Star Trek: Into Darkness trailer and thoughts

[Greg Bernhardt]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAEkuVgt6Aw

I saw this trailer on ultra screen in 3d and I was captivated. No doubt a very well made trailer, but still I'm pretty stoked for the movie! Even if it just reaches the success of the first, it's been a nice series reboot.

 

[HallsofIvy]

I did not like the first movie and probably will not even go see this one. I don't think it can be considered a "reboot" in any sense when they have changed the basic story so much.

 

[BobG]

I liked the first one.

As long as they maintain the same relationship between the characters, a new series of movies with new actors is great. It's really no different than making new James Bond movies even though you don't have the same actor playing James Bond in each movie.

 

[phinds]

I thought the first one was outstanding and I'm looking forward to the next one.

 

[davenn]

I also enjoyed the first, was great to see a background of the characters and how they came together

havent seen the new one yet ... maybe this weekend :)Dave

 

[Evo]

Erhm, doesn't appeal to me. I guess I'm too old and remember the original too well.

 

[davenn]

Erhm, doesn't appeal to me. I guess I'm too old and remember the original too well.

LOL Evo naaa you can't be older than me ;)
But on the other hand I have been a die-hard trek fan "since Adam was a boy" Dave

 

[BobG]

LOL Evo naaa you can't be older than me ;)
But on the other hand I have been a die-hard trek fan "since Adam was a boy"


Dave

Same here. In fact, I'm the same age as Adam.

(I presume you must be talking about Adam Nimoy, Leonard Nimoy's son.)

 

[dkotschessaa]

To sum up my feelings, I am compelled to watch anything Startrek (Except DS9, though I'm trying).

But as far as this latest incarnation, the magic is really gone. So I'll see it and enjoy it on some level.

 

[Ibix]

I enjoyed the last one until I started thinking about it. Then it made less and less sense. I think I'll give this one a miss...

 

[dkotschessaa]

I enjoyed the last one until I started thinking about it. Then it made less and less sense. I think I'll give this one a miss...

Has anyone seen the "honest trailer" for the previous movie?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTfBH-XFdSc

 

[FlexGunship]

At 0:35 in the trailer you can see that they're reusing the Dr. Strangelove set!

"You can't let him in here... he'll see the big board!"

 

[dkotschessaa]

I just watched the trailer. It looks bad. Real bad. Still have to see it though.

 

[FlexGunship]

...Benedict Cumberbatch...

...as freakin' Khan...

If the movie consisted of 50% Carly Rae Jepson singing "Call Me Maybe" and 50% Star Trek with Cumberbatch as Khan I would still watch it.

 

[Borg]

I didn't like that Vulcan was destroyed in the first one. Vulcan was the embodiment of many of the good things in the Star Trek universe. As far as I'm concerned, the first movie took a giant dump on the entire franchise.

 

[HallsofIvy]

I also enjoyed the first, was great to see a background of the characters and how they came together

havent seen the new one yet ... maybe this weekend :)


Dave

My objection is that it wasn't the "background of the characters". We were told it was an "alternate reality". Certainly it wouldn't have made sense to have all of these characters, from Captain Kirk, down to Ensign Sulu, to be the same age and attending the Academy at the same time.

 

[Fredrik]

I saw it today. (The movie, not the trailer). I thought it was OK, but not much better than that. The lens flares are smaller in size, but there are still lots of them. They irritated me in the first few minutes, where they didn't appear to know what a volcano is, or what fusion is. I didn't like all the high speed motion through narrow passages. Cumberbatch was great though.

 

[Ibix]

I didn't like that Vulcan was destroyed in the first one. Vulcan was the embodiment of many of the good things in the Star Trek universe. As far as I'm concerned, the first movie took a giant dump on the entire franchise.

Also, Enterprise warped away from Vulcan for a while before they dumped Kirk... on a planet where Spock was able to watch the destruction of Vulcan with his unaided eye. A snowbound planet inhabited by bright red predators.

