JediDefender.com Forums

Community => Watto's Junk Yard => Topic started by: DSJ™ on January 18, 2008, 11:48 PM

Title: Star Trek
Post by: DSJ™ on January 18, 2008, 11:48 PM
The official website for Star Trek XI (http://www.paramount.com/startrek/) is online & will updated soon with the teaser trailer & so forth.

Guess the teaser trailer is being shown with Cloverfield. A bootleg version of the trailer can be seen here (http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=OZ8AKEHTAGs&eurl=http://www.aintitcool.com/node/35319) on Youtube which may get pulled soon or here (http://trekmovie.com/2008/01/18/review-star-trek-teaser-trailer/#more-1461) on trekmovie.com.

Also the first pic of the new Enterprise from the trailer. Hot damn!  8)

(http://trekmovie.com/wp-content/uploads/star-trek-uss-enterprise-b.gif)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Hemish on January 19, 2008, 07:28 AM
Posting that here!!
Blasphemy!!!
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Darth_Anton on January 19, 2008, 09:23 AM
I was going to post the ST trailer as well. Cool image. However, wasn't Robert April the first Enterprise CO?
 ???
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: hansolo_506 on January 19, 2008, 03:38 PM
I was going to post the ST trailer as well. Cool image. However, wasn't Robert April the first Enterprise CO?
 ???


If you accept all EU of Star Trek....

Robert T. April , first commander of the first Enterprise NCC-1701 (commissioned 2245)
Christopher Pike
James T. Kirk
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: DSJ™ on January 19, 2008, 03:59 PM
Well sort of I guess. Robert April was a Lieutenant on the SS Yorktown & given a promotion & placed in command of the freighter. The USS Enterprise was launched under Captain Robert April then this character became Captain Christopher Pike. Basically he was a TV series pitch from Roddenberry when Gene submitted his first proposal for Star Trek.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/43/CptRobertApril.jpg)

Later voiced in the animated episode The Counter-Clock Incident by James Doohan & the only appearance by April.

(http://www.startrekanimated.com/tas_cci_01.jpg)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: DSJ™ on January 21, 2008, 07:14 PM
The official website for Star Trek XI (http://www.paramount.com/startrek/) is online & will updated soon with the teaser trailer & so forth.

Yep, the HD trailer is up. Also, to the right of the words "UNDER CONSTRUCTION" is a blinking red light. Clicking it will take you to a new viral site with the URL NCC-1701.com (http://www.ncc-1701.com/). It features four cameras of the shipyard which you can bring into focus by changing the frequency. If you let the page sit long enough, the "offline" camera on the page will show a corridor for just a second.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: JediMoses on February 14, 2008, 12:12 AM
Can;t seem to find a thread for anything Star Trek; I wonder why.  have to admit i have liked some of the shows a lot. 

The movie has been delayed until may 2009. 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Ben on February 14, 2008, 12:18 AM
Link about the delay. (http://trekmovie.com/2008/02/13/breaking-news-star-trek-pushed-to-may-2009/#more-1581)

Yeah, it stinks. I'm still hoping it's just post-strike drama, and it'll still be out this Christmas, but stuff like that never happens.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Nathan on February 14, 2008, 01:00 AM
Weak sauce. I'm not particularly champing at the bit to see this, but hey it's a new Trek movie so I am sold no matter how unpromising this prequel/reboot (preboot?) sounds.

Still, summer is a more logical release time than Oscar bait season.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Darth_Anton on February 14, 2008, 09:12 AM
Link about the delay. (http://trekmovie.com/2008/02/13/breaking-news-star-trek-pushed-to-may-2009/#more-1581)

Yeah, it stinks. I'm still hoping it's just post-strike drama, and it'll still be out this Christmas, but stuff like that never happens.

They were having some bad strike problems with scenes that really need re-writes. For example, apparently, there's a SPOILER....









....Kobyoshi Maru scene where Kirk didn't re-program the computer to win as established in WOK. He slept with some instructor instead. That needed re-writing before shooting and kept getting pushed.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: CaptainYoda on February 14, 2008, 12:05 PM
Anton, regarding your spoiler (i know you didnt write the story), but what writer would have thought that that was a good idea to begin with?? That would totally change the idea of Kirk being crafty and resourceful to being essentially a space ****.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Nathan on February 14, 2008, 04:31 PM
It sounds pretty symptomatic of the mindset behind this film--messing with stuff that didn't need to be messed with, and going back to show things that, I would argue, didn't need to be revisited. The explanation in TWOK is great as it is; was anyone really clamoring to see the incident on film when we already knew the relevant bits?

Now I know how you old-timers felt before TPM came out. :P (I was 13, so I was just excited for new SW on the big screen! 8))

But what's worse, it seems like they couldn't discipline themselves to sticking entirely to the established material, and they didn't have the guts for a full "reimagining" or reboot--so they went for this split-the-difference crap that is just going to cause continuity headaches down the road. (Maybe I'm being too pessimistic.)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Darth_Anton on February 14, 2008, 09:22 PM
Anton, regarding your spoiler (i know you didnt write the story), but what writer would have thought that that was a good idea to begin with??

One that hasn't really paid attention to Star Trek.  :P I can see how it could happened, that scene was in the outline, but wasn't specific enough to include how he won, and the writer, having never seen TWOK, filling in the blanks himself. My question is, how can that scene make it into the shooting script with no one catching it? ???
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: CaptainYoda on February 15, 2008, 10:51 AM
Apparently the production is filled with a bunch of yes-men who think everything is a good idea and have no idea of the history of Star Trek.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Scott on February 15, 2008, 10:56 AM
Apparently the production is filled with a bunch of yes-men who think everything is a good idea and have no idea of the history of Star Trek.
That sounds familiar

(http://www.scifi.com/sfw/issue446/mccallum1.jpg)(http://mixonline.com/post/features/BURTT_Ben1.gif)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: CaptainYoda on February 15, 2008, 03:43 PM
I agree with Rick McCallum, but Ben Burtt the sound guy???? Is he really a yes-man?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Scott on February 15, 2008, 03:47 PM
I agree with Rick McCallum, but Ben Burtt the sound guy???? Is he really a yes-man?
Ben was the editor on all 3 prequels as well as being the sound guy.  To me, the editing was a huge downfall of the entire Prequels which is a symptom of the Editor not being able to say no to the Director.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: CaptainYoda on February 15, 2008, 03:52 PM
I see your point. Hopefully this movie doesnt fall into the same trap though.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: DSJ™ on October 16, 2008, 01:17 PM
The net is a buzz with pictures from the new movie. Ew.com has the scoop, clicky below.

Spoiler Warning, link will contain spoilers

'Star Trek': New Movie, New Vision (http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20233502,00.html?cnn=yes)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Brian on October 16, 2008, 04:31 PM
I have to admit, I'm not necessarily a huge Trek fan - but there was a time when I watched it fairly regularly.  My Dad was into the original series (and movies), so I remember watching those repeats as a kid - and we both also got into The Next Generation for a time, but the first couple season of that was probably the last Trek that I watched.  This new movie looks kind of nifty though, and I'm starting to get more interested after reading that article (thanks for posting Dale). 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Darth_Anton on October 17, 2008, 09:29 AM
Read the article, studied the pictures. I dunno.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Master_Phruby on October 17, 2008, 10:15 AM
I can just see Spock pointing one of his fingers at the guy's head to start cutting.

(http://img2.timeinc.net/ew/dynamic/imgs/081015/Star-Trek-Movie/spock-quinto_l.jpg)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Nathan on October 17, 2008, 02:57 PM
So is this still supposed to be a prequel or is it now a reboot? ???

Most of the "updates" I don't really care about but I keep coming back to one thing: the Enterprise bridge:

(http://www.mtv.com/movies/photos/s/star_trek_080123/star_trek_400x765.jpg)

I see why they wanted to modernize it, but even the layout doesn't resemble the "real" bridge. They're copying the basic look of the universe, down to duplicating the TOS uniforms in a different material ... so why completely redo the bridge? There would have been plenty of ways to update the tech without wholesale redoing the design. ???
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Darth_Anton on October 18, 2008, 10:00 AM
It's a reboot.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: DSJ™ on November 11, 2008, 09:21 AM
Quoted from comingsoon.net

Quote
Paramount Pictures has added a countdown clock on the official website for J.J. Abrams' Star Trek that is counting down to 10am Pacific / 1pm Eastern on Monday, November 17th. At that time, the new official trailer will be revealed online, though you can watch it earlier in theaters this weekend with Quantum of Solace.

Linky below:

Countdown to new ST Trailer (http://www.startrekmovie.com/)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: knashdx on November 11, 2008, 10:03 AM
So is this still supposed to be a prequel or is it now a reboot? ???

Most of the "updates" I don't really care about but I keep coming back to one thing: the Enterprise bridge:

(http://www.mtv.com/movies/photos/s/star_trek_080123/star_trek_400x765.jpg)

I see why they wanted to modernize it, but even the layout doesn't resemble the "real" bridge. They're copying the basic look of the universe, down to duplicating the TOS uniforms in a different material ... so why completely redo the bridge? There would have been plenty of ways to update the tech without wholesale redoing the design. ???

Couldn't look any more like Dawsons Creek/One Tree Hill/90210/Gosip Girls if they tried.

This movie is going to SUCK!!!!
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Master_Phruby on November 11, 2008, 12:39 PM
Well look at the bright side. Maybe Spock will eat Kirk's brains. ;)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Brian on November 12, 2008, 09:23 AM
IGN (http://movies.ign.com/articles/928/928830p1.html) has descriptions up of not only the upcoming trailer, but also some scenes that were recently shown to them (and others, I'm guessing).  Spoilers are there, so if you're avoiding though you might not want to read it.  It sounds like they were impressed with what has been shown so far.  Reading through some of the scenes they were shown, it sounds like they are kind of trying to "Star Wars" it up a little bit, but maybe just one scene is making me think that.  Like I said earlier, I'm no expert on Trek, but did watch the show in repeats (and the earlier movies) with my dad when I was a kid.  It never appealed to me the way Star Wars did, but I'm willing to give it a chance.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: DSJ™ on November 12, 2008, 10:10 AM
I have been reading about some of the 20 minutes of footage screened for the press that were released online, sounds good thus far.

EW.com has a pic posted of an exclusive first look at the Enterprise (http://popwatch.ew.com/popwatch/2008/11/star-trek-first.html). Spoiler in linky, you have been warned!

I'm impressed.  :P
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: JediJman on November 12, 2008, 11:24 AM
I think it looks good.  I've personally not really enjoyed a Star Trek movie since Kahn, so hopefully this reboot will be more like the newer Batman movies and less like the newer Superman movie.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Ghost of QG on November 14, 2008, 03:23 AM
(http://popwatch.ew.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/11/11/enterprise579_l.jpg)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Diddly on November 14, 2008, 10:55 AM
I saw the trailer before Quantum of Solace last night. Looks lame. They have the Asian guy from Harold and Kumar as one of the main characters BTW.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: DSJ™ on November 14, 2008, 10:52 PM
A bootleg copy of the trailer is up on the net.

Star Trek Trailer  (http://www.trailerspy.com/trailer/1329/Star-Trek-Trailer)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Nicklab on November 14, 2008, 11:25 PM
I saw the trailer before Quantum of Solace last night. Looks lame. They have the Asian guy from Harold and Kumar as one of the main characters BTW.

That would be Sulu.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: CorranHorn on November 15, 2008, 01:11 AM
Is it me or is this no longer just a story of Kirk and Spock at the academy? It's looking like they're fitting this in to during Kirk's days as captain of the Enterprise as part of the "re-telling".
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Darth_Anton on November 15, 2008, 10:42 AM
I said it before and I'll say it again, I dunno.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Darth Broem on November 15, 2008, 08:21 PM
I kind of like the look of it actually.  It will be a fun pop-corn movie I think.  I am tired of being a movie critic anymore.  I just go to be entertained and have a decent time anymore with these flicks.  That way you do not get too disappointed if it sucks.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Jayson on November 17, 2008, 12:32 PM
New official trailer online (http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/startrek/)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: jedi_master_sal on November 17, 2008, 02:11 PM
I'm liking this.

I've never been a trekkie/trekkor, but this movie looks pretty darn good.

It took a SW fan (Abrams) to make a good ST movie...lol.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Matt_Fury on November 17, 2008, 02:26 PM
I've never been Star Trek's biggest fan, but I am curious to see what JJ Abrams does with it.  I definitely won't see this opening weekend, but I'll probably see it in the theater (especially is it's in IMAX).
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Brian on November 17, 2008, 03:02 PM
I think it looks pretty good too.  Admittedly, I'm not the biggest Trek fan either - I watched the old show in reruns, and most of the original movies (although its been awhile now) - but the last new Trek I watched was The Next Generation series.  Anyways, as someone with enough knowledge to know who the characters are, but not necessarily knowing enough about the universe to know if its "raping anyone's childhood" as we've heard in Star Wars - it looks like a fun movie to me.  Plus, starting things out with a young cast like this could set the stage for a nice new sci-fi franchise and make Trek popular with the masses again.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Master_Phruby on November 17, 2008, 04:48 PM
Wow! The Enterprise looks like an iMac !
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Jayson on November 25, 2008, 09:16 AM
Spoiler warning

Trailer 2.0 (http://downloads.paramount.com/mp/startrek/Trlr2_internet_480p.mov)


Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: jedipurge on November 25, 2008, 10:14 AM
Is it me or is this no longer just a story of Kirk and Spock at the academy? It's looking like they're fitting this in to during Kirk's days as captain of the Enterprise as part of the "re-telling".

I don't think he's capt yet, this is more like their first assignment or something.  I think the original capt, he was in like the VERY first episode and that was it is the capt.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: DSJ™ on November 25, 2008, 11:09 PM
Spoiler warning

Trailer 2.0 (http://downloads.paramount.com/mp/startrek/Trlr2_internet_480p.mov)

Ok, that trailer had a bit more to it. Just butt **** cool!  8)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Darth_Anton on November 27, 2008, 10:01 AM
They just switched one shot and added one. Nice choices, but I almost stopped watching it before I niticed the first change.  :P
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Master_Phruby on November 27, 2008, 11:53 AM
It's nice to see Spock-Lar or is it Syl-ock?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Nathan on November 29, 2008, 07:33 PM
The ending just makes me want to rewatch the six original cast movies ... which I'd bet was not the effect they hoped for.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Nathan on December 6, 2008, 04:49 PM
https://boldlygo.intel.com/content/index.html

The strangest tie-in/cross-promotion I've ever seen.

"Get access to Star Trek movie content and seek out notebooks with the latest Intel® Centrino®2 Processor Technology!"

(http://cheesebuerger.de/images/smilie/konfus/c010.gif)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: DSJ™ on February 1, 2009, 09:28 AM
"Star Trek" Superbowl Spot (http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=oMTzoW0J1E8)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Darth_Anton on February 1, 2009, 09:43 AM
Horrible spot. All flash and no substance, everything that Star Trek isn't.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: iFett on February 1, 2009, 10:19 PM
I thought it was a pretty decent trailer.  Not a Trekkie by no means, but I'm looking forward to the movie.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: knashdx on February 2, 2009, 09:53 AM
I thought it was the best movie trailer of the night. Transformers was a great way to get someone to be really excited about the movie, but it was 15 seconds of images to "wet the whistle".
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Darth Broem on February 2, 2009, 04:29 PM
My wife, who does not care for sci-fi stuff, said, "That's Star Trek?"  At this point I thought she was going to say it look good.  Then this came out of her mouth, "That looks dumb."  Sigh. 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: JediJman on February 5, 2009, 12:13 AM
I thought it was a pretty decent trailer.  Not a Trekkie by no means, but I'm looking forward to the movie.

Couldn't agree more.  I thought it looked great, mainly because it's not just a carbon copy of the original movies (most of which I found pretty boring, though Wrath of Kahn is still golden).
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: efranks on February 5, 2009, 09:56 AM
Some of the movies haven't been all that good and I'm more of a fan of the Next Gen and DS9 crews than I was the original series, but I'm still looking forward to this film.

Some of the trailers really don't have a Star Trek feel to them but the shots of the crew on the Enterprise bridge looks good.  While I'm freakin' out over the GI Joe film I have a much better wait-and-see feel for this one.

   E...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: DSJ™ on February 11, 2009, 09:02 AM
Third Star Trek Trailer Announced (http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=52793)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: CaptainYoda on February 11, 2009, 12:36 PM
Third Star Trek Trailer Announced (http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=52793)

Another reason to see Watchmen.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: DSJ™ on March 6, 2009, 04:00 AM
The 3rd ST trailer is up.

Holy crap! This trailer rocks!  8)

Third Star Trek Trailer (http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/startrek/index.html)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Nathan on March 6, 2009, 04:03 AM
Wow ... as skeptical as I've been about this whole thing, that actually makes me excited to see the film.

P.S.: CBS has posted all three seasons of TOS for free streaming: http://www.cbs.com/classics/star_trek/index.php I've never watched much of TOS and was too lazy to Netflix it, but this is too easy to pass up.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Darth_Anton on March 6, 2009, 09:25 AM
Alright, that was a decent trailer.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: knashdx on March 6, 2009, 11:52 AM
They have been putting together some freaking awsome trailers for this movie. I am actually looking forward to it.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Scott on March 12, 2009, 12:34 AM
I was a huge TNG fan and grew to love TOS.  The movies up until the whale one were good and I think I've seen the rest (The Undiscovered Country was great IIRC).  These trailers has my interest renewed and I'm looking forward to seeing the flick.  I got sick of the repeated huge alien threat/unkown thing threatening Earth and the rediculous attempts to make a new story.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Jesse James on March 12, 2009, 02:11 AM
I loved TNG, DS9, and I thought Generations and the Undiscovered Country were great, but First Contact was OUTSTANDING to me.  Of course, Wrath of Kahn is a favorite too...

And I'm also getting drawn into this new movie.  The Trailer's impressive, they're seemingly trying to keep to the OT as much as they can, while updating and improving on it.  It just seems very well done and the logical step forward if they're not going to do TNG crew movies (I wish they'd try something with teh Dominion as the enemy which seemed logical to me, but whatever).

I'm geeked to see this now.  I didn't have much I was looking forward to at the movies this year, but this jumped to the top of the list with the trailer releases.  I'm not even a  TOS guy much at all and this has me very excited to watch.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: DSJ™ on March 13, 2009, 03:31 PM
First Star Trek Tickets Go On Sale + ST09 Art Display At Arclight Hollywood [UPDATE: Run Time Confirmed]  (http://trekmovie.com/2009/03/06/first-star-trek-movie-tickets-go-on-sale-star-trek-art-display-at-arclight-hollywood/)

(http://trekmovie.com/images/arcents_7.jpg)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Jeff on March 31, 2009, 12:00 PM
Not that it should be a surprise or anything, but Variety says they are already working on the New Trek sequel (http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118001885.html?categoryid=13&cs=1).  Sounds like the Bad Robot guys (Abrams,Burk) will be back along with one of the writers from LOST (Damon Lindelof) and a couple other writers.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Brian on March 31, 2009, 12:35 PM
I saw that news this morning as well, I guess it is not surprising.  It seems like anymore a lot of studios start prepping the sequel for their summer blockbusters prior to seeing how they do (I saw story of the same thing with Wolverine the other day).  I mentioned earlier that my primary exposure to Star Trek was TNG, as well as watching the old series (and some of the movies) with my dad growing up.  That said, I saw the most recent trailer on the big screen this weekend and I'm kind of getting jazzed to see this.  With no more SW movies on the horizon, it would be nice to see Trek get a little shot in the arm with this restart.  Then will come the inevitable comparisons between the new Trek and the prequels, and more Star Wars bashing ensues :P.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: DSJ™ on April 8, 2009, 01:42 PM
'Star Trek': What people are saying after the surprise screening (http://popwatch.ew.com/popwatch/2009/04/star-treks-snea.html?cnn=yes)

Quote
"I just got back from Star Trek and it was AMAZING. The best Star Trek movie ever. Yes, it even best Wrath of Khan. Believe me."

Quote
"You don't replace Wrath of Khan. You just don't. Not unless the movie you're replacing it with is pretty godd---- strong. And guess what? It is. Holy Christ Crispies in a bucket of milk, was this movie f---ing awesome."

Better than "The Wrath of Khan!". Jesus H. Christ in a chicken basket!  :o
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: BrentS on April 8, 2009, 10:31 PM


Better than "The Wrath of Khan!". Jesus H. Christ in a chicken basket!  :o

I'll believe it when I see it.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Darth_Anton on April 9, 2009, 10:28 AM
I wonder if those people have even seen the wrath of Khan?   ;)

Kidding aside, I'll also take the wait and see attitude.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: BillCable on April 9, 2009, 11:28 AM
It's looking like this reboot might be the thing that raises Trek above Wars in the epic "which series is better" battle.  Wars took a drubbing with the Prequels, but it was still better than the sad state of Trek.  Lucas is going to have to do some good stuff with his live-action series if he wants to reclaim the crown.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Master_Phruby on April 9, 2009, 11:51 AM
....Like let someone else run it. :P
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Brian on April 9, 2009, 12:14 PM
It's looking like this reboot might be the thing that raises Trek above Wars in the epic "which series is better" battle.  Wars took a drubbing with the Prequels, but it was still better than the sad state of Trek.  Lucas is going to have to do some good stuff with his live-action series if he wants to reclaim the crown.

Yeah, that's something I'm afraid is likely to happen as well.  Not that I don't want to see Star Trek succeed either.  I'm not the biggest Trek fan, primarily being familiar with the original series (and some of the movies) and TNG - but I have to admit after seeing trailers for this new movie, I'm definitely interested in seeing it.  To me, even including the prequels, there really is no comparison between the two - but that is coming from a Star Wars fan.  The original movies alone outweigh all of Trek, and there are portions of the prequels (ROTS in particular) that aren't nearly as bad as the "general population" seems to believe.  So much has been made of the prequels crappiness in the media, I think the general movie going public tends to side with that opinion.  Although TPM and AOTC both have their faults, I've really noticed a recent trend to lump ROTS in with them as well - where I thought it was pretty well received by fans and many critics alike.

Anyways, back on topic, I am looking forward to this new Trek movie - and hopefully it will be a nice re-start for that franchise.  Plus, maybe it will have the added benefit of having the SW live action series really step up their game as well.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Matt R. on April 10, 2009, 06:14 AM
Here is an clip of Kirk and Bones http://movies.yahoo.com/premieres/12865104/standardformat/

Karl Urban does an good DeForest Kelly
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Darth_Anton on April 10, 2009, 10:44 AM
Apple Trailers has a clip of Kirk, Spock and Scotty. Can't say I'm into this introduction.

As for the McCoy clip, you're right, Urban does do a good McCoy, but I sure don't like the way he's written.

