocktail used to create him. [/spoiler]
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: KingIsaacLinksr on May 02, 2012, 08:45:00 AM
*sigh*
[spoiler]
If its Khan, then I have no hope in there ever being a TV series. C'mon people. We can do something original in two years. Rehashing old plots just isn't one of them.  faith is slightly shattered now...[/spoiler]

King
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Jobydrone on May 02, 2012, 09:19:24 AM
So silly, people.  We know every single person on this thread is going to see this movie...they could put hamsters in Trek uniforms and I think most of us would still pay twelve bucks to see it.  Let's give JJ the benefit of the doubt and keep an open mind here.  The first movie was awesome and I have seen nothing that would lead me to believe the next is going to be any less awesome.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on May 02, 2012, 11:24:50 AM
Quote from: Jobydrone on May 02, 2012, 09:19:24 AM
So silly, people.  We know every single person on this thread is going to see this movie...they could put hamsters in Trek uniforms and I think most of us would still pay twelve bucks to see it.  Let's give JJ the benefit of the doubt and keep an open mind here.  The first movie was awesome and I have seen nothing that would lead me to believe the next is going to be any less awesome.

I will be giving him the benefit of the doubt.

For the record I had I lot of problems with the first movie, it didn't go in directions i would have wanted but I found it to be enjoyable. I also don't have a problem in criticising aspects of properties I am a fan of. It's healthy. :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: billybob476 on May 02, 2012, 11:31:13 AM
Asking geeks not to criticize something is like asking fish not to swim :) We live for picking things apart, I'm all for it as long as it's well thought out and not just people raging.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on May 02, 2012, 11:37:20 AM
Quote from: billybob476 on May 02, 2012, 11:31:13 AM
Asking geeks not to criticize something is like asking fish not to swim :) We live for picking things apart, I'm all for it as long as it's well thought out and not just people raging.

Come on Joe, there are two types of Geek. The ones you mention here and then there are the ones who would never dream of saying a bad word about things in their fandom.

You do read the forums right? ;)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Jobydrone on May 02, 2012, 12:28:48 PM
For me, I would have preferred another TNG movie rather than the one we got last time but I still really, really liked it.  Maybe I'm in the minority but...[spoiler]I think a new take on Space Seed or whatever direction they take with a new Khan has the potential to be really awesome.  I'm against calling it a rehash or unoriginal without seeing it first or having any information to base it on.[/spoiler]
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on May 02, 2012, 12:54:55 PM
My view is

[spoiler]they would need to address Khan as he is integral to Trek history. I have no problem with a new take on "Space Seed", as I said it needs to happen really.

I am a little puzzled on the choice of actor. It appears they couldn't get Del Torro and because of the delays they just had to recast and keep the same story. I speculated on this when we heard Del Torro was out and Cumberpatch was in and people said he had to be another character for good reason. He doesn't fit what we know of Khan.

Obviously we don't know for sure this is the way it went down but it sure seems that way.

I am a fan of Abrahms work, he is a great storyteller and I have faith we are going to see a great movie. For sure his take on Khan is going to be interesting![/spoiler]
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on May 02, 2012, 03:39:37 PM
I have a feeling when we all see the first trailer all doubt will evaporate and geekgasms will ensue!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on May 02, 2012, 03:56:19 PM
Like I've said before - all it boils down to for me is I would have preferred something completely new.  But, I have no doubt this new movie will be great and I will race you to the theater on opening day to see it!  :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on May 02, 2012, 05:50:25 PM
I agree, Rico, and I think the movie hasn't lost any of it's potential. Having said that I am still a bit suprised they chose to go this route but as was mentioned, rehashing super villians in movies has become the norm thanks to DC and Marvel.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: turtlesrock on May 02, 2012, 06:03:35 PM
rico i will get there first! :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Poodyglitz on May 02, 2012, 09:01:48 PM
Maybe things got reported wrong and he's playing a Madeline Kahn. :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Ensign Random on May 02, 2012, 11:08:25 PM
Hi everyone, I know I will see the movie regardless of what it's about. I did enjoy 2009 even if 'red matter' was awfully contrived.  And I thought it was a pity the Klingon sections were cut. I watched the blu-Ray extras. Maybe they'll show up in the next film. This film and " The Hobbit"  are what I'm looking forward too.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Jobydrone on May 03, 2012, 06:52:48 AM
Quote from: Darmok on May 02, 2012, 09:01:48 PM
Maybe things got reported wrong and he's playing a Madeline Kahn. :)
HA HA HA!!!  So sad we lost her so young.  I was in love with her from a very young age.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on May 03, 2012, 08:27:47 AM
Maybe we will all be "Khan-verted" by this movie.  :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Bromptonboy on May 03, 2012, 10:56:52 AM
Quote from: Rico on May 03, 2012, 08:27:47 AM
Maybe we will all be "Khan-verted" by this movie.  :)

You have been hanging around Brother Moyer too much...  ;)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: moyer777 on May 03, 2012, 11:54:51 AM
hey
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on May 03, 2012, 11:57:57 AM
Well, I'm yet to be Khanvinced. I prefer the old Khantinuity.  ;)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Bromptonboy on May 03, 2012, 12:24:05 PM
I have no khancerns that they won't do the story justice.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on May 03, 2012, 02:00:05 PM
I really Khan't wait to see this movie!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: moyer777 on May 03, 2012, 02:23:39 PM
This is going to be Khanstant isn't it?
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on May 03, 2012, 02:45:04 PM
Khantinuous, Ricky.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Zarabeth32 on May 03, 2012, 02:47:33 PM
I just hope that it won't khantradict itself. :P

(Man this is bad)

Z
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Jobydrone on May 03, 2012, 03:05:16 PM
LMAO so much for the spoilers though ;)  As if everyone wasn't reading those anyway...
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on May 03, 2012, 03:36:54 PM
Say what? We just talkin' about Khan.

And we can dig it. He's a complicated man, and no one understands him but McGiverssss.

Khan Singh.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Ktrek on May 04, 2012, 12:25:45 PM
This thread is getting too Khanvoluted for me!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: billybob476 on May 08, 2012, 12:15:15 PM
Simon Pegg just posted this pic on twitter. :)

(http://d3j5vwomefv46c.cloudfront.net/photos/large/575891998.jpg?key=19362592&Expires=1336505401&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIYVGSUJFNRFZBBTA&Signature=rkMGYVx~sARDgiWexvI6abfiHVSyFSsz6Crq8Zrrh-2lkVKnfj7b4sonjIjlK57YjzkO08NefiyQjwH9QcHXi8MkNiVF5gM~q9EBSCMXYlET51YpUMlgro5Ic1FExSCncqo9-qAZwrm2jkb-DExreM6Fxp6~8CAD5qf~cq8~ohc_)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on May 08, 2012, 02:10:19 PM
Dead link Joe.  Did you save the pic?  Was it one of the pics I used for the Trek Daily pic yesterday?
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: billybob476 on May 08, 2012, 03:41:32 PM
Here we go...just a candid shot from what I assume is his trailer/hotel room.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: turtlesrock on May 08, 2012, 04:31:31 PM
ah very cool! :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: WillEagle on May 08, 2012, 06:00:16 PM
I was hoping for something different but I'll have my butt in a seat when it hits the theaters!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on May 08, 2012, 06:18:07 PM
https://twitter.com/#!/ZacharyQuinto/status/200029006400192512/photo/1

Zachary Quinto is wrapped on ST, he just posted on Twitter. If shooting is just about done, can we expect a trailer this summer?
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: KingIsaacLinksr on May 08, 2012, 06:47:05 PM
Quote from: Jobydrone on May 02, 2012, 09:19:24 AM
So silly, people.  We know every single person on this thread is going to see this movie...they could put hamsters in Trek uniforms and I think most of us would still pay twelve bucks to see it.  Let's give JJ the benefit of the doubt and keep an open mind here.  The first movie was awesome and I have seen nothing that would lead me to believe the next is going to be any less awesome.

[spoiler]Reread this thread because I forgot to after I posted.  I may go to see this movie. I won't know until then, life and such forth. I would say its probably 70/30 chance I'll see it. However, I am not happy with them on this plot point and after two years this is just a copout in my opinion. I was of the opinion after the first Star Trek 2012 film that if they came back to Khan, its time to let this franchise go. Since we are coming back to Khan, its time to let the franchise go. And I say this for a lot of reasons I don't want to go into in this particular thread because it will horribly derail us.  The main point I want to stick to is that the lack of an original idea after two+ years of working on the script is incredibly disappointing and if we ever want a TV show, well, that's pretty much out the window at this point. If these writers can't come up with anything new in two years, what hope do we have for a unique Star Trek series?  Little to none from where I sit.

Just my 2 cents.
[/spoiler]

That said, its the only film I'm looking forward to in 2013, so that's gotta count for something.

King
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on May 09, 2012, 05:51:03 AM
First STAR WARS now STAR TREK, King! What, are you going to become a Twilight fan?! You are running out of franchises!

You know what I really want to say.... ;)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: X on May 09, 2012, 06:18:32 AM
Personally, I don't like retelling other shows, but I'm going to have faith that this universe is fresh. I'm going to hope that the universes are different enough to where the time changes are considered.

If I am going to get a new Khan, I'd really love if he wasn't from the past. My hope is that they decide to take this in the direction of the Eugenics Wars. I think that if the war didn't happen in this time line until now, it would make a much stronger impact. Secret gene building so that humanity can compete with all of the other galactic races come to a head. Not something from the past that comes popping back up.

If I were them, that's the most likely direction to go. There is too much to tell with the eugenics wars and the botany bay for them to do it in the high octane style that they are accustomed to doing.

SO, you heard it hear first. Khan won't be from the past, but the present and all of the war of the supermen stuff will be what we are seeing on screen.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on May 09, 2012, 06:49:56 AM
If you read some of the stuff floating around online, JJ almost put a shot at the end of his 2009 film of the Botany Bay floating out in space.  So, I don't think we will be seeing the start of eugenics in this upcoming movie.  Unless they do some type of teaser and then advance time by like 30 years or more to let Khan grow up.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: billybob476 on May 09, 2012, 06:53:07 AM
Botany Bay...Botany Bay! Oh no!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Jobydrone on May 09, 2012, 06:54:49 AM
Quote from: KingIsaacLinksr on May 08, 2012, 06:47:05 PM
Quote from: Jobydrone on May 02, 2012, 09:19:24 AM
So silly, people.  We know every single person on this thread is going to see this movie...they could put hamsters in Trek uniforms and I think most of us would still pay twelve bucks to see it.  Let's give JJ the benefit of the doubt and keep an open mind here.  The first movie was awesome and I have seen nothing that would lead me to believe the next is going to be any less awesome.

[spoiler]Reread this thread because I forgot to after I posted.  I may go to see this movie. I won't know until then, life and such forth. I would say its probably 70/30 chance I'll see it. However, I am not happy with them on this plot point and after two years this is just a copout in my opinion. I was of the opinion after the first Star Trek 2012 film that if they came back to Khan, its time to let this franchise go. Since we are coming back to Khan, its time to let the franchise go. And I say this for a lot of reasons I don't want to go into in this particular thread because it will horribly derail us.  The main point I want to stick to is that the lack of an original idea after two+ years of working on the script is incredibly disappointing and if we ever want a TV show, well, that's pretty much out the window at this point. If these writers can't come up with anything new in two years, what hope do we have for a unique Star Trek series?  Little to none from where I sit.

Just my 2 cents.
[/spoiler]

That said, its the only film I'm looking forward to in 2013, so that's gotta count for something.

King

How could a seventh Star Trek series ever be considered an original idea?  How could the twelfth movie in a series ever be considered an original concept???  If they are rehashing/reusing/rebooting (whatever term you prefer) all the protagonists from the original series, what then is the issue with doing the same with one of the most iconic antagonists?  We have no idea what the story is yet so in my opinion calling for an end to the franchise is a bit premature.

Also, do you know how many police/investigative procedurals there are on TV currently, and how many have been on in the history of television?  Probably hundreds of thousands of unique, indiviual stories if not more.  And yet the Hollywood machine still seems more than capable of churning out original ideas within the same broad general construct.  I feel certain that with the assistance of some talented, creative writers a new Trek series could be viable and interesting.

Tim, you are too young to be so damn cynical, especially about things that have brought you so much joy in your short life.  You are smart, funny, and insightful and I enjoy your writing alot here and on your blog...use your powers for the light side young padawan!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on May 09, 2012, 08:45:42 AM
I can understand Tim's comments and he is entitled to his views - as is everyone here as well.  Keep in mind none of us have obviously seen this next movie and I haven't seen anyone yet say they absolutely won't be seeing it.

One thing I want to point out is there are various forms and levels of rebooting or rehashing things.  I always felt each Trek series had the name Trek and some similar things but each series felt unique.  One reason I enjoyed Abrams 2009 film so much is he took some well known characters and kind of made them new again.  A very tricky thing to pull off.  So, I'm hoping for the same thing with Khan.  I still think a new concept or idea would have been nice, but I'll wait and see what they come up with.  I have a feeling it will be new and fresh enough to be viewed very differently than the Khan and previous story we know so well.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: billybob476 on May 09, 2012, 09:11:17 AM
Plus Mr. Cumberbatch doesn't have the right pecs to play classic Khan, so it has to be a different take :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: KingIsaacLinksr on May 09, 2012, 10:17:24 AM
Quote from: Bryancd on May 09, 2012, 05:51:03 AM
First STAR WARS now STAR TREK, King! What, are you going to become a Twilight fan?! You are running out of franchises!

You know what I really want to say.... ;)

HAH. That's funny. :D.  And no, I already tried Twilight....not my thing at all. ;). I guess I have been ragging on Star Trek/Wars a lot lately. I still have some concerns about Trek, but that's for another thread and time.

@Joby, not going to quote all that text :P.  Ok, even rereading my post, it was hasty. Because we don't know what the plot is. If it is as X says, then I would actually be fine with it. I guess my problem is, is that I'm apparently so cynical that the fact that Khan will be in it means an immediate rehashing of the same old plot/story in my head. Which is unfair to the writers. What I really should have said is that if they remake the story of #2 again, then the series has no hope. So....yeah. That was a stupid post I made. Not the first nor last I'll make heh.

And that's what I meant by original concept, I meant an original story, which at this point is mostly likely going to happen if the pics we've seen are any indication. Spock fighting Khan would be interesting to watch...

And well, I'm pretty dang cynical about TV/Movies right now. Films haven't been all that fun or enjoyable and TV series have been getting cancelled left and right that I enjoyed. I'm still pretty bitter about SGU getting cancelled, as stupid as that might be at this point. Its hard not to be cynical about those industries. But with the Avengers as of recent, that was a ton of fun. Maybe Hollywood will take a page out of its book. I'm slightly hopeful about it.

Thanks for the kind comments though, I appreciate them :).

King
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on May 09, 2012, 10:31:43 AM
Go see "Avengers" it will restore your faith in film. And "Prometheus" next month. :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Jobydrone on May 09, 2012, 10:32:24 AM
Quote from: KingIsaacLinksr on May 09, 2012, 10:17:24 AM
What I really should have said is that if they remake the story of #2 again, then the series has no hope.

I'd bet the farm there's no mention of Genesis or Kirk's son anywhere to be found in the next film!  It wouldn't surprise me if Spock dies at the end though.

I knew you would take my comments in the spirit with which I intended them, Tim.  I'd never imply that you weren't entitled to speak your mind or consider your opinion any less valid than mine or anyone elses.  That's the best thing about the TrekSF forums!

edit to add:  also I wouldn't feel the freedom to speak so candidly if I didn't consider you a friend I've known for years!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: KingIsaacLinksr on May 09, 2012, 11:09:48 AM
Quote from: Bryancd on May 09, 2012, 10:31:43 AM
Go see "Avengers" it will restore your faith in film. And "Prometheus" next month. :)

I did see Avengers last Saturday, hence why I mentioned it in my post above yours ;D.  Not sure if I'll see Prometheus or not.... I mean, I liked Alien(s), but its not my genre. We'll see.

Quote from: Jobydrone on May 09, 2012, 10:32:24 AM
Quote from: KingIsaacLinksr on May 09, 2012, 10:17:24 AM
What I really should have said is that if they remake the story of #2 again, then the series has no hope.

I'd bet the farm there's no mention of Genesis or Kirk's son anywhere to be found in the next film!  It wouldn't surprise me if Spock dies at the end though.

I knew you would take my comments in the spirit with which I intended them, Tim.  I'd never imply that you weren't entitled to speak your mind or consider your opinion any less valid than mine or anyone elses.  That's the best thing about the TrekSF forums!

edit to add:  also I wouldn't feel the freedom to speak so candidly if I didn't consider you a friend I've known for years!

Even if you did imply that I wasn't allowed to speak my mind/considered my opinion less valid, I would have ignored the implication. ;). (Though might have called you on it ;))  Until I get banned from TSF, I'll keep on making my posts, even if they can be quite daft or blockheaded :P.  hehehe. But around here anyway, I figure we can all at least listen to each other and I do try and see it from other people's perspectives. I know I'm not right all the time. (Shocking, I know ;))

If Kirk has a son, I'd be a bit surprised at this point. I mean, a baby is possible, considering what a lady's man he is, but beyond that, no, its pretty doubtful.  And yeah, Genesis is also pretty unlikely, we've already had one doomsday-like weapon already, adding another one would lead to watcher-fatigue.

So yeah, no problems from me :).

King
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on May 09, 2012, 12:26:25 PM
There's a couple of things we have to remember about this new "reboot" universe. They have to stay consistent to "Prime" Trek universe history up until the point of where the divergence happened when Nero came back in time. I am making assumptions based to the tie in comics that we're more geared towards the old fans and helped to ground this new universe in context to the old.

They can't start making changes to previous events in my opinion. If they do then they will be muddying the waters of reboot / alternate universe even more. This was my real problem with the first movie. They didn't commit to what this universe was. They concentrated on grabbing new fans and didn't want to take the time to neatly tie this into the old universe in a way that made explicit assertions.

Assuming it IS an alternate universe that diverged from Nero entering the past then it makes total sense we will have Khan on the Botany Bay in this. Don't forget this will most likely be an alternate take on "Space Seed" not TWOK (way too early in the timeline for that).

I'm confidennt we will get an entertaining movie. I would have preferred something else but I'm not making is movie :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Feathers on May 09, 2012, 12:56:12 PM
Of course it also leaves things open to remake TWOK in thirty years time with the same cast if that's the way they choose to play it :).
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on May 09, 2012, 02:12:04 PM
Quote from: Dangelus on May 09, 2012, 12:26:25 PM
There's a couple of things we have to remember about this new "reboot" universe. They have to stay consistent to "Prime" Trek universe history up until the point of where the divergence happened when Nero came back in time. I am making assumptions based to the tie in comics that we're more geared towards the old fans and helped to ground this new universe in context to the old.

They can't start making changes to previous events in my opinion. If they do then they will be muddying the waters of reboot / alternate universe even more. This was my real problem with the first movie. They didn't commit to what this universe was. They concentrated on grabbing new fans and didn't want to take the time to neatly tie this into the old universe in a way that made explicit assertions.

Assuming it IS an alternate universe that diverged from Nero entering the past then it makes total sense we will have Khan on the Botany Bay in this. Don't forget this will most likely be an alternate take on "Space Seed" not TWOK (way too early in the timeline for that).

I'm confidennt we will get an entertaining movie. I would have preferred something else but I'm not making is movie :)

Dan, while I see your point I'm not quite sure the makers of the movie see it exactly like that.  First, you are counting on the audience being in tune with these kinds of nuances and details.  Second, I know people who still think this is just one big changed timeline - not an alternate universe.  While I pretty much agree with your points, I still think they could in fact change the past.  Nero certainly changed things, but there is no real evidence in the movie that says this alternate universe was exactly the same as the Prime universe up to the point in time Nero popped over.  So, I think just about anything could happen.  I personally am hoping for the Enterprise or maybe another ship finding Khan and his minions floating in space aboard the Botany Bay, but it may not turn out that way.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Meds on May 09, 2012, 02:18:22 PM
I'm not saying anything until I see it.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on May 09, 2012, 02:22:31 PM
Fun story here about them filming on location near a small town on California.

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/video/7178352-star-trek-sequel-scenes-being-filmed-at-lawrence-livermore-lab/ (http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/video/7178352-star-trek-sequel-scenes-being-filmed-at-lawrence-livermore-lab/)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on May 09, 2012, 07:59:13 PM
Quote from: Rico on May 09, 2012, 02:12:04 PM
Quote from: Dangelus on May 09, 2012, 12:26:25 PM
There's a couple of things we have to remember about this new "reboot" universe. They have to stay consistent to "Prime" Trek universe history up until the point of where the divergence happened when Nero came back in time. I am making assumptions based to the tie in comics that we're more geared towards the old fans and helped to ground this new universe in context to the old.

They can't start making changes to previous events in my opinion. If they do then they will be muddying the waters of reboot / alternate universe even more. This was my real problem with the first movie. They didn't commit to what this universe was. They concentrated on grabbing new fans and didn't want to take the time to neatly tie this into the old universe in a way that made explicit assertions.

Assuming it IS an alternate universe that diverged from Nero entering the past then it makes total sense we will have Khan on the Botany Bay in this. Don't forget this will most likely be an alternate take on "Space Seed" not TWOK (way too early in the timeline for that).

I'm confidennt we will get an entertaining movie. I would have preferred something else but I'm not making is movie :)

Dan, while I see your point I'm not quite sure the makers of the movie see it exactly like that.  First, you are counting on the audience being in tune with these kinds of nuances and details.  Second, I know people who still think this is just one big changed timeline - not an alternate universe.  While I pretty much agree with your points, I still think they could in fact change the past.  Nero certainly changed things, but there is no real evidence in the movie that says this alternate universe was exactly the same as the Prime universe up to the point in time Nero popped over.  So, I think just about anything could happen.  I personally am hoping for the Enterprise or maybe another ship finding Khan and his minions floating in space aboard the Botany Bay, but it may not turn out that way.

That's exactly my point, they haven't committed to what this universe is and so yes you're right anything goes I suppose. It's a brilliant move on their part since they are free to do whatever they like. I guess we will find out once we encounter a change that predates Nero's intervention. In a way I hope we do because then I personally can relax as I'll know what I'm dealing with then! Haha
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on May 09, 2012, 08:02:22 PM
Quote from: Feathers on May 09, 2012, 12:56:12 PM
Of course it also leaves things open to remake TWOK in thirty years time with the same cast if that's the way they choose to play it :).

I hope they are bold and draw a line here and Khan is killed in this movie. If this happens we are really talking BIG changes from Prime universe events in the future! :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: X on May 10, 2012, 05:33:39 AM
Quote from: Dangelus on May 09, 2012, 07:59:13 PM
Quote from: Rico on May 09, 2012, 02:12:04 PM
Quote from: Dangelus on May 09, 2012, 12:26:25 PM
There's a couple of things we have to remember about this new "reboot" universe. They have to stay consistent to "Prime" Trek universe history up until the point of where the divergence happened when Nero came back in time. I am making assumptions based to the tie in comics that we're more geared towards the old fans and helped to ground this new universe in context to the old.

They can't start making changes to previous events in my opinion. If they do then they will be muddying the waters of reboot / alternate universe even more. This was my real problem with the first movie. They didn't commit to what this universe was. They concentrated on grabbing new fans and didn't want to take the time to neatly tie this into the old universe in a way that made explicit assertions.

Assuming it IS an alternate universe that diverged from Nero entering the past then it makes total sense we will have Khan on the Botany Bay in this. Don't forget this will most likely be an alternate take on "Space Seed" not TWOK (way too early in the timeline for that).

I'm confidennt we will get an entertaining movie. I would have preferred something else but I'm not making is movie :)

Dan, while I see your point I'm not quite sure the makers of the movie see it exactly like that.  First, you are counting on the audience being in tune with these kinds of nuances and details.  Second, I know people who still think this is just one big changed timeline - not an alternate universe.  While I pretty much agree with your points, I still think they could in fact change the past.  Nero certainly changed things, but there is no real evidence in the movie that says this alternate universe was exactly the same as the Prime universe up to the point in time Nero popped over.  So, I think just about anything could happen.  I personally am hoping for the Enterprise or maybe another ship finding Khan and his minions floating in space aboard the Botany Bay, but it may not turn out that way.

That's exactly my point, they haven't committed to what this universe is and so yes you're right anything goes I suppose. It's a brilliant move on their part since they are free to do whatever they like. I guess we will find out once we encounter a change that predates Nero's intervention. In a way I hope we do because then I personally can relax as I'll know what I'm dealing with then! Haha
When the movie started, there was already changes that predated Nero, such as George Kirk and wife being aboard the ship. The design of the ships and uniforms were already different before we saw Nero.

It was a different universe to start with and then it got further changed by the Nero Incident.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on May 10, 2012, 05:44:33 AM
The uniforms and ship designs I would disregard as changes to the universe since they've just updated to a modern look. I doubt they would have made this movie with the  60's look.

I don't know the details of Kirk's original birth apart from he was born on Earth in Prime? Not sure where this is stated.

I'm happy to go with this universe being an alternate reality from the get go as it does pretty much solve all the problems that crop up. I just wish they had been more explicit in stating this to appease nitpickers like me! :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Poodyglitz on May 10, 2012, 08:15:37 AM
Quote from: Bryancd on May 09, 2012, 10:31:43 AM
Go see "Avengers" it will restore your faith in film. And "Prometheus" next month. :)

What he said.

I can't wait to see "Prometheus".
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on May 11, 2012, 02:10:40 PM
Actress Alice Eve in a behind the scenes pic on the set with Zachary Quinto.  Looking like she might be part of Starfleet.  I'm starting to think she's playing Carol Marcus (even though there was talk she was new to Trek canon).

Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on May 12, 2012, 02:19:31 PM
Pic now in color!

Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: billybob476 on May 29, 2012, 10:43:41 AM
Hmmm...might not be Khan...

Quote"It's not Khan," replies Pegg, annoyed. "That's a myth. Everyone's saying it is, but it's not."

http://trekmovie.com/2012/05/29/simon-pegg-reports-about-cumberbatchs-star-trek-sequel-character-a-myth/ (http://trekmovie.com/2012/05/29/simon-pegg-reports-about-cumberbatchs-star-trek-sequel-character-a-myth/)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Jobydrone on May 29, 2012, 10:53:23 AM
I could see Mr. Cumberbatch doing quite an entertaining and wonderful take on Harry Mudd.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Bromptonboy on May 29, 2012, 01:03:57 PM
Quote from: Jobydrone on May 29, 2012, 10:53:23 AM
I could see Mr. Cumberbatch doing quite an entertaining and wonderful take on Harry Mudd.
That would be great!  Who would they get to play his robotic replica - wives?  :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on May 29, 2012, 03:07:28 PM
I'm still guessing Benedict is another genetically engineered human - just not the Khan character.  He sure tossed Spock around in that leaked video.  My other possible thought for him is Gary Mitchell, or even someone completely new (which has always been my hope).
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on May 30, 2012, 01:14:39 PM
Quote from: Rico on May 29, 2012, 03:07:28 PM
I'm still guessing Benedict is another genetically engineered human - just not the Khan character.  He sure tossed Spock around in that leaked video.  My other possible thought for him is Gary Mitchell, or even someone completely new (which has always been my hope).
I'm with you, Rico...a new character is best, but heck, I'd like to see a new twist on Gary Mitchell.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on June 02, 2012, 06:34:59 AM
Check out a new uniform variation for the next Trek movie. The little girl is in the film too - actress Anjini Azhar.

Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: WillEagle on June 02, 2012, 06:42:08 AM
I think those look weird. I'm used to seeing more color on Starfleet uniforms.  
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Meds on June 02, 2012, 06:50:39 AM
That looks like Simon Peggs and if so why is his hair not black?? I think this is a bit of joke maybe? What do you think?
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: jedijeff on June 02, 2012, 07:01:40 AM
That is a real departure from what I am used to. Almost reminds me a bit of Patterns of Force when they had to dress up in the Nazi Uniforms, even though these uniforms are not the same, they got a bit of the same feel to me.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on June 02, 2012, 07:47:02 AM
They've got a "Soviet" feel to me. Suppose it makes sense, they are a part of the Federation, a communist institution! ;)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Poodyglitz on June 02, 2012, 02:13:10 PM
Maybe it's an alternate alternate universe episode. We'll know for sure if we see a photo of Spock in a goatee.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: bevs_plaything on June 02, 2012, 02:56:48 PM
Are the Starfleet folk visiting a world populated by the characters from Thunderbirds?

Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on June 02, 2012, 03:14:58 PM
LOL!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on June 02, 2012, 07:55:05 PM
Wow! Those look like...crap.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: davekill on June 02, 2012, 10:03:31 PM
Nice, good match.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on June 03, 2012, 05:02:47 AM
I don't think this variation on the uniform looks that bad.  Keep in mind a few things.  One, this is probably some type of special outfit - maybe used at the Academy.  Also, I think there is a variant with a black undershirt too.  And last, the idea of a cap has been seen before.  Check out the pic from "The Cage" below (notice the cap sitting on the table). 
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: davekill on June 03, 2012, 07:17:07 AM
Quote from: Rico on June 02, 2012, 06:34:59 AM
Check out a new uniform variation for the next Trek movie. The little girl is in the film too - actress Anjini Azhar.



The familiar delta as displayed on the hat is a bit over sized and maybe out of place since it also shares the function of rank insignia too.
Wouldn't the federation star cluster with laurels be more fitting?


This iconic symbol has a great legacy...

"The Cochrane delta is the name given to the standard asymmetric energy-curve used by Zefram Cochrane to illustrate the energy expenditure in his theory of continuum distortion. (Star Trek novel: Federation)

In the mid-23rd century the Cochrane delta was adopted as the insignia of the Constitution-class USS Enterprise before being applied to the whole of Starfleet in recognition of the Enterprise's successful mission. The Cochrane delta was still used as part of Starfleet's insignia well into the 29th century and its origin was still recognised during the 24th century. (Star Trek: The Original Series; VOY: "Relativity"; Star Trek: The Adventures of Argus)"

http://stexpanded.wikia.com/wiki/Cochrane_delta (http://stexpanded.wikia.com/wiki/Cochrane_delta)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on June 03, 2012, 09:12:00 AM
Precedence doesn't make them any more aesthetically appealing, they just don't look good, IMO.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on June 03, 2012, 09:39:30 AM
Yeah, they're kinda goofy...kinda remind me of the neo-fascist getups in Starship Troopers. Or the uniforms in Spaceballs. Not very Trek like.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Feathers on June 04, 2012, 05:12:52 PM
No, not a fan and I see the communist feel to them too. I think seeing them in more context may change my view but, until then...
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: X on June 04, 2012, 07:33:20 PM
After much thought, I think I like it. I like how the dress uniform dramatically differs from the basic uniform. I also know for fact that the colors we see won't be the same in the movie because they saturate things for the color processing and it might have a sharper color in the end.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on June 05, 2012, 03:12:46 PM
Ok, here is a FAN MADE teaser trailer.  I guess when it hit the web some people thought it was the real deal.  It's very well made and certainly could be a shadow of things to come.  Latest word is we might get a REAL teaser by San Diego Comic Con time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-13Ic19WUs&hd=1# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-13Ic19WUs&hd=1#)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: turtlesrock on June 05, 2012, 04:35:28 PM
looks good!

wait, a *real* teaser? how can a teaser be real?
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on June 05, 2012, 05:23:21 PM
Quote from: turtlesrock on June 05, 2012, 04:35:28 PM
looks good!

wait, a *real* teaser? how can a teaser be real?

Teaser trailers are short little trailers that don't show much but "tease" you about the movie with little real footage - typically.  The video above was just made by a fan, but hopefully in the next couple of months we will have an official teaser to watch.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: KingIsaacLinksr on June 05, 2012, 05:41:43 PM
Very clever teaser.

King
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on June 08, 2012, 08:43:01 AM
Looks like Simon Pegg is becoming the unofficial source for info on the next film.  He has this to say...

It is a continuation, it is a continuing mission, but at the same time it is a new adventure, a new situation, new challenges. The architecture of the piece is still there, but it is expanded. You will see more of the Enterprise and different environments and different ships...and yes there there will be and we are very very proud of that.

http://bcove.me/ixwtrv21 (http://bcove.me/ixwtrv21)

http://youtu.be/oa1LNm2Wd2c (http://youtu.be/oa1LNm2Wd2c)

more here:
http://trekmovie.com/2012/06/07/pegg-youll-see-more-of-enterprise-more-ships-in-star-trek-sequel/ (http://trekmovie.com/2012/06/07/pegg-youll-see-more-of-enterprise-more-ships-in-star-trek-sequel/)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: billybob476 on June 08, 2012, 09:23:13 AM
Maybe this time engineering will be a distillery instead of a brewery!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Meds on June 10, 2012, 02:07:06 PM
Peggy's done a Shatner with his hair.  :o
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on June 13, 2012, 03:36:59 PM
IMAX 3D for next year's film.

IMAX Corporation and Paramount Pictures Corporation today announced that the sequel to J.J. Abrams' 2009 blockbuster Star Trek, will be released in the immersive IMAX 3D format on May 17, 2013. The film represents the second feature in the ground-breaking franchise to be released in IMAX following Star Trek, which grossed more than $375 million at the worldwide box office....


Full story:
http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=91489 (http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=91489)
Title: Star Trek 2 (XII) Teaser Trailer
Post by: Poodyglitz on June 26, 2012, 07:52:38 AM
Just saw this teaser trailer for the next Star Trek movie (Khan you dig it?):

http://youtu.be/0EYYG3FZMN8 (http://youtu.be/0EYYG3FZMN8)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on June 26, 2012, 08:28:18 AM
This is fan made, fake teaser trailer and was already posted in the Trek XII thread a few weeks back.

(topics merged too)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on June 27, 2012, 03:41:12 PM
Chris Pine has some interesting stuff to say in the article below about the movie.

Pine: Star Trek sequel story is 'better' + Kurtzman: Sequel has 'hugely bold moves'

Pine isn't revealing spoilers, but did have this to say to AICN about the Star Trek sequel:

The movie is relentless, and for the visually inclined people who want to see major sequences, there are a couple specifically that I think... I'm not a huge 3-D fan, but I think will be incredible. But what I'm more excited about and what I think they did so well is that really the story is that much better, and the journey that these guys go on is that much more, and what they always talked about is that even though they're a crew from what we know about the original team, the fun of getting there is following that journey to where they become that tight-knit crew. It's no fun if they're already a tight-knit crew. So suffice it to say, they're still learning how to get along.

And People Like Us director Alex Kurtzman also weighed in, talking more about the arc and interactions of the bridge crew:

[The bridge crew] only really came together as a team at the end of the first movie as a function of story. But the bridge crew from the original series, they aren't those people yet, neither in age nor in experience. So I think the worst mistake that we could have made was to assume that they were there already at the top of the movie and skip that stuff. And the other thing I'll say without revealing too much is that in the first TREK, we made choices–in our invention of the story–that were extremely controversial. Blowing up Vulcan, hugely controversial choice, and we knew that die hard Trekkers were either going to skewer us or accept it based on the emotional architecture around that choice. I think for us, TREK is at its best when it is making hugely bold moves like that, and there will be hugely bold moves in this one.

MORE TREK TALK FROM CHRIS

Speaking to RedEyeChicago Chris Pine talked about how he feels that Star Trek fans warmed up to him after some initial reluctance.

Chris, what's something that surprised you about Capt. Kirk, either from playing him or people's reactions to how you played him?
CP: Well, I will say my favorite comment that I get from hardcore fans, and they mean it as a compliment and it is, but it's quite funny when it comes out on their lips, is, [talking quietly, seriously,] "You know, when we found out you were going to play Capt. Kirk, we were so angry. We were so sad. We were so nervous. But you turned out to be pretty good." That's the most backhanded compliment of all time.

Why do you think they were nervous or sad at the time?
CP: Certainly because I hadn't done anything in my career that would—"Star Trek" fans are very protective, and understandably so. I'm sure there was nothing in my great, teeming body of work to prove that I could take on the character.

I'm sure they wanted Shatner back with a good makeup job.
CP: Totally. Totally. What was surprising to me ... well, I will say this, having not been a born and bred ["Star Trek"] fan, the first time that all of us were on the bridge and I sat in the captain's chair ... looking around, it was like points of light in the audience. When that moment happened, there were real fans in the crew, grips and gaffers, the art department people, they had come just to watch that moment. Because for them it was a really momentous occasion, and I, not really understanding the gravity or the coolness of it, was kind of unaware until I saw these people light up ... What it means to sit in that chair is quite powerful. Anyway, the chair became this wonderful, beautiful touchstone that was reflective of not only the journey in the film but also who you are and what you are as a person and how you want to sit in your own chair, for lack of a better metaphor. It was really cool.

And speaking to HitFix, Pine said that shooting the Star Trek sequel was "like camp that you get paid for." He also gave this assessment of the upcoming movie:

The new one is just as exciting if not bigger than the first. I think the character story...the great thing that Alex, Bob, JJ and Damon are good at is marrying small character driven films with big blockbuster actors. I that is what sets them apart from other film makers.


http://trekmovie.com/2012/06/26/chris-pine-talks-fan-feedback-shooting-star-trek-sequel-more-video-roundup-of-people-like-us-publicity-tour/ (http://trekmovie.com/2012/06/26/chris-pine-talks-fan-feedback-shooting-star-trek-sequel-more-video-roundup-of-people-like-us-publicity-tour/)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on July 03, 2012, 01:02:00 PM
Am I the only one who is getting slightly annoyed that we haven't had a whiff of anything about this movie officially? They aren't going to Comic-Con, they haven't told us the title, not a darn thing. I don't mind waiting 4 years for a movie if it means it's gonna be great, but a morsel would be nice. It's like 10 months away. The Dark Knight Rises has been giving out morsels for a while, and it's been 4 years as well.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: X on July 03, 2012, 03:31:39 PM
Quote from: Chris-El on July 03, 2012, 01:02:00 PM
Am I the only one who is getting slightly annoyed that we haven't had a whiff of anything about this movie officially? They aren't going to Comic-Con, they haven't told us the title, not a darn thing. I don't mind waiting 4 years for a movie if it means it's gonna be great, but a morsel would be nice. It's like 10 months away. The Dark Knight Rises has been giving out morsels for a while, and it's been 4 years as well.
I'm not upset or concerned at all. I think it's refreshing that they aren't trying to sell a product that isn't complete. i don't need morsels, I'm going see it. I think we'll see something as soon as post is complete and the final version of the film is approved.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on July 03, 2012, 03:43:59 PM
Quote from: X on July 03, 2012, 03:31:39 PM
Quote from: Chris-El on July 03, 2012, 01:02:00 PM
Am I the only one who is getting slightly annoyed that we haven't had a whiff of anything about this movie officially? They aren't going to Comic-Con, they haven't told us the title, not a darn thing. I don't mind waiting 4 years for a movie if it means it's gonna be great, but a morsel would be nice. It's like 10 months away. The Dark Knight Rises has been giving out morsels for a while, and it's been 4 years as well.
I'm not upset or concerned at all. I think it's refreshing that they aren't trying to sell a product that isn't complete. i don't need morsels, I'm going see it. I think we'll see something as soon as post is complete and the final version of the film is approved.

I agree with Chris, I think generating fan excitement and interest early served them well with the first film and considering the length of the hiatus and the many means to tease a film nowadays (Prometheus has a whole viral campaign which was terrific) I think it's a mistake that they are being so cagey about it. They don;t need to release any film specific info., just get people excited about the return of STAR TREK. Big missed opportunity, IMO.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on July 03, 2012, 04:30:47 PM
Quote from: Bryancd on July 03, 2012, 03:43:59 PM
Quote from: X on July 03, 2012, 03:31:39 PM
Quote from: Chris-El on July 03, 2012, 01:02:00 PM
Am I the only one who is getting slightly annoyed that we haven't had a whiff of anything about this movie officially? They aren't going to Comic-Con, they haven't told us the title, not a darn thing. I don't mind waiting 4 years for a movie if it means it's gonna be great, but a morsel would be nice. It's like 10 months away. The Dark Knight Rises has been giving out morsels for a while, and it's been 4 years as well.
I'm not upset or concerned at all. I think it's refreshing that they aren't trying to sell a product that isn't complete. i don't need morsels, I'm going see it. I think we'll see something as soon as post is complete and the final version of the film is approved.

I agree with Chris, I think generating fan excitement and interest early served them well with the first film and considering the length of the hiatus and the many means to tease a film nowadays (Prometheus has a whole viral campaign which was terrific) I think it's a mistake that they are being so cagey about it. They don;t need to release any film specific info., just get people excited about the return of STAR TREK. Big missed opportunity, IMO.
That's all I'm saying. Every Trekkie that I knew went to see Nemesis...and it tanked. Of COURSE I'm going to see it. I think a ton of the success of the first one was the marketing. It pulled in non-Trekkies. Plus I know I'm not being logical, I just want to know a little something, like the title. Whet the old Trek appetite.

In comparison, the Facebook page for Iron Man 3 has a piece of concept art up, no big deal, but their release dates are weeks apart, and hey, it's a little something to analyze. Just sayin'.

https://www.facebook.com/ironmanmovie (https://www.facebook.com/ironmanmovie)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on July 03, 2012, 04:55:23 PM
I think Trek needs a LOT more pre-release publicity and hype then Ironman 3. Again, it's lost opportunity and it's curious that JJ and Co., who demonstrated such solid marketing savvy for the first TREK film are failing to be more proactive this time. Makes me curious as to what is going on behind the scenes.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: X on July 03, 2012, 05:36:58 PM
I think that the attention span of a majority of the world is fairly limited. I wouldn't be surprised if they saved the push to start during the holiday season. I think six months of targeted marketing and buildup would be much better than trying to milk the same content for almost a year. Plus, it's cheaper to market it over a six month window than a year window.

Spiderman was the same way, little was heard about it officially until this huge push that has been going on in the last few weeks.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on July 04, 2012, 06:25:53 AM
I'm not a big believer in marketing hype, ads, etc.  I think when the movie comes out if it's good, people will go.  As a big Trek fan, of course I'd love it if we had more info at this point - like at least a movie title.  I would expect JJ & Co. to do like they did last time - to a degree.  Soon we will probably be getting some kind of short teaser trailer and easily by the late fall a full trailer.  And also expect some fun web based sites to pop up like last time too.  At least we have a release date!  :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on July 04, 2012, 12:31:43 PM
I've got a feeling part if the reason for the major lack of information on this movie is they have had some majors issues which caused the delays. Casting, plot, story etc I feel have been up in the air a bit and I'm sure some major rewriting had been going on.

Not necessarily the end of the world, I'm sure it will be a good movie but they could really do with a little promotion now like Chris and Bryan are saying.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on July 05, 2012, 08:35:45 AM
What surprises me most is the word is there won't be anything really shown at Comic Con.  No teaser, no panel from what I've heard, etc.  This is a mistake.  This is geek mecca and the movie will be out next May so this Comic Con is their chance to create some early buzz.  Maybe they will surprise and do something, but I doubt it.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on July 05, 2012, 08:41:11 AM
Who do these guys think they are? Apple?!! :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on July 05, 2012, 08:45:20 AM
Quote from: Rico on July 05, 2012, 08:35:45 AM
What surprises me most is the word is there won't be anything really shown at Comic Con.  No teaser, no panel from what I've heard, etc.  This is a mistake.  This is geek mecca and the movie will be out next May so this Comic Con is their chance to create some early buzz.  Maybe they will surprise and do something, but I doubt it.

X2. This is just poor marketing on their part and it's made all the more suprising as they were so on the ball for the first film.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: X on July 05, 2012, 09:26:11 AM
maybe it's just me, but aren't most films not advertised until they are closer until release? Sure, people can look up stuff and try to find out about it, but usually, you hardly get 6 months of lead time on most new movies if you aren't actively looking for info.

I'm not seeing how this is dropping the ball considering that if you flood the markets too soon with ads, you risk fatigue in the potential viewer.

Also, remember the first time... we hardly got anything. It wasn't until 6 months out from the initial release date that we started seeing things officially. I think they are par for the course with their previous ad word and let's face it, it worked last time.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on July 05, 2012, 01:23:07 PM
I don't think releasing the title of the movie will induce franchise fatigue! This is also the Comic-con before the movie comes out...a little something shown there gets geek nation fueled up! And I feel like the teaser that just showed the Enterprise being built was further out than 6 months, more like almost a year. I could be wrong though, that's just how I'm remembering it.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on July 05, 2012, 02:59:57 PM
Quote from: X on July 05, 2012, 09:26:11 AM
maybe it's just me, but aren't most films not advertised until they are closer until release? Sure, people can look up stuff and try to find out about it, but usually, you hardly get 6 months of lead time on most new movies if you aren't actively looking for info.

I'm not seeing how this is dropping the ball considering that if you flood the markets too soon with ads, you risk fatigue in the potential viewer.

Also, remember the first time... we hardly got anything. It wasn't until 6 months out from the initial release date that we started seeing things officially. I think they are par for the course with their previous ad word and let's face it, it worked last time.

General ads on TV and at movies come of course much closer to release, but you are forgetting and overlooking a few things.  First Comic Con has become huge and gets a lot of early press going for things coming in film & TV.  And you are not accurate in what you said they did the last time.  We got our first teaser for the May 2009 "Star Trek" film in Jan. of 2008!  Viral websites also popped up many months in advance of the film along with images, musical bits and more.  All I'm saying is they are really missing out if they don't do something at Comic Con.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on July 05, 2012, 03:21:10 PM
Quote from: Rico on July 05, 2012, 02:59:57 PM
Quote from: X on July 05, 2012, 09:26:11 AM
maybe it's just me, but aren't most films not advertised until they are closer until release? Sure, people can look up stuff and try to find out about it, but usually, you hardly get 6 months of lead time on most new movies if you aren't actively looking for info.

I'm not seeing how this is dropping the ball considering that if you flood the markets too soon with ads, you risk fatigue in the potential viewer.

Also, remember the first time... we hardly got anything. It wasn't until 6 months out from the initial release date that we started seeing things officially. I think they are par for the course with their previous ad word and let's face it, it worked last time.

General ads on TV and at movies come of course much closer to release, but you are forgetting and overlooking a few things.  First Comic Con has become huge and gets a lot of early press going for things coming in film & TV.  And you are not accurate in what you said they did the last time.  We got our first teaser for the May 2009 "Star Trek" film in Jan. of 2008!  Viral websites also popped up many months in advance of the film along with images, musical bits and more.  All I'm saying is they are really missing out if they don't do something at Comic Con.
Yeah, I thought that teaser was out during the Superbowl...a full year and a half out from the release of the movie! It's just a baffling way to go about it. No Comic-Con? What the heck?
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on July 05, 2012, 03:31:21 PM
I have a feeling JJ has felt a little burned by pics released front he set and has gotten lot of heat over the delay in getting this story together and all the "rumors" surrounding it. He's a pretty secretive guy and really seems to hate spoilers coming out. So perhaps he is hesitant to release anything even though they have completed principal photography. It's not a question of them not having material to tease. But who decides that? The production team or the studio? Either way, understanding how marketing functions and how early and well they marketed the first film, this is DROPPING THE BALL...Chris. :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: X on July 05, 2012, 04:03:03 PM
I see what you're saying and I can sort of agree.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on July 05, 2012, 04:10:12 PM
Quote from: X on July 05, 2012, 04:03:03 PM
I see what you're saying and I can sort of agree.

I'm sorry, I read this and fell on the floor in shock. What have you done to our "X" you impostor!!!! ;)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: X on July 05, 2012, 07:51:41 PM
I can agree that your position has some merit. I personally think that they still have some time to get things going with no serious repercussions, but there is some merit in generating an early buzz. I'd save my advertising to close to the release date, but I do agree that some buzz would benefit right about now.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: turtlesrock on July 06, 2012, 09:33:13 AM
not sure if this is just a teaser poster, but it sure looks cool ^_^
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on July 06, 2012, 09:45:51 AM
Fan made.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: turtlesrock on July 06, 2012, 01:54:34 PM
aww dang :(
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on July 06, 2012, 02:23:25 PM
I kind of like the title actually - even if it isn't real.  This is a perfect example of why they need to start putting out some official material.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on July 06, 2012, 04:06:33 PM
Could this be the teaser for the new film??  :)

KRE-O Star Trek Teaser Trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6uGz1jykck#ws)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: X on July 06, 2012, 04:13:22 PM
That actually looks official!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Geekyfanboy on July 09, 2012, 11:40:24 AM
Karl Urban Reveals Cumberbatch Star Trek Sequel Character? July 9, 2012
by Anthony Pascale

One of the biggest points of speculation about the Star Trek sequel has been about the character played by Benedict Cumberbatch. There have been rumors, reports and denials about his role and today brings a brand new possible revelation, this time coming from co-star Karl Urban. More details and potential spoilers below.

[spoiler]Cumberbatch as Gary Mitchell?

The latest report on the villain character being played by Benedict Cumberbatch comes from SFX Magazine who are quoting Karl Urban from a junket for his upcoming film Dredd. According to SFX, Urban said of Cumberbatch:

    "He's awesome, he's a great addition, and I think his Gary Mitchell is going to be exemplary."

SFX says that this comment came "towards the end of a lengthily interview" about Dredd. The character of Lt. Cmdr. Gary Mitchell (originally played by Gary Lockwood) appeared in the (second) pilot for the original Star Trek series, Where No Man Has Gone Before." Could it be that Karl Urban has let the cat out of the bag and revealed that Cumberbatch is playing Kirk's friend who became a maniacal super-man after passing through the galactic barrier?

Karl Urban apparently reveals that Cumberbatch (with Quinto in spy shot-R) is playing Gary Mitchell (as seen on TOS-L)

Of course much of the speculation and reporting about Cumberbatch has been about the character of Khan Noonien Singh. Many sites (including this one) had reported sources indicting that Cumberbatch was Khan. However, following these reports Simon Pegg issued what seemed to be a clear denial calling the notion of Cumberbatch as Khan "a myth." So perhaps Urban's comment follows up with Pegg, moving the notion from Khan to Mitchell. On the other hand, Urban's comment completely contradicts co-writer/produder Bob Orci who recently denied Cumberbatch was playing Gary Mitchell.

In addition, Gary Mitchell has already been seen in the new movie universe, specifically in the first issues of the new IDW Star Trek comic books. The new ongoing comic series is being overseen by Orci and others on the Star Trek team and it seems a somewhat unlikely that the first storyline for the new comics would feature the villain for the upcoming sequel.

This new comment from Urban is the latest salvo in what appears to be a back and forth about Cumberbatch's character that has been going on for months. For now TrekMovie cannot confirm Urban's comment and we still stand by our earlier reporting. However, there appears to be a lot of noise and possibly misinformation going around regarding the role being played by Cumberbatch. Officially everything regarding the plot or new characters for the sequel are rumors from Paramount's perspective.  So yes it is possible Cumberbatch is playing Khan, or Mitchell or even some other character. [/spoiler]
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on July 09, 2012, 11:45:38 AM
Woot!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: QuadShot on July 09, 2012, 11:46:32 AM
I know who Cumberbatch is playing....
[spoiler]Khan Noonian Mitchell! :) [/spoiler]
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on July 09, 2012, 01:03:17 PM
Well this would make a LOT more sense if it is true. It also probably means they did do a rewrite and / or change villain ideas between trying to cast Del Torro and securing Cumberbatch.

I'm getting to the point that I don't care if he ends up playing Chaka Khan I just wish they'd bloody tell us! Lol
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on July 09, 2012, 01:34:34 PM
Haha! This waiting is painful. There hasn't been ONE official image released.

Gary Mitchell was kinda what I thought, but since he's been covered in the comics I thought he was out.

We really need this guy from Alien 3: "This is rumor control, here are the facts!"
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Jobydrone on July 09, 2012, 01:51:21 PM
How ironic it would be if he's actually playing Moriarty?
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on July 09, 2012, 04:09:00 PM
I think Karl Urban was messing with us.  I have a hard time believing this is how we find out who the villain is going to be. 
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: davekill on July 09, 2012, 04:15:09 PM
Kirks old friend from the second pilot. He was bound to escape that rock.

I like it :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on July 09, 2012, 04:21:30 PM
I'm becoming more and more convinced they haven't actually made this movie, it's all a hoax. :)

But I will add all of this is doing zero to build fan excitement, it's just irritating at this point, IMO.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on July 09, 2012, 04:40:29 PM
Believe nothing!

It's a faaaaaake (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qKcJF4fOPs#)

even better response...

It's a FAAAKE!! no... ITS REAAAL!!!!! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lHgbbM9pu4#)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on July 09, 2012, 04:44:33 PM
Bawahahahahahahahahahaha! I never get tired of Vreenak and I agree with him!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on July 12, 2012, 03:23:11 PM
Read another recent quote from Karl Urban.  Now this I hope is true.   :biggrin

"I can promise you that before the end of Comic-Con, some exclusive Star Trek footage, it's going to come out. You're going to find it. It's going to come out."

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=92490 (http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=92490)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: turtlesrock on July 12, 2012, 07:38:15 PM
IT'S A RAAAAAAAAAAAAKE!
http://www.gwestern.com/images/524533metal%20rake.gif (http://www.gwestern.com/images/524533metal%20rake.gif)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on July 13, 2012, 03:08:26 AM
Apparently this is Karl Urban's punishment for letting slip Trek 12 details:

Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Jobydrone on July 13, 2012, 06:34:35 AM
Quote from: Bryancd on July 09, 2012, 04:21:30 PM
I'm becoming more and more convinced they haven't actually made this movie, it's all a hoax. :)

But I will add all of this is doing zero to build fan excitement, it's just irritating at this point, IMO.

Totally agree...All this hubbub over shrouding the plot details in secrecy is over the top and pretty ridiculous.  It's not going to change anyone's mind about seeing the movie if they release a list of who's playing who.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: QuadShot on July 13, 2012, 06:49:28 AM
Quote from: turtlesrock on July 12, 2012, 07:38:15 PM
IT'S A RAAAAAAAAAAAAKE!
http://www.gwestern.com/images/524533metal%20rake.gif (http://www.gwestern.com/images/524533metal%20rake.gif)
Nice! :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on July 13, 2012, 11:33:00 AM
Just watched a video interview with Karl Urban from Comic Con. They asked him about the gary Mitchell comment. He said he went into the interview after a 22 hour flight but couldn't comment on it. Sounds like he slipped up!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on July 13, 2012, 12:14:59 PM
It will be interesting if it is Mitchell although it would be a mega coincidence if the same guy gets affected the same way at a different time. Aren't we about 10 years Pre-TOS era in this universe?
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on July 13, 2012, 01:01:04 PM
Depends on how much time has passed. In the first film, it was 2258 by the end, and "Where No Man Has Gone Before" is in 2265 (the last from my Star Trek chronology book). So if a few years has gone by, it's not too far off from the original voyage's years.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on July 13, 2012, 01:44:32 PM
You guys gotta watch the interview, it's towards the end but you can tell how uncomfortable he is! LOL! Poor guy, JJ's team was probably giving him hell!
http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=92520 (http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=92520)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on July 13, 2012, 04:14:40 PM
It's not Mitchell.  For a few reasons and here's one of the biggest reasons.  They are already using Mitchell in the comics.  It's been stated that by near the time the movie comes out (10 months from now), the plan is to have the comics lead into the film.  I can't see them using the character who will be the main villain in the next film in the monthly comic already.  I also think this is all one, big planned misdirection.  The comments come out shortly before Comic Con.  Now they are playing this little game with Karl Urban.  Anyway, I really think this is all just a little gag they are playing on the fans.  But, I'm not swallowing it.  I could be wrong, but it just doesn't add up to me.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on July 13, 2012, 04:23:20 PM
It would be refreshing IF they actually DID some marketing!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Jobydrone on July 14, 2012, 04:16:06 AM
Wasn't this article posted here last month? 

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/06/26/characters-not-in-the-next-star-trek-movie-according-to-writer-bob-orci/ (http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/06/26/characters-not-in-the-next-star-trek-movie-according-to-writer-bob-orci/)

As part of a headline farming exercise, Aint It Cool News' Hercules pestered Star Trek co-writer Roberto Orci for some news on the Ask Mr. KERN radio show last weekend. He did quite well.

One headline he could have opted for would have concerned the possibility of a new Star Trek TV series. I listened to the show, and while Orci talked about early negotiations for a fresh Star Trek show, it would depend on an agreement between Bad Robot, Paramount, and CBS.  There's no pitch as yet, just a lot of red tape, so there's no concept of whether or not the show would tie into the new movie continuity or be standalone, but he did say that the first enquiries made were specifically about an animated show.

Another headline is the one I've gone for. Hercules named four characters and Orci stated, very clearly, that none of them have any part in the new movie. They are:

Janice Rand
Gary Mitchell
Charlie X
Ruk the Android
What's more, he stated pretty clearly that there's no Borg in the film either.

And the third, least effective but still oddly intriguing headline, was Orci's estimation of a 75% chance that the new film will have the words Star Trek in the title.

Which is the same thing as a 25% chance it won't.

He was apparently drunk at the time of the interview (well, that's what they claim anyway) so those bizarre odds probably deserve even more salting than normally. My hunch is that they know full well what they want to call the film and they're just waiting for the right time to announce it.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Jobydrone on July 14, 2012, 04:23:45 AM
If Rico is right and all this is a gag on the fans they should be careful and think about what they're doing pretty clearly.  It would be a shame to squander the goodwill they generated with the first film (against all odds I might add) by playing childish games and toying with fans expectations.   Even some here have already expressed their annoyance at the way this all is going down, and I think it's safe to say that this is about the most tolerant and open minded group of Star Trek fans in the universe.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on July 14, 2012, 05:09:02 AM
They should have just come out and dismissed Karl's comments instead of playing around with it.  I don't think it will really have any lasting negative impact but it's all a little unprofessional - in my view.  I'm really still hoping they don't squander Comic Con completely and we get some REAL info.  Remember today is the biggest day of the con.  Fingers crossed!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on July 14, 2012, 05:15:08 AM
Quote from: Rico on July 14, 2012, 05:09:02 AM
They should have just come out and dismissed Karl's comments instead of playing around with it.  I don't think it will really have any lasting negative impact but it's all a little unprofessional - in my view.  I'm really still hoping they don't squander Comic Con completely and we get some REAL info.  Remember today is the biggest day of the con.  Fingers crossed!

That's why it still seems that it could be a possibility to me that this was a proof, not a goof. :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on July 15, 2012, 04:44:19 AM
New interview with Bob Orci.  Based on his comments below, Cumberbatch is not playing Gary Mitchell - but he is playing an established "Star Trek" canon character (as is Alice Eve too).  This actually contradicts earlier reports about the character Alice Eve was playing would be new to the franchise.  I'm starting to go along with Dangelus on much of this in thinking that they rewrote this script a lot after they couldn't get Benicio.  Anyway, read on...

Orci reveals Cumberbatch is canon character but not Mitchell + much more

TrekMovie.com: A couple of weeks ago you were on a radio show and you confirmed that Benedict Cumberbatch is not playing Gary Mitchell in the sequel. Then last week Karl Urban says he is playing Gary Mitchell. Both can't be true.

Roberto Orci: All I can say is that when I did that radio interview I had just been doing 22 hours of press. I had just got off a flight from New Zealand...

TrekMovie.com: Nice callback, but are you sticking with your original comment and it isn't Gary Mitchell.

Roberto Orci: I would say that I never lie. While Karl tests all those hypo spray props on himself [laughs]

TrekMovie.com: Another thing Karl is saying is there is some footage being released this weekend. Do you know anything about that?

Roberto Orci: No. I would love to see some.

TrekMovie.com: For the last movie your first full trailer with new footage was with Quantum of Solace which was in late October of 2008. So following that pattern should we expect the first sequel trailer sometime this fall?

Roberto Orci: Yeah. Marketing plans, especially for the second time around, get a little more clear. You know you want a certain amount of time for an audience to be aware of what is coming up. So certainly fall at the latest for starting to role this movie out.

TrekMovie.com: Have you guys picked a name for the movie.

