Star Trek Into Darkness (Pre-release)
- Thread starter Dave Porter
- Start date
Yes, no doubt there were some very peculiar design choices made in STAR TREK '09. My two biggest beef's were the scale of the ship and that fracking Engineering section. Oh, and Nero, the most vague villain ever. I am still not clear what he was so pissed of about. :wacko
ProfKSergeev
Sr Member
Someone stole his sweet roll.
He was a bit on the pudgy side. They should get Nero and Shinzon together and have them sitting around having a lot of inane pathos while yelling a lot. I'd watch that.
Angelus Lupus
Sr Member
He won't be getting any money out of me. I watched the '09 film (but didn't buy it or go to the cinema) so that I couldn't be accused of hating it without reason, and once was enough.
I wanted to like it, and it bugs me that an actor I really like (Cumberbatch) is in the new one, because I'd normally watch anything he was in.
Shadow345
Well-Known Member
The last Star Trek was good wasn't it? It got great reviews from PROFESSIONAL critics all round and is currently the highest rated Star Trek film.
Can anybody that wishes to ridicule the new Trek please explain why you think you are so much more enlightened?
Why is quality of intent more important than quality of delivery? The reason why Trek 09 was rated so well.
Can anybody that wishes to ridicule the new Trek please explain why you think you are so much more enlightened?
Why is quality of intent more important than quality of delivery? The reason why Trek 09 was rated so well.
Why should I settle for less then what I expect? A respectful handling of TOS as source inspiration? I grew up on TOS. It helped form how I think, yes
I was a smart kid and maybe I was more enlightened, when other kids were running around saying "Crush, Kill, Destroy" from Lost in Space (more popular show in reruns back then) I was pondering the concepts of warp drive as star travel and the moral lessons of Trek. Trek that quoted and lifted from Shakespeare even.
JJ Trek was intellectually a vacuum. Now I would be more forgiving if it wasn't wrapped in TOS packaging. But it was. And that means something BIG to me.
What I'm I supposed to do?
Start saying "Crush Kill Destroy" like the other kids?
Last edited:
DARTH SABER
Master Member
Actually it's the best reviewed and highest grossing of all the trek films.
That pretty much encompasses the mainstream viewers (their dollars contributed to the profit) and the professional viewers (critics)...so what demographic is left?
Why should the minority opinion dictate the worth of the film?
Personally I believe Star Trek was (and is) popular for many reasons. People who hate JJs Trek seem to focus on the positove vision of the future/thoughtful story telling piece, which they feel is not present. But TOS was also popular because of great characters and good stories. JJ settled on telling an action oriented/character story. For me it worked. I loved the 2009 Trek.
But, To each their own.
But, To each their own.
ProfKSergeev
Sr Member
No one's opinion dictates the objective worth of any film, and no one here is going to do any damage to Mr. Abrams' next.
That said, I unequivocally adored the Star Trek from '09 and found all the oft-repeated criticisms ("The ship's too big!"; "Kirk's a d0uche!") tiresome and blockheaded. Of course I'll reserve judgement until I see it in full, but the glimpses we've gotten of Into Darkness disappoint me. Maybe it's the marketing, but there seems to have been a nosedive in the Intelligence Quotient.
We shall see.
ProfKSergeev
Sr Member
A popular graffito in Greece back in the day: "Eat sh1t! Six million flies can't be wrong."
laserpistol76
Well-Known Member
Has anyone seen the nine minute preview? I went to the Hobbit at an Imax theater and they didn't show it! They even had a sign that they didn't show it!
nwjedidave
Sr Member
We were at the same show then!! LOL
Riceball
Master Member
Because they could have made a movie that appealed to or at least somewhat catered to the minority audience, ie Trek fans, and still have made a good movie to boot. There's no reason why you can't make a movie, Trek or any other famous/popular franchise, that satisfies the nitpickiness of the fan base while still making it appealing to the mainstream audience. Yes, the mainstream audience doesn't care about the tiny little details that die-hard fans like to dwell on but the mainstream audience doesn't care if those detail are accurate/true to the original source or not so what it does it hurt to get those things right? You satisfy the die-hards while not chasing away the mainstream audience who won't even know or care that you got those little things right.