Sorry, old time Trekkor speaking here. In context, I'm sure everything works, but on their own, the clips are giving me the Sideshow Bob shivers.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Brian on April 21, 2009, 09:50 AM
An early review (http://movies.ign.com/articles/974/974709p1.html) is up at one of IGN's sites, and it is pretty positive.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Darth Broem on April 24, 2009, 02:22 PM
The special-effects and action from the trailers seems tons better than the past several Star Trek films.  It actually LOOKS entertaining instead of stale and dullish.  We'll see of course but that's one of my impressions just from the trailers themselves.  I know trailers are deceiving but it's looks decent.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Darth_Anton on April 25, 2009, 11:11 AM
I agree. But it could be all style and no substance, and given the writers, I'm not expecting the substance I would expect from Star Trek.  :'(
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Matt_Fury on April 25, 2009, 03:28 PM
That could be a plus.  No random remodulating to fix a situation or sitting around a conference table discussing their feelings on the current crisis.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: DSJ™ on April 29, 2009, 11:40 AM
Got my tix's for ST Saturday nite.  8)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Brian on May 4, 2009, 06:03 PM
A very positive early review over at Newsarama (http://www.newsarama.com/film/090504-star-trek-review.html).
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Brian on May 8, 2009, 09:22 AM
Ah, the Trek vs. Wars comparisons begin...in an interview with the new Scotty, Simon Pegg (http://newyork.timeout.com/articles/hot-seat/74209/the-hot-seat-simon-pegg-interview):

You're a Star Wars fan, but are now in Star Trek. Where do you fall on the irreconcilable divide between those two worlds?
Well, I was seven when Star Wars came out, and it had a seismic effect on me, the same as it did on many, many kids of that era. The generation before me, possibly, was the Star Trek generation. Star Trek, in the end, seems to have won the war, because it maintained its integrity, and now the effects are catching up as well. So you sort of get your Star Trek cake and eat it, too. I'm sure Star Wars fans around the world will want to kill me for saying that, and see me as a traitor, because I've always been a very outspoken fan of Star Wars, but I've never been publicly keen on the new ones.

We'll sort this out right now: Who wins in a race between the Millennium Falcon and the Enterprise?
Well, I think probably the Enterprise, because the Falcon can only make .5 past light speed. But the Enterprise can go like warp ten.

It can time travel by slingshotting around the sun.
It can outstrip the Falcon in a second. The Falcon would fall to bits.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: efranks on May 8, 2009, 12:59 PM
I don't like the ST vs SW debate.  You can be a fan of both without having to compare the in-universe science/power/myth/etc. 

I will say, though, that the new ST film is ******* awesome.  Loved it.  I can't say enough good things about it at this point. 

   E...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Brian on May 8, 2009, 02:55 PM
I've never quite understood the comparisons between the two either.  Despite being set in space, there really doesn't seem to be a whole lot in common between the two.  However, to the "general public", I think they get lumped together as the same type of thing.  I can remember a number of times, from high school to college to now, where friends of mine - knowing I'm a fan of Star Wars - will say Star Trek on occasion, and I'll correct them, to which they reply "aren't they pretty much the same thing?" :).

Anyways, just reading through some stuff about the new Trek, and saw another mention of Star Wars - mainly how it was sort of an inspiration for J.J. Abrams more than the original Trek stuff was (which I had heard before):

Quote
Following the pattern of the original show, the "Trek" movies often had long stretches of dialogue and discussion between action scenes. In fact, the first movie was derisively called "Star Trek: The Slow-Motion Picture" by some critics. Abrams says that as a kid he was more a fan of "Star Wars," and he credits the faster and more intense tempo of that series as the reason. So for his version, he has taken the space battles, fist fights, and even slapstick moments that have been part of "Trek" from the beginning, but speeds them up and packs them together to make his film a more thrilling ride.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Darth_Anton on May 8, 2009, 07:02 PM
I was deluged with calls and text messages last night from all my friends who saw the movie. They said - DON'T. The consensus was, they liked the movie, but it's not Star Trek. About what I expected. I couldn't see it this weekend anyway, so I'll wait and see it for free in two weeks.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: JediJman on May 8, 2009, 11:05 PM
I was deluged with calls and text messages last night from all my friends who saw the movie. They said - DON'T. The consensus was, they liked the movie, but it's not Star Trek. About what I expected. I couldn't see it this weekend anyway, so I'll wait and see it for free in two weeks.

The Onion had an article about Star Trek getting good reviews from everyone but hard core trekies.  Apparently die hard Trekfans are complaining that the movie is too fun & watchable.

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/trekkies_bash_new_star_trek_film?utm_source=a-section

 ;D
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Matt_Fury on May 9, 2009, 03:27 AM
I've never been a big fan of Star Trek.  I watched the originals when I was a kid, but, not trying to offend any trek fans here, there was never any character development.  The same could be said for TNG, DS9 and the Lost in Space rip-off.   ;)

That being said, I really enjoyed the new movie!  They did a really good job telling a good story.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Jesse James on May 9, 2009, 03:56 AM
I'd agree on a lack of character development in TOS...  It seemed to deal more squarely with "issues" a lot I felt, than devleoping deep characters. 

I disagree, however, on TNG and DS9...  TNG was ALL about character development mixed in with storylines that tried to relate to the times.  DS9 was practically ALL about character development I thought.  TNG though explored Data's struggle with becoming Human, Picard's distance with relationships, Picard/Crusher's sexual tension/relationship, Worf's being a Klingon in a predominantly human culture...  TNG was really quite deep, especially where Data and Picard were concerned.

That's a big reason First COntact was such an insanely cool film to me...  It largely dealt with a big part of Picard's character traits and past.  It's still my favorite ST film, and I'll be shocked if I feel different after this new one (even though I'm expecting much coolness).

BTW I find the ST Vs. SW debate simply retarded...  People can, and should, see the good in both... 

I'm not personally a big fan of TOS actually...  Just didn't dig it.  Doesn't mean I wont' love this movie though.  I like a LOT of the original ST films too.  There's some pretty decent movies there.  There's also some utter **** in there too though, like the original film which I feel is dismal, personally.  I think Star Trek improved with age, but ironically the newer movies didn't all do too well.  Nemesis wasn't attrocious, but really the only good film with the new cast was First Contact I think...  Generations wasn't even good.

In contrast though, I feel that TNG and DS9 were really excellent series that trumped TOS...  Voyager holds its own but barely.  Enterprise I find horrible to watch, but that's me.

Star Wars was really at its height with the original trilogy to most people I think, me included, but I liked AOTC, I liked the 2D CLone Wars micro series, and the 3D Clone Wars series/movie now are pretty great to me.  Likewise, I think ROTS was on par with the Original Trilogy, but ONLY ROTS...  I really feel TPM was an unnecessary film at this point, but basing a distaste for the whole prequal trilogy over one film (which has its charming parts too) is a lame way to judge.

AOTC is a 50/50 film...  Not perfect by any stretch, but an improvement.  I feel ROTS really was excellent though.

In my mind though, I'm a fan of both...  I doubt I'm ever as "involved" a Trek fan as I am a SW fan, but hey...  I'm buying the new toys now.  If this new take on Trek continues, I'm open to what they can roll out at least.  Star Wars will always be my favorite, but I don't miss TNG reruns if I can avoid it.  I'm just a fan of both.

I'm a big LOTR fan too...  COmpleting the trifecta of dorkdom.  Or the geek hat trick?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Jayson on May 9, 2009, 07:26 PM
My wife and I got back from this this afternoon and ho-ly crap is it good.  Granted I'm not a devotee to all things Trek but if I could have walked out of TPM, AOTC and even ROTS with the satisfaction I got from this prequel I think my head would have exploded.

The acting is fantastic and the action is frenetic and the special EFX again beat the prequel films hands down. When you see it you'll know what I mean.

Chris Pine felt more and more "Shatner like" as the movie progressed and Zachary Quinto really does Spock justice. Both actors bring a lot to the characters, making them their own as do the other cast members and Eric Bana's portral of Nero is what Ricardo Montalban did for Khan. He's just that good.

I could have done with out some of the present day music on the soundtrack, but aside from that, the movie was flawless.

How does it rate against the previous Treks? This for me is easily on par with Khan/Search for Spock and First Contact.

I'll be seeing this a couple more times in theaters I think as I'd like to catch the next viewing on a digital presentation.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Chris on May 9, 2009, 09:19 PM
I didn't really like the movie as a Star Trek picture, too "new" feeling and I think perhaps catered too much to your average moron citizen- perhaps too commercialized.

Parts of nostalgia were present which was very nice, the fights were cool, but I thought the plot was horrible. The actors did well with what they were given, I will say that.

When I stopped caring or thinking about the plot and enjoyed the movie for nothing more than fights and odes to prior days I liked it a bit more. Don’t go expecting too much and you should be fine.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Jedi_Master on May 9, 2009, 07:56 PM
I just got back from seeing it tonight.  I am a long time fan of the original series.  I used to watch the TV show on an old black and white set, with my Dad, who was a fan from the beginning.    The strange part for me was seeing Kirk as a kid.  I had seen a little of this with Spock in the animated series, so it wasn't far off.     The other strange part was the modernistic redesign of the bridge.  The other changes to costumes and props really didn't stand out.  Even the Enterprise exterior was enough like the original to pass relatively unnoticed.    The glass panels on the bridge however, and the overall white decor did take some getting used to.    Minor points.

The casting of the big 5 - Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Uhura and Scotty, could NOT have been better.   Chris Pine had just the right amount of swagger and attitude to be convincing.  He doesn't look like Shatner.  He doesn't talk like Shatner.   He openly ogles women more than Shatner, but then, we all know what Kirk was thinking in the old days anyway.  He just makes it more obvious now.    Quinto is flawless as Spock.  He has the character down completely.  There is an under the surface ANGER in him that is highly reminiscent of Nimoy in the famous "Amok Time."   McCoy I swear has DeForest Kelly's same Southern twang.  It's subtle, but it's trademark McCoy.  And I swear it's not put on.  It comes across as completely natural.  It's really eerie.  You'll hear lines come out of the new McCoy that were used by Kelly when he was McCoy, and it just sounds right.  His cranky attitude is also spot-on here. Uhura is obviously respectful of the part.  She is classy, smart and absolutely exudes femininity - like Nichelle Nichols did back in the 60's. 

The plot is something that could easily have come from the best of Star Trek novels.  It's the future altered, and in a way so huge, that it tears at the very fabric of history.  And yet, there is a clear sense of fate in this film.  Some things simply are ordained in this universe, and will occur no matter what interference mortal beings contrive.

The result is completely new, but is CLASSIC TREK in the very best sense of that expression.  I cannot wait for the next adventure with this crew.  They are fun and unpredictable.  The universe is their oyster.  JJ. Abrams has passed the Kobyashe Maru.  The unwinnable scenario has been won.  How do you make a classic Star Trek film without most of the original characters?  Abrams is the only one who has done it.  Abrams has reprogrammed the scenario.  And the Star Trek world will thank him for it.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: evenflow on May 10, 2009, 05:44 AM
I went to see it last night and thought it was a bore. I am not a Star Trek fan so perhaps that is why. I did like Kirk but I hated the guy who played Spock. Just not for me.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Jesse James on May 10, 2009, 05:35 PM
Still not seen it but I hear the guy replacing DeForest Kelly is oscar-worthy...  Seriously.  I'm intrigued to say the least.

I heard the SPock guy played a good Leonard Nimoy with his own uniqueness added in.  I'm surprised he got a bad mark.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Master_Phruby on May 10, 2009, 05:38 PM
I went to see it last night and thought it was a bore. I am not a Star Trek fan so perhaps that is why. I did like Kirk but I hated the guy who played Spock. Just not for me.

How could you not like Spoc'lyer?  ;)  (http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u252/TheBraxcave/Syler.jpg)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: efranks on May 10, 2009, 06:23 PM
You know, I hate the Sylar character so much that it's actually to the point that I can't stand the actor that plays hime either (Zachary Quinto).  I was really pissed when I found out that he was playing Spock but, I have to say, I really tried not to judge going into the film and actually liked him as Spock.

Now, I still can barely stomach the sight of the guy, based on Sylar, but it really didn't worry the film for me and I was worried it would.

And yes, Karl Urban does an incredible DeForest Kelley impersonation for this film.  Totally on the mark without it ever seeming like the director was forcing the performance out of him.  He's a decent actor but his roles have kind of all been muscle heads; Vaako in Chronicles of Riddick, Eomer in LOTR, Grimm in Doom, that Pathfinder movie...so I guess I never knew how good he could be.  Plus he's Australian, so not only was he doing a US accent, he was doing a DeForest Kelley US accent.  Maybe not an Oscar performance, but definitely it should get him noticed for some other, better, and possibly more Oscar worthy roles in the future.

   E...

Edit -> Edit to mention that Urban was also Woodrow Call in the mini-series "Comanche Moon."  That was a roll originated in 1989 by Tommy Lee Jones and Urban played the character in the prequel.  He did a good job in the role and his 19th century, Southern US accent was also well done. 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: David on May 10, 2009, 10:41 PM
Okay, just got back from seeing this. WOW.

I've never been a big fan of Star Trek, but I was exposed to it growing up since my dad's a big fan, so that probably helped going into it so I could understand all of the subtle references. So I went in, not expecting much, and I was really blown away. All of the actors were great in their roles (Chekov was hilarious. And yes, the performance of McCoy is truly Oscar-worthy). Everyone in the theater cheered when Leonard Nimoy appeared on screen, and I thought his role was very enjoyable. The story was decent and actually very easy to keep up with considering this is J.J. Abrams the creator of Lost we're talking about. I didn't mind the 'newness,' but that's probably because I'm not a big fan of the original stuff. I'm still digesting it all, but I can definitely say I HIGHLY RECOMMEND THIS MOVIE!!!! It is very easily one of the best movies I've seen in a LONG, LONG TIME. Beats the snot out of The Phantom Menace, that's for sure. Even a wee bit better than Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, which I actually really liked. Awesome, awesome movie. A++++++++ 8)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: iFett on May 10, 2009, 11:19 PM
I'm no big Trekkie or how you say but I enjoyed the movie for what it was.  Not fantastic or anything, but I liked seeing the "original" crew back in their hayday and it was nice putting the pieces back together.  I didn't get the time sequence of having two Spocks, but I may have missed something being as there can never be more than one of the same person in any give universe - per SciFi legacy crap.  Many cheers and laughs from the crowd and I expect many more sequels.  My local 3x size screen theatre was actually sold out for the first time in many moons so I had to make due with a standard theatre....lame, but it worked.

I also got the Transformers trailer attached to this flick with no Joe trailer.  Not sure what's up with that, but I was ecstatic to see the ROTF trailer on the big screen.   :)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Rob on May 11, 2009, 02:42 AM
I just got back too.  Like a lot of people keep saying, I've never been into Star Trek - but I thought the movie was incredibly good. 

Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: DSJ™ on May 11, 2009, 03:27 AM
I saw it Saturday night, I really liked it. Urban as Bone's was super. Better than TPM by far. 

I downloaded it & will be watching it again.  :P
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: EdSolo on May 11, 2009, 08:18 AM
I grew up watching TOS in reruns after I would get home from school.  I still prefer TOS to TNG because I felt the stories were more compelling, while you can argue the acting and effects were cheesey.  The first couple seasons of TNG to me felt like more style than substance.

The only complaint about the new movie that I have was that the digital projector went down to a lightning strike during the young Spock scenes and we had to get shuffled off to a regular theater...I can't wait for the Blu Ray.

I would say this is probably one of the best uses of time travel in a movie.  What a way to shake things up in the Star Trek universe...it accomplishes both having a tie to the original series and a reboot of the series overall.

I liked the look of the ships interiors, especially the engine rooms.  More reminescent of a submarine with all the close packed piping and everything...not the totally clean and sterile look of TNG era.

I thought all the core characters were great, and I even enjoyed the over the top accents of both Chekov and Scotty.  I had been keeping away from spoilers so the Spock/Uhura relationship was a shock.  I do like it though.  It will interesting to see Spock take a completely different journey that we have seen before.  It took the character quite some time to embrace his human half, but this Spock seemed to do so with his decision not to enter the Vulcan science academy.

I like all the one liners from TOS and even the nod to Pike with him in the wheelchair at the end.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: jedi_master_sal on May 11, 2009, 10:04 AM
I echo many sentiments here. As a hard core SW fan, I thought it would be hard to say, but no it's easy, this Star Trek movie blew away Phantom Menace.

Pace, acting, directing, special affects, story, it has it all.  I may never become a Trekkie, but I'm sure as hell going to look forward to seeing more movies with this new crew of actors.

Impressive, most impressive.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Morgbug on May 12, 2009, 12:32 AM
Geez, I guess I'll have to see it just so someone actually has something overly negative to say about it. 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Nicklab on May 12, 2009, 12:46 AM
I'll say it Brent...I don't think it was better than Wrath of Khan.  Sorry, I said it.  I think it was a good Star Trek movie.  I think it's probably in the top three ST movies.  But it's not the best.

I think the engineering spaces in the ships took me out of things.  Notably, they looked more like some hydroelectric facility or heavy industry area than the workings of a starship.  Plus the hangar decks seemed a little too expansive as well.

Also, two of the players in minor roles took me out of the movie (slightly).  When you see the movie you may get that as well.

It was a good movie.  Was it perfect?  I'm not ready to say that.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: BrentS on May 12, 2009, 01:33 AM
I am Sith and I just went to a 9pm showing here - the theater was empty - only about 15 people in total.

I enjoyed the hell out of the movie.  I've been hearing rave reviews so I wasn't sure it could live up to the hype.  However, I have to say well done.  I thought all the characters were great.  I'm not sure I'm sold on the new Spock but the rest seemed very believable to me.  Urban was dead-on for McCoy.  Wow.

Its hard to compare back to Khan since that is comparing something to my memories growing up.  However, I'd definitely rank it up there with Khan and First Contact.  I certainly hope they will be making more. 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Brian on May 12, 2009, 09:27 AM
This is just from some guy's blog, but he has a list of 10 ReasonsWhy Star Wars is Better Than Star Trek (http://blog.mlive.com/projectmayhem/2009/05/a_dweebs_debate_10_reasons_sta.html).  Again, not saying that can (or should) be compared, but I saw this on another site and thought I would pass it along.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Angry Ewok on May 12, 2009, 01:23 PM
Saw this on Sunday and was floored by how awesome it is. I actually wanted to get in line and see it all over again.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: iFett on May 12, 2009, 01:40 PM
My local theatre was actually sold out for the first showing on Saturday.  Haven't seen that happen since ROTS.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Brian on May 14, 2009, 09:17 AM
I happened to see a commercial for Trek yesterday, and it started with "Star Trek is......" followed by a quick flashing montage of footage from the movie, then says "this generation's Star Wars".  It was from some reviewer (missed the name), but that was the entire commercial.  I haven't had a chance to see the movie yet, but it was interesting to see an ad basically going right at the prequels.  I'm not saying they are wrong (it could be amazing and much better than some of the prequels, as many have said), but technically this generation already has a "Star Wars". :P

Also, IGN (http://movies.ign.com/articles/982/982293p1.html) has a new feature up discussing how the new Trek owes more than a little to Star Wars.  Again, I haven't had a chance to see the new Trek yet, but there appears to be a lot of similarities (according to this article).
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: BillCable on May 14, 2009, 09:19 AM
Posted my review earlier this week... (http://www.creaturecantina.com/news_stories/2009/0513/die-trekkies-die.html)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Darth Broem on May 14, 2009, 04:43 PM
I happened to see a commercial for Trek yesterday, and it started with "Star Trek is......" followed by a quick flashing montage of footage from the movie, then says "this generation's Star Wars".  It was from some reviewer (missed the name), but that was the entire commercial.  I haven't had a chance to see the movie yet, but it was interesting to see an ad basically going right at the prequels.  I'm not saying they are wrong (it could be amazing and much better than some of the prequels, as many have said), but technically this generation already has a "Star Wars". :P

Also, IGN (http://movies.ign.com/articles/982/982293p1.html) has a new feature up discussing how the new Trek owes more than a little to Star Wars.  Again, I haven't had a chance to see the new Trek yet, but there appears to be a lot of similarities (according to this article).

The funny thing about that is they still act like Star Wars is the thing to beat even with the sub-par prequel trilogy.  I just find it interesting.  The media and fans will be the first to rip Star Wars apart but the marketing mentions them time and time again.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: efranks on May 14, 2009, 04:50 PM
I recall when The Fifth Element was coming out and being billed as Star Wars for a new generation.  Man, that was a sad attempt at marketing.  They should have just said, "Nearly Naked Milla Jovovich" and called it a day.

   E...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Nathan on May 14, 2009, 05:23 PM
I still think that LOTR is our generation's Star Wars. Aside from the Academy Awards and astronomical box office, it was a pop-culture juggernaut for 2001-03. And think about how much of its lingo has entered our lexicon--reference a hobbit or Mordor and anyone's turned on a TV or read a magazine in the last 8 years will know what you mean.

It was one of those rare genre movies, like Dark Knight, that basically everyone has seen. I mean, even my then 82-year-old grandmother went to ROTK with my aunt.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Morgbug on May 14, 2009, 11:50 PM
I still think that LOTR is our generation's Star Wars.

"Our" generation?   :-X
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Nathan on May 15, 2009, 02:33 AM
Bah, I hang out with other college kids all day; sometimes I forget I'm not on Facebook. Sorry pops. :P

"This" generation's Star Wars, then.

I kind of hesitate to even call it "my" generation's Star Wars since my Star Wars is, well, Star Wars, but whatev...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Brian on May 15, 2009, 09:18 AM
Yeah, we've had that discussion elsewhere here before I think - but - aside from the prequels - I think "this" generation's Star Wars is probably either Lord of the Rings or maybe Harry Potter.  LOTR seems to be that for the older set, but Harry Potter might have that more all-encompassing "family" feel that the LOTR trilogy maybe doesn't.  I love both franchises, but I know that I watched all of the OT movies before I was seven - and I think the orcs/goblins/Uruk Hai would scare the bejeezus out of many seven year olds.

As a bit of a side topic - I know the prequels are definitely not without their weaknesses, but I do get a little tired of the media bashing of Star Wars.  Especially since it all gets lumped together it seems.  ROTS in particular is starting to get a bad rap just due to everyone disliking TPM and AOTC - while ROTS seemed to get pretty good marks not just from fans but critics as well.  Although it may not be happening, it almost seems like the "SW reputation" is starting to drag the OT down more too, which I sure hope doesn't happen.  I'm more than happy to see Star Trek and other franchises get their moment in the sun, and be successful, but it seems like so often it is accompanied by "man this is so much better than Star Wars/the prequels".  I guess it is only natural, I know many of us made the same comparisons when the LOTR movies were hitting theatres.  I know I came out of the theatre after seeing Fellowship of the Ring (and not having read the book yet at that point) and just being awestruck.  "THAT'S how to make a movie" :P
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: DSJ™ on May 17, 2009, 04:29 PM
Some kind of contest on, it appears that a cameo was made by R2-D2 in the movie. Only open to the residents of the United States.   >:(

Find ‘Star Wars’ in ‘Star Trek’ To Win A Prop (http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2009/05/15/find-star-wars-in-star-trek-to-win-a-prop/)

STAR TREK Easter Egg Sweepstakes (http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=80929709882&ref=mf)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Jesse James on May 17, 2009, 10:36 PM
K, so I went to see this...