Roberto Orci: No, but we are down to the final list.

TrekMovie.com: Is having "Star Trek" as part of the name a variable?

Roberto Orci: Only one or two of the titles on the list do not contain it. For the most part all the titles we are considering do have Star Trek in them, but just to get crazy we need to consider crazy things.

TrekMovie.com: So how long will we not know who Benedict Cumberbatch is playing? How long will you guys try to not talk about it?

Roberto Orci: For as long as we can because of our belief that one of the fun things about Star Trek that distinguishes it from other franchises is that the story turns. It isn't just the spectacle of Star Trek, not just the explosions and the battles, it is the plot. That is why we are so protective of plot and character with this particular franchise. In others that isn't the case but in this one we can preserve the experience for some people of not knowing exactly until we get there. Will we succeed in keeping it under wraps? Probably not, but we will try it.

TrekMovie.com: OK, I want to try and get something out of you that is actually new about the movie. Kind of like you did on the radio show but I will name a guest actor in the sequel and you will say if they are playing a new character you created or one from the original Star Trek canon.

Roberto Orci: OK, I'll play.

TrekMovie.com: OK let's start with Alice Eve. Canon or new?

Roberto Orci: Canon

TrekMovie.com: Noel Clarke?

Roberto Orci: New

TrekMovie.com: I assume that also goes for Nanzeen Contractor, who plays his wife?

Roberto Orci: Yes, new.

TrekMovie.com: Peter Weller

Roberto Orci: New.

TrekMovie.com: Joseph Gatt

Roberto Orci: New.

TrekMovie.com: OK and the big one, Benedict Cumberbatch.

Roberto Orci: Canon.

TrekMovie.com: Can you give me a status update on post-production. What is happening in July.

Roberto Orci: Trying to make each sequence and trying to make it work. We have two brilliant editors working simultaneously with JJ going back and forth. So get these sequences working internally and then we will string them together to see how they work as a whole. But first it is, don't try to cut the whole movie, it here is a sequence so where does that start and where does it end? Do we have a little piece of the movie that is totally working. We attack it modularly.

TrekMovie.com: So music is still far off I know, but when does the sound work start,  does Ben Burtt, he's back right? So is their work still in the future?

Roberto Orci: Still in the future. You don't want them to waste their time for things that may not end up in the movie. So sound design, anything like that. But ILM is in there dropping FX in sequences as we go. There are things we knew would be in there since the beginning and they have had a nice long time.

TrekMovie.com: When do you think there will be the first rough cut?

Roberto Orci: Probably in a month.

TrekMovie.com: What has been the reaction from the studio so far?

Roberto Orci: It is always nice to hear nice things from the studio and they are over the moon. They were very complimentary when we wrapped and some said they thought it was better than the first one. But you know they want to encourage us.

TrekMovie.com: Sure, but this is their business so these are the kind of people who would let you know if they had problems, they would tell you it sucks if they thought it sucks right?

Roberto Orci: I think so. You don't often get such well acted praise [laughs].

TrekMovie.com: What about you? What have been some of your reactions to the footage you have seen so far?

Roberto Orci: I am such a Star Trek fan that I'm not sure I would dislike anything we have shot so I'm not sure I'm a good source. I see them all in uniform on the ship and I'm like "Wow! This is great! New Star Trek!" But I'm the wrong guy to ask. But every few weeks during dailies I would see a new email chain go around with stuff like "Did you see that scene yesterday?" "Did you see Spock in that new close?" "Did you see Cumberbatch make it sound like poetry?" So to hear other people chattering about it is encouraging. And it's big. It's so big. It's epic. We just really went for a bigger version than we did last time, because of the trust.


http://trekmovie.com/2012/07/14/exclusive-interview-roberto-orci-reveals-star-trek-sequel-character-details-talks-title-post-production/ (http://trekmovie.com/2012/07/14/exclusive-interview-roberto-orci-reveals-star-trek-sequel-character-details-talks-title-post-production/)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on July 15, 2012, 05:37:38 AM
OK, I figured it out...it's Finnegan. :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: billybob476 on July 15, 2012, 05:44:50 AM
Quote from: Bryancd on July 15, 2012, 05:37:38 AM
OK, I figured it out...it's Finnegan. :)

I had the exact same thought Jimmy me boy! :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on July 15, 2012, 05:55:48 AM
Only if they have that bouncy Irish jig music playing, then I'm OK with it!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Roddenberry on July 15, 2012, 10:46:14 AM
Cumberbatch will be playing Sybok, so few Vulcans left and it'll be a movie centered around families coming together or falling apart, including our beloved Enterprise family.

Or not.  :D
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on July 15, 2012, 12:35:24 PM
I'm starting to enjoy all this messing about a little bit now :)

OK, if we take them true to their word all we know is Cumberbatch will play a character from canon but not Mitchell. Safe to say he probably isn't Khan either. Any guesses?

We see him fighting Spock in a Starfleet uniform. Assuming he's Starfleet for now, who would fit this bill? This is why I thought Mitchell would have made sense. Uniform, enhanced strength (holding his own with Spock)...

Aaargh!!! Lol
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on July 15, 2012, 01:12:54 PM
Commodore Matt Decker, goin' crazy a bit early!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on July 15, 2012, 01:47:29 PM
I'm still guessing he will be a "version of Khan." 
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on July 15, 2012, 01:57:24 PM
Maybe one of the supermen with Khan. Maybe Khan dies in this universe somehow. Maybe, maybe, maybe. Maybe a human-like Klingon. Maybe an android. Maybe, they could tell us his name! Sorry, I'm on overload from Comic-con reveals.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Geoff G.o.B on July 15, 2012, 02:05:44 PM
As long as JJ leaves the lens flare behind I don't care what they do! Having watched most of the first one behind sunglasses and now I've just watched Super 8, seriously did JJ buy a job lot or something?
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on July 15, 2012, 02:27:06 PM
Quote from: Rico on July 15, 2012, 01:47:29 PM
I'm still guessing he will be a "version of Khan." 

That's it..it's Joachim. "Yours is...superior....."
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on July 15, 2012, 02:49:02 PM
Quote from: Bryancd on July 15, 2012, 02:27:06 PM
Quote from: Rico on July 15, 2012, 01:47:29 PM
I'm still guessing he will be a "version of Khan." 

That's it..it's Joachim. "Yours is...superior....."
I shall avenge you!!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on August 13, 2012, 02:39:45 PM
Attention all personnel, incoming choppers with wounded....oh, and still not a WORD about the next Star Trek movie. That is all.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Geekyfanboy on September 07, 2012, 09:48:45 PM
What do you guys think of the title?

Exclusive: Sequel Title Confirmed – 'Star Trek Into Darkness' September 7, 2012
by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Star Trek sequel (2013)

TrekMovie has an update on our earlier story regarding the title for the Star Trek sequel We can now confirm the title that has been chosen by JJ Abrams and Paramount for the 2013 movie. More details below.

Sequel title: "Star Trek Into Darkness"

TrekMovie has confirmed with multiple sources that "Star Trek Into Darkness" has been selected as the title for the 2013 sequel to JJ Abrams' Star Trek movie. This is a title that comes out of a long process of discussion amongst the creative team. As reported earlier, Paramount tested a number of titles for the film over the summer, including at least one title that did not include "Star Trek." Also noted in our earlier article, the title (by design) does not include a colon, like were used for the Next Generation films such as "Star Trek: First Contact" or "Star Trek: Nemesis."

While Paramount will not officially confirm the news, multiple sources have told TrekMovie this is the title they are going with as of now. It has also been reported that Paramount has secured the domain names to both www.startrekintodarkness.com (http://www.startrekintodarkness.com) and www.startrekintodarknessmovie.com (http://www.startrekintodarknessmovie.com), neither of which has any content.

As for the title itself, "Into Darkness" does not reveal anything specific about the plot. So for those who were hoping for "Star Trek Khan" or "The Revenge of Gary Mitchell" you are out of luck. However, "Into Darkness" certainly gives us a hint that this film could have a serious tone and perhaps darker theme than the 2009 Star Trek film. On the other hand the title is also evocative of Star Trek's core mission of going into the "darkness" of space, to seek out new life and new civilizations. Of course the current Trek team often point to Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy as inspiration, with the second film in that series being titled "The Dark Knight" which itself had some very dark themes. Is this Trek sequel Star Trek's "Dark Knight"? As that film grossed $1B world wide, I imagine Paramount is certainly hoping it is.

According to sources, the creative team are still working on how they will officially roll out this new title. The first acknowledgement will likely be made with some kind of visual treatment, either a type treatment for the title or possibly even a teaser poster or image. Indications are that this official roll out should be coming soon.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on September 08, 2012, 12:02:34 AM
Not having the colon is interesting. Hopefully it will all make sense once we get a trailer.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on September 08, 2012, 04:54:04 AM
I would prefer a colon. Does that sound weird? ;)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on September 08, 2012, 05:10:59 AM
Title seems ok to me I guess.  Says pretty much nothing about the movie.  The colon thing (or a dash) doesn't matter much in my view.  I'm just VERY happy they kept 'Star Trek' in the title.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: X on September 08, 2012, 05:19:47 AM
Quote from: Bryancd on September 08, 2012, 04:54:04 AM
I would prefer a colon. Does tat sound weird? ;)
Yep! TOS movies didn't need no stinking colons...

:)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on September 08, 2012, 05:25:05 AM
The problem I have with the title is I keep reading it as a sentence. I would prefer STAR TREK: Into Darkness
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: X on September 08, 2012, 05:27:40 AM
I get what you're saying, but I just mentally add it. Khan didn't have a colon on the posters either. It was added latter because we pause.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on September 08, 2012, 06:13:54 AM
Maybe it's actually suppose to be read without a pause - as a sentence.  Think about it.  Star trek into darkness.  Maybe the title is more literal, meaning a journey into the darkness of,....?  Space?  Evil??  The soul???
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: billybob476 on September 08, 2012, 06:15:49 AM
And I guess on descriptive vs non-descriptive titles, they've kind of gone down the middle n the past. 2, 3, 4 and First Contact had fairly descriptive titles while the rest of the don't.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on September 08, 2012, 06:31:53 AM
Well, this movie is also coming in 2013.  A horror film called "Into the Darkness."

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1496389/ (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1496389/)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on September 08, 2012, 06:43:01 AM
I just whipped this little poster up.

Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: jedijeff on September 08, 2012, 06:45:11 AM
Cool Poster Rico, I think once we start seeing some promotional material, this Title will have more meaning and effect. I sort of like how it is a bit ambiguous right now.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Roddenberry on September 08, 2012, 07:03:02 AM
Into Darkness, so maybe the stars are disappearing, maybe a planet or two as well....sounds familiar.  :D

The Doctor is coming.

:D
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on September 08, 2012, 07:29:28 AM
I was going to say the colon isn't an issue if the title is displayed as your mockup Rico. It's when it's displayed on one line that it seems weird.

Well I'm intrigued by the title which I suppose is a good thing. How about a frickin trailer now eh? ;)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Ktrek on September 08, 2012, 09:09:29 AM
They don't use colons in the Star Trek book titles so why should they for movie titles? I kind of like it.

Kevin
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on September 08, 2012, 09:12:35 AM
True, and even the "coloned" ones aren't "coloned" on the posters. Finally something in the way of news to talk about!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: davekill on September 08, 2012, 10:31:46 AM
Into darkness sounds pretty foreboding, Reminds me of the gathering gloom of The Fellowship of the Ring.

Do you suppose this means the federation is are going to war?

With...

1) Klingons

2) Romulans

3) Internal war

If so, I hope it's a united federation against a common foe like the Klingons and not an attempt to be edgy like the TNG episode 'Conspiracy'.

Or it could be worse, they could be fighting vampires.- that's pretty dark.
James T. Kirk: Vampire hunter  :ohmy
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: WillEagle on September 08, 2012, 11:59:48 AM
I like the title because it's so diffrent from any other Trek film. And I agree with Rico, Keep Star Trek in the title! Also I would prefer they have a colon than not too. I am very happy they finally came out with a title.  
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on September 08, 2012, 01:00:01 PM
I made another wallpaper image.  Used it for today's Daily Pic too!  :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Feathers on September 08, 2012, 01:02:51 PM
I guess the title will be on two lines or similar that will make the colon redundant.

I think I like it but I hope it does follow the implied lead into something perhaps a little slower and darker than we got last time.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Feathers on September 08, 2012, 01:04:16 PM
Quote from: Rico on September 08, 2012, 01:00:01 PM
I made another wallpaper image.  Used it for today's Daily Pic too!  :)
That's really nice!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on September 08, 2012, 02:20:15 PM
Quote from: X on September 08, 2012, 05:27:40 AM
I get what you're saying, but I just mentally add it. Khan didn't have a colon on the posters either. It was added latter because we pause.

That's true but they had a very prominent II after Star Trek which made it read differently to me.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Jobydrone on September 10, 2012, 10:39:38 AM
Quote from: X on September 08, 2012, 05:27:40 AM
...Khan didn't have a colon on the posters either.
How does he poop?
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on September 10, 2012, 10:55:45 AM
Quote from: Jobydrone on September 10, 2012, 10:39:38 AM
Quote from: X on September 08, 2012, 05:27:40 AM
...Khan didn't have a colon on the posters either.
How does he poop?

I'm honestly shocked we didn't get to the poop jokes a lot sooner! Lol

Well if the movie turns out to be a load of poop they may need to reinstate the colon ;)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Meds on September 11, 2012, 03:40:02 PM
I've read a few people moaning and whinging about the Title. Really? I mean I think its's a good sounding title.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on September 11, 2012, 04:04:05 PM
Quote from: HawkeyeMeds on September 11, 2012, 03:40:02 PM
I've read a few people moaning and whinging about the Title. Really? I mean I think its's a good sounding title.

Always going to be people who will complain.  I think the title is pretty cool. 
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on September 11, 2012, 04:17:54 PM
I think it does the job of telling us that this is new Trek. It's unlike the sequel names from all of the previous movies. It tells us we're in for danger and intrigue. For me it gets the job done...What would people prefer, Star Trek:Resurrection or some other hackneyed title?
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: KingIsaacLinksr on September 11, 2012, 05:35:00 PM
It doesn't bother me at all, at least this will be easier to talk about than saying Star Trek (2009) everytime. That never got old ;)

Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Ktrek on September 11, 2012, 08:54:30 PM
I'm glad they kept Star Trek in the title at least. I think it would have been a huge mistake to leave that out but Into Darkness is an intriguing title. Hopefully it will have several shades of meaning in the story.

Kevin
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: moyer777 on September 11, 2012, 09:36:09 PM
I heard the plot is about Captain Kirk and the crew getting caught in the Willy Wonka universe.  The Enterprise is sucked into the suction tube in the river of chocolate, thus the name INTO DARKNESS.  Should be a tasty movie.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on September 12, 2012, 12:16:32 AM
Quote from: HawkeyeMeds on September 11, 2012, 03:40:02 PM
I've read a few people moaning and whinging about the Title. Really? I mean I think its's a good sounding title.

I like the different use and emphasis on the words. Perhaps some people are so frustrated with the lack of info they are looking for things to dislike?
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on September 15, 2012, 07:59:25 AM
JJ at working editing the film...

Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on September 15, 2012, 08:32:40 AM
Cut a trailer JJ! You got time to lean you got time to clean!:)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: davekill on September 15, 2012, 08:39:20 AM
Two words, Space Vampires.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: WillEagle on September 15, 2012, 01:14:54 PM
Quote from: davekill on September 15, 2012, 08:39:20 AM
Two words, Space Vampires.
That would be terrible.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on September 15, 2012, 02:46:58 PM
Quote from: WillEagle on September 15, 2012, 01:14:54 PM
Quote from: davekill on September 15, 2012, 08:39:20 AM
Two words, Space Vampires.
That would be terrible.

Clearly you have never seen "Lifeforce".  :ohbaby
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: davekill on September 15, 2012, 03:01:15 PM
Quote from: Bryancd on September 15, 2012, 02:46:58 PM
Quote from: WillEagle on September 15, 2012, 01:14:54 PM
Quote from: davekill on September 15, 2012, 08:39:20 AM
Two words, Space Vampires.
That would be terrible.

Clearly you have never seen "Lifeforce".  :ohbaby

"A space shuttle mission investigating Halley's Comet brings back a malevolent race of space vampires who transform most of London's population into zombies. The only survivor of the expedition and British authorities attempt to capture a mysterious but beautiful alien woman who appears responsible."
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on September 15, 2012, 03:06:47 PM
Quote from: davekill on September 15, 2012, 03:01:15 PM
Quote from: Bryancd on September 15, 2012, 02:46:58 PM
Quote from: WillEagle on September 15, 2012, 01:14:54 PM
Quote from: davekill on September 15, 2012, 08:39:20 AM
Two words, Space Vampires.
That would be terrible.

Clearly you have never seen "Lifeforce".  :ohbaby

"A space shuttle mission investigating Halley's Comet brings back a malevolent race of space vampires who transform most of London's population into zombies. The only survivor of the expedition and British authorities attempt to capture a mysterious but beautiful alien woman who appears responsible."

That review leaves out the small fact that the beautiful alien woman walks around completely naked for the entire film. And Patrick Stewart is in it...fully clothed. :) It's actually a hoot of a movie with good special effects for 1985. And did I mention Mathlida Mae walks around naked the ENTIRE TIME?
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: X on September 15, 2012, 03:08:27 PM
Lol! I did enjoy that movie as a kid.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on September 15, 2012, 03:23:49 PM
Quote from: X on September 15, 2012, 03:08:27 PM
Lol! I did enjoy that movie as a kid.

Yeah, I bet you did! ;)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on September 15, 2012, 04:38:23 PM
Quote from: Rico on September 15, 2012, 07:59:25 AM
JJ at working editing the film...



I see a man...sitting in a chair....not DOING ANYTHING!!!! Cut the trailer, man!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on September 15, 2012, 04:46:08 PM
Quote from: Bryancd on September 15, 2012, 04:38:23 PM
Quote from: Rico on September 15, 2012, 07:59:25 AM
JJ at working editing the film...



I see a man...sitting in a chair....not DOING ANYTHING!!!! Cut the trailer, man!

Hey, video rendering takes time!  :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Jstrat96 on September 20, 2012, 11:03:47 AM
So is it just me or does this title make anyone else nervous.  I'm not worried about the movie itself, but the direction of the franchise.  To me, Star Trek has always been about a positive outlook on the future, unlike all of these zombie or end of the world movies.  If they're going to take it in a dark, brooding direction, Star Trek will be just like everything else we see in movies today.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on September 20, 2012, 11:10:22 AM
I'm not sure we can read that much into as of yet. Certainly "The Wrath of Kahn" is kind of dark and threatening. And plentu of series episodes had a similar tone in their titles.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on September 20, 2012, 11:49:05 AM
No, it's not as if Kirk and Spock will start dressing in black and killing everything in sight. They are heroic, "bright" characters who are put in situations that challenge them. Heroes are pretty useless without a villain or danger.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: billybob476 on September 20, 2012, 12:04:43 PM
And if I really think about it, my favourite Trek movies are a bit darker: Khan, Undiscovered Country and First Contact.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Jobydrone on September 20, 2012, 12:13:36 PM
I'm not worried, Trek will always be different to me than any other series, sci-fi or any other, simply because of the rich history and deep canon that exists and can never be taken away regardless of whatever direction a new iteration takes the characters and story.  The movies and TV shows are so ingrained in me, and so much a part of my youth and even my identity, that there's literally nothing the new purveyors of story could ever do to take away the love I have for this franchise.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on September 20, 2012, 12:28:34 PM
They could have called it "Star Trek Where No One Get's Out Alive". :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: WillEagle on September 22, 2012, 06:20:27 PM
If anybody is interested 'Lifeforce' is on Netflix. My wife won't let me watch it!  :o
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on September 22, 2012, 06:29:44 PM
Quote from: WillEagle on September 22, 2012, 06:20:27 PM
If anybody is interested 'Lifeforce' is on Netflix. My wife won't let me watch it!  :o

"I'll be in my bunk."
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on October 05, 2012, 08:05:39 AM
Pathetic.....  :smilie_bleh:

http://io9.com/5949201/jj-abrams-reveals-the-first-footage-from-star-trek-into-darkness-sort-of (http://io9.com/5949201/jj-abrams-reveals-the-first-footage-from-star-trek-into-darkness-sort-of)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on October 05, 2012, 08:29:59 AM
Quote from: Bryancd on October 05, 2012, 08:05:39 AM
Pathetic.....  :smilie_bleh:

http://io9.com/5949201/jj-abrams-reveals-the-first-footage-from-star-trek-into-darkness-sort-of (http://io9.com/5949201/jj-abrams-reveals-the-first-footage-from-star-trek-into-darkness-sort-of)

LOL!!! 
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on October 05, 2012, 08:32:57 AM
I know right!!! A three frame clip!!  :roflmao
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: davekill on October 05, 2012, 08:52:32 AM
If 'Into the Darkness' is not a metaphor where Kirk and Spock get all dark and broody, than maybe it's a time travel story where they literaly go back or forward when there is no light.

At the moment we are surrounded by stars.

On the other hand, they could get swallowed by another giant Space Ameba (The Immunity Syndrome)

Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Ktrek on October 05, 2012, 09:05:55 AM
Quote from: Bryancd on October 05, 2012, 08:05:39 AM
Pathetic.....  :smilie_bleh:

http://io9.com/5949201/jj-abrams-reveals-the-first-footage-from-star-trek-into-darkness-sort-of (http://io9.com/5949201/jj-abrams-reveals-the-first-footage-from-star-trek-into-darkness-sort-of)

I agree...what a waste. Why even bother? In some ways I see Abrams, even as brilliant as he may be, as kind of a jerk.

Kevin
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: WillEagle on October 05, 2012, 10:00:39 AM
I was watching Big Bang on TBS last night and they said J.J. was going to be on Conan and that he had something to show. I am glad I didn't stay up for that!!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: moyer777 on October 05, 2012, 11:47:58 AM
I thought it was funny!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on October 05, 2012, 01:57:00 PM
Quote from: moyer777 on October 05, 2012, 11:47:58 AM
I thought it was funny!

It would have been....if he had after showing that said just kidding now check this out! Instead it's a lame joke because they have not released anything yet and it's way late.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on October 05, 2012, 04:43:41 PM
Yeah. I kinda felt the way you do Bryan. I kinda felt a bit like I got the thumb on the nose from him. I guess it's kinda funny, if you aren't a Star Trek fan.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Rico on November 14, 2012, 04:13:27 PM
Mr. Moyer just posted this on our Facebook group.

Great news!!!

We have all been waiting for news on the first look at JJ Abrams Star Trek Into Darkness. And this afternoon Paramount announced that a 9-minute extended preview of the movie will premiere  on IMAX 3D on December 14th. More details below.

press release

WORLD PREMIERE EXTENDED PREVIEW OF J. J. ABRAMS' "STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS" TO DEBUT IN IMAX 3D ON DECEMBER 14th

THE FIRST 9-MINUTES FROM THE ANTICIPATED SEQUEL WILL BE RELEASED EXCLUSIVELY IN DIGITAL IMAX 3D THEATRES WORLDWIDE

HOLLYWOOD, CA (November 14, 2012) – Paramount Pictures will release the first 9-minutes from J.J. Abrams' eagerly-awaited "STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS" exclusively in IMAX 3D months prior to the film's official release in May 2013. This first-look at the movie will play in approximately 500 digital IMAX 3D theatres beginning December 14th.

"STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS," the sequel to Abrams' 2009 hit film that redefined the Star Trek universe for a new generation, marks the first time exclusive footage has played in IMAX 3D and only the third time a first-look will be released in IMAX.

"Our longtime partners J.J. Abrams, Bryan Burk and the Bad Robot team have really hit it out of the park – the footage is absolutely incredible," said Greg Foster, Chairman and President, IMAX Filmed Entertainment. "Their use of the IMAX® Camera and canvas is sure to impress current and future Star Trek fans alike, and we're thrilled to once again work with our friends at Paramount Pictures to offer this extended 'first look' at this highly anticipated summer blockbuster."

To further the IMAX experience, "STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS" used IMAX cameras to capture several sequences. Exclusively in IMAX theaters, sequences filmed with the extremely high-resolution cameras will expand to fill more of the screen with unprecedented crispness and clarity, putting moviegoers right into the explosive action and vast scope of the film.

"STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS" is written by Damon Lindelof, Alex Kurtzman & Roberto Orci and directed by J.J. Abrams. Abrams is producing with Bryan Burk through Bad Robot Productions, along with Lindelof, Kurtzman and Orci.


http://trekmovie.com/2012/11/14/breaking-9-minute-preview-of-star-trek-into-darkness-to-debut-in-imax-3d-on-december-14/ (http://trekmovie.com/2012/11/14/breaking-9-minute-preview-of-star-trek-into-darkness-to-debut-in-imax-3d-on-december-14/)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK XII" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on November 14, 2012, 04:18:39 PM
And like I said on FB, now I understand the delay. Interesting marketing play, I approve. :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on November 14, 2012, 04:21:33 PM
Time to get my tickets for "The Hobbit" in IMAX!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on November 14, 2012, 04:35:17 PM
Quote from: Rico on November 14, 2012, 04:21:33 PM
Time to get my tickets for "The Hobbit" in IMAX!

Yeah, this was very well planned, no doubt. Crafty fox!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: X on November 14, 2012, 04:46:47 PM
See, I told you all that there was nothing to worry about. I think this is awesome. Spending time to release 9 minutes worth of complete footage seem like a better use of time than a teaser trailer with placeholder music and unfinished graphics
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: WillEagle on November 14, 2012, 06:51:36 PM
Quote from: Rico on November 14, 2012, 04:21:33 PM
Time to get my tickets for "The Hobbit" in IMAX!

IMAX 3D by the looks of it. It might cost me $20 but I might have to drive to the big city to check this out!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Meds on November 15, 2012, 12:24:03 PM
I'll wait for youtube then ;)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on November 15, 2012, 12:45:26 PM
 
Quote from: HawkeyeMeds on November 15, 2012, 12:24:03 PM
I'll wait for youtube then ;)

:metallica:
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on November 16, 2012, 03:34:46 AM
The regular theatrical trailer will also be premiering with The Hobbit in normal non-IMAX showings on Dec. 14th, so not all is lost if you don't have IMAX near you.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on November 27, 2012, 03:17:25 AM
OFFICIAL SYNOPSIS!


STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS – Approved Synopsis 11/26/12

In Summer 2013, pioneering director J.J. Abrams will deliver an explosive action thriller that takes Star Trek Into Darkness.

When the crew of the Enterprise is called back home, they find an unstoppable force of terror from within their own organization has detonated the fleet and everything it stands for, leaving our world in a state of crisis.

With a personal score to settle, Captain Kirk leads a manhunt to a war-zone world to capture a one man weapon of mass destruction.

As our heroes are propelled into an epic chess game of life and death, love will be challenged, friendships will be torn apart, and sacrifices must be made for the only family Kirk has left: his crew.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on November 27, 2012, 04:52:50 AM
It sounds like the first movie except swap Kirk for Spock! We waited this long for that?!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on November 27, 2012, 05:21:18 AM
Hmmm....

Well, first that is a really strangely worded synopsis.  "Detonated the fleet?"  Who writes like that?  If this is accurate it certainly seems to point to Cumberbatch being in Starfleet and it makes it more likely it's Gary Mitchell.  But, I'm still not convinced.  They have done the Mitchell story in the current JJ/verse comics.  I suppose it could be Khan and they made him a Starfleet officer.  But again that seems odd and weird to me.  Still, gives us something to chew on for the next few weeks until the 9 minutes of footage and trailer.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on November 27, 2012, 05:28:56 AM
Yeah, that "detonated the fleet" part really confuses me as well. It doesn't make a lot of sense, either literally or figuratively. I does seem to be legit, it's all over the place this morning as coming from Paramount.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: billybob476 on November 27, 2012, 05:44:28 AM
Maybe Cumberbatch is Remmick!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Ktrek on November 27, 2012, 06:19:58 AM
Quote from: Rico on November 27, 2012, 05:21:18 AM
Still, gives us something to chew on for the next few weeks until the 9 minutes of footage and trailer.

I read online (I think it was Trekmovie.com) that the 9 minute trailer is not going to be shown at The Hobbit but something will be released online soon. However, a new Superman trailer will be shown at the Hobbit so that's still something to look forward to.

Kevin
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on November 27, 2012, 08:33:31 AM
Quote from: Ktrek on November 27, 2012, 06:19:58 AM
Quote from: Rico on November 27, 2012, 05:21:18 AM
Still, gives us something to chew on for the next few weeks until the 9 minutes of footage and trailer.

I read online (I think it was Trekmovie.com) that the 9 minute trailer is not going to be shown at The Hobbit but something will be released online soon. However, a new Superman trailer will be shown at the Hobbit so that's still something to look forward to.

Kevin

No, I don't think that is correct.  The plan is for "The Hobbit" in IMAX (exclusively only there) you will be getting the 9 minutes of movie footage - most likely the start of the Trek/Darkness movie.  For other showings of "The Hobbit" and probably other movies that weekend and beyond there will be a separate 2-3 min. regular trailer for the film.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on November 27, 2012, 08:43:26 AM
Quote from: Rico on November 27, 2012, 08:33:31 AM
Quote from: Ktrek on November 27, 2012, 06:19:58 AM
Quote from: Rico on November 27, 2012, 05:21:18 AM
Still, gives us something to chew on for the next few weeks until the 9 minutes of footage and trailer.

I read online (I think it was Trekmovie.com) that the 9 minute trailer is not going to be shown at The Hobbit but something will be released online soon. However, a new Superman trailer will be shown at the Hobbit so that's still something to look forward to.

Kevin

No, I don't think that is correct.  The plan is for "The Hobbit" in IMAX (exclusively only there) you will be getting the 9 minutes of movie footage - most likely the start of the Trek/Darkness movie.  For other showings of "The Hobbit" and probably other movies that weekend and beyond there will be a separate 2-3 min. regular trailer for the film.

yeah, that's the way I understood it as well, although it was a bit confusing at first.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on November 27, 2012, 08:45:45 AM
And the new "Man of Steel" trailer is suppose to be attached to "The Hobbit" film too - even in non-IMAX showings.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on November 27, 2012, 08:59:25 AM
So, I've been thinking about this synopsis a lot this morning.  I am wondering if the word "detonate" is intentional.  Like bombs of some kind are put on the ships or their warp cores are set to breach.  More like a terrorist thing than a big space battle where they might have said, he 'destroys the fleet.'  Gary Mitchell or Khan could do this.  My money is still on it being Khan - but I'd actually prefer it be Mitchell.  But based on the comics I don't think it's Mitchell.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on November 27, 2012, 09:06:14 AM
Yeah but "detonated the fleet AND all it stands for" makes it sound both literally exploding ships and figuratively the destruction of some ideal. I'm still confused...although I have been on the Gary Mitchell band wagon for a while now and this clearly adds some credence to that.

The more I think about this synopsis, the more I feel the marketing for this film has been fracked up, If they were going tot release this drivel, they should have released a teaser trailer at the very least. Although i welcomed the marketing ploy of releasing the 9min trailer attached to Hobbit, I am back to being irritated by their efforts or lack thereof.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on November 27, 2012, 11:38:41 AM
Is terrorism the only thing that movies can use as allegory anymore? Was there more going on in the 60's than now? It's a weird synopsis, but I hope it makes sense in the coming weeks.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on November 27, 2012, 11:39:58 AM
Oh, I'm sure the movie will be a blast but this marketing has been a cluster.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on November 27, 2012, 11:41:42 AM
Yeah, I think we all agree on that. Almost makes you think they aren't jazzed about it. I'm sure that's not true, but it's almost like the weird uncle who shows up at Thanksgiving. No one mentions him coming and when he shows up you have to try and ignore him.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: davekill on November 27, 2012, 11:51:35 AM
Quote from: Chris-El on November 27, 2012, 11:38:41 AM
Is terrorism the only thing that movies can use as allegory anymore? Was there more going on in the 60's than now? It's a weird synopsis, but I hope it makes sense in the coming weeks.

Enterprise took the same path in their third season and I think the ratings suffered for it.

As a fan I'd like to explore the Star Trek universe, not be reminded of current affairs. Bleh!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on November 27, 2012, 11:54:51 AM
Quote from: davekill on November 27, 2012, 11:51:35 AM
Quote from: Chris-El on November 27, 2012, 11:38:41 AM
Is terrorism the only thing that movies can use as allegory anymore? Was there more going on in the 60's than now? It's a weird synopsis, but I hope it makes sense in the coming weeks.

Enterprise took the same path in their third season and I think the ratings suffered for it.

As a fan I'd like to explore the Star Trek universe, not be reminded of current affairs. Bleh!
I completely agree. I guess I want Trek to be more sci-fi and less sci-fi action.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on November 27, 2012, 12:13:29 PM
Hmm anybody else getting a "Section 31" vibe from that synopsis?
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on November 27, 2012, 12:34:17 PM
Quote from: Dangelus on November 27, 2012, 12:13:29 PM
Hmm anybody else getting a "Section 31" vibe from that synopsis?

Excpet we know the villian is from TOS canon and there was no Section 31 in TOS.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: billybob476 on November 27, 2012, 12:38:37 PM
Quote from: Bryancd on November 27, 2012, 12:34:17 PM
Quote from: Dangelus on November 27, 2012, 12:13:29 PM
Hmm anybody else getting a "Section 31" vibe from that synopsis?

Excpet we know the villian is from TOS canon and there was no Section 31 in TOS.

Actually I don't think they ever specified "TOS canon", just Trek canon. TOS makes sense given the time frame though.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on November 27, 2012, 12:46:03 PM
That's true, Joe, I suppose they didn't but they did list 4 TOS villians and said it was one of them.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on November 27, 2012, 12:51:14 PM
The villain may be from TOS cannon but no reason Section 31 can't be the organisation. The beginnings of Section 31 were shown in Enterprise so the implication is that they were around during TOS even if we didn't see them.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Geekyfanboy on November 28, 2012, 09:48:04 AM
One good reason for not being a huge fan of the original.. This is all new to me. :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: WillEagle on November 28, 2012, 07:07:57 PM
I don't think it will be Gary Mitchell or Khan. Mitchell because as was said earlier he has been in the comics and I just don't see them using Khan in the 2nd movie. That was already done!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on November 28, 2012, 10:15:53 PM
Well it's an intruiging synopsis. It at least tells us two things. The threat comes from within and there is an individual with great power. Souls be interesting whoever it turns out to be.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on December 02, 2012, 07:40:07 AM
Ok, I'm becoming more convinced that Karl Urban slipped up months ago and we are really going to be seeing Benedict Cumberbatch play Gary Mitchell.  Actress Alice Eve is in this movie and her character has not been revealed yet.  Take a look at the pics below of Alice Eve on set and a couple possibilities for her from TOS.  She could be Elizabeth Dehner or possibly a younger Carol Marcus.  But man, the hairstyle sure looks like Dehner's.  Not that it can't be someone else, but wow I am really thinking it's a Mitchell story.  Also check out the image of Spock and Mitchell from the ongoing Trek comic and how it compares to that scene leaked months ago.

Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bromptonboy on December 02, 2012, 07:50:04 AM
Hmmm...compelling evidence...but will a jury convict?  :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: X on December 02, 2012, 08:07:15 AM
Quote from: Bromptonboy on December 02, 2012, 07:50:04 AM
Hmmm...compelling evidence...but will a jury convict?  :)
All circumstantial thus far. The nerve pinch comparison could also be made to pretty much every other nerve pinch from behind. I would say the the jury is still out.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on December 02, 2012, 08:20:27 AM
Oh, I'm the first to say this is all just conjecture at this point.  But, I find it pretty convincing myself.  Of course, it could all be a huge ruse and misdirection on JJ's part.  Heck, that "leaked" pic of Alice Eve on set could have been a fabricated joke and her hairstyle or costume looks nothing like that in the film.  However, it will slightly annoy me if that were the case.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: davekill on December 02, 2012, 08:26:41 AM
Alice Eve's change of hair style to the Elizabeth Dehner 'do' is a serious indictment.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on December 02, 2012, 08:38:02 AM
I have been saying this for months! I thought Karl let the cat out of the bag.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on December 03, 2012, 03:07:59 AM
Poster is out....doesn't show too much, but I guess that's Cumberbatch in the trenchcoat. Interesting.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on December 03, 2012, 04:39:00 AM
Seeing that makes me think it's Kahn and the Eugenics War again! Or they were doing experiments in ESP and Gary Mitchell is busting out...but you can see smoke off in the distance, so this isn't an isolated thing.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: robbo1510 on December 03, 2012, 05:04:02 AM
One eagle-eyed person I follow on Twitter (@marcstamper of the Trekmate podcast) has spotted that this picture depicts London (London Eye in bottom left area, just above the flames). Intriguing!

(http://www.london-se1.co.uk/whatson/imageuploads/1179508017_80.177.117.97.jpg)

Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on December 03, 2012, 05:14:18 AM
I see it. Well, that at least explains why he's a Brit. :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bromptonboy on December 03, 2012, 05:27:15 AM
Given the location of the 'Gherkin' building - and the London Eye in the picture - does that put him standing on the ruins of London Bridge station? 
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: billybob476 on December 03, 2012, 05:43:18 AM
Interesting considering most Trek films seem to threaten San Francisco all the time :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on December 03, 2012, 05:50:30 AM
Hmm, interesting poster and of course doesn't reveal much.  I am wondering what all the rubble/metal superstructure is from?  Maybe a Starship?  Frankly it has kind of a Borg vibe to it - but I don't think they are involved.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: billybob476 on December 03, 2012, 05:52:50 AM
Might be a ship, might just be a building, might have nothing to do with the movie at all :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: jedijeff on December 03, 2012, 06:42:30 AM
A lot of beams and what looks like Rebar, so I wonder if it is a building of some sort, but could be a ship as well, maybe a Starfleet ship of some sort. The Hole in the structure is in a Starfleet Emblem, so must be in reference the Into Darkness.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: billybob476 on December 03, 2012, 07:17:43 AM
The official movie site is updated and online.

http://www.startrekmovie.com/ (http://www.startrekmovie.com/)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on December 03, 2012, 07:41:53 AM
Itr's a bit of a rip off of the Dark Knight poster. Fankly I am suffering from Dark Knight emulation fatigue, seems everyone want to do movies just like Nolan.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Geekyfanboy on December 03, 2012, 07:43:06 AM
Quote from: Rico on December 03, 2012, 05:50:30 AM
Hmm, interesting poster and of course doesn't reveal much.  I am wondering what all the rubble/metal superstructure is from?  Maybe a Starship?  Frankly it has kind of a Borg vibe to it - but I don't think they are involved.

I"m with you Rico.. first thought after seeing the poster was Borg.. but yeah I don't think they will bring them into it.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: moyer777 on December 03, 2012, 07:53:47 AM
It's kind of cool. 
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on December 03, 2012, 07:56:09 AM
Jeff's right, if you zoom in there's a lot of rebar, certainly seems to be a building of some kind. That's why I sort of thought it is Gary Mitchell, maybe he i sbusting out from someplace they have been holding him. I still think it's a complete knock off of the Dark Knight, wish they had tried to be more original.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: WillEagle on December 03, 2012, 08:09:22 AM
I like the poster and like Bryan I did think of the Dark Knight. I guess Starfleet has a base in London or at least they used too until the dude in the poster showed up. I would like to see a poster with some of the Enterprise crew on it.  
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on December 03, 2012, 08:34:39 AM
Come on Bryan - it doesn't look anything like the "Dark Knight" poster.   :roflmao

P.S.  Cumberbatch just needs to say the line now in the movie, "I am Starfleet's reckoning!"

Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: KingIsaacLinksr on December 03, 2012, 08:36:58 AM
Quote from: Bryancd on December 03, 2012, 07:41:53 AM
Itr's a bit of a rip off of the Dark Knight poster. Fankly I am suffering from Dark Knight emulation fatigue, seems everyone want to do movies just like Nolan.

That's Hollywood for you.

I don't think its Borg, animation on the website suggests its a building, not a ship. I think its either a Joker-clone or a god-like entity at this point. Either villain would....idk....meh is my reaction at this point.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on December 03, 2012, 08:52:07 AM
Quote from: Rico on December 03, 2012, 08:34:39 AM
Come on Bryan - it doesn't look anything like the "Dark Knight" poster.   :roflmao

P.S.  Cumberbatch just needs to say the line now in the movie, "I am Starfleet's reckoning!"



LOL!!!! I saw someone posted that comparison over at the RPF this morning as well. I am tiered of dark and edgy!!!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on December 03, 2012, 09:01:29 AM
They only need 3-D zombies in this movie now and it will be a blockbuster!  ;)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on December 03, 2012, 09:38:20 AM
CessnaDriver over at the RPF just posted:
"BatKirk must save Space Gotham from the Astro-Joker." LOL!!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: davekill on December 03, 2012, 09:50:23 AM
Quote from: Chris-El on December 03, 2012, 03:07:59 AM
Poster is out....doesn't show too much, but I guess that's Cumberbatch in the trenchcoat. Interesting.

Trenchcoats and Trek go together like bologna and whipped cream - ick.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: billybob476 on December 03, 2012, 09:53:08 AM
Quote from: davekill on December 03, 2012, 09:50:23 AM
Quote from: Chris-El on December 03, 2012, 03:07:59 AM
Poster is out....doesn't show too much, but I guess that's Cumberbatch in the trenchcoat. Interesting.

Trenchcoats and Trek go together like bologna and whipped cream - ick.

Whatever do you mean?
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: davekill on December 03, 2012, 10:02:08 AM
 Lol! Walking suitcases  :roflmao
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on December 03, 2012, 10:02:35 AM
Quote from: davekill on December 03, 2012, 10:02:08 AM
Lol! Walking suitcases  :roflmao


Luggage with legs!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on December 03, 2012, 11:12:07 AM
Spock, who so serious????
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Meds on December 03, 2012, 12:50:27 PM
When you look at the official site stay on it and you can see rubble falling from the top so its more likely to be a building and yeah looks like its in London so in Trek history what was in London or  the UK? Some kind of prison? a research lab maybe?
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on December 03, 2012, 02:17:43 PM
Well, we all know that if you take out London that a certain Doctor in a Blue Box might not be too happy about that.  :)

P.S.  In the Prime Trek universe keep in mind the HQ of the Federation is in Paris.  Maybe in the "JJ-verse" it's in London.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on December 03, 2012, 02:28:34 PM
That's right, just Starfleet is in San Francisco. Great, like WWII all over again, we have to go save the Brits.... ;)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on December 03, 2012, 03:10:39 PM
Also, don't forget Noel Clarke (Mickey from Doctor Who) is in this movie and he is a Brit too.  Dang it - they are taking over!

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0164929/ (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0164929/)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: billybob476 on December 04, 2012, 10:53:03 AM
Looks like we're getting the teaser trailer online Dec 6th, that's in two days!

QuoteWith yesterday's reveal of the new Star Trek Into Darkness poster there were also updates to official Star Trek Facebook pages around the world, generally showing off the new poster. However the official French Facebook page also made mention of a new trailer coming online on December 6th. TrekMovie has confirmed this is true and that a teaser trailer of about a minute or so in length will debut online on December 6th, and will be available to download worldwide. This teaser is intended to be an online exclusive so it is not expected to be shown in theaters

http://trekmovie.com/2012/12/04/exclusive-into-darkness-teaser-to-debut-online-december-6th-longer-trailer-in-theaters-dec-14th/ (http://trekmovie.com/2012/12/04/exclusive-into-darkness-teaser-to-debut-online-december-6th-longer-trailer-in-theaters-dec-14th/)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on December 04, 2012, 11:07:32 AM
Hooray? ;)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: billybob476 on December 04, 2012, 11:27:06 AM
Quote from: Bryancd on December 04, 2012, 11:07:32 AM
Hooray? ;)

Only time will tell :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Meds on December 04, 2012, 01:29:54 PM
Yes, yes we are taking over (we always do that, until people get bored and have a civil  war lol ;)  )
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: wraith1701 on December 04, 2012, 07:20:56 PM
Based on statements that the movie will feature a TOS villain, it seems the consensus is that it will be either Khan or Mitchell.  Rico's evidence, (as well as the official promo verbage and the new poster) seem to point firmly at it being Mitchell.

Khan was an epic foe, but with ST: TWOK, it was more a personal grudge between Khan & Kirk than any immediate overt threat to the Federation.  Also, a big part of what worked with Wrath Of Khan was the set-up: Most TOS fans were aware of Khan as being "that super-guy from the episode space seed". 

With the re-boot, there has been no backstory established for Khan.  As a matter of fact, at this early stage in Kirk's career, he hasn't even encountered the Botany Bay yet.  Of course, it's possible that JJ plans for this to be a big-screen reimagining of the old Space Seed episode in which they first encounter Khan...

Mitchell just seems to be a better fit to me.  First of all, it's a storyline and character that's familiar enough to TOS fans to at least partially satisfy our craving for continuity and our need for things to play out the way we remember them.  This connection gives the movie legitimacy, for lack of a better word.  At the same time, the Mitchell story is unknown to many new fans, so it has the potential to be more dramatically satisfying than a retelling of TWOK would be. 

Also, Mitchell was introduced early on in the run of TOS.  It's been a while, but I think it was like episode 3 or 4 of season 1, right?  Anyway, the character was introduced without the viewers having any backstory on him; all we knew was that he was a somewhat quirky helmsman who was friends with Kirk before he took command of the Enterprise.  This type of character would be easier to introduce into the new timeline than a character like Khan. 

Finally, the threat posed in the new movie is supposed to be some Huge, Epic Threat that poses a danger to the entire Federation.  That seems more like Gary Mitchell than Khan to me. 
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: X on December 04, 2012, 07:47:44 PM
Quote from: wraith1701 on December 04, 2012, 07:20:56 PM
Based on statements that the movie will feature a TOS villain, it seems the consensus is that it will be either Khan or Mitchell.  Rico's evidence, (as well as the official promo verbage and the new poster) seem to point firmly at it being Mitchell.

Khan was an epic foe, but with ST: TWOK, it was more a personal grudge between Khan & Kirk than any immediate overt threat to the Federation.  Also, a big part of what worked with Wrath Of Khan was the set-up: Most TOS fans were aware of Khan as being "that super-guy from the episode space seed". 

With the re-boot, there has been no backstory established for Khan.  As a matter of fact, at this early stage in Kirk's career, he hasn't even encountered the Botany Bay yet.  Of course, it's possible that JJ plans for this to be a big-screen reimagining of the old Space Seed episode in which they first encounter Khan...

Mitchell just seems to be a better fit to me.  First of all, it's a storyline and character that's familiar enough to TOS fans to at least partially satisfy our craving for continuity and our need for things to play out the way we remember them.  This connection gives the movie legitimacy, for lack of a better word.  At the same time, the Mitchell story is unknown to many new fans, so it has the potential to be more dramatically satisfying than a retelling of TWOK would be. 

Also, Mitchell was introduced early on in the run of TOS.  It's been a while, but I think it was like episode 3 or 4 of season 1, right?  Anyway, the character was introduced without the viewers having any backstory on him; all we knew was that he was a somewhat quirky helmsman who was friends with Kirk before he took command of the Enterprise.  This type of character would be easier to introduce into the new timeline than a character like Khan. 

Finally, the threat posed in the new movie is supposed to be some Huge, Epic Threat that poses a danger to the entire Federation.  That seems more like Gary Mitchell than Khan to me. 
It was the the second pilot but the 3rd episode.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: davekill on December 04, 2012, 07:54:25 PM
Quote from: HawkeyeMeds on December 04, 2012, 01:29:54 PM
Yes, yes we are taking over (we always do that, until people get bored and have a civil  war lol ;)  )
On the old 'Make it So' podcast with Richard Smith and Will Tristrom, Rich had announced on the 4th of July to his fans here in the states "Your independence is being officially revoked!"  :roflmao

Quote from: wraith1701 on December 04, 2012, 07:20:56 PM
Finally, the threat posed in the new movie is supposed to be some Huge, Epic Threat that poses a danger to the entire Federation.  That seems more like Gary Mitchell than Khan to me. 
Kirk left Mitchell dead and buried under a pile of rocks.

Anyone suspect it being Garth of Izar?
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: X on December 04, 2012, 07:58:27 PM
Could be Trelane ANd how's this for grasping for straws?

They have similar coats and hair styles.

Squire of Gothos ... sorta like gothic ... Goths are pretty dark people.

Also similar accents.

Lastly, Trelane hasn't  been seen in the comic series but Gary mitchell has.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Ensign Random on December 04, 2012, 08:12:19 PM
Quote from: wraith1701 on December 04, 2012, 07:20:56 PM
Based on statements that the movie will feature a TOS villain, it seems the consensus is that it will be either Khan or Mitchell.  Rico's evidence, (as well as the official promo verbage and the new poster) seem to point firmly at it being Mitchell.

Khan was an epic foe, but with ST: TWOK, it was more a personal grudge between Khan & Kirk than any immediate overt threat to the Federation.  Also, a big part of what worked with Wrath Of Khan was the set-up: Most TOS fans were aware of Khan as being "that super-guy from the episode space seed". 

With the re-boot, there has been no backstory established for Khan.  As a matter of fact, at this early stage in Kirk's career, he hasn't even encountered the Botany Bay yet.  Of course, it's possible that JJ plans for this to be a big-screen reimagining of the old Space Seed episode in which they first encounter Khan...

Mitchell just seems to be a better fit to me.  First of all, it's a storyline and character that's familiar enough to TOS fans to at least partially satisfy our craving for continuity and our need for things to play out the way we remember them.  This connection gives the movie legitimacy, for lack of a better word.  At the same time, the Mitchell story is unknown to many new fans, so it has the potential to be more dramatically satisfying than a retelling of TWOK would be. 

Also, Mitchell was introduced early on in the run of TOS.  It's been a while, but I think it was like episode 3 or 4 of season 1, right?  Anyway, the character was introduced without the viewers having any backstory on him; all we knew was that he was a somewhat quirky helmsman who was friends with Kirk before he took command of the Enterprise.  This type of character would be easier to introduce into the new timeline than a character like Khan. 

Finally, the threat posed in the new movie is supposed to be some Huge, Epic Threat that poses a danger to the entire Federation.  That seems more like Gary Mitchell than Khan to me. 

I am thinking it's Mitchell also. When I first saw that pilot as a kid, I remember being frightened because he was truly powerful AND scary. Khan didn't have that effect.

Trelane could be possible...but that character is too Q-like, I think.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: wraith1701 on December 04, 2012, 08:16:12 PM
Quote from: davekill on December 04, 2012, 07:54:25 PM
Quote from: HawkeyeMeds on December 04, 2012, 01:29:54 PM
Yes, yes we are taking over (we always do that, until people get bored and have a civil  war lol ;)  )
On the old 'Make it So' podcast with Richard Smith and Will Tristrom, Rich had announced on the 4th of July to his fans here in the states "Your independence is being officially revoked!"  :roflmao

Quote from: wraith1701 on December 04, 2012, 07:20:56 PM
Finally, the threat posed in the new movie is supposed to be some Huge, Epic Threat that poses a danger to the entire Federation.  That seems more like Gary Mitchell than Khan to me. 
Kirk left Mitchell dead and buried under a pile of rocks.

Yep; the episode concludes with us assuming Mitchell is dead.  But that's beside the point. If the movie is about Mitchell, I doubt it would start off after the old TOS episode ends.  The story would be about Mitchell getting his weird, godly powers, and about how absolute power corrupts absolutely.   And Mitchell was scary-powerful.  Other than those brief moments when he became temporarily normal, the dude was comparable to Q from TNG.  That kind of power being wielded by a flawed sociopath is a frightening prospect.  Much more frightening than a genetically enhanced madman. 

Quote
Anyone suspect it being Garth of Izar?
QuoteCould be Trelane

You guys are right; it could be either one of those.  I guess we'll know a little more once the online trailer airs in a couple of days.  :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: wraith1701 on December 04, 2012, 08:21:19 PM
Quote from: Ensign Random on December 04, 2012, 08:12:19 PM

I am thinking it's Mitchell also. When I first saw that pilot as a kid, I remember being frightened because he was truly powerful AND scary. Khan didn't have that effect.

Trelane could be possible...but that character is too Q-like, I think.

Yeah, Mitchell was a scary son of a gun; especially with those freaky silver eyes. 

But who knows.  JJ might surprise us all and come up with something that we haven't even considered yet, but will seem totally obvious in hind sight.  :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: davekill on December 04, 2012, 08:31:44 PM
There were a lot of villains in TOS.
As a fallen hero, Garth had an interesting history in Starfleet.
Maybe they can get back to him at a later time

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Garth_of_Izar (http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Garth_of_Izar)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: WillEagle on December 05, 2012, 05:56:53 AM
I was thinking Trelane too. That would be an interesting choice.  
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on December 05, 2012, 07:05:10 AM
I don't feel like going back through the whole thread but haven't the films makers already said it one of these four: Trelane, Mudd, Khan, Mitchell? Am I remebering that right?
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: wraith1701 on December 05, 2012, 07:33:22 AM
You know, the more I think about it, the more likely Trelane seems.  I'm thinking it's a 50/50 shot at the villain being either Mitchell or Trelane.

It would be totally mind-blowing if it turns out to be a slimmer, trimmer Mudd though.  :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on December 05, 2012, 07:59:41 AM
Trelane would be cool but the brief synopsis and teaser poster seem to indicate the villian is from Earth, or at least on Earth. Trelane wasn't even human, he was almost Q!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: wraith1701 on December 05, 2012, 08:30:43 AM
Yep.  That's one of the reasons I was initially 100% certain it's Mitchell.  That, and the fact that this looks like it's going to be a dark film.  Despite the threat posed by his powers, Trelane always struck me as more comical than threatening, at least compared to Mitchell.  Since this new universe is breaking new ground, I figured I'd just leave the door open to JJ taking the story in a new direction. 

And now, I'm waffling.  I think 85% chance Mitchell, 15% chance Trelane.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bromptonboy on December 05, 2012, 08:36:14 AM
I am thrown up between Kahn and Mitchell - but leaning to Mitchell.  After all, The Botany Bay would already be underway and in space - since that voyage left earth well before the time-line split in the new movie.  I suppose that the sleeper ship could be discovered 'earlier' in Kirk's career.  The poster hints at one man devastation to me - which spells Mitchell.  But the proof will be in the pudding..
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on December 05, 2012, 09:05:40 AM
If they were going to reboot a villain, I thought a while ago that they could have done Sybok Oman interesting way with the destruction of Vulcan maybe making him go nutso. I am intrigued by thoughts of Garth of Izar but I think it's Mitchell. 
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bromptonboy on December 05, 2012, 09:57:44 AM
Hey, did anyone else think about Charlie Evans getting rescued earlier?  I guess Cumberbatch is too mature to be him.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on December 05, 2012, 10:30:59 AM
Quote from: Bromptonboy on December 05, 2012, 09:57:44 AM
Hey, did anyone else think about Charlie Evans getting rescued earlier?  I guess Cumberbatch is too mature to be him.

Good one!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on December 05, 2012, 10:46:36 AM
Yeah, that could have been cool but he'd be like 8.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bromptonboy on December 06, 2012, 02:36:55 AM
Just saw the trailer. Still not sure:
[spoiler]That bit about 'I have returned for vengeance' what do you think?  Khan?  Harcourt Fenton Mudd?  ;) [/spoiler]
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on December 06, 2012, 03:02:15 AM
STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Official Teaser Trailer (2013) [HD] (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSoIs4wfaeM#ws)

Whoever it is, he's got crazy powers. Leaping around like that!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on December 06, 2012, 03:15:50 AM
Star Trek Into Darkness - Extra Footage Japanese Teaser (HD) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrHlQUXFzfw#ws)

The Japanese trailer has an interesting, different ending...check out the hands on the glass...

And whoever Cumberbatch is, he has a starship...check him in the command chair.

Alice Eve's character is in Starfleet...I think Rico is right about Dehner!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: billybob476 on December 06, 2012, 03:47:31 AM
"I have returned..."

That makes me think Khan, maybe she's playing McGivers? But that haircut is perfect for Dehner.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on December 06, 2012, 06:04:04 AM
Wow! Very exciting, intriguing. I kind of dig the Enterpirse as a U-boat! Nice little throw back in that Japanese trailer with the two hands touching between glass. Obviously harkining back to TWOK. The agree the I have returned makes it sound like Khan and the obvious amazing physical abilities. And he has a ship as Joe pointed oout, also very Khan. I think that might be it!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Ktrek on December 06, 2012, 06:12:46 AM
Oh joy! Two more hours of camera flare photography! Didn't he learn anything from fan comments? This looks like Star Trek is more in the realm of comic book superheroes and villains than science fiction anymore. I can't say the trailer thrills me in the least bit. A Batman/Star Trek crossover would thrill me more. Oh well it is what it is and I'm sure it will be a fun special effects ride but it won't be the Star Trek I know and love. But having said that I also was cautious about the first film and I enjoyed it but upon subsequent viewings I don't think it holds up well as a Star Trek film. I place it near the bottom of my list of favorite Trek films now that I have watched it at least five times.

Kevin
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on December 06, 2012, 06:19:01 AM
Couldn't Alice Eve be Carol Marcus? With that "music" or whatever you call it in the trailer it feels just like The Dark Knight and Inception. I wish everyone would jump off that bandwagon.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: X on December 06, 2012, 06:30:59 AM
Several things I noticed. I don't think it's his ship, I think he took a certain other ship, one that looks to have crashed as well.

The second trailer made me think of something completely different.

What if he's Kirk's brother that has finally returned from who knows where?

As for the music, it has more of a Prometheus feel to it for me.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on December 06, 2012, 06:35:02 AM
I thought Prometheus ripped off Inception, so it's still all Nolan. :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: billybob476 on December 06, 2012, 06:45:35 AM
Don't trust that trailer music is the actual soundtrack. I remember back in the 90's when every trailer either used the theme to Crimson Tide or Braveheart.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on December 06, 2012, 06:47:50 AM
Quote from: billybob476 on December 06, 2012, 06:45:35 AM
Don't trust that trailer music is the actual soundtrack. I remember back in the 90's when every trailer either used the theme to Crimson Tide or Braveheart.

Oh, I'm sure it's not, I am just getting tired of that being used constantly.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: wraith1701 on December 06, 2012, 07:02:11 AM
The "I have returned to have my vengeance" line and this photo have me thinking maybe it's Khan after all...

(http://www.treksinscifi.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=6680.0;attach=28371;image)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on December 06, 2012, 07:05:17 AM
Good grief, if Spock dies in this one and comes back in the next one then I'm in a parallel universe!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: davekill on December 06, 2012, 07:29:32 AM
Is JJ is taking elements from each of the even numbered (successful) TOS movies?

Hands on glass - ST2
Water landing - ST4
Lots of screaming - ??

Hope he doesn't leave out a little fun.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on December 06, 2012, 07:35:35 AM
If we get a renegade Vulcan asking me to share my pain, I'm out! ;)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bromptonboy on December 06, 2012, 07:37:03 AM
Maybe this is all a clever ploy to lead us off the scent.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: X on December 06, 2012, 07:38:13 AM
Quote from: Bromptonboy on December 06, 2012, 07:37:03 AM
Maybe this is all a clever ploy to lead us off the scent.
There's a scent?
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: moyer777 on December 06, 2012, 07:39:16 AM
Well, this looks epic!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: M-5 on December 06, 2012, 07:42:42 AM
Quote from: Bryancd on December 06, 2012, 07:35:35 AM
If we get a renegade Vulcan asking me to share my pain, I'm out! ;)
Me too!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on December 06, 2012, 07:46:09 AM
All kidding aside, it looks like great fun. I have long ago put this STAR TREK into a different part of my fandom apart from the previous iterations so I can roll with it not feeling like classic Trek and still enjoy it. The leaping CumberKhan in the trailer clrearly is moving us more into the superhero genre movie, I kind of wish they showed a bit more restraint on that bit.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bromptonboy on December 06, 2012, 07:53:20 AM
CumberKhan!  I love it.  How about MitchellBatch?
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on December 06, 2012, 07:58:07 AM
Quote from: Bromptonboy on December 06, 2012, 07:53:20 AM
How about MitchellBatch?

