Star Trek Into Darkness (Post-release)

Guess I lucked out getting a clean cast with good paint on the phaser.
Unpacked the set long enough for one spin of the emitter and to down the itunes copy then packed it all back up. :cry

Sorry no shirtless flex shots on the john. No one wants to see my expanding Shatner. :wacko
 
Did you buy three Blu ray box sets in order to get all the available extras? Because they split it up into three different sales, Best Buy, Amazon and somewhere else.

Screwing the fans again. First with the actual movie, then the blu ray.
 
Did you buy three Blu ray box sets in order to get all the available extras? Because they split it up into three different sales, Best Buy, Amazon and somewhere else.

Screwing the fans again. First with the actual movie, then the blu ray.
From post #1413 above:
...I picked up the STID Blu-Ray/DVD/Digital/Download/VHS/Kinescope/Celluloid/Fries/Soda combo pack while I was at Costco today. I'm sure there will be a Bonus Feature I'd like to see on one of the alternate versions being sold at Target, Joe's Crab Shack, or the local Chevron station, but that would have happened regardless of which version I bought. All I can say is that the people at Paramount who are responsible for this obvious-money-grab chicken-$#!t marketing scheme should all suffer severe concussions when they bump their heads together while trying to be the first to kiss my entire white backside.
 
has anyone explained why theres a huge open cavern in the enterprise (looks like a hotel lobby)
or how there are HUGE torpedo launchers all along the secondary hull?
speaking of secondary hull, their is a launch bay for shuttles from there as well....
my brain hurts watching that movie.......im gonna go lie down.
 
Last edited:
More substantive comments from Orci on the insertion of Khan...apparently he did an interview with the Mission Log podcast (which as an aside, I'd also recommend):
Find Out How Khan Almost Wasn't Khan | 1701News

"Khan was in our mind," Orci said in the interview with John Champion and Ken Ray, set to be released Sept. 16. "When we were doing the '09 one ('Star Trek'), we can't help but fantasize about a sequel, like W.O.K. -- the Wrath of Kirk."

Orci said he and fellow writer Alex Kurtzman even considered adding the discovery of the Botany Bay, the ship Khan and his other superhumans were marooned on, to the end of the 2009 film.

But while Khan might have been a villain Orci definitely wanted to explore from the beginning, it didn't always stay that way.

"We started with Khan, went away from Khan, and then went back to him," Orci said.

There was a push early on to do Khan, and even create a rather "Heart of Darkess"-type story with the character, Orci said. The Enterprise crew would be sent someplace to catch Khan after a terrible act, and then be forced to work with him.

"We felt like we were falling into the trap of using a villain based on previous knowledge of the villain, and we were somehow relying on the audience's expectation to love or hate Khan to make that work," Orci said.

So the writers -- which included Kurtzman and Damon Lindelof -- tried an interesting approach: They created a villain that was not Khan, to see how that would work.

"What's the story?" Orci asked. "A villain that has his own situation that doesn't rely on anything."

They created a character that has been used by Starfleet, resorted to terrorism, is found by Kirk who is told about his abuse and how he's a victim of the "national security apparatus."

"There is a cancer within Starfleet, and it's a story you can pitch without saying anyone's name prior," Orci said. "Once we had that story, then it became, 'Now can it be Khan?'"

The choice to use Khan may have been obvious to Star Trek fans, but it wasn't so obvious to non-fans who turned out for the movie, Orci said. Plus, there was a desire to piece specific major elements of the Star Trek mythos together, and in this case, it was Kirk and Khan.

"You can't do Batman without The Joker," he said. "We knew it would be tricky, and we knew it would lead to a vocal outcry by some fans. But, you know, you have to make tough decisions, when you do something like this."

If you haven't heard of Mission Log, they're going over every filmed ST episode/movie and critically analyzing the messages, morals, and meanings. They're currently on TOS Season 3.

See: Mission Log: A Roddenberry Star Trek Podcast
 
So by their own admission they came up with a concept for a villain that didn't rely on any backstory and was a decently fresh take that worked on its own, and then after proving that they could do the story without Kahn they shoehorned him in?

I guess I'm not seeing the argument for using Kahn if they made the effort to make him unnecessary to the story, but chose to use him anyway to pander to the fans who would get all the groan-inducing nods to WoK.
 
So by their own admission they came up with a concept for a villain that didn't rely on any backstory and was a decently fresh take that worked on its own, and then after proving that they could do the story without Kahn they shoehorned him in?

I guess I'm not seeing the argument for using Kahn if they made the effort to make him unnecessary to the story, but chose to use him anyway to pander to the fans who would get all the groan-inducing nods to WoK.

That's really how the movie felt -- like they took a separate story, and then slapped the Khan label on it. The interesting thing is that, even without the Khan label, I actually think the story of the character who's been used by Starfleet and the unhinged militarization of Starfleet to provoke a war with the Klingons is pretty freakin' cool. It didn't need Khan. So...why add Khan? Because you're pandering, basically. And thus we get into the perpetual difficulties of reboots.

The interior of the Enterprise is dimensionally transcendental and built with proto-matter and bull fertilizer.

Whoa! Science in the future is ADVANCED, man! They've even figured out how to fertilize bulls!
 
Back
Top