Holy ****!

It's easily better than TPM and AOTC...  I'd say it's as good as ROTS in a different kind of way.  That, to me, puts it on-par with the worst (which is still awesome) of the original trilogy.  As Star Trek goes, it's as good to me as TNG, and DS9 were, and I personally found it to be a much better movie than First Contact (it pains me to say it) and far better than Wrath of Kahn (I only ranked that film lower than FC because I prefer the newer crew over the old one).

The acting...

It was amazing I thought.  I felt all the characters were portrayed marvelously.  I would say the Spock character was overall the best, and Bones a very close second.  Scotty and Chekov were a little less spotlighted, as was Sulu and Uhura, but all 4 were marvelous.  The Kirk was not William Shatner, but instead it was what Kirk would've been had Shatner not been a worse actor I think.  That's not really a knock on him, it's more a testament to the way the kid playing him was able to capture the womanizing, "*******" persona that was Kirk, but without the dramatic pausing and such.  Shatner layed the groundwork and this kid refined it IMO.

Everything I heard about Bones was right...  What a portrayal.  He's probably the most true to his original character, but I rreally felt Spock was pulled off just as well or better.  It's just hard to gauge being that he's not emotional and all.

The story...

It was really great to see a movie that the story was almost parallel to the character development.  You got to know the crew, while at the same time the movie's plotline was setting you up for this reboot of the Star Trek franchise...  It fit flawlessly.  It didn't give you enemies you were distracted by or anything.  They had a quick little story to who they are and why they act the way they do, but you didn't get bogged down in them...  They weren't center stage, the Enterprise and her crew are.

There's a lot of little "this is why this is this way" type moments...  I liked, as a ST fan in general, seeing these things.  They tied it pretty well together, everything has a great solid explanation that I could figure, and so as a fan of the original stuff I didn't feel that the old TV show, subsequent movies, or subsequent TV series were "cheated" by this film at all.  They all mesh well.

The Enterprise is made much more realistic I felt...  It's not the same ship inside, but outside's very close.  Inside's updated but still tried to keep that old feel to it too.  I was impressed.

In general this is an A+ to me...  I could watch it again easily too, so I may catch it in IMAX since we've got a screen here for that.

As a testament to the quality this is, my gf HATES Star Trek...  If possible, moreso than anything else I've dragged her to see, or that I watch religiously (ST: TNG reruns, etc.), and she really, really liked this movie.  It's got a lot of good, well-placed humor, it's got a lot of character depth, and it's got a **** TON of potential for sequals.  They basically put down the foundation of a number of movies here with this one.

And Scotty's buddy kicks ass.  How this guy didn't get a figure, I'll never know.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Master_Phruby on May 18, 2009, 10:47 AM
Some kind of contest on, it appears that a cameo was made by R2-D2 in the movie. Only open to the residents of the United States.   >:(

Find ‘Star Wars’ in ‘Star Trek’ To Win A Prop (http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2009/05/15/find-star-wars-in-star-trek-to-win-a-prop/)

STAR TREK Easter Egg Sweepstakes (http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=80929709882&ref=mf)

That sounds cool. I wonder were R2 was?
"Maybe J.J. will figure out a way to kill off Jar Jar for his second “Trek” go-round." - Maybe Naboo could go the way of Vulcan?  That would get rid of him.  ;)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Jesse James on May 19, 2009, 01:06 AM
Damn those Trekkies... 

http://www.trekyourself.com/?mId=30184220.3

Damn them to hell, and their green blooded, pointy eared, bowl cut friends too!
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: JediMoses on May 19, 2009, 01:09 AM
Damn those Trekkies... 

http://www.trekyourself.com/?mId=30184220.3

Damn them to hell, and their green blooded, pointy eared, bowl cut friends too!

What the hell is that?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Jesse James on May 19, 2009, 01:13 AM
Damn those Trekkies... 

http://www.trekyourself.com/?mId=30184220.3

Damn them to hell, and their green blooded, pointy eared, bowl cut friends too!

What the hell is that?

That is scary stuff, that's what that is...  I'm very upset.  The Trekkies are slapping us in the face with their lilly white gloves.

Dance off.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Morgbug on May 19, 2009, 11:49 PM
Finally saw this (Tuesday now apparently you get in and get a regular popcorn, regular drink all for about $10).  I gotta admit, I liked it.  Quite a bit. 

I can definitely pick nits all day with it, but overall I really enjoyed it.  Was it fluffy and lacking depth compared to the old Trek?  Yeah, I'd agree with that (and it might prove more popular because of it - I wouldn't suggest most of the movie going public is capable of in depth thought). 

Did it wreak havoc with the cannon of old-school Trek?  Yup, but I thought aside from the general lameness of time travel, they did a good job of explaining away the old school stuff.  They did a fine job paying homage to a lot of the old school Trek stuff at the same time though - Spock's emotional conflict, Kirk's sluttiness, Sulu's swordsmanship, Chekov's miserable accent, McCoy's irreverance for things in his way, Scotty's sense of humor (was that an Ugnaught with him?) and Uhura's innate and total hotness.  Yow. 

It didn't take itself too seriously.  Oh how I long for those days. 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Jesse James on May 19, 2009, 11:56 PM
Uhura definitely was smokin' hot...  I never had that going for original Uhura, even on the original show, but this one, definitely.

I thought Scotty's little buddy, who I hope comes back in some fashion and gets a figure, looked like a Jabba's Palace Klaatu, that just also happened to be an Oompa Loompa.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: DSJ™ on May 20, 2009, 12:12 AM
Keenser, played by Deep Roy.

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

(http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i306/DSJcdn/Random/Keenser.jpg)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Jesse James on May 20, 2009, 01:36 AM
http://www.trekyourself.com/?mId=30184220.3

I'm still mad about that...  In the nerd world, that's just uncalled for.

(Don't open it at work if your computer has speakers!)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: DSJ™ on May 20, 2009, 01:44 AM
(http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i306/DSJcdn/Random/star-trek-inspirational-poster.jpg)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Darth_Anton on May 24, 2009, 11:15 AM
Okay. Finally saw it. I honestly don't know what to think about it. It's a weird feeling to realize that a story you followed and cared about is now dead with no hope of continuation and in a sense, never happened.

That said, I would certainly recommend the movie. I'm objective enough to know the difference between what I don't like personally and what works as entertainment for a general audience.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Darby on May 24, 2009, 01:21 PM
I don't think the last 40 some years are dead and over - I think there's potential to revisit the Original Recipie universe, but I looked at it as this film gave a jolt to a franchise which was dead and over anyway.  Either something like this happened - and I might argue the method too - or the franchise lied dormant and forgotten.  I really enjoyed the movie, really enjoyed how they brought life back to these characters and put them all back where they should be.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Jesse James on May 24, 2009, 03:49 PM
Exactly as Spuffy said... I  watch TNG all the time, any time it's on, and I'll forever love it...  This is just a new direction.  There are, always, alternate realities in Star Trek.  For instance, the mirror mirror universe which is in continuation into ST: DS9 for instance.  It's gone on just as the ST:TNG universe carried on into the movies...

Likewise, the ALl Good Things universe (the future) carried on, but by Q's meddling, the ST:TNG timeline took a new route where Riker/Worf didn't have a fallout over Troi, and where Picard could maybe avoid his fate with his health due tot he early detection of it...  Etc.

ST's copout of time travel, and alternative universes/realities, is bad to many, but to me it opens the ability for retelling the ST universe now somewhat, and going forward with a new series of movies at least.

Remember the multiple Enterprises in the one ST:TNG episode?  Or Yesterday's Enterprise?

This is hardly a precedent setter. ;)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Master_Phruby on May 25, 2009, 12:20 PM
Too bad Star Wars doesn't have alternate realities. Then we could pretend the prequals never happened.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Jesse James on May 26, 2009, 02:42 AM
Infinities...  ?  Though I like to pretend it didn't happen.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Darth_Anton on May 26, 2009, 10:29 AM
Too bad Star Wars doesn't have alternate realities. Then we could pretend the prequals never happened.

They made Star Wars prequels?  ;)

The alternate reality thing can be over done, and in this case, I think it is. It's always fun to entertain the idea as an aside to the main time line, but when the idea becomes the the main time line, I personally think it's too far. But that's me. And who am I compared to the nearly $200M in ticket sales in three weeks?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Sprry75 on May 26, 2009, 02:45 PM
I saw it yesterday and liked it quite a bit.  Eomer kicked ass as Bones.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Jayson on May 26, 2009, 02:48 PM
I saw it yesterday and liked it quite a bit.  Eomer kicked ass as Bones.

"My ex-wife took the entire planet in the divorce, all I've got left are my bones" - great line.  :)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Jesse James on May 26, 2009, 03:33 PM
I saw it yesterday and liked it quite a bit.  Eomer kicked ass as Bones.

I had no idea that's who that was.  Now that you say that though, I see the resemblance in the face.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Sprry75 on May 27, 2009, 12:41 AM
I didn't get it either, until my wife pointed it out to me after the movie.

Through the whole show, I kept thinking to myself how great he was, and when she said it, I had to run downstairs and IMDB it just to make sure.  But I thought he nailed it and I want to see Bones spin offs.

Unfortunately, Chris Pine as Kirk was the least charismatic of all the characters.  The dude who played his dad should have played Kirk.

Uhura was hot, as was the green skinned chick.

I was bummed to see my soul mate Winona Ryder stuck in a cameo, and I just hope those wrinkles were make up....
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Master_Phruby on May 27, 2009, 01:46 AM
I was bummed to see my soul mate Winona Ryder stuck in a cameo, and I just hope those wrinkles were make up....

Sorry. They wheren't.  :'(

(http://photos.upi.com/story/t/a02eb2fd51f7a1b367028656a2de9863/New-Star-Trek-flick-to-get-IMAX-release.jpg)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: efranks on May 27, 2009, 02:28 AM
The "green skinned chick" was an Orion who was played by your new Scarlett, Rachel Nichols.  And yes, she is the hotness.

(http://www.netenigma.com/gto/rachelnichols/rachelnichols-06.jpg)

   E...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Daigo-Bah on June 1, 2009, 01:10 AM
I saw it for a second time, loved it again, and something occurred to me later.  Maybe this was mentioned earlier in the thread, but a cool little homage was Kirk eating an apple during the Kobayashi Maru test, just as he ate an apple when explaining how he cheated in the KM test in ST 2!
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: clonebuyer111 on June 6, 2009, 12:37 AM
I watched the movie recently and liked it. I have bought the toys too.
the bridge playset and transporter room playset. I would recommend people buy them.


 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Brian on June 12, 2009, 12:18 PM
I finally got a chance to catch a matinee of Trek this week, and I really enjoyed it as well.  I thought it lived up to all the positive hype it has been getting, and I can't wait to see it again when the DVD/blu ray is released.  Like I mentioned earlier in this thread, I'm not someone who is deep into Trek...I watched reruns of the original series, saw I think four of the movies (first three and the one with the humpback whales), and watched TNG pretty religiously when I was younger.  Aside from that, I've been completely out of touch with Trek since TNG ended (actually, a little before final seasons I believe).  That said, this was by far my favorite of my Trek experiences.  I don't have one complaint in the whole cast, I really enjoyed the entire Enterprise crew.  I especially thought Karl Urban was entertaining as Bones, hard to believe it is the same guy who played Eomer.  I really thought both Kirk (Pine) and Spock (Quinto) were well cast too.  Already looking forward to the sequel.  I don't like to even draw comparisons with Star Wars (I'm always a SW fan first and foremost), but I did notice how this movie seemed to keep me interested start to finish.  Sometimes, when I watch the prequels, I have the urge to fast forward through certain parts of them - I don't think I'd do that with this movie.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Scott on December 19, 2009, 10:18 PM
Really late to the party here but I finally got to watch this last night.  It was pretty damn good (shock) but I really did not like having old Spock in there.  The whole time travel thing in Star Trek is soooooooo overdone and lame that it seemed like a huge crutch.  I realize it was a bone to throw to the original fans and series devotees and the millions of Trekkies out there.  But to me, they didn't need to have him in there at all and I would have been perfectly fine with a reimagining of the series from the get go instead of the alternate reality/time travel BS

The casting, effects, score, story, everything else was just great.  I also love seeing some cool engineering stuff on Enterprise.  The water tubes and the reactors and all that jazz.  Most of that was never seen on the any of the other scenes I saw but had to be there.  I also liked the little nods to Star Wars in there (punch it!)...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: name on December 20, 2009, 10:05 PM
i was a latecomer to this trek version too...we rented it a few weeks ago.  The whole family loved it...even my wife who usually doesn't like this sort of thing.  I'm not a die hard trekkie, so I had no personal stake in this.  i know enough to get the connections, but am not invested enough to care if something was changed.  It was just a lot of fun for me.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Jesse James on December 21, 2009, 01:20 AM
Quote
But to me, they didn't need to have him in there at all and I would have been perfectly fine with a reimagining of the series from the get go instead of the alternate reality/time travel BS

I'd disagree on this from a ST fan's POV only because I dislike when someone takes something that isn't theirs (more or less) and says, "this is better", without care to where it came from...  TOS is flawed for sure, but I'm a huge TNG and DS9 fan, and I think Roddenberry's Star Trek is a great thing and I'd have hated to see them just take someone else's "story" more or less and **** on it. 

It'd be like taking major liberties with Lord of the Rings I guess...

I agree the time travel thing is a bit played out in ST but it was a pretty solid set of reasoning and actually tied in with events from TNG somewhat.  I think they could've figured something else out though, and not necessarilly involved original Spock and all that.

I love that the series is rebooted though, and feel it was masterfully pulled off.  And I also look forward to more movies with, hopefully, the same actors.  It was the best movie I'd seen since ROTS, which I really enjoyed a lot.  It was far better than TPM and AOTC in every way as well.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Scott on December 21, 2009, 09:17 AM
But really...they really did take the story and made it better.  Better technology a totally different and souped up Enterprise, different cast etc etc.  So why even throw the bone on Spock?  I agree that it worked in principal but it didn't have to be there.  It seemed forced and tired (this is at least the third movie time travel device with IV, Generations and this new one).

I consider myself a casual fan, I was way way into TNG when it was originally showing and loved the movies through Generations (I don't I think I saw the others past that) so I get what they were doing.  I think the hardcore fans would have had an absolute shitfit if they blew it to pieces.  But they did it to an extent anyway and the whole bit seemed too forced just to throw them a bone.

Anyway, that was my only quibble, it was great and I am eagerly anticipation the sequal where I expect the ghost of dead cast members to be time travelled into the movie as zombies :-*
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Master_Phruby on December 21, 2009, 10:06 AM
Well at least they didn't threaten to blow up the Enterprise again. ;)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Jesse James on December 21, 2009, 03:28 PM
Well Zombies are the "in" thing right now...   :-X

Did they really make the story better, or the visuals better though?  And acting...  though I think the actors in the past were fine save for Shatner obviously.  The story's different but I don't know that I'd say it's better.  If the same cast, same visual effects and everything were available with the original ST storyline I think it'd be the same as this new storyline in terms of quality.

This one visually improved Star Trek, the cast works well as the original cast...  Plus now you get to see them young, rather than watching them trek the galaxy at 60.  I don't know that I feel it improved ST as a story though.

Ultimately I think they could've done this as an alternate timeline idea, which is what they're going for I guess, without including Spock.  Spock was definitely the bone thrown.  I thought it fit well just from a fan POV, but from what you're saying I agree Scott, it wasn't necessary.  I don't think it would've been cool had they just said "F it" to the whole ST universe and started from scratch though.  I feel like they're taking Roddenberry's characters in a new direction is all, with original stories...  But still Roddenberry's characters with their basic nuances rather than Abram's revisioning of what Roddenberry's characters SHOULD have been like and ignoring what was established...  If that makes any sense.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Master_Phruby on December 21, 2009, 10:26 PM
Well Zombies are the "in" thing right now...   :-X

Heck, it worked for "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies" why not Star Trek?

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/515P9ohF%2B%2BL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA240_SH20_OU01_.jpg)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: P-Siddy on December 21, 2009, 10:47 PM
My one gripe with the movie is when Kirk is 'exile' to the snow planet and is chased by one beast, who is killed by another, and then chased by that beast. I would think the first kill would have been more fulfilling than a puny human. Plus it reminded me of The Phantom Menace (there's always the bigger fish), which I never liked either.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: name on December 21, 2009, 11:19 PM
my wife caught that phantom menace connection as well....my bigger gripe with the snow beast was simply that I'm tired of this bifurcated/flower petal jaw creature design.  it seems to show up a LOT lately.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Darth Broem on December 24, 2009, 11:18 AM
I got this on DVD a few weeks ago.  I have watched it at least 3 times.  I love the movie.  Of course we got a new 46 inch TV with help from my parents.  So, that's another reason.  It just looks gorgeous on there.  Anyway, yeah there were very minor things I did not care for but overall I think it's great.  It was my favorite movie of this year but quite a bit really.  It certainly freshened up that franchise.  To bad the toys tanked though. 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Jeff on December 3, 2012, 10:33 AM
New teaser poster for Star Trek: The Dark Knight Rises Into Darkness (http://www.hitfix.com/motion-captured/star-trek-into-darkness-gets-an-oddly-familiar-teaser-poster). :P
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Sybeck1 on December 3, 2012, 10:56 AM
I'm an old school Trekkie and I probably will never warm up to this bunch. People might understand when Disney recasts Luke Skywalker or Indiana Jones some day. That new movie sounds too much like the last Batman to me.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: efranks on December 3, 2012, 01:23 PM
That is a terrible, terrible poster.

   E...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: JediJman on December 3, 2012, 01:50 PM
I think it's clever with the symbol hidden in open space.  I definitely don't want to Star Wars characters recast, but Star Trek has half a dozen time-travel based stories, including cross-overs with the various sub-franchise timelines, so its a much better fit for that universe.  I thought the first one was well done - I'll definitely go see this one.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: P-Siddy on December 3, 2012, 01:52 PM
I think it's clever with the symbol hidden in open space.

You're correct, Justin... just, it's been done half a year ago.  :-\  It just makes one feel as if they lack originality in the creative talent if they are already reusing that  idea.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: efranks on December 3, 2012, 03:26 PM
Just a little comparison...

(http://netenigma.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/ST-vs-TDKR.jpg)

   E...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: P-Siddy on December 3, 2012, 03:32 PM
?:  Is that supposed to be Kirk or the baddie who is rumored to be: Khan?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Jeff on December 3, 2012, 03:42 PM
Duh, it's Batman obviously.  Into Darkknightness... 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: efranks on December 3, 2012, 04:11 PM
(http://netenigma.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Into-Darkniteness.jpg)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: BillCable on December 3, 2012, 04:37 PM
Nice!
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Brian on December 6, 2012, 10:33 AM
The teaser/announcement trailer is up now at itunes, with a full trailer expected to be attached to the Hobbit next week (and online the 17th, according to this site):

http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/paramount/startrekintodarkness/ (http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/paramount/startrekintodarkness/)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: JediJman on December 6, 2012, 04:00 PM
Looks cool.  Check out the Japanese version if you want confirmation of the baddie.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: JediMoses on December 6, 2012, 08:54 PM
Looks cool.  Check out the Japanese version if you want confirmation of the baddie.

Justin,  PM me as I am missing the confirmation.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Sybeck1 on December 6, 2012, 09:07 PM
That blonde looks a lot like Sally Kellerman.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Master_Phruby on December 7, 2012, 09:41 AM
Japaneese version.

http://youtu.be/lgBFz9-rAS0 (http://youtu.be/lgBFz9-rAS0)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: BillCable on December 7, 2012, 10:08 AM
I didn't notice any difference.  Maybe I don't know enough Trek...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: EdSolo on December 7, 2012, 11:48 AM
Looks cool.  Check out the Japanese version if you want confirmation of the baddie.

I wouldn't necessarily call it a confirmation.  It certainly makes an allusion to a previous movie which goes hand in hand with the rumored villain.  However, the whole vengeance plot doesn't necessarily go with TOS back story.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Scockery on December 7, 2012, 12:37 PM
Vengeance on whom? We've never seen this guy before. And even a new actor playing an old character it doesn't work.  I'M GONNA GET EVEN WITH YOU...REMEMBER WHEN I WAS RICARDO MONTALBAN? (I don't know who CuCumberbatch is supposed to be) It just doesn't work. That's why the original Spock was needed for the previous movie.

Actually, the revenge angle gets old.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: EdSolo on December 7, 2012, 01:01 PM
That was my point.  The Eugenics Wars were in the 1990's and the original Kirk and crew found the Botany Bay in around 2267.  In Space Seed, Khan didn't seem to want to destroy Earth or Starfleet in retaliation to losing the Eugenics War and exiling himself in space.  In Star Trek II, he wanted vengeance and rightfully so since Starfleet never bothered to check up on him.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Pete_Fett on December 7, 2012, 01:52 PM
Exactly - they actually wrote a really great novel that tells about what happened to Khan and his followers after the Enterprise left them on Ceti Alpha Five.

Khans "wrath" and need for revenge was based solely on the fact that Kirk left them there and "never bothered to check on our progress" as Khan states in the movie.

If Ceti Alpha VI had NEVER exploded, Khan and his people would have worked hard to live a meager existence, free to govern themselves and Khan NEVER would have been angry at Kirk for anything.

My vote is that the bad guy is Gary Mitchell and the blond being played by Alice Eve is Dr. Elizabeth Dehner - so this movie is a re-imagining of the "Where No Man Has Gone Before" events from the original series.



Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: P-Siddy on December 7, 2012, 01:53 PM
There are a lot more names out there being dropped as the villain:  see here in case you're worried about spoilers. http://www.policymic.com/articles/16041/star-trek-into-darkness-movie-spoilers-and-rumors-benedict-cumberbatch-is-gary-mitchell (http://www.policymic.com/articles/16041/star-trek-into-darkness-movie-spoilers-and-rumors-benedict-cumberbatch-is-gary-mitchell)

If you look at imdb, Alice Eve's and Benedict Cumberbatch's character names are not listed.... so it makes one wonder if they are interconnected.  Of course, neither is Peter Weller (and some others that I am not familiar with), so who knows?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Pete_Fett on December 7, 2012, 02:24 PM
Well - the guy who wrote that article seems to have the same theory as I do...

For me, it was seeing Alice Eve in the Blue Starfleet Uniform with the same haircut as Sally Kellerman from "Where No Man Has Gone Before"...

Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Morgbug on December 7, 2012, 10:28 PM
That was my point.  The Eugenics Wars were in the 1990's and the original Kirk and crew found the Botany Bay in around 2267.  In Space Seed, Khan didn't seem to want to destroy Earth or Starfleet in retaliation to losing the Eugenics War and exiling himself in space.  In Star Trek II, he wanted vengeance and rightfully so since Starfleet never bothered to check up on him.

Nerd.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: JediJman on December 8, 2012, 12:06 AM
That was my point.  The Eugenics Wars were in the 1990's and the original Kirk and crew found the Botany Bay in around 2267.  In Space Seed, Khan didn't seem to want to destroy Earth or Starfleet in retaliation to losing the Eugenics War and exiling himself in space.  In Star Trek II, he wanted vengeance and rightfully so since Starfleet never bothered to check up on him.

Nerd.

+2
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Master_Phruby on December 8, 2012, 12:34 PM

My vote is that the bad guy is Gary Mitchell and the blond being played by Alice Eve is Dr. Elizabeth Dehner - so this movie is a re-imagining of the "Where No Man Has Gone Before" events from the original series.

Reading other posts elsewhere and recent Star Trek comic book issues, the bad guy is Lt. Commander Gary Mitchell. He is the dude that gets zapped by the Galactic Barrier and gains god like powers.

From one of the Stark Trek wikis, "The Gary Mitchell from the alternate reality created by Nero appears in the first two issues of the IDW Star Trek series; having been assigned to the Enterprise on Kirk's request, Mitchell again succumbs to the barrier's influence – a mind-meld performed by Spock confirms that there is no intelligence in Mitchell after the barrier takes over – but during the confrontation on Delta Vega, while Mitchell is tormenting Kirk, he is defeated when Spock sneaks up on the occupied Mitchell and delivers a Vulcan nerve pinch, incapacitating Mitchell long enough for his real self to take over and ask Kirk to kill him. Mitchell is then "killed" by a phaser blast. His body put into a torpedo tube and blasted into space like Spock in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. The Enterprise leaves Delta Vega's orbit as Mitchell's torpedo tube is left floating in space at the conclusion of this issue."

....or it could just be a weird Star Trek / Sherlock crossover.

 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Nicklab on December 15, 2012, 08:58 PM
Japaneese version.

http://youtu.be/lgBFz9-rAS0 (http://youtu.be/lgBFz9-rAS0)

AH!  I see the shot now.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: BillCable on December 16, 2012, 08:33 AM
Can you spoil the secret?  At what second the scene occurs?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: EdSolo on December 17, 2012, 07:06 AM
Can you spoil the secret?  At what second the scene occurs?

It is the final scene on the Japanese trailer with the hands up against the glass.  It is probably paying homage to the end of Wraith of Khan when Spock dies right in front of Kirk.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: DSJ™ on December 18, 2012, 09:29 AM
The Full New Star Trek Into Darkness Teaser Trailer! (http://www.superherohype.com/news/articles/174113-the-full-new-star-trek-into-darkness-teaser-trailer)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Master_Phruby on December 19, 2012, 01:26 PM
This new trailer makes me wonder if they are introducing Khan for the first time. This could be a retelling of the Space Seed episode. Notice the scene with the hybernation chambers.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: JediJman on December 19, 2012, 05:17 PM
I'm growing less sure of the villian's identity, but I think the twist on this one will be that Kirk has to sacrifice himself instead of Spock at the end.  They will still end up doing the mind meld, but Kirk's essence will be trapped in Spock, and we'll see the ramifications of that in the third flick.  Either way, this looks like a flick worth seeing.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Scockery on December 19, 2012, 05:41 PM
Saw a leaked tape of  the first 9 minutes and it doesn't shed any light.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: DSJ™ on March 21, 2013, 03:58 AM
Holy ****balls!   :o   8)

International Star Trek Into Darkness Trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhz4A5BCMAA)

The New International Star Trek Into Darkness Trailer! (http://www.superherohype.com/news/articles/175657-the-new-international-star-trek-into-darkness-trailer)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: BillCable on March 22, 2013, 11:37 AM
Is there something I'm missing?  I didn't see anything in the trailer that really wowed me.  It was good... but pretty much standard action stuff.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Chris M on March 22, 2013, 01:40 PM
Is there something I'm missing?  I didn't see anything in the trailer that really wowed me.  It was good... but pretty much standard action stuff.

Agreed.  That said, I'm excited about this movie.  I thought the reboot was beyond awesome and I'm hoping the same for this.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Scockery on March 22, 2013, 08:59 PM
It still seems to me like the "you thought you were safe" was ripped off of The Old Republic trailer's "You were decieved..." Cumberbatch's character is really Darth Malgus?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: DSJ™ on April 16, 2013, 01:53 PM
New trailer up. Better than SW episodes I, II & III.   :P

I believe in you Jim (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5ec_rPApKCA)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Jesse James on April 16, 2013, 02:11 PM
Diane's actually pumped to see this...  To me that speaks volumes about this reboot's far-reaching appeal and popularity.  She HATES when I sit and watch TNG or the older movies.  She really isn't a SW fan...  But these movies she's into.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: P-Siddy on April 16, 2013, 03:21 PM
Maybe she's into Chris Pine or Zack Quinto, Simon Pegg... or whoever?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Jesse James on April 16, 2013, 05:33 PM
I thought so maybe at first but nah I'm pretty sure that's not it.  She just really liked the last one, and thought it was just a fun movie.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Scockery on April 17, 2013, 12:14 AM
BEST OF BOTH WORLDS remastered in theaters for one day only April 25th. http://www.startrek.com/article/the-best-of-both-worlds-in-theaters-april-25 (http://www.startrek.com/article/the-best-of-both-worlds-in-theaters-april-25)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: BillCable on May 15, 2013, 11:50 PM
Saw a Trek sneak peak tonight.  There were some thrilling moments.  But there were a lot of really stupid moments, too.  I'll give a more detailed, spoilerific review tomorrow.  I can't say I'd recommend it.  I'd give it a solid "Meh."  Some in the crowd ate it up, though... smattering of applause at the end... so maybe I'm not the target audience.  I kind of like at least a little Sci in my Sci-fi.

It did not fill me with hope for SW7.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: BillCable on May 16, 2013, 09:47 AM
So now for my spoiler-filled review of New Trek 2:

SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS

First of all, I had just about the worst possible viewing experience you could imagine.  This was a free viewing, and I arrived about an hour early, and almost every seat was already taken.  I ended up in the 2nd row center.  I couldn't even get the entire screen in my field of vision.  Plus it was a 3D screening, and 3D doesn't work well for me.  Most everything is blurry.  On top of that, the projector was jacked up.  Out of alignment.  Even during the previews there was a cyan band at the bottom of every white area, and a magenta band across the top of every white area.  I'm not sure if it's a multi-bulb projector like some home theaters and it was out-of-whack or what.  But in any case, it was awful.

Because I could barely make out any of the eye candy, it freed me to focus on the plot.  And the plot was so... illogical... that I can't help but complain.  My chief beefs:


I could list a ton more, but I'd be nitpicking.  I'll stop at my huge complaints.

There were things I liked.  Khan was excellent.  I liked the idea of tricking Khan into transporting a bomb onto his own ship.  There were a few funny lines.  Simon Pegg was awesome.  There were thrills.  I probably would have enjoyed the action if I was able to see it better.

But in the end it was big and loud and just too dumb.  That's fine for Independence Day or Fast & Furious... but it's quite a few notches below what I expect from Trek.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Master_Phruby on May 16, 2013, 10:22 AM
So this reboot is going to odd number movies are good while the even number movies are bad? Kind of the opposite of the last ten movies where even number movies are good and odd ones bad. I guess ST: Nemesis messed up the ordering.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: BillCable on May 16, 2013, 03:14 PM
This reviewer had the same exact reaction as I did.  I'm amazed it's pulling 89% positive on RottenTomatoes.  I mean, just staggeringly stupid...

http://badassdigest.com/2013/05/14/star-trek-into-darkness-spoiler-review/
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Matt_Fury on May 19, 2013, 01:14 AM
I saw it today and I thought it was better than the first one.  It definitely had some annoying plot holes (some mentioned by Bill and a few more that weren't), but then I remembered this is Star Trek (famous for remodulating something at the last minute to save everyone) coupled with Damon Lindelof (arguably the laziest writer alive) and you get what you get....a decent popcorn flick.

I just hope that When JJ Abrams screens Episode VII, the lightsabers aren't causing so many damn lens flares!
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Diddly on May 19, 2013, 03:32 AM
Saw it tonight... it wasn't as bad as a lot of people on the Internet are making it out to be but I did enjoy the first one better. The plot was really out there.

And as mentioned already, TOO MANY LENS FLARES.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Scockery on May 19, 2013, 03:49 PM
My complaints about the previous movie apply to this one: tries too hard, but delivers very little, instead coasting by on known and lesser known references to the old franchise. Doesn't bod well for the Star Wars sequels, since the prequels were bad enough at times about not being their own thing and just trying to glide by on "hey, that's a reference to..."

Lot of action to distract you from a threadbare plot made from recycled bits of better movies/episodes.


My score: 6/10

SPOILERS

1. The opening...meh. I saw the leaked preview. Spock and Kirk are amazing swimmers.

2. I agree McCoy comes across as a parody and I cannot blame Urban too much except maybe he was miscast.

3. Villain reveal was in place of actual characterization (spoiled it for myself accidentaly days ago  :( ). Cumberbatch is good, but thats  the thing, they had to have a decent actor to make up for Khan being another disposable villain. And let's not question the backstory, he's 300 years behind the times, never said to have an engineering background, but is a speed reader and can develop superiour tech.  Wouldn't it have made more sense that the Section 31 tech came from Nero's ship in the last movie?

4. Weller's character...Admiral Marcus, more villainous than he really should be. It's not like Trek hasn't played the warhawk starfleet officer card before and done it much better.

5. Carol Marcus. Okay, so...in one universe Carol Marcus is a civvie scientist who distrusts Starfleet, in this one she's the Starfleet bigshot's daughter?

6. Khan cries.  :o Who doesn't cry in this movie? :'(  Peter Weller's character and the mute Keenser.

7. WE CAN RADIO SCOTTY ON EARTH (from the Klingon border). THEN SPOCK ON NEW VULCAN. But we cannot send out for help?  ???

8. Klingon ships are of the erector set motiff. Because, god forbid anything look too sleek like that old Trek franchise.

9. Klingons all wear helmets, because WE CAN HAVE ANOTHER REVEAL. Or something.

10. Foot chase...really...in Star Trek? There was already so much running around the ship that it got old.

11. Hey, a tribble...because, you know STAR TREK.

12. Take off those red shirts! You guys wanna die or something?  ;) Then they don't! Ha! Averted trope!

13. Why did Khan save Kirk in space? Because Scotty hadn't opened the door?

14. Khan beamed over Enterprise's guys but not the mostly stunned Adm. Marcus goons. So did any of them wake up or survive the crash...we aren't supposed to care, but...whatever.

15. Did anyone think Kirk was gonna die...I mean, because they weren't paying attention to McCoy's talk of Khan's blood sample earlier? Another telegraphed bit.

16. The enemy ship's crash was so gratuitous. Fitting because the ship was, too. EVILPRISE! Bigger, darker and better armed! (The big bad warship reveal is a Trek joke at this point, too.) Also, conveniently small crew for plot purposes.

Khan: "Heck EVEN ONE GUY CAN OPERATE THE SHIP. Wink-wink."

17. "Hey, I'm Captain again...here's a speech...it's a year later say, how come we aren't at war with the Klingons?" Did we tell them what happened? They believed us? Even though they'd sooner choke a chick than talk.

18. Killing Pike was a mistake. I like Greenwood more than the main cast. Also, we get Kirk wants revenge angle...that lasts for 15 minutes until he realizes Spock is right.

19. For all the vintage references, what's the deal with the "toss in a new alien at inappropriately distracting times"?

"How' are the engines?"

WEIRD CREATURE IN STARFLEET UNIFORM THAT WE'VE NEVER SEEN BEFORE replies "Still non operational, sir!"

And never Andorians or Tellerite or any TNG aliens, but new ones that say "Hey, look at this CGI".

20. Oh, boy, guess who is on ice for a wrathful awakening?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Qui-Gon Jim on May 20, 2013, 07:31 AM
I saw it today and I thought it was better than the first one.  It definitely had some annoying plot holes (some mentioned by Bill and a few more that weren't), but then I remembered this is Star Trek (famous for remodulating something at the last minute to save everyone) coupled with Damon Lindelof (arguably the laziest writer alive) and you get what you get....a decent popcorn flick.

I just hope that When JJ Abrams screens Episode VII, the lightsabers aren't causing so many damn lens flares!
Agreed.  I thought this was a fun movie.  What I think doesn't bode well for Abrams' SW7 is the fans are ALREADY sharpening the knives, and there is basically nothing done on it yet.  This movie was fun, it looked good, and it was entertaining, and meant to be enjoyed by the masses without 50 years of cannon bearing down on it.  It was as good as a few of the Trek features past, and better than more than a few of them.  Movies are not TV shows, so one should not expect the depth or methodical nature when seeing a movie.  The filmmakers don't have 200 episodes to flesh out a character, they have 2 hours.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Scockery on May 20, 2013, 11:41 AM
That's why Trek works better on television. IMHO, there's really only 2 good Trek films.

I don't think it's too much to ask that a film make sense within itself/its world. 

"Meant to be enjoyed by the masses" is a tricky thing. Because, it means we sit through tedious origins stories of superheroes over and over, have to have characters explain things that are everyday items or occurances to them and so forth.  This has always been a fan complaint about Trek movies, the producers/studio has tried to make them accessible (or claimed to) to general audiences and it didn't work because.
1. It limited what stories they could tell.
2. The general public still dislikes science fiction (Star Wars is space fantasy), except when they do...when it's easy to follow, has attractive young people and 'splosions.  (This is why Trek movies will never really be about exploring strange new worlds, only battling villains).  They are wolves ready to turn on a previously popular franchise at any signs of weakeness (The Matrix sequels).
3. Trek fandom was the double edged sword that kept the franchise alive but became seen as an alienating self-stereotyping fanbase that turns people off with its mere existence.
4. It dumbed the  Trek movie series down so much that by the end (Nemesis) even the fans stayed away.

All that said, i've seen every Trek movie from Generations onward at the theater and plan to continue to.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: EdSolo on May 22, 2013, 10:05 PM
I think everyone is expecting way too much from this movie.  I finally saw it tonight and thought it was great.  This is coming from a Trekkie who watched TOS in syndication when I was three or four.  To compare the new actors to the old isn't really a fair comparison.  When Nero came through the blackhole, the universe changed.  Chris Pine's Kirk is no longer Shatner's Kirk.  Uhura, Chekov and Sulu were all brought a lot closer to Kirk's age.  In TOS, they would have never been a Starfleet Academy at the same time as Kirk, even if he went a bit later than he originally would have.  Spock has also been shown to have grown up a bit differently with embracing his human half a lot earlier than original Spock.

As for the plot being illogical, has anyone seen any of the other Star Trek movies or even the series?  There have been a lot of illogical moments.  Saying the transporters only work when they need to is a typical type of plot device used in countless movies and TV shows.  Heck, our own beloved Star Wars has a lot of illogical moments.  Look at Vader vs. Luke in ROTJ.  As far as we were shown, when Luke fights Vader on the Death Star II, this is only the second time he has ever dueled another person.  Yet, he kicks the crap out of one of the best lightsaber fighters of all time.  Not too logical or realistic especially considering his very limited Jedi training.  The only lightsaber training we see is with the remote in ANH.  In case people forgot, here are the basic plots of all the Star Trek movies:

Star Trek The Motion Picture - old NASA probe is made sentient by some alien race (retconed in several sources as possible the Borg), travels back to Earth obliterating everything in its path to try to find its maker.  Spock can sense it all the way from Vulcan and gives up his Kolhinar training so he can mind meld with it.  Probe essentially assimilates bald chick (never before seen alien species) to speak for it.  Once they figure out it is the Voyager probe and have to send deactivation codes, Voyager blows up its receiver so "the creator" has to enter codes manually and become assimilated.  Voyager then "ascends" to a higher being.

Star Trek 2 - Starfleet completely forgets they have marooned a genetically enhanced despot on a planet and sends a ship to scope out a neighboring planet.  When said ship enters the system, somehow they can't tell that a planet is missing since the planet they want to check out has exploded and ruining the planet that said despot was marooned on.  In typical TOS fashion, both Captain and First Officer beam down to the planet, are captured and then controlled be ear wigs.  Khan takes over their ship, goes on a revenge manhunt for Kirk, and steals Genesis, a magic missile that can create life from lifelessness.  After a final battle, Spock sacrifices himself to save the Enterprise, while Khan blows up and the explosion of the Genesis device creates an entire planet out of a nebula.

Star Trek 3 - Starfleet has sent a ship to investigate the Genesis planet.  Turns out Spock's mind is in McCoy's head, and his "dead" body that was shot in torpedo to the Genesis planet is actually alive...and a young boy...who is rapidly aging, just like the planet.  Turns out Kirk's son cheated and used some illegal tech to make the Genesis device.  Klingons catch wind of all this and want the Genesis device as a weapon.  Kirk and crew break the law and steal the Enterprise to help Spock.  Fortunately, Scotty was working on the one ship that could have pursued them and sabotaged it.  Enterprise gets taken out by the Klingons, but Kirk tricks them and kills almost all of them by blowing up the Enterprise.  Ultimately Kirk beats the Klingon captain, saves Spock and takes him to Vulcan where his "soul" is taken out of McCoy and put back in his own body.

Star Trek 4 - Another alien probe has come to Earth and is devastating the planet.  Kirk and crew a returning to Earth to face the music for crimes from ST3 when they receive Earth's distress call.  Spock figures out the probes communication is whale song.  The only way to save the planet is to slingshot around the sun and go back in time to the 1980's.  Hilarity ensues as the crew attempt to capture a pair of whales.  Eventually they succeed and return to the present and save the planet.  All charges are dropped against the Enterprise crew, except for Kirk's insubordination.  He is demoted from Admiral to Captain, given command of the new Enterprise A, and is sent on another five year mission with the entire TOS crew...all of which are at the rank of Captain or full Commander while back in the TV series, the second highest ranking officer was Spock who was only a Lt. Commander.

Star Trek 5 - Spock's half-brother, the happy go lucky full Vulcan Sybok, has an empathic ability to feel others pain and release them of it.  He and his band of merry men go to a planet where the Federation, Klingon and Romulan ambassadors are having negotiations.  His ploy is to hold them hostage so that Starfleet sends a vessel so he can take control of it.  The Enterprise is sent and Sybok ends up in control of it, eventually converting several crew members.  He wants to go to the center of the galaxy to find a mythical planet, that happens to contain God.  Kirk mets God and is unimpressed.  God needs the Enterprise to leave the planet.  Kirk asks God what he needs with a starship.  A battle ensues and God is defeated.

Star Trek 6 - A Klingon moon that provides much of their power explodes in an industrial accident.  The collapse of the Klingon Empire is eminent.  Kirk and crew (minus Sulu who has been promoted to Captain and given his own ship) are sent as a peace delegation to meet with the Klingons.  After a lovely dinner, the Klingon ship is fired upon (later revealed to be shot from a cloaked Klingon ship that can actually fire while cloaked) and Kirk surrenders when the Klingons threaten retaliation.  Kirk and McCoy beam over to the Klingon vessel and find the Chancellor dying.  McCoy can't save him and after a sham trial Kirk and McCoy are sent to a prison planet.  They are eventually rescued and begin to unravel the plot.  Turns out it was a conspiracy between the Chancellors War chief and a Starfleet Admiral with the help of a Vulcan crew member of the Enterprise.

Generations - Whoopie Goldberg used to live in a magical place called the Nexus which is a ribbon floating through space.  It is a destructive force that can tear up star ships which happens to the Enterprise B on their shakedown cruise.  Captain Kirk is presumed to be killed on this cruise, but is actually sucked into the Nexus while Whoopie and our villain are pulled out.  In typical fashion, the main Enterprise crew is get rank heavy as Worf is promoted to Commander and goes through a holodeck ritual.  Picard finds out his brother and his brother's family have been killed and becomes quite weepy for most of the movie.  Meanwhile, our villain has decided the best way back into the Nexus is not by flying a ship into, but by blowing up stars to change the gravity in star systems so he can direct the Nexus to another planet.  Picard goes to stop him, but is too late and is sucked into the Nexus.  He finds Kirk and an "echo" of Whoopie says he can leave at any time and go anywhere.  He and Kirk go back and defeat our villain but Kirk is killed in the process.  Oh, and Data installed an emotion chip.

First Contact - A single Borg cube is back and ready to kick the crap out of Earth.  The Enterprise is sent to the neutral zone to monitor Romulan activity.  Picard says screw it and saves the day since all the other ships can do crap.  The cube is destroyed, but they manage to launch a sphere that goes back in time.  Picard follows and blow up the sphere that was firing on the site of Cochranes first warp ship.  Fortunately the Enterprise's shields were down so the Borg could beam aboard and take over the ship.  Half the crew beam down to the planet to help make sure Cochrane completes his first warp flight so First Contact happens.  The other half stay on board to fight the Borg, who have a never seen before Queen.  The Queen tempts Data with humanity, but eventually the crew prevail, maintain history and can conveniently replicate the Borg time travel to return to the present.

Insurrection -  Data goes haywire on a magic planet where everyone stays young and can even deage or regrow eyes.  Previous inhabitants of the planet have come back to steal all the magic deaging powder in space around the planet.  Turns out Starfleet is in on it, and has created a holodeck ship that they hid in a lake and were going to relocate all the inhabitants to another planet.  Eventually Picard and crew figure it out and save the day.

Nemesis - The Romulans clone Picard in hopes to infiltrate Starfleet.  They abandon the plan the leave the clone to rot on the mining planet Remus.  The clone and the Remans get revenge and vaporize the entire Romulan Senate.  The clone becomes Praetor and lures in Picard and crew for "peace" negotiations.  His true goal is to destroy Picard and the Federation with his giant ship that can spew lethal radiation.  Eventually the Enterprise wins, but only with the noble sacrifice of Commander Data.  Worf becomes first officer and Riker finally gets his promotion to Captain and his own ship.

Star Trek Reboot - Romulus and Remus are destroyed by a super, super, super nova.  Nimoy Spock manages to stop the nova with red matter that can collapse stars into black holes.  Spock and Nero are sucked into the black hole and sent to the past.  Nero causes trouble, eventually killing Kirk's father, who was a major influence in Kirk's life.  Baby Kirk escapes and the entire Star Trek universe as we knew it is changed.  Nero destroys Vulcan and is eventually stopped by Kirk.  Captain Pike is promoted to Admiral and Kirk is given the rank of Captain straight out of Starfleet Academy and command of the Enterprise.

How many of those plots sound logical? 