:roflmao Love it!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: wraith1701 on December 06, 2012, 07:58:20 AM
LOL an all new character:  Lt. Commander Cumberkhan Mitchelbatch!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: davekill on December 06, 2012, 08:00:59 AM
Yeah, that's some wire-work!

Crouching Mitchell, Hidden Khan.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on December 06, 2012, 08:02:19 AM
Nice Eric and Dave!!!!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: moyer777 on December 06, 2012, 08:03:32 AM
you are making me LOL this morning.  Very fun!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: davekill on December 06, 2012, 08:58:48 AM
All kidding aside, why wait for the movie - just put in season 3 of Enterprise.

Devastating attack of earth.
The ship fighting overwhelming odds while searching for a super weapon.
Tortured crew and Archer's own drawn out interrogations.

Been there - done that - got the T-shirt.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Geekyfanboy on December 06, 2012, 09:03:26 AM
Great trailer.. didn't help with who the bad guy really is.. can't wait for more.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: billybob476 on December 06, 2012, 09:34:53 AM
I'll be interested to see if they changed up engineering for this one.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on December 06, 2012, 09:39:34 AM
Quote from: billybob476 on December 06, 2012, 09:34:53 AM
I'll be interested to see if they changed up engineering for this one.

Please Lord, make it so.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on December 06, 2012, 10:05:06 AM
Here's a great scene by scene breakdown. Apparently there be Klingons here!

http://m.io9.com/5966160/all-the-clues-and-easter-eggs-from-the-star-trek-into-darkness-teaser-trailer (http://m.io9.com/5966160/all-the-clues-and-easter-eggs-from-the-star-trek-into-darkness-teaser-trailer)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: KingIsaacLinksr on December 06, 2012, 10:28:31 AM
All I'm going to say is:

I'm not impressed.


Yes, I realize this shocks a total of 0 people on this forum. ;).
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bromptonboy on December 06, 2012, 10:51:30 AM
Quote from: Bryancd on December 06, 2012, 10:05:06 AM
Here's a great scene by scene breakdown. Apparently there be Klingons here!

http://m.io9.com/5966160/all-the-clues-and-easter-eggs-from-the-star-trek-into-darkness-teaser-trailer (http://m.io9.com/5966160/all-the-clues-and-easter-eggs-from-the-star-trek-into-darkness-teaser-trailer)
That was good info. 
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on December 06, 2012, 11:30:31 AM
Wow, very interesting. For the record I think the "hand" scene is just a homage to TWOK as this is film number 2 of the reboot and the long standing rumour was that Khan was going to be in this (and perhaps originally was intended to be).

The truth is it doesn't fit anybody we know of 100% even with this extra information from the trailer. I suppose if could be Khan but I still can't see how Cumberbatch would be cast in that role. His abilities seem to indicate he is enhanced....

Perhaps Prime Spock warned Kirk that the Botany Bay was out there and they got to it early to prevent history repeating itself, something happens to Khan and this guy escapes and wants revenge?
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: jedijeff on December 06, 2012, 12:05:03 PM
Wow, that was quite the trailer. Certainly does bring up a lot of questions on who the Villain is. The break down on it was pretty good as well. Will be interesting to see how much of a role the Klingons play in this one, I get the feeling maybe not much more then a few scenes.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: QuadShot on December 06, 2012, 12:21:17 PM
Quote from: KingIsaacLinksr on December 06, 2012, 10:28:31 AM
All I'm going to say is:

I'm not impressed.


Yes, I realize this shocks a total of 0 people on this forum. ;).

But of course. WHY would you be impressed Tim? I mean, it's a franchise...people will have to PAY to see it....it's not "free-ware"...it's part of a "Big Evil Corporate Machine"...dude, you're not impressed with anything, so let me ask this: WHY BOTHER? You seem to pretty much hate everything, huh? Don't really LIKE much of anything. Don't care, I think these trailers ROCKED the dang house, and I think this movie will ROCK THE DANG HOUSE, and if Tim doesn't like it...not impressed! :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: billybob476 on December 06, 2012, 12:23:11 PM
I suspect they may establish the Klingons and then have Mr. Villainbatch plow through them like a hot knife through butter to prove how powerful he is.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on December 06, 2012, 02:16:20 PM
So, I just watched both versions of the trailer for the first time just a couple minutes ago.  WOWZERS!  Looks pretty incredible.  I'm leaning a bit more towards Khan now after seeing this but still not sure.  With the hand thing at the end of the Japanese trailer I can only conclude JJ is either messing with us a bit or maybe this will be Khan.  In any case, this looks like an amazing and exciting movie!  Is it May yet??
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on December 06, 2012, 02:43:07 PM
I think the hands on glass is an intentional red herring.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: KingIsaacLinksr on December 06, 2012, 03:04:11 PM
Quote from: QuadShot on December 06, 2012, 12:21:17 PM
Quote from: KingIsaacLinksr on December 06, 2012, 10:28:31 AM
All I'm going to say is:

I'm not impressed.


Yes, I realize this shocks a total of 0 people on this forum. ;).

But of course. WHY would you be impressed Tim? I mean, it's a franchise...people will have to PAY to see it....it's not "free-ware"...it's part of a "Big Evil Corporate Machine"...dude, you're not impressed with anything, so let me ask this: WHY BOTHER? You seem to pretty much hate everything, huh? Don't really LIKE much of anything. Don't care, I think these trailers ROCKED the dang house, and I think this movie will ROCK THE DANG HOUSE, and if Tim doesn't like it...not impressed! :)

Kind of figured I'd get this reaction from either here or Twitter. What I am not impressed with is that this is essentially looking like a revenge-taking, mass people killing, villain and we've had a splurge of them lately what with Skyfall and the Dark Knight Rises movies. This particular movie is giving me vibes of Nolan's films which considering this is the Star Trek franchise doesn't sit well with me. And we just had a Romulan try to take his revenge on humanity in the last film. I have to wonder, why all the hate for the Federation here lately? Its like Starfleet went around and kicked a lot of babies here lately and no one told us. After so many years of waiting, this is a pretty disappointing plot that I'm looking at thus far. I was hoping for something a little more original than this.

All this said, I'm probably going to see this movie bar some real-life issue. Its Star Trek and there are only a handful of reasons that will get me out to see a movie. The Star Trek name is one of those reasons. Unless this is a terrible film then that will change but considering this is JJ and he hasn't given me any reason to doubt his film making capabilities, I don't see that happening either.

As far as your response Al, you were way off base. I have no problem supporting Star Trek and in fact went to see the previous Star Trek film twice. I haven't done that for a movie ever and it may never happen again. I do not hate all big-corporations. I hate scumbag businesses who abuse laws and consumer rights to make the most money they can. And I also liked Skyfall which I went to see with some friends of mine in the theater. For someone who "hates the Big Evil Corporate Machine" I sure have a funny way of showing that "hatred".

I also didn't say I hated this film. I was unimpressed by what I've seen which is a MAJOR difference of terminology. 

I guess the thing is, I don't let fanboyism blind me to just accepting everything about a franchise without question. And your hostile attitude towards my criticism is what pisses me off about fans of anything in general. Critise anything about the franchise that they love and its like I personally attacked them with a razorblade when my comments were directed at the franchise itself, not the people who like/love it. So they then respond with hostility even though it had nothing to do with them. I threw my opinion out there about the film/trailer but if that opinion is not welcome here, then I'll leave the thread. I will not deal with drama, I have enough things to deal with in a day.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on December 06, 2012, 03:19:02 PM
Those are KLINGONS that Garry Noonien Mitchell is fighting! Remember those helmets from the deleted sceenes? In the second pic there's a bat'telth. Yeah, been freeze framing a bit!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on December 06, 2012, 03:46:30 PM
Yep, maybe Cumberkhan is on Rura Pente and is making his escape! But some of the other stills suggest Kirk, Spock, and Uhura are all there as well, you can see that dome. Maybe the yellow in the dome is the lava in the other clips?
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on December 06, 2012, 03:50:39 PM
Well, whoever sees the 9 minute trailer better be posting details!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on December 06, 2012, 03:54:08 PM
Ok, after a few other viewings I have some other ideas & thoughts.  That weird, red jungle planet place might be a Genesis planet.  Gary Cumberkhan seems to be fighting hand to hand and using way too many weapons to be Gary Mitchell.  It doesn't seem to add up if he has super powers of some kind.  The trailer makes him look more like a genetically engineered person - stronger, faster, smarter, etc.  Maybe like someone on Facebook said they decided to blend elements of some characters - like a little Mitchell, add some Khan, toss in a little Squire of Gothos and set to broil for 30 minutes - lol!  Of course again, you can take a minute of footage probably from a movie like this and really misdirect us if they wanted to do that.  It's going to be fun to pick it apart for the next week or so until we learn what this movie is really going to be about.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on December 06, 2012, 03:54:40 PM
Quote from: KingIsaacLinksr on December 06, 2012, 10:28:31 AM


I'm not impressed.


Perhaps a bit more color then just this would be helpful, Tim. The problem saying something like that is it comes across as the kind of intellectual arrogance, dismissive criticism, pseudo-clever cynicism that seems to be a blight in popular culture currently and, sorry to single your peers out, your generation. My 22 year old brother is the same way as I have mentioned before. It's not that your opinion is not welcome and valid, but in a thread where we are having fun and enjoying the conversation your comment is a bummer. It makes it worse when you call people fanboys when they genuinely like something and outrank you by many years. :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on December 06, 2012, 03:56:39 PM
Quote from: Chris-El on December 06, 2012, 03:50:39 PM
Well, whoever sees the 9 minute trailer better be posting details!

10:40 am next Friday!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on December 06, 2012, 04:02:48 PM
Quote from: Bryancd on December 06, 2012, 03:54:40 PM
Quote from: KingIsaacLinksr on December 06, 2012, 10:28:31 AM


I'm not impressed.


Perhaps a bit more color then just this would be helpful, Tim. The problem saying something like that is it comes across as the kind of intellectual arrogance, dismissive criticism, pseudo-clever cynicism that seems to be a blight in popular culture currently and, sorry to single your peers out, your generation. My 22 year old brother is the same way as I have mentioned before. It's not that your opinion is not welcome and valid, but in a thread where we are having fun and enjoying the conversation your comment is a bummer. It makes it worse when you call people fanboys when they genuinely like something and outrank you by many years. :)
Yeah, I admit I'm kind of tired of the "Nothing is Cool" crowd that seems to dominate the web nowadays. I used to be a member of a popular ST board where the members pretty much just took dumps on Trek. I revel in my ability to be enthusiastic about 1 minute of footage. It's more fun.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on December 06, 2012, 04:10:27 PM
Not to divert too much, but neither of my sons is like that.  They very get excited to see stuff like this.  Guess geeky dad rubbed off on them a bit.  :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: KingIsaacLinksr on December 06, 2012, 04:14:33 PM
Hence why I expanded my thoughts in the post above. I'm not here to rain on anyone's parade. I'm disappointed that this is the best plot they came up with in the many years we have been waiting. But its likely going to be a pretty good movie. True that my first post was rather...to the point...in a sense ;).
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on December 06, 2012, 04:17:22 PM
LOL, a slightly elongated "Meh" was what it was! ;p
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on December 06, 2012, 04:19:15 PM
Quote from: KingIsaacLinksr on December 06, 2012, 04:14:33 PM
Hence why I expanded my thoughts in the post above. I'm not here to rain on anyone's parade. I'm disappointed that this is the best plot they came up with in the many years we have been waiting. But its likely going to be a pretty good movie. True that my first post was rather...to the point...in a sense ;).

Well, it's still unclear what the plot is or even who CumberKhan, MitchelBatch actually is. There certainly seems to be a lot of action as well as drama. I have been critical of the marketing for this film up to the announcement of the 9min trailer before The Hobbit but I think they did a solid job with this. My only standing issue is the music is so derivative of Nolan. I want my STAR TREK films to take inspiration from STAR TREK, not Timothy "Look How Bleak I Am" Nolan.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: KingIsaacLinksr on December 06, 2012, 04:19:36 PM
Quote from: Chris-El on December 06, 2012, 04:17:22 PM
LOL, a slightly elongated "Meh" was what it was! ;p

Hahahahaha that was the rough draft, "meh". ;)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: KingIsaacLinksr on December 06, 2012, 04:27:10 PM
Quote from: Bryancd on December 06, 2012, 04:19:15 PM
Quote from: KingIsaacLinksr on December 06, 2012, 04:14:33 PM
Hence why I expanded my thoughts in the post above. I'm not here to rain on anyone's parade. I'm disappointed that this is the best plot they came up with in the many years we have been waiting. But its likely going to be a pretty good movie. True that my first post was rather...to the point...in a sense ;).

Well, it's still unclear what the plot is or even who CumberKhan, MitchelBatch actually is. There certainly seems to be a lot of action as well as drama. I have been critical of the marketing for this film up to the announcement of the 9min trailer before The Hobbit but I think they did a solid job with this. My only standing issue is the music is so derivative of Nolan. I want my STAR TREK films to take inspiration from STAR TREK, not Timothy "Look How Bleak I Am" Nolan.

And that's my problem too. I don't want this to be another Nolan film, I want this to be a Star Trek film and the trailer doesnt make me feel confident about that. And my concern is that there might be too much action, but this trailer is too much of a teaser to say either way.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on December 06, 2012, 04:29:02 PM
I agree, I will give them the benefit of the doubt until I see it. I thought the last Batman movie was ok but wasn't over the Moon about it.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Ktrek on December 06, 2012, 04:30:47 PM
This is interesting!

SHERLOCK

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v662/Ktrek/TrekSF/tumblr_meg6oxOo791qfom4c.jpg)

INTO DARKNESS

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v662/Ktrek/TrekSF/intodark.jpg)

Hmmm....
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on December 06, 2012, 04:32:26 PM
I think you guys are putting a bit too much weight on a poster and some music and this Nolan comparison.  The footage looks like pure JJ to me and much like he did on the last Trek film.  Wait for a week until we see more than a minute and know a lot more. 
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Ensign Random on December 06, 2012, 04:40:28 PM
Watched it this morning. Wow. It looks pretty compelling to me...at least set wise; having the characters back. Can't tell  much about it really. I've learned that trailers can be spliced to look like any film you want; esp. if the music isn't even a definite yet. Khan perhaps...but still a good chance at Gary Mitchell, I think. My only disappointment was it won't be out in theaters in Japan until September.Yikes! What a delay. I can't stay spoiler free that long.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bromptonboy on December 06, 2012, 04:46:48 PM
Quote from: Rico on December 06, 2012, 03:54:08 PM
Ok, after a few other viewings I have some other ideas & thoughts.  That weird, red jungle planet place might be a Genesis planet.  Gary Cumberkhan seems to be fighting hand to hand and using way too many weapons to be Gary Mitchell.  It doesn't seem to add up if he has super powers of some kind.  The trailer makes him look more like a genetically engineered person - stronger, faster, smarter, etc.  Maybe like someone on Facebook said they decided to blend elements of some characters - like a little Mitchell, add some Khan, toss in a little Squire of Gothos and set to broil for 30 minutes - lol!  Of course again, you can take a minute of footage probably from a movie like this and really misdirect us if they wanted to do that.  It's going to be fun to pick it apart for the next week or so until we learn what this movie is really going to be about.
Maybe that building where they are fighting Klingon (red planet) is where Cumberkhan is somehow transformed, and left for dead.  Maybe the Klingons were guarding something..
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bromptonboy on December 06, 2012, 04:48:19 PM
I haven't been watching the Batman franchise - so the angle is new to me. 
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Geekyfanboy on December 06, 2012, 04:52:57 PM
I love how 60 seconds of footage of a 2 + hour movie can cause so much debate and drama :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: X on December 06, 2012, 07:22:43 PM
I think it's funny that we assume so much. I assumed that the intro of the "jumping" character was a jump as most people did and then assumed the person was super human. I didn't notice until I read that breakdown post that the guy was descending from a rope. Well, that doesn't reveal much about potential genetic enhancements.  Hell, we don't even know what planet and gravity force said person it dealing with. I think they did it like that on purpose to make us assume it was Khan.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: WillEagle on December 06, 2012, 07:26:14 PM
Mixed feelings here based on the trailer. I was very excited to see it on here and I just hope it isn't a 'dark' movie or a ripoff of TWOK. There is so much they could do but I did get a feeling that it is Khan. I thought it looked great and seeing the ship crashing into the water looked really cool. I look foward to seeing more to get a better understanding of the movie. And yes, no matter what the wife and I will go see it on opening night!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Ktrek on December 06, 2012, 07:53:41 PM
Quote from: WillEagle on December 06, 2012, 07:26:14 PM
Mixed feelings here based on the trailer. I was very excited to see it on here and I just hope it isn't a 'dark' movie

Isn't that a little much to hope for since the film is called into "Dark"ness?    ;)

Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: WillEagle on December 06, 2012, 08:23:03 PM
lol! Good point Ktrek!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on December 06, 2012, 09:30:19 PM
Like it has been mentioned before the marketing of this movie has been a big pain up until now.
I wish they didn't feel the need to call back to TOS and try to link link characters to it so much.
In this case because we are told this is a character we already know is the reason the speculation machine went crazy. It's safe to say that JJ has established his own version of Trek very well and doesn't need the crutch of TOS to lean on. We all know this is a reboot universe (even though the producers didn't feel confident in committing to this view at the time) so I hope we have been given a little bit of misdirection and that this new movie is actually an original character.

From the trailer it does seem to point to an enhanced person and I think this would make a great story. I'm betting it isn't Khan which would be a great twist. I bet they were originally going to with Khan withDel Torro but they've changed it a little and made it a new character related to the augments.

Perhaps the fact his is wearing a Starfleet uniform and seems to have a ship is a misdirection? Perhaps he comes from a long line of forgotten augments that have infiltrated Starfleet over the years and have waited until now to get their revenge?!!

I've got to say this trailer has given me just enough to get me excited and speculating about this movie again after a long time. Frustating as it is we are all talking about it again! :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on December 07, 2012, 05:31:34 AM
A few things.  The point of this new alternate universe is to please fans of TOS and new fans too.  I think that they did that in 2009 and hopefully in 2013 too.  For me, it's fun to speculate and guess at things.  JJ wants us to do that.  He knows what Trek fans are like, as do the writers.  I just want a solid film, with a good story and some great character moments.  I'm very excited to see this film.  I really think we are in for a treat.  :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: billybob476 on December 07, 2012, 05:47:56 AM
Yup, it's not like J.J. hasn't been known to mess with his fans in the past, this is looking like it'll be a great ride.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: QuadShot on December 07, 2012, 07:06:38 AM
Quote from: Bryancd on December 06, 2012, 02:43:07 PM
I think the hands on glass is an intentional red herring.

Agreed...and, it very well may NOT be Spock at all...
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: billybob476 on December 07, 2012, 07:08:29 AM
Quote from: QuadShot on December 07, 2012, 07:06:38 AM
Quote from: Bryancd on December 06, 2012, 02:43:07 PM
I think the hands on glass is an intentional red herring.

Agreed...and, it very well may NOT be Spock at all...

...or if it s Spock, who says he's dying? Who says he's even in engineering?
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: moyer777 on December 07, 2012, 08:08:32 AM
Yeah cause if it was engineering his hand would have been on a beer nozzle.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on December 07, 2012, 08:26:33 AM
Quote from: moyer777 on December 07, 2012, 08:08:32 AM
Yeah cause if it was engineering his hand would have been on a beer nozzle.

:roflmao

I think it is Spock but as the breakdown from iO9 I linked points out, it appears based on the uniforms that it might occur early in the film, making it a death scene unlikely.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: billybob476 on December 07, 2012, 08:34:02 AM
"I have been...and always will be...your friend...Except when we first met and hated each other. You were a huge jerk to me you know"

:D
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on December 07, 2012, 08:44:44 AM
I have a theory based on this 9 minute preview we are getting with "The Hobbit" in IMAX.  If it is indeed the first part of the film my idea is it will be setting things up for the rest of the movie.  What I mean is Gary Cumberkhan talks about "getting vengeance" in the trailer.  Obviously something happens to him and he is out for revenge on Starfleet/Federation - maybe Kirk too.  So, my thought was they will show this and then the movie will flash forward some period of time.  Just a guess but I think they will have to have something like that or a flashback to give the villain's story some meaning and background.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on December 07, 2012, 08:55:42 AM
"Ship...out of danger?"
"Yes...well I sort of crashed it into San Francisco Bay but otherwise it's good to go.."
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: billybob476 on December 07, 2012, 10:19:01 AM
Well it's not the first time Kirk crashes a ship into the bay...oh wait I guess technically THIS is the first time, but then the Voyage Home took place in the 80's...ugh time travel hurts my brain.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bromptonboy on December 07, 2012, 11:50:18 AM
Is anyone else sensing a Moyer-esque song parody of the Enterprise taking a dip in San Francisco Bay - to the tune of 'San Francisco' by Scott McKenzie?

"If Khan is go-o-o-ing to San Fran-cisco...be sure to see the starship in the bay..."
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: davekill on December 07, 2012, 12:11:09 PM
Must be one of the smaller ships - at it's deepest the bay is only 100 ft.

http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/world/san-francisco-bay.html (http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/world/san-francisco-bay.html)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: billybob476 on December 07, 2012, 12:16:38 PM
Quote from: davekill on December 07, 2012, 12:11:09 PM
Must be one of the smaller ships - at it's deepest the bay is only 100 ft.

http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/world/san-francisco-bay.html (http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/world/san-francisco-bay.html)

How dare you sully our wild speculation with facts and science!! :D
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: billybob476 on December 07, 2012, 01:34:21 PM
Hm...read anothert thought on the ELR forums. What if Peter Weller is Khan and Cumberbatch is his feather-haired sidekick Joachim?
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on December 07, 2012, 01:47:33 PM
Quote from: billybob476 on December 07, 2012, 01:34:21 PM
Hm...read anothert thought on the ELR forums. What if Peter Weller is Khan and Cumberbatch is his feather-haired sidekick Joachim?

Actually the would jibe well with the voice over in the trailer where he says something along the lines of "What would you do to defend your family." It sounds like a rhetorical question. So what if Khan and the augments are in a Klingon prison. Kahn dies and Joachim returns to have his revenge? Interesting...
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on December 07, 2012, 02:30:47 PM
Mind=Blown!

I have also heard a theory that Starfleet intercepted the Botany Bay early, and conscripted the Khan-ites into a Starfleet Special forces. Left them for dead and such, and that's why they be all grumpy.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: davekill on December 07, 2012, 03:08:59 PM
I'd like to see a re-imagined Botany Bay
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bromptonboy on December 07, 2012, 03:09:12 PM
Personally, I khan't bring myself to believe that..  :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: billybob476 on December 07, 2012, 03:34:41 PM
If the Botany Bay is involved, I still really want Chekov to say, "Botany Bay? Botany Bay?! Oh no!"
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on December 07, 2012, 03:36:49 PM
Here's a detailed list of the IMAX theaters showing "The Hobbit" next week and the 9 minute preview.

http://www.imax.com/community/blog/the-extended-preview-of-j-j-abrams-star-trek-into-darkness-will-debut-in-imax-3d-on-december-14th/ (http://www.imax.com/community/blog/the-extended-preview-of-j-j-abrams-star-trek-into-darkness-will-debut-in-imax-3d-on-december-14th/)

Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: davekill on December 08, 2012, 04:00:10 AM
While your waiting for the next trailer, check out my version of INTO DARKNESS.

Made only with the darkest parts of Enterprise season three.

http://youtu.be/-CwZdjOunpE (http://youtu.be/-CwZdjOunpE)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on December 08, 2012, 04:44:26 AM
Wow - that's awesome Dave!  Great job.  Love the ending you put in too.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: davekill on December 08, 2012, 04:52:07 AM
Thanks, I wanted to be sure to get Porhos in there too.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on December 08, 2012, 04:56:03 AM
Interesting to watch this again now after seeing the teaser trailer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvTvb5vd-60#ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvTvb5vd-60#ws)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on December 09, 2012, 11:29:28 AM
For anyone that hasn't seen this, here is a quick snapshot of near the end of issue #2 of the IDW Trek comic where Kirk shoots and kills Gary Mitchell.  And afterwards sticks him and Kelso in torpedo casings and shoots them into space.  Writer Roberto Orci is a creative consultant on the comic series.

Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on December 09, 2012, 12:46:52 PM
Well, we all know what happens when you try and dispose of dead bodies in photon torpedo's...they come back alive and well! :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: WillEagle on December 09, 2012, 01:30:28 PM
Two of those Imax theaters are about 40 min away. Hmmm. Do I want to pay the extra for it or not????
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on December 10, 2012, 08:51:21 AM
Well, I'm starting to swing away from Mitchell and more to Khan or someone else now.  This after reading some of the details of the 9 minute preview we are getting later this week.  If you want to learn a bit about what this preview will show us check the links below out.  From the information, the thing is it's looking like even after the 9 minute preview and probably also even after the full trailer we still won't know who Cumberbatch is playing.

http://trekmovie.com/2012/12/09/first-impressions-of-star-trek-into-darkness-imax-preview-jj-abrams-talks-darkness/#comment-4953273 (http://trekmovie.com/2012/12/09/first-impressions-of-star-trek-into-darkness-imax-preview-jj-abrams-talks-darkness/#comment-4953273)

http://www.hitfix.com/motion-captured/imax-prologue-to-star-trek-into-darkness-teases-expertly-and-answers-nothing#zOld00mChSi0Bjj8.99 (http://www.hitfix.com/motion-captured/imax-prologue-to-star-trek-into-darkness-teases-expertly-and-answers-nothing#zOld00mChSi0Bjj8.99)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Jobydrone on December 10, 2012, 09:43:39 AM
I've thought Khan since the first day I heard Benecio Deltoro was cast, just seemed like perfect casting for the character.  Without a major script retooling, which I imagine would be pretty prohibitive once casting is underway, I still think it's Khan.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on December 10, 2012, 09:56:02 AM
Hmmm doesn't seem like Khan to me.

[spoiler]Having the scenes in London with British actors and a British villain and what he is offering doesn't sound like Khan. Unless the have totally rebooted the Khan character from being a Sikh genetically engineered warlord to a posh white British guy.[/spoiler]

At this point I'm hoping this is a new character altogether.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on December 10, 2012, 10:54:37 AM
Quote from: Dangelus on December 10, 2012, 09:56:02 AM
Hmmm doesn't seem like Khan to me.

[spoiler]Having the scenes in London with British actors and a British villain and what he is offering doesn't sound like Khan. Unless the have totally rebooted the Khan character from being a Sikh genetically engineered warlord to a posh white British guy.[/spoiler]

At this point I'm hoping this is a new character altogether.

Well, Ricardo Montalban was Mexican and didn't affect an Indian accent either.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on December 10, 2012, 11:12:00 AM
If its not a British accent, most Americans just group people into having "foreign" accents. 
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on December 10, 2012, 11:42:33 AM
Quote from: Bryancd on December 10, 2012, 10:54:37 AM
Quote from: Dangelus on December 10, 2012, 09:56:02 AM
Hmmm doesn't seem like Khan to me.

[spoiler]Having the scenes in London with British actors and a British villain and what he is offering doesn't sound like Khan. Unless the have totally rebooted the Khan character from being a Sikh genetically engineered warlord to a posh white British guy.[/spoiler]

At this point I'm hoping this is a new character altogether.

Well, Ricardo Montalban was Mexican and didn't affect an Indian accent either.

Yes but he had an ethnic look and was made up and costumed to appear of Indian heritage in Space Seed.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on December 10, 2012, 11:49:35 AM
Quote from: Dangelus on December 10, 2012, 11:42:33 AM
Yes but he had an ethnic look

Oh..I see. It's like that with you.... ;) LOL!!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on December 10, 2012, 12:47:06 PM
Well, the caption for this picture that apparently comes from Paramount is listing Cumberbatch's character as John Harrison. Never heard of him.

http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/new-picture-from-star-trek-into-darkness-reveals-the-villains-identity/ (http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/new-picture-from-star-trek-into-darkness-reveals-the-villains-identity/)

The official "caption" for this photo reads as follows:

"(Left to right) Zachary Quinto is Spock, Benedict Cumberbatch is John Harrison and Chris Pine is Kirk in STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS from Paramount Pictures and Skydance Productions."
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Meds on December 10, 2012, 02:25:14 PM
Oh now this is good, a new character (or at least one that no body thought of) is far better than using Khan.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on December 10, 2012, 02:29:21 PM
If it is a new character, I'm way happier than recycling an old one.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on December 10, 2012, 02:34:21 PM
No, Chris has the quote wrong, it's "John Harrison" in the caption so clearly they are having a bit of fun.

John Harrison
Gary Mitchell

It's an anagram, Clarise!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Meds on December 10, 2012, 02:45:53 PM
LOL do you have Dad to be brain Bry lol
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on December 10, 2012, 02:56:44 PM
Whatever you get the idea!  :lol2
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on December 10, 2012, 02:57:31 PM
Quote from: Chris-El on December 10, 2012, 02:29:21 PM
If it is a new character, I'm way happier than recycling an old one.

The writers have said Benedict is playing a canon character - BUT, that doesn't mean I guess he has to have the same name.  Maybe he's using an alias.  Or maybe he takes the name Khan later as more of a title.  The more this looks like a Mitchell story the less I believe it.  And Bryan, how are those names anagrams??
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Meds on December 10, 2012, 03:00:13 PM
Quote from: Bryancd on December 10, 2012, 02:56:44 PM
Whatever you get the idea!  :lol2

LOL :D
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on December 10, 2012, 03:13:08 PM
I want to remind everyone of this interview with writer Roberto Orci.  Not only does he deny the Mitchell idea, he states clearly who is playing a Trek canon character and who is not playing one.  Read on:

Orci reveals Cumberbatch is canon character but not Mitchell + much more

TrekMovie.com: A couple of weeks ago you were on a radio show and you confirmed that Benedict Cumberbatch is not playing Gary Mitchell in the sequel. Then last week Karl Urban says he is playing Gary Mitchell. Both can't be true.

Roberto Orci: All I can say is that when I did that radio interview I had just been doing 22 hours of press. I had just got off a flight from New Zealand...

TrekMovie.com: Nice callback, but are you sticking with your original comment and it isn't Gary Mitchell.

Roberto Orci: I would say that I never lie. While Karl tests all those hypo spray props on himself [laughs]

TrekMovie.com: Another thing Karl is saying is there is some footage being released this weekend. Do you know anything about that?

Roberto Orci: No. I would love to see some.

TrekMovie.com: For the last movie your first full trailer with new footage was with Quantum of Solace which was in late October of 2008. So following that pattern should we expect the first sequel trailer sometime this fall?

Roberto Orci: Yeah. Marketing plans, especially for the second time around, get a little more clear. You know you want a certain amount of time for an audience to be aware of what is coming up. So certainly fall at the latest for starting to role this movie out.

TrekMovie.com: Have you guys picked a name for the movie.

Roberto Orci: No, but we are down to the final list.

TrekMovie.com: Is having "Star Trek" as part of the name a variable?

Roberto Orci: Only one or two of the titles on the list do not contain it. For the most part all the titles we are considering do have Star Trek in them, but just to get crazy we need to consider crazy things.

TrekMovie.com: So how long will we not know who Benedict Cumberbatch is playing? How long will you guys try to not talk about it?

Roberto Orci: For as long as we can because of our belief that one of the fun things about Star Trek that distinguishes it from other franchises is that the story turns. It isn't just the spectacle of Star Trek, not just the explosions and the battles, it is the plot. That is why we are so protective of plot and character with this particular franchise. In others that isn't the case but in this one we can preserve the experience for some people of not knowing exactly until we get there. Will we succeed in keeping it under wraps? Probably not, but we will try it.

TrekMovie.com: OK, I want to try and get something out of you that is actually new about the movie. Kind of like you did on the radio show but I will name a guest actor in the sequel and you will say if they are playing a new character you created or one from the original Star Trek canon.

Roberto Orci: OK, I'll play.

TrekMovie.com: OK let's start with Alice Eve. Canon or new?

Roberto Orci: Canon

TrekMovie.com: Noel Clarke?

Roberto Orci: New

TrekMovie.com: I assume that also goes for Nanzeen Contractor, who plays his wife?

Roberto Orci: Yes, new.

TrekMovie.com: Peter Weller

Roberto Orci: New.

TrekMovie.com: Joseph Gatt

Roberto Orci: New.

TrekMovie.com: OK and the big one, Benedict Cumberbatch.

Roberto Orci: Canon.


So with that, I'm again betting Benedict is Khan.  Perhaps John Harrison is an alias or his real birth name.  That way when Simon Pegg denied he was playing Khan he wasn't exactly being dishonest - just cagey.  :)

Full interview:
http://trekmovie.com/2012/07/14/exclusive-interview-roberto-orci-reveals-star-trek-sequel-character-details-talks-title-post-production/ (http://trekmovie.com/2012/07/14/exclusive-interview-roberto-orci-reveals-star-trek-sequel-character-details-talks-title-post-production/)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on December 10, 2012, 03:19:45 PM
Quote from: Rico on December 10, 2012, 02:57:31 PM
  And Bryan, how are those names anagrams??

It's not, it just has the same number of letters but for some reason Hannibal Lecter word games popped into my head!

I don't believe a word any of these guys say anymore.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on December 10, 2012, 03:30:53 PM
Lying lists and the Star Trek lies they tell.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on December 10, 2012, 03:48:44 PM
It's becoming more than slightly annoying at this point about all the secrecy.  If it's a good movie it shouldn't matter if we know who the villain is and so forth.  Today while I was working in the lab I was trying to figure out how the Klingons figure into this story.  I kept going back to the augment story arc from Enterprise.  Maybe Gary Cumberkhan is a Klingon in disguise to infiltrate Starfleet - but also an augment (or becomes an augment later).  Anyway, just some thoughts.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on December 10, 2012, 03:51:48 PM
Quote from: Rico on December 10, 2012, 03:48:44 PM
It's becoming more than slightly annoying at this point about all the secrecy.  If it's a good movie it shouldn't matter if we know who the villain is and so forth.  Today while I was working in the lab I was trying to figure out how the Klingons figure into this story.  I kept going back to the augment story arc from Enterprise.  Maybe Gary Cumberkhan is a Klingon in disguise to infiltrate Starfleet - but also an augment (or becomes an augment later).  Anyway, just some thoughts.

Just posted over at the RPF supposedly from some twitter traffic out of people at Bad Robot..It's still speculation but I put it in the spoiler tags anyway. If it's right then we have the answer and the answer to your Klingon question.
[spoiler]Alice Eve's character is confirmed to be Carol Marcus. Part of the movie takes place on Klingon planet Qo'noS.[spoiler]

Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on December 10, 2012, 03:55:43 PM
Quote from: Bryancd on December 10, 2012, 03:51:48 PM
Quote from: Rico on December 10, 2012, 03:48:44 PM
It's becoming more than slightly annoying at this point about all the secrecy.  If it's a good movie it shouldn't matter if we know who the villain is and so forth.  Today while I was working in the lab I was trying to figure out how the Klingons figure into this story.  I kept going back to the augment story arc from Enterprise.  Maybe Gary Cumberkhan is a Klingon in disguise to infiltrate Starfleet - but also an augment (or becomes an augment later).  Anyway, just some thoughts.

Just posted over at the RPF supposedly from some twitter traffic out of people at Bad Robot..

[spoiler]Alice Eve's character is confirmed to be Carol Marcus. Part of the movie takes place on Klingon planet Qo'noS./spoiler]

It's still speculation but I put it in the spoiler tags anyway. If it's right then we have the answer and the answer to your Klingon question.
I was fairly certain of that after the trailer....be cool to see where they take that arc.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on December 10, 2012, 04:00:41 PM
Yeah, I agree.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: X on December 10, 2012, 04:29:55 PM
Maybe they misspelled it?

http://memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/John_Harriman (http://memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/John_Harriman)

or

http://memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/Harrison_(Lieutenant) (http://memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/Harrison_(Lieutenant))
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on December 10, 2012, 11:58:49 PM
Quote from: Chris-El on December 10, 2012, 03:55:43 PM
Quote from: Bryancd on December 10, 2012, 03:51:48 PM
Quote from: Rico on December 10, 2012, 03:48:44 PM
It's becoming more than slightly annoying at this point about all the secrecy.  If it's a good movie it shouldn't matter if we know who the villain is and so forth.  Today while I was working in the lab I was trying to figure out how the Klingons figure into this story.  I kept going back to the augment story arc from Enterprise.  Maybe Gary Cumberkhan is a Klingon in disguise to infiltrate Starfleet - but also an augment (or becomes an augment later).  Anyway, just some thoughts.

Just posted over at the RPF supposedly from some twitter traffic out of people at Bad Robot..

[spoiler]Alice Eve's character is confirmed to be Carol Marcus. Part of the movie takes place on Klingon planet Qo'noS./spoiler]

It's still speculation but I put it in the spoiler tags anyway. If it's right then we have the answer and the answer to your Klingon question.
I was fairly certain of that after the trailer....be cool to see where they take that arc.

Hmmm either we are totally being misled here or they are really stretching credibility here to give us characters and situations we are familiar with. For example that character has absolutely nothing to do with Khan until much later chronologically. The whole Kirkby as Captain is happening much earlier so I think it's a mistake to try and shoehorn alternate versions of stories we are familiar with into this. I'm still hoping for a new story with a new main character but I don't mind seeing legacy characters in the background in less critical roles.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on December 11, 2012, 04:41:39 AM
Someone just mentioned in the avonos thread that in "Where No man has Gone Before" Gary Mitchell made referendce to a blonde named Carol has set up with Kirk. People often figured that must have been Carol Marcus, so maybe it is Mitchell again! Ahhh!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on December 11, 2012, 04:53:24 AM
Quote from: Bryancd on December 11, 2012, 04:41:39 AM
Someone just mentioned in the avonos thread that in "Where No man has Gone Before" Gary Mitchell made referendce to a blonde named Carol has set up with Kirk. People often figured that must have been Carol Marcus, so maybe it is Mitchell again! Ahhh!

Yeah, I thought about this too awhile ago.  But I'm believing Bob Orci on this one - it isn't Mitchell.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on December 11, 2012, 04:54:48 AM
Someone over on the RPF also did a phot comparison of the one above and of Mitchell in confinement in the epsisode, it's very similar!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: billybob476 on December 11, 2012, 05:29:58 AM
ONe way or another, I can almost picture JJ giggling as he continues to mess with us :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on December 11, 2012, 05:33:49 AM
I am out of ideas. Congrats to JJ though, we are all talking and speculating about this movie more than ever! :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: WillEagle on December 11, 2012, 05:59:57 AM
This is giving me a headache! I think I'll just wait and find out when the movie comes out. Anyway it's Arne Darvin.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: billybob476 on December 11, 2012, 06:07:51 AM
I still say it's Harry Mudd.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: X on December 11, 2012, 06:12:05 AM
The more time that passes, the more I wonder if it really matters. I mean do we really need to know all of these little things? The trailer does a great job of making me want more. I want to see this film, but I could really care less about who the villain is or who is playing what. At the end of the day, these are things that should be explained by actually watching the movie and knowing before hand has little to no chance of enhancing the movie experience.

The longer that this goes on, the more I start to see peeople getting upset because their sense of entitlement is being ignored. Does it really matter if they want the core of the plot to be secret until we see the movie? I don't think that it's a bad thing for them to want us to save out surprise until we're actually in our seats.

It's also not the first movie in even recent decades they want some surprise. Then combine that with the track record of the director and you have your answer. JJ likes to reveal his movies at the theater and if Super 8 or Cloverfield were any indication, it's not changing soon and he seems to have accepted the risk of facing the wrath of angry trek fans for not sharing.

I'm beginning to accept that lack of information is going to be par for the course with any Bad Robot project.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on December 11, 2012, 07:48:00 AM
Well, it's to be expected, STAR TREK fans are as skilled at ripping apart that which they love as STAR WARS fans. My issue isn't the misdierection, that's been kind of fun, it's I'm not a huge JJ fan and he annoys me.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Jobydrone on December 11, 2012, 07:58:26 AM
Quote from: X on December 10, 2012, 04:29:55 PM
Maybe they misspelled it?

http://memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/John_Harriman (http://memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/John_Harriman)

or

http://memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/Harrison_(Lieutenant) (http://memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/Harrison_(Lieutenant))
LMFAO...I had no idea that Ferris' buddy had such a well documented carreer in the Trek EU before and after getting Kirk "killed" in Generations.  How funny.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bromptonboy on December 11, 2012, 08:15:38 AM
I have to say I enjoy seeing the hive mind at work, trying to decode all of JJ's intentional (IMHO) 'Obfuscations'. 
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on December 11, 2012, 08:33:51 AM
I'm perfectly fine with secrets.  What I am not fine with is misdirection when it comes to movie info.  Either say nothing or just let the "cat out of the bag."  My point is they are starting to annoy some fans and that's never a good thing.  I like doing the speculating and having some fun with it all, but I will say I'm disappointed in general on how they have handled the promotion of this movie so far.  From that 3 frames of footage JJ showed awhile back to this latest photo - I feel kind of messed with.  It's not that I feel "entitled" to anything, but don't jerk me around.  This is coming out harsher than I really feel but I'm trying to pass on some of the many comments I'm seeing online about all this.  I still think the movie will be terrific.  But I have to ask, why is it so darn important that we don't really know who the villain is?  How will that spoil the film??
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: billybob476 on December 11, 2012, 08:37:16 AM
Agreed. I'm fine with this but does it matter if we know who he is? The Dark Knight wasn't hurt because we knew Bane would be the bad guy.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on December 11, 2012, 08:41:19 AM
Quote from: billybob476 on December 11, 2012, 08:37:16 AM
Agreed. I'm fine with this but does it matter if we know who he is? The Dark Knight wasn't hurt because we knew Bane would be the bad guy.

Exactly!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on December 11, 2012, 09:01:38 AM
Quote from: billybob476 on December 11, 2012, 08:37:16 AM
Agreed. I'm fine with this but does it matter if we know who he is? The Dark Knight wasn't hurt because we knew Bane would be the bad guy.

Actually that film was hurt BECAUSE Bane was the villian! ;)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: X on December 11, 2012, 09:24:21 AM
Quote from: Bryancd on December 11, 2012, 09:01:38 AM
Quote from: billybob476 on December 11, 2012, 08:37:16 AM
Agreed. I'm fine with this but does it matter if we know who he is? The Dark Knight wasn't hurt because we knew Bane would be the bad guy.

Actually that film was hurt BECAUSE Bane was the villian! ;)
LOL Yeah, I expected more.

But seriously, I know that the internet spoils us, but remember when the Matrix came out? There was nothing at all to tell you about what would be happening. You had to experience it and that made it better.

Spoilers don't affect my movie experience one way or the other, but while I can agree that some spoilers don't ruin a film, has there ever been a case where not giving spoilers have ruined a film?
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: X on December 11, 2012, 09:33:52 AM
When you take time to think about it, if I was him, I wouldn't go out of my way to give details either. Remember what happened the last time? Every thing that was release got dissected to the frame. They show the ship being built and the internet erupts with complaint from trek fans that it wasn't built on Earth. Finally show the ship and it again erupts that the design is all wrong.

After the last outing, is there really any reason for him to show anything other than what he plans on showing and telling. I personally would just avoid the headache and let people wait until the release before giving them reasons to bash my decisions.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on December 11, 2012, 09:40:02 AM
Quote from: X on December 11, 2012, 09:33:52 AM
When you take time to think about it, if I was him, I wouldn't go out of my way to give details either. Remember what happened the last time? Every thing that was release got dissected to the frame. They show the ship being built and the internet erupts with complaint from trek fans that it wasn't built on Earth. Finally show the ship and it again erupts that the design is all wrong.

After the last outing, is there really any reason for him to show anything other than what he plans on showing and telling. I personally would just avoid the headache and let people wait until the release before giving them reasons to bash my decisions.

I agree but Rico makes a good point. it's not so much he is limiting the info, he and his crew are intentionally trying to play cat and mouse, so I don't see them as an inncoent in all of this. If anything, they have made it worse. I have also said previously and stand by it, I am not impressed by the marketing for this film btu i am sure it will be great.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Meds on December 11, 2012, 11:53:24 AM
Yeah lets face it we will all go and see this film but you can alienate some people. The Hobbit has done that with me. The studios saying you SHOULD watch this in 3D and in 48 beeps per eye ball has done the opposite and made me say "balls to you I'll wait for the blu-ray, though since reading kennys review about it being better in 2D I think I may go now when it comes to my little art house cinema in Jan. Marketing is important and I agree with Bry that the marketing for this film has not been my cup of tea, in fact I feel the same about Man of Steel.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: davekill on December 11, 2012, 01:04:38 PM
During Trek's run on TV, the popular opinion was to keep the franchise moving forward.
Revisiting cannon is more itching powder than catnip for trek fans and IMHO bad form, sort of like bringing up politics at a family Thanksgiving dinner.

It's a safe maneuver on JJ's part to keep anxiety thus ticket $ale$ high, but kind of a cheap trick too.

As a result we're being 'jerked around' with familiar rehashed stories they are afraid to let go of, while there are lot's of ideas and cultures mentioned in Trek that have not been followed up on due to television time or budget restraints.

The Enterprise used to be a ship of exploration, not exploitation.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on December 11, 2012, 02:55:36 PM
Quote from: Meds on December 11, 2012, 11:53:24 AM
Yeah lets face it we will all go and see this film but you can alienate some people. The Hobbit has done that with me. The studios saying you SHOULD watch this in 3D and in 48 beeps per eye ball has done the opposite and made me say "balls to you I'll wait for the blu-ray, though since reading kennys review about it being better in 2D I think I may go now when it comes to my little art house cinema in Jan. Marketing is important and I agree with Bry that the marketing for this film has not been my cup of tea, in fact I feel the same about Man of Steel.

Well, in their defense they are trying to encourage people to try out a new technical advancement in film making as opposed to trying to be too cute for their own good with content elements.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on December 11, 2012, 03:21:22 PM
I'm still pretty ok and cool with it all in general still.  I just feel pretty strongly that they could be handling marketing things better.  It really makes you wonder why all the secrecy.  I can only think of two possible reasons.  First, if the villain is Khan I am sure they are expecting fan backlash.  Wrath of Khan is generally considered the best Trek film and to tread in that area is dangerous.  The second reason is simply there are some big surprises in the film and they are trying to keep a lid on those and avoid big spoilers.  I guess we'll know eventually why all the hush-hush.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on December 11, 2012, 03:25:46 PM
The more I think about it, the more I actually think it's not Khan. Here's a REALLY out there but interesting theory from a guy who spent a day at Bad Robot Productions and confirmed the Carol Marcus character:


"Finally, I'd like to advance a theory.

I may be taking one of the most obvious bits of bait of all time.  Because I'll explain exactly how I ended up forming this "completely silly out of left field but what if" theory.  If you don't want anything spoiled about the film, you can most probably read the following because I think it's unlikely I am right.  In fact, today's press event was probably carefully calibrated to help generate some misinformation.

There is a character who exists on the fringes of "Star Trek" canon, and that's why I think it's a crazy theory. Would Abrams and Orci and Kurtzman and Lindelof really take advantage of their big cosmic reset button and tell the story of the character originally named Captain Robert April in the first pilot script for the original series?  When "Star Trek" finally did go to pilot, they changed April's name to... Christopher Pike.

In his episode of the animated show, which you can see on NetFlix Instant right now, he's a Commodore, a former captain of the Enterprise, taking a trip with his wife on the ship, and when a mysterious illness hits the crew and starts aging them in reverse, Commodore April and his wife, who are much older than anyone else, and as a result, they were the ones to save the day because they had more time than anyone else to solve the problem.  His wife was a Starfleet medical officer when he was the captain, too, so they were both tied to the Enterprise.

Meanwhile, in the books, April is revealed to be someone who came from Coventry in England.  You know England, right?  That's where London is.  You remember why that matters right?  Because of the one-sheet looking out on the London skyline.
And the opening of the film, which you'll see at the IMAX presentation, features a moment where Cumberbatch offers to help a family whose daughter is hospitalized in the London Children's Hospital. So it seems like England is important to this April character.  Hmmmm.  And why does the daughter need help?  Because she appears to be prematurely aging.  The guy who figured out how to reset the body clock to move in a different direction might be a perfect person to help that little girl... wouldn't you think?

What if you learned that in the books that April's executive officer was a dude named Commander George Kirk?  You know... the one that Chris Hemsworth so memorably played at the start of 2009's "Star Trek"?  On the other hand, in other books, Pike is April's second-in-command.

So what if something happened to April on a mission somewhere with Pike.  It didn't have to be on the Enterprise as long as the two of them were serving together.  And what if something terrible happened to April because of Pike and Pike came home and went on with his life?  What if April is the one who comes to Earth, not for revenge on Kirk, but for revenge on Pike?

After all, that shot at the end of the trailer that hits online and in theaters on December 17th has Cumberbatch asking, "Is there anything you would not do for your family?" while we see that oh-so-tricky shot of the two hands on opposite sides of the glass.  That's totally designed and cut to make you think they're going to try to reproduce the ending of "Wrath of Khan."

But what if it's not Kirk on the other side of the glass from Spock?

What if it's Pike?  What if he's playing for his "sins" and saving everyone else on the Enterprise at the same time?

Like I said... that's one crazy theory.  I'll bet I'm connecting dots that just don't connect.

But... one last thing.  In the trailer, you've seen the shot where Cumberbatch jumps, lands, and then swats a dude using a huge long hunk of metal.  Well, that hunk of metal is what the crew on the film called "The Big Gun."  That's what we were told during our tour, and as everyone was discussing it, we were standing in a room that had been specially set up for today's event.

And on the counter at the back of the room, there was a big book of production art that was open.  Laying right there were anyone could see it.  And on one of the two pages, there was a concept design sketch for that gun.
But instead of "The Big Gun," it was called "April's Gatling Gun."

As in the gun that April uses.  The gun that seems to belong to Cumberbatch in the trailer, which would suggest that Cumberbatch is April.

You see what I mean about misdirection?  What if they intentionally left that there, open to that page, in the exact area where everyone was standing, just to help obfuscate everything even more?

Or... even crazier... what if they really didn't think anyone would pay attention to that, and that's really what they're doing for this film?

Whatever the case, it's fun to play along as we count down to the release of both the trailer and the prologue in a few weeks, and I hope this sneak peek behind the scenes got you as interested as I am at this point."

Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bromptonboy on December 11, 2012, 03:29:58 PM
Hmm, compelling reading, and a fun theory to think over.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Ktrek on December 11, 2012, 08:26:37 PM
I like it Bryan! You shoot it and I'll go see it!  :metallica:

Kevin
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on December 12, 2012, 03:32:34 AM
A possibility! :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: WillEagle on December 12, 2012, 05:20:46 PM
Hmmmmmmmm?????
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on December 12, 2012, 05:59:18 PM
I'm still thinking this Harrison character is some type of augmented human.  The Robert April connection just seems kind of not needed to me.  I'm also thinking they might be just taking bits and pieces of Trek lore and kind of blending them together into something new.  Certainly going to be interesting to see.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Ktrek on December 12, 2012, 09:41:45 PM
Abrams says that the film was made for "movie" fans but Star Trek fans should enjoy it too. Five more months and we'll see. I won't be attending the Hobbit at Imax just so I can see a nine minute preview of the film. I'm sure there will be videos of it online within hours anyway. Heck the way things go these days we'll probably be able to see a complete bootleg version of it before it hits the theaters! :)

Kevin
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: davekill on December 13, 2012, 08:37:25 AM
Cumberbatch confirms his character name:

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/12/...nder-an-alias/ (http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/12/...nder-an-alias/)

In a new interview with Access Hollywood, Benedict Cumberbatch has referred to his Star Trek character by name for the first time and it matches the official info:

I play a character called John and not that other name. It's interesting. Speculation is speculation and that's all fun.

What other name? He'd been accused of being Khan, under an alias.

I play John Harrison who's a terrorist and an extraordinary character in his own right. He's somebody who is not your two-dimensional cookie cutter villain. He's got an extraordinary purpose, and I hope that at one point or other in the film you might even sympathize with the reasons he's doing what he's doing — not necessarily the means and the destruction he causes. But it was a great ride, not just because he's the bad guy and the antagonist but also because he has a purpose and it's hard not to see his point of view at certain points.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, as they say.

There is much more to this than meets the eye, don't you think?
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on December 13, 2012, 08:48:46 AM
This article by Trek expert John Tenuto sums up my thoughts very well on all this.  I agree with John and still say Cumberbatch is basically going to be playing Khan - even if he has another name for some of even all of the film.

http://trekmovie.com/2012/12/12/tenutoblog-making-the-case-for-identifying-the-star-trek-into-darkness-villain/ (http://trekmovie.com/2012/12/12/tenutoblog-making-the-case-for-identifying-the-star-trek-into-darkness-villain/)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bromptonboy on December 13, 2012, 08:51:54 AM
Hmmm...more grist for the mill.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bromptonboy on December 13, 2012, 08:53:32 AM
Quote from: Rico on December 12, 2012, 05:59:18 PM
I'm still thinking this Harrison character is some type of augmented human.  The Robert April connection just seems kind of not needed to me.  I'm also thinking they might be just taking bits and pieces of Trek lore and kind of blending them together into something new.  Certainly going to be interesting to see.
That sounds entirely plausible.  I was thinking that he must be some sort of replicant, or genetically modified human - who would elicit some measure of sympathy.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on December 13, 2012, 10:20:49 AM
Quote from: Rico on December 13, 2012, 08:48:46 AM
This article by Trek expert John Tenuto sums up my thoughts very well on all this.  I agree with John and still say Cumberbatch is basically going to be playing Khan - even if he has another name for some of even all of the film.

http://trekmovie.com/2012/12/12/tenutoblog-making-the-case-for-identifying-the-star-trek-into-darkness-villain/ (http://trekmovie.com/2012/12/12/tenutoblog-making-the-case-for-identifying-the-star-trek-into-darkness-villain/)

It's interesting that he didn't deny he was playing Khan, just that it wasn't his character's name.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bromptonboy on December 13, 2012, 10:28:43 AM
Maybe he will be a re-named 'Gary Seven'.  :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: davekill on December 13, 2012, 10:46:43 AM
John Tenuto also confirms another good point...

"It is well known that JJ Abrams has used Nolan's Batman series as a model for his reboot of Star Trek, which is even evident in the recently revealed poster for Into Darkness."


For a different spin I would have liked to see JMS get a crack at the reboot, he had said before that he would have liked to. :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Ktrek on December 13, 2012, 11:16:14 AM
Oh joy...Bane Star Trek style. I'm thrilled.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: davekill on December 13, 2012, 12:29:36 PM
 :batman Glad it's not Transformers Trek
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on December 13, 2012, 12:40:56 PM
..a Michael Bay production.  :ohmy
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: QuadShot on December 13, 2012, 02:24:14 PM
WHY in the world are you all CONTINUALLY bashing on Bane? I enjoyed The Dark Knight Rises, and liked Bane as a villain.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on December 13, 2012, 02:24:56 PM
Quote from: QuadShot on December 13, 2012, 02:24:14 PM
WHY in the world are you all CONTINUALLY bashing on Bane? I enjoyed The Dark Knight Rises, and liked Bane as a villain.

Bane was lame. :) I couldn't understand a word he said and his entire pathos was lost on me.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: QuadShot on December 13, 2012, 02:28:29 PM
Sorry Bryan, but I seriously disagree. I liked the character and thought it was probably the best of the Batman films...
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on December 13, 2012, 02:33:42 PM
Dark Knight is still better, I think, but I loved Bane. I understood the voice fine, and it's tons of fun to impersonate at work.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: QuadShot on December 13, 2012, 02:35:39 PM
Maybe as far as villains go Chris, but for story, I enjoyed Rises a bit more than Dark Knight. Bane is a classic villain, and like I said, not sure why so many are hating on him.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Meds on December 13, 2012, 02:36:05 PM
I could understand every word of Bane, never had a problem with his voice at all. I'm not a fan of the Joker (simply NOT the Joker from the comic) although i enjoyed Dark Knight i thought Tom Hardy was a better presence.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on December 13, 2012, 02:38:34 PM
Quote from: Meds on December 13, 2012, 02:36:05 PM
I could understand every word of Bane, never had a problem with his voice at all. I'm not a fan of the Joker (simply NOT the Joker from the comic) although i enjoyed Dark Knight i thought Tom Hardy was a better presence.
I do wonder how this movie would have played out had Heath Ledger not died. Would the Joker have played a role in it? Tom Hardy has become quite the badass since his days of being emo young Picard.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: QuadShot on December 13, 2012, 02:40:13 PM
Fully agree Meds! I'm not a fan of the Joker character either, although Heath Ledger did an awesome job, but I like Bane, and I think Tom Hardy is awesome. Like I said...too many haters out there! :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Meds on December 13, 2012, 02:41:39 PM
Yeah check him out as Bronson. (saying that i thought he stole every scene he was in in Inception)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on December 13, 2012, 02:42:04 PM
Quote from: QuadShot on December 13, 2012, 02:40:13 PM
Fully agree Meds! I'm not a fan of the Joker character either, although Heath Ledger did an awesome job, but I like Bane, and I think Tom Hardy is awesome. Like I said...too many haters out there! :)
My only problem was that in the end, Bane was a henchman for somebody...sort of marginalized him. But as far as a physical threat for Batman, he was quite scary.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on December 13, 2012, 02:42:42 PM
Quote from: Meds on December 13, 2012, 02:41:39 PM
Yeah check him out as Bronson. (saying that i thought he stole every scene he was in in Inception)
I saw Bronson, that was a crazy movie. And he was great in Inception.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on December 13, 2012, 02:59:25 PM
I DIDN'T LIKE BANE. Get over it. :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Jobydrone on December 13, 2012, 03:00:48 PM
I think had Heath Ledger lived, we would have seen a Batman 3 much closer to the Frank Miller story "Dark Knight Returns" (less the Superman angle of course) and Bane wouldn't have been in it at all. 
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Meds on December 13, 2012, 03:19:47 PM
I don't think Bry likes Bane ;)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on December 13, 2012, 03:20:03 PM
Please tell me there's an old Dark Knight thread where this debate can go and die!   :old_bash:
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on December 13, 2012, 03:20:57 PM
Quote from: Meds on December 13, 2012, 03:19:47 PM
I don't think Bry likes Bane ;)

Actually Ilike Tom Hardy well enough, I think he was great as Shinzon but Shinzon was poorly written and conceived. And like that, we are back on Trek! :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on December 13, 2012, 03:22:14 PM
Quote from: Meds on December 13, 2012, 03:19:47 PM
I don't think Bry likes Bane ;)

And Al does. Kevin and I hardly constitute "EVERYBODY". LOL!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: WillEagle on December 13, 2012, 04:25:39 PM
Quote from: Bryancd on December 13, 2012, 03:22:14 PM
Quote from: Meds on December 13, 2012, 03:19:47 PM
I don't think Bry likes Bane ;)

And Al does. Kevin and I hardly constitute "EVERYBODY". LOL!

I agree with Bryancd. I couldn't understand Bane. It drove me nuts. If it wasn't for Catwoman riding around on that Batbike I would not have rated this movie as high as I did.

Probably just seeing the trailer on a 2D showing of the Hobbit so I won't see the 9 min. Just cost to much to drive to a bigger theater and pay extra for the Imax. I'm sure I'll still enjoy the Trek and Superman trailers.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: X on December 13, 2012, 04:40:36 PM
My only problem with Bane is that his voice sounded to high pitched for someone that big. There was a huge disconnect for me, it made it almost comical to listen to. Also, the voice kinda sucked. It wasn't the accent I was looking for and I really don't see the reason behind it. If he was raised in a hole where he was, wouldn't his accent be much different than the one presented?
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on December 13, 2012, 04:43:35 PM
In the comics, he's Latin, so I was expecting something along those lines.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: KingIsaacLinksr on December 13, 2012, 04:48:07 PM
The Dark Knight Rises was good for one watch through and...that's it. The convoluted storyline that has plot holes the size of nukes really drags the movie down when I watch it now. Bane isn't a great villain either when the great twist is is that he's just the tool for someone else.

