Star Trek Into Darkness (Pre-release)

[chris_s]

Some new news about the plot:

'Star Trek Into Darkness' Plot Revealed

Only 4 paragraphs released by Paramount:

"In Summer 2013, pioneering director J.J. Abrams will deliver an explosive action thriller that takes "Star Trek Into Darkness."

When the crew of the Enterprise is called back home, they find an unstoppable force of terror from within their own organization has detonated the fleet and everything it stands for, leaving our world in a state of crisis.

With a personal score to settle, Captain Kirk leads a manhunt to a war-zone world to capture a one man weapon of mass destruction.

As our heroes are propelled into an epic chess game of life and death, love will be challenged, friendships will be torn apart, and sacrifices must be made for the only family Kirk has left: his crew."

 

[Bryancd]

Welcome to two days ago!

 

[chris_s]

Aww...I even looked back through the last few pages...

Wait! Can I be jedifyed if its the same thread?

 

[PotionMistress]

I would love to see a resurgence of the Original Series in this new timeline that would include some of those great storylines as mentioned above. I think the world as a whole needs a refresher course in the messages that were given back then. Sure the world as a whole has moved forward in a sense but I am also seeing alot of backward momentum in our maturity as a species.

I am in complete agreement about what you said, and I especially loved your mentioning...'backward momentum in our maturity as a species'! Fantastically said! And THAT is exactly the kind of subject that would make for a classic Trek message, if they could pull it off.

I will have no problem with this movie IF they focus and crystalize more of the interpersonal relationships and conditions that lead to TOS setup. It would be interesting to see how Kirk surrenders human companionship for the sake of his Captainship and crew, which was one of the things that made Kirk so dynamic. Lets hope they create a great storyline for the Trek cannon!

 

[DARTH SABER]

At least the Wrath of Khan didn't involve a "SAVE THE EARTH!" storyline.

Which theres absolutely nothing wrong with.

 

[Jeyl]

Which theres absolutely nothing wrong with.

If there's a good story to tell, than yes. There isn't anything wrong with it. But if you're going to use Earth as the "definitive place that everything revolves around", you're not going to be doing Star Trek any favors.

Take the original series for example. Only once in the entire series run was the future Earth ever seen, and that was just an illusion. The only time Earth ever played a factor in Star Trek was when it involved it's past or an a planet that was an exact replica of the planet. That's it. Star Trek didn't need Earth, because Earth is not what Star Trek was about. Remember The Doomsday Machine? The remastered TV Spots made that episode look like Earth was the Doomsday Machine's #1 target, when it never was.

Another problem with putting Earth in constant danger is that you end up portraying all of Starfleet as so dependent on Earth that it's almost becoming a hazard. If Earth was put in this much danger all the time, you would think that Starfleet would at least have some sort of back up plan or emergency evacuation procedures so that in the event that Earth does get destroyed, the Federation will still be able to function. To depict Earth as a planet where once it's destroyed means the end of Star Trek altogether I think is disingenuous to the grand scope of the franchise. There are literally hundreds of planets that can support human life, planets that have human colonies, and again, planets that are exact replicas of Earth! And what about the whole "United Federation of Planets" that Starfleet is a part of? Wouldn't those in the Federation be willing to aid us if anything were to happen?

And please, don't bring up the "Earth being in danger is important because Star Trek is about humanity" thing, because when you have main characters who are not human, that statement comes off as selfish, arrogant and a bit racist. I always hated it because by default it puts humanity over other races, and I think that's wrong. Gene Roddenberry loved to push that idea that humanity in Star Trek was perfect and that they will one day be like angels and gods, but what about Vulcans? Klingons? Romulans? Tholians? What about them? Are they not intelligent beings who have the right to better themselves? The phrase "being human" should not be exclusive to just the human race.

Also, Earth is a comfort zone. It's a place we're all familiar with because we live on it and depend on it 24/7. From a writer's perspective, it's something they can get the audience to relate to. But the trouble with Star Trek is that it's about the voyage. Leaving the comfort zone to explore the unknown. That's what the original series was able to do by not showing Earth. Q said it best.

Q: If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires, both subtle and gross. But it's not for the timid.

So what do you want? You want Star Trek to become so infatuated with Earth that it never leaves it, or do you want to see a Star Trek that actually wants to be out there and not have to worry about Earth?

 

[PotionMistress]

...
And please, don't bring up the "Earth being in danger is important because Star Trek is about humanity" thing, because when you have main characters who are not human, that statement comes off as selfish, arrogant and a bit racist. I always hated it because by default it puts humanity over other races, and I think that's wrong. Gene Roddenberry loved to push that idea that humanity in Star Trek was perfect and that they will one day be like angels and gods, but what about Vulcans? Klingons? Romulans? Tholians? What about them? Are they not intelligent beings who have the right to better themselves? The phrase "being human" should not be exclusive to just the human race.

Also, Earth is a comfort zone. It's a place we're all familiar with because we live on it and depend on it 24/7. From a writer's perspective, it's something they can get the audience to relate to. But the trouble with Star Trek is that it's about the voyage. Leaving the comfort zone to explore the unknown. That's what the original series was able to do by not showing Earth. ...