I do think I could hear Shatner screaming when Nimoy came on the screen.  Nimoy's appearance makes him the actor with the most Trek film appearances.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Scockery on May 23, 2013, 08:43 AM
Again, there's maybe 2 good Trek films. 

.  Look at Vader vs. Luke in ROTJ.  As far as we were shown, when Luke fights Vader on the Death Star II, this is only the second time he has ever dueled another person.  Yet, he kicks the crap out of one of the best lightsaber fighters of all time.  Not too logical or realistic especially considering his very limited Jedi training.  The only lightsaber training we see is with the remote in ANH.

Anakin was  great lightsaber fighter....maybe (his only victory was against Dooku)...Vader is quadruple amputee that can barely breathe with life support armor. We only see Vader see battle a martyr-happy old Obi-Wan and an barely trained Luke. NONE OF THE EU MATTERS....it's what we saw on screen.  It's not a strecth to say that Yoda or Kenobi, even 20 years after ROTS, could've chopped Vader's cyborg ass into bits and pieces....but Anakin's part of the prophecy had to be fufilled.

Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Master_Phruby on May 23, 2013, 09:33 AM
Great Trek summery EdSolo. I enjoyed it.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: P-Siddy on May 23, 2013, 09:56 AM
My wife and I saw it last night.  We both enjoyed it and my wife is not a big sci-fi fan.  She thought it was a good plot with the right balance between humor and action.  She was disappointed that McCoy didn't get more screentime though.

I think the hardest thing was (and is) disconnecting my ideas of what certain characters are or look like and not try to compare them to those in TOS.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: EdSolo on May 23, 2013, 10:27 AM
Again, there's maybe 2 good Trek films. 

.  Look at Vader vs. Luke in ROTJ.  As far as we were shown, when Luke fights Vader on the Death Star II, this is only the second time he has ever dueled another person.  Yet, he kicks the crap out of one of the best lightsaber fighters of all time.  Not too logical or realistic especially considering his very limited Jedi training.  The only lightsaber training we see is with the remote in ANH.

Anakin was  great lightsaber fighter....maybe (his only victory was against Dooku)...Vader is quadruple amputee that can barely breathe with life support armor. We only see Vader see battle a martyr-happy old Obi-Wan and an barely trained Luke. NONE OF THE EU MATTERS....it's what we saw on screen.  It's not a strecth to say that Yoda or Kenobi, even 20 years after ROTS, could've chopped Vader's cyborg ass into bits and pieces....but Anakin's part of the prophecy had to be fufilled.

Even gimped, a Sith Lord with full Jedi training and 20+ years under Palpatine can't match a kid with maybe a month's worth of training, with almost zero lightsaber training?  All we see is Luke wield a lightsaber against a remote, a Wampa, Vader in ESB, Jabba's guards (one of which manages to shoot him in the hand), Boba Fett's lasso, and a speeder bike.  While we don't see Anakin's training on screen, he becomes a Padawan and trains with Kenobi in the ten year gap between TPM and AOTC.  Heck Anakin gets about as much training from Qui-Gonn in TPM as Luke does from Kenobi in ANH.  To have Luke beat down Vader would be like taking a group of NFL probowlers (heck, I'll even go with any players in their mid 30's) and getting a group of high schoolers together who have never played football, let them practice for four weeks with the NFL coach of their choice and then have them play said probowlers, but without the coach (since Obi-wan and Yoda are dead and can't interfere) and expect them to win.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: EdSolo on May 23, 2013, 10:32 AM
I think the hardest thing was (and is) disconnecting my ideas of what certain characters are or look like and not try to compare them to those in TOS.

The way I handle that is to remind myself that Nero's actions changed everything so that they aren't the same person we saw in TOS.   Spock is a prime example.  Quento's Spock in the 2009 movie seemed much more accepting of his human half.  TOS Spock would never have had a relationship with a human.  Nimoy's Spock only really accepted his human half around Star Trek 4.

Look at Carol Marcus, she was in the biological sciences in the original universe (don't think there is any info on her original universe father) and is now a military scientists specializing in weapons systems.

Chapel is still a nurse, but Kirk banged her so she wants to be far away from him and will probably never serve as McCoy's nurse.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Scott on May 25, 2013, 08:59 PM
Saw it today...fantastic all around

I love both of these movies and I really can't wait for Episode VII...the whole reactor scene was phenomenal.  Sure there were plot holes all I've the place...falling out of warp would probably kill everyone on the spot...my only real gripe was old Spock adding nothing really substantial to the plot other than a cameo.  The space shot through the debris field was fantastic as were most of the effects.  If Williams can't score Episode VII Giacchino will more than fit the bill as the score rocked

On a OCB scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being the highest I give it a 9.5
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Scockery on May 26, 2013, 12:16 AM
Even gimped, a Sith Lord with full Jedi training and 20+ years under Palpatine can't match a kid with maybe a month's worth of training, with almost zero lightsaber training? 

Luke gave into his hatred in ROTJ, and that made him stronger...until he came to his senses.  The force was always strong within in him, anyway.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Dave on May 27, 2013, 02:57 PM
The wife and I saw it last night and we both enjoyed it. Good, not great, but certainly a movie I would recommend.

I thought some of the parallels with WoK were neat. Kirk dying of radiation poisoning and Spock yelling out "KHAN!" 

I can see how die hard trek fans might struggle with the whole new timeline and characterization.  I like it as it leaves things wide open for new things. 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: EdSolo on May 28, 2013, 07:21 AM
Even gimped, a Sith Lord with full Jedi training and 20+ years under Palpatine can't match a kid with maybe a month's worth of training, with almost zero lightsaber training? 

Luke gave into his hatred in ROTJ, and that made him stronger...until he came to his senses.  The force was always strong within in him, anyway.

Still pretty weak, since both Palpatine and Vader were trying to get him to do that anyway.  Luke didn't seem to have any loss of focus during his first brush with the dark side.  I would think Vader would be prepared for this outcome since both he and Palpatine have been trying to turn Luke.

It seems easy to give the lack of logic in this scenario, which is needed for story purposed, a pass while Star Trek is being lambasted for being illogical.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: JediJman on May 28, 2013, 11:54 AM
I had a totally different take on that fight than most people I guess.  I didn't see it as Luke being that much better, but as Vader/Anakin being that much worse, which is a totally different thing.  Sure, Luke had some skills and was more aggressive than usual given the situation.  On the flip side, Vader's literally not the man he used to be.  He's much older, has been living in the same crap armor for two decades, he likely hasn't had much for sparring partners for several years, AND he's facing off against his own son - the only link he has back to Padme (along with Leia I Guess).  Maybe he's just not trying all that hard given the circumstances.  Do people really need more excuses why he wouldn't be as good as he was pre-armor?  I don't think he was getting stronger under Palpy - he was getting weaker, which is why Palps wanted a fresh Luke to replace him.

I don't really see how this relates to Star Trek plot holes anyway.  The transporter only works part of the time?  Seems plausable to me.  No one else has trouble with their cable screwing up or DVR not recording correctly?  Do you never have issues with connecting to a new wireless signal?  Your lawnmower or snowblower always starts up just fine with no issues?  Hell, I can't get the vending machine in the office to work half the time.  It's much more realistic to have some of the tech fail now and then in these movies (in addition to make a more dramatic story).  I always thought that was a great move by Lucas with the Falcon...its a totally tricked out space muscle car and sometimes pulls off amazing tricks that other ships couldn't match.  But it just as often fails when they need it most because that's just what happens with tech/mechanics in real life.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Darby on May 28, 2013, 01:26 PM
Interesting point about the vending machines... but the transporter on Trek is longstanding issue. Going back to TMP, they've made issue of its unreliability. It distracts from the story in that it's not something you would use, outside of extreme necessity, and the reality is they do not need it. Its use in the current films defies logic and exists only to paper over lazy writing.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: JediJman on May 28, 2013, 02:17 PM
I haven't seen the new flick, so can't comment on the story.  I'll just add that this is still fairly experimental tech for the ST universe, right?  As for an ongoing problem - how many times did we see the Falcon not working right or in need of repair?  Sometimes you just have to suspend belief a little.  Maybe I'll feel differently when I see it.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: EdSolo on May 28, 2013, 03:20 PM
I had a totally different take on that fight than most people I guess.  I didn't see it as Luke being that much better, but as Vader/Anakin being that much worse, which is a totally different thing.  Sure, Luke had some skills and was more aggressive than usual given the situation.  On the flip side, Vader's literally not the man he used to be.  He's much older, has been living in the same crap armor for two decades, he likely hasn't had much for sparring partners for several years, AND he's facing off against his own son - the only link he has back to Padme (along with Leia I Guess).  Maybe he's just not trying all that hard given the circumstances.  Do people really need more excuses why he wouldn't be as good as he was pre-armor?  I don't think he was getting stronger under Palpy - he was getting weaker, which is why Palps wanted a fresh Luke to replace him.

I don't really see how this relates to Star Trek plot holes anyway.  The transporter only works part of the time?  Seems plausable to me.  No one else has trouble with their cable screwing up or DVR not recording correctly?  Do you never have issues with connecting to a new wireless signal?  Your lawnmower or snowblower always starts up just fine with no issues?  Hell, I can't get the vending machine in the office to work half the time.  It's much more realistic to have some of the tech fail now and then in these movies (in addition to make a more dramatic story).  I always thought that was a great move by Lucas with the Falcon...its a totally tricked out space muscle car and sometimes pulls off amazing tricks that other ships couldn't match.  But it just as often fails when they need it most because that's just what happens with tech/mechanics in real life.

My point was that Trek seems to be getting nitpicked to death with the "this plot is not logical" argument so I drew a comparison with Star Wars since this is a Star Wars sight.  Even with Vader being damaged or being less than he once was, he was still facing someone completely untrained in lightsaber fighting and got his butt kicked.  More to the point, what additional lightsaber training did Luke receive between ESB and ROTJ.  Vader handled him easily in ESB....to the point he was essentially toying with Luke most of the fight.  Isn't it only a year between ESB and ROTJ?  You can't really bring up the Padme angle since she didn't exist at the time Lucas made ROTJ.  Heck, she should have survived ROTS according to Leia's remembrance of her.  Unless of course we are to believe she somehow recalls that she was pretty and sad for the all of three seconds that she saw her.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Qui-Gon Jim on May 28, 2013, 03:36 PM
I have often thought that Vader changes after he encounters Luke.  He does not kill anyone after that, until he kills Palpatine.   I think that Luke reminds him of his humanity, and it is Luke's sacrifice that allows him to throw off the yoke of the dark side once and for all.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: JediJman on May 28, 2013, 04:12 PM
Even with Vader being damaged or being less than he once was, he was still facing someone completely untrained in lightsaber fighting and got his butt kicked.  More to the point, what additional lightsaber training did Luke receive between ESB and ROTJ.  Vader handled him easily in ESB....to the point he was essentially toying with Luke most of the fight.  Isn't it only a year between ESB and ROTJ?  You can't really bring up the Padme angle since she didn't exist at the time Lucas made ROTJ.  Heck, she should have survived ROTS according to Leia's remembrance of her.  Unless of course we are to believe she somehow recalls that she was pretty and sad for the all of three seconds that she saw her.

Totally disagree. 

Luke didn't have training partners obviously, but he could have been training with remotes as we saw in ANH.  I seriously doubt Vader was doing the same or getting any more training from the Emperor.  Luke should be getting better, Vader should be getting worse.

Luke is entering his prime from an age and development standpoint.  Vader is getting old and hindered by his armor.  When you can't feel your own legs and arms and have had the same prosthetics for 20 years, I have to think your ability to sword fight is greatly reduced.  Yes, a limited time since Bespin, but health rarely follows a static decline.  Luke's got motivation on his side as well - what did Vader really care about by ROTJ?

The Padme angle is totally valid, or more directly the family angle.  Luke doesn't install good in Vader, he helps bring the good back to the surface.  And since we know there was still good in him, it's natural to assume that even a fairly bad person would still have reservations about killing his own son - practically the only family he has left.  Pretty hard to channel your best when faced with the prospect of killing your boy.  Anyone with a son should see that pretty clearly.

As for Leia remembering her mom, there's a ton of logical explanations there too.  She's tuned into the force, so maybe she picked up her mom's sadness at birth and carried that forward.  Did she see visions of her mom's life, similar to what Anakin saw of his mom?  Seems pretty likely that Anakin's daughter could channel similar abilities, even if only for a few years.  Do we even know that she's talking about her real mom?  Heck, maybe she's even referring to Breha Organa, her adoptive mother. 

It's all subject to your own interpretation I guess, but I don't find any faults with how either of these issues were addressed in the movie.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: speedermike on May 28, 2013, 10:39 PM
I am amazed that the "How did Luke beat Vader?  argument is still going on.  I swear I talked about this 10 years ago on this site.  Luke beat Vader for a few reasons...

1.  He had to, and he believed in himself.  Ok.  This is cheesy, but has an underdog team ever beat a undefeated team?  Yes.  Things happen in real life that are unexplainable.

2.  It's a movie, not a video game or RPG.  Meaning, yes, Vader is technically more powerful, but Luke won.  (See reason #1)

3.  Luke was fighting for his life.  People can do amazing things under stress.  Again, look at real life, not games.

Ugh...I could go on and on...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: EdSolo on May 29, 2013, 07:22 AM
Even with Vader being damaged or being less than he once was, he was still facing someone completely untrained in lightsaber fighting and got his butt kicked.  More to the point, what additional lightsaber training did Luke receive between ESB and ROTJ.  Vader handled him easily in ESB....to the point he was essentially toying with Luke most of the fight.  Isn't it only a year between ESB and ROTJ?  You can't really bring up the Padme angle since she didn't exist at the time Lucas made ROTJ.  Heck, she should have survived ROTS according to Leia's remembrance of her.  Unless of course we are to believe she somehow recalls that she was pretty and sad for the all of three seconds that she saw her.

Totally disagree. 

Luke didn't have training partners obviously, but he could have been training with remotes as we saw in ANH.  I seriously doubt Vader was doing the same or getting any more training from the Emperor.  Luke should be getting better, Vader should be getting worse.

Luke is entering his prime from an age and development standpoint.  Vader is getting old and hindered by his armor.  When you can't feel your own legs and arms and have had the same prosthetics for 20 years, I have to think your ability to sword fight is greatly reduced.  Yes, a limited time since Bespin, but health rarely follows a static decline.  Luke's got motivation on his side as well - what did Vader really care about by ROTJ?

The Padme angle is totally valid, or more directly the family angle.  Luke doesn't install good in Vader, he helps bring the good back to the surface.  And since we know there was still good in him, it's natural to assume that even a fairly bad person would still have reservations about killing his own son - practically the only family he has left.  Pretty hard to channel your best when faced with the prospect of killing your boy.  Anyone with a son should see that pretty clearly.

As for Leia remembering her mom, there's a ton of logical explanations there too.  She's tuned into the force, so maybe she picked up her mom's sadness at birth and carried that forward.  Did she see visions of her mom's life, similar to what Anakin saw of his mom?  Seems pretty likely that Anakin's daughter could channel similar abilities, even if only for a few years.  Do we even know that she's talking about her real mom?  Heck, maybe she's even referring to Breha Organa, her adoptive mother. 

It's all subject to your own interpretation I guess, but I don't find any faults with how either of these issues were addressed in the movie.

You are looking at this with a lot of revisionist history.  You have to look at this as ROTJ in 1983 as a stand alone movie and what is shown on screen in order to make the comparison with Star Trek in terms of being illogical.  The gripes that I have seen about Into Darkness mostly don't deal with previous Trek.  As for Luke, sure Luke may have been training with remote, but he also may have been running so many missions for the Rebellion that he didn't have time to train.  The only lightsaber training that is the top level of cannon is his initial training with a remote in ANH.  Additionally, training with a remote isn't for dueling, it is for blaster deflection.  He had one previous one on one duel and he lost badly.

As for Vader's health, in the OT there isn't any evidence that his health is in a rapid decline.  A lot of the poor health of Vader stuff is from the EU.  Until Luke beats him down, Vader appears to be fine.

True that Luke has more motivation, but it wasn't like Vader was on the defensive until he brought up Leia, which sent Luke into a rage.  Luke's victory serves the purpose of the story, not the purposes of logic.  It is hard to believe that Luke's first brush with the darkside would increase his focus since he has been trained to use the Force when he is calm and at peace.  It would give him the extra power, but probably not the focus to wield it properly.  Vader really only makes the decision to save Luke when the Emperor is frying Luke with lightning and Luke is begging for Vader's help.  Who really knows what would happen if Vader turned Luke's anger against him and ended up disarming Luke.  Maybe he kills him on Palpatine's command and secretly decides to turn Leia instead.

The reason I said Padme was invalid is because when ROTJ was made, Padme didn't exist.  There wasn't a story written for her yet.  As for Leia's memory, it is of Padme or the idea that would be Padme in the future.  Luke specifically says "do you remember your mother, your real mother?".  It is easy to speculate about the Force and use that is a possible way to have these memories, but it is a real stretch with what is shown on screen.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: EdSolo on May 29, 2013, 07:27 AM
I am amazed that the "How did Luke beat Vader?  argument is still going on.  I swear I talked about this 10 years ago on this site.  Luke beat Vader for a few reasons...

1.  He had to, and he believed in himself.  Ok.  This is cheesy, but has an underdog team ever beat a undefeated team?  Yes.  Things happen in real life that are unexplainable.

2.  It's a movie, not a video game or RPG.  Meaning, yes, Vader is technically more powerful, but Luke won.  (See reason #1)

3.  Luke was fighting for his life.  People can do amazing things under stress.  Again, look at real life, not games.

Ugh...I could go on and on...

It really isn't a debate of "how did he do it" more so a debate of "is it logical it happened".  It is more of "if this were real" type of scenario.  Since there was an endgame in ROTJ, yes Luke had to win or it would have been a real depressing story and not a proper end to a trilogy of movies.  Of course their are underdogs that win in real life, but the odds are against it.  I put this on the level of 14, 15 or 16 seed winning the NCAA tournament more than the NY Giants beating the undefeated Patriots in the Superbowl.

Vader was fighting for his life as well.  I would think he was pretty aware the Palpatine wanted Luke for an apprentice.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: JediJman on May 29, 2013, 08:16 AM
Chalk it up to a difference of opinions then.  I think the final duel is completely within reason given multiple factors.  If you want to call out gaps in realism or probability, I'd bring up things like the crack stormtroopers' inability to hit anyone or the likelihood that the alliance gives Luke a ship to fly against the Death Star after just meeting him.  There are lots of convenient plot points in scifi that are just necessary to tell a good story.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Darby on May 29, 2013, 01:18 PM
This is interesting (in a Star Trek thread) and I think really JediJMan is on the right track. We should only look at ROTJ in the context of the movie itself. The only difference in that final duel is Vader's willingness, of which there is slim to none. This is conveyed actually rather well via the physical performance. From the scene on Endor where it becomes clear there is reluctance in Anakin to see his son fall into the same shadow he has, Vader is never going to win that fight. Luke is motivated to win. Vader is not. You see it again during the duel itself, particularly at the pause where Luke is on the stairs and calls his dad on his lack of conviction, and then finally when Luke charges him for the final confrontation.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: EdSolo on May 29, 2013, 01:24 PM
Chalk it up to a difference of opinions then.  I think the final duel is completely within reason given multiple factors.  If you want to call out gaps in realism or probability, I'd bring up things like the crack stormtroopers' inability to hit anyone or the likelihood that the alliance gives Luke a ship to fly against the Death Star after just meeting him.  There are lots of convenient plot points in scifi that are just necessary to tell a good story.

That is my point in all of this.  People seem to be nitpicking the death out of the transporter thing and thus saying Star Trek is a poor movie when it is a similar plot device that is used in numerous movies.  I think people are being overly harsh on Star Trek just because they want to hate it.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: BillCable on May 29, 2013, 01:47 PM
I didn't want to hate it.  I wanted to enjoy it.  Who goes into a theater wanting to hate what they're about to see?  Other than a professional reviewer?

Just because you don't agree with the criticism, don't try to paint those who hold a different opinion as somehow biased and thus their criticisms invalid.  Transporters in Trek2 only worked and only failed when it conveniently served the plot.  It was one of many signs of EXTREMELY sloppy writing.

And the fact that other movies have plot holes, some of them excused by various people, is not a meaningful rebuttal.  Reviews are subjective and thus not bound by objective criteria like consistency.  I love me a good, bad zombie movie... that doesn't make any criticism I'd make of a bad good zombie movie invalid.

If you want further proof of just how stupid this movie is, enjoy: 
http://io9.com/star-trek-into-darkness-the-spoiler-faq-508927844
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Scockery on May 29, 2013, 09:01 PM
Red Letter Media's (http://redlettermedia.com/) spoiler heavy review sums up the film well to me (and without going much into technology stuff).

As for wanting to hate? I'm glad there's life left in Star Trek. I wish it were more than a new movie every 4 years, but at least it's something.

If you want to call out gaps in realism or probability, I'd bring up things like the crack stormtroopers' inability to hit anyone...

 Letting our heroes escape with Leia was part of Vader's plan...the homing beacon...they can't escape if they are shot dead, can they?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: EdSolo on May 30, 2013, 07:45 AM
I didn't want to hate it.  I wanted to enjoy it.  Who goes into a theater wanting to hate what they're about to see?  Other than a professional reviewer?

Just because you don't agree with the criticism, don't try to paint those who hold a different opinion as somehow biased and thus their criticisms invalid.  Transporters in Trek2 only worked and only failed when it conveniently served the plot.  It was one of many signs of EXTREMELY sloppy writing.

And the fact that other movies have plot holes, some of them excused by various people, is not a meaningful rebuttal.  Reviews are subjective and thus not bound by objective criteria like consistency.  I love me a good, bad zombie movie... that doesn't make any criticism I'd make of a bad good zombie movie invalid.

If you want further proof of just how stupid this movie is, enjoy: 
http://io9.com/star-trek-into-darkness-the-spoiler-faq-508927844

I see this movie getting a lot more criticism for sloppy writing than just about any other Hollywood blockbuster with similar sloppy writing.  Yes, I read that article and the writer starts off with a bit of a flawed premise.  Kirk steals the scroll to get the primitives out of the temple so that Spock and company can get to the volcano unseen.  It wasn't about getting them away from the killer volcano.  The cold fusion bomb comment is just really nitpicky.  The average viewer isn't going to know what cold fusion is other than a buzz word about energy generation.  I think the term was used just to sound "sciencey".

As for the Enterprise under water, the merits of that analysis are debatable.  While the vessel was built for the vacuum of space, we don't really know the structural specs of the ship.  On Voyager, they landed the ship on a planet.  I would think the ship would be subject to some strong stresses from an atmospheric landing.  The ship is also designed to fly faster than the speed of light.  Since that is impossible by today's standards, one really can't calculate the stresses involved with warp travel, thus it may be entirely feasible for the Enterprise to be under water due to the structural requirements to withstand warp travel.  At 500 feet of depth in salt water, the pressure would be somewhere in the neighborhood of 300 psig.  At that depth, it would make the swimming into the ship impossible so either it wasn't that deep or Kirk and McCoy should be crushed.  Really, they shouldn't have survived the cliff jump at the height it appeared to be from.