Musn't get myself started on this...

 

[dkotschessaa]

yes but...it's star trek!

 

[Fredrik]

yes but...it's star trek!

That means that the writers has to make the story inconsistent with relativity. It doesn't mean that they have to make it inconsistent with the most basic things in biology and geology.

 

[Ibix]

yes but...it's star trek!

You don't like Deep Space Nine. Your opinions are clearly worthless.

I don't require my science fiction to be super-hard; under some circumstances I'll swallow utter nonsense. The black-and-white guys from Let that be your last battlefield are a classic example. I can't think of an evolutionary pressure that could lead to such beings - but it's OK by me because it's such an elegant way to make a point about racism in a difficult environment.

Abrams' Star Trek mostly seemed to me to be a long string of things that made no sense and were there for no good reason. I could forgive Spock being able to see the destruction of Vulcan for its emotional impact if nothing else. It's just that there's the predator, and Kirk being on the planet at all, and the Scotty-in-the-water-pipes scene, Kirk's promotion to Captain on his first trip outside the Academy, Nero never going to warn the Romulans about the future,... The list goes on. I stopped cutting it slack...

 

[dkotschessaa]

You don't like Deep Space Nine. Your opinions are clearly worthless.

Yeah, because a big floating ring in space that doesn't go anywhere is compelling sci-fi.



Seriously, I *tried.*

I don't require my science fiction to be super-hard; under some circumstances I'll swallow utter nonsense. The black-and-white guys from Let that be your last battlefield are a classic example. I can't think of an evolutionary pressure that could lead to such beings - but it's OK by me because it's such an elegant way to make a point about racism in a difficult environment.

Abrams' Star Trek mostly seemed to me to be a long string of things that made no sense and were there for no good reason. I could forgive Spock being able to see the destruction of Vulcan for its emotional impact if nothing else. It's just that there's the predator, and Kirk being on the planet at all, and the Scotty-in-the-water-pipes scene, Kirk's promotion to Captain on his first trip outside the Academy, Nero never going to warn the Romulans about the future,... The list goes on. I stopped cutting it slack...

*These* days I prefer my sci fi rather hard. (The only stuff I really read anymore is from Analog magazine, whose contributors are usually scientists who write sci-fi part time. Or rather hard core researchers).

But star trek just has a special place in my heart because I grew up with it. So it's allowed to get away with a lot of B.S. I am compelled to watch it out of sheer attachment.

-Dave K

 

[Ibix]

Yeah, because a big floating ring in space that doesn't go anywhere is compelling sci-fi.

If he weren't dead, I'd tell Larry Niven you said that...

Seriously, I *tried.*

It certainly has its flaws, and a lot depends on how much you get on with Avery Brooks' acting (or lack thereof, as some would say). I like the continuing arc, its prescience about reactions to "them" maybe being among us, and that the characters are allowed to grow and change in a way that never really happened in the other series. I also like its sense of humour ("Have you heard? The chief is going to have a baby!" "Really? I thought your females carried your young.")

*These* days I prefer my sci fi rather hard. (The only stuff I really read anymore is from Analog magazine, whose contributors are usually scientists who write sci-fi part time. Or rather hard core researchers).

But star trek just has a special place in my heart because I grew up with it. So it's allowed to get away with a lot of B.S. I am compelled to watch it out of sheer attachment.

I know what you mean. But I think Nemesis and the Xindi kind of broke the compulsion for me. Maybe I should check out Analog, though - some of the first SF I remember reading was my Dad's "Best of Analog" collections.

 

[krash661]

i agree with greg.
awaiting patiently.

 

[OmCheeto]

i agree with greg.
awaiting patiently.

I've yet to be one of these new fangled "3D" movies.

Do they make you wear funny glasses, and take pictures of you, like in the 50's?

and call you an Avatard?

My friends posted a picture of themselves in funny glasses after that movie came out, and, referred to themselves as Avatards.