I won't likely get to see the 9min preview of this film because I don't think there is an IMAX around here...but I could be mistaken. And I'm still debating whether I want to see the Hobbit with those terrible 3D glasses.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on December 13, 2012, 05:01:03 PM
Quote from: KingIsaacLinksr on December 13, 2012, 04:48:07 PM
The Dark Knight Rises was good for one watch through and...that's it. The convoluted storyline that has plot holes the size of nukes really drags the movie down when I watch it now. Bane isn't a great villain either when the great twist is is that he's just the tool for someone else.

I won't likely get to see the 9min preview of this film because I don't think there is an IMAX around here...but I could be mistaken. And I'm still debating whether I want to see the Hobbit with those terrible 3D glasses.

The 3D reviews have NOT been terrible, the 48fps issue is what's being debated, to be clear. Everyone seems to love the 3D.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: KingIsaacLinksr on December 13, 2012, 05:21:37 PM
Quote from: Bryancd on December 13, 2012, 05:01:03 PM
Quote from: KingIsaacLinksr on December 13, 2012, 04:48:07 PM
The Dark Knight Rises was good for one watch through and...that's it. The convoluted storyline that has plot holes the size of nukes really drags the movie down when I watch it now. Bane isn't a great villain either when the great twist is is that he's just the tool for someone else.

I won't likely get to see the 9min preview of this film because I don't think there is an IMAX around here...but I could be mistaken. And I'm still debating whether I want to see the Hobbit with those terrible 3D glasses.

The 3D reviews have NOT been terrible, the 48fps issue is what's being debated, to be clear. Everyone seems to love the 3D.

As someone who plays games at 60 fps or higher as his main hobby most of the time, I doubt 48 FPS is going to bother me. As for the 3D thing, I haven't really loved it since Avatar. I find the high price doesn't outweigh the experience and most of the time you miss a lot of the background scenery. I wonder if its been preserved...
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: QuadShot on December 13, 2012, 05:24:19 PM
Quote from: WillEagle on December 13, 2012, 04:25:39 PM
Quote from: Bryancd on December 13, 2012, 03:22:14 PM
Quote from: Meds on December 13, 2012, 03:19:47 PM
I don't think Bry likes Bane ;)

And Al does. Kevin and I hardly constitute "EVERYBODY". LOL!

I agree with Bryancd. I couldn't understand Bane. It drove me nuts. If it wasn't for Catwoman riding around on that Batbike I would not have rated this movie as high as I did.

Probably just seeing the trailer on a 2D showing of the Hobbit so I won't see the 9 min. Just cost to much to drive to a bigger theater and pay extra for the Imax. I'm sure I'll still enjoy the Trek and Superman trailers.

So basically, you're giving Dark Knight Rises higher marks because you're lusting over a woman in a plastic outfit...wow.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on December 13, 2012, 05:40:01 PM
I've like movies for much lesser reasons.... :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on December 13, 2012, 06:12:31 PM
Ok - Trek isn't a Batman film.  The 2009 Trek wasn't like a Batman film.  "Into Darkness" I really doubt will be like a Batman film.  Back on to the Trek topic.  I hear Scotty's little buddy in engineering will be back.  Oh, and this guy too....

KHAAAAAAN! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRnSnfiUI54#)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: WillEagle on December 13, 2012, 06:20:53 PM
Quote from: QuadShot on December 13, 2012, 05:24:19 PM
Quote from: WillEagle on December 13, 2012, 04:25:39 PM
Quote from: Bryancd on December 13, 2012, 03:22:14 PM
Quote from: Meds on December 13, 2012, 03:19:47 PM
I don't think Bry likes Bane ;)

And Al does. Kevin and I hardly constitute "EVERYBODY". LOL!

I agree with Bryancd. I couldn't understand Bane. It drove me nuts. If it wasn't for Catwoman riding around on that Batbike I would not have rated this movie as high as I did.

Probably just seeing the trailer on a 2D showing of the Hobbit so I won't see the 9 min. Just cost to much to drive to a bigger theater and pay extra for the Imax. I'm sure I'll still enjoy the Trek and Superman trailers.

So basically, you're giving Dark Knight Rises higher marks because you're lusting over a woman in a plastic outfit...wow.

There were other parts, besides Catwoman, that I liked. I just didn't care for Bane.  

There is a recent Star Trek comic that features Scotty's little buddy that I really enjoyed. It was #14 of the ongoing series. Even has some backstory of the character.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: davekill on December 13, 2012, 07:15:18 PM
Holy Hudini Batman, more pre-released footage?

http://youtu.be/7qRH_i6YNFQ (http://youtu.be/7qRH_i6YNFQ)

Star Trek vs Batman actualy got 31% on rotten tomatoes. :)
Didn't see Abrams in the credits
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on December 16, 2012, 08:49:41 AM
Thought this was funny...

Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Meds on December 16, 2012, 11:26:32 AM
Ha ha ha  they are a dancin :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on December 16, 2012, 01:12:56 PM
HA!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on December 16, 2012, 03:41:00 PM
http://trekweb.com/articles/2012/12/16/ShotbyShot-Screencaps-off-the-9Minute-IMAX-Prologue-Preview-of-Star-Trek-Into-Darkness-SPOILERS.shtml (http://trekweb.com/articles/2012/12/16/ShotbyShot-Screencaps-off-the-9Minute-IMAX-Prologue-Preview-of-Star-Trek-Into-Darkness-SPOILERS.shtml)

Over at Trekweb they put up some screencaps of the 9-minute preview.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on December 16, 2012, 03:54:30 PM
Ok, I saw the 9 minute preview today with "The Hobbit" in IMAX.  The details of the preview are kind of all over the web right now so I'm not going to go into that very much.  But what I will say is how much fun and how cool it was to back with these people and this crew.  Even in the short preview I really got the sense this crew has become a very tight knit group as well as a well oiled machine.  I can't exactly put it into words but it just all felt very...right.  I'm even more excited to see the movie now.  I think it's going to be wonderful!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on December 16, 2012, 04:51:55 PM
The 9 minute preview was awesome...so cool to see the "new" crew of the Big E interacting as a cohesive unit...and on a Strange New World. Looks like alot of fun!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on December 17, 2012, 08:47:56 AM
New teaser is now up.  Seems to only be on Apple's site right now so I can't view it at work.  Figures!

http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/paramount/startrekintodarkness/ (http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/paramount/startrekintodarkness/)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on December 17, 2012, 08:52:49 AM
Ha - found it!  So much for an Apple exclusive. 
Looking great!

Star Trek Into Darkness - Official Trailer (HD) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5gdbUC9mWU#ws)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Meds on December 17, 2012, 01:33:50 PM
Its the last line, "what would you do for family" (or something like that) Hmmm, Now this looks awesome, bloody awesome.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on December 17, 2012, 02:14:23 PM
Yes, I think this movie is gonna knock our pants off! Time to do some screencaps....
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bromptonboy on December 17, 2012, 02:46:09 PM
Uh, pulled already.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on December 17, 2012, 02:53:04 PM
Quote from: Bromptonboy on December 17, 2012, 02:46:09 PM
Uh, pulled already.

Just look at at via the Apple Trailers site then.

http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/paramount/startrekintodarkness/ (http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/paramount/startrekintodarkness/)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on December 17, 2012, 03:45:43 PM
OK, just got back from the Hobbit in 3D IMAX and wanted to post some thoughts about the 9min. trailer here. No major spoilers but I will keep it hidden in case anyone wants to be suprised going in to see this footage.

[spoiler]WOW, that was frackin' great. It starts off with a couple waking up, there's a super cool Burmese Mountain Dog that hops into bed with them. I love seeing dogs in Trek, even that nasty one from TOS with the horns. They are in London and travel to a mansion on an estate that has been converted into a hospital. They meet with a doctor and then visit with their ailing daughter. There is no dialogue through any of this. Then the father is outside and he is approached by CumberKhan and he tells him that he can save her. The dad asks who are you but there is no answer. This seems to me likely that he is an augment and perhaps has the ability to do what their medicine can not. Would make sense.

Then you cut to a very prolonged sequence on the red foliage planet in the teaser trailer where Kirk and McCoy are running. The banter between them is terrific. Apparently they are trying to save this primitive culture from a volcano and trying to not violate the Prime Directive. The Enterprise is hidden in the sea. Spock, Uhara, and Sulu are in a shuttle and Spock is lowered into he volcano with a device that will stop the eruption. Nothing goes to plan and lot's of excitement and tension ensue. That was really the meat of it and it looked GREAT in 3D. Everyone is looking to be spot on in their roles. This is going to be an amazing ride and I can't wait! [/spoiler]
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on December 17, 2012, 03:54:56 PM
Same as my feelings from the 9 min. of footage, Bryan.  I simply can't wait to see this entire movie now!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on December 17, 2012, 04:03:40 PM
Quote from: Rico on December 17, 2012, 03:54:56 PM
Same as my feelings from the 9 min. of footage, Bryan.  I simply can't wait to see this entire movie now!

One thing confirmed for me...

[spoiler]Based on the underwater sequence when Kirk and McCoy swim down to the ship, they have made the Enterprise HUGE.[/spoiler]

Thanks for pushing me to seeing it today! I was planning on the HFR non-IMAX version of the Hobbit.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on December 17, 2012, 04:08:39 PM
A new viral site has popped up for the film based on this URL seen in the new teaser trailer.

http://www.areyouthe1701.com/ (http://www.areyouthe1701.com/)

Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on December 18, 2012, 09:45:31 AM
Man, those "caskets" in that scene fromn the new trailer sure look a lot like cryo tubes, they even have frost on the windows.

"Are you the 1701" makes it sound like they are taking about people who are numbers....he is so Khan.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on December 18, 2012, 02:25:27 PM
Quote from: Bryancd on December 18, 2012, 09:45:31 AM
Man, those "caskets" in that scene fromn the new trailer sure look a lot like cryo tubes, they even have frost on the windows.

"Are you the 1701" makes it sound like they are taking about people who are numbers....he is so Khan.

Yep - agreed.  If they are just messing with us now I feel that is wrong - especially if the scenes they are showing are critical points in the film.  Even if he is just another genetically altered human but named John Harrison - that's still pretty much Khan to me.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on December 18, 2012, 02:49:21 PM
Quote from: Rico on December 18, 2012, 02:25:27 PM
Quote from: Bryancd on December 18, 2012, 09:45:31 AM
Man, those "caskets" in that scene fromn the new trailer sure look a lot like cryo tubes, they even have frost on the windows.

"Are you the 1701" makes it sound like they are taking about people who are numbers....he is so Khan.

Yep - agreed.  If they are just messing with us now I feel that is wrong - especially if the scenes they are showing are critical points in the film.  Even if he is just another genetically altered human but named John Harrison - that's still pretty much Khan to me.

I like all the numerous references and images of family in all the trailers so far. The couple with the child, CumberKhan and Admiral Pike's voice overs. We know Khan had hsi family and even in the Augment episode of Enterprise Soon had his "family".
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bromptonboy on December 18, 2012, 02:52:23 PM
Yes,  unless this is an intentional smoke screen - I am thinking he is some sort of an incarnation of Khan. 
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on December 18, 2012, 03:17:58 PM
It still begs the question why they felt the need to try and obfuscate this whole thing and pretty much have to lie to keep their secret. They, JJ and crew, lost points with me on how this has all been handled.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on December 18, 2012, 03:24:18 PM
Newer, better worded synopsis:

SYNOPSIS:

In Summer 2013, director J.J. Abrams will deliver an explosive action thriller that takes Star Trek Into Darkness.

In the wake of a shocking act of terror from within their own organization, the crew of The Enterprise is called back home to Earth. In defiance of regulations and with a personal score to settle, Captain Kirk leads his crew on a manhunt to capture an unstoppable force of destruction and bring those responsible to justice.

As our heroes are propelled into an epic chess game of life and death, love will be challenged, friendships will be torn apart, and sacrifices must be made for the only family Kirk has left: his crew.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on December 18, 2012, 03:27:13 PM
That's interesting. We proceed under the assumption that the Eugenics War would have already occurred in the new Trek universe but maybe it didn't. Maybe this is that war or Khan/Harrison is revived and leads another campaign on Earth. I bet the movie ends with him being put on the Botany Bay. ;)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: X on December 18, 2012, 04:43:44 PM
I don't think it's Khan, but I think Bryan is on to something. It might be a new augment and given the spanking that they received from Nero, augmenting humans might have seemed like a good idea to recover personnel. They lost tons of ships, a planet, and the vulcans.

We do know that this universe is different even before Nero came back just because of the technology and scale of the ships they have. However, I think that I'm going to suggest a different idea.

Klingon sleeper agents made to look like humans have infiltrated the Federation. They have finally struck and here be darkness.

Now I don't know if they are your standard Klingons or if they are Augments that give them a human look, but it would match with what we have so far. Part of the movie on the Klingon home world, the 1701, and a nod to past trek without being bogged down by it.

All I am sure of at this point is that it's not Khan and even if he's another augment with a different name and past, he's still not Khan.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on December 18, 2012, 04:47:29 PM
"That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet..."
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on December 18, 2012, 05:57:36 PM
Here you go...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKM8O2XQe9c#ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKM8O2XQe9c#ws)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on December 18, 2012, 06:48:39 PM
Quote from: X on December 18, 2012, 04:43:44 PM
I don't think it's Khan, but I think Bryan is on to something. It might be a new augment and given the spanking that they received from Nero, augmenting humans might have seemed like a good idea to recover personnel. They lost tons of ships, a planet, and the vulcans.

We do know that this universe is different even before Nero came back just because of the technology and scale of the ships they have. However, I think that I'm going to suggest a different idea.

Klingon sleeper agents made to look like humans have infiltrated the Federation. They have finally struck and here be darkness.

Now I don't know if they are your standard Klingons or if they are Augments that give them a human look, but it would match with what we have so far. Part of the movie on the Klingon home world, the 1701, and a nod to past trek without being bogged down by it.

All I am sure of at this point is that it's not Khan and even if he's another augment with a different name and past, he's still not Khan.

The ONLY thing I believe coming out of the JJ spin machine is that the villain is a TOS character and that would likely rule out the Klingons.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: davekill on December 18, 2012, 07:15:59 PM
Could these be the Klingons that Worf says 'We do not speak of'?

Created in Enterprise season 4 ep  'Affliction', the Klingon augments had lost their ridges.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: davekill on December 18, 2012, 10:04:08 PM
The Enterprise three episode story arc consisted of 'Borderland', 'Cold Station 12' and 'The Augments'. Dr. Arik Soong (Brent Spiner) stole nineteen of the 1,800 genetically-enhanced embryos from the eugenics wars stored there in stasis.

Brent Spiner could even do a cameo in this movie as the grandfather of Noonien Soong we saw him play in TNG ep 'Brothers'.
Depending on how much of, if any, previous history Abrams wants to use in this universe.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on December 24, 2012, 06:31:24 AM
A new article in Empire magazine reveals a bit more on the villain and story along with some pictures too.  Check it out at the links below:

http://trekmovie.com/2012/12/24/new-star-trek-into-darkness-images-from-empire-mag/ (http://trekmovie.com/2012/12/24/new-star-trek-into-darkness-images-from-empire-mag/)

http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=36063 (http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=36063)

Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on December 24, 2012, 06:57:03 AM
And even more pics from the article here:

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=98390 (http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=98390)

Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on December 26, 2012, 02:16:43 PM
http://collider.com/damon-lindelof-star-trek-2-into-darkness-interview/220137/ (http://collider.com/damon-lindelof-star-trek-2-into-darkness-interview/220137/)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on December 27, 2012, 02:19:22 PM
Some new comments from Cumberbatch and Abrams in Empire Mag:

"He's sort of superhuman, pretty much unbeatable," Benedict Cumberbatch tells Empire of his role in "Star Trek: Into Darkness." "Brainy and brawny. He manipulates situations. He's incarcerated when Kirk is talking to him and yet he still gets Kirk to do his work for him. He pushes him into a corner where the only route to salvation is cooperation. There is a real Hannibal Lecter quality to him."

"He was within Starfleet and has now turned against the organization and is hell-bent on revenge," director J.J. Abrams tells Empire. "He's responsible for a very violent, horrific attack in London and then one in the States. He believes he and others were wronged and is focused on destruction. He's an incredibly brilliant strategist who is aware of various truths that Kirk is not privy to."

"He is just as intelligent and logical as Spock, but is also one very bad mother***er," franchise star Chris Pine adds.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: wraith1701 on December 27, 2012, 07:19:10 PM
One article credited the blond actress as playing Carol Marcus.  Khan.
Or maybe not.  I don't care.   I just want to see this YESTERDAY.  ;D
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on December 27, 2012, 09:14:01 PM
Quote from: Chris-El on December 27, 2012, 02:19:22 PM


"He is just as intelligent and logical as Spock, but is also one very bad mother***er," franchise star Chris Pine adds.[/b]

Let's hope they don't let Chris Pine write the movie tag line! Lol
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on December 28, 2012, 07:19:39 AM
Well, I think there is little doubt this is an Augment story at this point.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Feathers on December 28, 2012, 03:27:53 PM
Quote from: Bryancd on December 28, 2012, 07:19:39 AM
Well, I think there is little doubt this is an Augment story at this point.

It looks that way. I don't care really, as long as its a GOOD story.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Ktrek on December 28, 2012, 03:58:09 PM
Quote from: Bryancd on December 28, 2012, 07:19:39 AM
Well, I think there is little doubt this is an Augment story at this point.

Is it an augment story or has the story been augmented?  :P
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: davekill on December 28, 2012, 05:23:23 PM
Quote from: Ktrek on December 28, 2012, 03:58:09 PM
Quote from: Bryancd on December 28, 2012, 07:19:39 AM
Well, I think there is little doubt this is an Augment story at this point.

Is it an augment story or has the story been augmented?  :P

No doubt, Mary Shelley has nothing on the JJverse.  ???
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on December 29, 2012, 07:11:27 AM
This is both a sad and uplifting story at the same time.  It seems an avid Trek fan who is sadly dying of leukemia is going to get his wish to see the new movie early (even in a rough cut form).  It's likely he won't be with us come May and a friend made a post on Reddit about his dying wish to see the film.  This is what Star Trek is all about.

http://trekmovie.com/2012/12/28/fan-granted-dying-wish-for-early-screening-of-star-trek-into-darkness/ (http://trekmovie.com/2012/12/28/fan-granted-dying-wish-for-early-screening-of-star-trek-into-darkness/)

Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Meds on December 29, 2012, 12:57:21 PM
Thats nice of them, I hope they get a rough cut done for him in time.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: WillEagle on December 29, 2012, 02:40:45 PM
Quote from: Rico on December 29, 2012, 07:11:27 AM
This is both a sad and uplifting story at the same time.  It seems an avid Trek fan who is sadly dying of leukemia is going to get his wish to see the new movie early (even in a rough cut form).  It's likely he won't be with us come May and a friend made a post on Reddit about his dying wish to see the film.  This is what Star Trek is all about.

http://trekmovie.com/2012/12/28/fan-granted-dying-wish-for-early-screening-of-star-trek-into-darkness/ (http://trekmovie.com/2012/12/28/fan-granted-dying-wish-for-early-screening-of-star-trek-into-darkness/)



That's cool. Good for them to do this.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on December 31, 2012, 05:50:58 AM
Here's an update on the story about screening a rough cut of the film for the fan who is not well.  They did have a screening and the man's wife has issued a statement to some select folks including Anthony over at Trekmovie.com.  This is really an amazing and awesome story.

Hi everyone, it's Daniel's wife, we are of course sworn to secrecy, BUT we are officially allowed to say we saw it and we enjoyed it IMMENSELY as a film and as a gesture...However; Daniel 'hates' being an 'inspiring cancer story' we his friends and loved ones would prefer for the update to have more of a heartfelt message of giving, especially during this season:

This is a story of us giving something to him, the 'internet' community giving something to him and ultimately being a heartwarming gift to our friends, family and so many others. This story of us (and of course JJ Abrams & Bad Robot) being able to give this surprise gift of a screening to a huge movie buff like Daniel, especially a film made by a film maker who obviously makes movies with such care, with a fan like Daniel in mind (and a person like me who knows slightly less about these things). Also, it was truly amazing that a film-maker so secretive as JJ Abrams was kind enough to show this to us.

It is also so wonderful for his friends & his family to finally hear some good news from us, They know how important film is to Daniel & could not think of a better way to please to him. So this gesture really has brought a lot of smiles all around.

It was a wonderful thing to see with Daniel and a wonderful thing to see Daniel enjoy – Making someone as ill as he is smile for any length of time really makes a difference. (At this point making me smile is good too)

This is also so poignant as JJ Abrams took so much care in the first Star Trek movie to at least TRY to get everything 'right' for the fans and we were so touched when he was concerned that we wouldn't 100% enjoy the screening as it's still being worked on.......Be assured we enjoyed it 110%! We are so grateful thank you, thank you, thank you.....


http://trekmovie.com/2012/12/30/update-on-dying-fans-star-trek-into-darkness-screening-statement-from-family/ (http://trekmovie.com/2012/12/30/update-on-dying-fans-star-trek-into-darkness-screening-statement-from-family/)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: WillEagle on December 31, 2012, 06:21:13 AM
That's awesome. Glad to hear they enjoyed it.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on January 02, 2013, 11:05:27 AM
New spoilers from a new synopsis: [spoiler]
With Earth under terrorist attack from Benedict Cumberbatch's ex-Starfleet employee John Harrison, Kirk is this time forced into a rash decision that breaks a critical Starfleet command, puts his crew in danger & costs him his captain's chair. Now out of uniform and dressed down in space civvies of black leather jackets and boots, our three heroes have separated from the Enterprise and headed off on a mission to try and rectify his mistake...[/spoiler]

Interesting, I was wondering what was up with all that black leather.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on January 02, 2013, 11:46:52 AM
Quote from: Chris-El on January 02, 2013, 11:05:27 AM
New spoilers from a new synopsis: [spoiler]
With Earth under terrorist attack from Benedict Cumberbatch’s ex-Starfleet employee John Harrison, Kirk is this time forced into a rash decision that breaks a critical Starfleet command, puts his crew in danger & costs him his captain’s chair. Now out of uniform and dressed down in space civvies of black leather jackets and boots, our three heroes have separated from the Enterprise and headed off on a mission to try and rectify his mistake…[/spoiler]

Interesting, I was wondering what was up with all that black leather.

Very interesting, and contnues to perpetuate the mystery surrounding "Who is John Harrison?".
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Meds on January 02, 2013, 01:05:57 PM
He gets the chair, he loses the chair. First impression of that is Meh! ;)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on January 02, 2013, 04:22:29 PM
Sounds like Kirk in the Prime Universe! Captain, Admiral, back to acting Captain, busted to civilian, back to Captain.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on January 02, 2013, 04:24:31 PM
Yep - that's our Captain Kirk!  :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on January 03, 2013, 03:07:59 AM
Quote from: Meds on January 02, 2013, 01:05:57 PM
He gets the chair, he loses the chair. First impression of that is Meh! ;)

Well one thing JJ's movie showed us is that it's damn easy to win and lose the Captain's chair.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Meds on January 03, 2013, 05:25:29 AM
I'm sure it will be great but part of me goes just have the damn chair and lets roll.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: billybob476 on January 03, 2013, 10:52:18 AM
Here's my version of the movie poster taken on my last ski day right before New Years.

(http://sphotos-e.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/377781_852549212864_567170978_n.jpg)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on January 03, 2013, 11:07:31 AM
LOL!!!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Meds on January 03, 2013, 01:09:15 PM
Oh thats cool.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: davekill on January 03, 2013, 01:15:04 PM
Nice!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: billybob476 on January 03, 2013, 01:18:57 PM
I didn't notice the similarity 'till Darrell pointed it out on Twitter. I just thought it was a fun picture to take :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on January 04, 2013, 06:13:35 AM
OK, this was posted over at the RPF and I think the source is reliable. This might be the real plot, so be warned if you don't like spoilers.[spoiler]
Older Spock from the future knows now what the Enterprise
is going to encounter on its five year mission. One of the larger
threats the crew faces is meeting up with the eugenics ship and
Khan. (Scene shown with the stasis tubes) Spock has Star Fleet intercept
the ship in advanced and personally wakes Khan. Spock is able to convince
Khan to go to work for Star Fleet as a special mission (like a seal team)
without telling him what originally occurred in his past. An event causes
Khan find out what Spock had done and he decides to wreak havoc on
Star Fleet knowing many of its inner secret through his Star Fleet
training. [/spoiler]
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: X on January 04, 2013, 06:50:53 AM
Quote from: Bryancd on January 04, 2013, 06:13:35 AM
OK, this was posted over at the RPF and I think the source is reliable. This might be the real plot, so be warned if you don't like spoilers.[spoiler]
Older Spock from the future knows now what the Enterprise
is going to encounter on its five year mission. One of the larger
threats the crew faces is meeting up with the eugenics ship and
Khan. (Scene shown with the stasis tubes) Spock has Star Fleet intercept
the ship in advanced and personally wakes Khan. Spock is able to convince
Khan to go to work for Star Fleet as a special mission (like a seal team)
without telling him what originally occurred in his past. An event causes
Khan find out what Spock had done and he decides to wreak havoc on
Star Fleet knowing many of its inner secret through his Star Fleet
training. [/spoiler]
I just can't buy that premise. Out of everything he's seen, that's what he gets involved in?

Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on January 04, 2013, 06:55:00 AM
Quote from: X on January 04, 2013, 06:50:53 AM
Quote from: Bryancd on January 04, 2013, 06:13:35 AM
OK, this was posted over at the RPF and I think the source is reliable. This might be the real plot, so be warned if you don't like spoilers.[spoiler]
Older Spock from the future knows now what the Enterprise
is going to encounter on its five year mission. One of the larger
threats the crew faces is meeting up with the eugenics ship and
Khan. (Scene shown with the stasis tubes) Spock has Star Fleet intercept
the ship in advanced and personally wakes Khan. Spock is able to convince
Khan to go to work for Star Fleet as a special mission (like a seal team)
without telling him what originally occurred in his past. An event causes
Khan find out what Spock had done and he decides to wreak havoc on
Star Fleet knowing many of its inner secret through his Star Fleet
training. [/spoiler]
I just can't buy that premise. Out of everything he's seen, that's what he gets involved in?

Like I said, of all the speculation I have heard, this guy is an "insider" and has often been spot on. He says last year he read a few of the potential story lines and based on that and the trailers, this synopsis most closely matches what he read. It's convoluted but I can see how the jibe's with what we have seen so far.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: billybob476 on January 04, 2013, 06:55:22 AM
Quote from: X on January 04, 2013, 06:50:53 AM
Quote from: Bryancd on January 04, 2013, 06:13:35 AM
OK, this was posted over at the RPF and I think the source is reliable. This might be the real plot, so be warned if you don't like spoilers.[spoiler]
Older Spock from the future knows now what the Enterprise
is going to encounter on its five year mission. One of the larger
threats the crew faces is meeting up with the eugenics ship and
Khan. (Scene shown with the stasis tubes) Spock has Star Fleet intercept
the ship in advanced and personally wakes Khan. Spock is able to convince
Khan to go to work for Star Fleet as a special mission (like a seal team)
without telling him what originally occurred in his past. An event causes
Khan find out what Spock had done and he decides to wreak havoc on
Star Fleet knowing many of its inner secret through his Star Fleet
training. [/spoiler]
I just can't buy that premise. Out of everything he's seen, that's what he gets involved in?

I could see it

[spoiler]
being that that was the situation that resulted in his death. It might be more out of self interest of not seeing Quinto-Spock dying as well.
[/spoiler]
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: X on January 04, 2013, 06:58:51 AM
[spoiler] We have V'ger, the Borg, Khitomer, the Whale probe, the cardassian war, and the Q, that Spock knows about, but he goes after the most minor threat of all .. Khan? Khan is a personal threat of Kirk because of the tragedy that caused him to lose his woman. I just don't see how if John was Khan, he would ever learn what happened in the alternate time line or care about it.

It might be an augment story, but if this is the premise of the story, it's very very weak. I also don't see how the superior intellect would be upset that another universe version of him died. I'd think he was smart enough to know how to separate the two.[/spoiler]
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on January 04, 2013, 07:02:39 AM
But all of those incedents are post TOS, so considering where we are in the new timeline, this is the first "threat" that would be on his radar.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: X on January 04, 2013, 07:11:21 AM
Quote from: Bryancd on January 04, 2013, 07:02:39 AM
But all of those incedents are post TOS, so considering where we are in the new timeline, this is the first "threat" that would be on his radar.
Yeah, but with the info of the future, you can pick and choose. Something just doesn't pass the test with that storyline.

[spoiler]Even if it's Early TOS, you had far bigger threats. Trelane. Not to doubt this guy's connections, but something doesn't fit and it looks more like he is trying to shoehorn an idea into the few seconds that were seen on screen. [/spoiler]
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on January 04, 2013, 07:20:27 AM
Quote from: X on January 04, 2013, 07:11:21 AM
Quote from: Bryancd on January 04, 2013, 07:02:39 AM
But all of those incedents are post TOS, so considering where we are in the new timeline, this is the first "threat" that would be on his radar.
Yeah, but with the info of the future, you can pick and choose. Something just doesn't pass the test with that storyline.

[spoiler]Even if it's Early TOS, you had far bigger threats. Trelane. Not to doubt this guy's connections, but something doesn't fit and it looks more like he is trying to shoehorn an idea into the few seconds that were seen on screen. [/spoiler]

Yeah but that story doesn't put butt's in theater chairs. The one I posted does. :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bromptonboy on January 04, 2013, 08:17:06 AM
Hmm, seems to fit the facts that we know.
[spoiler]Perhaps this new name is a 'nom de guerre' that he uses while in the Federation?[/spoiler]
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on January 04, 2013, 08:19:49 AM
Quote from: Bromptonboy on January 04, 2013, 08:17:06 AM
Hmm, seems to fit the facts that we know.
[spoiler]Perhaps this new name is a 'nom de guerre' that he uses while in the Federation?[/spoiler]

The way I read it..
[spoiler]He doesn't know his name is Khan, they give him the name JH[/spoiler]
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on January 04, 2013, 10:56:51 AM
I conjectured the first part of this idea a while back in this thread. A couple of issues though:

[spoiler]Khan doesn't know who he is? Did they wrote his memory first? Did they also alter him surgically too since he had gone from an Indian Sikh emperor to a push British white guy?

Also why would the federation suddenly change the law and allow augments to serve in starfleet? I dunno...[/spoiler]
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on January 04, 2013, 03:29:58 PM
Dan - really easy answers to some of that...

[spoiler]The fact that he is an augment could be something he has hidden until a certain point.  Or certain augments are actually ok in this universe.  Also, you must keep in mind always this is an alternate universe.  Some people think it just altered when Nero came over and that isn't the case.  This is a different universe - period.  Not everything will match up to the prime universe.  One of the many reasons JJ and the writers went this way.  They can do basically anything they want.  I frankly still think maybe he takes the name Khan later in the film.  Maybe more as a title than a name.[/spoiler]
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on January 04, 2013, 03:56:53 PM
Quote from: Rico on January 04, 2013, 03:29:58 PM
Dan - really easy answers to some of that...

[spoiler]The fact that he is an augment could be something he has hidden until a certain point.  Or certain augments are actually ok in this universe.  Also, you must keep in mind always this is an alternate universe.  Some people think it just altered when Nero came over and that isn't the case.  This is a different universe - period.  Not everything will match up to the prime universe.  One of the many reasons JJ and the writers went this way.  They can do basically anything they want.  I frankly still think maybe he takes the name Khan later in the film.  Maybe more as a title than a name.[/spoiler]

Yeah, that's the way I am looking at it as well.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on January 04, 2013, 09:21:39 PM
Quote from: Bryancd on January 04, 2013, 03:56:53 PM
Quote from: Rico on January 04, 2013, 03:29:58 PM
Dan - really easy answers to some of that...

[spoiler]The fact that he is an augment could be something he has hidden until a certain point.  Or certain augments are actually ok in this universe.  Also, you must keep in mind always this is an alternate universe.  Some people think it just altered when Nero came over and that isn't the case.  This is a different universe - period.  Not everything will match up to the prime universe.  One of the many reasons JJ and the writers went this way.  They can do basically anything they want.  I frankly still think maybe he takes the name Khan later in the film.  Maybe more as a title than a name.[/spoiler]

Yeah, that's the way I am looking at it as well.

I can accept that. I really think they fudged the explanation of that in the first movie so I can my brain keeps trying to reconcile the changes as if it was the incursion to the past that caused this alternate universe. So it is the general opinion that this universe is similar to the mirror universe in add much as things are just different from the offset? OK fair enough.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on January 05, 2013, 05:02:21 AM
I never had a problem understanding the alternate universe they created back with the 2009 film.  Mainly because to me it was obvious that they were not going to eliminate the entire history of Trek by altering the Prime universe and all the movies and series that came before that film.  The only thing they could do was have an alternate universe.  It's a perfect and elegant solution to create a whole new world of Trek that people who never were into Trek can enjoy - as well as long time fans like us.  It lets them do anything they want now.  And that's a writers dream.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: WillEagle on January 05, 2013, 05:44:05 AM
If someone already posted this I must have missed it. Here is some cool pics from the movie. And as mentioned before lots of black leather.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1408101/mediaindex?ref_=hm_snp_t6 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1408101/mediaindex?ref_=hm_snp_t6)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on January 05, 2013, 06:28:02 AM
I have said it before but I still wish they had just rebooted the whole thing and not bothered with the Spock prime, time travel story. I would have been fine with that personally. I actually find it somewhat irritating trying to do the reconciliation JJ has hoisted upon us.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on January 05, 2013, 06:51:12 AM
Bryan - they did basically reboot the whole thing.  One of my points above is there doesn't have to be any reconciliation.  This is a separate universe.  They can do anything they want.  Anything!  From a weird engine room brewery to Spock & Uhura as an item - anything.  For even someone like me who can pretty much recite every TOS from memory I have no problem with this.  But I would have had a HUGE problem if they had wiped out the well known Trek universe.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on January 05, 2013, 07:05:29 AM
Re-booting doesn't wipe out what came before. I don't feel that way about BSG for example. Or all the myriad of Super Hero films that have been rebooted.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on January 05, 2013, 07:17:08 AM
Quote from: Bryancd on January 05, 2013, 07:05:29 AM
Re-booting doesn't wipe out what came before. I don't feel that way about BSG for example. Or all the myriad of Super Hero films that have been rebooted.

I understand what you mean.  I thought you had meant a reboot as in altering the timeline in the known Trek universe.  There are different ways to do a "reboot."  I liked that they tried to connect the two universes.  Eventually it would allow possible cross-over type stories - if they decided to do that.  Also, Star Trek has already well established the idea of an alternate universe previously with the Mirror universe stories.  Not to mention that TNG episode with Worf and all the gazillion Enterprise's popping up in different universes.  So they just built on that idea.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on January 05, 2013, 07:27:32 AM
Yeah, there certainly was precedent! I think part of me just wishes that the '09 movie and this one coming up (if the rumors are true) seem to have to rely on previous Trek canon a bit too much and it would be less convoluted of they could not keep referencing it, if you get my meaning. I was hoping the new film would contain story elements or characters from old Trek but not feel the need to make an actual connection in the film to old Trek, assuming that happens.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: davekill on January 05, 2013, 08:59:58 AM
Quote from: Bryancd on January 05, 2013, 07:27:32 AM
Yeah, there certainly was precedent! I think part of me just wishes that the '09 movie and this one coming up (if the rumors are true) seem to have to rely on previous Trek canon a bit too much and it would be less convoluted of they could not keep referencing it, if you get my meaning. I was hoping the new film would contain story elements or characters from old Trek but not feel the need to make an actual connection in the film to old Trek, assuming that happens.
You mean as a new start, this franchise suffers from too much baggage?

Could be like a first date with someone recovering from a bad relationship.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on January 05, 2013, 10:28:23 AM
My issue had always been the confusion surrounding the Prime Spock and the time travel. It want clear that this was already an alternate universe add it implied the initial changes were caused by Nero's incursion, (Kirk's birth and alternate childhood) with visual and cosmetic changes due to a reimagining of the technology from a 21st century perspective. This would imply that all previous history shouldn't change, is Khan should still be a Sikh etc. What we really have is in fact a type of mirror universe that had always been different but this was not made clear IMHO.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Feathers on January 06, 2013, 01:30:37 AM
But it would only need to be 'made clear' to the likes of us and that wasn't the aim of the film as far as I can tell. If they put too much effort into that I think it would have (at least partially) defeated the main purpose of the reset, i.e. not needing knowledge of stuff 'before' to unrest and the film.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on January 06, 2013, 05:38:21 AM
Quote from: Feathers on January 06, 2013, 01:30:37 AM
But it would only need to be 'made clear' to the likes of us and that wasn't the aim of the film as far as I can tell. If they put too much effort into that I think it would have (at least partially) defeated the main purpose of the reset, i.e. not needing knowledge of stuff 'before' to unrest and the film.

Very good point.  My wife really didn't get that part - but she also didn't really care.  To her it was just a story about a young Kirk, Spock and the rest on the Enterprise in a new adventure.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on January 06, 2013, 06:00:17 AM
Quote from: Feathers on January 06, 2013, 01:30:37 AM
But it would only need to be 'made clear' to the likes of us and that wasn't the aim of the film as far as I can tell. If they put too much effort into that I think it would have (at least partially) defeated the main purpose of the reset, i.e. not needing knowledge of stuff 'before' to unrest and the film.

Bloody mainstream people have to steal everything off ours don't they?! ;)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on January 06, 2013, 06:12:28 AM
Quote from: Dangelus on January 06, 2013, 06:00:17 AM
Quote from: Feathers on January 06, 2013, 01:30:37 AM
But it would only need to be 'made clear' to the likes of us and that wasn't the aim of the film as far as I can tell. If they put too much effort into that I think it would have (at least partially) defeated the main purpose of the reset, i.e. not needing knowledge of stuff 'before' to unrest and the film.

Bloody mainstream people have to steal everything off ours don't they?! ;)
Ha, yeah, but the mainstream is what made Trek '09 such a big hit, way better than any Trek movie ever.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: WillEagle on January 06, 2013, 06:38:48 PM
Here is a good article I found. JJ talks about great geeky stuff and of course the new Star Trek movie.

http://collider.com/j-j-abrams-star-trek-2-into-darkness-mi5-interview/221962/ (http://collider.com/j-j-abrams-star-trek-2-into-darkness-mi5-interview/221962/)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on January 08, 2013, 04:13:37 PM
Great video with a look at the Bad Robot production house where JJ's team is working on the new film.  Really a fun and fascinating bit of footage and a couple quick glimpses at the movie too.

http://apps.avid.com/2012-Webcast/Bad-Robot-archive/ (http://apps.avid.com/2012-Webcast/Bad-Robot-archive/)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on January 09, 2013, 06:53:56 AM
Like with the last film, JJ and his team are really trying to use many of the new tools they have these days to promote a movie - including a special App.  Read on...

A new Star Trek into Darkness app will be released at the end of January.

The app will "deliver exclusive content and advanced real world game experiences," and fans watching this year's Superbowl will be able to unlock content during a Star Trek into Darkness Superbowl ad.

According to a press release, the app's "cutting edge technologies are being showcased in a never before-seen way and will enable users to automatically engage with a wealth of movie related materials by utilizing their real-life surroundings to auto-complete integrated missions by employing audio scan, geo-location recognition, and image recognition functionality powered by Qualcomm Vuforia."

During the second quarter of the big game, the app will allow users the ability to unlock the first of many surprises during the airing of the Star Trek into Darkness TV spot, making this one of the most unique and interactive apps ever created for a movie. As a bonus, users who register for the app will be automatically entered into a sweepstakes for the chance to win a VIP trip to the U.S. premiere."

What users can expect from the app:

An audio scan function that can be turned on to automatically recognize and reward users for watching Star Trek into Darkness content on TV and other media.
An image scan function that enables users to interact with images printed or viewable in the real world.
A geofencing function for location-based experiences.
New Star Trek into Darkness content, such as videos, images and wallpapers delivered directly to users' mobile devices.
Exclusive opportunities and special offers only available to app users.
One lucky sweepstakes winner will be rewarded with the grand prize of attending the Star Trek into Darkness U.S. premiere.
"We are excited about collaborating with Paramount on this app as it further brings to life Qualcomm's vision of the digital sixth sense, where devices intelligently interact with the world around you," said Dr. Jacobs, Chairman and CEO of Qualcomm. "By leveraging the Gimbal platform, this app harnesses the power of the smartphone to bridge the digital and physical world, allowing the studio to market the film in the real world and simultaneously bring users into the film's story and world."

To sign up for the app and enter the sweepstakes, head to the link located here:  http://offerpop.com/startreksweeps/272581 (http://offerpop.com/startreksweeps/272581)


http://www.trektoday.com/content/2013/01/star-trek-into-darkness-app-announced/#more-22406 (http://www.trektoday.com/content/2013/01/star-trek-into-darkness-app-announced/#more-22406)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on January 13, 2013, 05:24:56 AM
Brief interview with JJ.  Sounds like he is as excited for us to see the movie as we are...

In just a few short months, we'll get to trek into darkness with the crew of the Enterprise for J.J. Abrams' follow-up Star Trek Into Darkness. He spoke with CraveOnline about the film and as usual his lips stayed sealed about specifics - he wouldn't even talk about the themes of the film.

"There's nothing worse for me than reading what the theme of a book is or a movie and then reading it and being like: that's the theme. The theme is you feel it...I do think that by default this a deeper movie. It's certainly a bigger movie because the first one was kind of the origin story which is great because it's so easy. You just introduce people and yet now they know each other so it has to go deeper."

2009's Star Trek boasted a very strong ensemble cast and it's grown even larger for the new film, and it wasn't easier finding everyone's place the second time around.

"Oh, I've done that, it'll be easier the next time." No, it's harder the next time. But it's important that every character needs to be in the story, otherwise they shouldn't be. But I wouldn't say it was easier."

The identity of Benedict Cumberbatch's character has been revealed as John Harrison, but many still believe he's a new version of Khan, and Abrams is ready for people to just see the movie.

"I just can't wait for people to see the movie.  Benedict is unbelievable. It's a tall order, coming into that movie, because the crew of the Enterprise, that cast is so damn good and they're wonderful to work with and they're all good hearts.  So, to come into that group, as he did, as Alice Eve did and as Peter Weller did, and be one of the family was something that I was doubtful could happen. And he completely did it. I not only love him in the movie, but I love him, as a human being. He's an amazing guy. I can't wait for people to see the movie and experience what he's done."

One reason some still believe Cumberbatch to be playing Khan is a connection in the new trailer that is very similar to a key scene in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, but Abrams won't say a word about it.

"Well, I would say that you've got to see the movie to see. I don't want to give away what that is, but we've all seen Wrath of Khan. With one or two exceptions, we're not idiots. We are aware of the movie. I love Wrath of Khan."

With the second movie almost out, it's not too early to talk about a potential third film, but when Abrams was asked if he had thought about it at all he said no. They have stories in mind, though.

"No, sir, not yet. I'm sure that the studio would love that to be a possibility but it's up to the audience to decide if there needs to be one...There are things we've talked about but there's no script or anything, it's just ideas."

Star Trek Into Darkness stars John Cho, Bruce Greenwood, Simon Pegg, Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Zoe Saldana, Karl Urban, Anton Yelchin, Benedict Cumberbatch, Alice Eve and Peter Weller. It will be released in 3D, 2D and IMAX 3D theaters on May 17.


http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=98817 (http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=98817)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on January 29, 2013, 02:28:12 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qeHVNzZyaSE# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qeHVNzZyaSE#)!

These guys did a 'sweded' trailer (homemade) for STID. Fun.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Ktrek on January 30, 2013, 06:37:38 AM
I don't think this video has been shown here yet.

Star Trek Into Darkness - Behind The Scenes Featurette (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aik_4r2IVho#ws)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on January 30, 2013, 08:45:34 AM
Yeah, that's new.  Still looking awesome!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: WillEagle on January 30, 2013, 06:29:59 PM
COOLNESS!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on February 02, 2013, 04:14:54 PM
Don't forget to get the movie App before the big game tomorrow.

http://www.startrekmovie.com/startrekapp/index.php (http://www.startrekmovie.com/startrekapp/index.php)

Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on February 02, 2013, 07:06:46 PM
Got it!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on February 03, 2013, 02:10:07 PM
See the movie two days early on May 15th in IMAX 3-D only.  Go here for more details:

http://trekmovie.com/2013/02/03/buy-tickets-now-for-star-trek-into-darkness-fan-sneak-screenings-may-15th/ (http://trekmovie.com/2013/02/03/buy-tickets-now-for-star-trek-into-darkness-fan-sneak-screenings-may-15th/)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on February 03, 2013, 02:42:58 PM
Here we go!

http://youtu.be/9Mu07BaOx9c (http://youtu.be/9Mu07BaOx9c)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on February 03, 2013, 03:05:19 PM
Awesome!  Now I don't really need to pay much attention to the Superbowl.  :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on February 03, 2013, 03:26:41 PM
Download and watch the trailers here too:

http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/paramount/startrekintodarkness/ (http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/paramount/startrekintodarkness/)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on February 07, 2013, 02:55:36 PM
Good grief. After all that Entertainment Weekly blows the cover, LOL!!

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/nailbiter111/news/?a=73917 (http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/nailbiter111/news/?a=73917)

Could have done without all the denial and misdirection from JJ's camp. Good luck doing that with STAR WARS! Anyway, bring on new Khan (although still scratching my head as to why they didn''t go with an original story a little).
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on February 07, 2013, 03:32:11 PM
And now the retraction! Love it!

http://trekmovie.com/2013/02/07/did-ew-confirm-star-trek-into-darkness-villain-true-identity-not-really/ (http://trekmovie.com/2013/02/07/did-ew-confirm-star-trek-into-darkness-villain-true-identity-not-really/)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on February 07, 2013, 03:41:05 PM
Bryan, EW didn't blow it.  I just read my issue with the article and all it says is "unconfirmed rumors suggest that Harrison also goes by the name of Khan."  There have been "rumors" for months about this.  And this is exactly what happens when you don't give enough information to the press - they speculate.  In the age of the internet this only gets worse.  It's actually not really bugging me much.  No matter really who the villain is (and I still say it will be some kind of mash-up of stories and characters), I just want the movie to be kick-ass!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on February 07, 2013, 03:53:11 PM
If you read the article and see the cover image, the do say Kirk and Khan on the cover..and then change it. So in that respect, yes, someone goofed. Regardless, it will be greta...but this I still contend the secrecy thing has become a farce. And if it does turn out to be Khan, which I think likely, JJ's efforts to conceal it were clumsy at best.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on February 07, 2013, 04:00:55 PM
I think you are only seeing the web page text, not the magazine cover itself.  Also, did they really goof with online heading?  Time will tell. 

In the meantime, here are some more images from the article inside.

Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on February 07, 2013, 04:04:42 PM
It did earlier read Kirk and Khan. LOL! They changed it. It was where it now reads Voyage into the new Star Trek. I saw it.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on February 07, 2013, 04:17:47 PM
Quote from: Bryancd on February 07, 2013, 04:04:42 PM
It did earlier read Kirk and Khan. LOL! They changed it. It was where it now reads Voyage into the new Star Trek. I saw it.

Yes - you saw it ONLINE!  Not on the paper magazine.  And we all know everything online is 100% true.  ;)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on February 08, 2013, 03:49:49 AM
Trailer theme music.  Not really from the film itself, but still a nice piece of music.
(Composed by Brian Tyler, originally for the film "Paparrazi")

http://movies.trekcore.com/intodarkness/music/Brian_Tyler_The_Awakening.mp3 (http://movies.trekcore.com/intodarkness/music/Brian_Tyler_The_Awakening.mp3)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Jobydrone on February 08, 2013, 07:22:32 AM
It's getting sillier and sillier, all this misdirection, denial, secrecy...come on now!  I've been absolutely convinced the villian is Khan ever since they cast Benecio DelToro in the part years ago!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Meds on February 08, 2013, 10:49:13 AM
Slightly Ill fitting red shirt. Untidy oaf I say. Smarten up man.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: MARKO on February 08, 2013, 11:32:55 AM
Is this a spoiler?

http://perezhilton.com/2013-02-08-entertainment-weekly-reveals-star-trek-into-darkness-spoiler-khan#.URVSoOjiTDw (http://perezhilton.com/2013-02-08-entertainment-weekly-reveals-star-trek-into-darkness-spoiler-khan#.URVSoOjiTDw)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on February 08, 2013, 11:41:16 AM
Quote from: MARKO on February 08, 2013, 11:32:55 AM
Is this a spoiler?

http://perezhilton.com/2013-02-08-entertainment-weekly-reveals-star-trek-into-darkness-spoiler-khan#.URVSoOjiTDw (http://perezhilton.com/2013-02-08-entertainment-weekly-reveals-star-trek-into-darkness-spoiler-khan#.URVSoOjiTDw)

Yeah, that's what I posted above. EW initially released that online and then pulled it down. Nice to see someone took a screen grab of it for posterity, in my link it only shows the corrected version and not the one that was posted like in your link. It wasn't suggested it was speculation or rumor, as you can see, it said Kirk and Khan! LOL!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: WillEagle on February 08, 2013, 03:04:05 PM
I need to go find the new EW!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on February 10, 2013, 05:19:52 AM
I had some thoughts on my speculations on the possible plot this morning.  A few things we can probably gather from the trailers:

Harrison was or is in Starfleet
He is "better" than us at everything
The Klingons are involved
Kirk messes up and then has to save things
Carol Marcus (a scientist) is involved
Harrison is really pissed at Starfleet

My guess is Harrison was in Starfleet, maybe even in the past.  Klingons I think bring in the augment angle (as seen on Enterprise).  Harrison and maybe his crew or others become augments - maybe not by their choice.  Things go wrong.  People die.  And now Harrison is out for blood.  Kirk might be involved in some of this - maybe finds Harrison and his people in cryo-sleep somewhere.  Lets them out maybe.  Harrison takes the title of, Khan.  Let the fun begin!

Just some rough guess work on my part.  Anyway, fun to think about.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on February 10, 2013, 08:54:51 AM
I like the sound of that plot premise but if they shoe horn in that Harrison is Khan (which is totally unnecessary for this story to work) it will be disappointing. It shows they don't have the balls to run with a good story without having this name check to TOS history.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on February 10, 2013, 09:36:23 AM
Quote from: Dangelus on February 10, 2013, 08:54:51 AM
I like the sound of that plot premise but if they shoe horn in that Harrison is Khan (which is totally unnecessary for this story to work) it will be disappointing. It shows they don't have the balls to run with a good story without having this name check to TOS history.

I don't really agree.  To me, it would be even more weird if he is basically Khan in all but his name.  An augmented, genetically superior human who takes revenge against Star Fleet.  And his name is, John Harrison?!?!  I mean come on.  If you basically are running with such a similar story and don't have him use the name Khan at some point - that makes no sense to me.  If this were a completely original story, then yes I agree.  But at this point, it seems like that isn't the case.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on February 10, 2013, 10:02:48 AM
Well, we know he is in Starfleet, the writers have confirmed that. So John Harrison is a Starfleet officer who somehow develops what appears to be superior strength and possibly intellect, is somehow on a Klingon planet at some point, returns to Earth a terrorist who offers the parents of a dying child hope, and he blows up a lot if crap and challenges Kirk to defend his family. Makes perfect sense, he's Harry Mudd. ;)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on February 10, 2013, 10:07:33 AM
Quote from: Dangelus on February 10, 2013, 08:54:51 AM
I like the sound of that plot premise but if they shoe horn in that Harrison is Khan (which is totally unnecessary for this story to work) it will be disappointing. It shows they don't have the balls to run with a good story without having this name check to TOS history.

I am of two minds on this. Part of be is excited to see a new version of a Khan story, after all it's been 21 years since TWOK and the augment story was picked up in Enterprise to some success. Another part of me face palms in disbelief why they couldn't come up with something new. I have a feeling they are going to split the difference, give us a Khan like story but with a totally new take on it. That would explain the draconian secrecy surrounding it. Any whiff of Khan too soon would have people up in arms and JJ likely doesn't want that expectation from audiences.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on February 10, 2013, 11:19:30 AM
I'm not saying a Khan storyline would be bad but if this is Khan it is in name only. The augment story in Enterprise was great and this could new seen as an offshoot from that. My personal opinion is of they are going to do Khan then they should stick to his roots a little more. He should be that Sikh emperor figure of Indian descent. Why bother to change so much then attach the name Khan to the story? Let the script stand on it's own I say.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: X on February 10, 2013, 03:43:12 PM
Quote from: Dangelus on February 10, 2013, 11:19:30 AM
I'm not saying a Khan storyline would be bad but if this is Khan it is in name only. The augment story in Enterprise was great and this could new seen as an offshoot from that. My personal opinion is of they are going to do Khan then they should stick to his roots a little more. He should be that Sikh emperor figure of Indian descent. Why bother to change so much then attach the name Khan to the story? Let the script stand on it's own I say.
Here is something to consider. we really don't know the ethnic heritage of Khan. We assume indian, but at the same time, they explain that most of the augments were built genetically. He could have a latin heritage, but was merely born and raised in India.

Also, and I think that a lot of people have missed this. His actual name is Khan. That's his first name, not a title.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on February 10, 2013, 05:03:08 PM
I'm very well aware that Khan was the character's first name in the original series.  But, what I've been saying is that most likely is being changed in the JJ-verse (as could his genetic heritage).  And, one way to do that would be if the character takes the name Khan possibly as a title in the new movie.  Just an idea.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: X on February 10, 2013, 05:26:29 PM
Quote from: Rico on February 10, 2013, 05:03:08 PM
I'm very well aware that Khan was the character's first name in the original series.  But, what I've been saying is that most likely is being changed in the JJ-verse (as could his genetic heritage).  And, one way to do that would be if the character takes the name Khan possibly as a title in the new movie.  Just an idea.
I know that you're aware, but some people think that it's more a title than a name.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on February 10, 2013, 06:40:07 PM
Yeah, I always considered Khan as a name, not an honorific.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on February 10, 2013, 10:14:06 PM
Yes he is genetically engineered and could all have been brought up in India in the prime universe. That's my point. He has an Indian Sikh name! Khan Singh! So if this is the same character and in this universe he was raised in Berkshire, England then it makes no sense to attach that name to him. That being said if they go that route it will be very interesting to see how they explain it. If they don't bother then I will lose all respect for this creative team and assume they are just casing in on Trek history.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Feathers on February 11, 2013, 03:04:58 AM
With possible links between this second film and the last second film, I'm starting to worry what we'll get for the fifth iteration of this new franchise. Meeting a character who is God in name only... hang on, we've already done that!

Honestly, I'm fairly easy on whatever they choose to do for this. Maybe it's a character flaw on my part but I'm generally happy to go along for the ride with most films as long as they're enjoyable to watch.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on February 11, 2013, 05:47:35 AM
Quote from: Dangelus on February 10, 2013, 10:14:06 PM
Yes he is genetically engineered and could all have been brought up in India in the prime universe. That's my point. He has an Indian Sikh name! Khan Singh! So if this is the same character and in this universe he was raised in Berkshire, England then it makes no sense to attach that name to him. That being said if they go that route it will be very interesting to see how they explain it. If they don't bother then I will lose all respect for this creative team and assume they are just casing in on Trek history.

I think you are missing one important thing Dan.  A name doesn't have to denote heritage - especially of someone that was probably genetically engineered.  Maybe his "creators" named him?  Or maybe he just takes the name later on for himself?

One thing I find interesting about this whole situation is that wasn't the point to go off into an alternate universe the chance to give them the ability to do pretty much anything they want?  Once we see the film we will know more, but in a way they still seem to be trying to hang on to 47 or so years of Trek history - at least to some degree.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on February 11, 2013, 06:10:53 AM
Quote from: Rico on February 11, 2013, 05:47:35 AM
Quote from: Dangelus on February 10, 2013, 10:14:06 PM
Yes he is genetically engineered and could all have been brought up in India in the prime universe. That's my point. He has an Indian Sikh name! Khan Singh! So if this is the same character and in this universe he was raised in Berkshire, England then it makes no sense to attach that name to him. That being said if they go that route it will be very interesting to see how they explain it. If they don't bother then I will lose all respect for this creative team and assume they are just casing in on Trek history.

I think you are missing one important thing Dan.  A name doesn't have to denote heritage - especially of someone that was probably genetically engineered.  Maybe his "creators" named him?  Or maybe he just takes the name later on for himself?

One thing I find interesting about this whole situation is that wasn't the point to go off into an alternate universe the chance to give them the ability to do pretty much anything they want?  Once we see the film we will know more, but in a way they still seem to be trying to hang on to 47 or so years of Trek history - at least to some degree.

Yeah, which is why this seems so odd. They have a blank slate after establishing the rules for this new universe and timeline but seem to be recycling stories, characters, and situations.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: X on February 11, 2013, 06:19:02 AM
Also, Khan is more Turkish, Muslim, or Mongol. It's actually not that Indian at all. So Khan singh isn't in and of itself a Indian name.

That being said, I think it's dumb bordering on idiotic for him to be khan. Sure it's another universe and you can change things because it's a blank canvas. but for me it's like putting a rhino in a prom dress. There is no need for it. You can be an augment in star trek without being Khan and the story won't suffer for it. I really don't like the idea at all and I'm fine with other genetic augments doing their thing. If he's an augment, I'd be happier if he wasn't khan. If you are going to have a completely different origin, timeline, and attitude, why try to shoehorn a name into it that isn't needed?
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Ktrek on February 11, 2013, 06:27:38 AM
The name Khan can also be symbolic as it means "ruler" and we all know he saw himself as such a being.

Kevin
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on February 11, 2013, 07:01:01 AM
Quote from: Ktrek on February 11, 2013, 06:27:38 AM
The name Khan can also be symbolic as it means "ruler" and we all know he saw himself as such a being.

Kevin


Oh, I like that!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on February 11, 2013, 08:24:24 AM
Quote from: Bryancd on February 11, 2013, 07:01:01 AM
Quote from: Ktrek on February 11, 2013, 06:27:38 AM
The name Khan can also be symbolic as it means "ruler" and we all know he saw himself as such a being.

Kevin



Oh, I like that!

This is what I've been suggesting or thinking for awhile now.  That either Harrison ends up dubbing himself with the title Khan or someone else does.

Of course - maybe he really is Gary Mitchell?  LOL!  ;)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on February 11, 2013, 11:39:50 AM
I was giving more on the surname Singh which is predominantly associated with Indian Sikhs, but yes the main point is why recycle the name in the first place when they could do a fantastic augment storyline that harkens back to TWOK as Rico described.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on February 19, 2013, 03:44:10 PM
J.J, Abrams Talks Klingons, Alice Eve In 'Star Trek' Reboot (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otfeoWATNRg#ws)

JJ talks about Klingons and Carol Marcus...I love how we keep getting little bread crumbs now!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on February 19, 2013, 04:34:01 PM
I'm starting to admire JJ more and more for trying the best he can for keeping things under wraps.  It can't be easy these days to do that and also pump up excitement for the movie too.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on March 09, 2013, 09:40:21 AM
Continues to look great!
http://m.io9.com/5989676/kirk-gets-a-dose-of-fatherly-love-in-the-latest-action+packed-star-trek-into-darkness-trailer (http://m.io9.com/5989676/kirk-gets-a-dose-of-fatherly-love-in-the-latest-action+packed-star-trek-into-darkness-trailer)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on March 09, 2013, 10:19:46 AM
It sure does!  :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxZcxkFZZP0#ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxZcxkFZZP0#ws)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on March 09, 2013, 10:40:50 AM
Woohoo!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on March 12, 2013, 03:52:56 PM
Fake/fan poster.  But kind of cool in a way.

Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on March 20, 2013, 05:27:47 AM
"Lego my trailer!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7JGT0yxxMw#ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7JGT0yxxMw#ws)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on March 21, 2013, 03:32:26 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhz4A5BCMAA#ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhz4A5BCMAA#ws)


New Trailer. A bunch of new footage. Too much time left!

(edited out the 's' at the end of https, so this would embed - Rico)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on March 21, 2013, 05:47:42 AM
Watched it early this morning on my iPad when I was getting ready for work.  Could this movie look any more awesome?!!?!?  I don't think so.  Mmmm, Alice Eve.  "How you doin'?"  ;)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on March 21, 2013, 07:43:10 AM
 :jawdrop

That is all.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on March 21, 2013, 08:34:27 AM
Now, after all my complaining about not seeing anything, I think I've seen too much. ;)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: billybob476 on March 21, 2013, 08:43:19 AM
JJ just can't win, can he? :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on March 21, 2013, 08:48:52 AM
I think JJ's actually a master at teasing us and maybe a little misdirection.  These trailers seem to show a lot of flash and quick scenes but we know from the first movie and his other work that the story and how the characters handle it all will be the real meat of the movie.  What I am noticing in this trailer even more is the production design, lighting, costumes, etc. are all just amazingly perfect.  I'm really liking the overall look we are getting.  I'm also happy that it appears a good deal of this movie will take place off the Enterprise.  That's exciting!  I simply can't wait!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Geekyfanboy on March 21, 2013, 09:19:31 AM
Quote from: Bryancd on March 21, 2013, 07:43:10 AM
:jawdrop

That is all.

I'm with you Bryan!!!!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on March 21, 2013, 09:31:16 AM
I'm excited they are going to destroy this Enterprise! Rebuild her right and pretty! :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: moyer777 on March 21, 2013, 10:16:13 AM
simply awesome!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on March 21, 2013, 12:25:55 PM
It could be any movie. I miss Star Trek. :(
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on March 21, 2013, 12:35:48 PM
Quote from: Dangelus on March 21, 2013, 12:25:55 PM
It could be any movie. I miss Star Trek. :(

Well, I think that is entirely dependant on how each of us view "STAR TREK". I for one have separate views and expectations of TV Trek vs. film Trek. I enjoy the more leisurely pace of the various series, having a lot of time to explore so many different themes and stories. I also love big action Trek on the big screen. ST-TMP was TV Trek on the big screen and it didn't work, ST-TWOK amped up the volume and was a masterpiece. I think all the subsequent Trek films have followed that same sort of pattern. Insurrection was a TV episode, First Contact was lot's of flash and dash, and their reception in the fan community reflects that.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on March 21, 2013, 02:25:57 PM
Quote from: Bryancd on March 21, 2013, 12:35:48 PM
Quote from: Dangelus on March 21, 2013, 12:25:55 PM
It could be any movie. I miss Star Trek. :(

Well, I think that is entirely dependant on how each of us view "STAR TREK". I for one have separate views and expectations of TV Trek vs. film Trek. I enjoy the more leisurely pace of the various series, having a lot of time to explore so many different themes and stories. I also love big action Trek on the big screen. ST-TMP was TV Trek on the big screen and it didn't work, ST-TWOK amped up the volume and was a masterpiece. I think all the subsequent Trek films have followed that same sort of pattern. Insurrection was a TV episode, First Contact was lot's of flash and dash, and their reception in the fan community reflects that.
Yes, I agree. The movies should be EPIC and pumped up. When my friends and I left Insurrection, we said, "Well...it was nice to see everyone again." This movie is an event movie, and, like last time, non-Trekkies are hyped to see it...unlike most Trek films. If we get a Trek on TV(and we will), I think it will be A) Serialized. and B) Closer in tone to what we've had in the past.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on March 21, 2013, 02:39:07 PM
Yeah, this is always going to be an issue for some fans and I can respect that.  However, just like with the 2009 film there is going to be PLENTY of Trek-Goodness in this film.  In fact, I will go as far as saying that I believe this movie will be even more Trek-centered than the last film.  I mean that in terms of what I'm seeing with regards to the story, characters and potential messages seen so far.  I am so frakking pumped for this.  You see, JJ is very wise.  He is amping things up to get all these non-Trek folks into the theaters and then - BANG - he is going to slip in all this Trek greatness that they will become converts.  I am positive about this!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on March 21, 2013, 03:36:21 PM
I'm sure it will be great and very enjoyable but I hope the direction of these movies doesn't kill TV Trek or reinvent it in a similar way. I guess I always preferred TV Trek to movies...
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: jedijeff on March 21, 2013, 04:42:58 PM
That was an Action Packed trailer, I am a bit like Chris in I feel I have seen to much now. I have been watching some of the Trek movies lately, and I noted like the others, that the tone between them and the TV series are are very different. The series was the one which always brought up the deeper themes and commentary, and the few times they might have approached it in the movies, it really did not resonate imho.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: billybob476 on March 22, 2013, 05:38:28 AM
Is it me or does Alice Eve almost look CGI?

Also I do understand people's concerns that this will be an action movie but as Bryan said above, the most successful Trek movies have been the action based ones. Movie Trek is about action and adventure that doesn't (or at least didn't) translate well to the small screen. Trek TV is the place to go for thought-provoking commentary on current social issues.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: X on March 22, 2013, 06:15:09 AM
TV is good for taking the time to make you think. Movies have to make you feel to be successful and action tends to spark feeling.

Here's an example. I can watch a 4 hour block of Through the Wormhole or Dark Matter and have no problems, I'd never watch it at a theater.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on March 22, 2013, 09:13:51 AM
OK, based on the most recent trailer I am going on record that John Harrison is really...

[spoiler]Garth of Izar [/spoiler]
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: davekill on March 22, 2013, 09:44:44 AM
Quote from: Bryancd on March 22, 2013, 09:13:51 AM
OK, based on the most recent trailer I am going on record that John Harrison is really...

[spoiler]Garth of Izar [/spoiler]

I hope you are right, that would be awesome.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: WillEagle on March 22, 2013, 02:13:15 PM
Very cool Trailer!  
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on March 22, 2013, 04:19:17 PM
The only problem with my theory..

[spoiler]Is that Garth didn't have "augment" super strength or the power to heal from his blood, which is what I assume the whole dying child/Dad given the deal that Harrison gives him to save his child but become a suicide bomber.[/spoiler]
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on March 22, 2013, 04:26:03 PM
JJ's production company, Bad Robot has released a slight variation of their own for their International Trailer for the film.  A few tiny changes to it.  Enjoy!

Follow them on Twitter:  https://twitter.com/bad_robot (https://twitter.com/bad_robot)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1b7KFJX5eKM#ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1b7KFJX5eKM#ws)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: KingIsaacLinksr on March 23, 2013, 12:54:58 AM
Friend of mine floated this theory:

[spoiler]Lore or some sort of Android prototype

This is based off of how the one woman moves in a rather robotic/generic way, he seems to have superhuman strength (it doesn't feel like Khan at this point), and his statement about being superior to Kirk in everyway. Maybe it's unlikely but dang, that would be an interesting twist[/spoiler]
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on March 23, 2013, 04:33:22 AM
Well since the woman [spoiler]is Carol Marcus, I doubt she's an android. If that's who you mean. But, hey, that's as good a theory for Harrison as I've seen....[/spoiler]
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on March 23, 2013, 05:50:55 AM
Quote from: Chris-El on March 23, 2013, 04:33:22 AM
Well since the woman [spoiler]is Carol Marcus, I doubt she's an android. If that's who you mean. But, hey, that's as good a theory for Harrison as I've seen....[/spoiler]

I think he meant Harrison. :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on March 23, 2013, 05:54:24 AM
Quote from: Bryancd on March 23, 2013, 05:50:55 AM
Quote from: Chris-El on March 23, 2013, 04:33:22 AM
Well since the woman [spoiler]is Carol Marcus, I doubt she's an android. If that's who you mean. But, hey, that's as good a theory for Harrison as I've seen....[/spoiler]

I think he meant Harrison. :)
He also said that "This is based off of how the one woman moves in a rather robotic/generic way" I figured he was talking about Carol[/spoiler] Maybe I misunderstood. It was early, and I got woke up by dumb underlings at work.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: billybob476 on March 23, 2013, 07:21:50 AM
Interesting we seem to see Chekov in a red shirt in one scene.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on March 23, 2013, 09:25:33 AM
 :ohbaby
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on March 23, 2013, 10:30:09 AM
She's a regular Ellen Ripley.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on March 24, 2013, 07:18:51 AM
I know it's probably been said before, but I'm fairly certain that the ship crashing into San Fran is not the Enterprise. Similar design, but it looks funky.


Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on March 24, 2013, 07:43:03 AM
The nacelles and everything look more like this ship, you can see Kirk space diving towards.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on March 24, 2013, 08:26:26 AM
Yep - it's not the Enterprise.  In that last pic, it looks more like the ship is in orbit around the Moon and not Earth too.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on March 24, 2013, 08:40:15 AM
It's the Reliant! ;)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on March 24, 2013, 10:25:46 AM
Did any of you guys in the UK see this promo event in London yesterday?  What an awesome idea!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBTWl-DtKdM# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBTWl-DtKdM#)!#ws
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on March 24, 2013, 11:41:19 AM
Photon torpedo....or GENESIS TORPEDO?!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on March 24, 2013, 03:31:31 PM
Hmmm. Interesting.

We can rule out Khan at this point, right? Not feeling it from the latest trailer at all.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: WillEagle on March 25, 2013, 05:46:30 AM
I still think its Arne Darvin. He was a Klingon made to look human so he would be stronger and able to... hold on. In the latest trailer somebody said it was a Federation/Starfleet agent. I don't believe Darvin was ever working for or with the Federation so... hold on. He was undercover as a Human so he could have trained as an agent for the Federation! So I do still think its Arne Darvin!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on March 25, 2013, 06:30:10 AM
I'm hoping he is a tribble out for vengence. :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on March 25, 2013, 08:45:02 AM
More pics here:

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=101938 (http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=101938)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Meds on March 28, 2013, 01:29:46 PM
That was the first time i had seen that promo with the Trek logo in the sky, wow awesome. Imagine looking out your window and seeing that in the sky.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on April 01, 2013, 08:28:58 AM
New image with JJ on a Starship bridge that isn't the Enterprise.

Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on April 01, 2013, 09:32:43 AM
It's the RELIANT!!! :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on April 08, 2013, 01:01:01 PM
Quote from: Rico on April 01, 2013, 08:28:58 AM
New image with JJ on a Starship bridge that isn't the Enterprise.


That's a cool looking bridge, I love it.

New poster, with Mitchellkhan walking purposely towards the camera with destruction behind him. I really, really dislike movie posters nowadays. Photoshop crap. I'd love to see Dru Struzan work on a Star Trek poster.  Imagine if all those iconic movie posters from the 70s and 80s looked like the ones we now have. When I was a kid the movie poster told me everything I needed to know and sold me on the movie. Now it's just floating photoshopped heads. Anyway, rant over.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Praxis on April 09, 2013, 06:28:33 AM
I agree. There is something so so cool about those illustrated posters. Each one a piece of art.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on April 10, 2013, 08:33:41 AM
Fear not.  Next week we will be getting a brand new domestic one-sheet poster and finally the official, full domestic theatrical trailer (to be shown with "Oblivion" starting on April 19th).  Exciting!

More info here:
http://trekmovie.com/2013/04/10/exclusive-domestic-poster-trailer-coming-next-week-hollywood-premier-may-14-more-promo-details/ (http://trekmovie.com/2013/04/10/exclusive-domestic-poster-trailer-coming-next-week-hollywood-premier-may-14-more-promo-details/)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on April 12, 2013, 08:41:27 AM
New, international TV spot (mainly previously seen footage):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TZrCEtWbZI#ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TZrCEtWbZI#ws)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: billybob476 on April 12, 2013, 11:28:54 AM
Cool.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on April 12, 2013, 04:11:00 PM
Cool but the lack of originality in posters continues...
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on April 12, 2013, 04:44:52 PM
Ditto. See may rant earlier in the thread. Cool image though.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on April 12, 2013, 04:51:49 PM
Quote from: Chris-El on April 12, 2013, 04:44:52 PM
Ditto. See may rant earlier in the thread. Cool image though.

I did, that's why I bothered to post it. :)

Of course even the best Trek movie had a bit of an odd theatrical poster..Pretty sure that shot of David with the knife wasn't even in the movie...
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: davekill on April 12, 2013, 05:29:10 PM
Wow, that's a real APP, Action Packed Poster!

I don't remember David even having a knife in the movie.

Or the three armed guy, right side near the bottom corner.

Strong Stars Wars vibe.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on April 12, 2013, 05:39:29 PM
Quote from: davekill on April 12, 2013, 05:29:10 PM
Wow, that's a real APP, Action Packed Poster!

I don't remember David even having a knife in the movie.

Or the three armed guy, right side near the bottom corner.

Strong Stars Wars vibe.
I think he had a knife when he attacked Kirk when they beamed down to Mutara and Kirk gave him a slug in the gut.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Feathers on April 13, 2013, 02:06:50 AM
Quote from: Chris-El on April 12, 2013, 05:39:29 PM
I think he had a knife when he attacked Kirk when they beamed down to Mutara and Kirk gave him a slug in the gut.

I didn't know Kirk used bullets :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: WillEagle on April 13, 2013, 05:23:45 AM
And I thought it was Khan who used slugs??   :biggrin
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Praxis on April 13, 2013, 10:09:05 AM
I love puns
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on April 13, 2013, 03:07:09 PM
Michael Giacchino Live-tweeting Star Trek Into Darkness Music Clips!  Awesome!!!

(watch for a special guest watching the recording at around the 2 minute mark)

Michael Giacchino Live-tweeting Star Trek Into Darkness Music Clips (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVZIrYoKja0#)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: WillEagle on April 14, 2013, 11:24:56 AM
That was cool. Me like me some Star Trek music!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on April 14, 2013, 04:59:11 PM
New TV spot that should air during the MTV Movie awards tonight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6XatQIxrys#ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6XatQIxrys#ws)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on April 15, 2013, 01:17:05 PM
More music.  Theme for John Harrison. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXjvlu33lW8#ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXjvlu33lW8#ws)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Meds on April 15, 2013, 01:23:25 PM
Tickets booked for May 9th. Very excited. :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on April 15, 2013, 01:26:01 PM
Quote from: Meds on April 15, 2013, 01:23:25 PM
Tickets booked for May 9th. Very excited. :)

You know you are sworn to silence here until at least May 17th.  :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Jobydrone on April 15, 2013, 05:13:50 PM
It opens early for the Brits? NO FAIR
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on April 16, 2013, 09:44:41 AM
OH MY GOD!!!!

Star Trek Into Darkness - Official Trailer #3 (HD) Benedict Cumberbatch (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ec_rPApKCA#ws)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Praxis on April 16, 2013, 11:08:04 AM
 :jawdrop Now THAT'S a freakin' trailer!!! My anticipation just went through the roof.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Jobydrone on April 16, 2013, 11:43:42 AM
Woo hoo just got my tix for Wednesday 5/15 at 8pm.  With the early release overseas gonna have to go into spoiler blackout territory on the 9th
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Meds on April 16, 2013, 12:41:50 PM
Quote from: Rico on April 15, 2013, 01:26:01 PM
Quote from: Meds on April 15, 2013, 01:23:25 PM
Tickets booked for May 9th. Very excited. :)

You know you are sworn to silence here until at least May 17th.  :)

Of course sir, my lips are sealed.

So looking at the new trailer we have Cumberbachs name now (or is that just a alias???)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: billybob476 on April 16, 2013, 01:13:04 PM
Nah I think it's been settled that John Harrison is his real name.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Feathers on April 16, 2013, 01:32:32 PM
Looking good! NOW I'm starting to get excited!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on April 16, 2013, 02:33:11 PM
I got chills at the "I'm sorry" line. This movie looks crazy good. PLUS that other ship looks huge and badass! What the heck is it??
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: moyer777 on April 16, 2013, 02:39:32 PM
I tried not to do a little dance..  awesome.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on April 16, 2013, 03:51:30 PM
So incredible!  Awesome trailer!!!   :love
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on April 16, 2013, 03:58:42 PM
And somehow it would appear that JJ and crew have taken all that I lost about their new ship designs....and put them all into one new mega mess! :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on April 16, 2013, 04:02:06 PM
Quote from: Bryancd on April 16, 2013, 03:58:42 PM
And somehow it would appear that JJ and crew have taken all that I lost about their new ship designs....and put them all into one new mega mess! :)

Yeah, Bryan.  But it looks like a 'kick-ass' mega-mess.  LOL!!!  ;)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on April 16, 2013, 04:38:43 PM
Quote from: Rico on April 16, 2013, 04:02:06 PM
Quote from: Bryancd on April 16, 2013, 03:58:42 PM
And somehow it would appear that JJ and crew have taken all that I lost about their new ship designs....and put them all into one new mega mess! :)

Yeah, Bryan.  But it looks like a 'kick-ass' mega-mess.  LOL!!!  ;)

:roflmao :roflmao :roflmao
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on April 16, 2013, 04:44:56 PM
Maybe the monster sized ship is the 'Botany Bay.'  That would be a twist!  :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on April 16, 2013, 04:57:17 PM
I'm kind of digging the monster ship!   :wub

Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on April 16, 2013, 06:20:29 PM
Abrams....he's quite mad, you know.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Praxis on April 16, 2013, 07:44:09 PM
....and now I have a new wallpaper
:love
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ElfManDan on April 16, 2013, 08:35:04 PM
I'll be honest... I'm PUMPED now to see this film! I was excited and now I'm going on SUPER PUMPED and excited! That trailer looks amazing! Oh counting down the days...
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on April 17, 2013, 12:39:40 AM
OK looks exciting but I have absolutely no clue what they're doing now lol.

Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Feathers on April 17, 2013, 12:47:32 AM
Quote from: Dangelus on April 17, 2013, 12:39:40 AM
OK looks exciting but I have absolutely no clue what they're doing now lol.

Agree with that but that's now part of the attraction! (I think the other ship is the 'prime' Enterprise E after a refit in the alternate timeline.)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on April 17, 2013, 04:13:48 AM
Quote from: Feathers on April 17, 2013, 12:47:32 AM
Quote from: Dangelus on April 17, 2013, 12:39:40 AM
OK looks exciting but I have absolutely no clue what they're doing now lol.

Agree with that but that's now part of the attraction! (I think the other ship is the 'prime' Enterprise E after a refit in the alternate timeline.)

Now that would be very interesting.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: davekill on April 17, 2013, 06:15:13 AM
Klingons?
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on April 17, 2013, 07:55:24 AM
Yes, we determined that a while back.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Ktrek on April 17, 2013, 08:41:53 AM
Why does the monster ship look out of the future? It doesn't look like it's in keeping with the design or even technology of the 23rd century.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on April 17, 2013, 09:29:29 AM
Quote from: Ktrek on April 17, 2013, 08:41:53 AM
Why does the monster ship look out of the future? It doesn't look like it's in keeping with the design or even technology of the 23rd century.

Keep in mind the Klingons had contact with Nero and his advanced tech.  Maybe this big ship was influenced by that.  Or maybe it's a covert, secret prototype made by Starfleet.  Lots of possibilities.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on April 17, 2013, 09:45:32 AM
The ship looks in universe enough to me.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: X on April 17, 2013, 10:05:24 AM
it looks like a JJ version of the sovereign class
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on April 17, 2013, 10:07:32 AM
Quote from: Rico on April 17, 2013, 09:29:29 AM
Quote from: Ktrek on April 17, 2013, 08:41:53 AM
Why does the monster ship look out of the future? It doesn't look like it's in keeping with the design or even technology of the 23rd century.

Keep in mind the Klingons had contact with Nero and his advanced tech.  Maybe this big ship was influenced by that.  Or maybe it's a covert, secret prototype made by Starfleet.  Lots of possibilities.
Having just finished the Countdown to Darkness TPB, I'm thinking Section 31-type stuff. When [spoiler]April takes command of the Enterprise, he uses Code April 31 something something, and at the end when Kirk asks Pike about all this, he says it's all going to Starfleet Intelligence and it's not his problem to worry about[/spoiler]...so...I'm fairly certain it will have something to do with Covert Ops of some sort.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on April 17, 2013, 10:11:43 AM
Quote from: X on April 17, 2013, 10:05:24 AM
it looks like a JJ version of the sovereign class

I was thinking more Excelsior....
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on April 17, 2013, 10:12:56 AM
Quote from: ChrisMC on April 17, 2013, 10:07:32 AM
Quote from: Rico on April 17, 2013, 09:29:29 AM
Quote from: Ktrek on April 17, 2013, 08:41:53 AM
Why does the monster ship look out of the future? It doesn't look like it's in keeping with the design or even technology of the 23rd century.

Keep in mind the Klingons had contact with Nero and his advanced tech.  Maybe this big ship was influenced by that.  Or maybe it's a covert, secret prototype made by Starfleet.  Lots of possibilities.
Having just finished the Countdown to Darkness TPB, I'm thinking Section 31-type stuff. When [spoiler]April takes command of the Enterprise, he uses Code April 31 something something, and at the end when Kirk asks Pike about all this, he says it's all going to Starfleet Intelligence and it's not his problem to worry about[/spoiler]...so...I'm fairly certain it will have something to do with Covert Ops of some sort.

A little clue in the new trailer is a video image of Harrison and below it shows his personal indentificationb info as UNKOWN. Meds posted an image of that a few pages back.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: KingIsaacLinksr on April 17, 2013, 12:04:36 PM
Another possibility is the Mirror Universe. The only place that this theory falls flat is the fact that we haven't seen any characters from it but we know that the Mirror universe has really advanced technology at this time (See ST: Enterprise, the mirror universe episode) and likes to use big weapons. Both of which this new ship uses. The ship design is dark, menacing and has lots of guns on the thing. And I don't think JJ has reveled his big spoiler card yet. Which is why I find it surprising that they've shown the death and resurrection of the Enterprise. You'd think that would have been a closer held secret like Vulcan was in the previous movie. So there has to be something more they haven't shown us yet.

We all know that it's JJ's stomping grounds to mess around with alternatives universes and time travel and etc. (LOST). If JJ wanted to mess around with something like that in this movie, the Mirror Universe is the perfect place for him to do something.

Is it a good theory? Nah, it lacks proof beyond the ship design. But it's something to think about.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on April 17, 2013, 12:09:57 PM
I don't recall any reference to more advnaced technology in the Mirror Universe in Enterprise or DS9.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: billybob476 on April 17, 2013, 12:12:40 PM
I think King means that the NX-01 in the mirror universe got their hands on the Constitution class USS Defiant after it flipped to their universe and time period.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: KingIsaacLinksr on April 17, 2013, 12:16:17 PM
Quote from: billybob476 on April 17, 2013, 12:12:40 PM
I think King means that the NX-01 in the mirror universe got their hands on the Constitution class USS Defiant after it flipped to their universe and time period.

Yes.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on April 17, 2013, 12:21:24 PM
I see, so we are to assume they reversed engineered the Defiant and advanced their technology. I would be surprised if they went with another time travel/alternate universe story.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Feathers on April 18, 2013, 02:09:21 AM
Quote from: Bryancd on April 17, 2013, 12:21:24 PM
I see, so we are to assume they reversed engineered the Defiant and advanced their technology. I would be surprised if they went with another time travel/alternate universe story.

I agree, I don't think it's likely but the idea did give me pause for a moment.

Overall, though, alternate Mirror Universe may be something to think about further down the line but I'm not sure it would be as 'mass market' as Romulans or Klingons.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on April 18, 2013, 05:00:07 AM
Here's a new movie tie-in commercial with Mazda.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W98NR6H1dww#ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W98NR6H1dww#ws)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: billybob476 on April 18, 2013, 06:33:35 AM
Quote from: Feathers on April 18, 2013, 02:09:21 AM
Quote from: Bryancd on April 17, 2013, 12:21:24 PM
I see, so we are to assume they reversed engineered the Defiant and advanced their technology. I would be surprised if they went with another time travel/alternate universe story.

I agree, I don't think it's likely but the idea did give me pause for a moment.

Overall, though, alternate Mirror Universe may be something to think about further down the line but I'm not sure it would be as 'mass market' as Romulans or Klingons.

Yeah, the appeal of the mirror universe if taking characters you care about and turning them on their heads. Don't think that would ever fly in a movie setting.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: davekill on April 18, 2013, 06:54:11 AM
Quote from: Rico on April 18, 2013, 05:00:07 AM
Here's a new movie tie-in commercial with Mazda.


Convection, creativity, courage, and a dash of lens flare...

Cool comercial :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on April 18, 2013, 07:29:38 AM
All kidding aside, I do find it an odd creative decision to have yet another massive ship for the Enterprise to fight. The last two Trek films, Nemesis and the first JJ movie both had that conceit and it's back yet again. Bit unimpressed.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on April 18, 2013, 07:45:49 AM
Quote from: Bryancd on April 18, 2013, 07:29:38 AM
All kidding aside, I do find it an odd creative decision to have yet another massive ship for the Enterprise to fight. The last two Trek films, Nemesis and the first JJ movie both had that conceit and it's back yet again. Bit unimpressed.

Yeah, I kind of agree.  I also find it strange since this John Harrison is suppose to be "better" than everyone at everything.  So, if that's true wouldn't he be able to take on the Enterprise with an even smaller, less powerful ship?  Anyone can outgun someone else.  How does that make him better?  Hopefully it will all make sense once we see the film.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on April 18, 2013, 08:09:18 AM
Well, at least it's now clear what ship that is crashing into San Fran, it's this sucker!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on April 18, 2013, 09:48:39 AM
The implication is this is a starfleet vessel. I thought most of the ships were destroyed in the last movie. Must be a section 31 ship!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: billybob476 on April 18, 2013, 09:52:57 AM
Excelsior?
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on April 18, 2013, 10:02:03 AM
Quote from: billybob476 on April 18, 2013, 09:52:57 AM
Excelsior?

That's it! They'll send Scotty over to sabotage the Transwarp drive! ;)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on April 18, 2013, 10:58:25 AM
I heard it through the grapevine it's being called a Dreadnaught-class ship.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on April 18, 2013, 11:09:32 AM
Quote from: ChrisMC on April 18, 2013, 10:58:25 AM
I heard it through the grapevine it's being called a Dreadnaught-class ship.

Which would be a proper in Universe ship class as per the Technical Manual.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: billybob476 on April 18, 2013, 12:25:28 PM
Quote from: Bryancd on April 18, 2013, 11:09:32 AM
Quote from: ChrisMC on April 18, 2013, 10:58:25 AM
I heard it through the grapevine it's being called a Dreadnaught-class ship.

Which would be a proper in Universe ship class as per the Technical Manual.

You mean this guy?
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: X on April 18, 2013, 04:47:56 PM
Quote from: Bryancd on April 18, 2013, 07:29:38 AM
All kidding aside, I do find it an odd creative decision to have yet another massive ship for the Enterprise to fight. The last two Trek films, Nemesis and the first JJ movie both had that conceit and it's back yet again. Bit unimpressed.
Bryan, you're forgetting ... V'ger, the whale probe, the son'a ship, and I think I'm missing one. Not only is it a conceit, it's a predominant tradition. If we go with just a more badassed ship, we'd also have to include Undiscovered Country and the cloaked Bird of prey. The only Time they've ever dealt with a ship of similar size and scope was wrath of Khan.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: X on April 18, 2013, 04:50:52 PM
Quote from: Rico on April 18, 2013, 07:45:49 AM
Quote from: Bryancd on April 18, 2013, 07:29:38 AM
All kidding aside, I do find it an odd creative decision to have yet another massive ship for the Enterprise to fight. The last two Trek films, Nemesis and the first JJ movie both had that conceit and it's back yet again. Bit unimpressed.

Yeah, I kind of agree.  I also find it strange since this John Harrison is suppose to be "better" than everyone at everything.  So, if that's true wouldn't he be able to take on the Enterprise with an even smaller, less powerful ship?  Anyone can outgun someone else.  How does that make him better?  Hopefully it will all make sense once we see the film.
You could easily say the he's better and has a better ship. It's also his opinion on how he sees himself to the rest of the universe. Being conceited doesn't make your statement fact.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: billybob476 on April 18, 2013, 05:09:52 PM
Heck, I'm pretty sure Romulan warbirds are bigger then a galaxy class. Not to mention the Borg.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: fatfather_2005 on April 18, 2013, 05:33:38 PM
to be honest, other than the size, i can't see jack, lol .  besides the baddies have always have to think they are better.
" i am laughing at the superior intellect"( i hope i spelled it all right. lol)
and khan still follows,  even though he has the upper hand.
if it a Dreadnaught-class ship, is it just off the drawing board? 
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: WillEagle on April 18, 2013, 05:42:46 PM
I got goosebumbs watching that trailer! Tons of great movies coming this summer but this tops my list!!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Data on April 19, 2013, 07:03:55 AM
''In William Shatner's book The Return, the USS Monitor was a modified Defiant-class vessel with an all black hull coating that was specially built by Starfleet Intelligence, and was temporarily renamed Enterprise while mounting a direct offensive against the Borg/Romulan alliance at the Borg homeworld. In a later novel of the series, the ship is stranded outside the galaxy and destroyed by the same entity that destroyed the robot ships launched in Kirk's era to the Kelvans' homeworld in the Andromeda Galaxy''

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/USS_Monitor (http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/USS_Monitor)

This stuck in my head as ive not long ago read The Return.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on April 19, 2013, 04:19:56 PM
New commercial spot...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xULCrubhPBQ# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xULCrubhPBQ#)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on April 19, 2013, 05:00:06 PM
Viral John Harrison spot.  I like this one a lot!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYLZ9yECMJ0#ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYLZ9yECMJ0#ws)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on April 20, 2013, 04:35:39 AM
Here is a poster an artist named Paul Shipper did for ST '09. Can anyone argue this is superior to what we got for that movie? I guess it's all about not wanting to pay a commision for an artist when the Marketing Dept. can whip up a photoshop. But they are making art.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: WillEagle on April 20, 2013, 04:50:43 AM
That viral video was cool. Gave me chills. I also like that poster better to. The one they used in 2009 was boring!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on April 20, 2013, 05:04:05 AM
That Paul Shipper poster is awesome!  That's what I want to see in a poster.  :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Ktrek on April 20, 2013, 05:56:26 AM
I would like the poster more if it wasn't a Star Wars style ripoff.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on April 20, 2013, 06:41:31 AM
Quote from: Ktrek on April 20, 2013, 05:56:26 AM
I would like the poster more if it wasn't a Star Wars style ripoff.

I don't see it that way at all.  Look back at Trek posters for Wrath of Khan and First Contact and you will find it similar.  I also like seeing the actual characters on the movie poster too.  Here's another fan made image I found online.

Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: fatfather_2005 on April 20, 2013, 07:19:21 PM
i like the poster by paul shipper, but i think they wanted with the first jj star trek to just show very little, to have some mystery. i know how that sounds, it was a big gamble on j.j doing the reboot.
i have seen too many "posters" for the new movie, so i don't know what to think.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: fatfather_2005 on April 20, 2013, 07:22:34 PM
Quote from: Ktrek on April 20, 2013, 05:56:26 AM
I would like the poster more if it wasn't a Star Wars style ripoff.
ok, it looks more the motion picture poster than star wars, to me
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on April 20, 2013, 07:35:52 PM
Quote from: fatfather_2005 on April 20, 2013, 07:22:34 PM
Quote from: Ktrek on April 20, 2013, 05:56:26 AM
I would like the poster more if it wasn't a Star Wars style ripoff.
ok, it looks more the motion picture poster than star wars, to me
Yeah, that was intentional. It's less a SW ripoff than an homage to the style of Dru Struzan, just look at any of his posters from the 80's Indy, Star Wars, Goonies, Hook...very similar but wonderful.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Praxis on April 21, 2013, 08:37:34 AM
Quote from: ChrisMC on April 20, 2013, 04:35:39 AM
Here is a poster an artist named Paul Shipper did for ST '09. Can anyone argue this is superior to what we got for that movie? I guess it's all about not wanting to pay a commision for an artist when the Marketing Dept. can whip up a photoshop. But they are making art.

I love it. I'd like to have this on my wall.  :thumbsup
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on April 22, 2013, 06:21:22 AM
For what it's worth....
[spoiler]

https://twitter.com/devincf/status/326103273419444225

RT @devincf : STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS screens in LA tomorrow for select press, premieres overseas on Tuesday. You'll all know it's Khan by Wednesday

RT @devincf: There will probably be other spoilers revealed, but not by me. I will say this: never underestimate a Tribble.[/spoiler]
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on April 22, 2013, 03:11:03 PM
First clip from the movie is now online.  For those that saw the 9 minute IMAX preview, this scene will be familiar.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFls6CMcrEI#ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFls6CMcrEI#ws)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Geekyfanboy on April 22, 2013, 03:36:25 PM
Quote from: Rico on April 22, 2013, 03:11:03 PM
First clip from the movie is now online.  For those that saw the 9 minute IMAX preview, this scene will be familiar.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFls6CMcrEI#ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFls6CMcrEI#ws)

Wow.. great scene.. can't wait for this.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Praxis on April 22, 2013, 05:53:13 PM
Thanks for posting that clip! I hadn't seen it yet. Awesome.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Feathers on April 23, 2013, 08:54:47 AM
I'm trying not to watch it...
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on April 23, 2013, 08:56:02 AM
News starting to trickle in from the premiere down under, beware!

[spoiler][I've been interrogating a fellow over on the TrekBBS who attended the Sydney premiere. Here's what I've gleaned so far. MASSIVE SPOILERS, OBVIOUSLY.
Spoiler:

Cumberbatch is playing Khan.
Spock Prime shows up. (!)
Section 31 is behind the dastardly deeds, and is holding Khan's crew to force him to do their dirty work.
They rip off the end of TWOK but "not as good."
Kirk dies. (!!)
But the crew uses Khan's blood to bring him back. (!!!??)
Spock gets to yell KHAAAAAAAAAAN!
[spoiler]
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: X on April 23, 2013, 01:35:19 PM
Quote from: Bryancd on April 23, 2013, 08:56:02 AM
News starting to trickle in from the premiere down under, beware!

[spoiler][I've been interrogating a fellow over on the TrekBBS who attended the Sydney premiere. Here's what I've gleaned so far. MASSIVE SPOILERS, OBVIOUSLY.
Spoiler:

Cumberbatch is playing Khan.
Spock Prime shows up. (!)
Section 31 is behind the dastardly deeds, and is holding Khan's crew to force him to do their dirty work.
They rip off the end of TWOK but "not as good."
Kirk dies. (!!)
But the crew uses Khan's blood to bring him back. (!!!??)
Spock gets to yell KHAAAAAAAAAAN!
[spoiler]
Some if not most of that doesn't seem to be believable. It seems more like chum in the water.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on April 23, 2013, 03:10:01 PM
The new few weeks are really going to be tricky to avoid spoilers about this movie.  I have one suggestion/idea.

What do you guys think about not even posting things with spoiler tags even, related to reports about the movie?  It can be very tempting to click that little button.  My suggestion would be don't even post anything based on the actual movie, at least until May 17th - when the movie will be open where most of us can see it.  I just want to make sure everyone has a chance to see this without being spoiled.  We've waited 4 years.  I can wait a few more weeks.  Just a thought and suggestion but I think it might be helpful.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on April 23, 2013, 03:26:30 PM
I think that doesn't speak well to individuals impulse control, defeats the whole point of the Spoiler tags, and I already have had Chris Clemente message me about some of this and now X so some of us forum members are ok with discussing it. Having said that, I am going to put a picture of the big new ship in the Spoiler link below, so if you really don;t want to know what it looks like, don't look!

[spoiler](http://i35.tinypic.com/308b4ow.jpg)/spoiler]
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on April 23, 2013, 03:27:15 PM
Quote from: X on April 23, 2013, 01:35:19 PM
Quote from: Bryancd on April 23, 2013, 08:56:02 AM
News starting to trickle in from the premiere down under, beware!

[spoiler][I've been interrogating a fellow over on the TrekBBS who attended the Sydney premiere. Here's what I've gleaned so far. MASSIVE SPOILERS, OBVIOUSLY.
Spoiler:

Cumberbatch is playing Khan.
Spock Prime shows up. (!)
Section 31 is behind the dastardly deeds, and is holding Khan's crew to force him to do their dirty work.
They rip off the end of TWOK but "not as good."
Kirk dies. (!!)
But the crew uses Khan's blood to bring him back. (!!!??)
Spock gets to yell KHAAAAAAAAAAN!
[spoiler]
Some if not most of that doesn't seem to be believable. It seems more like chum in the water.

I tend to agree, Chris, I grabbed that whole bit from the RPF and I was questioning it as well. Here is a follow up post regarding the "source"..

"Looking into these rumors; they all trace back to two user on the IMDB boards. They appear to be pretty regular posters over there; one of them very obviously a rabid Cumberbatch fangirl. Doesn't mean they can't be telling the truth, but it makes sense that someone might take advantage of the anticipation and weave a yarn."
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on April 23, 2013, 04:13:19 PM
Well, let's just see how it goes then. 
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on April 23, 2013, 04:16:06 PM
Quote from: Rico on April 23, 2013, 04:13:19 PM
Well, let's just see how it goes then. 

Go take a look at the picture I posted, you know you want to . :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: billybob476 on April 23, 2013, 04:20:27 PM
Yeah that's kind of out there. I think Patton Oswalt should come up with the plot for the next Trek movie too!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on April 23, 2013, 04:31:06 PM
OK, for those who don't mind spoilers, like me, here's a much more detailed summary from the IMDB pages...What I think we should not do for those who want to not be spoiled, is comment or react without also tagging that with spoilers, that seems fair.

[spoiler]Five minutes before entering Pike's office, Kirk had been skipping along after Spock saying, "Yeah, we're cool. I haven't lost a single man. Pike's gonna give us the five year mission" and the meeting with Pike completely bursts his bubble. When Spock is dismissed from Pike's office and he talks to Kirk alone, he really rips into him, in a different take to the one we saw in the trailers. He's really angry, but you realise that Pike sees Kirk almost as a son and feels he can do much better. Kirk's command is ripped away, they give the Enterprise back to Pike, Spock is assigned to the USS Bradbury. Kirk leaves with his tail between his legs. Greenwood was fantastic in this scene. The movie really started here for me.
.
.
.
Er, yes, it's Kirk and Spock's hands on the glass. Yes, BC is Khan. Yes, Marcus is Section 31 Black ops.

There's another fantastic scene between Pike and Kirk the bar. Kirk is completely gutted an Pike tells him he asked for him as first officer aboard the Enterprisr, because he believes in him. Apparently he really had to go to bat with Admiral Marcus for the appointment.

Back in London, we all know Khan's blood saves the dying child and he enlists the father to bomb the Starfleet Data Archive. All the captains and first officers meet at Starfleet headquarters to plan strategy. Marcus reports that it was Harrison, and ex Sect 31 black ops specialist. Kirk is looking at vids from the bombing, and in a very cool extreme Google Earth kind of thing, he zooms in on Harrison. Kirk starts to ask why Harrison would bother to bomb a Data Archive when he knows all th material is n public record and starts to question the real motive, but for once he's unsure of himself and shuts up. Marcus has to wheedle it out of him.
.
.
.
Kirk realises its just a ploy to get everyone together in the one room just as Harrison shows up to blow them all to Kingdom Come. Pike is badly injured, Spock runs to help him while Kirk picks up a gun and starts firing away at Harrison's ship, then throws some sort of piece of metal on the end of a fire hose thing into the ships vent, sending it crashing down, but not before they get a look at each other. As Pike gasps his last Breath, Spock melds with him. Kirk runs over and sees Pike is dead and bursts into tears, literally sobbing uncontrollably with Spock looking on. It's a very Powerful scene. It feels like that is Kirk experiencing the loss of his father.
.
.
.
They find out that Harrison has fled to Kronos, in Klingon space, "The one place we cannot go." But Kirk insists on being allowed to go after him. So they devise a plan to travel to the edge of the Neutral Zone and Marcus organises for Kirk to carry a payload of advanced torpedoes that they have been developing. They beam them all aboard Enterprise, but Scotty won't sign off on the manifest because their shielding means he can't scan them to see what's inside. Therefore he refuses to have them aboard his ship because he doesn't know what danger they present. He also has a philosophical problem with the torpedoes and challenges Kirk. He doesn't like the military op. He wants to know if they are still explorers. Kirk orders him and he refuses, saying Kirk will have to fire him. So he does. Kirk appoints Chekov as Chief engineer and tells him to go get a red shirt. We all squeal. Scotty leaves the ship
.
.
.
Spock/Uhura are fighting. It's almost like a teenage spat. Spock is seriously having girl trouble. Uhura's mad at him because she thinks he doesn't feel. That he endangers his life without a thought about how it affects him. It's not unlike the accusations Kirk was hurling at Spock earlier. Calling him a traitor and a robot. She's pretty snitty and they have a bit of an argument on the way to Kronos with Kirk reluctantly in the middle. Then Spock suddenly reveals that he does feel. He recounts feeling Pike's death - the pain, the fear, the loneliness. He says he felt a similar thing at the death of Vulcan. He never wants to have to feel like that again. We see Kirk and Uhura both rect, chagrined. They have been unfair on Spock. On a side note, Uhura seems to really like Kirk now. She worries about him a lot. There is also a lot of touching. Everyone is always caressing everyone else. Lots of closeups of hands on arms or shoulders. Fanfic, here we come.
.
.
.
Sorry, just trying to say things the way they happened because it's more engaging that way. Just a fact dump is not going to be very fair to the movie.

In Engineering, Chekov discovers some weird fault or anomaly with the engines and Kirk instructs him to work on it. He leaves Sulu in command, and Sulu broadcasts to the surface that he has a whole pile of high-powered torpedoes pointing at them. Uhura goes with Kirk and Spock in the shuttle to find Harrison. She speaks Klingon, so this actually makes sense. After a StarWars-esque chase, the Klingons outnumber our galant trio but then Harrison shows up and starts wiping the floor with them all. He then walks up to Kirk and Kirk just lays into him (very neanderthal) and the blows just bounce off Harrison. Then Kirk decides he's not going to kill him, but take him into custody so he can stand trial on behalf of Admiral Pike.

I forgot to mention, a weapons specialist called Carol Wallace has joined the Enterprise to look after the torpedoes. Spock is suspicious and runs her data. Discovers Wallace is her mother's name. She's Marcus' daughter. I am getting a little confused about the scene order, but they decide to beam one of the torpedoes down to some planet to see what's inside. McCoy goes with Carol, but when the torpedo arms and catches McCoys arm in it, he screams at them to beam Carol up to save her, but she bravely stays to try and disarm it, sort of winning their trust. She yanks loose some big component, the outer casing slides open, and of course inside is a cryotube with a frozen body. Back on the ship, Harrison asks Kirk how many torpedoes they have and they tell him, they have a payload of 72. Isn't that how many cryotube turns were aboard the Botany Bay?
.
.
.
Kirk asks Harrison who he is really. He replies that he was a product of genetic engineeriing from 300 years ago and says his name is Khan (audience whoops, groans, cheers). He starts to cleverly bait Kirk, saying that Marcus scanned space for their vessel then revived Khan and held his crews' lives over his head, forcing him to work for them, develop superior weaponry etc. He asks, is there nothing you wouldn't do for your crew, Captain? This gets Kirk in his Achilles heel. He obviously has separation issues and doesn't want to lose a single member of his little family. Bones takes some of Khan's blood and injects it into a dead Tribble.

Then Marcus shows up in a huge Dreadnaught-class ship. He tells Kirk that Khan is manipulating him and is surprised that Kirk didn't kill him. Kirk is suspicious of Marcus and won't hand Khan over. Says he's gonna take him back to Earth to stand trial. Marcus targets Enterprise and starts blowing them out of the sky. Kirk pleads for the lives of his crew, offers his life in their place, but Marcus just wants to destroy them. Carol jumps in so her father knows she's aboard, hoping that will stop the slaughter, but he just beams her aboard, then just as the Enterprise is about to be blown away, the Dreadnaught's weapons go offline. Scotty has smuggled himself aboard and is in control of the engineering deck. By communicator, Kirk decides to space jump aross with Khan with Scotty opening the port at his end. I the meantime Spock calls New Vulcan...
.
.
.
Spock Prime appears on the view screen. Young Spock asks if, in his travels, they ever encountered a character called Khan? Spock Prime replies that Spock knows he swore he would never reveal details of their lives, but Khan was the most dangerous foe they ever faced and would kill them all without a thought. Spock asks whether they were able to defeat him and Spock Prime replies, "at great cost".
.
.
.
Just as Spock is hearing of Khan's treachery on the Enterprise, Khan escapes from Kirk on the Dreadnaught. To cut a long story short... A big space batltle ensues, with Khan demanding that the cryotubes be beamed aboard the Dreadnaught, but Spock is a step ahead of him and Bones has removed the Cryotubes and Spock has armed the torpedoes, so they blow a hole in the Dreadnaught and as Khan plummets towards Earth (did I mention he had pursued them at Warp back to Earth? ) he aims the dying ship at Starfleet Academy to wipe them out. But the Enterprise is also in trouble. The Warp core is offline and the area is irradiated with no way to fix it. So begins the final scenes of TWOK, in reverse, even with most of the same dialogue. Kirk goes into the chamber / giant beer factory, with Scotty screaming after him, gets the core back on line, Spock defeats Khan then gets a frantic message from Scott that he'd better get down there.

It's a lovely death scene, really. Poor Spock/Quinto is inconsolable. There is a lot of crying in this movie. Kirk dies.
.
.
.
Now you can guess what happens after that, can't you? We certainly did. And it did.

I'm getting pretty punchy. Might go and have a look at some of the other reviews and head to bed.

My impression was that, at first I thought all the Kirk/Spock Logic vs Feeling argument was a bit simplistic, but over the course of the movie, it played out beautifully with some great lines, and lots of emotion/tears. Similarly, the Kirk/Pike scenes are all wonderful.I think people will find the emotional component of this movie satisfying.

The effects are often brilliant, but I wasn't a fan of the 3D at all. At first it was cumbersome and distracting and after that I got used to it, but it doesn't really bring anything extra to the movie.

As for the parts of the plot that are rehashed from TOS prime universe. For a moment there, we got a bit excited that they were going to put a whole different twist on them, but it just wasn't enough of a twist, which left the end of the movie a bit predictable and flat. They perhaps should have branched into more unknown territory.

But as a movie about family, arguing and fighting but getting to know and trust and value each other, it was really lovely. It was certainly action-packed. If TWOK was a 9/10 and ST09 was an 8/10, I'd probably give this a 7, mostly for the raw emotion of the performances.

I hope that satisfies the hunger for this evening./spoiler]
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on April 24, 2013, 10:24:20 AM
[spoiler]Is this for real Bryan? I'm smelling some bull here...




Upon further research it seems legit. Thanks JJ you just saved me £10. What a joke....[/spoiler]
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: KingIsaacLinksr on April 24, 2013, 11:18:28 AM
[spoiler]If that's the plot to the movie, that's a terrible joke. It sounds like a fan-made production. And that's not a compliment.[/spoiler]
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on April 24, 2013, 11:34:49 AM
[spoiler]I'm not totally negative on it. Some good ideas but a lot of BAD choices in there too. Overall I am disappointed and will not support this by buying a ticket out of principle.[/spoiler]
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on April 24, 2013, 11:39:45 AM
Quote from: Dangelus on April 24, 2013, 10:24:20 AM
Is this for real Bryan? I'm smelling some bull here...




Upon further research it seems legit. Thanks JJ you just saved me £10. What a joke....

I believe it is as well, but Dan, perhaps put your reaction in a spoiler tag like Tim did as to not let on too much to others.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on April 24, 2013, 11:48:31 AM
Fixed my posts. This should be a fun month :-)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on April 24, 2013, 11:49:22 AM
Here are my thoughts...

[spoiler]I am glad I have read this synopsis as it allows me to go into the movie and not be shocked by the fact they are doing a re-imagining of Wrath of Khan, which is what this is. I am very surprised they felt they should go this direction, but I do think it speaks to how good a film the original was and the potential for a new version of it. Once I sufficiently get over that, i feel confident I can go see this and enjoy it for what it is.[/spoiler]
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on April 24, 2013, 12:41:56 PM
[spoiler] This would have been an OK story if Section 31 found and recruited Khan (if they could get the right actor!) or preferably another augment as Cumberbatch is a posh British guy, and went with the main crux of this story. No fan boyish remake of TWOK. Shoehorning in Carol Marcus, reverse TWOK climax with no payload because KHAN HAS MAGIC BLOOD! Please....[/spoiler]
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Geekyfanboy on April 24, 2013, 01:44:31 PM
Quote from: Bryancd on April 23, 2013, 04:31:06 PM
OK, for those who don't mind spoilers, like me, here's a much more detailed summary from the IMDB pages...What I think we should not do for those who want to not be spoiled, is comment or react without also tagging that with spoilers, that seems fair.

[spoiler]

I hope that satisfies the hunger for this evening./spoiler]

Where did you find this Bryan.. I couldn't find it on IMDB.. do you have a link?
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on April 24, 2013, 01:56:00 PM
I couldn't find it either. Looks like somebody has had a word with imdb and they got pulled. No reviews last time I looked. I found the same details on another site.

http://furiousfanboys.com/2013/04/star-trek-into-darkness-premiered-in-sydney-the-truth-is-here-spoilers/ (http://furiousfanboys.com/2013/04/star-trek-into-darkness-premiered-in-sydney-the-truth-is-here-spoilers/)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on April 24, 2013, 02:05:32 PM
New Japanese trailer with a few new parts in it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbm8I_d0KkI#ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbm8I_d0KkI#ws)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Meds on April 24, 2013, 02:24:52 PM
There is something ultra cool about having the Japanese voice over at the end.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on April 24, 2013, 02:56:20 PM
Quote from: Geekyfanboy on April 24, 2013, 01:44:31 PM
Quote from: Bryancd on April 23, 2013, 04:31:06 PM
OK, for those who don't mind spoilers, like me, here's a much more detailed summary from the IMDB pages...What I think we should not do for those who want to not be spoiled, is comment or react without also tagging that with spoilers, that seems fair.

[spoiler]

I hope that satisfies the hunger for this evening./spoiler]

Where did you find this Bryan.. I couldn't find it on IMDB.. do you have a link?

It's posted over at the RPF and is also on the TrekBBS board, Kenny.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Jobydrone on April 24, 2013, 04:23:53 PM
not reading any of this stuff...
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on April 24, 2013, 04:45:46 PM
Quote from: Jobydrone on April 24, 2013, 04:23:53 PM
not reading any of this stuff...

Chicken. :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on April 24, 2013, 05:39:22 PM
Quote from: Bryancd on April 24, 2013, 04:45:46 PM
Quote from: Jobydrone on April 24, 2013, 04:23:53 PM
not reading any of this stuff...

Chicken. :)

It's ok Joby, I guess I must be chicken too.  We've waited a long time for this movie.  I want to find out the details on opening day.  Not from the internet.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on April 24, 2013, 07:14:29 PM
We enjoy our fandom in different ways. I'm not a fan of surprises in general. I've said it here before, I have been loving being spoiled since Empire Strikes Back. It's part of the fun for me, if they had issued a book of this movie a month prior to the release like the used to do back in the day, I would be gobbling it up! I love it, and this build up has been a hoot! Now I just get to finally see all come to life without all the expectations of anything. That way it's hard to be disappointed. :) I have made peace with the story and can't wait to see the final product.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: X on April 24, 2013, 09:16:04 PM
I think that I've always enjoyed being spoiled. It lowers expectations and seems to make things more enjoyable. For me, since I already know the destination, I get to better enjoy the nuances of the journey.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: KingIsaacLinksr on April 24, 2013, 09:50:54 PM
[spoiler]Even after thinking it over for a full day, I'm still not happy with this. I think its unnecessary fan-fiction because the writers couldn't come up with something original, something new. We gotta rehash an old movie plotline. Yay. That....that's just cute. I still have hopes this is fake but considering what we've seen in the trailers, it's hard to deny. We'll find out soon enough I guess.

I guess this is why I can't get excited about movies anymore. It's just one rehash/reboot/remake after the other. With more special effects than you can shake a stick at and less interesting characters, plots and universes. Boring, dry, and dull. [/spoiler]
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on April 25, 2013, 05:34:53 AM
Quote from: KingIsaacLinksr on April 24, 2013, 09:50:54 PM
[spoiler]Even after thinking it over for a full day, I'm still not happy with this. I think its unnecessary fan-fiction because the writers couldn't come up with something original, something new. We gotta rehash an old movie plotline. Yay. That....that's just cute. I still have hopes this is fake but considering what we've seen in the trailers, it's hard to deny. We'll find out soon enough I guess.

I guess this is why I can't get excited about movies anymore. It's just one rehash/reboot/remake after the other. With more special effects than you can shake a stick at and less interesting characters, plots and universes. Boring, dry, and dull. [/spoiler]

[spoiler]I agree that's the initial knee jerk reaction, but I am going to take a step back and look at this as an interesting re-imaganing of TWOK. I sttill think it's going to be a fun ride. The biggest issue I have is that they are going to have Kirk die in a scene so identical to Spock's death. I think that was one step too far.[/spoiler]
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on April 25, 2013, 05:55:39 AM
Not to diverge off-topic too much, but for me there was nothing like seeing "The Empire Strikes Back" or "The Wrath of Khan" for the first time in theaters without already knowing about the big things that happened in those films.  That for me is pure movie magic.  Life has such few secrets and surprises anymore, that I relish any chance to experience those things when I can.  Heck, Lynn and I didn't even know if our kids were boys or girls until she delivered.  As Scotty likes to say, "that's exciting!"

But even with that, I respect those that don't care about those things.  Just keep those spoiler boxes coming then.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: X on April 25, 2013, 06:05:04 AM
[spoiler] I think that there is a huge difference between the same and similar. This doesn't at all seem like a remake of TWOK. Sure you, if everything we've read is true, have some of the same characters, it's not the same story. It doesn't seem anymore TWOK than it does Space Seed. This entire story seems vastly different than those two points of access to Khan. It would be like saying every episode of a tv show is a remake of the pilot because the use many of the same characters. While there is a huge homage to the old series with the antagonist, there are also nods to other series with the inclusion of 31. Upon reading the synopsis, I've come to the conclusion that I needs to see how it play out, but the direction makes sense. They took a little bit of the old and added a truck load of the new. Initial reaction aside, that really works for me.

Other than Khan, this doesn't seem anything like TWOK and I think that I want to see where they go without prejudging the whole thing. I see this as far less than a reimagining and more of them looking into the universe and showing us how different this place is to the Prime universe.[/spoiler]
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: X on April 25, 2013, 06:07:16 AM
Quote from: Rico on April 25, 2013, 05:55:39 AM
Not to diverge off-topic too much, but for me there was nothing like seeing "The Empire Strikes Back" or "The Wrath of Khan" for the first time in theaters without already knowing about the big things that happened in those films.  That for me is pure movie magic.  Life has such few secrets and surprises anymore, that I relish any chance to experience those things when I can.  Heck, Lynn and I didn't even know if our kids were boys or girls until she delivered.  As Scotty likes to say, "that's exciting!"

But even with that, I respect those that don't care about those things.  Just keep those spoiler boxes coming then.
I get what you're saying, but I really never found surprises fun. Hell, I don't like Christmas presents because they are surprises on delay. I have a real need to know things and look for answers. I think it could be on the level of OCD.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on April 25, 2013, 06:07:25 AM
Quote from: X on April 25, 2013, 06:05:04 AM
[spoiler] I think that there is a huge difference between the same and similar. This doesn't at all seem like a remake of TWOK. Sure you, if everything we've read is true, have some of the same characters, it's not the same story. It doesn't seem anymore TWOK than it does Space Seed. This entire story seems vastly different than those two points of access to Khan. It would be like saying every episode of a tv show is a remake of the pilot because the use many of the same characters. While there is a huge homage to the old series with the antagonist, there are also nods to other series with the inclusion of 31. Upon reading the synopsis, I've come to the conclusion that I needs to see how it play out, but the direction makes sense. They took a little bit of the old and added a truck load of the new. Initial reaction aside, that really works for me.

Other than Khan, this doesn't seem anything like TWOK and I think that I want to see where they go without prejudging the whole thing. I see this as far less than a reimagining and more of them looking into the universe and showing us how different this place is to the Prime universe.[/spoiler]

Agreed.  :thumbsup
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on April 25, 2013, 06:24:21 AM
Quote from: Rico on April 25, 2013, 05:55:39 AM
Not to diverge off-topic too much, but for me there was nothing like seeing "The Empire Strikes Back" or "The Wrath of Khan" for the first time in theaters without already knowing about the big things that happened in those films.  That for me is pure movie magic.  Life has such few secrets and surprises anymore, that I relish any chance to experience those things when I can.  Heck, Lynn and I didn't even know if our kids were boys or girls until she delivered.  As Scotty likes to say, "that's exciting!"

But even with that, I respect those that don't care about those things.  Just keep those spoiler boxes coming then.

Totally appreciate that point of view. For some reason I have been conditioned to assume life's suprises are more often then not undesirable and too be avoided at all costs! It makes sense when I consider my chosen career, risk management, is the avoidance of suprises and I live it!

Rico, did you at least llok at the pic I posted? It's not really a spoiler and is all over the web. I was curious to get your thoughts on the design.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on April 25, 2013, 02:44:47 PM
I've seen the pic of the big ship.  The ship is in the a couple of the trailer versions too and I consider trailers ok to look at since they are meant to tease and excite us for the film.  Hard to get a feel for the design from the pics - it's a bit of a dark colored ship.  Which is a change itself from most Starfleet vessels.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on April 25, 2013, 02:49:39 PM
Here is one with the contrast cranked up! I don't like it, it just doesn't look like it's from the Trek universe. It looks like a Starfleet ship combined with the Galactica or something. Too busy..  :thumbsdown But short lived, this is clearly the ship that crashes into San Francisco.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on April 25, 2013, 02:55:45 PM
The open saucer is kinda cool. It looks like one of those weird ships from the battle in First Contact.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on April 25, 2013, 02:57:03 PM
Knowing that the writers of this film know Trek and also know how the fans are about things like ships, I'm certain there will be some answers about this ship put in the film.  My guess still at this point is that it isn't a solely built by Starfleet ship - unless it's some kind of prototype.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on April 25, 2013, 03:31:14 PM
Well, needless to say I have been a bit underwhelmed by JJ's Art Dept for Trek. The new Enterprise is far from my favorite and I still think the bridge is way too flashy and don't get me started on the engineering section design choice. I do like the new phasers and uniforms though. This ship is just a big mess, IMO. I wouldn't even want to build a model of it.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: billybob476 on April 25, 2013, 09:08:23 PM
Heh, I didn't notice the open saucer until now. If you crack the saucer and warp engines off it kind of looks like Serenity.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Praxis on April 25, 2013, 10:08:39 PM
I kinda like it...it has ominous creepy prototype written all over it.
I also quite like the jj-prise, including the flashy bridge with retina-bursting lens flares. It's fun.  ;D
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Feathers on April 26, 2013, 02:23:19 AM
Yeah, the open saucer wasn't obvious until you pointed it out.

I'm slightly worried that I might not get to see this at all. Money's not flowing too freely at the moment...
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on April 28, 2013, 02:27:43 PM
I just finished the Countdown to Darkness comics. Not bad, I hope some of the characters shown in the comic make appearances in the film.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on April 29, 2013, 02:59:17 PM
Great clip...BUT if you watch it there is a potential spoiler at the end that an astute fan would catch, so you have been warned!
http://youtu.be/BlAx6GZyPuQ (http://youtu.be/BlAx6GZyPuQ)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on April 29, 2013, 03:50:41 PM
Man this movie is going to be good!  These guys are really putting it all out there - great acting.  And yeah Bryan, I get the reference you mentioned.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on April 29, 2013, 03:57:59 PM
It's not overt though. These guys are chewing scenery, I love it.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on April 29, 2013, 04:09:05 PM
Totally, they are both terrific in this scene, that's why I wanted to post it. Gripping stuff!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on April 29, 2013, 04:20:14 PM
Just bought my tickets for fan preview night on May 15th!  Woo-hoo!!!