So what do you want? You want Star Trek to become so infatuated with Earth that it never leaves it, or do you want to see a Star Trek that actually wants to be out there and not have to worry about Earth?

Oh, you are so on-the-mark with this. I also think the Earth-centric focus misses the whole point of what people love about Trek. It said we are NOT the center of the universe and that Terrans have an inflated and ridiculously solipsistic view to think we are so special amongst all the possibilities of life in all of the gallaxies. Funny, but that view parallels so much of our present world divided by religious self-righteousness that permeates our perspectives and tolerance right now.

 

[Vivek]

Why Gary Mitchell Is Almost Certainly Not The Villain Of STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS | Badass Digest

 

[greatwazoo42]

That camp is well known for subterfuge and outright lying to keep things a surprise until the last second. Time will tell.

Shame though. I was hoping it would be Mitchell and not Kahn if they had to recycle a badguy for the second film.

 

[Bryancd]

Well, we know it's either Mitchell, Trelane, Kahn, of Mudd. I still think it's Mitchell and think Karl Urban spilled those beans back at ComicCon.

 

[DARTH SABER]

If there's a good story to tell, than yes.

Exactly....It has nothing to do with the "earth is in danger" factor, or a Star Trek film must "explore the universe" factor.

 

[Jeyl]

Exactly....It has nothing to do with the "earth is in danger" factor, or a Star Trek film must "explore the universe" factor.

Well, there aren't any Tholians on Earth so I'm going to say that "explore the universe" is a more important factor to Star Trek than "Earth is in danger".

 

[DARTH SABER]

Well, there aren't any Tholians on Earth so I'm going to say that "explore the universe" is a more important factor to Star Trek than "Earth is in danger".

And Ill say that a good story is more important than than trivial details about location or having to adhere to an "explore the universe" formula that has been used countless times.

But if you're going to use Earth as the "definitive place that everything revolves around", you're not going to be doing Star Trek any favors.

Seems to me that bringing the franchise back from the brink of death was a pretty big favor.

 

[Jeyl]

Well, we know it's either Mitchell, Trelane, Kahn, of Mudd. I still think it's Mitchell and think Karl Urban spilled those beans back at ComicCon.

Mitchell is dead. It happened in the comics which was overseen by Bob Orci and declared canon. If they were going to honor the comic's story line and bring him back from the dead, it's going to be another villain with a motive only known to those read the bloody comics. Personally, I don't want another Nero, and neither do a lot of Star Trek fans. I also find it odd that of all the actors to play the part of Gary Mitchell, Benicio Del Toro seems rather out of place when JJ announced an interest in him for the villain part.

Also, of all the stories that the comics have re-told, Khan has yet to show up.

 

[Jeyl]

And Ill say that a good story is more important than than trivial details about location or having to adhere to an "explore the universe" formula that has been used countless times.

A story about exploration yields much more variety than a story about saving the Earth. Earth will always be Earth, the unknown can be anything.

 

[DARTH SABER]

A story about exploration yields much more variety than a story about saving the Earth. Earth will always be Earth, the unknown can be anything.

There has yet to be a single Trek film where the crew "never leave earth"...So Im not exactly sure how your complaint is relevant.

On a side note, there was about 5 minutes of exploration on City on the Edge of Forever, and 90% of the show took place on earth...I suppose that episode sucks?
Same applies to the Voyage Home.

 

[Jeyl]

There has yet to be a single Trek film where the crew "never leave earth"...So Im not exactly sure how your complaint is relevant.

Since this new film will no doubt take place at Earth, this new take on Trek is already on record for not leaving it.

On a side note, there was about 5 minutes of exploration on City on the Edge of Forever, and 90% of the show took place on earth...I suppose that episode sucks?

On the contrary, Earth was not in any danger in that episode. The time line was. Earth just happened to be the point at which the time line was thrown out of whack.

As for the Voyage Home? Of course I give it a pass, though you'll be hard pressed to find a Trek fan who declares that film the best in the series.

 

[PotionMistress]

I have to say that I was sort of tickled pink that J.J. Abrams visited MIT to talk about media this week. Interesting article (see link)

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2012/jj-abrams-media-lab-conversation-1128.html

He discusses his methodology for story direction, and I think this could be very telling for the new Trek movie; so I’m hoping we will all be surprised when it is released.

My fondest hope is that Trek focuses more on the SCIENCE for its science fiction story development and will incorporate some new theories into the narrative instead of flash and explosion. The special effects should only enhance the science, and that’s it, IMO.

Maybe when he was at MIT, he got some good ideas to develop! I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

 

[DARTH SABER]

Since this new film will no doubt take place at Earth, this new take on Trek is already on record for not leaving it.

So the new film takes place ENTIRELY on earth? Is that what youre saying without "a doubt"?

On the contrary, Earth was not in any danger in that episode.

Nazi's winning the war and using a nuke is not a "danger"?

As for the Voyage Home? Of course I give it a pass,

How convenient. LOL

 

[Angelus Lupus]

...J.J. Abrams visited MIT to talk about media this week.... He discusses his methodology for story direction...

I thought his method was "throw in as much nonsense as possible while claiming you have a plot, then give up"