---------------

I love Star Trek, because it takes you where, you've never been before.
And the sensory visual input is meaningless, compared to the message.

--------------

Ok. Time to go home...

-------------------
and yes, I've not seen Avatar yet...

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I'm going to see it Sunday!

 

[dkotschessaa]

If he weren't dead, I'd tell Larry Niven you said that...

Ok, maybe one THAT big is interesting. Though I got lost around the end of the Ringworld Throne. (Another thread perhaps).

And he's not dead! But perhaps you were kidding...

I know what you mean. But I think Nemesis and the Xindi kind of broke the compulsion for me. Maybe I should check out Analog, though - some of the first SF I remember reading was my Dad's "Best of Analog" collections.

Oh right. I forgot about Enterprise. I seriously just *forgot* about that entire series. I guess that sums up my opinion of it!

Analog is awesome. I once posted here asking if anybody read it and got no replies, which I found confusing. You would think people here would be more into hard sci-fi than "Stargate" or something. There are also science fact articles in Analog, which I used to point out to justify all the time I spent reading it. That magazine actually influenced my decision to go back to school to study physics and math (now I just study math.) Ironically now that I'm in school I don't have time to read it.

-Dave K

 

[krash661]

I've yet to be one of these new fangled "3D" movies.

Do they make you wear funny glasses, and take pictures of you, like in the 50's?

and call you an Avatard?

My friends posted a picture of themselves in funny glasses after that movie came out, and, referred to themselves as Avatards.

---------------

I love Star Trek, because it takes you where, you've never been before.
And the sensory visual input is meaningless, compared to the message.

--------------

Ok. Time to go home...

-------------------
and yes, I've not seen Avatar yet...

i have no clue,

i'm not sure if i would even last 10 minutes in the theater.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Saw it last night and like the 2009 one I thoroughly enjoyed it. Like the former film the writers still haven't managed to make a plot that makes much sense when you stop and think about it but overall I didn't find that a problem. I've read quite a few negative reviews that point out legitimate problems like this but mostly the negativity seems to come from fans of the series not liking the direction this is going. I watched a few different star treks as a kid but am not particularly loyal to the franchise (lets face it, a lot of the TV and film stuff was low budget technobabble with a healthy dose of overacting) so whilst I recognised a lot of the references I'm not terribly fussed that previous canon has been thrown aside.

There are however two things about the film that concern me: the casting for Khan and the role/appearance of women. I thought Cumberbach did a great job as a convincing bad guy but it strikes me as another example of Hollywood white washing. As I said above I'm not particularly concerned about changing canon (this is a reboot after all, Star Trek wasn't exactly flying high in terms of popularity before) but I am always unsettled by how widespread it is in Hollywood to cast white actors in ethnic roles and Khan is meant to be Indian. This wouldn't be a big problem except for the fact it's so common, especially in book adaptations to film.

The use of women in this film is similarly Hollywood bad. There are two main female characters only and they are only really presented in their relationship to men rather than as independent characters. Uhura is consistently portrayed as "girlfriend of Spock" aside from a couple of scenes where she is doing her own thing and Carol Marcus flips between being portrayed as helpless admiral daughter or eye candy for Kirk (seriously what is the point of the 2 second scene of her in underwear?). Lastly why on Earth are all the female crew members in miniskirts? It seem's as out of place as if all the men were wandering around in tight fitting tank tops.

As I said I really enjoyed this film even though these two areas (and the plot holes) were disappointing.

 

[OmCheeto]

Saw it last night and like the 2009 one I thoroughly enjoyed it. ...

Yay!

... Lastly why on Earth are all the female crew members in miniskirts?...

I'm pretty sure it's based on the original series. You have to remember, it came out in the 60's.

I got a kick out of the costumes in the 2009 film. They were worse fitting than in the original 60's series.

I'm really glad I don't know enough about modern culture to complain about who plays who in this new movie. So far, I've not recognized a single name.