My description of the 9min. preview:
It starts off with a couple waking up, there's a super cool Burmese Mountain Dog that hops into bed with them. I love seeing dogs in Trek, even that nasty one from TOS with the horns. They are in London and travel to a mansion on an estate that has been converted into a hospital. They meet with a doctor and then visit with their ailing daughter. There is no dialogue through any of this. Then the father is outside and he is approached by CumberKhan and he tells him that he can save her. The dad asks who are you but there is no answer. This seems to me likely that he is an augment and perhaps has the ability to do what their medicine can not. Would make sense.
Then you cut to a very prolonged sequence on the red foliage planet in the teaser trailer where Kirk and McCoy are running. The banter between them is terrific. Apparently they are trying to save this primitive culture from a volcano and trying to not violate the Prime Directive. The Enterprise is hidden in the sea. Spock, Uhara, and Sulu are in a shuttle and Spock is lowered into he volcano with a device that will stop the eruption. Nothing goes to plan and lot's of excitement and tension ensue. That was really the meat of it and it looked GREAT in 3D. Everyone is looking to be spot on in their roles. This is going to be an amazing ride and I can't wait!
It starts off with a couple waking up, there's a super cool Burmese Mountain Dog that hops into bed with them. I love seeing dogs in Trek, even that nasty one from TOS with the horns. They are in London and travel to a mansion on an estate that has been converted into a hospital. They meet with a doctor and then visit with their ailing daughter. There is no dialogue through any of this. Then the father is outside and he is approached by CumberKhan and he tells him that he can save her. The dad asks who are you but there is no answer. This seems to me likely that he is an augment and perhaps has the ability to do what their medicine can not. Would make sense.
Then you cut to a very prolonged sequence on the red foliage planet in the teaser trailer where Kirk and McCoy are running. The banter between them is terrific. Apparently they are trying to save this primitive culture from a volcano and trying to not violate the Prime Directive. The Enterprise is hidden in the sea. Spock, Uhara, and Sulu are in a shuttle and Spock is lowered into he volcano with a device that will stop the eruption. Nothing goes to plan and lot's of excitement and tension ensue. That was really the meat of it and it looked GREAT in 3D. Everyone is looking to be spot on in their roles. This is going to be an amazing ride and I can't wait!
I don't know if I covered it here or somewhere else, but after reading thedigitalbits.com's review of Season 2 of TNG, it actually got me thinking about what Star Trek is to people and it's fans.
Some will say it's about how awesome humanity has become.
Some will say it's about tolerance and accepting those who are different.
Some will say it's about exploration and seeking out the unknown.
Some will say it's about ideas and doing things that have never been done before.
There is so much variety in Star Trek that spans it's six series and soon to be 12 movies that it's impossible to nail down one idea as being the absolute representation of Star Trek, because each series tends to do things differently. Deep Space Nine was more about the conflict between the Cardassians and the Bajorans, while The Next Generation was built to be the perfect, non-conflicted crew who always agreed with each other and conflict only came from the outside. But if I was asked what I think Star Trek is about, it wouldn't be anything that Trek09 represents.
No. I would say that Star Trek is about a massive, diverse galaxy and how each race fits into it. What I mean by that is that other races besides humans can be the center of a Star Trek story without relying on the human race to be the center of attention. Gene Roddenberry once said that if we're not going to make a story about humans, what was the point? I always found that saying offensive because it openly paints us as the superior race above every other race in the galaxy simply because... we're humans I guess. The Next Generation would often preach this point in many of it's earlier episodes.