The Khan criticism if legitimate, but that was more a casting choice than anything.  They essentially ignored his back story and I don't think they even mentioned the Botany Bay.  They certainly didn't mention his background of the Eugenics War.  I would think they were more concerned about comparisons to the old Khan, however, the climax of the movie was written to draw comparison to Wrath of Khan.  Not necessarily the character, but the plot.   Really, they may have been better served by having Harison being another Botany Bay crew member that was either pretending to be Khan or attempting to revive Khan thus saving Khan for the next movie... which looks like they could be doing anyway.

While the writer is being tongue in cheek with a lot of his writing, he brings up a lot of "original universe character did this, and new universe character did this".  They aren't the same people anymore after the universe changed.  I believe I mentioned in several posts earlier that the entire crew is closer in age than they should be.  Sulu, Uhura and Chekov should all be like 15 to 20 years younger than Kirk, Scotty and McCoy, but that doesn't appear to be the case here.

The secret branch of Starfleet, Section 31, was something that was created for DS9 and later used in Star Trek Enterprise.  It isn't out of the realm of possibility for it to exist here.  It also really isn't a stretch to believe there is a militant wing of Starfleet due to Nero's actions in the previous movie.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: BillCable on May 30, 2013, 09:57 AM
I see this movie getting a lot more criticism for sloppy writing than just about any other Hollywood blockbuster with similar sloppy writing.

You're making the same mistake as before - just because one movie gets a pass for plot holes doesn't mean EVERY movie should get a pass for plot holes.  Films aren't and shouldn't be reviewed objectively.  You don't do that with art.

The plot holes in Trek2 are particularly egregious, IMO.  So bad they pulled me out of the film.  That never happened for me with IM3.  Thus it draws my ire.

Plus I expect Trek NOT to be gallingly stupid.  There's no reason for it to exist if it becomes another dumb popcorn flick franchise.  I don't want to have to shut off my brain when I go into a Trek movie.  Sorry for holding the franchise to such a high standard.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Master_Phruby on May 30, 2013, 10:25 AM
I agree. Trek should be a higher form of science fiction. However the only one that came close to this is Undiscovered Country but even that was still a popcorn shooter.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: EdSolo on May 30, 2013, 11:06 AM
I see this movie getting a lot more criticism for sloppy writing than just about any other Hollywood blockbuster with similar sloppy writing.

You're making the same mistake as before - just because one movie gets a pass for plot holes doesn't mean EVERY movie should get a pass for plot holes.  Films aren't and shouldn't be reviewed objectively.  You don't do that with art.

The plot holes in Trek2 are particularly egregious, IMO.  So bad they pulled me out of the film.  That never happened for me with IM3.  Thus it draws my ire.

Plus I expect Trek NOT to be gallingly stupid.  There's no reason for it to exist if it becomes another dumb popcorn flick franchise.  I don't want to have to shut off my brain when I go into a Trek movie.  Sorry for holding the franchise to such a high standard.

Have you watched much Trek?  Transporter malfunction was a pretty frequent plot device.  This is science fiction after all.  This movie was certainly more entertaining that the vast majority of other Trek movies.  Space whales aren't gallingly stupid?  A god-like being trapped in the middle of the galaxy?  Heaven as ribbon floating through space? A fountain of youth planet?

I'm not saying any movie should get a pass for plot holes, but this one is getting slammed overly hard for them.  I certainly don't see them as egregious as you do.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Pete_Fett on May 31, 2013, 12:59 PM
I agree. Trek should be a higher form of science fiction. However the only one that came close to this is Undiscovered Country but even that was still a popcorn shooter.

It's interesting that you mention Undiscovered Country in this discussion. While I generally like that movie a lot. It unfortunately suffers from a pretty serious plot hole...

In the beginning of the film, it is the Excelsior that is cataloging gaseous anomalies in Beta Quadrant, and they are the ship that encounters the energy wave from the explosion on the Klingon moon of Praxis which kicks off the story/events of the movie.

Then during the final, climactic space battle with General Chang, Uhura, aboard the Enterprise, suggests that they use the equipment they have on board from cataloging gaseous anomalies to track the exhaust of the cloaked Bird of Prey.

Ummm, what?

As far as I'm concerned, that is a far worse plot hole than ANY of the ones that have been discussed here regarding Star Trek: Into Darkness.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Master_Phruby on May 31, 2013, 02:30 PM
Maybe the Enterprise was going to catalog gaseous anomalies someplace else. Maybe it is new standard equipment?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Pete_Fett on May 31, 2013, 07:10 PM
Maybe the Enterprise was going to catalog gaseous anomalies someplace else. Maybe it is new standard equipment?

Yes, and this is the answer that most fans give to justify the mistake. The fact is, it's still a plot hole - and A LOT bigger of one than complaining that they couldn't use transporters or remove cryo-tubes from torpedoes or whatever.

One created by the fact that in the original version of the ST6 script it was the Enterprise that was cataloging gaseous anomalies in Beta Quadrant AND got hit by the energy wave from Praxis AND offered to help, which is why the Enterprise was then sent to meet Gorkon, etc.., etc..., etc...

They only re-wrote the script to include the Excelsior stuff when George Takei REFUSED to return as Sulu, demanding that he be given command of his own ship. Since they didn't want any of the original cast NOT in their final big screen adventure, they gave Takei what he wanted.

They also wanted Kirstie Alley to reprise her role as Saavik in the movie and have Saavik play the same function as what the Valeris character did.

Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Master_Phruby on June 1, 2013, 02:35 PM
They also wanted Kirstie Alley to reprise her role as Saavik in the movie and have Saavik play the same function as what the Valeris character did.

Now that would have been cool to see and a better betrayal of Spock moment. She would have been in the middle of Cheers so she would have still been fairly good looking.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Qui-Gon Jim on June 3, 2013, 08:34 AM
Pete's on the money here.  Takei  and Alley played hardball.  The role was written as Saavik.  Pete is also right in saying that it is easy to explain away this plot hole, just like most every complaint that people are throwing at ST:ID.  Star Trek is not, contrary to what some think, high science fiction.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Jesse James on June 3, 2013, 09:52 PM
I'm with others on this...  ID has plotholes, absolutely, but no more/less than most other Trek films I've ever seen really.  Some of the past Trek movies are horrid to me.

I FINALLY got to see Into Darkness yesterday at a matinee...  a packed matinee at that.  I was shocked considering how it hasn't held a top spot in the box office since it premiered.  I kinda was disappointed how many people showed up, actually.

The movie was good though...  McCoy's a LITTLE over the top, but I felt everyone else was great as their respective characters.

I didn't care for the Spock moment in engineering...  the emotion prior to the moment great, but the moment, blah.  Something the original storyline had that kinda sucked.

I wish they'd have gone a different character route ultimately.  I don't care much for them going right for the jugular with this antagonist, etc.  I think something purely Klingon would've been better...  You have really centuries of Klingon badness you can milk, so going for the baddies as they did, meh.

Zachary Quinto is great as Spock...  like, disturbingly good. 

The effects are wonderful too...  The space battles are immersive.  I wish I could've watched in 3D but the gf's not a fan.  2D is really nice though.  I worried it might not be for some reason but it was great.

I was a little surprised how it ended...  I thought it was over then it all started up again.  Thought maybe Abrams was walking away from it but couldn't see them ending the reboot so soon.  I had no knowledge of the story so it was a ltitle surprising though I figured out who the baddy was pretty early on when his ass couldn't be kicked.

All that said, it was fun, different...  Still felt trek but a little more exciting than the original movies which, honestly, only 3 really appeal to me and one's a TNG crew film (love TNG more, always will).  This makes me like TOS crew a little more like I like TNG crew though, for some reason.  My gf loved this movie as well...  She hates this stuff usually, but likes the new Trek for some reason.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: McMetal on June 4, 2013, 11:25 AM
I saw it over the weekend too, was waiting to enter the fray of this thread before seeing it with my own eyes.

I enjoyed it, was a decent summer popcorn flick. If that's the only measure for success, thumbs up I guess.

But on a more serious level, I found the movie, specifically the plot, to be really non-sensical in places. I mean, if you think everything out to its logical conclusion, it just doesn't make sense IMO.

I'm not taking about transporter malfunctions or nitty gritty stuff either. The most basic plot elements didn't add up to me. Like, I could never grasp the point of putting the 72 corpsicles on the Enterprise. Did Marcus expect them to shoot all 72 at Kronos? Just to kill one guy? If Marcus wanted them gone, wouldn't it be easier to dump them in a volcano somewhere and simply arm the Enterprise with REAL photon torpedos? That would seem a lot more likely to start a war, which was sort of the point.

If I'm Khan, and I'm declaring war on Starfleet, why even go to Kronos in the first place? Seems like he was just following Marcus' original plan. I guess you could surmise Khan is just outright lying and he never "broke" from Marcus in the first place, but having the guy shoot up a room where you are sitting seems like an awful uncontrolled risk.

I'm not stupid, but maybe I am missing something? It seems like they kind of threw out two separate backstories between Marcus and Khan and there never really seemed to be a clarification of who was telling the truth.

Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: BillCable on June 4, 2013, 12:00 PM
I'm stumped on this as well.


I'll tell you what actually happened - well at least what seems obvious to me.  They worked backwards from the payoff.  And in doing so they wrote themselves into a bunch of stupid plot holes.

JJ Abrams: "We need a hook to make the confrontation cool... like how Spock pointed out Khan's 2-D naval thinking in ST:WoK!  So what can we do that's different but still strategically mind-bending?"
Writer Drone 1: "Spock needs to trick him!"
JJ Abrams: "Right!  How about Spock tricks Khan into beaming explosives ONTO HIS OWN SHIP??!!"
Writer Drone 1:  "Brilliant!  But why would Khan do that?  He's this super genius."
JJ Abrams:  "Well - Khan has to think they're something else!  Something he wants!"
Writer Drone 1:  "What does Khan want?  Revenge against Kirk!"
JJ Abrams:  "No!  That was BEFORE the time-travel thing.  This Khan doesn't even know Kirk.  What Khan wants is his crew."
Writer Drone 1:  "OK - so Khan needs to mistake the explosives for his crew.  Maybe they can be infected with that Extremis virus thing..."
JJ Abrams:  "No - they need to be identical to the explosives... like INSIDE the explosives."
Writer Drone 1:  "Why would Khan's crew be inside explosives?"
JJ Abrams:  "Yeah... that would be stupid... unless Khan HID THEM THERE!"

And on that goes, opening new plot holes with each new reason invented.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Pete_Fett on June 4, 2013, 01:21 PM
I view the order of events simply as this:

1) Starfleet finds Botany Bay, realizes what it is, thaws Khan, since he has a violent, military mind - he brought something to the table that other Starfleet engineers didn't have - a killer instinct. Yes, his tech knowledge is VERY out-of-date, but if his intellect is enhanced, there's nothing to say he couldn't have been educated on tech. With a digital library at Khan's disposal who knows how much info he could absorb?

2) Khan develops lots of things for Starfleet, not just the missiles. That big ship that Admiral Marcus had was also from the mind of Khan - again - Starfleet had ships for exploration and peace. Sure they have defensive capabilities, but this ship was offensive FIRST. Maximum damage, minimum crew.

3) Marcus wants to start a war with the Klingons, he gets Khan to develop long range missiles that can be fired from outside the neutral zone directly at the Klingon Home World. Khan uses this as a way of smuggling his crew out of the Starfleet facility where they are being held and starts putting them inside of the missiles, shielded so as to avoid them from being scanned.

4) Marcus discovers Khan's plan and moves in to stop him. Khan escapes. Marcus knows that there are Botany Bay crew members in those missiles and he doesn't care. Ultimately he doesn't care if all 72 of them are fired on the Klingon Homeworld and decimate a good portion of it - all he wants is a war, started by the Federation, against the Klingons. He's like Dick Cheney.

5) Khan attacks the tech archive in London so he can grab the experimental transporter based on Scotty's equations so he can attack Starfleet headquarters and then beam himself to the Klingon Home-world, knowing that if he goes to there, Marcus will use the missiles to fire on the Klingon Home world from Federation space starting the war he so desperately wants

So from here there are two possibilities and since they are not mutually exclusive of each other, it's possible both are true:

6a) Khan developed a fail-safe into the missiles where he could deactivate the explosive yield, alter flight trajectory and even stop a missile in flight, so even if the Starship Captain that Marcus sends after him DOES fire the missiles as ordered, Khan can deactivate them, have them stop somewhere in the neutral zone, steal a ship and go claim his crew - Khan wins

6b) Just in case the Starship Captain that Marcus sends after him DOES NOT fire the missiles as ordered, he knows he can simply wait to be collected by that Starship's Crew knowing full well that his entire crew will be on board. Possibly even gaining sympathy from that ship's Captain and then the events pretty much following a similar story of the Space Seed episode where Khan and his crew try to take over a Starfleet ship. If that's successful - Khan wins.

And in the movie we see the result of the 6b option unfold and the only place where Khan's plan goes "wrong" is that Kirk doesn't entirely act in a manner that Khan expected.

So what I'm trying to say is that Khan, hedged his bets - he forced Marcus' hand so that no matter what actions Marcus and the rest of the Starfleet took, he could see a positive outcome for his own goals.

Is it possible that Marcus could have just destroyed all of the weapons. Sure.

Is it possible that Starfleet could have taken all of the Botany Bay crew out of the tubes. Sure. (in this scenario, if Khan has the ability to control the missiles himself, he could easily stop the missiles, steal a ship, gather the missiles and then threaten to fire them at Earth - again Khan wins)

Yes, I understand that no where in the dialogue of the movie do they imply that Khan had built fail-safes into the missiles to protect his crew, but no where does the dialogue say "dismiss Khan's plan as being stupid" either.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: BillCable on June 4, 2013, 02:10 PM
So what you're saying is that if you re-write the script and add things that maybe it kind of works?   8)

Khan had no way of knowing the Enterprise was on the edge of Klingon space with the 72 missiles aimed at him, so he'd never have a chance to trigger a fail-safe.  He couldn't even know there'd be a Scotty around to track the destination of the top-secret-prototype hand-held transporter.  He'd have to have built proximity sensors and beacons into the missiles so they'd never explode and alert him when they've been launched - because Marcus could have launched them at anything.  "See if you can take out that womp rat over there!"  Boom - So much for Zed!

So relying on Marcus aiming these particular missiles at Khan would be a crucial strategic flaw.  And in the movie Khan seemed SHOCKED that there were 72 missiles on the Enterprise - at which point he immediately surrendered.  That action alone suggests it wasn't his plan all along to be targeted by the missiles.  What if they only loaded 12?  Then Khan kills Kirk and plan ruined?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: EdSolo on June 4, 2013, 03:58 PM
I'm not sure we can assume that Khan always intended on ending up on Kronos either.  What happens if he killed everyone at Starfleet HQ and Kirk doesn't trash his ship?  Does he still transport out or does he try to find the torpedoes that contain his crew?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Pete_Fett on June 4, 2013, 04:32 PM
Khan had no way of knowing the Enterprise was on the edge of Klingon space with the 72 missiles aimed at him, so he'd never have a chance to trigger a fail-safe.  He couldn't even know there'd be a Scotty around to track the destination of the top-secret-prototype hand-held transporter.  He'd have to have built proximity sensors and beacons into the missiles so they'd never explode and alert him when they've been launched - because Marcus could have launched them at anything.  "See if you can take out that womp rat over there!"  Boom - So much for Zed!

If Marcus' primary goal is war with the Klingons instigated by firing long-range sub-space missiles at the Klingon Home World, then he isn't going to test one against a target on the other side of the San Francisco Bay. You're also assuming that missiles that DIDN'T have Khan's crew inside weren't already used as part of a weapon demonstration Khan gave to Marcus at some point in the development process.

So relying on Marcus aiming these particular missiles at Khan would be a crucial strategic flaw.  And in the movie Khan seemed SHOCKED that there were 72 missiles on the Enterprise - at which point he immediately surrendered.  That action alone suggests it wasn't his plan all along to be targeted by the missiles.  What if they only loaded 12?  Then Khan kills Kirk and plan ruined?

Not if they're the only missiles in the Starfleet Arsenal that can be fired from a ship at a significant distance from Kronos. So I don't think it was the number, just that Kirk could fire them from a great distance away.

In the movie Khan also seems to be someone who Kirk can trust, complete with saving him during the space jump from the Enterprise to Marcus' ship. So just because Khan acts surprised doesn't mean he actually was. Knowing that he was Khan, I assumed in EVERY one of his interactions he was being deceptive.

I'm not sure we can assume that Khan always intended on ending up on Kronos either.  What happens if he killed everyone at Starfleet HQ and Kirk doesn't trash his ship?  Does he still transport out or does he try to find the torpedoes that contain his crew?

I think we can, again, ultimately, Khan seemed to be baiting Admiral Marcus completely. Marcus theoretically, could have said "well, he's on Kronos, let him rot there". And guess what, movie ends. This is one of those things where you have to draw the conclusion that if Khan's on Kronos and Marcus wants war with the Klingons because it's "inevitable" then, that's the reason why Khan went there.

Also, stealing a single portable transporter is a lot easier than stealing 72 missiles.


I don't want to start a huge fight, so at the end of the day I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. As the viewer of any movie, you can either fill in the blanks with connections that you come up with on your own or you can consider the movie flawed for not properly connecting all the dots or for making plot points too convenient. I guess it just comes down to how forgiving you are personally willing to be for the sake of enjoying something.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: BillCable on June 4, 2013, 05:01 PM
Also, stealing a single portable transporter is a lot easier than stealing 72 missiles.

Except when you're stealing them to hide them inside explosives you're building at a top-secret weapons lab...  ;)

"Hey Khan - wearing the extra-large trench coat again today?  It isn't even raining!  You're one well-prepared weapons engineer!"
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Pete_Fett on June 4, 2013, 05:31 PM
Except when you're stealing them to hide them inside explosives you're building at a top-secret weapons lab...  ;)

"Hey Khan - wearing the extra-large trench coat again today?  It isn't even raining!  You're one well-prepared weapons engineer!"

Yeah - this one was a tough one to work out - but for me, it came down to the fact that NO ONE in the facility where Khan was working knew him to be Khan. He was John Harrison - vetted by Admiral Marcus and touted as a brilliant Weapons Engineer. In order for the deception to fully work, John Harrison would have to have been given some pretty high clearance. Good enough to probably get items moved w/o anyone really asking, especially since those tubes and what they were would have been on a need-to-know basis too.

It was a double-edged sword that Admiral Marcus was dealing with and he was willing to risk it stabbing him squarely in the chest - his goal of a Federation/Starfleet at war was far too important to him.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: McMetal on June 5, 2013, 09:40 AM
Pete, that is a well thought out hypothesis, but IMHO the audience should not have to fill in that many blanks. I mean, that is a LOT of fill-in, it seems to me. I think if the writing had been better they could have addressed a lot of those holes up front.

I kind of agree that it seems like they were working backwards as far as the plot devices.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Master_Phruby on June 11, 2013, 10:17 AM
http://youtu.be/WPkByAkAdZs (http://youtu.be/WPkByAkAdZs)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Jayson on August 14, 2013, 05:25 PM
ST:ID ranked worst Trek movie by Trek fans (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/fans-name-star-trek-darkness-604978)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: BillCable on August 15, 2013, 08:00 AM
Wow - Trek fans have taste.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Qui-Gon Jim on August 15, 2013, 08:51 AM
Um.  No.  As long as ST V, IX and X exist, it will be hard to rise to the level of "worst."
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: BillCable on August 15, 2013, 11:50 AM
I think there's two kinds of "worst."

There's "worst" from a badly made/written movie perspective (V, IX and X).

Then there's "worst" from a "this is an atrocity which ***** upon the franchise's best films" perspective (ST:ID, Episode I).
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Master_Phruby on August 16, 2013, 12:02 AM
Bill, don't hide your feelings. Tell us how you really feel.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: BillCable on August 16, 2013, 08:32 AM
Don't I always?   ;)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: I Am Sith on September 11, 2013, 09:02 PM
Didn't realize this about the two ST movies, but did know about Raiders:

http://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie-talk/easter-egg-artist-j-j-abrams-uses-unlikely-220401105.html
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Master_Phruby on September 12, 2013, 09:28 AM
It's even on the Well of the Souls playset. It's on the gray cover the Ark is stored in.

(http://www.cometvintage.com/photos/vtgindian-1370978312-71444.jpg)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: darth broem 2 on September 12, 2013, 01:46 PM
I just saw where the fans ranked Into Darkness the worst Trek film.  Wow!  I thought it was arguably the best, but then again I am not a "fan".  I have seen all the movies.  Most of them are pretty dull with a few exceptions.  Maybe I just like more action?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Scockery on September 12, 2013, 06:12 PM
Trek the tv show was less about action, more about ideas and allegory. Problem is, that doesn't usually translate into successful movies.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Ben on May 31, 2014, 02:51 PM
http://trekmovie.com/2014/05/13/roberto-orci-named-director-of-star-trek-3/ (http://trekmovie.com/2014/05/13/roberto-orci-named-director-of-star-trek-3/)

Hmm.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Matt_Fury on June 1, 2014, 01:33 AM
I hope they also get better writers.  Into Darkness was pretty horrible....even by trek "standards".
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Ben on June 1, 2014, 02:59 PM
^ Totally agree. Some more imaginative or at least not-lazy writers would be a huge improvement.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Diddly on June 1, 2014, 09:12 PM
Wasn't Orci one of the writers of Into Darkness, along with many other terrible, terrible movies that have been released over the last few years but have somehow made millions and millions of dollars? These are the types of people that need to be blacklisted from Hollywood, not directing major blockbusters.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: JediJman on June 2, 2014, 10:08 AM
I just watched Into Darkness this weekend and thought it was pretty good for an action flick.  The special effects, more focus on fighting, and the character likenesses made the plot holes a lot more tolerable for me. 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Master_Phruby on June 2, 2014, 01:42 PM
I enjoyed Into Darkness. I liked the scenes on earth were things didn't look much different from the way they are now. I kept thinking how is star wars going to look done in this style or re-imagined this way. It's not as good as Warth of Kahn, Undiscovered country, first contact or Voyage home but it stands up well.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: BillCable on June 2, 2014, 01:49 PM
I thought it was one of the stupidest movies ever written.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: JediJman on June 2, 2014, 02:02 PM
I enjoyed Into Darkness. I liked the scenes on earth were things didn't look much different from the way they are now. I kept thinking how is star wars going to look done in this style or re-imagined this way. It's not as good as Warth of Kahn, Undiscovered country, first contact or Voyage home but it stands up well.