P.S. They are giving out posters on this night too (see today's Daily Trek pic for info on that).

Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on April 29, 2013, 04:38:07 PM
We have a few IMAX theaters in metro Phoenix and not one is doing the sneak peak! Frack!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on April 29, 2013, 04:48:38 PM
Quote from: Bryancd on April 29, 2013, 04:38:07 PM
We have a few IMAX theaters in metro Phoenix and not one is doing the sneak peak! Frack!

Bryan, I think you are wrong.
http://www.imax.com/theatres/t/amc-deer-valley-30-imax/ (http://www.imax.com/theatres/t/amc-deer-valley-30-imax/)

Full listing:
http://www.imax.com/community/blog/star-trek-into-darkness-imax-fanfixtm-debut/ (http://www.imax.com/community/blog/star-trek-into-darkness-imax-fanfixtm-debut/)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on April 29, 2013, 05:14:07 PM
Dude, thank you! That's a bit of a haul for me but worth it!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on April 29, 2013, 09:32:52 PM
Thursday May 2nd

#AskBenedict

Interesting!


https://plus.google.com/106886664866983861036/posts/eAS3dkGF5S7
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on April 30, 2013, 03:48:44 AM
Quote from: Bryancd on April 29, 2013, 05:14:07 PM
Dude, thank you! That's a bit of a haul for me but worth it!

No problem.  The place I'm going is about 45 min from me too.  Of course, everything is at least 45 min away from where I live!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on April 30, 2013, 04:06:13 AM
New TV spot...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0guPa6iERY#ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0guPa6iERY#ws)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on April 30, 2013, 04:09:54 AM
Scotty profile...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UYUlMyhfwI#ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UYUlMyhfwI#ws)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on April 30, 2013, 09:39:31 AM
Really what they are doing....

[spoiler]They are remaking Space Seed. My biggest beef is still they are going to copy the Spock death scene but with Kirk this time.[/spoiler]
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on April 30, 2013, 01:33:05 PM
Earlier review from Empire Magazine is GOOD! Not too spoilery actually either.

http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/reviewcomplete.asp?FID=136708 (http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/reviewcomplete.asp?FID=136708)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on April 30, 2013, 02:17:08 PM
Again - not reading.  Nope... you can't make me. 

"There are four lights!!"
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on April 30, 2013, 02:47:06 PM
Quote from: Rico on April 30, 2013, 02:17:08 PM
Again - not reading.  Nope... you can't make me. 

"There are four lights!!"

Actually, there really are no meaningful spoilers in there at all. But I will give you the cliff notes version- 4 out of 5 Stars
Verdict
If this is Abrams' final frontier, he has left Star Trek in a good place, both in the fictional universe and as a franchise. In some sense, the title is misleading. Into Darkness is a blast, fun, funny, spectacular and exhilarating. The rule of great even-numbered Trek movies continues.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on April 30, 2013, 04:01:54 PM
Was there ever any doubt this movie was going to be awesome?  I keep telling everyone - these guys "get Trek" and know how to make a great movie out of it too!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on April 30, 2013, 04:05:58 PM
It's not fair we have to wait another 2 1/2 weeks!! B.S!! Jive I say!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on April 30, 2013, 04:38:27 PM
Quote from: Rico on April 30, 2013, 04:01:54 PM
Was there ever any doubt this movie was going to be awesome?  I keep telling everyone - these guys "get Trek" and know how to make a great movie out of it too!

Was there any doubt the movie would be great fun? Not really. Do these guys "get Trek"? That is debatable still, in my opinion.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on April 30, 2013, 06:10:36 PM
Quote from: Bryancd on April 30, 2013, 04:38:27 PM
Quote from: Rico on April 30, 2013, 04:01:54 PM
Was there ever any doubt this movie was going to be awesome?  I keep telling everyone - these guys "get Trek" and know how to make a great movie out of it too!

Was there any doubt the movie would be great fun? Not really. Do these guys "get Trek"? That is debatable still, in my opinion.

Be happy to debate you on that some time after the new movie comes out.  I wouldn't be nearly as excited for this if it wasn't Trek and was just some other 'space movie.'  Like I said above, they know Trek, they know these characters and how to use all that in a 2 hr. film.  I saw that in 2009 and I expect to see it even more this time.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on May 01, 2013, 05:12:36 AM
I like this one!

Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on May 01, 2013, 05:15:37 AM
This is a great video at the Berlin premiere with some of the stars saying hello to the folks over at trekmovie.com.  Make sure to watch to the end and see just how cool and funny JJ Abrams can be.  I love this group of people!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkvs6hwRnPU#ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkvs6hwRnPU#ws)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on May 01, 2013, 05:59:29 AM
Quote from: Rico on May 01, 2013, 05:12:36 AM
I like this one!



It is cool but why did they scale down the Enterprise SO much?  :wacko
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on May 01, 2013, 06:11:37 AM
Quote from: Bryancd on May 01, 2013, 05:59:29 AM
Quote from: Rico on May 01, 2013, 05:12:36 AM
I like this one!





It is cool but why did they scale down the Enterprise SO much?  :wacko

That's called artistic license.  I love it.  Someone actually thought about how to make something exciting and more dramatic rather than just grab a still image directly from the film.  Best official poster so far - in my opinion.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on May 01, 2013, 06:18:42 AM
Some new TV commercial spots for the movie:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGj6PFTAero#ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGj6PFTAero#ws)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiCNHXKZ4yc#ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiCNHXKZ4yc#ws)

Star Trek Into Darkness TV Spot "Reputation" [SD] (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0guPa6iERY#ws)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Praxis on May 01, 2013, 06:25:44 AM
Quote from: Rico on April 30, 2013, 02:17:08 PM
Again - not reading.  Nope... you can't make me. 

"There are four lights!!"
:laugh: hahaha, nice one.
Yeah I'm with you on that.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on May 01, 2013, 06:52:43 AM
Quote from: Rico on April 30, 2013, 06:10:36 PM
Be happy to debate you on that some time after the new movie comes out. 

I actually don't mean that as a knock on them at all. I love these guys as well (well, a little peeved at Lindeloff over some of Prometheus) and think they have crafted some terrific characters and situations based on STAR TREK. But I still consider this an entirely new universe separate from classic Trek, not because I am being belligerent and precious about old Trek, simply because for me it reads and play so differently. Gene's Trek was very different from this. I think once he passed away and TNG really took off, the writers and producers explored and expanded the universe and it was great for the most part, but it always still had a lot of the basic tenants that Gene infused into his creation. I think this new crew is taking a very different direction with the franchise and it's the right call and works great, but I think JJ was brought in because he wasn't a Trek fan per se and was able to craft his own vision separate from that of Gene's. That's what I mean that I think it's debatable they know Trek, I think the only want to really know it to a point but don't want that to color their perception.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on May 01, 2013, 07:03:32 AM
Pretty much completely agree with you Bryan.  My point has been they know what will work for Trek in a film and know the details and background and decide what to use or reshape to work best for a film.  These guys are great at the filmed version of Trek, but if it ever went to TV again I'd want Ron Moore or Manny Coto or someone back who knows how to do Trek on weekly TV.  That's a very different animal.  I'm just so happy that it seems Trek at the movies is rocking so much these days.  Finally, it's pulling in the new fans it will need to continue to thrive for many years to come. 
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on May 01, 2013, 07:05:46 AM
Quote from: Rico on May 01, 2013, 07:03:32 AM
Pretty much completely agree with you Bryan.  My point has been they know what will work for Trek in a film and know the details and background and decide what to use or reshape to work best for a film.  These guys are great at the filmed version of Trek, but if it ever went to TV again I'd want Ron Moore or Manny Coto or someone back who knows how to do Trek on weekly TV.  That's a very different animal.  I'm just so happy that it seems Trek at the movies is rocking so much these days.  Finally, it's pulling in the new fans it will need to continue to thrive for many years to come.

Yep, and that's a great distinction which we have all discussed previously, Trek TV vs. films and how different they are.  :thumbsup
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Jobydrone on May 01, 2013, 07:16:03 AM
I think they know and get what most people love about Trek, particularly TOS, and have done a great job incorporating those things into the reboot, as well as making it much more accessible and enjoyable (in a great way) to general audiences.  I just watched the most recent film again a few days ago and felt that very strongly...that these writers really understood what was loved about the characters, especially the core three, and took great pains to incorporate those things into the new movie. 

What I'm most interested in seeing about this new film, is how well the writers continue to create such compelling material without the "crutch" of some of the low hanging fruit that was available to them in the first film.  It's a little easier to write a great script (I would imagine anyway) when you have the first meetings of all these iconic, beloved characters to chronicle.  I have no doubt they can do it, I'm just very interested to see how they do it.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on May 01, 2013, 04:36:03 PM
This has been all over the place today so I am officially calling it NOT a spoiler..Q'pla!  :klingon
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on May 01, 2013, 04:47:57 PM
That's taken from the Harrison/Uhura promo video, not a spoiler since it's in official promo content released.  Plus, we've known about the Klingons in this movie for awhile now.  Here's the whole video clip it's taken from (I put this already up on the main site too along with the other Harrison profile videos too).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfn7we2m5V8#ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfn7we2m5V8#ws)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on May 01, 2013, 04:49:41 PM
Another video showing Kirk and Spock meeting a certain new officer for the first time.
(Have we seen the whole movie by this point now?  LOL!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcTFw8v1izY#ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcTFw8v1izY#ws)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Praxis on May 01, 2013, 09:39:43 PM
Quote from: Bryancd on May 01, 2013, 04:36:03 PM
This has been all over the place today so I am officially calling it NOT a spoiler..Q'pla!  :klingon

Makeup is lookin pretty cool to me. I am so excited for klingon goodness  :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Feathers on May 02, 2013, 08:23:09 AM
Quote from: Rico on May 01, 2013, 04:49:41 PM
(Have we seen the whole movie by this point now?  LOL!)

Given how little was being released up front a while back, there's a certain irony in the sheer volume of content that's being pumped out at the moment.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: billybob476 on May 02, 2013, 09:54:47 AM
3D trailer will be available today at 12 PM Pacific time

http://www.areyouthe1701.com/3DTrailer/ (http://www.areyouthe1701.com/3DTrailer/)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Praxis on May 02, 2013, 12:13:59 PM
Quote from: billybob476 on May 02, 2013, 09:54:47 AM
3D trailer will be available today at 12 PM Pacific time

http://www.areyouthe1701.com/3DTrailer/ (http://www.areyouthe1701.com/3DTrailer/)
Sweet! All I need is some 3d glasses......hmm  8)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: billybob476 on May 02, 2013, 12:16:29 PM
Red/Blue glasses required.

Star Trek Into Darkness Official 3D Trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=se2D5XONAAI#ws)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on May 02, 2013, 01:46:26 PM
Cool!  Oh, but this is the best trailer so far down below.  LOL!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEq2L78L39w#ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEq2L78L39w#ws)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: X on May 03, 2013, 02:34:11 PM
Trek preview and Abrams Q&A are now up on XBOX live
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: fatfather_2005 on May 04, 2013, 05:24:31 PM
i have said this on several site i comment on. i think it is too early to bash jj abrams for his star trek reboot. i am glad to see all the clips, but i do think it is overkill a bit.
now, it is widely known that J.J. is not a big star trek, but he has done well in it. gene roddenberry's vision of star trek is on of complete utopia.  when he died the people running TNG,DS9,VOG played in his universe and built on it.
what j.j did was pull pieces of what he did like in the star trek universe and built on it.
i am holding off passing judgement on this movie until i see it.( steps down off soapbox, exits stage left, lol)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on May 04, 2013, 05:53:42 PM
There is always going to be the "old guard" complaining about the changes to things they've read or watched for many years. I've seen it twice in comics, with DC in the 80's rebooting their characters from the Silver Age to the Modern Age after Crisis, and then right now with DC's New 52. Both times the old guard said "You can't do that, my childhood, aaaahhhh". But it's fine. It's part of life. If things don't change they become stale. Certainly Trek fans should appreciate that.

In the end, if you prefer TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY or ENT...those shows are still there. They happened. This is an alternate timeline, as I just said on the Skype call cast, I think of it as a "Soft Mirror Universe". It's a way to invigorate a franchise that for all intents and purposes was dead in the water, and is now vibrant and at the forefront of pop culture again. I love it. Trek is cool. Been a long time coming.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on May 05, 2013, 03:18:50 PM
Again, I am going to warn about spoilers.  Just because information is online does not mean it is not a spoiler.  Rules here as follows:

Ok to post and discuss:  Official trailers, video clips, etc. from the studio.  Official pictures, publicity stills, etc. from the studio.

Not ok to post:  Information posted related to things in the film that at this point reviewers and some people have seen in other countries.  This information is not official publicity coming from the studio. 

I have a pretty intractable view on this.  Please consider carefully about what you post and even links to things or items even in spoiler boxes.  There really is no need for any of that here at this point.  If you want that information, everyone here is capable of using Google and finding it if they want to do that.  No need to post it here.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Jobydrone on May 06, 2013, 08:58:01 AM
I've been on a media blackout about this movie ever since I saw all the spoiler tags go up on this post a couple of weeks ago.  I also very much prefer going into these kind of big films un-spoiled so thanks Rico for the reminder!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on May 06, 2013, 09:12:05 AM
Media blackout is one thing, but be careful on the forums and the Facebook group for TSF.  A spoiler got posted last night on the TSF Facebook group page.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: jedijeff on May 06, 2013, 11:57:12 AM
I was watching the Big Bang Theory the other day, and they had a preview for the new Trek movie, I just about fast forwarded through it as I was concerned I would see to much. I really pick and choose what I read now as well.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Meds on May 06, 2013, 02:17:52 PM
I understand what everyone is saying but honestly Facebook is a open network you're gonna see things. Now I'm seeing it on Thursday I'm not going to post any spoilers, I don't on Dr Who but guys/gals we have a spoiler tag here for a reason. If you really can't stop yourself from pressing the spoiler tag then i'd hate to be next to you if there was a big red button saying don't press, end of the world. ;)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on May 06, 2013, 02:35:20 PM
Facebook is open, but I was hoping the FB TSF group there would be a bit more careful.  I don't just go looking anywhere online.  It's a losing battle I know. 
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Jobydrone on May 06, 2013, 05:39:00 PM
I agree Meds, of course, if you press that spoiler button all bets are off, and you've only yourself to blame if you see something you didn't want to know.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Meds on May 07, 2013, 12:40:15 PM
You know I reckon the TSF FB page will be spoiler free now you have put your request on there. Lately I record Dr Who because its on when my little one has her bath and story time and i stay away from twitter and facebook but thats just for a few hours,  staying away from spoilers for a week is near enough impossible.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on May 07, 2013, 03:30:12 PM
http://www.areyouthe1701.com/#/Carol (http://www.areyouthe1701.com/#/Carol)

http://www.areyouthe1701.com/#/Sulu (http://www.areyouthe1701.com/#/Sulu)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on May 07, 2013, 04:17:36 PM
Official North American release date moved up one day to May 16th!

http://trekmovie.com/2013/05/07/star-trek-into-darkness-release-date-moved-up-to-thursday-may-16/ (http://trekmovie.com/2013/05/07/star-trek-into-darkness-release-date-moved-up-to-thursday-may-16/)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Ktrek on May 07, 2013, 04:31:48 PM
I'm on vacation next week so maybe I'll get to see it a couple of times, that is if it's worth a second viewing. So, I guess I'll see what the earliest time I can see it on the morning or afternoon of the 16th.

In related news Star Trek Magazine released their "Special Edition' for the movie packed with interviews and pictures. It's thicker than their normal run and costs $14.99. My wife picked one up for me today at Barnes and Noble but I'm afraid to read it because I have been avoiding spoilers. I want the movie to be full of surprises for me.

(http://media.titanmagazines.com/magazines/issues/cover/newsstandcover_1.jpg)

Kevin
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: jedijeff on May 08, 2013, 12:02:10 PM
This should hold us over until the Movie comes out
Honest Trailers - Star Trek (2009) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTfBH-XFdSc#ws)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on May 08, 2013, 01:55:05 PM
"JJ Abrams demo-reel for Star Wars..." Pretty funny! Big eyes, long face and TAN MOM.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Praxis on May 09, 2013, 06:54:59 AM
oh man, that is so funny
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Meds on May 09, 2013, 03:36:51 PM
NO SPOILERS HERE

IN FACT IM NOT EVEN DOING A REVIEW IN A SPOILER TAG

ALL I WILL SAY IS I BLOODY WELL LOVED EVERY MINUTE OF IT

IF YOU ARE EXCITED NOW, TRUST ME YOU'll WET YOUR PANTS WHEN YOU GET IN THE CINEMA.

:D
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on May 09, 2013, 03:56:38 PM
Sweet, Meds! I'll get my Depends ready for next week!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: moyer777 on May 09, 2013, 04:02:06 PM
oh man.....
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on May 09, 2013, 04:04:32 PM
Quote from: Meds on May 09, 2013, 03:36:51 PM
NO SPOILERS HERE

IN FACT IM NOT EVEN DOING A REVIEW IN A SPOILER TAG

ALL I WILL SAY IS I BLOODY WELL LOVED EVERY MINUTE OF IT

IF YOU ARE EXCITED NOW, TRUST ME YOU'll WET YOUR PANTS WHEN YOU GET IN THE CINEMA.

:D

Yep, over on the RPF folks in the UK and a few who have seen screening last night in LA are saying the same thing, they say it's terrific. Can't wait!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bromptonboy on May 09, 2013, 04:09:42 PM
Excellent!  Can't wait.  Although my feed in facebook had a bunch of spoilers from various sources.  :(
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on May 09, 2013, 04:18:04 PM
Quote from: Bromptonboy on May 09, 2013, 04:09:42 PM
Excellent!  Can't wait.  Although my feed in facebook had a bunch of spoilers from various sources.  :(

It won't matter one bit, Pete.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Meds on May 09, 2013, 04:25:22 PM
A lot of the things I've read as spoilers were wrong lol.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on May 09, 2013, 04:27:41 PM
Quote from: Meds on May 09, 2013, 04:25:22 PM
A lot of the things I've read as spoilers were wrong lol.

Yeah, and everyone who I knew who are totally spoiled going in have loved it.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on May 09, 2013, 09:20:20 PM
Great :-)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Meds on May 09, 2013, 10:43:19 PM
I've been chatting with Bry on message and the only thing that dents the film is one little scene, no need for it.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on May 10, 2013, 04:48:31 AM
I have come to the conclusion based on our chat, Meds, as well as what I have read elsewhere my biggest issue with this movie is going to be the abject failure of JJ's secrecy efforts. I think that did not serve the build up of fan anticipation at all and at the end of the day based on the movie we are all about to see, was completely unnecessary. Hopefully he learned his lesson and will manage it better for STAR WARS.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: billybob476 on May 10, 2013, 05:46:34 AM
Quote from: Bryancd on May 10, 2013, 04:48:31 AM
I have come to the conclusion based on our chat, Meds, as well as what I have read elsewhere my biggest issue with this movie is going to be the abject failure of JJ's secrecy efforts. I think that did not serve the build up of fan anticipation at all and at the end of the day based on the movie we are all about to see, was completely unnecessary. Hopefully he learned his lesson and will manage it better for STAR WARS.

Agreed, if anything it irritated fans and made us overanalyze anything that did come out.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on May 10, 2013, 05:52:19 AM
I don't agree.  But that's all I'm going to say at this point.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on May 10, 2013, 06:06:53 AM
Quote from: Rico on May 10, 2013, 05:52:19 AM
I don't agree.  But that's all I'm going to say at this point.

I agree it's subjective, everyone is going to have different expectations about what they want to know or not know prior to the films release, but for me, it was a tempest in a tea pot that at the end of the day could have been handled more deftly.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: billybob476 on May 10, 2013, 06:09:39 AM
Just all the kerfuffle over the villain's name, what was the difference at the end of the day?
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on May 10, 2013, 06:12:25 AM
Quote from: billybob476 on May 10, 2013, 06:09:39 AM
Just all the kerfuffle over the villain's name, what was the difference at the end of the day?

Indeed, that's my point, it doesn't seem to even matter or impact the film's strengths based on what people are saying, pretty much universally. Which is a very good thing.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: X on May 10, 2013, 07:57:11 AM
I think at the end of the day, it really doesn't matter one way or another. I honestly think that the lay person going to this movie doesn't care at all that there was secrecy involved. In their eyes, there wasn't any secrecy. They saw cool trailers and an idea of the plot. That's nothing more or nothing less than any other movie that's out there. I think people that were "in the know" were looking for information and didn't like the run around, but that's probably a very small percentage of the people that will see the movie.

If you think about it, we haven't had that much secrecy when compared to any other movie in the last few years.

Also, isn't misdirection in trailers a staple of Star Trek films? Off the top of my head, I remember the images of Kirk getting basted by a phaser and vaporizing in undiscovered country trailers and that was serious misdirection.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on May 10, 2013, 08:14:59 AM
I have no problem with the trailers, it was the qoutes and public comments of the cast and crew, either by design or accident, which made it so messy.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on May 10, 2013, 08:25:12 AM
Quote from: X on May 10, 2013, 07:57:11 AM

Also, isn't misdirection in trailers a staple of Star Trek films? Off the top of my head, I remember the images of Kirk getting basted by a phaser and vaporizing in undiscovered country trailers and that was serious misdirection.
Holy crap, I remember seeing that trailer when I was in high school and freaking out! I think you're right that what drives people to the theater is cool looking trailers. I know people who weren't excited about a Superman movie that saw the latest trailer and got pretty pumped. They don't care who the villain is on the latest Star Trek movie, it just has to look like fun.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Jobydrone on May 10, 2013, 10:22:18 AM
Quote from: X on May 10, 2013, 07:57:11 AM

Also, isn't misdirection in trailers a staple of Star Trek films? Off the top of my head, I remember the images of Kirk getting basted by a phaser and vaporizing in undiscovered country trailers and that was serious misdirection.
Ha ha, what a great point!  I remember this as well, but I also remember thinking it was pretty cheap at the time.  I don't think it's ever a good idea to make a fan feel like you are purposely lying to them just to get a few extra bodies in the seats. 
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: robbo1510 on May 11, 2013, 12:06:11 PM
Quote from: Meds on May 09, 2013, 03:36:51 PM
NO SPOILERS HERE

IN FACT IM NOT EVEN DOING A REVIEW IN A SPOILER TAG

ALL I WILL SAY IS I BLOODY WELL LOVED EVERY MINUTE OF IT

IF YOU ARE EXCITED NOW, TRUST ME YOU'll WET YOUR PANTS WHEN YOU GET IN THE CINEMA.

:D

Saw it last night in 3D and really enjoyed it. A group of 4 of us to see it. Three Trek fans & one who has seen very little Trek. Everyone loved it :) Bring on the 3rd instalment !
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Meds on May 12, 2013, 04:33:17 AM
After a few days of reflection I still stand by my reaction post but have come to the conclusion some scenes were incredibly lazy in writing. You'll see why.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on May 12, 2013, 05:33:34 AM
Meds and others that have seen the film, don't forget to send me a short video review of the film for next week's podcast.  Use the FTP upload site or other means to get me the file.  Thanks!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on May 12, 2013, 05:46:30 AM
Quote from: Rico on May 12, 2013, 05:33:34 AM
Meds and others that have seen the film, don't forget to send me a short video review of the film for next week's podcast.  Use the FTP upload site or other means to get me the file.  Thanks!

Do our video reviews have to be spoiler free?
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on May 12, 2013, 05:49:39 AM
Quote from: Bryancd on May 12, 2013, 05:46:30 AM
Quote from: Rico on May 12, 2013, 05:33:34 AM
Meds and others that have seen the film, don't forget to send me a short video review of the film for next week's podcast.  Use the FTP upload site or other means to get me the file.  Thanks!

Do our video reviews have to be spoiler free?

Nope.  Spoil away.  This podcast will be released late next weekend and will contain a BIG spoiler warning and tag at the start of the show.  Just like we did back in 2009 after the last movie came out.  This is the show to finally talk freely about the movie.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on May 12, 2013, 05:52:05 AM
Good deal!  :thumbsup
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Meds on May 12, 2013, 03:29:05 PM
Coolio will record a video on my iPad thingy and send it you tomorrow (obviously don't watch it Rico till you've seen the film lol
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: billybob476 on May 12, 2013, 04:52:57 PM
OMG how are you going to get Coolio to record a video on your iPad?! :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: bevs_plaything on May 14, 2013, 08:10:50 AM
I only saw the movie this afternoon and enjoyed it!  A couple of points I wasn't too happy about, but they can wait until everyone has a chance to have seen it.   The 3D version was good!!  :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on May 14, 2013, 04:27:40 PM
This will be where me and my friend Mark will be tomorrow night!  OH YEAH!!!!   :wub
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on May 14, 2013, 04:55:02 PM
Why, is somethin' going on? I haven't been paying attention to the news lately.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: moyer777 on May 14, 2013, 09:43:29 PM
I'll be in one like that too!!!  8pm baby!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bromptonboy on May 15, 2013, 03:22:11 AM
Won't get to see this until next week some time.  :(
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: bevs_plaything on May 15, 2013, 06:40:07 AM
Quote from: Rico on May 14, 2013, 04:27:40 PM
This will be where me and my friend Mark will be tomorrow night!  OH YEAH!!!!   :wub

Rico, that's  a pretty impressive screen!!!!  :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: moyer777 on May 15, 2013, 01:27:55 PM
Ok, I'm all giddy.  Gid Gid   time goes slow when you want it to go fast.  LOL.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Praxis on May 15, 2013, 02:20:46 PM
oh man..I'm doing friday morning 9am show baby!! Hard to wait, but I'm attempting to savor the anticipation
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: moyer777 on May 15, 2013, 02:57:35 PM
There seems to be a rift in the time space continuum....
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: moyer777 on May 15, 2013, 03:18:30 PM
oh yeah
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on May 15, 2013, 03:56:25 PM
Paul Schipper did a poster for STID. Pretty sure I like it better than the licensed stuff. The one of the Ent crashing is pretty neat, though.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: jedijeff on May 15, 2013, 05:18:07 PM
Enjoy the premiers tonight guys. I am going Saturday afternoon, so just have to make it a few more days. Cool poster Chris, I wish Studios would do more of these, even if it is not their official poster, make it a variant or lesser released poster, so that collectors could have them.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: RickPeete on May 15, 2013, 05:27:31 PM
35 minutes until movie starts! And they handed out a wide poster -- maybe 4ft wide by 18 inches high -- of the Enterprise against a starscape. And it is a glow-in-the-dark poster too! Pretty cool!

Can't wait for it to begin! :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Jobydrone on May 15, 2013, 07:52:25 PM
Wow just got done...still processing but I feel right now like it was everything I wanted from a sequel.  Really loved it and can't wait to see it again.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on May 15, 2013, 08:22:38 PM
That was a lot of fun! I'm also still taking it all in. IMAX was fun, and loud! Even the 3d was ok and got a nice poster too.  I need to see it again soon to catch some things more. So, everyone go see it soon so we can discuss openly.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Jobydrone on May 15, 2013, 08:25:29 PM
Spoiler free till Sunday?  I was gypped, no poster for me! 
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on May 15, 2013, 08:33:06 PM
Quote from: Jobydrone on May 15, 2013, 08:25:29 PM
Spoiler free till Sunday?  I was gypped, no poster for me! 

At least til Sunday here. Posters were given out as we walked out. It's big too.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Jobydrone on May 16, 2013, 05:47:33 AM
Just went back and read all the spoilers earlier on in this thread. Amazing that someone with early access chose to basically write the entire plot of the movie on IMDB for anyone to see. Kind of a dick-move if you ask me.  Spoilers abound behind the button so beware:

[spoiler]after a night to reflect I really feel like they did right by WoK, the basic premise of Space Seed and the character of Khan, as well as everything I loved about the first film in this new Star Trek series. I think it's very easy to enjoy this film as long as you don't get hung up on the time stream issues and worry too much about what came in previous films. The whole ending sequence is like an über version of DC else worlds or Marvels What If? series except with a 200 million dollar budget behind it. I loved seeing the end of WoK imagined from the reverse perspective and for me it really worked, even though to an extent Spock and Kirk haven't really had the adventures and experiences (or we haven't seen them at least) to warrant the emotional gravitas in that scene.  I choose to remember that nothing that happened in this film takes anything away from what we've seen before. Ill always have my memories of TOS and WoK and those films will live forever. This film is an alternate take for a new generation of fans, and it's really powerful in my opinion. I imagine the end viewed from the perspective of someone who's never seen WoK, and even without all the subtext that you only notice if you've seen the earlier films, I think it's a really well done climax. Quinto's "KHAAAN!!!" was a fist pumper for sure. I also appreciate that we don't need an entire film to bring Kirk back to life :)[/spoiler]
That's it for now, can't wait to read some more opinions.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bromptonboy on May 16, 2013, 07:49:07 AM
(Internal dialogue)

Must not look....Must not look! 
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: moyer777 on May 16, 2013, 08:20:32 AM
It was even better than I had hoped!  So many things to talk about!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Jobydrone on May 16, 2013, 08:46:43 AM
Don't look Pete!!!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: MARKO on May 16, 2013, 09:34:08 AM
I looked and read the spoiler but didn't understand any of it? huh.....
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on May 16, 2013, 09:57:54 AM
It's a spoiler confirming the spoilers so don't worry about it :-)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bromptonboy on May 16, 2013, 10:29:07 AM
Do any of you think it was too intense for an 11 and 12 year old?
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: moyer777 on May 16, 2013, 10:56:41 AM
It's very intense.  Depends on the exposure to violent and adult themes they have had....
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bromptonboy on May 16, 2013, 11:00:55 AM
Quote from: moyer777 on May 16, 2013, 10:56:41 AM
It's very intense.  Depends on the exposure to violent and adult themes they have had....

Hmm, best not to bring my daughter then (12) - she has a low tolerance for that.  She also has a low tolerance for me taking my son to a movie and not bringing her!  :) 

I'll need the wisdom of Solomon for this one...
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: moyer777 on May 16, 2013, 11:03:01 AM
as far as

[spoiler]Spock's Kaaaaaahhhhhhhn!  a bunch of people laughed in our theater.   It was stupid, in my opinion, it was like Darth Vader yelling NOOOOOOO in his "Rise) scene.  It just didn't fit.  Not sure if the old Spock was necessary, he looks like he is going to choke on dust and die... hahaha, but in our showing there were several times that we all applauded and yelled out loud in excitement!  It was so fun!  The opening sequence reminded me of Raiders of the Lost Ark, and seeing the Enterprise rise from the Ocean was spectacular!  The IMAX sound was amazing, but VERY LOUD, and that is saying something coming from me.  The 3D effects were really excellent, I thought they did a great job on them.  The Klingons were mystical and cool, loved their eyes!!![/spoiler]
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Meds on May 16, 2013, 11:52:05 AM
Rick I have just said the exact same thing on my video that is currently uploading to Rico's FTP site.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: moyer777 on May 16, 2013, 12:11:14 PM
I'm just editing my video now.  LOL
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Jobydrone on May 16, 2013, 12:43:24 PM
Quote from: moyer777 on May 16, 2013, 11:03:01 AM
as far as

[spoiler]Spock's Kaaaaaahhhhhhhn!  a bunch of people laughed in our theater.   It was stupid, in my opinion, it was like Darth Vader yelling NOOOOOOO in his "Rise) scene.  It just didn't fit.  Not sure if the old Spock was necessary, he looks like he is going to choke on dust and die... hahaha, but in our showing there were several times that we all applauded and yelled out loud in excitement!  It was so fun!  The opening sequence reminded me of Raiders of the Lost Ark, and seeing the Enterprise rise from the Ocean was spectacular!  The IMAX sound was amazing, but VERY LOUD, and that is saying something coming from me.  The 3D effects were really excellent, I thought they did a great job on them.  The Klingons were mystical and cool, loved their eyes!!![/spoiler]
Wow I had the exact opposite reaction to [spoiler]Spock's "KHAAAANN!!!"  I almost jumped out of my chair and yelled it with him![/spoiler]  I totally agree about the intensity and the violence.  This is by far the most violent Star Trek movie in the series.  There is some real brutality and some shocking moments, not for young kids, I think.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: wraith1701 on May 16, 2013, 02:01:46 PM
Quote from: moyer777 on May 16, 2013, 11:03:01 AM
as far as

[spoiler]Spock's Kaaaaaahhhhhhhn!  a bunch of people laughed in our theater.   It was stupid, in my opinion, it was like Darth Vader yelling NOOOOOOO in his "Rise) scene.  It just didn't fit.  Not sure if the old Spock was necessary, he looks like he is going to choke on dust and die... hahaha, but in our showing there were several times that we all applauded and yelled out loud in excitement!  It was so fun!  The opening sequence reminded me of Raiders of the Lost Ark, and seeing the Enterprise rise from the Ocean was spectacular!  The IMAX sound was amazing, but VERY LOUD, and that is saying something coming from me.  The 3D effects were really excellent, I thought they did a great job on them.  The Klingons were mystical and cool, loved their eyes!!![/spoiler]

I enjoyed the film overall, but you nailed the one thing I actually actively disliked.  That moment made me shrink down in my seat a little & cringe out of sympathetic embarrassment for the film. 

Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on May 16, 2013, 02:28:57 PM
Well, I loved it.   

[spoiler]I sent a video into Rico with my thoughts. First off, I was very happy to be completely spoiled for the story and the major plot points, characters, even the Kirk death scene. That might have been tough to take going in cold for me. I still find it curious why they felt the need to revisit the basics of this story, although this is a very different telling of it. The characters where terrific,all the actors were spot on perfect. I was charmed, engaged, invested in all the personal relationships. The movie was 100% perfect up until the Khan reveal and the return of Admiral Marcus. It took the focus off Khan and suddenly he and Kirk are having adventures together. Then we have the very clunky scene with Spock Prime which was clearly there for no other reason then to remind the audience that Khan is the bad guy. Once they get through that, the film picks back up for me and even though I was a concerned about the beat for beat death scene imitation, it played great because I cared and believed Kirk and Spock were that close. [/spoiler]
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on May 16, 2013, 03:45:44 PM
Again - everyone that can (and hasn't yet) send in a video for this weekend's big, spoiler filled vidcast about the movie!  I'm frankly still gathering my thoughts about it one day later.  I plan on trying to see it once again in non-3D soon - probably Saturday before I record my video review and comments.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on May 16, 2013, 04:03:25 PM
Sent my video this afternoon!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on May 16, 2013, 04:14:24 PM
Thanks Bryan.  I'll start checking out the videos tomorrow once this week is finally over.  Been crazy!!!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Geekyfanboy on May 16, 2013, 04:17:02 PM
I'm not seeing it until Saturday afternoon.. but I'll do my best to get a video into to you.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on May 16, 2013, 04:17:22 PM
Quote from: Rico on May 16, 2013, 04:14:24 PM
Thanks Bryan.  I'll start checking out the videos tomorrow once this week is finally over.  Been crazy!!!

I bet! Hope all is well at the new job!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on May 16, 2013, 04:31:51 PM
Quote from: Geekyfanboy on May 16, 2013, 04:17:02 PM
I'm not seeing it until Saturday afternoon.. but I'll do my best to get a video into to you.

Please do Kenny.  Even up to the afternoon on Sunday to get it to me is fine.  Love to hear what you think.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: wraith1701 on May 16, 2013, 04:44:59 PM
Quote from: Rico on May 16, 2013, 03:45:44 PM
Again - everyone that can (and hasn't yet) send in a video for this weekend's big, spoiler filled vidcast about the movie!  I'm frankly still gathering my thoughts about it one day later.  I plan on trying to see it once again in non-3D soon - probably Saturday before I record my video review and comments.

I feel you on the Gathering your thoughts thing.  I'm still digesting the movie myself.  The more I think about it, the more impressed I am at what the movie did. 

[spoiler]  I absolutely love the fact that this film served to give Kirk & the crew some more seasoning.   When I watched the last film, I assumed that the next step was the beginning of the crew's first Five Year Mission.  Somehow, Kirk and the crew felt a little too green to be jumping off into what I thought was a parallel to the beginning of the original TV series.   

After the events of this film, Kirk & the crew feel a little more ready.  They've gone through some pretty harrowing stuff, and I feel that THIS crew is ready to begin the Five Year Mission.  They don't feel like a bunch of kids thrown together by circumstances; they now feel like a seasoned group of professionals with the experience and maturity to go where no one has gone before.  :)  [/spoiler]

Quote from: Bryancd on May 16, 2013, 02:28:57 PM
Well, I loved it.   

[spoiler]I sent a video into Rico with my thoughts. First off, I was very happy to be completely spoiled for the story and the major plot points, characters, even the Kirk death scene. That might have been tough to take going in cold for me. I still find it curious why they felt the need to revisit the basics of this story, although this is a very different telling of it. The characters where terrific,all the actors were spot on perfect. I was charmed, engaged, invested in all the personal relationships. The movie was 100% perfect up until the Khan reveal and the return of Admiral Marcus. It took the focus off Khan and suddenly he and Kirk are having adventures together. Then we have the very clunky scene with Spock Prime which was clearly there for no other reason then to remind the audience that Khan is the bad guy. Once they get through that, the film picks back up for me and even though I was a concerned about the beat for beat death scene imitation, it played great because I cared and believed Kirk and Spock were that close. [/spoiler]

I loved the movie as well.

[spoiler]  I was kind of hoodwinked by the Khan & Kirk adventures.  Kudos to the writers; they had me believing that this was a different, more sympathetic Khan instead of the villain he turned out to be.    [/spoiler]

[spoiler] OH!!!  I just remembered one of the things that almost had me jumping out of my seat with glee!  FINALLY SEEING THE KLINGONS UNMASKED!!!!!  I am so freaking GLAD they stayed true to the ridged-forehead look, and I am impressed with the tweaks they did to the design. :)  [/spoiler]



Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: moyer777 on May 16, 2013, 06:40:18 PM
Going again with Amy and Catherine tomorrow morning.  LOL.  They haven't seen it yet.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on May 16, 2013, 07:30:43 PM
Quote from: wraith1701 on May 16, 2013, 02:01:46 PM
Quote from: moyer777 on May 16, 2013, 11:03:01 AM
as far as

[spoiler]Spock's Kaaaaaahhhhhhhn!  a bunch of people laughed in our theater.   It was stupid, in my opinion, it was like Darth Vader yelling NOOOOOOO in his "Rise) scene.  It just didn't fit.  Not sure if the old Spock was necessary, he looks like he is going to choke on dust and die... hahaha, but in our showing there were several times that we all applauded and yelled out loud in excitement!  It was so fun!  The opening sequence reminded me of Raiders of the Lost Ark, and seeing the Enterprise rise from the Ocean was spectacular!  The IMAX sound was amazing, but VERY LOUD, and that is saying something coming from me.  The 3D effects were really excellent, I thought they did a great job on them.  The Klingons were mystical and cool, loved their eyes!!![/spoiler]

I enjoyed the film overall, but you nailed the one thing I actually actively disliked.  That moment made me shrink down in my seat a little & cringe out of sympathetic embarrassment for the film. 



I was...
[spoiler]Surprisingly ambivalent about that. I knew it was coming so maybe that helped. The emotion of the moment allowed me to give Spock the response but again they had spent so much time dealing with Marcus it almost seemed he was as much to blame.[/spoiler]
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: hillbillyhemi on May 16, 2013, 09:47:49 PM
Just got home from seeing the new movie. I really didn't like it. JJ butchered Trek on this one.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on May 17, 2013, 05:23:49 AM
Quote from: hillbillyhemi on May 16, 2013, 09:47:49 PM
Just got home from seeing the new movie. I really didn't like it. JJ butchered Trek on this one.

Perhaps you could expound on that?

Another nice nod..

[spoiler]The inclusion of the Enterprise NX-01 model on Marcus' desk.[/spoiler]
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on May 17, 2013, 05:59:49 AM
I like that!

You know

[spoiler]I would be so much happier if they have us some clues that this universe was created due to incursions during the temporal cold war :-) [/spoiler]
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: hillbillyhemi on May 17, 2013, 06:33:56 AM
 I would be happy to.

[spoiler]
First of all I am not a T.O.S. junkie my favorite series was Deep Space Nine, so I am fine with exploring the darker side. I loved the last movie resetting the universe seems like a smart thing to do to make room for new stories.
This film reminds me of the American Godzilla, if they would have just called that movie Big Lizard in the city it would have been OK. If this film had been called Space Fight or Galactic Action no problem pretty good mindless action movie.
I have heard it said several times on Treks in Sci Fi that the Trek of the big screen has to be different from that of TV and I agree so I was not expecting a mind expanding story.

  Here are my issues with the movie.
1. Kirk and Spock's relationship. In the original Wrath of Khan Kirk and Spock have had decades to develop their relationship and the emotional attachment to each other. In this film its been what 2 years?
2. The story. Why reset the universe and make a cheesy remake of the classic?
3.The Klingon's. Yes nit picking here and they were very minor in the movie but I did not like the new look at all.
4. The big "twist" that was lazy very very lazy and don't get me started on the Spock screaming out Kaaaaaaaaaaaahn! I even leaned over to my wife as soon as I saw Kirk going into the warp core and said the only thing that would make this cheesier is if they have Spock yell out Kaaaaaaahn. Well a few minutes later it came true. LOL
[/spoiler]

I'm sure many of you will love this movie and maybe I will go see it again to see if i change my mind, however at this point not getting my hopes up. Maybe they can redeem themselves in the next one but for now Trek has been kicked in the groin.

EDIT: Put spoilery things in spoiler tags -Joe
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on May 17, 2013, 07:50:00 AM
Quote from: hillbillyhemi on May 17, 2013, 06:33:56 AM
I would be happy to.

[spoiler]
First of all I am not a T.O.S. junkie my favorite series was Deep Space Nine, so I am fine with exploring the darker side. I loved the last movie resetting the universe seems like a smart thing to do to make room for new stories.
This film reminds me of the American Godzilla, if they would have just called that movie Big Lizard in the city it would have been OK. If this film had been called Space Fight or Galactic Action no problem pretty good mindless action movie.
I have heard it said several times on Treks in Sci Fi that the Trek of the big screen has to be different from that of TV and I agree so I was not expecting a mind expanding story.

  Here are my issues with the movie.
1. Kirk and Spock's relationship. In the original Wrath of Khan Kirk and Spock have had decades to develop their relationship and the emotional attachment to each other. In this film its been what 2 years?
2. The story. Why reset the universe and make a cheesy remake of the classic?
3.The Klingon's. Yes nit picking here and they were very minor in the movie but I did not like the new look at all.
4. The big "twist" that was lazy very very lazy and don't get me started on the Spock screaming out Kaaaaaaaaaaaahn! I even leaned over to my wife as soon as I saw Kirk going into the warp core and said the only thing that would make this cheesier is if they have Spock yell out Kaaaaaaahn. Well a few minutes later it came true. LOL
[/spoiler]

I'm sure many of you will love this movie and maybe I will go see it again to see if i change my mind, however at this point not getting my hopes up. Maybe they can redeem themselves in the next one but for now Trek has been kicked in the groin.

EDIT: Put spoilery things in spoiler tags -Joe

Gotcha and I think all of those are very fair criticisms. You certainly need to "give" this movie a few things going in to really enjoy it.

[spoiler]It is interesting how much it copies the first film in '09. When that movie ended I figured it was time for "These are the voyages". Instead Kirk is busted off the bridge, is back banging aliens, and drinking bourbon in bars. However, I found myself very invested emotionaly in the Kirk/Spock relationship and bought in that they had become that close. mostly due to the excellent banter and dialogue and perfromances of Pine and Quinto. I also was very engaged by the Spock/Uhura relationship.[/spoiler]
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on May 17, 2013, 10:49:35 AM
Another thing to note

[spoiler] The Spock from this universe has been through a hell of a lot. I am sure he has become more emotionally receptive at this early stage in comparison with "our" Spock.[/spoiler]
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Ktrek on May 17, 2013, 12:45:14 PM
Just got back from seeing the film and I know I'm in the minority here once again but this film was meh. I waited four years to see what? a flip flop remake of another Trek movie I dearly love. No real significant character development whatsoever from the first film. A two hour video game with lots of cool lens flares? Cumberbatch wasn't very convincing to me. I like him better as Sherlock. I thought Nero was lame in the first film and Harrison is only barely a step above that. Very few "Star Trek" moments in this film. It could have been named anything else but Star Trek and I probably would have enjoyed it more. The video game kid generation will like the film because there are a lot of things blowing up and death and destruction everywhere but honestly there is very little to no story here and what story there is leaves huge questions that are never satisfactorily answered and nor are they likely ever to be. I think I have kept my comments general enough without any spoilers. I won't be going to see this again. Just not worth the visual overload headache. One sentence covers this film pretty well.... It's not fresh like JJ's first film because it's just been there, done that. I give it only 5 out of 10 stars and that I feel is being generous.

Kevin
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on May 17, 2013, 02:08:42 PM
Well, I loved it! [spoiler] I got a great big kick out of the KHAAAAAAN! yell. To me it just went along with the FUN that this movie is all about. And McCoys comment about birthing Gorn babies proves to me that the crappy game isn't canon! That was their first and only contact with the Gorn, then they blew them up. I liked all the timey wimey stuff, finding the Botany Bay earlier as a direct result of Nero's intervention. The blood thing was a bit of Chekovs Gun, but I didn't mind the reversal of Kirk dying. It fit the character arc. [/spoiler]

Liked it better than the last one, I'm talking my son to see it tomorrow. 9/10.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on May 17, 2013, 02:26:17 PM
Quote from: Ktrek on May 17, 2013, 12:45:14 PM
Just got back from seeing the film and I know I'm in the minority here once again but this film was meh. I waited four years to see what? a flip flop remake of another Trek movie I dearly love. No real significant character development whatsoever from the first film. A two hour video game with lots of cool lens flares? Cumberbatch wasn't very convincing to me. I like him better as Sherlock. I thought Nero was lame in the first film and Harrison is only barely a step above that. Very few "Star Trek" moments in this film. It could have been named anything else but Star Trek and I probably would have enjoyed it more. The video game kid generation will like the film because there are a lot of things blowing up and death and destruction everywhere but honestly there is very little to no story here and what story there is leaves huge questions that are never satisfactorily answered and nor are they likely ever to be. I think I have kept my comments general enough without any spoilers. I won't be going to see this again. Just not worth the visual overload headache. One sentence covers this film pretty well.... It's not fresh like JJ's first film because it's just been there, done that. I give it only 5 out of 10 stars and that I feel is being generous.

Kevin

I think that's fair, Kevin, and speaks to an issue this new franchise will always face. Is it TREK to you. For me, it's a reboot of TREK no beholding to anything which has come before and as such I can roll with it. If you expect it to be like TOS or TNG it's going to disappoint. It is also very different from the previous TREK films, no doubt. I would argue the character moments in this film were very strong, but I was invested in it and thought the banter, dialogue, and performances sold it for me.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on May 17, 2013, 02:31:46 PM
I agree, Bryan. I just divorce myself from the Trek I've known for 40 years and just ACCEPT that this movie is a popcorn-type summer movie of the BEST kind. Great actors, great writing, exciting sequences....eminently watchable.

Also, I now know why JJ kept the BIG REVEAL secret...when it happened I heard audible gasps in the theater! Like a ton! I think it was a cool moment for those people to experience.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on May 17, 2013, 03:20:15 PM
Quote from: ChrisMC on May 17, 2013, 02:31:46 PM
I agree, Bryan. I just divorce myself from the Trek I've known for 40 years and just ACCEPT that this movie is a popcorn-type summer movie of the BEST kind. Great actors, great writing, exciting sequences....eminently watchable.

Also, I now know why JJ kept the BIG REVEAL secret...when it happened I heard audible gasps in the theater! Like a ton! I think it was a cool moment for those people to experience.

[spoiler]I don't mind he wanted to keep it secret, it was the cat and mouse game that was irritating. "It's one of these four guys from TOS but we won't tell you!" Just say NOTHING, don't engage the fans at all.[spoiler]
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on May 17, 2013, 03:23:30 PM
Yeah, I see your point...they were certainly baiting the older fans with that stuff. But after hearing his interview on Stern I get the guy a little more.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Ktrek on May 17, 2013, 04:19:26 PM
I know each showing audiences can vary and even vary by the part of the country you live in. The dialogue banter and humor did not get one laugh in the audience. I never even heard a single chuckle. Not a single person clapped like they did at the end of the first film. On the way out and in the restroom there were lots of negative comments by other attendees. So, maybe people in this part of the country just don't find fictional films about terrorists all that meaningful? Maybe we see enough of this crap in the real world that we would like to go to a movie to escape from it? I don't know. All I know is that nobody at the showing I went to seemed all that impressed. For me the film is Star Trek in name only. It lacks the feel and optimism of hope that Trek was about. Alternate universe is just an excuse to abandon what Star Trek is about. I thought maybe Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman understood Trek and actually cared about it but I guess I was wrong. With what is being done with Star Trek I think the future of Star Wars is in the wrong hands.

Kevin
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on May 17, 2013, 04:30:57 PM
Quote from: Ktrek on May 17, 2013, 04:19:26 PM
I know each showing audiences can vary and even vary by the part of the country you live in. The dialogue banter and humor did not get one laugh in the audience. I never even heard a single chuckle. Not a single person clapped like they did at the end of the first film. On the way out and in the restroom there were lots of negative comments by other attendees. So, maybe people in this part of the country just don't find fictional films about terrorists all that meaningful? Maybe we see enough of this crap in the real world that we would like to go to a movie to escape from it? I don't know. All I know is that nobody at the showing I went to seemed all that impressed. For me the film is Star Trek in name only. It lacks the feel and optimism of hope that Trek was about. Alternate universe is just an excuse to abandon what Star Trek is about. I thought maybe Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman understood Trek and actually cared about it but I guess I was wrong. With what is being done with Star Trek I think the future of Star Wars is in the wrong hands.

Kevin

Wow, the clapping was VERY loud in my theater! The laughing at banter and everything was all there. And it was FULL of Trek fans. Crummy audiences can ruin a movie, I guess.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on May 17, 2013, 04:32:59 PM
I respect and understand everyone has their own opinion.  My week with the new job and the new Trek film has been crazy so I'm saving most of my comments for the vidcast, but I understand your points Kevin.  For me, this movie worked and I enjoyed it.  If I was the writer and or director I might have made some other choices on some things, but I still felt very entertained.  I'll be saying much more on the vidcast of course.  By the way Kevin, I'd love it if you could send in a short video with your impressions.  That way we will have some other opinions for the show which I'd love to see.  Hope you can send in a video.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on May 17, 2013, 04:37:56 PM
Quote from: Rico on May 17, 2013, 04:32:59 PM
I respect and understand everyone has their own opinion.  My week with the new job and the new Trek film has been crazy so I'm saving most of my comments for the vidcast, but I understand your points Kevin.  For me, this movie worked and I enjoyed it.  If I was the writer and or director I might have made some other choices on some things, but I still felt very entertained.  I'll be saying much more on the vidcast of course.  By the way Kevin, I'd love it if you could send in a short video with your impressions.  That way we will have some other opinions for the show which I'd love to see.  Hope you can send in a video.
It's funny how the comments I'm seeing all over are either "I loved this movie" or "This movie s&%$s all over Trek." Not a lot of middle ground here. Can't wait for Star Wars...eek!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: moyer777 on May 17, 2013, 04:39:30 PM
I went and saw it again, this time with my wife and daughter.  I liked it even more the 2nd time around.  I caught a lot more and was able to see some cool stuff that I didn't notice.  Now, the first time I saw it was with a couple of hundred people, and we all laughed at the lines between the main characters, clapped at the cool parts and gasped at the surprises.  The 2nd showing I saw with about 20 people, and I was the only one besides Amy that laughed and got a kick out of it.

[spoiler]The Kaahhhhhhhhhhn  yell was better the 2nd time cause I knew it was coming, and believe it or not, I actually choked up the 2nd time around when Kirk died..  it was really well acted, the music was spot on and I dug it.  I still didn't get the old Spock scene, kind of pointless.  [/spoiler]

My daughter LOVED it, she is 17, and my wife had a big smile on her face, she liked it too.  That is something. 

I think it had tons of cool stuff in it and I felt very hopeful at the end.  Can't wait for the next one!!!  I didn't hear one negative comment either showing.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: WillEagle on May 17, 2013, 05:05:03 PM
My day at work went by very quickly today and when I met my wife and stepmom and we went into the theater it seemed like it took forever for the movie to Start!!! We all enjoyed it and we want to see it again! And I want to say one word "WARP". I'll try to send a video to you.

[spoiler]You know I enjoyed this pretty much throughout. Yes, I can see where they got a little lazy with the writing but I didnt care. I waiting 4 years so I was ready for about anything. And I did love thar Warp effect that was freakin' cool! I also liked it when Sulu got command and the back and forth between him and Bones and with Kirk when he got back. And I didn't mind the KHAAAAAAAAN![/spoiler]

Here's a pic at out theater.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on May 17, 2013, 05:16:03 PM
Cool pic Will!  You know, you look a bit like Steve Sansweet - the famous collector of Star Wars merchandise.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: X on May 17, 2013, 05:29:48 PM
Quote from: Ktrek on May 17, 2013, 04:19:26 PM
I know each showing audiences can vary and even vary by the part of the country you live in. The dialogue banter and humor did not get one laugh in the audience. I never even heard a single chuckle. Not a single person clapped like they did at the end of the first film. On the way out and in the restroom there were lots of negative comments by other attendees. So, maybe people in this part of the country just don't find fictional films about terrorists all that meaningful? Maybe we see enough of this crap in the real world that we would like to go to a movie to escape from it? I don't know. All I know is that nobody at the showing I went to seemed all that impressed. For me the film is Star Trek in name only. It lacks the feel and optimism of hope that Trek was about. Alternate universe is just an excuse to abandon what Star Trek is about. I thought maybe Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman understood Trek and actually cared about it but I guess I was wrong. With what is being done with Star Trek I think the future of Star Wars is in the wrong hands.

Kevin

It's not going to be for everyone, but let's not whitewash the Trek universe and say it's not Trek. Terrorist have always had a place in Trek. Undiscovered country has a cloaked Bird of prey to incite terror of when the next attack would occur. Nemesis, First Contact, and Insurrection were pretty dark. How many times have someone highjacked the ship in any of the series? Having your son butchered and ship destroyed is a pretty dark movie that ends on a pretty bad note.

I respect that mileage might vary and everything doesn't need be enjoyed by everyone, but saying it's not Trek is pretty harsh when they haven't used any elements that were not seen on the small screen before.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on May 17, 2013, 05:50:13 PM
Good points, X. I don't really know where the perception comes from that Trek has always been sunshine and lollipops. And this movie didn't end on a bad note [spoiler] they are starting the 5 year mission! Starfleet DIDN'T become an uber military force. The bad element was defeated. [/spoiler]

I walked out of Nemesis completely bummed out. I walked out of this grinning like a fool. That's all I need to know.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: WillEagle on May 17, 2013, 05:53:30 PM
Quote from: Rico on May 17, 2013, 05:16:03 PM
Cool pic Will!  You know, you look a bit like Steve Sansweet - the famous collector of Star Wars merchandise.
lol
He's got alot more Star Wars stuff than I do.
I sent you a video. Hopefully it worked.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: moyer777 on May 17, 2013, 05:57:24 PM
Will, looks like you had a great time like we did!  AWESOME!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on May 17, 2013, 06:12:45 PM
I have to say this ranks in the top 3 Trek experience in the cinema for me.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on May 17, 2013, 06:37:56 PM
Quote from: Bryancd on May 17, 2013, 06:12:45 PM
I have to say this ranks in the top 3 Trek experience in the cinema for me.
Wow. That's pretty high. I think I can get behind that. I was too young for TWOK but I had an awesome time at ST6 and STFC. This was a ton of fun, maybe the most I've had with a trek film, like a rollicking good time.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Jobydrone on May 17, 2013, 06:50:28 PM
I think most loved Trek movie experience in the theater was ST4.  I was not steeped enough in the lore to fully understand WoK when I saw it in the theater, although I still loved it.  This one is in my top 5 for sure though as far as theater experiences go. I was at the first area showing and my audience was rocking and rolling throughout the entire film.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on May 17, 2013, 07:05:31 PM
Another effect of this movie is that the JJ-Prise has really grown on me. Pretty much liking it now. There were some really stunning shots of it.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on May 17, 2013, 07:27:51 PM
Quote from: ChrisMC on May 17, 2013, 07:05:31 PM
Another effect of this movie is that the JJ-Prise has really grown on me. Pretty much liking it now. There were some really stunning shots of it.

The scale continues to be completely jacked up. TWOK was amazing, I would say even growing up watching TOS reruns, TWOK put TREK on the same level as STAR WARS for me. ST IV was great fun and I was still young enough to go along with the jokes, but I was in High School. By the time ST-V came out I barley gave it a look. First Contact I think is also an almost perfect TREK film, so that will be my number 2 but this is awful close.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Praxis on May 17, 2013, 11:28:54 PM
Quote from: ChrisMC on May 17, 2013, 05:50:13 PM
I walked out of Nemesis completely bummed out. I walked out of this grinning like a fool. That's all I need to know.
I 2nd that.

Wow, that was a lot of posts and spoiler tags to catch up on.
I saw it this morning and I'm still a little in the processing phase, but I loved it. I really loved it, what a blast.
[spoiler]Interesting to read the range of reactions to the KHAAAAN. I thought it was freakin' awesome. It actually kind of gave me chills. You could see him about to yell and I was oh man he's gonna do it! That whole scene really made the movie for me. It was a good movie but the death scene made it a DAMN good movie. It was moving...I actually shed a tear. I was surprised by my reaction.

One thing: Maybe I'm a little slow on the uptake but I was hoping you all could help clarify something for me. I don't understand why Marcus (who knew that Khan had put the bodies in the torpedos) would keep those bodies in stasis and want them placed on the enterprise. Huh? I think I missed something. Maybe I was too busy staring at lens flares.  :D

Anyway, as soon as the movie ended I just wanted MORE :). I CAN'T WAIT for the next one!

I know this borders on Trek Blasphemy, but while TWoK was undeniably great, I never ranked it among my very favorites (STVI is tops for me). I love this alternate take on the story. I love that it pays homage to the classic while still being powerful in its own way, dealing with issues relevant to these new versions of the characters. What better tribute could you ask for? It's beautiful. [/spoiler]
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Jobydrone on May 18, 2013, 12:54:09 AM
[spoiler]
I have to see it again to be sure I correctly understood but my takeaway is that Marcus wanted the Enterprise to deliver the torpedoes and their payload to Kronos to use the augments to devastate the Klingons from within their home world and basically eliminate two threats at one time.[/spoiler]
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: KingIsaacLinksr on May 18, 2013, 01:46:22 AM
Wow....that film....I got to see it this night with friends...my thoughts below:

[spoiler]At the end of the movie, nothing really happened. Kirk's death scene was, frankly, terrible. Especially as they had built up (over and over and over again) that Khan's magic blood was going to bring him back to life, it felt completely unnecessary. The entire scene was painful to watch and felt forced. Just to give homage to a film that I feel has more weight and substance than this film ever had. Spock's KHANNNNNNNNNNNNNN was so bad that most everyone, including myself, in the theater laughed. Wish I was kidding...

So many contrivances in this film, so many plot holes in this film I could fly the Enterprise through them. Hell, it did on many an occasion. This film has a ton of problems. Somehow, the Enterprise is able to get to and from Kronos in a ridiculously fast amount of time. The transporters operated so wonkily for plot sake enough times to make me suspicious. Old Spock's scene was completely out of left field. I don't know why new Spock even thought about him. Not to mention, how he was able to contact him (I was under the impression their communications was jammed). There are so many problems this film has that I have to stop it here or I'll be going all night. Too many things were convenient, a problem that Star Trek has had in the past but it felt even worse here for whatever reason.