Picard: I know Hamlet. And what he might say with irony I say with conviction. "What a piece of work is man! How noble in reason! How infinite in faculty. In form, in moving, how express and admirable. In action, how like an angel. In apprehension, how like a god..." I see us one day becoming that.
Well, what about Worf, your Klingon officer? Would you honestly say that openly to him? Or what about Deanna Troi? Are you going to tell her that her human side is what makes her special and that her Betazoid half is holding her back from greatness? I find this portrayal of Star Trek quite irritating and offensive, and you know what? JJ's Trek does it as well.
Throughout Trek09, pretty much the entire Vulcan society is portrayed as arrogant, selfish and flat out racist towards everything that is not a Vulcan. Even the adults go so far as to call the human wife of their ambassador to Earth a "disadvantage". Quite a big change since their motto is "infinite diversity in infinite combinations".
Plus the film portrays Spock's sense of logic to be more of a hazard rather than a benefit to the crew. Logically, yes. The Enterprise should meet up with the fleet in order to engage the Narada, but the film keeps portraying this as the wrong thing to do because Kirk wants to go in guns blazing without so much as a strategy. Even in the end when Nero is at their mercy, Spock completely abandons logic in favor of ensuring the deaths of every Romulan onboard the Narada. And it still doesn't end there! Spock Prime tells NuSpock that he should put aside logic and do what's right by sticking around with the Enterprise.
Well, maybe JJ and the high court will finally be able to let Spock's logic actually be a benefit to the crew's mission rather than-
*9 minute preview*
Nope. It's still being portrayed as a pointless hazard and even sets up yet another "Spock must put aside logic and accept his humanity" by having Bones tell Kirk that if it was Kirk in the Volcano, Spock would certainly have left him to die. Anyways, screw this new planet. Let's go save Earth again.
Riceball
Master Member
They did the same on Enterprise too so it's not purely a JJ Abrams conceit and I think that they might have touched on/portraying the Vulcans a bit arrogant in TOS as well.
As for the human centric nature of Trek, I think that's by and large a result of making it so that the themes and characters of the show are identifiable to the audience. Plus I imagine that most of the writers for the various Trek shows probably haven't thought too much of what it would be like in truly multi-racial/cultural society and tend to forget that the Federation is made up of more than just humans and Earth, so they write what they know which is what it's like and what it means to be human.
DARTH SABER
Master Member
Im sorry but I have yet to see ANY film in HISTORY that pleases everyone.
Even the most highly praised classic films in cinema history havent been able to do this, but yet you you're requesting this impossible effort from Abrams as though it were as simple switching on a light.
The best Abrams could do is make a film that pleases the most amount of people (even a portion of the hard core trek fans), rather than simply focusing on the small hardcore Trek fan demographic which, may or may not, have garnered enough return to pay for the cost of the film's production or even justified the continuation of the franchise.
What it means to be human. One of the biggest center pieces of many science fiction stories, let alone stories in general. But when it comes to Star Trek, does being human have to be restricted to the human species? I always think back to that exchange in Star Trek VI.
Kirk: Spock, you want to know something? Everybody's human.
Spock: I find that remark... insulting.
I took that as Kirk's admission that being human is not exclusive to the human race since Kirk had to get over his deep prejudice towards the Klingons. He thought they were nothing but blood thirsty animals, but when he met Gorkon, a Klingon who wanted peace with the Federation and didn't want to end things in bloodshed, he saw something different. You see, I think a lot of writers seem to miss on the point that what makes us human doesn't mean it has to be about us.
Like for example, Data's entire journey throughout TNG and the movies has been wanting to be human.
Data: I am superior, sir, in many ways. But I would gladly give it up to be human.
Why? Why does he wish to become something that he is not? Why can't he be happy with who he is while still maintaining the characteristics of wanting to be a better person? What is it about being an android that makes him so unhappy that he's willing give up everything? Is accepting who you are and what makes you special a bad thing in Star Trek? That's not a very good message.
Similar threads