ST2 - WOK was easily one of my favorite movies from my childhood.  That cat & mouse fight in the nebula at the end was pure genius.  I was never much a fan of the others in the original series, but I'll always have a soft spot for that one.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Jesse James on June 2, 2014, 08:45 PM
I liked both the new ST movies...  My gf actually really enjoyed them too, plotholes and all, so I'm looking forward to whatever they come up with going forward.

I'm pretty easy to please at a movie though...  It was a popcorn flick to me and I enjoyed it.  I never felt like the originals were all that heady either, so I like the reboots.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Ben on June 4, 2014, 02:14 AM
I thought it was one of the stupidest movies ever written.

I agree. I dubbed it Into Dumbness when I first saw it. I always believed Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman were glorified hacks, writing the first two god-awful Transformers flicks, and correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't they also co-writers on Superman Returns?

I watched Into Darkness this last weekend on Netflix (and it bothers me it's like the most popular thing there right now) and I couldn't help but roll my eyes all over again at all the things I didn't like when I first saw it. I want to like it, but it's too hard.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: JediJman on June 4, 2014, 08:10 AM
What didn't you like?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: BillCable on June 4, 2014, 08:37 AM
A shorter list would be what DID I like...

The worst offenders:

- a hand-held interplanetary transporter that makes the concept of starships ridiculous
- focusing all their effort to apprehend Khan to harvest his super blood to revive Kirk, when they had 70 other frozen super-blood-cicles sitting in their cargo bay
- Khan's plan to rescue inmates from a secret high-security cryo-prison by hiding them in torpedoes (which are apparently constructed in the SAME FACILITY as the prison ... otherwise transferring all those coffin-shaped boxes out of the prison and to the secret high-security weapons manufacturing plant should have raised some red flags)
(it's also worth mentioning those torpedoes could have been fired off AT ANY POINT, resulting in the deaths of the cryo-prisoners... hell, they almost launched EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM)

The movie was spectacularly stupid.  Which makes me worry all the more about EP7.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: P-Siddy on June 4, 2014, 10:21 AM
It's kind of like how someone on here (Was it you, Bill?) commented that it felt like they had the ending and worked backwards to the beginning...  someone wrote a big post here when the movie came out about this.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Jeff on June 4, 2014, 10:43 AM
I still like this one...

If you want further proof of just how stupid this movie is, enjoy: 
http://io9.com/star-trek-into-darkness-the-spoiler-faq-508927844
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: BillCable on June 4, 2014, 10:45 AM
It's kind of like how someone on here (Was it you, Bill?) commented that it felt like they had the ending and worked backwards to the beginning...  someone wrote a big post here when the movie came out about this.

That probably was me.  I did my fair amount of railing against it after I saw it, and that was one of my theories.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: BillCable on June 4, 2014, 10:59 AM
I still like this one...

If you want further proof of just how stupid this movie is, enjoy: 
http://io9.com/star-trek-into-darkness-the-spoiler-faq-508927844

That link brings back so many bad memories...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Darby on June 4, 2014, 07:17 PM
They absolutely worked backwards from their ending, or really a list of things they felt they had to have. Acccording to interviews with Orci and others it boiled down to: 1) Earth in jeporady because box office 2) Khan because Khan 3) Klingons 4) heavy focus on character development of Kirk. Nothing inherently wrong with any of those things but when you try to force them all together into a cohesive whole you get things like the Klingons being a threat you can forget about as soon as they show up, and Khan turning into a super bad guy because the plot requires him to be one. That in turn leads to very, very dubious choices like reprising Nimoy, who is always worth seeing but serves no purpose in what is almost certainly his last turn as Spock, and the reprise of the end of WOK.

They had a very promising and challenging movie in their hands. It deals with serious themes. Its reach exceeds its grasp ultimately. Using the Botany Bay as a point of divergence is a brilliant idea that doesn't require Khan. Harrison as a character, a super soldier experiment from the study of the B.B. is a great idea and Harrison doesn't have to be Khan. He also can be a more nuanced character, ala Magneto, then the maniac he ultimately becomes for the sake of some trailer bait. The silliness around is he/isn't he Khan diminishes him and the story. Him being Khan is pointless - Marcus (the real bad guy) takes him off ice to what design starships? Because Khan is the expert there? - and the obvious Federation response to the destruction of Vulcan by forgetting itself for a moment and creating super soldiers to defend against threats real and perceived goes out the window. Another missed opportunity is Marcus. He's ultimately a paper character. Why isn't this character Pike? He's the one who suffers directly in the first film, and would understandably respond the way Marcus does given the events that take place.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: BrentS on June 4, 2014, 11:09 PM
I still like this one...

If you want further proof of just how stupid this movie is, enjoy: 
http://io9.com/star-trek-into-darkness-the-spoiler-faq-508927844

First time I've seen this. The funniest thing I've read in a while.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Master_Phruby on June 5, 2014, 09:30 AM
Why isn't this character Pike? He's the one who suffers directly in the first film, and would understandably respond the way Marcus does given the events that take place.

That is what I always said about Count Dooku. Why isn't Dooku character QuiGon Jin? QuiGon going to the dark side would have put ObiWan in the middle of both his master and his apprentice going to the dark side. QuiGon was a waste of a character.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Nicklab on June 5, 2014, 09:37 AM
Disagree.  Qui-Gon was a father figure for Anakin.  If we learned anything about Anakin's journey, it's that he suffers continued loss.  His first loss is leaving home, albeit as a freed slave.  But then he loses his mentor, Qui-Gon, when he is killed by Darth Maul.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: P-Siddy on June 5, 2014, 11:49 AM
And from there, Anakin turns to Palps as the father-figure not Obi-Wan (who was more a friend).
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: JediJman on June 5, 2014, 04:06 PM
Disagree.  Qui-Gon was a father figure for Anakin.  If we learned anything about Anakin's journey, it's that he suffers continued loss.  His first loss is leaving home, albeit as a freed slave.  But then he loses his mentor, Qui-Gon, when he is killed by Darth Maul.

Meh...how long did Anakin know Qui-Gon?  I get the father figure concept, but can you really count a guy who was in your life for maybe a week as a father figure?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: P-Siddy on June 5, 2014, 04:21 PM
Disagree.  Qui-Gon was a father figure for Anakin.  If we learned anything about Anakin's journey, it's that he suffers continued loss.  His first loss is leaving home, albeit as a freed slave.  But then he loses his mentor, Qui-Gon, when he is killed by Darth Maul.

Meh...how long did Anakin know Qui-Gon?  I get the father figure concept, but can you really count a guy who was in your life for maybe a week as a father figure?

I'd say he made a better one than Watto.  ;)  But I think that was what Qui-Gon's role in the saga was to be- the father figure, but I get what you're saying.  Still, look at all the things Qui-Gon did for him, freed him, fought for him to be in the order, believed in him... it may have been enough to have that impact on Anakin.  Of course, the other father-figure perversed that training.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Nicklab on June 5, 2014, 04:50 PM
Qui-Gon opened Anakin's eyes to the fact that he was gifted in The Force.  That in addition to freeing him from slavery were the biggest turning points in Anakins life at that point in time.  But the more important thing to keep in mind is that Qui-Gon is part of the recurring theme of loss.

Back on topic...

I just watched Star Trek - Into Darkness via Amazon Prime.  I don't think that it's necessarily appropriate to draw parallels between this movie and Star Trek 2 - The Wrath of Khan.  This story seems to be more in line time-wise with the discovery of Khan and the Botany Bay crew from the original series.  Beyond that, I saw it as a pure popcorn movie.  It started to get into some themes we saw in the original series based films, like the war mongering elements from within the Federation and the unknowns of the Klingons.

Still, there were things that stuck out and bothered me.  The "cold fusion" bomb?  And a Federation incursion into Klingon space all the way to Kronos?  I'm also more than a little annoyed by Kirk's quick ascendance from Cadet to Captain.  From a story standpoint I'm having a problem with that.  And Kirk's revival was a little bit of a stretch in terms of suspending my disbelief.  Plus, the whole sequence leading up to that seemed more than a little unoriginal.  I can see that given where the Trek reboot has taken us would probably lead to some parallel things happening.  But again we're looking at a story that probably should have been based more on "Space Seed" than on ST2-TWOK.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: JediJman on June 5, 2014, 05:59 PM
Qui-Gon opened Anakin's eyes to the fact that he was gifted in The Force.  That in addition to freeing him from slavery were the biggest turning points in Anakins life at that point in time.  But the more important thing to keep in mind is that Qui-Gon is part of the recurring theme of loss.

Again, it's like a week they spent together.  A busy, exciting week, but still just a week.

As for ST2, I viewed it as just a popcorn flick and was pretty happy with that.  You can nitpick any scifi movie to pieces as to what was or wasn't realistic, and this has more flaws than it should, but overall a pretty fun ride IMO. 

I do like your comment on Kirk's acension though.  I think a lot of big budget movies get made these days with a sense of "this could be a flop" and because of that producers feel like they have to get to the peak of the character's existance ASAP.  That bothers me.  It could have been a lot more fun watchig Kirk climb the ladder a little slower, building his friendships and experience over time.  Giving him the helm and every one of his crew (including Spock) becomming his instant BFF feels a little hollow to me.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Ben on December 30, 2014, 05:31 PM
Star Trek Fast and Furious (http://trekmovie.com/2014/12/22/fast-and-furious-6-director-justin-lin-to-direct-star-trek-3/)

Orci out of the director's chair, Justin Lin is the new director. Also, Paramount has a release date of July 2016, so I guess this is going to be their guy.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: BillCable on December 31, 2014, 09:28 AM
It'll be interesting to see what happens to the fan base.  Is new Trek the old guard's Prequel Trilogy?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Jesse James on December 31, 2014, 06:32 PM
I liked Trek...  Not so much TOS but I love TNG and DS9 (and Voyager to a lesser extent).  I like the new movies, but I'm also not one of the Trek fans with a stick up his ass about anything either.

It's like EU was to Star Wars...  I ignored it mostly and still will going forward.  A bad cartoon (which IMO Rebels is sorta leaning more to negative than positive) doesn't ruin the movies to me.  The Prequals didn't ruin the OT, etc., etc.

If it's good I'm glad.  If it's not, I don't care.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Diddly on December 14, 2015, 12:38 PM
Star Trek Beyond Trailer (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRVD32rnzOw)

Beastie Boys and Star Trek are two things that do not go well together
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Dave on December 14, 2015, 01:02 PM
Star Trek Beyond Trailer (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRVD32rnzOw)

Beastie Boys and Star Trek are two things that do not go well together

What?!?!  Blasphemer!

The Beastie Boys go extremely well with just about everything.  "Sense and Sensibility" might have even been barely watchable if it had a Beastie Boys soundtrack.

It does seem like an interesting choice to use an older rock song, although I assume its mostly just for the trailer though.   Probably didn't have time to hire a composer to score anything new.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: BillCable on December 14, 2015, 01:25 PM
I've read a few places the same song was in Abrams' first Trek.  I can't recall one way or the other.

I think the trailer looked horrible.  Like they hired the guy who directed Fast & Furious to make a Star Trek movie.







(yes, I know they hired the guy who directed Fast & Furious to make this Star Trek movie)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: P-Siddy on December 14, 2015, 01:46 PM
The song was used in the first movie in 2009, so maybe some continuity with Kirk's childhood?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Matt_Fury on December 14, 2015, 02:41 PM
And I didn't think we could find something worse than Batman V Superman.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Nathan on December 14, 2015, 05:29 PM
Yeah, it appeared early in the first movie:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeRghYqi090

As much as I hated the last one, the trailer actually doesn't look bad to me, but then again it's a teaser showing nothing about the plot.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Jesse James on December 14, 2015, 07:05 PM
Yeah, the Sabotage had to do with Kirk stealing his step dad's classic car and destroying it because he was an immense **** as a child I guess, but it was ok in that film...  It looks interesting.  I liked both the previous movies enough though.  The first was great I thought, and the 2nd one was ok despite many plotholes.  It was still just fun to watch.  Nothing intellectual to it.

Then again I never considered the previous Trek movies too "deep" either. 

I enjoyed the first one a lot though, and actually my GF did too, which I was kind of shocked.  She hates Star Trek generally.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Scockery on December 14, 2015, 07:20 PM
This is where the frontier pushes back

Really, does the villain have writers room  to come up with that?

Wondering what the big secret is...THE TWIST...right, this isn't JJ Abrams.

So maybe this is Point Break in space.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: JediJman on December 15, 2015, 06:11 PM
This is where the frontier pushes back

Really, does the villain have writers room  to come up with that?

Wondering what the big secret is...THE TWIST...right, this isn't JJ Abrams.

So maybe this is Point Break in space.

Separatists vs. the Republic Federation?  Sounds like a great original concept to me.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Nicklab on December 15, 2015, 11:23 PM
Easy pass.  I waited to catch 'Into Darkness' on cable, and I think I'll probably be okay waiting for this one to make it to cable or Netflix, too.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Master_Phruby on December 16, 2015, 09:29 AM
I think the movie looks fun. I can't tell what the heck is going on but I assume we will soon.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Chris M on December 16, 2015, 09:30 AM
How many times is Starfleet going to let the new Kirk get the Enterprise and destroy it?  That is one thing that will get old rapidly.  Three movies, three times the Enterprise gets trashed.  I think it would be cool to see another angle besides blow up most of the ship.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Scockery on December 16, 2015, 08:01 PM
This takes place 2 and 1/2 years into their 5 year mission.

So they waited that long to trash the ship again.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Jesse James on December 16, 2015, 08:07 PM
It's not armored to look pretty and make weight requirements!  Kirk kills ****.  Expect some dings! ;D

Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: 77Skywalker on January 23, 2016, 10:30 PM
I'm still waiting for a new Star Trek movie that really features the music that I feel speaks true of Star Trek (The famous Motion Picture/Next Generation theme)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Nicklab on May 4, 2016, 04:50 PM
Word has been circulating that CBS is developing a new Star Trek television series.  Today the news came out that the new Trek series (http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2016/05/cbs-star-trek-netflix/481170/) will be on their streaming service, CBS All Access.  Episodes will be released on a weekly basis, and the CBS All Access service is reportedly priced at $6 per month.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Chris M on May 4, 2016, 07:36 PM
I would certainly be interested, but I'm not going with a subscription service for one show.  I imagine there are a lot of people that think the same way.  However, lots of people are paying for Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, etc., so who knows how it will work out.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Nicklab on May 4, 2016, 10:56 PM
The subscription aspect is probably more of a deterrent to me, too.  Unless CBS thinks that this show has the potential to be the centerpiece for this service. 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: JediJman on May 5, 2016, 11:57 AM
I would certainly be interested, but I'm not going with a subscription service for one show.  I imagine there are a lot of people that think the same way.  However, lots of people are paying for Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, etc., so who knows how it will work out.

Not sure if I would do it for THIS Show, but $6 a month is pretty cheap compared to on demand/rental costs.  A new release movie off comcast is $5-6 for 24 hour rental, so getting however many episodes of Star Trek for $6 a month seems pretty fair in comparison.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: DSJ™ on May 21, 2016, 08:33 AM
New Star Trek Beyond trailer is up...

Star Trek Beyond Trailer #2 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tvq3y8BhZ2s)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Chris M on May 21, 2016, 09:18 AM
Interesting.  The Star Trek franchise has taken an interesting turn from space exploration to confrontation.  I hope the story for this one is good and not just a series of look what we can blow up.  Seriously, how many times can the Enterprise get tore up before somebody loses their job permanently?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: JediJman on May 21, 2016, 11:03 AM
Meh - I feel like this one has the potential to be a letdown.  There was nothing in that trailer that made this a must see for me.   :-\
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Scockery on May 22, 2016, 04:42 PM
I think this one will under perform and they'll reduce the budget to future installments (this one has big budget, but it's less than Into Darkness), if not consider taking the film franchise in a new direction.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Master_Phruby on July 7, 2016, 10:45 AM
Star Trek Beyond reveals that Sulu is gay. Shocker!

http://io9.gizmodo.com/sulu-is-gay-in-star-trek-beyond-and-its-not-a-big-deal-1783271909 (http://io9.gizmodo.com/sulu-is-gay-in-star-trek-beyond-and-its-not-a-big-deal-1783271909)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: McMetal on July 7, 2016, 01:45 PM
"Oh, My!"

 :D
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Scockery on July 7, 2016, 03:49 PM
I don't get it, because George Takei is gay?

Does that mean Spock is gay because Zachary Quinto is?  ???

Nothing against it, Star Trek has pussyfooted around the subject for decades now. Only DS9 had a few lesbian bits, one for the Mirror Universe, the other two Trill symbiotes that currently had female hosts reconnecting in a taboo against Trill culture. TNG had an episode about a genderless society that imposes non-gender by force...not the same thing.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Dave on July 7, 2016, 03:53 PM
Does that mean we will see a Sulu with romantic "green alien dude in a Speedo" scene like we saw in the reboot movie with Kirk and Uhura's roommate?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: JediJman on July 7, 2016, 05:32 PM
Does that mean we will see a Sulu with romantic "green alien dude in a Speedo" scene like we saw in the reboot movie with Kirk and Uhura's roommate?

Yes it does.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Jesse James on July 7, 2016, 07:59 PM
I assume it's kind of an homage to Takei himself as a guy who put up with the less accepting (not that everyone is now obviously) society he grew up in maybe?  Maybe just a little pat on the back to him, and his character, since it wasn't really ever touched on in the movies at all.  Like a "hey, why not?" thing.

I got a newfound appreciation for Takei when he became a part of the Stern Show...  He's beyond funny and naive in a weird way.  He falls for every prank they play, and is up for anything.  Just has a generally good personality.  Met him once in Pittsburgh at a toy show, and he was among the nicest dudes I ever met at a convention.  I always think that says a lot about who they are as people because that has to be some trying stuff on a person's patience.

Marina Sertis (butchered that spelling I'm sure) on the other hand...  yikes, she seemed kinda angry.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Nicklab on July 7, 2016, 08:24 PM
I assume it's kind of an homage to Takei himself as a guy who put up with the less accepting (not that everyone is now obviously) society he grew up in maybe?  Maybe just a little pat on the back to him, and his character, since it wasn't really ever touched on in the movies at all.  Like a "hey, why not?" thing.

I kinda saw it the same way.  George Takei seems to have transcended the Sulu character since he came out very publically.  And if the new films can give him some recognition in that regard, why the hell not?

On a non-ST Beyond related note, I've been hearing more about this new CBS streaming service.  Word is that CBS/Paramount will be pulling most/all Trek content from other services like Netflix and Amazon Prime, and it will be available exclusively on the new CBS streaming channel.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Matt_Fury on July 7, 2016, 11:06 PM
A friend of mine from work who is a die hard Trek fan hates all things JJ Abrams.  He sat out Into Darkness and is doubly pissed about what Paramount has done to the fan community recently with Axanar and Star Trek Continues.

This Sulu crap will piss him off even more!  :D
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Jesse James on July 7, 2016, 11:10 PM
Apparently Takei himself feels it's not what Roddenberry would've wanted, but then again the Trek franchise hasn't been what Roddenberry wanted since back in the TNG days before he died, and IMHO it improved without him after he died.  :-X

But then again I also like the new movies, but not in the same ways or reasons I liked TNG/DS9 and to a lesser extent Voyager.   :-\
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Nicklab on July 7, 2016, 11:22 PM
A friend of mine from work who is a die hard Trek fan hates all things JJ Abrams.  He sat out Into Darkness and is doubly pissed about what Paramount has done to the fan community recently with Axanar and Star Trek Continues.

This Sulu crap will piss him off even more!  :D

I'm pissed about the Axanar situation.  That short film was fantastic.  And the fact that they were able to get some decent actors for the project (who had been in legit ST projects) was a big part of what set it apart from most fan films. And that had me genuinely excited for the movie.  But I get the sense that they were too good for Paramounts tastes. 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Darby on July 8, 2016, 01:12 AM
I find Takei's perspective interesting, even if I disagree with it. Sulu's sexuality has never been established to any significance (Melora could have just as easily been the product of a gay marriage) so if there's one character it makes sense... also this is alternate timeline, and alt timelines have shown normally straight characters to be... flexible (Kira), so... it's a great step forward for Trek which has been progressive in just about every social issue but this one. It's too bad Takei feels this way.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Jesse James on July 8, 2016, 01:22 AM
I think I get where he's coming from with it...  Being he established the character, I kinda wish they'd have engaged him on the future of the character if for no other reason than to see what he thinks, but I mean I get it in a way.

On the other hand, like you Darb, I feel like it's nice to establish one of the main bridge crew as gay...  It's certainly something they've not done with any of the characters before. 

I'm amazed anyone cares since I see so much hate for the new Trek, haha.  I was never a diehard TOS guy...  I liked it fine enough, just it never resonated with me like TNG did, and I feel like the new one is all popcorn but I still enjoy it.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: McMetal on July 8, 2016, 08:53 AM
Apparently Takei himself feels it's not what Roddenberry would've wanted, but then again the Trek franchise hasn't been what Roddenberry wanted since back in the TNG days before he died, and IMHO it improved without him after he died.  :-X

Yeah, I believe his exact quote was "very unfortunate" and while this surprised me at first after reading into it I can see his point. His take was that Sulu was always envisioned as a heterosexual character and that it would have been a better choice to make a new character gay rather than re-imagining an existing one. His respect for Roddenberry and the source material was pretty refreshing actually.

I agree he seems like a very likeable dude in a genuine way.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: JediJman on July 8, 2016, 11:05 AM
Yeah, there is some interesting background on this story.  Apparently it was Simon Pegg's idea and intended as a homage to Takei, but when Takei found out LAST YEAR, he expressed his displeasure with Sulu being gay and did his best to convince Cho to go another route.  Takei wanted them to introduce a new gay character rather than mess with Sulu's legacy, but they ignored him and went with it anyway. 

If they were really doing this to support Takei (who is awesome), I would be all for it.  The fact that Takei didn't want this to happen and was trying to get them to go another route tells me that this is just another lame publicity stunt to get people talking about the movie.  Black Johnny Storm, anyone?  It really bothers me that Takei knew and tried to get them to change it and they did nothing - that is the exact opposite of supporting his legacy.

I wasn't that excited to see this movie in the first place - now I'm definitely out.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Jeff on July 8, 2016, 11:37 AM
I wasn't that excited to see this movie in the first place - now I'm definitely out.

Sulu is/isn't gay has no bearing on me not wanting to see it... I don't want to see it because I saw the "we swear it's not Khan" one and that movie was so bad (so bad I can't even recall the name and won't even bother looking for it), I pretty much swore off seeing any more of these New Trek movies. :P
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Dave on July 8, 2016, 11:52 AM
Maybe its just a PR stunt, or pandering, but I don't really get why someone's sexuality is even all that important unless its relevant to the plot. 