I still do not like the Khan storyline re-imagining and feel that it is completely unnecessary and stupid for the writers to use him as the main villain. He didn't feel like Khan and it could have been any number of generic mass-murdering villains we've seen lately. Oh, he gets captured? Yeah, he intended to be captured. Like the five billion other bad guys from Batman, to the Avengers to James Bond have done lately. That plot twist is old. His character doesn't feel substantial because he constantly changes gears from a mass-murderer, to a calculating villain to a psychopath. He isn't a good character, he's just a foil for the plot and not much else. And that's my biggest problem with him.[/spoiler]

At the end, I did have fun, if only barely, but I had to turn my brain completely off. Because if I didn't, I wanted to rage and scream at the many problems this film has. All that said, the film has pretty incredible special effects and some great character moments. The Enterprise looks great. I never once thought something looked unbelievable (beyond plot problems). Some really cool looking (and sounding) aliens thrown in for good measure, though they were such side characters I found that disappointing.

But the movie just keeps pushing the action on and on and on and on. It's afraid of slowing down for even a micro-second to let us breathe. It's the ADHD version of Star Trek. And I can't say I find that acceptable but I guess it comes down to the fact that I have to scale my expectations of films way back. Which I will do when I see it again with family next weekend. I guess I expect too much. I go to films like Star Trek expecting an intelligent experience that is thought-provoking and something worth chewing on. What I get instead is brain-freeze from the Ice Cream candy I just had. That's what most films have been lately. And what they will continue to be for the next decade by the looks of it. I guess from now on, I have to go to these with the expectation of turning off my brain and enjoying the rollercoaster ride. Fair enough. I guess I have videogames for much deeper and more nuanced experiences.

There, said my piece. Time for sleep.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: billybob476 on May 18, 2013, 03:47:00 AM
I'd love examples of "intelligent experiences" in Trek movies. Frankly, all the best ones have been rollercoaster rides.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: WillEagle on May 18, 2013, 04:24:58 AM
A lot of reactions to the movie on here. I'll just say I thought it was an awsome rollercoaster ride. And I forgot to mention this earlier. We had a coupon for eating Red Baron pizzas so we got into the movie for $7.50!!! There is a few weeks till Man of Steel so I'll catch this again. Probaby during my long Memorial Day weekend.  
[spoiler]More thoughts. I enjoyed the Kirk death scene and I also got a little emotional. I was really into the movie and that did get to me a little even though I knew it was coming due to what he was doing. Didn't know they would bring him back but it was a cool way to do it. And I'll admit the scene where Uhura beamed onto the ship where Spock and KHAAAAAN were fighting was pretty cool. [/spoiler]
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on May 18, 2013, 04:43:59 AM
Quote from: billybob476 on May 18, 2013, 03:47:00 AM
I'd love examples of "intelligent experiences" in Trek movies. Frankly, all the best ones have been rollercoaster rides.
I agree. There seems to be this disconnect between the "show", where allegory and high science can take a more prominentrole, and the "movies" where its almost always a high stakes situation where action is required and it's all quite exciting and heroic. Let's examine shall we?
ST:TMP- Mostly thoughtful sci-fi. You could say it's  remake of The Changeling. Main plot points: Big thing coming, killing things in its wake. Enterprise is dispatched, fly around a bit, at the end a species integration/evolution occurs. Not too many fans put it at the top. I love it.
ST:TWOK-Always touted as "the best". Main plot points: Kirk is old, Khan is mad, shoots up the Enterprise, Khan gets Genesis, Blows up his ship, Spock dies. A fun ride that's all about the CHARACTERS.
ST:TSFS- People say average, I enjoy it. Main points-Spock is in McCoy's head, Spock is alive on Genesis, Klingons kill Kirks son, Kirk blows up Enterprise, Vulcans re-cagigger Spock's brain. It's all about the CHARACTERS.
ST:TVH- The most blatantly message driven Trek film. The message is masked under a very fun film with some goofy fish-out-of water humor that works because we love the CHARACTERS. At the end Kirk gets back a ship. Yay.
ST:TFF-Yeah, this one sucks. God, beard-guy Vulcan, bad effects. The main thing I take away from this is the relationships between the CHARACTERS.
ST:TUC-Cold war allegory, Kirk and McCoy are taken prisoner, and their friends risk it all to rescue them.

Anyway, what I think I'm saying is, pretty much regardless of the message or story of the films/TV show, when Star Trek is at it's best is when it is fully invested in the characters. I think this new movie spends perhaps more time with them than some of the others do...I was quite moved by a couple of the character moments in this movie. The thing that I came away with is, these people love each other, just went through hell together, and now they are very strong. To equate this movie with something like a Transformers movie simply because it dares to be a BIG Trek movie that excites not just fans but non-fans (and it does, many a co-worker of mine is going, and the are NOT Trekkies by any stretch). It brings more people into our fold, and they can discover the joys of the Trek we have all known for years.

Plus, when I enjoy something and someone else has to turn their brain off, it makes me wonder if those IQ tests are meaningless and I'm really a big dolt.

Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on May 18, 2013, 04:54:34 AM
Don't forget to send in those video reviews!!  :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on May 18, 2013, 05:20:37 AM
From a FaceBook friends page:

"Star trek 2 is gonna be the summer movie to beat. I'm officially a trekkie."

Like we have said before, this film is going to be a challenge for some and a joy for others all dependent on what your expectations are for a TREK film. I do agree with Chris that to paint all of Trek with "intelligent experience" brush isn't a fair assessment of Trek since TOS. Having so much content over the years, Trek has done it all, I don';t think we should pigeon hole it into a specific style. I read what Tim's thoughts were and can see exactly what he is referring to but my reaction to those issue's are minimal compared to my overall experience watching.

[spoiler]I agree that Khan's motivation was a bit rushed and scattered and that's why in my review I felt the inclusion of the Marcus made for too many bad guys. I wish they had afforded Khan more time to develop the sense of almost regal menace he had in Space Seen and TWOK. Instead they had to have himm give a huge info dump exposition while in the brig and use Spock Prime to get the audience up to speed on him.[/spoiler]
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on May 18, 2013, 07:22:54 AM
Well I've only gone and watched the movie.
My thoughts?

I was pleasantly surprised! I still have few problems with it but considering the direction they decided to go in I think they did a great job.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Praxis on May 18, 2013, 08:39:53 AM
Quote from: Jobydrone on May 18, 2013, 12:54:09 AM
[spoiler]
I have to see it again to be sure I correctly understood but my takeaway is that Marcus wanted the Enterprise to deliver the torpedoes and their payload to Kronos to use the augments to devastate the Klingons from within their home world and basically eliminate two threats at one time.[/spoiler]

Ah, thanks Joby, that makes some sense.[spoiler]I was thinking it wouldn't matter how much initial damage to was done to Kronos, just as long as Khan got killed, the Klingons got pissed, and the enterprise got destroyed. But the augments could probably do much more damage than any conventional weapon (as long as they were guaranteed to get aggressive with the Klingons). So then Marcus and the USS Vengeance would be cleanup, that makes sense.[/spoiler]

Quote from: KingIsaacLinksr on May 18, 2013, 01:46:22 AM
But the movie just keeps pushing the action on and on and on and on. It's afraid of slowing down for even a micro-second to let us breathe.

This is a valid point KingIsaac. If there was one thing I would've liked it's a couple more quiet moments to breathe. On the other hand this movie grabbed me by the collar and never let go, and I went for a ride :).

Quote from: Bryancd on May 18, 2013, 05:20:37 AM
[spoiler]I agree that Khan's motivation was a bit rushed and scattered and that's why in my review I felt the inclusion of the Marcus made for too many bad guys. I wish they had afforded Khan more time to develop the sense of almost regal menace he had in Space Seen and TWOK. Instead they had to have himm give a huge info dump exposition while in the brig and use Spock Prime to get the audience up to speed on him.[/spoiler]

Bryan, I can agree with that. [spoiler]The brig scene did get a little exposition-y, going against the wise storytelling dictum of show-don't-tell (and that's when it got muddled for me on torpedo situation). Maybe some filming of those previous events between Marcus and Khan might have done much to develop their characters for us.
I'm wondering what a person new to Trek would think of all this. I'd guess that some scenes might appear pretty scatterbrained.[/spoiler]
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on May 18, 2013, 08:43:56 AM
In regards to the torpedoes..

[spoiler]I assumed Marcus was simply hoping Kirk would launch them at Khan, thus killing Khan and his fellow augments in one fell swoop. I didn't get the impression the cryo augments were meant to survive.[/spoiler]
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Praxis on May 18, 2013, 09:03:07 AM
Quote from: Bryancd on May 18, 2013, 08:43:56 AM
In regards to the torpedoes..

[spoiler]I assumed Marcus was simply hoping Kirk would launch them at Khan, thus killing Khan and his fellow augments in one fell swoop. I didn't get the impression the cryo augments were meant to survive.[/spoiler]

[spoiler]Why not kill the augments by more conventional means? Like, just damage the cryo pods or something? Seems like a lot of hassle to do it this way...kinda "evil genius" strategy :P I hope that upon second viewing there is more to it than that. Oh well, didn't really get in the way of my enjoyment. I'm more in the brain-off camp when enjoying a good flick  ;)[/spoiler]
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on May 18, 2013, 09:18:32 AM
[spoiler]I think that all of Admiral Marcus plans were ill conceived and poorly portrayed in the film, it's the weakest aspect of the story for me.[/spoiler]
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: starbase on May 18, 2013, 11:17:33 AM
After watching both of the rebooted versions of Star Trek, I wind up leaving the theater bursting at the seams with opinions.  I've been watching Trek since 1967 so even though I understand that this is a different time line, I can't help but compare it to the original.  While I liked ST:ID, or as I'd rather refer to it as Trek 12,  more than Trek 11 (eleven - not Roman numeral II), I have my good and bad opinions about the movie.

[spoiler]
Good
Am I the only one who loved the appearance of Leonard Nimoy?  It's the best nod to the original that there can be and I never had a hint that he'd be in it.

Spock at the science station was a welcome sight to see.

All the McCoy-isms - I'm a doctor, not a ...

McCoy's line - don't be so melodramatic, you were barely dead.

At times, Zachary Quinto was Spock - I mean he really looked like Spock from TOS.

The crew seemed much more comfortable with each other than in the last movie. That they were willing to sacrifice themselves for each other goes back to what TOS was all about.

Kirk's - Space the Final Frontier, These are the voyages - at the end of the movie.

It was a nice twist that Spock did not lie when he gave Khan back "his torpedoes" but didn't say that they didn't have the same contents.

Khan resisting both the Vulcan neck pinch and forced mind meld were believable and well done.


Bad
Rico had wanted during the podcasts, as did I, for the villain not to be Khan.

As soon as McCoy and Marcus saw the frozen guy in the torpedo, I knew that it was about
Khan.  I whispered to my wife, Botany Bay.  So the reveal was telegraphed in advance for me.

Up until I suspected it was Khan, I was really enjoying this movie.  This really soured the taste the rest of the way.

When Scotty said, Kirk would flood the compartment with radiation, I held my head and said, "no please don't play this scene out again".  Then the scene with Kirk and Spock on both sides of the plexiglass. As I read on the forum, "lazy writing".  I felt it was a desecration of TWOK and of the most poignant scene of the movie franchise.

Spock yelling Khan!  I was hoping that wouldn't happen since it was too overacted by Kirk originally.

You'd figure with a genetically advanced human, he'd be more elegant in his executions than being a head crusher.

If Khan's blood brings Tribbles and Kirk back to life, why did they have to bring him back to save Kirk?  Why couldn't they partially defrost one of the other 72 super-beings and borrow their blood for Kirk?

If phaser stun setting barely slows Khan down, why didn't Uhura up the setting?

Seriously, why did JJ expect someone named Khan Noonian Singh to look like Benedict Cumberbatch?  I know that Ricardo was Hispanic but at least he looked exotic.

As I remember it, the genetically advanced humans wanted to rule over populations.  It wasn't that they wanted to destroy everyone who's inferior.  "It's better to rule in hell than serve in heaven".

So many public displays of emotion between Spock and Uhura.  Maybe a little more subtle with the double finger touch?

Admiral Marcus' wanting to destroy the Enterprise even after giving him what he wanted.  His being too over the top in villainy was not believable for the head of Star Fleet.



Nit-Picks
Kirk's hound dogging with the pussycat alien girls.

Why are the phasers firing like they emit miniature photon torpedoes?  What happened to the phaser beam?

The scene where Kirk and Khan are flying through space to the other ship was ridiculously long.

Too soon in the timeline to know about Tribbles.

Too soon in the timeline to know about the Gorn.


Minor Nit-Picks
Since Gorn are cold-blooded, there should be no problem delivering Gorn babies since they should be egg layers.

[/spoiler]


Here's my ranking order of all the films:
1.  #2 Wrath of Khan
2.  #6 Undiscovered Country
3.  #4 The Voyage Home
4.  #8 First Contact
5.  #3 The Search for Spock
6.  #12 Into Darkness
7.  #11 Star Trek reboot
8.  #7 Generations
9.  #1 The Motion Picture
10. #10 Nemesis
11. #9 Insurrection
12. #5 The Final Frontier

Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Praxis on May 18, 2013, 11:47:28 AM
Quote from: starbase on May 18, 2013, 11:17:33 AM

Here's my ranking order of all the films:
1.  #2 Wrath of Khan
2.  #6 Undiscovered Country
3.  #4 The Voyage Home
4.  #8 First Contact
5.  #3 The Search for Spock
6.  #12 Into Darkness
7.  #11 Star Trek reboot
8.  #7 Generations
9.  #1 The Motion Picture
10. #10 Nemesis
11. #9 Insurrection
12. #5 The Final Frontier


Seriously, who can resist a good rank-a-thon?

My faves ranking (lots of ties....And I personally feel there is a lot to love in all of these films, even last place...I mean, it's Trek! ;D )

1st: #6 Undiscovered Country  :Bow:
2nd:  #4 The Voyage Home
Tie for 3rd:  #7 Generations + #8 First Contact
Tie for 4th:  #11 Star Trek reboot + #12 Into Darkness
Tie for 5th:  #2 Wrath of Khan + #3 The Search for Spock
6th: #9 Insurrection
7th:  #1 The Motion Picture
8th: #5 The Final Frontier
Dead-freakin-last! : :smilie_bleh: #10 Nemesis
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on May 18, 2013, 12:08:28 PM
#1 TWOK
#2 First Contact
#3 Into Darkness
#4 Voyage Home
#5 '09 STAR TREK
#6 TMP
#7 Search for Spock
#8 Undiscovered Country
#9 Genrations
#10 Insurrection
#11 The Final Frontier
#12 Nemesis
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on May 18, 2013, 03:01:07 PM
Lynn and I went this afternoon and she really liked it.  As she came out she turned to me and said, "Ok, I have to admit it but that was a really fun, well put together movie."  Very high praise coming from my non-Trekkie wife!  I enjoyed it just as much the second time - I think actually more than the first time.  Excited to talk about it tomorrow on the vidcast.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: WillEagle on May 18, 2013, 06:32:18 PM
Here is a interview with Alice Eve that you all might enjoy.
http://www.hitfix.com/videos/star-trek-into-darkness-alice-eve-interview (http://www.hitfix.com/videos/star-trek-into-darkness-alice-eve-interview)


Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: jedijeff on May 18, 2013, 08:04:05 PM
I saw the movie today, and really really enjoyed it. Like others said it was just a really good cinema going experience, it held me the entire way through the movie. There was a lot of Action in this, when we left the theatre, we were sort of asking ourselves how much action is JJ going to put into Star Wars.

[spoiler]I kept myself as spoiler free as possible. I did know a bit about the USS Vengeance and that it was the ship the crashed into earth, as well driving the theatre my friend did let slip to me the John Harrison was Khan, though I somewhat expected that. But the Kirk death scene caught me off guard, and left me wondering for while if that was the end of the run for Kirk. That said, I felt that this version of Kirk we miss a bit and he is not nearly as cool as the Shatner Kirk. It was cool how they sort of switched around Kirk and Spock from what we saw in TWOK, but a larger part of me would have rather seen Kirk on the mad pursuit of Khan at the end. I guess for me, I like Kirk to be the  Number 1 Guy, and Spock there as he right hand man. But none the less, really liked those pursuit scenes.

A few nit picks. In the first movie, I really had an issue with Scotty, but liked him much much more this time around as I found they toned his character down. I found McCoy this time around to be a bit hard to swallow, just found the performance to be a bit to much for me, and everything out of his mouth was just using the old Bones lines that we all loved the original series. A few throughout the movie I will enjoy, but pretty much every line spoken was to much for me.

Also I still don't really care for engineering, it just feels far to big for the scale of the ship. Given how large the hanger bay looks, I just don't see where engineering fits in the ship given the size they are suggesting. I guess they need it to be large to fit the story elements and to add some drama in those Enterprise falling from the atmosphere to earth scenes, but still just having a tough time swallowing it.

I did love that a lot of the story did take part on the Enterprise and that there was another ship involved as well. I am a real sucker starships and space ships in general, so this movies just fills a huge need for me in terms of Starship battle I so crave. I even really liked the design of the Klingon D4, they had a real insect look to them, sort of a stocky predecessor to the Bird of Preys.[/spoiler]
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Geekyfanboy on May 18, 2013, 08:44:48 PM
Just got back from seeing the movie... I LOVED IT!!!

Had to go back and read three pages of comments from you all..  I feel bad for those who were unable to enjoy it. I actually think I liked it better then the first one. :) Not going to go into details.. gonna write up a blog post and I'll post the info here when I'm done.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Geekyfanboy on May 18, 2013, 10:08:19 PM
Uploading my video now.. created a folder "Trek Movie Reviews" mine is in there.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: saunders on May 19, 2013, 04:17:46 AM
I loved the movie.  I thought it was better than the first (which I also thought was great).  The special effects were great.  The story was a lot of fun.  They had great use of humor in the movie.  I thought with the title "Into Darkness" they would go really dark with the story so I was really surprised with how funny the movie is...and not in a silly self parody type of way...but with a natural character based humor.  The relationships between the characters is really working.  I think JJ picked a really good cast.  My wife, who is not a Trek fan to say the least, loved it.  We both couldn't stop talking about it afterwards.  I think it'll be a big crossover movie.

I find it very hard to rank the movies, but I would put this one up near the top.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on May 19, 2013, 06:14:06 AM
Quote from: Geekyfanboy on May 18, 2013, 10:08:19 PM
Uploading my video now.. created a folder "Trek Movie Reviews" mine is in there.

Got it!  Thanks Kenny!!  And the rest of you send in those videos today!!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on May 19, 2013, 07:43:10 AM
Did you get mine?
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on May 19, 2013, 07:44:10 AM
Quote from: Bryancd on May 19, 2013, 07:43:10 AM
Did you get mine?

Yep.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on May 19, 2013, 07:45:14 AM
I'm starting to work on this now, so there are still a few hours to send in your videos folks!  Yeah, I'm talking to you Chris and you Joby!! :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Jobydrone on May 19, 2013, 08:45:16 AM
LOL I just sent the file to you via FTP.  It should be in the folder that Kenny created, called Star Trek 12 impressions.  Sorry for the poor quality and zero effects or editing, it was all I could do to get the four clips together into one project.  Hope it's usable.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on May 19, 2013, 08:51:50 AM
COOL!  Grabbing it now.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: billybob476 on May 19, 2013, 09:47:15 AM
I'm seeing the 1:20 show, out by 4. I suspect I won't get in under the wire :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on May 19, 2013, 03:04:59 PM
Geez - time to order the gift set & Blu-Ray from Amazon already?!?!

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00CTT9646/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00CTT9646&linkCode=as2&tag=thescifannetw-20 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00CTT9646/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00CTT9646&linkCode=as2&tag=thescifannetw-20)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on May 19, 2013, 03:55:05 PM
Already ordered! I want that phaser!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: WillEagle on May 19, 2013, 05:21:13 PM
That's cool.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: billybob476 on May 20, 2013, 05:16:46 AM
Saw it yesterday.

[spoiler]
And I really enjoyed it. The only two minor things I didn't really cre fr are the two things most other people have mentioned. I felt the exchange with Spock Prime was basically useless. Secondly I didn't love Spock yelling Khan. To me it didn't really belong.  It was something they did because they could, not because it was necessary to the story. It also seems like an odd out of character reaction not only for Spock, but for anyone in the movie except Khan himself.

Aside from that though, it was a great roller coaster ride that did feel like trek to me. I really enjoyed Scotty, again kind of a nod to TSFS when Scotty prime disabled the excelsior's trans warp drive. I enjoyed sulu being given command for the first time and chekov being thrust into the role of chief engineer and struggling at it.

The slight adjustment to khans motivation (saving his people as opposed to revenge on Kirk) made him a more sympathetic villain overall and made the story a little bit more complex then just the straight up "I hate you Kirk" of TWOK.
[/spoiler]
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: WillEagle on May 20, 2013, 05:27:53 AM
Here is an article from The Wrap about the box office results. 70.6 mil domestic sounds pretty good to me.

http://www.thewrap.com/movies/article/star-trek-darkness-cant-hit-warp-speed-box-office-92566 (http://www.thewrap.com/movies/article/star-trek-darkness-cant-hit-warp-speed-box-office-92566)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on May 20, 2013, 05:30:32 AM
Quote from: WillEagle on May 20, 2013, 05:27:53 AM
Here is an article from The Wrap about the box office results. 70.6 mil domestic sounds pretty good to me.

http://www.thewrap.com/movies/article/star-trek-darkness-cant-hit-warp-speed-box-office-92566 (http://www.thewrap.com/movies/article/star-trek-darkness-cant-hit-warp-speed-box-office-92566)

Unfortunatley it won't be portrayed that way. They likely wanted to get closer to a $100M opening weekend.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on May 20, 2013, 06:12:26 AM
4 year layoff, plus lets face it, Trek is never going to have mass appeal that superheroes do. I would imagine more patents are along for the ride with little kids for Iron Man than Trek. Still, the old Trek films grossed like above average B-movies.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on May 20, 2013, 06:25:54 AM
It is trending great on Rotten Tomatoes with an 89% approval rating, so that's very good.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on May 20, 2013, 06:31:17 AM
It may have a very strong second weekend due to strong work of mouth. I imagine it will end up around where the last film does. It should pass it in my opinion, it's a better film.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: starbase on May 20, 2013, 08:28:57 AM
I wonder if anyone has an opinion about the hats worn at Star Fleet headquarters.  On the one hand, they looked too militaristic. On the other hand they looked like the caps worn on Captain Scarlet, the old Gerry Anderson puppet show.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: billybob476 on May 20, 2013, 09:29:40 AM
I like the uniforms in these new movies. It reflects reality. They have more formal uniforms for meetings at HQ, normal duty uniforms for shipboard work and appropriate utility gear for away missions. No more beaming onto a dangerous planet in nothing more then a spandex jumpsuit.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on May 20, 2013, 09:53:53 AM
I thought the uniforms made sense. I always thought the starfleet dress uniforms were never very practical or comfortable.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on May 20, 2013, 10:51:19 AM
I'm ok with the dress uniforms. They are very militaristic and I would prefer something a bit more futuristic, but these are keeping with the overall aesthetic of the film.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: starbase on May 20, 2013, 10:54:03 AM
Yes, I didn't have a problem with the uniforms, just with the hats.  The hats were retro.  My Russian friend said the hats made them look German (his opinion, not mine).
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on May 20, 2013, 02:18:51 PM
ROTFLMAO!!

http://io9.com/star-trek-into-darkness-the-spoiler-faq-508927844 (http://io9.com/star-trek-into-darkness-the-spoiler-faq-508927844)

Although I have to whole heartedly agree with this part..
[spoiler] "No, I'm just angry. When the movie was announced, Abrams and whoever clearly stated that Cumberbatch would be playing a canon Trek character, and everybody guessed it was Khan. Then they promised he wasn't playing Khan. And then they said Cumberbatch's character's name was John Harrison, even though there's no previous Trek character named John Harrison, and again we knew it was Khan. And they tried to make it this whole big mystery as if we were all morons who had some how forgotten a classic Trek character named John Harrison, like they were actually going to pull one over on us when we were telling them over an over again that we knew it was Khan and the only thing they were accomplishing by denying it was 1) being assholes and 2) insulting our intelligence."
This is something we haven't discussed yet, the whole Khan subterfuge BS.[/spoiler]
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Praxis on May 20, 2013, 03:07:53 PM
Quote from: Bryancd on May 20, 2013, 02:18:51 PM
ROTFLMAO!!

http://io9.com/star-trek-into-darkness-the-spoiler-faq-508927844 (http://io9.com/star-trek-into-darkness-the-spoiler-faq-508927844)

Oh man that FAQ is hilarious!!
My favorite part:

But it's canon! Don't you like canon?

I like it when it doesn't get stupid. And why the hell would Abrams and crew stick to Khan's origin timeline, even though it makes zero sense, but also suddenly change him to a white dude? That's cherry-picking the stupidest parts of canon and non-canon!

I don't know. I think it's nice that in this day and age, a white male can still be cast as an Indian played by a Mexican. White men really have come a long way!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bromptonboy on May 21, 2013, 05:31:35 AM
Well, I took a day off to go see this movie (10:00 matinee show) - and as I was driving out to do a few errands - all the warning lights on my car start blinking like a christmas tree.  Had to bring it right to the shop.  Most likely no film for me today...unless I get it back quickly. 
The wife is out and about with her car - so I cannot borrow hers.  :(
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bromptonboy on May 21, 2013, 01:27:49 PM
I did manage to get to see this today!  Unfortunately - although I tried to remain spoiler-free - I didn't stay that way for long. 
I enjoyed the movie.
[spoiler]For the longest time I was wondering what everybody meant by 'Lens Flare' - and now I can see what they all meant.  That was annoying and distracting for me.
The filmed stunned me visually - the effects were great (I saw the 3D version).  Ideally for me, they would have explored Khan's background a bit more, and the ethical decisions that Adm. Marcus was making.  Many things seemed to make no sense to me - but perhaps I wasn't paying enough attention.  Why did Khan flee to the Klingon Homeworld?  Why would they put khan and crew back on ice when they have this miraculous breakthrough by using his blood?
I guess I am still looking for a Kubrick-esque 'serious Science Fiction' movie - and have to accept that fact that they are few and far between.
Don't get me wrong, I liked the film - I just can't say it was one of my favorite Trek films.  Someone mentioned the dress uniforms - they did look good - and did look like older German uniforms.[/spoiler]
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: WillEagle on May 21, 2013, 02:22:54 PM
A question?

[spoiler]My boss at work went to see this yesterday and he mentioned something I hadn't even thought of. He said he didn't remember the Enterprise firing any of its weapons. I though it did when they were fighting the Vengeance but he said the weapons went off line when they got hit during warp. Did they ever fire their weapons??? I'm going to see this again so I'll look for it but I'm still wondering.[/spoiler]
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bromptonboy on May 21, 2013, 02:31:06 PM
Quote from: WillEagle on May 21, 2013, 02:22:54 PM
A question?

[spoiler]My boss at work went to see this yesterday and he mentioned something I hadn't even thought of. He said he didn't remember the Enterprise firing any of its weapons. I though it did when they were fighting the Vengeance but he said the weapons went off line when they got hit during warp. Did they ever fire their weapons??? I'm going to see this again so I'll look for it but I'm still wondering.[/spoiler]
[spoiler]I don't believe that they did fire - as they were caught by the bombardment in Warp space.  [/spoiler]
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: fatfather_2005 on May 21, 2013, 06:42:47 PM
i don't think this  a spoiler, being i maybe the only one who noticed it. lol
but did you see the ships as the admiral walked by?
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on May 21, 2013, 07:34:07 PM
Quote from: fatfather_2005 on May 21, 2013, 06:42:47 PM
i don't think this  a spoiler, being i maybe the only one who noticed it. lol
but did you see the ships as the admiral walked by?


You bet, including the NX-01!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: fatfather_2005 on May 21, 2013, 07:40:52 PM
also the uss vengence, ( a ship that looked like it) but unless i am mistaken did it show an aircraft carrier?
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: fatfather_2005 on May 21, 2013, 07:41:54 PM
but i have only seen it once, lol i should taken more notice, lol
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on May 21, 2013, 07:49:25 PM
Quote from: fatfather_2005 on May 21, 2013, 07:41:54 PM
but i have only seen it once, lol i should taken more notice, lol


Here, enjoy!

http://io9.com/a-close-up-look-at-the-star-trek-easter-egg-you-might-h-509076595 (http://io9.com/a-close-up-look-at-the-star-trek-easter-egg-you-might-h-509076595)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ElfManDan on May 23, 2013, 09:38:37 PM
Saw the films today and loved it. I don't know what you all have said yet I've been avoiding this thread since the film came out just cause I didn't want to know anything going in. But my thought is I think it was better than the first. It was action heavy, but unlike the first one I didn't feel like the action and chaos was unnecessary. It fit into the story and continued to move forward with the action. Never a dull moment.

Though I still have the same problem I had with the first one that it doesn't feel like the Star Trek I know. The pace was way to fast and it was over the top, but that being said I'm realizing this it's not the Star Trek I know. It's new and it's exciting and I love it. I never quite accepted this new universe after the last film, but after this film I'm accepting this as part of Star Trek.

Though a few little things, cause no movie is perfect...
[spoiler]How conveniently pulling Kirk from Captain and Pike dies (saw that coming).

I thought Klingons take no prisoners? (Maybe they were feeling merciful that day.)

Nobody with all the advanced sensor tech (or even eyes) noticed Scott flying into the hanger of a top secret (I'd think secure) Vengeance under construction.

Spock yells KHANNNNNN!!! Out of character, even for an emotional Spock to me (that's supposed to be Kirk's moment anyhow, just throw me out of the film a little).[/spoiler]

That said here's what I loved...
[spoiler]Kirk having to actually deal with being a Captain. I felt he shouldn't have been Captain at the end of the last movie. He went from being cadet to oh now you're a Captain. No working through the ranks, just Captain. I can understand in an emergency, but went it's all over it should go back to proper Captain. So it was nice seeing him get cut down a little (even if you know emergency and admiral manipulation plays a part in getting him back in the chair). It felt more like the Kirk we know to me. Khan and the Admiral both great bad guys, and not stupid either.

Khan really kicking butt. Maybe we didn't see that in the Original series, but he is a super human. That Klingon battle scene was pretty cool.

The scene where Kirk died (I mean of course I knew Khan's blood would bring him back {another obvious plot hole here, but I digress}). Watching that scene was great (I was tearing up myself).

Carol Marcus (I know we have a thread going elsewhere about hottest woman in Trek. So I've made my decision now).

Overall the movie felt like well put together, a few things here or there, but I enjoyed seeing a crew that wasn't so forced together or at each others throats. Little arguments (just like old times), but they were a crew. I felt there weren't so many cheap jokes and filler scenes. The film was solid and to repeat I love it.[/spoiler]
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ElfManDan on May 23, 2013, 09:42:28 PM
Quote from: Bryancd on May 21, 2013, 07:49:25 PM
Quote from: fatfather_2005 on May 21, 2013, 07:41:54 PM
but i have only seen it once, lol i should taken more notice, lol


Here, enjoy!

http://io9.com/a-close-up-look-at-the-star-trek-easter-egg-you-might-h-509076595 (http://io9.com/a-close-up-look-at-the-star-trek-easter-egg-you-might-h-509076595)

I loved those ships on the desk. I noticed the Phoenix there too. History of flight I'd say.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Praxis on May 23, 2013, 10:13:20 PM
Quote from: ElfManDan on May 23, 2013, 09:42:28 PM
Quote from: Bryancd on May 21, 2013, 07:49:25 PM
Quote from: fatfather_2005 on May 21, 2013, 07:41:54 PM
but i have only seen it once, lol i should taken more notice, lol


Here, enjoy!

http://io9.com/a-close-up-look-at-the-star-trek-easter-egg-you-might-h-509076595 (http://io9.com/a-close-up-look-at-the-star-trek-easter-egg-you-might-h-509076595)

I loved those ships on the desk. I noticed the Phoenix there too. History of flight I'd say.

Yeah, awesome. Damn, that Kelvin is a cool ship.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Praxis on June 02, 2013, 11:52:56 AM
So I finally experienced my 2nd viewing of STID last night! This time in 2d and with my wife.
It was still great, but I was surprised by some of my reaction. Nitpicks (transporting with shields, why not get some blood from a different popsicle, etc) were definitely more noticeable, but ultimately I don't care about those. What really struck me this time was how it didn't feel very "star trek-y". At first I thought this might be because most of the movie takes place off of the enterprise, but many of the movies are like that. I've decided the reason is: a) I don't have a nice long tv-show relationship with these actors and b) I don't have a nice long tv-show relationship with jj's visual interpretation of the trek universe (even though I like it quite a bit). Maybe it's just a matter of letting this second viewing simmer a bit longer.....
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on June 02, 2013, 04:04:15 PM
I think that is a very very crticism. I think we need to be able to love our fandom and still be a little critical.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: bevs_plaything on June 04, 2013, 12:56:13 PM
Quote from: Praxis on June 02, 2013, 11:52:56 AM
So I finally experienced my 2nd viewing of STID last night! This time in 2d and with my wife.
It was still great, but I was surprised by some of my reaction. Nitpicks (transporting with shields, why not get some blood from a different popsicle, etc) were definitely more noticeable, but ultimately I don't care about those. What really struck me this time was how it didn't feel very "star trek-y". At first I thought this might be because most of the movie takes place off of the enterprise, but many of the movies are like that. I've decided the reason is: a) I don't have a nice long tv-show relationship with these actors and b) I don't have a nice long tv-show relationship with jj's visual interpretation of the trek universe (even though I like it quite a bit). Maybe it's just a matter of letting this second viewing simmer a bit longer.....

I enjoyed the movie as a throw away popcorn movie, but it's not the Trek I grew up with.  I am sure that it will get 'the next generation' ;) interested in the franchise, but I consider the new movie to be essentially 'lazy writing.'  With a new time-line to explore we see a rehash of an old story.  I hope we get an entirely new story in the next movie!!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: davekill on June 04, 2013, 11:08:47 PM
For a fresh perspective on Into Darkness you might want to listen to the Starbase 66 movie review.
Mostly positive... some good insights... very enjoyable.
http://www.simplysyndicated.com/shows/starbase66/ (http://www.simplysyndicated.com/shows/starbase66/)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on June 06, 2013, 05:13:34 PM
Startrek.com article on that robot-y officer on the Enterprise bridge, and the actor who portrays him. Apparently his name is Science Officer 0718, and he's cybernetically enhanced, not an android.

http://www.startrek.com/article/star-treks-cybernetically-augmented-science-officer-joseph-gatt-part-1 (http://www.startrek.com/article/star-treks-cybernetically-augmented-science-officer-joseph-gatt-part-1)

Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on June 06, 2013, 09:12:18 PM
Quote from: ChrisMC on June 06, 2013, 05:13:34 PM
Startrek.com article on that robot-y officer on the Enterprise bridge, and the actor who portrays him. Apparently his name is Science Officer 0718, and he's cybernetically enhanced, not an android.

http://www.startrek.com/article/star-treks-cybernetically-augmented-science-officer-joseph-gatt-part-1 (http://www.startrek.com/article/star-treks-cybernetically-augmented-science-officer-joseph-gatt-part-1)




Borg!  ;)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bromptonboy on June 07, 2013, 03:42:22 AM
Quote from: ChrisMC on June 06, 2013, 05:13:34 PM
Startrek.com article on that robot-y officer on the Enterprise bridge, and the actor who portrays him. Apparently his name is Science Officer 0718, and he's cybernetically enhanced, not an android.

http://www.startrek.com/article/star-treks-cybernetically-augmented-science-officer-joseph-gatt-part-1 (http://www.startrek.com/article/star-treks-cybernetically-augmented-science-officer-joseph-gatt-part-1)


Hmmm...I wonder.  How is this enhancement different ethically from the genetic manipulation of which Khan and crew are a product?  Enhancing a living person and assigning him a numeric signifier and no name...    (just nit picking).  :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on June 07, 2013, 05:09:14 AM
Quote from: Bromptonboy on June 07, 2013, 03:42:22 AM
Quote from: ChrisMC on June 06, 2013, 05:13:34 PM
Startrek.com article on that robot-y officer on the Enterprise bridge, and the actor who portrays him. Apparently his name is Science Officer 0718, and he's cybernetically enhanced, not an android.

http://www.startrek.com/article/star-treks-cybernetically-augmented-science-officer-joseph-gatt-part-1 (http://www.startrek.com/article/star-treks-cybernetically-augmented-science-officer-joseph-gatt-part-1)


Hmmm...I wonder.  How is this enhancement different ethically from the genetic manipulation of which Khan and crew are a product?  Enhancing a living person and assigning him a numeric signifier and no name...    (just nit picking).  :)

I agree, not sure I want that sort in my Federation.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: X on June 07, 2013, 06:07:24 AM
Geordi was cybernetically enhanced, as was Pike and a few others.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bromptonboy on June 07, 2013, 06:30:52 AM
Quote from: X on June 07, 2013, 06:07:24 AM
Geordi was cybernetically enhanced, as was Pike and a few others.
Yes, but he did not seem to become a machine himself - and assigned a numeric name to replace Geordi.  I didn't read the link you posted, this is just a gut reaction to seeing him.  He appears to be test-tube bred or a construct of some sort.  If he is just a regular guy who has had parts added to him, I wonder why he is 'Science Officer 0718'  and not Science Officer 'Art Vandelay'.  :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on June 07, 2013, 07:59:13 AM
Quote from: X on June 07, 2013, 06:07:24 AM
Geordi was cybernetically enhanced, as was Pike and a few others.

Yeah, this is clearly not the same thing at all.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Praxis on June 07, 2013, 07:59:55 AM
Quote from: davekill on June 04, 2013, 11:08:47 PM
For a fresh perspective on Into Darkness you might want to listen to the Starbase 66 movie review.
Mostly positive... some good insights... very enjoyable.
http://www.simplysyndicated.com/shows/starbase66/ (http://www.simplysyndicated.com/shows/starbase66/)
Thanks for the suggestion, never heard of this podcast. It was really good! Yes some good insights. :thumbsup
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: X on June 07, 2013, 11:22:26 AM
Quote from: Bromptonboy on June 07, 2013, 06:30:52 AM
Quote from: X on June 07, 2013, 06:07:24 AM
Geordi was cybernetically enhanced, as was Pike and a few others.
Yes, but he did not seem to become a machine himself - and assigned a numeric name to replace Geordi.  I didn't read the link you posted, this is just a gut reaction to seeing him.  He appears to be test-tube bread or a construct of some sort.  If he is just a regular guy who has had parts added to him, I wonder why he is 'Science Officer 0718'  and not Science Officer 'Art Vandelay'.  :)
I read it and my assumption is that they never gave him a name. He was a nameless extra that they added a name to after the fact. I only say that because they were calling the character a derivative of the actor's name while shooting.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: billybob476 on June 07, 2013, 11:52:07 AM
He reminded me of Lobot :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on June 07, 2013, 01:27:13 PM
The big elephant in the room of course is that JJ doesn't really have a clue about true Star Trek.  I guess this is why he had to create his own universe!  ;)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on June 07, 2013, 01:50:49 PM
Quote from: Dangelus on June 07, 2013, 01:27:13 PM
The big elephant in the room of course is that JJ doesn't really have a clue about true Star Trek.  I guess this is why he had to create his own universe!  ;)

Well, I might argue that due to the vast amount of TV and film content STAR TREK has, there really is no "true" Trek. They have done it all, twice over, and three times on Sunday. So having a new interpretation isn't really anything new.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on June 07, 2013, 01:55:35 PM
Let's not forget, the movies were taken away from Gene Roddenberry after ST:TMP, and Nicholas Meyer wrote Star Trek the way he wanted to see it. Gene didn't care for it, he thought it became too militaristic. But let's face it, TMP vs. TWOK....which one do you show a Trek virgin? So Trek always has new directions, and there has never been "one true Trek vision". Ever.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on June 07, 2013, 01:58:15 PM
Although I agree with the statements I also feel that it has always been consistent and complimentary to previous incarnations in a way nuTrek isn't IMHO.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on June 07, 2013, 02:21:53 PM
Quote from: Dangelus on June 07, 2013, 01:58:15 PM
Although I agree with the statements I also feel that it has always been consistent and complimentary to previous incarnations in a way nuTrek isn't IMHO.

I can appreciate that but for me Trek is about the relationships between the characters and that is really coming together for me in a very familiar way.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on June 07, 2013, 02:39:04 PM
Yeah, I feel the same way. I never took Trek as "hard sci-fi", my takeaway when I was younger was it's a show (or movies) about a bunch of friends in space, and they have a cool ship. It's still that, and that's when Trek is at it's best.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on June 07, 2013, 03:08:03 PM
Personally for me it was about the human condition,  morality and the sci-fi.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on June 07, 2013, 04:38:40 PM
Quote from: Dangelus on June 07, 2013, 03:08:03 PM
Personally for me it was about the human condition,  morality and the sci-fi.

Was it really? Or is that looking back in retrospect at over 45 years of Trek history where Gene had the opportunity to really spin that sucker? I'm not saying he didn't have a "vision", I just think at it's heart TOS was a TV show Gene made to make money and make it entertaining. I think we as Trek fans sometimes put him and what he created on a pedestal that may not be deserved. He was a business man.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on June 07, 2013, 04:44:37 PM
Not sure I really agree with that Bryan.  I would say most of TOS had some type of morality play going on in the episode.  Same for much of the later Trek series too.  Much more so than most other TV series of the era - by far.  He certainly wasn't trying to make great money or do good business in the TOS days.  The show was always in danger of failing.  He could have pumped things up but I feel he tried to stay true to his vision for the series at the expense of ratings and making more money.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on June 07, 2013, 04:47:16 PM
Am I the only one who feels Gene is overly deified? Just a thought. TNG picked up greatly and improved after he was out of day to day. His vision many times interfered with storytelling, especially on TNG. It kept the characters somewhat stale.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: X on June 07, 2013, 05:04:38 PM
If you go through any of the series, more times than not, it's not a morality play. For every City on the Edge of Forever, we have a Spock's brain.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on June 07, 2013, 05:06:49 PM
Quote from: X on June 07, 2013, 05:04:38 PM
If you go through any of the series, more times than not, it's not a morality play. For every City on the Edge of Forever, we have a Spock's brain.
Agree completely. What did we learn from Sub Rosa, Shades of Grey, or the Way To Eden? ;)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on June 07, 2013, 05:07:25 PM
Quote from: Rico on June 07, 2013, 04:44:37 PM
Not sure I really agree with that Bryan.  I would say most of TOS had some type of morality play going on in the episode.  Same for much of the later Trek series too.  Much more so than most other TV series of the era - by far.  He certainly wasn't trying to make great money or do good business in the TOS days.  The show was always in danger of failing.  He could have pumped things up but I feel he tried to stay true to his vision for the series at the expense of ratings and making more money.

Ask Alxander Courages estate that and get back to me. ;)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on June 07, 2013, 05:09:52 PM
Quote from: ChrisMC on June 07, 2013, 04:47:16 PM
Am I the only one who feels Gene is overly deified? Just a thought. TNG picked up greatly and improved after he was out of day to day. His vision many times interfered with storytelling, especially on TNG. It kept the characters somewhat stale.

No, you are not. By TNG, he had the $ and reputation to do a lot of what he considered his vision, but it wasn't compelling TV. Sure he was very much a visionary, but I do think this ideal of Trek is more based on the fans then The Man.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on June 07, 2013, 05:13:16 PM
I've only been mainly talking TOS.  You can go round and round in this discussion, but without Gene (and in my view his vision), there would have been no Trek.  I don't deify him.  I simply appreciate what he did on TV back in the early 1960's.  To me, that was pretty damn impressive.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on June 07, 2013, 05:15:16 PM
But he did screw Courage.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on June 07, 2013, 05:40:50 PM
My point isn't to vilify Gene, it's just to challenge this preconception about what is Trek, which is being used by those critical of the new films to bash it. Not directed at you Dan, on other forums I frequent.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on June 07, 2013, 05:50:58 PM
Quote from: Bryancd on June 07, 2013, 05:40:50 PM
My point isn't to vilify Gene, it's just to challenge this preconception about what is Trek, which is being used by those critical of the new films to bash it. Not directed at you Dan, on other forums I frequent.
Yeah, that's what I was reacting to. This weird view of what Trek "should" be really never was.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on June 07, 2013, 06:41:10 PM
Well, to be fair we have all have our own ideal of what Trek is, and I have no argument with that. It's just a common refrain of the party line about what Trek has become marketed to be that I find a bit disingenuous. For sure it was a revolution in it's time and the post TOS shows looked to emulate that, but the films always looked to entertain.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on June 08, 2013, 12:14:52 AM
Quote from: Bryancd on June 07, 2013, 05:40:50 PM
My point isn't to vilify Gene, it's just to challenge this preconception about what is Trek, which is being used by those critical of the new films to bash it. Not directed at you Dan, on other forums I frequent.

That's cool,  and I've said before that I enjoy nuTrek as much as the next guy. Character wise they are doing interesting things. I just get the feeling of had very little in common with what came before it apart from the characters and basic concepts. They same can't be said for TOS to Enterprise which all feel like part of the same thing to me.

When it comes to Gene I appreciate it is his vision that has been built upon but it really came into its own once he didn't have total control and obviously once he had passed.

The new movies desperately attempt to cater for non trek fans by giving them elements and concepts that are simply not trek by definition. Like I said,  enjoyable movies but this is a marketing exercise and is all about the dollars and not the story these days I'm afraid...
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bromptonboy on June 08, 2013, 07:26:09 AM
I sometimes wonder if a studio really tried to produce an exquisite thoughtful Science Fiction movie - that really sticks to believable science - or things that don't stretch disbelieve too badly by extrapolating on what me might have in a few years - would it sell?  Could Kubrick have made 2001 these days? 

I like to think - but probably delude myself - that if someone really made something uncompromising for art's sake - that $'s would follow.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on June 08, 2013, 07:42:53 AM
Have you seen "Moon" with Sam Rockwell? Pretty hard sci-fi movie, made for a small budget. It's really awesome, but I don't know if "hard" sci-fi has appeal anymore to the general public. It will always have people who love it, but I couldn't get most people I know to watch 2001. I can watch it and soak it in, but I think it's too slow for non-genre fans.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on June 08, 2013, 07:43:01 AM
I think the big thing that we have all pretty much said before is that the Trek films are much different than the various TV series have been.  But this isn't unique.  Look at other TV properties that they tried to turn in to film series.  Truthfully, Trek has made that transition better than anyone.  It's a very hard and tricky thing to do.  I'm sure we will get another Trek TV series at some point (after one more film is my current prediction).  Until then, we have the movies to enjoy for what they give us.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bromptonboy on June 08, 2013, 07:50:38 AM
Quote from: ChrisMC on June 08, 2013, 07:42:53 AM
Have you seen "Moon" with Sam Rockwell? Pretty hard sci-fi movie, made for a small budget. It's really awesome, but I don't know if "hard" sci-fi has appeal anymore to the general public. It will always have people who love it, but I couldn't get most people I know to watch 2001. I can watch it and soak it in, but I think it's too slow for non-genre fans.

Haven't seen Moon - I'll have to check it out. 

I think with a good story - that a hard scifi movie would be great.  Some of Ben Bova's stuff for example - or Larry Niven.

Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on June 08, 2013, 07:57:41 AM
Quote from: Bromptonboy on June 08, 2013, 07:50:38 AM
Quote from: ChrisMC on June 08, 2013, 07:42:53 AM
Have you seen "Moon" with Sam Rockwell? Pretty hard sci-fi movie, made for a small budget. It's really awesome, but I don't know if "hard" sci-fi has appeal anymore to the general public. It will always have people who love it, but I couldn't get most people I know to watch 2001. I can watch it and soak it in, but I think it's too slow for non-genre fans.

Haven't seen Moon - I'll have to check it out. 

I think with a good story - that a hard scifi movie would be great.  Some of Ben Bova's stuff for example - or Larry Niven.


I'd LOVE to see an Asteroid Wars movie, that was a fun series. I think MARS would be the obvious Ben Bova choice though. And for the weirder, heavier tip, I'd really enjoy an adaptation of Dan Simmons' Hyperion.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on June 08, 2013, 09:06:38 AM
"Moon" was good and with a pretty decent real science portrayal of life on the moon except the gravity seems Earth like. But it was a bit dull. You know what had some decent science fact? "Firefly" and even a little BSG. At least they both made a real effort.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Ktrek on June 08, 2013, 11:09:09 AM
Quote from: ChrisMC on June 07, 2013, 04:47:16 PM
Am I the only one who feels Gene is overly deified? Just a thought.

I think Roddenberry is given a little more credit than he deserves. Mostly because his ideas were not really original as he incorporated (stole?) ideas directly from classic sci-fi books and pulp magazines of the 40s, 50s and 60s into his show. Most of the best ideas in Star Trek had already been explored in these old sci-fi and pulps long before Gene ever dreamed of Star Trek as a TV show. You would think he came up with all the sci-fi elements himself and he did not. Also, if he had not had the team he did Star Trek would never had been as good as it turned out to be. He gets all the credit but it is the people he surrounded himself with that should really get the credit in my opinion.

Kevin
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on June 14, 2013, 03:19:57 AM
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/62867 (http://www.aintitcool.com/node/62867)

Article on the Science of Into Darkness, which pretty much covers my nitpicks about the movie, which is the way the Science of Trek is represented.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bromptonboy on June 14, 2013, 04:21:54 AM
Quote from: ChrisMC on June 14, 2013, 03:19:57 AM
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/62867 (http://www.aintitcool.com/node/62867)

Article on the Science of Into Darkness, which pretty much covers my nitpicks about the movie, which is the way the Science of Trek is represented.
Hah!  Funny curmudgeonly review.  :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: KingIsaacLinksr on June 14, 2013, 05:56:18 AM
Quote from: ChrisMC on June 14, 2013, 03:19:57 AM
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/62867 (http://www.aintitcool.com/node/62867)

Article on the Science of Into Darkness, which pretty much covers my nitpicks about the movie, which is the way the Science of Trek is represented.

Yeah, glad he took the Enterprise being under water to pieces. There was absolutely no reason for that scene and I rolled my eyes at it. There is no way that the structure of the Enterprise would have held up to being underwater.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on June 14, 2013, 06:33:40 AM
Quote from: KingIsaacLinksr on June 14, 2013, 05:56:18 AM
Yeah, glad he took the Enterprise being under water to pieces. There was absolutely no reason for that scene and I rolled my eyes at it. There is no way that the structure of the Enterprise would have held up to being underwater.

Not really and no it wouldn't. He said the ship wasn't designed to go under water and pointed out theoretical devices which might not work, but he also allowed:
"I'm just giving them the fact that the force fields that provide structural integrity when the ship experiences extreme accelerations can save them from the underwater pressure."
And they weren't at the bottom of an ocean, they were in a shallow bay.

You need to keep in mind out concept of space ship, be it shuttle, Soyuz capsule, Dragon module, ISS, is a massive compromise of weight vs. structural integrity. We have to make things tough but super light due to the fact that lifting an object into orbit is the most cost prohibitive part of the process. The ISS has alarmingly thin walls but because it doesn't experience stress of gravity, they can get away with it. I have always been under the impression that Starfleet ships are made of much sterner stuff. Even without the assistance of structural integrity fields to make them tougher they can survive unshielded phaser and photon torpedo hits without blowing to a million pieces, at least at first. I think people are seriously underestimating how strong the hulls of these ships are and the weight and resistance of a fluid wouldn't crush them.

Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: KingIsaacLinksr on June 14, 2013, 07:37:39 AM
Quote from: Bryancd on June 14, 2013, 06:33:40 AM
Quote from: KingIsaacLinksr on June 14, 2013, 05:56:18 AM
Yeah, glad he took the Enterprise being under water to pieces. There was absolutely no reason for that scene and I rolled my eyes at it. There is no way that the structure of the Enterprise would have held up to being underwater.

Not really and no it wouldn't. He said the ship wasn't designed to go under water and pointed out theoretical devices which might not work, but he also allowed:
"I'm just giving them the fact that the force fields that provide structural integrity when the ship experiences extreme accelerations can save them from the underwater pressure."
And they weren't at the bottom of an ocean, they were in a shallow bay.

You need to keep in mind out concept of space ship, be it shuttle, Soyuz capsule, Dragon module, ISS, is a massive compromise of weight vs. structural integrity. We have to make things tough but super light due to the fact that lifting an object into orbit is the most cost prohibitive part of the process. The ISS has alarmingly thin walls but because it doesn't experience stress of gravity, they can get away with it. I have always been under the impression that Starfleet ships are made of much sterner stuff. Even without the assistance of structural integrity fields to make them tougher they can survive unshielded phaser and photon torpedo hits without blowing to a million pieces, at least at first. I think people are seriously underestimating how strong the hulls of these ships are and the weight and resistance of a fluid wouldn't crush them.



But it wasn't designed with the ocean in mind. I'm a bit skeptical that the joints holding the nacelles could have held up under the stress. That's still a ton of water being put on a ship that is designed for outer space.

Let's assume that it can due to the force fields. Even then, what was the point of being underwater in the first place? How did they get there without the natives noticing in the first place? Why would you do it if you were going to lose your ability to beam people up and down from the surface? None of this makes any sense. Here's a question as well. How in the heck were they planning on getting out of there without the natives noticing? It's stuff like this that has pretty much ruined this movie for me. So many plot holes that I could fly the Enterprise through them.

And this is a movie that took years and years to get done.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on June 14, 2013, 07:41:54 AM
I gave then the water thing, didn't bug me. It's the representation of Warp Speed ( takes as long as it takes Carol Marcus to run from sickbay to the bridge to get from Kronos to Earth) and the Transwarp beaming which basically can turn the Federation into the Iconians. These are the same things that bugged me about the last film so I guess it's the way they want this universe to be.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: KingIsaacLinksr on June 14, 2013, 07:49:11 AM
Quote from: ChrisMC on June 14, 2013, 07:41:54 AM
I gave then the water thing, didn't bug me. It's the representation of Warp Speed ( takes as long as it takes Carol Marcus to run from sickbay to the bridge to get from Kronos to Earth) and the Transwarp beaming which basically can turn the Federation into the Iconians. These are the same things that bugged me about the last film so I guess it's the way they want this universe to be.

Oh yeah, that Kronos to Earth thing really bothers me as well.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on June 14, 2013, 08:13:53 AM
Quote from: KingIsaacLinksr on June 14, 2013, 07:37:39 AM
But it wasn't designed with the ocean in mind. I'm a bit skeptical that the joints holding the nacelles could have held up under the stress. That's still a ton of water being put on a ship that is designed for outer space.

Let's assume that it can due to the force fields. Even then, what was the point of being underwater in the first place? How did they get there without the natives noticing in the first place? Why would you do it if you were going to lose your ability to beam people up and down from the surface? None of this makes any sense. Here's a question as well. How in the heck were they planning on getting out of there without the natives noticing? It's stuff like this that has pretty much ruined this movie for me. So many plot holes that I could fly the Enterprise through them.

What "tons of water? It was a few hendred feet down at the most and lifted out pretty slowly, there is no reason to think the nacelles would just snap off or the joints (?) couldn't handle it. As to the "why" they were there, I just think it was a neat conceit. Trnasporters can't work underwater? Says who, Gene Roddenberry's ghost? This is all made up crap, new flash.

In regards to this "taking you out of the movie" and "ruining it" for you, I can't help you there, I felt none of that. I am not so pedantic in my enjoyment of the film.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: X on June 14, 2013, 08:34:21 AM
First off, anyone that says a ship can't go underwater knows nothing about the pressures of a gas giant. Numerous trek ships have been in gas giants and many have been underwater. Let's just ignore that and look at one small thing.

The new enterprise survived the pressures of a black hole. Black hole trumps water any day of the week. I don't see how that's a plot hole.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: X on June 14, 2013, 08:37:12 AM
Quote from: KingIsaacLinksr on June 14, 2013, 07:37:39 AM

But it wasn't designed with the ocean in mind. I'm a bit skeptical that the joints holding the nacelles could have held up under the stress. That's still a ton of water being put on a ship that is designed for outer space.
We have absolutely zero idea what the Enterprise was designed for. All we know for sure is that it's tough enough to enter orbit and can survive near the edge of a blackhole. It could be made Ford tough to land on higher pressure worlds.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Praxis on June 14, 2013, 08:40:23 AM
Quote from: X on June 14, 2013, 08:37:12 AM
Quote from: KingIsaacLinksr on June 14, 2013, 07:37:39 AM

But it wasn't designed with the ocean in mind. I'm a bit skeptical that the joints holding the nacelles could have held up under the stress. That's still a ton of water being put on a ship that is designed for outer space.
We have absolutely zero idea what the Enterprise was designed for. All we know for sure is that it's tough enough to enter orbit and can survive near the edge of a blackhole. It could be made Ford tough to land on higher pressure worlds.

Truth! :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on June 14, 2013, 08:44:19 AM
Yes, thank you Chris!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: X on June 14, 2013, 09:09:31 AM
Now, let me address why under water.

As those of you that have lived on Earth in the last decade or so, you will recall that a small volcano erupted and when it did, it hampered flight over a good swath of the Atlantic.

Let's assume that this mega eruption is like the known mega eruptions in our own solar system. This could create a ejection that reaches past the lower atmosphere. If all  else fails, you don't want to be in the area when it happens, not because your ship can't take it, but when things erupt, people tend to look up and not down. Why risk being seen above when you can hide where they are not looking.

Let's continue that thought. Even if you don't get full eruption, you have a lot of particles in the air that can reflect and scatter the transporter beam. By having your support crew in a location where volcanic soot will not pose a problem and by using a ship with better and larger engines, you can ignore the issues with the soot.

It's not a plot hole if you don't understand why something is happening. It's just something that you don't understand.

There are probably a dozen of reason as to why they did it that way, but at the end of the day, they really don't need to draw us a map or need to explain the ins and outs of every command decision.

I do enjoy how they write of the article brought up the warp factors and distance of Kronos, but he forgot two major things.

1) Kronos has been moved in the past, so we really don't know where this planet is in this universe.

2) This is not your father's warp drive. Everything we've seen seems to point at more Star wars like travel or even wormhole based warp. The funny part about that whole science rant is that as far as we know, the wormhole like warp is far more scientifically sound than the folded space bubble of traditional warp. That being said, the distance between the points would not be a factor in the new warp if it is indeed wormhole based. The amount of time it would take to travel between points would be solely based on the construction of the wormhole, which would also explain the new warp effects and the momentum issues seen onscreen.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on June 14, 2013, 11:40:28 AM
Who moved Kronos?! Lol

I can accept anything in terms of a reboot etc but when you tie your new universe to the old then certain things can't be changed do easily such add the location of a celestial body.

Yeah I hate the new way warp drive works. One of the most recognisable technologies of the franchise totally changed because it looks"cool". The same reason the ship was submerged, an excuse for a cool effect.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: X on June 14, 2013, 12:18:49 PM
Quote from: Dangelus on June 14, 2013, 11:40:28 AM
Who moved Kronos?! Lol

I can accept anything in terms of a reboot etc but when you tie your new universe to the old then certain things can't be changed do easily such add the location of a celestial body.

