Star Trek Into Darkness (Pre-release)

Captain Spock: If I were human I believe my response would be "go to hell."... If I were human.

I was actually looking for the "Inalienable? You should hear yourselves..." monologue but it isn't on IMDb.
 
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.

True, but by being more faithful and true to what made Trek so popular and such a phenomena JJ would have been able to please a lot whole lot of the hard-core fans without doing anything that would have alienated the mainstream audience. Instead he chose to go his own way and **** off the fans in order to cater solely to the mainstream audience who, while not noticing the absence of things that would please the fans would, at the same time, also not notice their inclusion but would go along way with pleasing a lot of fans.
 
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.

I think that being human is more of a metaphor for being a sentient biological being but human rolls of the tongue much easier and is much easier for audiences to understand as well. There's probably still a bit of conceit amongst humans in the Trek universe that the universe revolves around them, sort of like how us Americans tend to feel the world revolves around us. The Federation is probably in some ways like the UN, while the UFP may be made up of dozens, if not hundreds, of member worlds Earth was one of the founding planets and probably are the primary movers and shakers in the Federation and by extension, Starfleet. It's probably because of that why you see so humans in Star Trek and all of the talk about the human condition and the like.

That's just sort of an in universe explanation, the truth is like more like what I wrote previously, it's the writers simply writing what they know and since they don't know what it's like to live in a world with other sentient species they frame their writing in terms of humanity. In reality, I'd imagine that by the time Star Trek took place humanity would have developed a word to encompass all sentient beings and not just humans.
 
I would just settle for Quinto's Spock ears to point in the RIGHT direction for this movie!


spocksears_zpse90f11b1.jpg
 
Last edited:
I haven't seen if its mentioned, but maybe BC is playing Lazarus from the Alternative Factor? It would explain why he's good and bad - and crazy Lazarus also explicitly wanted vengeance for his family.
 
Since Bob said the new game is canon, I figured this was relevant. From the new upcoming game:

· THE GORN RETURN – Determined to conquer the galaxy, the Gorn return as re-imagined versions of the classic Star Trek villains, infecting their foes with venom that can poison, cause hallucinations, and even kill. Ranging in size and abilities, the Gorn seed mayhem and destruction as they decimate populations and ravage planets.

.....Ugh. A race of creatures that we've fought only once in the original series (due to a misunderstanding of all things) is now a blood thirsty race hell bent on mayhem, murder and destruction. This new Trek universe seems to be doing a good job at depicting anything 'not human' as things we should detest. Before you know it the Horta will be the typical JRPG mindless blobs that characters have to kill in order to level up.
 
I haven't seen if its mentioned, but maybe BC is playing Lazarus from the Alternative Factor? It would explain why he's good and bad - and crazy Lazarus also explicitly wanted vengeance for his family.

lol. No! For a big budget action movie, I doubt they're going to go with the guy who's only specialty was falling off of cliffs.

attachment.php
 
From JJ Abrams:

I love movies that are big and unabashedly a huge fan of big pop mass appeal movies. I do love that. I love being in a theater packed with people and everyone gasping at the same time and having that communal experience. I don’t like going to the movies to feel bad. I don’t like going to the movies to feel depressed and feel diminished. The reason you go to the movies is to feel bigger and stronger and happier. So this is a movie that they certainly go ‘Into Darkness,’ but I would be the wrong director if it was about characters staying there. This is very much a movie about hope, about love, about romance, and about facing something that is truly terrifying and finding a way through the connection of your family and surviving and being stronger afterwards.

You hear that everyone? The only reason you go to movies is because you want to feel happy. If you go see a tragedy or a sad drama, you are NOT a true movie fan.

And now, images of a true STAR TREK film.

kirkgun_zps8bda6c69.jpg

spockgun_zps7571e79a.jpg

trekkie5.jpg
 
Last edited:
You hear that everyone? The only reason you go to movies is because you want to feel happy. If you go see a tragedy or a sad drama, you are NOT a true movie fan.


To be fair, YOU added the world *only*, JJ didn't.

He also goes on in that quote to say that he would be the "wrong director" if it were about the characters staying in darkness - suggesting there are other ways to end a film. So it doesn't seem that he's saying that the *only* reason to go is to feel happy/empowered by the end, but that's *his* motivation for going to and making movies.

Clumsy wording, to be sure, but not helped by you adding words to it.
 
To be fair, YOU added the world *only*, JJ didn't.

Yeah. It's called emphasizing. If there was more variety to his statements about what makes a movie good and not just aiming to please this -> :popcorn, I wouldn't have gone there. But given the nature that JJ is trying to make this Star Trek film even more accessible to a mainstream audience, I'm not convinced. With Trek09, he said you didn't need to see any previous Star Trek in order to get it. I can understand that. But he's doing it all over again with Into Darkness by stating:

JJ Abrams said:
"So this movie doesn’t require you have seen the first movie. The characters are a group of people who have recently come together and find themselves up against this incredibly terrifying force."

The Dark Knight didn't run on that premise, and neither did the Star Wars movies. Can you imagine if the Lord of the Rings movies treated each installment as a completely stand alone film that didn't carry on the events of the last film? Give your work and everyone involved some credit.
 
The Dark Knight didn't run on that premise, and neither did the Star Wars movies. Can you imagine if the Lord of the Rings movies treated each installment as a completely stand alone film that didn't carry on the events of the last film? Give your work and everyone involved some credit.

By your logic, would you call Wrath of Khan a failure for not being a direct sequel to The Motion Picture? Or do you only apply this standard to Abrams?
 
A better story would be nice too, but I'm saving my money this round.


Kevin


:eek I haven't read all the posts in this thread so I may be missing something here but you didn't like ST 2009? I still enjoyed it. Even the story. And it looks spectacular in Bluray!
 
This thread is more than 10 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. This thread hasn't been active in some time. A new post in this thread might not contribute constructively to this discussion after so long.
If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top