I can honestly say I've never thought about Sulu, or Chekov's, or Scotty, or Bones' sexuality as it hasn't been all that relevant.  Maybe I'm forgetting an episode or two from the '60s, or a scene from one of the movies, but for the most part the only main characters that seemed to have any sexuality as part of their core character were Kirk, Uhura, and Spock.

If Sulu has a kid that is at risk in the new movie and its relevant to the plot, fine.  But why should it matter if he is hetero, homo, bi, or asexual.  And if the kid was born in a hetero relationship, born through a surrogate mother (in any kind of relationship), or adopted in to any kind of family. 

Why should it matter???

I'm sure people would argue that gay people need to seen as role models in movies to feel accepted in society, etc, but where does it stop?  Do we need all sub-segments of society represented in blockbuster films?

I've probably answered my own question as I'm guessing this is just PR or pandering.  They should have just left Sulu be an Asian dude that pilots a starship without having his sexuality be part of the discussion.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Darby on July 8, 2016, 12:43 PM
Any character being straight has no bearing on the plot either, except it does factor, in almost every narrative ever. So a character being gay should also factor, even if it has no direct impact on the plot. Anyone being gay/straight/whatever also has no bearing on me seeing this movie or any other. Like Jeff said the train wreck that was Into Darkness nearly put me off these movies for good, but I'm starting to have hopes for this one. I think if Takei was that adamant about Sulu not being gay, I personally would have listened to him if I were writing the movie, but as Pegg said this morning, a new character would have been the token gay character and that's worse than retconning an existing one. Which this is not. Like I said Sulu being gay or straight is canonically open for debate. I think it's overdue for Trek, a great if unwanted tribute to Takei, and no, it shouldn't matter. But it does.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: JediJman on July 8, 2016, 12:48 PM
Sulu is/isn't gay has no bearing on me not wanting to see it... I don't want to see it because I saw the "we swear it's not Khan" one and that movie was so bad (so bad I can't even recall the name and won't even bother looking for it), I pretty much swore off seeing any more of these New Trek movies. :P

Just to be clear - I could care less if any of the characters are gay or not.  I'll even go so far as to say they should have a gay character given how Roddenberry was deliberately inclusive of both genders and many races in the original series.  Even if its not necessary for the story, I can see where this might have been included with the original material back in the day.

I just don't want to support the movie for using the gay card as PR when the actor they were supposedly trying to support asked them to not to go this route.  I actually kind of like the new Star Trek stuff, but am already sensitive to this stuff with Marvel revamping all their characters lately in much the same vein.  If you really want to include minorities in your stories to make your cast more representative, then do it organically with new characters and do it for a reason other than building up hype and controversy. 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: P-Siddy on July 8, 2016, 10:06 PM
Apparently it was Simon Pegg's idea and intended as a homage to Takei, but when Takei found out LAST YEAR, he expressed his displeasure with Sulu being gay and did his best to convince Cho to go another route.

Considering all this and that Simon was one of the writers, why didn't he volunteer his character, Scotty, to be gay?  I mean, instead of disagreeing with George on the reasonings, he could have easily change which characters was gay, instead of disregarding George's wish.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Scockery on July 9, 2016, 04:46 PM
Marina Sertis (butchered that spelling I'm sure) on the other hand...  yikes, she seemed kinda angry.

If you can't take Marina's attitude, then you might think of going to a transport ship convention. There's a lot less pressure there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CV_iEPPlUM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CV_iEPPlUM)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Diddly on July 22, 2016, 11:06 AM
Anyone see Beyond? I'm on the fence and my roommate says it's alright but isn't worth seeing.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Pete_Fett on July 23, 2016, 11:10 PM
Anyone see Beyond? I'm on the fence and my roommate says it's alright but isn't worth seeing.

My wife and I saw it Thursday night and we both loved it.

Keep in mind that while I have been a fan of Star Trek since I was a kid, I am by no means a Star Trek "purist" - I loved the 2009 reboot movie and I enjoyed Into Darkness but thought it could have been better.

I felt Beyond was the best of the reboot cast movies so far, a fun thrill ride, with a pretty interesting plot and an interesting twist at the end that if you're paying attention, you'll see clues for well before it's revealed in the movie.

I would recommend going to see it.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Scockery on July 24, 2016, 12:01 AM
USS Discovery First Look. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqm9HSYbf0o)

Ugly. What was the last decent looking ship? Voyager?

Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Nicklab on July 24, 2016, 12:20 AM
USS Discovery First Look. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqm9HSYbf0o)

Ugly. What was the last decent looking ship? Voyager?



The aft section of the ship looks... Klingon!
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Jesse James on July 24, 2016, 12:25 AM
Voyager was eh.  I'm a Defiant guy myself.  The Enterprise E was interesting too, and had that DS9 Dominion War vibe to it.  I agree this has a Klingon look to it.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: P-Siddy on July 24, 2016, 12:59 AM
The aft section of the ship looks... Klingon!

I've not read up on Discovery so I'm not sure where in the timeline this stands, but if it's after the Klingon/Federation peace treaty, it might make sense for them to collaborate the best of both's technologies when producing a starship.  I think the saucer section seems a little small, but I'm interested in learning more about the show now.  I half expected to see the Starfleet and Klingon sigils combined on that ship.  And the music makes this seem a more militaristic themed show.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Nicklab on July 24, 2016, 10:12 AM
The hull number on Discovery seems to predate that of Enterprise on TOS by a significant timespan.  Discovery's designation is NCC-1031.  The Enterprise's hull number is NCC-1701.  So it seems that this ship may be from at least a generation before that of the TOS.

What gets me about this series?  It's reportedly going to be available on Netflix (which I have), but *NOT* in the United States or Canada.  And I really don't want to sign up for another streaming video service.  I feel like I'm being nickle and dimed to death as it is!
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Darby on July 24, 2016, 11:11 AM
I'm all about the new show.

Recognizing that the Discovery was the McQuarrie Enterprise while watching the teaser was about the most geek moment I've had in a long time. I love the ship and also think there is some Klingonish elements to it. Another clue is the music in the teaser which is reminiscent of past Klingon cues. That's one reason I think the show could take place in the post TNG era. The registry would indicate otherwise but I don't know I would put much stock in that, as the registries during the TNG era were not always simpatico with what was understood. Another example is Star Trek Beyond. MILD SPOILERS - The USS Franklin is apparently a ship that predates Archer's Enterprise, the NX-01. The Franklin is stated as being the first Warp 4 ship; the Enterprise was the first warp 5 ship, yet the Franklin's registry is NX-324. What is very likely with the Franklin given the circumstantial evidence in the movie is that she was refit and/or reclassed at some point in her service life and given an incongruous registry.

The Discovery registry is an apparent nod to the space shuttle Discovery's registry - OV-103 - and that may be all there is to it. That said there were some rumors at one point that the show was taking place in The Undiscovered Country timeframe and maybe there's something to that. Myself I'd prefer going forward, but I'm up for whatever this show has got.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Rob on July 24, 2016, 01:12 PM
Anyone see Beyond? I'm on the fence and my roommate says it's alright but isn't worth seeing.

I thought the trailer was underwhelming, but I really enjoyed the movie.  I'm also not a Star Trek purist and I wasn't ever that into it growing up, but it felt more like an episode on a huge scale and I thought it was well done and enjoyable.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: JediJman on July 24, 2016, 10:16 PM
USS Discovery First Look. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqm9HSYbf0o)

Ugly. What was the last decent looking ship? Voyager?



The aft section of the ship looks... Klingon!

I thought the same thing.  It's like they just took the top of the Enterprise and glued it onto a Bird of Prey.  That has to be the laziest design ever.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Scockery on July 27, 2016, 07:46 PM
Having seen it now, I have to say that Star Trek Beyond continued the NuTrek (or whatever it's called) traditions of:
1. Hard to watch action sequences (My eyes must be getting old.)
2. Beastie Boys music
3. A talented actor cast as a crappy villain.* (Though, that predates NuTrek, back to at least the last two The Next Generations movies. Seriously, after Nemesis I though Tom Hardy was an awful actor...he's taken much better parts since.)
4. Relying some reveal to distract from what is, at best, a mediocre story with clumsy exposition. (Though, I think a recent trailer may have given the "twist" away.)

*I won't comment more on the villain, because that's gives away too much if you've managed to avoid spoilers.

There's a lot of aliens whose heads look like sea creatures. I almost expected Hammerhead to appear.  :P

Some nods to the passing of Nimoy.  :'(

It was fairly entertaining for what it is, just an action movie in space in Trek attire, but that's another part of the NuTrek tradition...which, to be fair, started with The Next Generation movies, the current series just found a way to make them have more mass appeal.
So decent entertainment with some nice character moments, but if you haven't loved the reboot Trek, this will not change your mind.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Nicklab on August 11, 2016, 05:17 PM
The showrunner for Star Trek Discovery has been releasing some info about the show.  Time-wise, this series will be set 10 years before TOS.  And the central focus may be on a character other than the captain of the ship.  The initial run of the series is set to be 13 episodes that are about one hour long.  There may be some standalone stories, but the overall feel of the season may be something like that of a novel.  There's more in this Collider news brief (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_fY7Pbq9pY).
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Darby on August 13, 2016, 04:35 PM
Looking forward in a big way to the new series. I'm a huge fan of Bryan Fuller and can't wait to see his take on the show. Not too excited about the prospect of another prequel, but I'm confident in the people running it.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Chris M on August 13, 2016, 04:43 PM
I'm being lazy right now.  Can anyone explain how the new series will work with Netfilx in the US?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Nicklab on August 13, 2016, 04:49 PM
It won't.  The new show is only going to be available via CBS's streaming service in the U.S.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Chris M on August 13, 2016, 05:38 PM
Cool.  I thought I had read it was going to be available in Netflix the day after it aired.  In this case, will it be released in a weekly basis or all at once?

Sucks because I'm not getting a streaming service for one show when I don't religiously watch anything except baseball and TWD.  Everything else sits on the dvr until I find time.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Nicklab on August 13, 2016, 06:00 PM
What I've read (http://www.popsci.com/netflix-will-stream-new-star-trek-series-worldwide) is that Netflix will carry the show internationally, but in the US and Canada  the show will be exclusive to CBS All Access.  And the Sony service Crackle may carry it, too, per that article.  That's the one point of hope that I have, because I have a Sony smart TV, and Crackle will stream on it in the app/streaming menu.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Nicklab on August 29, 2016, 05:25 PM
Some more info is coming out about the new Star Trek Discovery series.  It sounds like this series is going to be more in line with the current cable/streaming show model that has a run of about a dozen episodes per season, and will be set about 10 years before the events of the original series.  It's set to begin production next month in Toronto.  Check out more at ComingSoon.net (http://www.comingsoon.net/tv/news/761665-new-star-trek-discovery-details-reveal-timeline-names-more). 

Also, the first episode of the series will air on the CBS television network.  Just like a pusher, the first one is free and after that you gotta pay for it!
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Nicklab on May 18, 2017, 09:15 AM
Check out the first trailer for Star Trek - Discovery (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dxe_ugmIVM).  This looks better than I had expected, especially considering this show was reportedly in a   state of development turmoil.

But the Klingons?  They look like they came out of the JJ Abrams ST universe.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: P-Siddy on May 18, 2017, 09:38 AM
Yeah, the Klingons look odd in this version.  Not sure why they had to mess with the design, but perhaps they felt they needed to give something fresh to the audience.

And I didn't know there was a Star Wars/Trek crossover with Rey on Jakku making an appearance.  ;)

Otherwise, this looks like it could be fun.  I'd like to catch this, though, but will likely have to wait since I don't have Access and I have enough on my plate right now.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Matt_Fury on May 18, 2017, 10:24 AM
I wasn't impressed with the last three movies, and this trailer (even with Michelle Yeoh) doesn't look good enough to pay for.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Dave on May 18, 2017, 01:48 PM
Was flipping channels the other night and caught Star Trek Insurrection for the first time.  Wow was that movie a snooze with crappy effects.  No better than an average ST:TNG episode.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Scockery on May 18, 2017, 04:32 PM
Insurrection, but as someone said the plot of the film amounts to TNG crew trying to stop some bad guys from beaming people up against their will.

The Ba'Ku..screw them. Pacifist luddites by choice...after years of space exploration they found fountain of youth planet, but now the cannot protect it themselves, oh, because luddites...by choice.  They aren't native. Prime Directive doesn't apply, as the admiral points out. So again, Ba'Ku are enemies of progress. No matter how evil the So'Na were, I still felt nothing for the technophobes who couldn't control their own children.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: JediJman on May 19, 2017, 10:25 AM
I have no idea what any of that means, but this looks like it takes itself way to seriously.  This Trailer (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8aUuFsXRjU) looks more like my style...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Scockery on September 24, 2017, 10:30 PM
Star Trek Discovery's first episode was not especially good.  It wasn't terrible, but I'm not paying to watch the rest of the series. (spoilers)

Good:
Doug Jones's character.

The effects seemed decent enough.

Bad:
Klingons...if you want to call them that. Why not just make them CGI crabs and be done with it.

Sonequa Martin Green's character seems to be making dumber choices than her Walking Dead character.
Michelle Yeoh calls her first officer NUMBER ONE. It felt forced.

Starting with a brink of war footing on what amounts to a new Trek timeline (?) lacks weight. Everything is unfamiliar looking, it doesn't seem like I should care. It would be like if they started ENTERPRISE with its season 3.

The scenes from upcoming episodes should really make fans wonder if CBS didn't just shut-down the Axanar fan project just to rip it off. It makes me wonder, and I'm not even that familiar with that fan film besides having watched the prelude.

Whatever:
They filmed with lens flare fun. I personally found the show's style hard to watch at times, but I guess it has style?
Why would Sarek raise an orphaned human girl?
Why does she seem to have stolen Worf's backstory? (Replace orphaned by Romluans with Klingons, raised by humans with Vulcans.)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Nicklab on September 24, 2017, 11:31 PM
I watched it.  And it seems like this could be a really interesting show.

But between already paying for cable, Netflix and Amazon Prime?  I don't think ANOTHER subscription streaming service is in the cards for us.  Especially with rumblings that Disney will be launching their own service that will have Disney, Star Wars and Marvel properties at the heart of their content.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: BrentS on September 25, 2017, 08:08 AM
I watched episode one this morning. I liked it for what it's worth. We already subscribe to CBS All access (my family has an unnatural obsession with Big Brother and the whole back catalog of other shows, like Amazing Race and Survivor), So I'll continue to watch. I doubt I would pay the sub fee if it was just this show. 
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: McMetal on September 25, 2017, 08:56 AM
I liked it overall, but I am not a die hard Trekkie. A two hour premier probably would have been a little more engaging. Still baffles me they would throw all that money into a show most people will not even be able to watch.

I wasn't crazy about Abe Sapien's character, or the weird blue guy on the bridge. With so many established races to choose from, I fail to see the need to keep inventing new ones, but SW does the same shtick.

I did love the weird guy with the computer terminal head. That would make an awesome action figure.

I was hoping we would get to meet the other guy who looks like, and maybe is,  the dude who played Lucius Malfoy.

They should re-run the whole thing next summer on regular TV. I'd watch more but no way I'm paying for this.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: P-Siddy on September 25, 2017, 09:36 AM
I was hoping we would get to meet the other guy who looks like, and maybe is,  the dude who played Lucius Malfoy.

It is Jason Isaacs.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: BillCable on September 25, 2017, 11:48 AM
So is this show moving to a streaming-only platform after broadcasting the first couple episodes?  I'm confused why people who have cable TV are complaining about signing up for a service.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Darby on September 25, 2017, 11:53 AM
SPOILERS


I watched both episodes, and I am surprised at my own lack of enthusiasm for this. For a lot of reasons. One, this was a fantastic 90 minutes of sci-fi on TV with production values beyond probably anything we've ever seen in this particular genre, for this particular medium. They spared no expense, except when it came to the story.

Burnham is a fascinating character, and Martin is an outstanding actress, but they fumbled her introduction. A human raised Vulcan is a unique take, and would have provided a lot of interesting conflict. They sped right through it. The show does make bold choices with Burnham, and with the series itself, so all due credit. I feel like they sacrificed character for spectacle in these two hours.

Having written a sci-fi pilot that was consciously a response/reaction to Star Trek, I think I can say a couple things: 1) it's not a good idea to not introduce your primary setting and cast in the first TWO episodes (I tried to be cute with this in my pilot and received pretty universal feedback that it wasn't successful) and 2) you don't spend one or two hours building up characters you then kill. This is a non-starter generally in fiction as in TV and never works (see Doyle on Angel).

Michelle Yeah is as always a treat. Doug Jones and Saru are lots of fun; I liked his 'I really rather wouldn't' attitude. The actor playing Sarek is terrible. Lots of neat details and cinematography. The dialogue was very wooden sometimes, especially in part two.

Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Pete_Fett on September 25, 2017, 02:19 PM
I wasn't impressed, but then again, I'm not the huge Star Trek fan in my household - it's my wife - and she didn't like it at all. We both were wondering why so many changes to the Klingons.

So no CBS All Access for us! I'm mildly curious, so hopefully you'll be able to go back and watch the whole series when it's done - I'll try to convince her to sign up for a month at the commercial-free price of $9.99 and then we can binge-watch it like a Netflix show.

Either that or maybe we'll get lucky and just to get it in front of people, CBS will relent and let Netflix also broadcast it once it's done with the season...

Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: McMetal on September 25, 2017, 03:26 PM
So is this show moving to a streaming-only platform after broadcasting the first couple episodes?  I'm confused why people who have cable TV are complaining about signing up for a service.

Yes, after the first episode.

Apparently in every other country it's available via Netflix, except Canada where it is airing on their equivalent of Sy-Fy.

Streaming-only + underpants + ??? = profit

 ???
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Scockery on September 25, 2017, 04:15 PM
They had a record people sign up for CBS All Access. Record as compared who signed up before the first episode aired. Wow.

It's on a service because CBS's demographic wouldn't watch it. I guess?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Master_Phruby on September 25, 2017, 06:06 PM
Why couldn't CBS just put it on Showtime instead? They could add gratuitous nudity to it just like the first season of Stargate SG-1 had. That's what Star Trek needs - Boobies!
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Nicklab on September 25, 2017, 07:02 PM
When I was discussing this with some people on social media I likened this rollout of the show to a drug deal:  the first hit is free.  After that you've got to pay!

What did I take from the show?  It does seem a bit more in line with the JJ Abrams reboot universe in terms of design, the technology and the look of the Klingons among them.  Although the language does seem consistent with what had been established in movies and the various syndicated series.

I liked Michelle Yeoh as Captain Georgiou.  And Sonequa Martin-Green was really good, although I only watched the pilot.  As for James Frain as Sarek?  It has to be tough for an actor to play a Vulcan, given the lack of emotions.  But if this show is in line with the new movie timeline, I wonder why they might not have cast Ben Cross as Sarek, since he played the role in the JJ Abrams reboot?  Don't get me started on Anthony Michael Hall as a Starfleet Admiral.  That took me out of that scene.

I'm also struck by one point that I read about before the show aired.  That being what had been this Gene Roddenberry "golden rule" that TOS and syndicated shows had never really broken.  Evidently, there was never any sort of open conflict between starfleet personnel in those shows.  I recognize the philosophy behind it, and that Roddenberry had this idealized vision of how humanity might be unified in a 23rd century world.  I suspect that some of that idealism was a product of the time when TOS was produced, but is it realistic?  And this new show seems prepared to break that rule.  Hence some of the conflict between Captain Georgiou and First Officer Burnham about how to engage the Klingons.

I'm intrigued by the show.  But I don't feel as invested overall in Trek as most Trekkers do.  I thought it was a decent show to watch, and the look and effects of this show are lightyears beyond where TOS was in terms of production values.  I'd like to watch it, but we have a budget.  And watching Discovery on CBS's streaming platform doesn't fit in there.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: BillCable on September 25, 2017, 07:05 PM
So is this show moving to a streaming-only platform after broadcasting the first couple episodes?  I'm confused why people who have cable TV are complaining about signing up for a service.

Yes, after the first episode.

I guess if anyone has disposable income to blow on a single-series streaming subscription, it's Star Trek nerds...

Why couldn't CBS just put it on Showtime instead? They could add gratuitous nudity to it just like the first season of Stargate SG-1 had. That's what Star Trek needs - Boobies!

(http://cdn.abclocal.go.com/images/otrc/2010/photos/9112949_1280x720.jpg)
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Nicklab on September 25, 2017, 07:10 PM
Where's the like button?
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Darby on September 25, 2017, 08:00 PM
I'm also struck by one point that I read about before the show aired.  That being what had been this Gene Roddenberry "golden rule" that TOS and syndicated shows had never really broken.  Evidently, there was never any sort of open conflict between starfleet personnel in those shows.  I recognize the philosophy behind it, and that Roddenberry had this idealized vision of how humanity might be unified in a 23rd century world.

This 'rule' was only imposed by Roddenberry on the TNG staff, which they promptly circumvented and DS9 ignored. I've also seen some of the discussion you're referring to about it, and it's odd that this would be the sticking point for some people. At the time, the rule as rightly considered prohibiting by the fans and creatives alike. Like you said, it isn't realistic. Drama is inherently conflict, and utopian values aside, you've got to have something happening.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Scockery on September 25, 2017, 10:44 PM

(http://cdn.abclocal.go.com/images/otrc/2010/photos/9112949_1280x720.jpg)

Some people complained about that scene.

It was the least thing wrong with INTO DARKNESS.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Darby on September 26, 2017, 12:26 AM
The scene was gratuitous, but then pretty much everything was in ID. On the scale, though, you're totally right.

I was thinking more about the Discovery premiere, and I got to thinking - I know what the problem with the set up is i.e. Burnham.

SPOILERS

Georgiou's death should have been the trigger for this emotional crisis she faces, after perhaps repressing it all her life, growing up as a Vulcan. Right now we're left thinking the encounter with the Klingons triggers this memory and emotion she's been repressing, but she's fairly emotive (logical, sure, though not critical) and all of that undercuts what I think is meant to be her arc. She's shown as spirited and competitive, in direct opposition to how she first arrives on the Shenzou (well, she's always competitive) and her trajectory in the two episodes is less about her emotional disposition than her mental one.

Anyways.
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: Pete_Fett on September 27, 2017, 08:49 PM
Don't get me started on Anthony Michael Hall as a Starfleet Admiral.  That took me out of that scene.

That actually wasn't Anthony Michael Hall - it was Terry Serpico, or as I like to call him "Anthony Michael Hall Lite"

CBS threw him a bone after suffering two seasons on their ridiculous attempt to turn US Postal Inspectors into CSIs, on Saturday morning no less...
Title: Re: Star Trek
Post by: BrentS on November 13, 2017, 10:53 AM
Anyone else stick with CBS All-access for Star Trek Discovery?  Mid-season finale aired last night.  I really enjoyed these first 9 episodes.  Probably my favorite show that I'm currently watching.  It helped that we already invested in the CBS All-access for some of the other content.