At least there is not many lens flares in darkness..
I wouldn't bet on it
As long as it isn't "Star Trek Into Lense Flare."
Last edited by greatwazoo42; Sep 8, 2012 at 11:29 AM.
You'd rather them insert something into their colon? That's rather harsh.
Star Trek 2: Dark Territory with Steven Seagal as Khan.
Don't worry... The next film have no lens flare what so ever... They will install huge light spot in all theater to blind you instead so it more realist. jk
Star Trek into darkness. Because space is dark. I think my next film will be Mud Trek into Dirt.
I'm a bit confused as to why they would drop the colon. That's really bothering me the most about it.
It's a dumb title and bad grammar. I made myself watch JJ's first attempt, but I'll probably give this a miss. Even the great Benedict Cumberbatch will have a hard time looking good in this.
LOL greatest pic ever!
Last edited by RokkaRolla; Sep 9, 2012 at 10:12 AM. Reason: replied to wrong quote
Stars are the source of light, so you cannot have a star trek into darkness. Doesn't make sense.
They must have it confused with a plot hole, then.
And isn't it customary that when your ship is about to be captured by a dangerous enemy that you destroy it so it doesn't fall into into their hands? I guess Spock didn't get the memo on that one when he literally let Nero have all the red matter.
One might argue though that Spock's motivation is the restoration of the timeline to some semblance of normality.
Biggest problem with that is that KIRK IS NOT THE SAME CHARACTER!
Completely different upbringing = Not the Kirk that did all that awesome stuff in the other timeline.
Doesn't matter how awesome you are, you can't type a formula into a knackered old system and suddenly give it the capabilities of tech over a century ahead.
Just 'cos you have the code for WIndows7 doesn't mean you can input it on a circa 1980 MS-DOS PC