Yeah I hate the new way warp drive works. One of the most recognisable technologies of the franchise totally changed because it looks"cool". The same reason the ship was submerged, an excuse for a cool effect.
LOL the planet doesn't move, but the name does. Qo'nos was ruined in the Praxis incident, but there is a Qo'nos in the TNG era. There were some thing that happened there and a move was suggested a while back. Regardless of that, ENT puts the klingon home world at around 1 year away  give or take.

http://phoenixinn.iwarp.com/startrek/files/wranges.htm (http://phoenixinn.iwarp.com/startrek/files/wranges.htm)

If you factor in the Narada tech and advances, I'm betting that new trek uses the new scale. You can go from the klingon homeworld to earth in 10 minutes at warp 9 flat.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on June 14, 2013, 12:37:31 PM
Ash yes I forgot about the Praxis incident. :-)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: KingIsaacLinksr on June 14, 2013, 01:47:27 PM
Quote from: X on June 14, 2013, 09:09:31 AM

Let's assume that this mega eruption is like the known mega eruptions in our own solar system. This could create a ejection that reaches past the lower atmosphere. If all  else fails, you don't want to be in the area when it happens, not because your ship can't take it, but when things erupt, people tend to look up and not down. Why risk being seen above when you can hide where they are not looking.

I seriously doubt anyone could actually see the Enterprise from low-earth orbit with their own eyes. Maybe if they had a telescope and MAYBE if they were looking in the right direction, they could see it. But as we saw in Star Trek: First Contact, it's really difficult to see the Enterprise E at night. Pretty sure the E is bigger than the original. And that aside, I'm pretty sure they could move the ship out of the way of the eruption.

Quote from: X on June 14, 2013, 09:09:31 AM
Let's continue that thought. Even if you don't get full eruption, you have a lot of particles in the air that can reflect and scatter the transporter beam. By having your support crew in a location where volcanic soot will not pose a problem and by using a ship with better and larger engines, you can ignore the issues with the soot.

Here's the main reason none of this matters:

The volcano hadn't erupted yet.

And if it did erupt, then they can just, idk, BEAM them off the surface before it becomes a problem. It doesn't take a long time to beam someone off the surface and clearly this can be done when an entire planet is blowing up. If your transporters can't beam someone off the volcano is erupting yet can do it when the entire planet is going boom, then you've got a serious problem with your tech.

Quote from: X on June 14, 2013, 09:09:31 AM

It's not a plot hole if you don't understand why something is happening. It's just something that you don't understand.

Well, if the movie bothered to explain itself, I wouldn't have this issue. But it's clear that they have no wish to explain anything and would rather you just went along for the ride. Aka: Lazy writing.

Quote from: X on June 14, 2013, 09:09:31 AM

I do enjoy how they write of the article brought up the warp factors and distance of Kronos, but he forgot two major things.

1) Kronos has been moved in the past, so we really don't know where this planet is in this universe.

2) This is not your father's warp drive. Everything we've seen seems to point at more Star wars like travel or even wormhole based warp. The funny part about that whole science rant is that as far as we know, the wormhole like warp is far more scientifically sound than the folded space bubble of traditional warp. That being said, the distance between the points would not be a factor in the new warp if it is indeed wormhole based. The amount of time it would take to travel between points would be solely based on the construction of the wormhole, which would also explain the new warp effects and the momentum issues seen onscreen.

Well, if we had any explanation of this, then I'd be fine. But as far as I can tell, we're still, apparently, using the same Warp drives. Apparently. Excusing the new visual changes and I'm still not sure what to make of that. If distances can be crossed so quickly, then that brings up a lot of questions/problems but I won't bother with that.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: KingIsaacLinksr on June 14, 2013, 01:57:18 PM
Quote from: Bryancd on June 14, 2013, 08:13:53 AM

In regards to this "taking you out of the movie" and "ruining it" for you, I can't help you there, I felt none of that. I am not so pedantic in my enjoyment of the film.

My enjoyment is based on the plot and overall feeling to the film. All this stuff I'm pointing out is fluff to me but its concerning that Hollywood feels the need to have all of these problems with films. The overall feeling was a ridiculously fast rollercoaster that never slowed down...and I'm getting tired of that pace. But it seems to be getting worse as more films come and the action has to be even faster. It's like the filmmakers have ADHD and are afraid that if we take even one breath, people won't go see the film. The plot itself is a mess with a villain that doesn't make much sense nor has a rhyme or reason to be there. He wasn't Khan. I never believed that he was Khan and as far as I could tell, he was just another British supervillain. I have less trouble believing Pine is Captain Kirk and he's a hard sell for me. From there, the entire film falls apart for me.

But then again, this just reinforces the notion that I need to turn my brain off whenever I go to see a film.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on June 14, 2013, 02:02:39 PM
Quote from: KingIsaacLinksr on June 14, 2013, 01:57:18 PM

But then again, this just reinforces the notion that I need to turn my brain off whenever I go to see a film.

Really, so if I had my brain engaged and was able to follow the plot just fine, what does that say about me....or you? Seems like I am in the majority...
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: KingIsaacLinksr on June 14, 2013, 02:35:08 PM
Quote from: Bryancd on June 14, 2013, 02:02:39 PM
Quote from: KingIsaacLinksr on June 14, 2013, 01:57:18 PM

But then again, this just reinforces the notion that I need to turn my brain off whenever I go to see a film.

Really, so if I had my brain engaged and was able to follow the plot just fine, what does that say about me....or you? Seems like I am in the majority...

It says that people get distracted by the visuals and characters, based off the Tomatometer. Idk what it says about you. For me, it says that I'm extremely analytical about movies.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on June 14, 2013, 02:42:07 PM
Don't confuse analytical with pedantic....

The film's plot was relatively straight forward. The "plot holes" you point out are not a function of lazy writing, they are simply not key to advancing the story. Just because you don't respond well to something doesn't make it bad nor does the fact that you dislike something most people enjoy make you more analytical.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on June 14, 2013, 03:35:29 PM
Whatever happened to having fun nitpicking a Trek movie? It's what me and the boys always do, doesn't mean we don't love it. You always hurt the ones you love.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: X on June 14, 2013, 03:39:00 PM
Okay, I guess I have to break things down for you a bit. The job of the story isn't to hold your hand and explain every step and action. You assume that the warp is the same, but nothing that has been shown is the same. From the visual effects to the way they appeared in the middle of a debris field in the first movie. They showed you that it wasn't the same, but you chose to ignore that because they didn't tell you it wasn't the same.

As for seeing the enterprise in orbit ... tell that anyone that has seen the ISS

http://blogs.howstuffworks.com/2009/03/18/how-to-see-the-international-space-station-with-your-naked-eyes-when-it-flies-over-your-house/ (http://blogs.howstuffworks.com/2009/03/18/how-to-see-the-international-space-station-with-your-naked-eyes-when-it-flies-over-your-house/)

IT's about the size of a football field. The new enterprise is between 6 to 9 time bigger, so yeah, you can see it from space and pretty clearly if you can see the ISS.

I think that the plot holes that you seem to see are 100% based on assumptions that you made despite what was shown on screen or because they didn't hold the audience's hand and explain every single action, technology, and character. That's not a plot hole.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on June 14, 2013, 03:39:15 PM
I liked it quite a bit.  I had fun.  I like the characters/actors.  Could I tear it apart and nitpick it easily - you betcha! 
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: X on June 14, 2013, 03:45:05 PM
Quote from: ChrisMC on June 14, 2013, 03:35:29 PM
Whatever happened to having fun nitpicking a Trek movie? It's what me and the boys always do, doesn't mean we don't love it. You always hurt the ones you love.
I don't mind nitpicking at all, but a nitpick based on an assumption is just an uninformed opinion. I guess I'm from a different group of fans. Instead of going "Oh they messed up on that" or "That couldn't work." I try to ask myself "how is that possible?" and "what would be needed to do that within the rules of the story?"

Or as my Daddy always told me. "Don't come to me with problems, come to me with solutions on how you want to deal with those problems."
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: X on June 14, 2013, 03:46:50 PM
Quote from: Rico on June 14, 2013, 03:39:15 PM
I liked it quite a bit.  I had fun.  I like the characters/actors.  Could I tear it apart and nitpick it easily - you betcha! 
Tearing stuff apart is probably the easiest thing to do. I think it's a much better exercise when you try to fill in the gaps with stuff that makes sense.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on June 14, 2013, 03:51:02 PM
Quote from: X on June 14, 2013, 03:46:50 PM
Quote from: Rico on June 14, 2013, 03:39:15 PM
I liked it quite a bit.  I had fun.  I like the characters/actors.  Could I tear it apart and nitpick it easily - you betcha! 
Tearing stuff apart is probably the easiest thing to do. I think it's a much better exercise when you try to fill in the gaps with stuff that makes sense.

Definitely.  Frankly, my biggest disappointment with the film was just that it borrowed quite a bit from Wrath of Khan (even if they did a good job with that).  But I still had a ball watching the movie anyway.  I just really want to see an original and new story idea for the next movie.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on June 14, 2013, 03:55:50 PM
Quote from: Rico on June 14, 2013, 03:51:02 PM
Quote from: X on June 14, 2013, 03:46:50 PM
Quote from: Rico on June 14, 2013, 03:39:15 PM
I liked it quite a bit.  I had fun.  I like the characters/actors.  Could I tear it apart and nitpick it easily - you betcha! 
Tearing stuff apart is probably the easiest thing to do. I think it's a much better exercise when you try to fill in the gaps with stuff that makes sense.

Definitely.  Frankly, my biggest disappointment with the film was just that it borrowed quite a bit from Wrath of Khan (even if they did a good job with that).  But I still had a ball watching the movie anyway.  I just really want to see an original and new story idea for the next movie.
Agreed. I could give a crap about the rest of it not making sense, but I really want a brand new story, take us somewhere we REALLY don't expect...act 3 of Into Darkness was a bit by the numbers, didn't matter of course, my wife and I were laughing and whooping it up with the rest of the fans. I just want to be surprised by Trek, but maybe after watching hundreds of hours over and over that just isn't possible. We will still have pretty, fun movies to see.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on June 14, 2013, 05:41:40 PM
Yeah, nitpicking can be fun. There is a great thread on the RPF nitpicking TWOK to show the Into Darkness nitpickers that it can be done for all the films. Where I take exception is where nitpicking becomes an overall indictment of the entire project as something to be dismissed and considered sub par. That I find arrogant and insulting and I will call anyone on it.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: WillEagle on June 15, 2013, 10:56:45 AM
I loved the movie. Sure there were things that could have been better but when it comes down to it I didn't care. I jumped on the ride and I didn't want it to end. As far as nitpicking Trek movies the biggest one has to be from what most consider the best Trek film 'The Wrath of Khan'. Khan didn't know Chekov from a hole in the ground. And come to think of it he never saw Chekov in the new movie either. But to me 'The Wrath of Khan' and 'Into Darkness' were awesome!!
And please quit using words on here that I need to look up in the dictionary!  ;D
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on June 17, 2013, 09:47:47 AM
LeVar Burton liked Into Darkness but he says he was 'missing Gene Roddenberry'. Since he knew him personally I'll let him have it!

http://www.treknews.net/2013/06/16/levar-burton-star-trek-into-darkness-is-missing-gene-roddenberry/ (http://www.treknews.net/2013/06/16/levar-burton-star-trek-into-darkness-is-missing-gene-roddenberry/)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on June 17, 2013, 10:27:07 AM
That's funny because I was missing the Next Generation! :-)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Jobydrone on June 17, 2013, 11:47:31 AM
Quote from: Dangelus on June 17, 2013, 10:27:07 AM
That's funny because I was missing the Next Generation! :-)
I'm constantly missing TNG!!!  Man what I would give for another TNG crewed full feature.  Never gonna happen I suppose. :( :( :(

I just recently saw ST:ID again and loved it even more the second time.  I agree with Tim on one point: about the overall velocity of the film, and I actually had the same issue with the new Superman movie.  It goes at such a fast pace that there's little time to even catch your breath.  Contrast this with the action sequences in a movie like Star Trek 6, where the action sequences are much briefer but still very powerful.  Can you think of an iconic image from the new Star Trek movie that even comes close to comparing to the scene of the Excelcior and the Enterprise blowing away Chang's Bird of Prey at the end of TUD?  I submit that the anticipation that is built up over an entire film of plot and character driven intrigue makes the action scenes that much more effective.  As much as I enjoyed ID, it's more like an amusement park roller coaster ride and less like the Star Trek I'm used to.  I still love it and will see it over and over again but I do worry about the future of the medium, and the feeling that something has been lost.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on June 17, 2013, 01:17:37 PM
Seems to be a trend that they have to make these movies so fast paced these days. It's almost an insult life they think we don't have the attention span to handle a little more fleshing out of the story. :(
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on June 17, 2013, 01:21:24 PM
Quote from: Dangelus on June 17, 2013, 01:17:37 PM
Seems to be a trend that they have to make these movies so fast paced these days. It's almost an insult life they think we don't have the attention span to handle a little more fleshing out of the story. :(
Some people don't, I truly believe that. I love a low burn, it's what got me into the show Mad Men...and my older son seems to be OK with slower paced stuff, but most younger people aren't. Sign O' the Times, I guess.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Geekyfanboy on June 19, 2013, 10:57:19 AM
Here's a link to Wil Wheaton's thoughts on Star Trek Into Darkness

http://wilwheaton.net/2013/06/my-review-of-star-trek-into-darkness/ (http://wilwheaton.net/2013/06/my-review-of-star-trek-into-darkness/)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on June 20, 2013, 12:49:27 PM
A look at the adjusted grosses for all of the Trek movies. 2009 is still tops, TMP CLOSE behind! Shows what starving your audience does. Nemesis is the only one which doesn't get above 100 mill.

1.Star Trek ( $274,311,200)   
2.Star Trek: The Motion Picture ($260,212,000)   
3.Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home ($229,227,500)   
4.Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan ($213,118,700)   
5.Star Trek Into Darkness ($213,088,100)   
6.Star Trek III: The Search for Spock ($180,708,400)
7.Star Trek: First Contact  ($164,686,600)      
8.Star Trek: Generations ($143,280,100}   
9.Star Trek VI: Undisc. Country ($142,092,200)   
10.Star Trek: Insurrection ($116,707,600   )
11.Star Trek V: The Final Frontier ($104,420,100)   
12.Star Trek: Nemesis ($58,440,700)   
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on June 20, 2013, 12:55:35 PM
Never thought about it that way.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on June 20, 2013, 01:15:05 PM
Quote from: ChrisMC on June 20, 2013, 12:49:27 PM
A look at the adjusted grosses for all of the Trek movies. 2009 is still tops, TMP CLOSE behind! Shows what starving your audience does. Nemesis is the only one which doesn't get above 100 mill.

1.Star Trek ( $274,311,200)   
2.Star Trek: The Motion Picture ($260,212,000)   
3.Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home ($229,227,500)   
4.Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan ($213,118,700)   
5.Star Trek Into Darkness ($213,088,100)   
6.Star Trek III: The Search for Spock ($180,708,400)
7.Star Trek: First Contact  ($164,686,600)      
8.Star Trek: Generations ($143,280,100}   
9.Star Trek VI: Undisc. Country ($142,092,200)   
10.Star Trek: Insurrection ($116,707,600   )
11.Star Trek V: The Final Frontier ($104,420,100)   
12.Star Trek: Nemesis ($58,440,700)   


You should include international as well.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on June 20, 2013, 01:35:02 PM
Many of the early ones do tv have the int. figures. I thought this was a fair comparison, since wide foreign releases weren't as massive as they are now.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on June 20, 2013, 03:39:26 PM
Quote from: ChrisMC on June 20, 2013, 01:35:02 PM
Many of the early ones do tv have the int. figures. I thought this was a fair comparison, since wide foreign releases weren't as massive as they are now.

Yeah, it would be more supportive to the actual financial success of the later films, that's why this is a bit misleading as to the question which films were the biggest financial winners.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on June 20, 2013, 04:01:53 PM
Well, it's a great representation of the US film market. I was actually very impressed that ST09 still wins. That sucker sold tickets.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on June 21, 2013, 03:23:04 AM
Quote from: ChrisMC on June 20, 2013, 04:01:53 PM
Well, it's a great representation of the US film market. I was actually very impressed that ST09 still wins. That sucker sold tickets.

People were pretty hungry for a Trek film at that point and it had the mass appeal that really only the Voyage Home had.  One thing I find interesting with Into Darkness is that the 3d option doesn't seem to be bumping the box office up that much. Makes me wonder if they will bother with 3d next time.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on June 21, 2013, 05:19:41 AM
Quote from: Rico on June 21, 2013, 03:23:04 AM
People were pretty hungry for a Trek film at that point and it had the mass appeal that really only the Voyage Home had.  One thing I find interesting with Into Darkness is that the 3d option doesn't seem to be bumping the box office up that much. Makes me wonder if they will bother with 3d next time.

Or that it's box office would have been worse without the supportiuve effect of higher priced 3D tickets, which I think is the case.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on June 21, 2013, 05:55:45 AM
Into Darkness was post conversion 3D wasn't it? I'd like to see what they could do with the 3D.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on June 21, 2013, 05:59:57 AM
Quote from: Dangelus on June 21, 2013, 05:55:45 AM
Into Darkness was post conversion 3D wasn't it? I'd like to see what they could do with the 3D.

Was it? I thought it was shot in IMAX 3D.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: billybob476 on June 21, 2013, 06:04:52 AM
I guess Nemesis is what oversaturating your audience does. Too bad, I enjoyed the movie.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on June 21, 2013, 06:06:33 AM
Quote from: Bryancd on June 21, 2013, 05:59:57 AM
Quote from: Dangelus on June 21, 2013, 05:55:45 AM
Into Darkness was post conversion 3D wasn't it? I'd like to see what they could do with the 3D.

Was it? I thought it was shot in IMAX 3D.

Everywhere I've checked says it was a post job.

Some scenes were filmed in IMAX perhaps they were in 3D?
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on June 21, 2013, 12:34:10 PM
It was a post conversion, JJ said that he didn't want to do a post-conversion 3D movie until he was shown a demo of it done well and he relented. I think the IMAX scenes were also post-converted.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: davekill on June 26, 2013, 12:19:42 PM
Quote from: ChrisMC on June 17, 2013, 01:21:24 PM
Quote from: Dangelus on June 17, 2013, 01:17:37 PM
Seems to be a trend that they have to make these movies so fast paced these days. It's almost an insult life they think we don't have the attention span to handle a little more fleshing out of the story. :(
Some people don't, I truly believe that. I love a low burn, it's what got me into the show Mad Men...and my older son seems to be OK with slower paced stuff, but most younger people aren't. Sign O' the Times, I guess.
A Game Of Thrones/Star Trek movie would be pretty awesome as the folks over at Trekcast postulated

Darren and Dave are a little skeptical of the storyline but give an overall positive movie review and final rating of 5 on a scale of 1 to 10.

Best quotes:
"Spock goes off on Khan like Ralphy from 'A Christmas Story'."
"Could there be a Super Tribble sequel?"

http://www.trekcast.com/trekcast-episode-92-khaaaaaaanfused-pt-1/ (http://www.trekcast.com/trekcast-episode-92-khaaaaaaanfused-pt-1/)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on July 03, 2013, 04:33:06 PM
Finally placed my preorder for this set.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00CTT9646/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B00CTT9646&linkCode=as2&tag=trekcore-20 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00CTT9646/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B00CTT9646&linkCode=as2&tag=trekcore-20)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bromptonboy on July 03, 2013, 05:07:40 PM
Cool!  It looks like it will feel substantial.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on July 03, 2013, 05:26:30 PM
I have had that order in for a while. :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on July 03, 2013, 07:05:03 PM
Quote from: Bryancd on July 03, 2013, 05:26:30 PM
I have had that order in for a while. :)

I was undecided for a bit since I already have the QMx phaser.  But in the end I said, ahh, why the heck not?  Can never have too many phasers around.  :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on July 03, 2013, 07:22:45 PM
Well this one has the rotating barrel. :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on July 03, 2013, 07:41:15 PM
Quote from: Bryancd on July 03, 2013, 07:22:45 PM
Well this one has the rotating barrel. :)

True.  But I also have the toy one that rotates, has sound, etc.  Like I said, you can never have too many phasers.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on July 10, 2013, 04:48:49 PM
Home video release is set for September 10th.

Paramount Pictures have today announced that Star Trek Into Darkness is set for a home entertainment DVD and Blu-ray release date of September 10, 2013. Paramount's press release also includes a list of Blu-ray bonus features which fans can look forward to.

Amazon.com is offering a number of different purchase options for fans, some of which we've already highlighted on the main page.

If you're ordering either the DVD (for $16.99, down from $29.99), the Blu-ray/DVD/Digital Copy combo pack (for $19.99, down from $39.99) or the 3D Blu-ray/Standard Blu-ray/DVD/Digital Copy combo pack (for $24.99, down from $54.99) then you'll receive a free copy of the Star Trek: Countdown to Darkness Comic Book! You can pre-order your format of choice from Amazon using the links below the press release.

Press Release & Bonus Features

"I'm excited for viewers at home to check out Star Trek Into Darkness on Blu-ray and DVD," said J.J. Abrams. "They did a great job and I'm thrilled with how everything looks and sounds. We also have some really fun behind-the-scenes special features that we shot on the Red and created entirely in-house at Bad Robot. They really look amazing and unlike anything I've seen on DVD or Blu-ray before." Abrams added "I hope fans enjoy seeing the process that went into making the movie and the truly amazing work of our most spectacular cast and crew."

The Star Trek Into Darkness Blu-ray/DVD and Blu-ray 3D/Blu-ray/DVD combo packs with UltraViolet™ are bursting with behind-the-scenes material detailing how the filmmakers delivered a rousing epic filled with both spectacle and soul. For the first time, the special features included in the combo packs were produced entirely by Abrams' Bad Robot Productions and captured in spectacular high quality on Red Epic cameras for a uniquely intimate perspective of the filmmakers' process.

Written by Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman and Damon Lindelof, the film follows the crew of the Enterprise as a shocking act of terror on Earth sends them on a manhunt to capture an unstoppable force of destruction and bring those responsible to justice. STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS features an outstanding ensemble cast including John Cho, Benedict Cumberbatch, Alice Eve, Bruce Greenwood, Simon Pegg, Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Zoe Saldana, Karl Urban, Peter Weller and Anton Yelchin.

Blu-ray Special features:
- Feature film in high definition
- Creating the Red Planet – Experience the creation of a never-before-seen alien world, as featured in the action-packed opening sequence of the film.
- Attack on Starfleet – Go behind the scenes with the cast and filmmakers and witness the creation of the shocking attack on Starfleet Headquarters.
- The Klingon Home World – Discover the stunning world of Kronos, and see how the filmmakers reinvented the Klingons for a new generation.
- The Enemy of My Enemy – Find out how, and why, the identity of the film's true villain was kept a mystery to the very end.
- Ship to Ship – An in-depth and thrilling look at the filming of the iconic space jump sequence, which both defied the laws of physics and pushed the limits of visual effects.
- Brawl by the Bay – Sit in with Zachary Quinto and Benedict Cumberbatch as they revisit their intense preparation for the film's breathtaking climax.
- Continuing the Mission – An inspiring look at the partnership between the film's crew and the organization that assists returning veterans to find meaningful ways to contribute on the home front.


http://trekcore.com/blog/2013/07/star-trek-into-darkness-dvd-and-blu-ray-release-date-and-special-features/ (http://trekcore.com/blog/2013/07/star-trek-into-darkness-dvd-and-blu-ray-release-date-and-special-features/)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: WillEagle on July 11, 2013, 11:52:31 AM
This comes out the day after my wife's birthday. Looks like she's getting this for her birthday!  ;D

Blu-ray for me!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on July 11, 2013, 12:14:18 PM
I got my order update from Amazon for the phaser set!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bromptonboy on July 11, 2013, 12:17:33 PM
Quote from: Bryancd on July 11, 2013, 12:14:18 PM
I got my order update from Amazon for the phaser set!
Did you redirect the order to CT or PA?  :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on July 11, 2013, 01:47:51 PM
:)

The phaser included is identical to the one released previously but with the addition of the rotating barrel. The phasers in Into Darkness were actually somewhat redesigned and have a different color scheme. My understanding from a threa over at the RPF is that they are going to do a true Into Darkness updated phaser sometime in the near future.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on July 18, 2013, 04:21:11 PM
Combo covers....

http://www.superherohype.com/news/articles/178209-star-trek-into-darkness-blu-ray-combo-covers-revealed (http://www.superherohype.com/news/articles/178209-star-trek-into-darkness-blu-ray-combo-covers-revealed)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: WillEagle on August 01, 2013, 02:34:29 PM
Here is something Wal-Mart is offering on the Blu-ray release. It includes a die-cast of the Vengeance. I hope I remembered that name correctly. Here is a link and its only $40. That I might be able to do. I wouldn't be able to get the $70 with the phaser.
http://www.walmart.com/ip/Star-Trek-Into-Darkness-Blu-ray-DVD-Digital-Copy-Villain-Ship-Walmart-Exclusive-Widescreen/26780164 (http://www.walmart.com/ip/Star-Trek-Into-Darkness-Blu-ray-DVD-Digital-Copy-Villain-Ship-Walmart-Exclusive-Widescreen/26780164)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Ktrek on August 01, 2013, 10:00:32 PM
I've pre-ordered this on Blu-Ray but I can'y say I'm waiting with bated breath for it to come. This was the first Star Trek movie that I have not seen more than once in the theater. I hope that with time and multiple viewings at home I will come to enjoy the movie more but I have my misgivings, but who knows it may grow on me. There are several films in my collection that I have come to enjoy much more than I did when it was first released.

Kevin
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Ktrek on August 15, 2013, 06:24:00 AM
Well, at the Vegas Star Trek convention this year the attendees voted Into Darkness as the worst Trek movie ever. I probably agree with the list at the bottom of the article as far as what are the best and worst films.

http://trekweb.com/articles/2013/08/14/Fans-Name-JJ-Abrams-Star-Trek-Into-Darkness-as-the-Worst-Trek-Movie-Ever-at-Vegas-Convention.shtml (http://trekweb.com/articles/2013/08/14/Fans-Name-JJ-Abrams-Star-Trek-Into-Darkness-as-the-Worst-Trek-Movie-Ever-at-Vegas-Convention.shtml)

Into Darknessis is visually appealing and well done in the special effects department but it has to be one of the worst scripts and stories ever in my opinion. Of course the $450 million take just bolsters Paramount to keep Orci and Kurtzman but I really wish the job had gone to another writing team.

Kevin
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on August 15, 2013, 07:31:32 AM
Yeah, we have been discussing that on the Treks in Sci-fi Facebook page. Consensus is the list is B.S. To say Into Darkness is worse then Nemesis, ST-V, and Insurrection is just dumb. But considering the source of that list, I am not suprised by that.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Meds on August 15, 2013, 12:11:49 PM
Yeah I call BS on that as well, though saying that i watched Nemesis last night and you know I think its a pretty good film. I just dont understand all the negativity towards STID, yeah ok we wanted more Bones but i really rather enjoyed it. I think people need to stop thinking that this version should be the same as the old version. Enjoy both.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on August 15, 2013, 12:13:38 PM
Quote from: Meds on August 15, 2013, 12:11:49 PM
Yeah I call BS on that as well, though saying that i watched Nemesis last night and you know I think its a pretty good film. I just dont understand all the negativity towards STID, yeah ok we wanted more Bones but i really rather enjoyed it. I think people need to stop thinking that this version should be the same as the old version. Enjoy both.

Yeah, which sort of contiunues to beg the question, is STID a remake of TWOK? Besides the character of Khan and a death secne the two films have nothing in common.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: billybob476 on August 15, 2013, 12:25:41 PM
"Inspired by" TWOK might be a better way to put it.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Ktrek on August 15, 2013, 12:37:51 PM
Plagerized would be more like it.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on August 15, 2013, 01:13:19 PM
The films have virtually nothing in common. The theme's of growing old in TWOK, absent from STID. The actual plot of the film, Khan seeking vengeance on Kirk and the McGuffin of the Genesis device? No where to be see Into Darkness. A rouge Admiral with a block ops ship trying to start a war with the Klingons in TWOK? Nada. You can be critical of the film for a myriad of reasons, to suggest one of those criticisms is that it's a remake of TWOK falls way short by any metric.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Meds on August 15, 2013, 01:18:43 PM
As you say Bry there are only two nods to TWOK and they are KHAAAANNN and the death scene, otherwise its totally original. Saying that though it backs up the point that they could have had a totally new villain and kept the entire story even the two nod scenes (bar changing the name)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on August 15, 2013, 02:31:55 PM
On my last viewing of STID, I did find that scene a tad bit cringe inducing and thought that in the end, it wasn't necessary. But I lived the movie as a whole, tons of fun.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on August 15, 2013, 03:34:16 PM
Quote from: Meds on August 15, 2013, 01:18:43 PM
Saying that though it backs up the point that they could have had a totally new villain and kept the entire story even the two nod scenes (bar changing the name)

Sure, but I would even go so far as to say the films villain was Admiral Marcus, not Kahn.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on August 15, 2013, 03:37:10 PM
Quote from: Bryancd on August 15, 2013, 03:34:16 PM
Quote from: Meds on August 15, 2013, 01:18:43 PM
Saying that though it backs up the point that they could have had a totally new villain and kept the entire story even the two nod scenes (bar changing the name)

Sure, but I would even go so far as to say the films villain was Admiral Marcus, not Kahn.
which is why yelling Khaaaan is a little silly. He didn't damage the Es warp core.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: WillEagle on August 17, 2013, 04:36:48 PM
Only got to see this once and I am very much looking forward to the Blu-ray! I really enjoyed this and I'm sure it will get multiple views!
And I would not rate it so low on the list. That's kinda crazy.
Also ranking Insurrection as 3rd worst, no way! Love that movie.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: jedijeff on August 19, 2013, 06:57:12 AM
I always cringe a bit when I see ranking lists, as at the end of the day, everyone has their own favorites and least favorites. I know for myself, I just don't hold Star Trek IV in the high regard that others do. I suspect a different day and a different group in that panel, and you might have seen a different list. Since it was at a Star Trek convention, might have had some rather staunch supporters of the Original Trek Universe. I found the other list they came out for their all time best of crew to even be more head scratching.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Feathers on August 20, 2013, 03:17:47 AM
To be honest, I really don't care for lists of rankings. So a particular group of people of a particular day thought that a film was the worst. So what? It doesn't actually affect me or the enjoyment I got from the film. I really don't understand the need to compare everything (and then bash the ones that come out worst). I guess it's humn nature but it's pretty depressing really.

On the S:ID/TWOK comparison, yes they used a couple of lines and references, and yes, I don't personally see the need for it, but to say it's a remake of the same story is a complaint too far in my opinion. At most it's simply a nod to the 'old series' of films.

I think they stuck Khan in there simply to shortcut some of the background story or, more likely, to try and give 'existing' fans an inside edge on the character since we knew more about him than the newbies would. In saying that, I think it worked to a degree but I don't think it was necessary. They still had to provide sufficient background for the newbies anyway so the screen time was required for that and we could have all coped with a completely new character/race under those circumstances.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on August 20, 2013, 03:29:50 AM
I agree, lists like this aren't very helpful.  I have enjoyed all the Trek films.  Maybe some a little more than others, but each is unique and fun in it's own way.  I see no need to rank them.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: moyer777 on August 20, 2013, 11:23:17 AM
Am I imagining it or can you download Into Darkness today on iTunes? 
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Jobydrone on August 20, 2013, 11:57:13 AM
It looks available for purchase on the iTunes store
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on August 20, 2013, 06:20:43 PM
I thought this would be funnier...

http://io9.com/honest-trailers-aims-its-phasers-at-star-trek-into-dark-1174225947 (http://io9.com/honest-trailers-aims-its-phasers-at-star-trek-into-dark-1174225947)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on August 21, 2013, 03:27:55 AM
HAHA! Love the bit with old Spock. Here's an imbed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6B22Uy7SBe4#t=234 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6B22Uy7SBe4#t=234)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Ktrek on August 21, 2013, 09:37:02 AM
I actually like this parody trailer more than the movie! Hilarious!!

Kevin
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Praxis on August 23, 2013, 07:42:43 AM
Wow.... That ranking is wack...how could STID be worse than Nemesis? And I like Nemesis (besides the bad dune buggy scene, the awkward wedding scene, the never even mentioning Lore, and the hilarious portrayal of starfleet construction methods [rickety ramp secured by one unsteady bolt from antiquity, a phaser rifle that falls apart in your hands]).
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Leighgion on August 23, 2013, 09:28:57 AM
Quote from: Ktrek on August 21, 2013, 09:37:02 AM
I actually like this parody trailer more than the movie! Hilarious!!

Kevin

Same here!

I wasn't happy with the new Trek movies from the start, but it wasn't until recently that I hit on a way of articulating the core reason.

You can like or dislike a new version of a franchise, but the problem I have is that "new Trek" isn't really "new." To me they play more like really expensive caricatures of classic Trek; like brainstorming sessions that got budgets but skipped vital writing stages to go straight to shooting.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Jobydrone on August 23, 2013, 12:31:32 PM
I may be a super fan, and not your average movie goer, but I've never seen a Star Trek movie I didn't enjoy on some level.  Yes, even Final Frontier, where I found the humor and character moments pure gold in places.  Into Darkness was not the best but is far from the worst on my list.  IMO that list is not even worth the time we've spent discussing it so far.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: X on August 23, 2013, 09:25:52 PM
I enjoyed the movie. I still don't see how anyone can claim that it's a rip on TWOK. It has a few common characters and that's about it. If it's a remake of anything, it's Space seed and it's not even close to that.

Here is the thing. Like it or not, it's set in a time similar to the original timeline with a lot of changes. I think that they are doing a great job of taking some of the familiar and making something new. John Harrison proved he was a super human in more ways than just a little super strength and that worked for me. he wasn't a villain in this film, he was a prison of war kidnapped and his family held hostage and that worked on so many levels for me. Sure, there are elements that I could have done without, but I appreciate that they didn't ignore transwarp transporting for the sake of convenience. How many times have we seen new things in an episode that are never seen again?

The anti borg fractal, genesis, metaphasic shielding, multi-vector attack mode, enterprise's baby, and the list goes on. this was one of the few times they they actually turned something that saved the day previously into a threat and I like that there was that cause and effect.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: WillEagle on August 30, 2013, 05:40:21 AM
Honest trailer was very funny. Especially liked the 'he can't protect his crew, or the Enterprise, or downtown San Francisco.'
Still can't wait for this when it comes out Sept. 10.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on August 31, 2013, 06:25:43 AM
Here's a roundup of all the various releases of the movie coming on September 10th.  I'm a little bugged that it seems each retailer is getting different, exclusive extra content.  Really a terrible way to try to get the fans to buy extra copies. 

http://trekmovie.com/2013/08/29/stid-tidbits-alternate-klingon-makeup-ideas-and-more/ (http://trekmovie.com/2013/08/29/stid-tidbits-alternate-klingon-makeup-ideas-and-more/)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: jedijeff on August 31, 2013, 06:56:38 AM
I agree, I think it is somewhat low to spread the bonus content around depending on the different retailers. So pretty much which ever retail version you get, you will be missing out on something. I guess all I can hope is that there is enough backlash from the consumers, that they rethink this approach in the future. This just sort of leaves me feeling a bit cold on feeling any sort of anticipation of getting this movie on Blu-Ray. I tend not to complain to much, as I just realize that is the way the world works these days, but this just feels like Studio/Retailers wanting to double dip into my wallet and taking advantage because it is Trek.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on August 31, 2013, 09:00:04 AM
Yeah, we are debating this over at the RPF as well. Personally, I don't place a huge amount of value on the "bonus" content we have come to expect from DVD/physical media releases. I tend to watch it once and then that's it. I also rarely watch a movie with the commentary. This release seems to be biased towards the digital version as having the most bells and whistles while the retail partners with the Blu-Ray and DVD's are given a variety of different options as well as extra's like the phaser or the Vengeance model or the Steelbook case thing. I think we are at the very early stages of seeing studios trying to ween people off the more pricey physical media model and into the digital, streaming model, which is a lower cost, higher margin proposition for them.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on August 31, 2013, 01:13:34 PM
And more controllable as well. They want to control their content, and when you buy a blu ray, you can loan it out. Which is just unheard of.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: X on August 31, 2013, 02:24:09 PM
I went digital last week and I'm enjoying the convenience.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on August 31, 2013, 02:26:49 PM
Guess I'm an old school collector. I really like having the physical thing on my shelf. But most blus come with digital copies anyway for my mobile device.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on August 31, 2013, 02:33:24 PM
I'm sure we will continue to see super duper releases in physical media for a while longer but considering that Blu-Ray adoption rate has been slowing, approximately $360M increase in sales revenue from 2010 to 2011 and approximately $216M increase from 2011 to 2012. Of course discs are also cheaper now but the trend is clear. So DVD and Blu-Ray will likely be the end of the physical media format, it's unlikely a new format will come to replace the disc. But digital is going to explode for media the same way it has for music.

We are currently in the Golden Age of home entertainment systems. Economics have driven down the cost of 52" Plasma TV's to a mere fraction of what they were not more then 5 years ago. This is what's happening in the Western developed nations as well as Japan and Pacific Rim (countries not movie). Now let's look at the BIG PICTURE. Emerging market economies such as India and China, home to almost 1/3 of the world population. People there are becoming upwardly mobile, with mobile being the operative word. Their connection to technology and media content as all via inexpensive devices like tablets and smart phones. That's how they consume the product. They will never even bother with the home theater model of consumerism. So the immediate and near future lies in portable technology. The drawback of that is screen size and storage capacity. So if you are a movie studio selling your content into this global market do you want to focus on high priced Blu-Ray disc releases loaded with extra's or streamlined versions that can be consumed on what are the dominant media players in the world today.

Having said that I still prefer buying the physical copy and there will always be a market for that, no matter how marginalized. Hell, yu can still buy a vinyl record for some releases.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on August 31, 2013, 02:55:59 PM
I'm a collector.  I like having stuff in my hands.  That said, it annoys me that they are dividing up this extra content.  Here's a quick breakdown:

Target: "Collector's Set with Special Features Bonus Disc" Exclusively at Target, a collector's set that includes unique package art and a Blu-ray bonus disc with over 70 minutes of special features including 30 minutes of exclusive content.

Best Buy: "30 Minutes of Exclusive Never-Before-Seen Content" A Best Buy Exclusive, delve into the creation of the film's unique alien creatures, get a first-hand look at one of the locations used for the U.S.S. Enterprise's Engine Room and more.

Walmart: "Limited Edition Gift Set with Steelbook & Villain Ship" Only at Walmart, this Limited Edition Gift Set includes the Blu-ray Combo Pack in collectible Steelbook packaging and a replica of the U.S.S. Vengeance.

Amazon: Starfleet Phaser Limited Edition Gift Set An Amazon exclusive, the Starfleet Phaser Gift Set includes a 1:1 scale authentic Starfleet phaser replica, gloss black display stand, brass plaque and the Blu-ray 3D Combo Pack.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on August 31, 2013, 03:31:30 PM
And what about the digital release?
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on August 31, 2013, 04:40:56 PM
Quote from: Bryancd on August 31, 2013, 03:31:30 PM
And what about the digital release?
You get an imaginary model of the Enterprise.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Ktrek on August 31, 2013, 06:21:38 PM
Quote from: ChrisMC on August 31, 2013, 04:40:56 PM
Quote from: Bryancd on August 31, 2013, 03:31:30 PM
And what about the digital release?
You get an imaginary model of the Enterprise.

ROTFL!!!

That's actually pretty accurate! LOL

Kevin
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on August 31, 2013, 07:30:16 PM
Quote from: ChrisMC on August 31, 2013, 04:40:56 PM
Quote from: Bryancd on August 31, 2013, 03:31:30 PM
And what about the digital release?
You get an imaginary model of the Enterprise.
[/quote
Quote from: ChrisMC on August 31, 2013, 04:40:56 PM
Quote from: Bryancd on August 31, 2013, 03:31:30 PM
And what about the digital release?
You get an imaginary model of the Enterprise.

Don't be silly, it's just cloaked.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: jedijeff on September 01, 2013, 07:08:09 AM
I understand the Arguments about moving toward Digital releases, and for the most part I am ok with that. I guess when it comes to something like Trek, that I hold close to my heart, having a full Blu-Ray release is important to me. Like Rico says, I am a collector, so I like to have something in my hands.
Maybe I am just being nostalgic, in that I like how they did it in the past with all those special features coming with the movies. I do agree, that I don't watch them often, but for Star Wars and Star Trek, I go back from time to time to watch them. When the Star Wars Blu-Rays were released, one of the big selling points past the films in Hi-Def, was the Bonus features. I liked going through some of the production photos for some of the concepts they had, and other behind the scenes information. Maybe with the way movies are made now, there is not really much to show behind the scenes, since a lot of it would be rendered on a computer. I guess the argument can be made as well, that a lot of that information is hosted on websites and the such, like the Klingon concepts that were released recently, but still miss the experience of having it on the Disc with the Movie.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on September 01, 2013, 08:35:22 AM
Luckily for me I'm not a collector and I don't buy physical media. I don't need thousands of pounds worth of movies collecting dust on my shelves.

I like the convenience of digital media but I agree it is lacking somewhat. Most of the time the official and legit places don't include a commentary track or other extra features that you would normally get with a physical copy and the price isn't always reflective of the cost saving to the studios.

In another ten or fifteen years when everybody has lightning fast Internet speeds I think we will be at the point where we will be buying something physical at the stores to satisfy collectors but instead of a disc it will be some sort of key giving us on demand access to the content.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on September 02, 2013, 04:59:12 AM
This is very well done!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtLI-_uVPsQ#ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtLI-_uVPsQ#ws)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: X on September 02, 2013, 03:41:15 PM
Here is the thing. They have those collections at various locations not for you to rush out and and buy them all. It's to entice you into the store that has the one that you want. They've been doing it for games for a long time and it works. It's an incentive for a store to get bodies into it. The intent isn't to force anyone to double dip. Hell, I'd be surprised if the amount of people doing so is even a fraction of a percentage of the purchases.

I went with the digital copy for the sole reason of not having to worry about extras. I used to be big on the extras, but I have rarely watched them more than once or twice. It makes better sense for me to go digital for the films I want to own and then add a physical copy for the ones I want to sit on my shelves.

Nothing is a convenient as having all of my digital collection with me where ever I go. I think I'm well into the triple digits of movies and shows that I own digitally. Had I had to keep them in the house, I'd be running out of space soon.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on September 02, 2013, 04:33:02 PM
Most of my DVDs I have in binders, uses us very little space. I bought the Star Wars blus and the LOTR extended almost solely for the special features...but most movies I could care less. The special features on the Jaws blu-ray were well worth upgrading to bluray for...there's a whole 2 hour doc on it! I have bought a couple movies digitally, and probably will do more in the future, but since most releases have some digital component I get the hard copy and the digital.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on September 02, 2013, 04:38:25 PM
Yeah, I only want all the bells and whistles in my most favorite films like STAR WARS, LOTR, Certain TREK, ALIEN, JAWS, but the rest, nah.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on September 02, 2013, 05:05:50 PM
Still like having physical media.  These discs/boxes are not that big.  I have a ton of movies and music on disc and they just all fit nicely in a closet.  As far as the extras, I don't watch a ton of them either but I like to have them if I want to see them and not need 3 or 4 different copies to see certain extra features.  To me, it's the principle of the thing.  And like I said on yesterday's podcast I think it sends out the wrong message and encourages people to just watch this stuff on Youtube or in other ways.

P.S.  One other plus of having physical media is I can convert it and use it on any device.  I'm not tied to one digital eco-system. 
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Ensign Random on September 02, 2013, 10:55:24 PM
Into Darkness finally came out in theatres in Japan, so I just got to see. I already knew all about it b/c I couldn't avoid it. Still, I had fun, which is all I ask of a movie. So I will dutifully buy my Blu-Ray.:) and I downloaded the soundtrack because I'm really into movie music.
Was it just me or did that Klingon leader that confronted Uhura look similar to the guy who played Worf's brother Kurn? (Tony Todd, I think)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on September 03, 2013, 02:35:13 AM
I'm sure I read that it was Tony.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Jobydrone on September 03, 2013, 06:31:36 AM
I used to INHALE audio commentaries when DVD first came out and the feature was new and exciting.  It was so cool hearing the actors and production crew talk about the behind the scenes stuff you never heard about anywhere else, giving you an insiders glimpse behind the curtain of the making of your favorite movies.  Off the top of my head, my favorites were the Kevin Smith DVD releases, the Ghostbusters DVD, and of course the LOTR special editions.  Nowadays though, that information is just out there easily found almost anywhere you look.  Deleted scenes wind up on You Tube before the physical media is even released, and websites and magazines dedicated to entertainment cover these movies exhaustively throughout the entire production process.  So the bloom has been off the rose for quite a number of years now.  I just don't have time or the inclination to watch a movie just to hear the commentary tracks anymore.  I get my fill of audio commentaries from this podcast anyway!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on September 03, 2013, 01:26:08 PM
Here's a really good run down on the video exclusives on each retail package.

http://trekcore.com/blog/2013/09/into-darkness-exclusives-part-i-video-vam/ (http://trekcore.com/blog/2013/09/into-darkness-exclusives-part-i-video-vam/)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: WillEagle on September 03, 2013, 06:41:43 PM
I like the extras but normally just watch them once. I hardly ever listen to the commentaries. Looks like the Target one for me unless I can swing it for the Wal-Mart with the 'Vengeance'. If I remember correctly they did this with Avengers also.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on September 10, 2013, 03:50:02 PM
Amazon package set has arrived!   :biggrin
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: WillEagle on September 10, 2013, 04:24:37 PM
Nice! I hope to pick up the Target one with the 70minutes of extras. It is supposed to have a exclusive cover but the one my boss bought today didn't have it.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on September 10, 2013, 04:40:14 PM
Quote from: WillEagle on September 10, 2013, 04:24:37 PM
Nice! I hope to pick up the Target one with the 70minutes of extras. It is supposed to have a exclusive cover but the one my boss bought today didn't have it.
You have to look for it. They had it at the front of the store here but not in electronics.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: moyer777 on September 11, 2013, 11:04:56 AM
Watched the movie last night on Blu Ray and a few of the extras.  Sure is action packed.. but after hearing all the nit picks it kind of spoiled it for me now.. they all stand out like sore thumbs now.  LOL!  Visually beautiful.... but plot.... ewwww.   
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on September 11, 2013, 11:38:53 AM
Quote from: moyer777 on September 11, 2013, 11:04:56 AM
Watched the movie last night on Blu Ray and a few of the extras.  Sure is action packed.. but after hearing all the nit picks it kind of spoiled it for me now.. they all stand out like sore thumbs now.  LOL!  Visually beautiful.... but plot.... ewwww.   


I couldn't have said it better! :)

Is it true the commentary track is only available on the iTunes version?
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on September 11, 2013, 03:49:04 PM
You can nitpick anything.  I still enjoy this film quite a bit.  And yes, the commentary track I think is limited - might be iTunes only.  As I've been saying there are more versions of this one film release than all the Star Wars releases combined!  LOL! 
Well, maybe not quite that many.  :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on September 11, 2013, 03:53:56 PM
Quote from: Rico on September 11, 2013, 03:49:04 PM
You can nitpick anything.  I still enjoy this film quite a bit.  And yes, the commentary track I think is limited - might be iTunes only.  As I've been saying there are more versions of this one film release than all the Star Wars releases combined!  LOL! 
Well, maybe not quite that many.  :)

Yep, I had three fun in theater experiences watching this film. And I'm not an easy lay. ;)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on September 15, 2013, 10:57:14 AM
We watched this again Friday night. Even with all of the nitpicks, this is a damn fine piece of entertainment. All around great performances and a story that moves nicely.

I got the Target disc, and the extra disc that comes with it features my favorite stuff...set design, art direction, makeup, special effects...I am really impressed with the amount of care they put into the detail work on this film. The redressing of the Ent. bridge to become the Vengeance is pretty awesome.

Also, I found out during the bit about the Klingon homeworld that the Klingon was NOT Tony Todd, but an actor named Scott Blackmore...though he does look like a young Tony Todd. Happy with the xtras I got, maybe could have used a gag reel or a commentary,but an hour and fifteen or so is about the max I want to spend anyway.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Ktrek on September 15, 2013, 11:57:50 AM
We watched the Blu-Ray version of this last night and I suppose I have to say there are still many things about the film I do not like but it was more "tolerable" on a second viewing having had time to get over my initial reaction to the film. I find it more entertaining to think of it less as a Star Trek film and just a good popcorn movie.

Kevin
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on September 15, 2013, 01:18:01 PM
Quote from: Ktrek on September 15, 2013, 11:57:50 AM
We watched the Blu-Ray version of this last night and I suppose I have to say there are still many things about the film I do not like but it was more "tolerable" on a second viewing having had time to get over my initial reaction to the film. I find it more entertaining to think of it less as a Star Trek film and just a good popcorn movie.

Kevin

Pretty much agree with that. The unfortunate reality in my opinion is that the more of this we get the less likely we will get Star Trek back on the TV where it belongs. The movies should be an off shoot of the TV series they are attached to. I just don't think any creative team can do justice to the franchise in movies alone. Not enough time to develop the characters...
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on September 15, 2013, 01:33:32 PM
Quote from: Dangelus on September 15, 2013, 01:18:01 PM
Pretty much agree with that. The unfortunate reality in my opinion is that the more of this we get the less likely we will get Star Trek back on the TV where it belongs. The movies should be an off shoot of the TV series they are attached to. I just don't think any creative team can do justice to the franchise in movies alone. Not enough time to develop the characters...

I think that has less to do with the success or failures of these films but more to do with the licensing mess STAR TREK is stuck in with CBS owning the TV rights.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on September 15, 2013, 01:42:11 PM
Yeah, I don't think many of is realize how separate the 2 entities are right now.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on September 15, 2013, 01:51:10 PM
Quote from: ChrisMC on September 15, 2013, 01:42:11 PM
Yeah, I don't think many of is realize how separate the 2 entities are right now.

And unlikely to reconcile. CBS wants to stick to the TV series timeline while Paramount has done a reboot.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on September 15, 2013, 02:01:40 PM
Well, I like that CBS is taking care of the TV stuff with the Blurays. I'm always gonna prefer the classic stuff. I think even novels based in the JJ timeline got submarines because of this stuff. 

It's a shame that there can't be a reconciliation...but more Trek on TV isn't always good for the franchise.  Given the choice, I would take a well done TV show over the movies.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on September 15, 2013, 02:05:21 PM
TV "Trek" and movie "Trek" are currently owned and operated separately.  Movies being successful might 'encourage' them to do a TV series again at some point but what they eventually do on TV really won't have anything to do with the films.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on September 15, 2013, 02:06:22 PM
Quote from: Rico on September 15, 2013, 02:05:21 PM
TV "Trek" and movie "Trek" are currently owned and operated separately.  Movies being successful might 'encourage' them to do a TV series again at some point but what they eventually do on TV really won't have anything to do with the films.

Yeah, that would be quit the conundrum.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on September 15, 2013, 07:28:36 PM
Watching it today, I was struck by how what Kirk did on Nimbus was exactly what TOS Kirk did time and time again and we never saw the consequences of his actions. It was interesting to see what would happen if Starfleet called Kirk to the mat for his flaunting of the rules. Nice touch.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ChrisMC on September 16, 2013, 03:23:55 AM
Yeah, how many times did Kirk completely change a society (The Apple for example) and say, "You'll figure out how to be free" and beam back up, have a laugh take with Spock and McCoy, and leave orbit. It is interesting to see that there is consequences to um, breaking Starfleet's Number One Rule.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on September 16, 2013, 10:26:59 AM
Quote from: Bryancd on September 15, 2013, 01:51:10 PM
Quote from: ChrisMC on September 15, 2013, 01:42:11 PM
Yeah, I don't think many of is realize how separate the 2 entities are right now.

And unlikely to reconcile. CBS wants to stick to the TV series timeline while Paramount has done a reboot.

My gosh I hope they get a chance to do this. If they do I can stop being so frustrated with these movies. Is there anything legally stopping them launching a new series at the moment?
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on September 16, 2013, 10:37:58 AM
Nothing legally stopping a new series from all I have read.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on September 16, 2013, 11:19:08 AM
Quote from: Rico on September 16, 2013, 10:37:58 AM
Nothing legally stopping a new series from all I have read.

Nothing I can think of beyond the desire, or lack thereof, on the part of CBS to spend the $ to do a new tv series based in the Prime timeline while competing against a movie franchise in a totally separate one. The market could become too bifurcated for their comfort level.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: billybob476 on September 16, 2013, 01:05:23 PM
A TV series in the prime timeline and movies in the JJ-verse would be confusing to casual watchers I would think.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on September 16, 2013, 04:10:42 PM
Quote from: billybob476 on September 16, 2013, 01:05:23 PM
A TV series in the prime timeline and movies in the JJ-verse would be confusing to casual watchers I would think.

Possibly.  But I don't think casual watchers watch the Trek TV shows.  Trek fans do.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on September 16, 2013, 04:25:02 PM
Quote from: Rico on September 16, 2013, 04:10:42 PM
Quote from: billybob476 on September 16, 2013, 01:05:23 PM
A TV series in the prime timeline and movies in the JJ-verse would be confusing to casual watchers I would think.

Possibly.  But I don't think casual watchers watch the Trek TV shows.  Trek fans do.

But CBS will want a show that is more inclusive before ponying up the dough. Trek fans can only support so much for a network and if that fan base is bifurcated then they will be even more interested in capturing the casual fan. Say what one will about JJ trek, but it is FAR more inclusive then what came before.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: X on September 16, 2013, 04:48:30 PM
Let's face it. There's just too much damned good sci-fi on tv right now for them to even care about a new tv series. There are just too many slices of the pie already taken even before the pilot airs. When you factor in that space shows tend to be more expensive than most other sci-fi shows, you might want to hedge your bets with the less muddled new show than trying to put out new trek tv not connected to the movies on a budget that can actually make a quality product.

I don't see that happening any time soon. I don't see any ship based sci-fi happening any time soon. Look at Continuum ... a quality sci-fi show, but with a very well done effects budget.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on September 16, 2013, 05:19:57 PM
Very good points Chris.  Much as I'd love a new Trek series, there are lots of cool things to watch on TV these days - some great non-SF stuff too.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Ktrek on September 16, 2013, 05:57:09 PM
I'd love to see a new Trek show on TV but I just don't think that's going to happen. I don't think CBS has any confidence  in the series outside of their Blu-Ray remasters and I'll be surprised if they actually move on and do DS9 or VOY. If they do my bet would be VOY would be the show to get the treatment because I think they see it as more marketable. DS9 has a good following but it is more niche than the ship shows. You never know though. My preference would be DS9 but that's because it's my personal favorite of all the series.

Kevin
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on September 17, 2013, 03:30:54 AM
When a new Trek series arrives (and it will), I doubt it will be set in a previous show's setting.  I would think they would do something new.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: billybob476 on September 17, 2013, 05:57:22 AM
Quote from: Rico on September 17, 2013, 03:30:54 AM
When a new Trek series arrives (and it will), I doubt it will be set in a previous show's setting.  I would think they would do something new.

We thought they'd do that for the movies too... :)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on September 17, 2013, 06:03:39 AM
Well, JJ Trek is about as new as we are going to get for movies right now.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Dangelus on September 17, 2013, 06:17:18 AM
Quote from: billybob476 on September 17, 2013, 05:57:22 AM
Quote from: Rico on September 17, 2013, 03:30:54 AM
When a new Trek series arrives (and it will), I doubt it will be set in a previous show's setting.  I would think they would do something new.

We thought they'd do that for the movies too... :)

LOL!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: billybob476 on September 17, 2013, 06:30:15 AM
I kid! I kid!
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ElfManDan on September 18, 2013, 10:10:08 PM
On the topic of a new Star Trek TV series I've had a thought. If we did get a new Star Trek series on TV personally I'd like to see a whole different universe. Not connected to the new universe or the old one. Not using the characters we know, but taking the cultures, the races, and federation and building more into those. I have to say TNG being my favorite series, was made so by some of my favorite episodes involved heavy Klingon culture. It was always something I wanted to see more of, and I wanted to see it fleshed out further then we ever saw. Imagine taking a bunch of these Star Trek races and making a series that focuses on a future that may not be quite as perfect as we've seen in Trek before. I'm thinking it would be cool to see something a little darker and more almost realistic, but still holding the values of hope for the future while we sail out into the great unknown and involve ourselves more with these expansive cultures. Thoughts?
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on September 19, 2013, 05:42:50 AM
Well, there you go. JJ on lens flare and Trek on TV.
http://youtu.be/LWNGMTcD_jY (http://youtu.be/LWNGMTcD_jY)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on September 19, 2013, 05:53:37 AM
As I have been saying...it's up to CBS.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on September 19, 2013, 06:08:07 AM
Quote from: Rico on September 19, 2013, 05:53:37 AM
As I have been saying...it's up to CBS.

I thought that was what I was saying.... ;)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Ktrek on September 19, 2013, 06:15:49 AM
Quote from: ElfManDan on September 18, 2013, 10:10:08 PM
On the topic of a new Star Trek TV series I've had a thought. If we did get a new Star Trek series on TV personally I'd like to see a whole different universe. Not connected to the new universe or the old one. Not using the characters we know, but taking the cultures, the races, and federation and building more into those. I have to say TNG being my favorite series, was made so by some of my favorite episodes involved heavy Klingon culture. It was always something I wanted to see more of, and I wanted to see it fleshed out further then we ever saw. Imagine taking a bunch of these Star Trek races and making a series that focuses on a future that may not be quite as perfect as we've seen in Trek before. I'm thinking it would be cool to see something a little darker and more almost realistic, but still holding the values of hope for the future while we sail out into the great unknown and involve ourselves more with these expansive cultures. Thoughts?

I have one thing to say about your comment Dan and it is this....Read the books! They are exactly what you are looking for. I'm referring to all the post series books.

Kevin
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: X on September 19, 2013, 08:38:36 AM
YEah, the books are very good and starting up a new arc now. It deals with some cool stuff and we get a new DS9 finally.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: X on September 19, 2013, 08:45:29 AM
http://memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/Deep_Space_9_(II) (http://memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/Deep_Space_9_(II))
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: ElfManDan on September 19, 2013, 09:52:11 PM
That's great that there are books out there that take the cultures further, but I'd still love to see it on the TV screen. I was just curious what guys thought. I should read some of the books more, I just don't have much time to read these days. I do audiobooks sometimes though when I'm working.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Ktrek on September 20, 2013, 06:11:57 AM
Dan - If you want to read an exceptionally good series that has a beginning and an end and set in the TOS era but not based on the TOS characters I would highly recommend Star Trek Vanguard. Absolutely one of the finest series of books out there in my opinion. It consists only of eight books, one collection of short stories  and one ebook novella. Memory Beta would be a good place to look for the book order. The series is regarded by Trek fiction readers as consistently well written and favored. I'd also recommend the Titan series, which is also good but not as consistently good.

Kevin
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Bryancd on September 20, 2013, 07:05:43 AM
Yes, Vanguard is terrific.
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: WillEagle on September 23, 2013, 07:06:38 PM
I did get the Star Trek Into Darkness Blu-ray and I watched some of the extras but not the full movie yet. And the great thing about it is that I didn't pay a dime!!! My supervisor is a fellow Trekker and I came in on my day off a couple times because he needed my keys. He told me he owed me a lunch for helping him out. I said not to worry about it. Well we never got around to lunch and when he picked up the regular release at Target the day it came out I told him I was going to get the Special edition one instead. I never made it to Target and he asked me if I found it which I didn't. I called Target the next day and the guy found two and my supervisor heard me on the phone during my lunch and he told me to have them hold 2. So I ended up with Star Trek Into Darkness instead of lunch!! Works for me and he probably saved money by getting the movie instead of taking me to lunch twice! I got something that will be with me forever instead of something that would only be around for a few hours!!!   :laugh:
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on May 17, 2014, 04:02:20 PM
ONE YEAR AGO...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avVUM_sqLmc#ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avVUM_sqLmc#ws)
Title: Re: "STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013
Post by: Rico on July 29, 2014, 04:01:45 PM
Deluxe soundtrack now available:

http://www.varesesarabande.com/servlet/the-1184/Star-Trek-Into-Darkness-cln-/Detail (http://www.varesesarabande.com/servlet/the-1184/Star-Trek-Into-Darkness-cln-/Detail)