Star Trek Into Darkness (Post-release)

Maybe he doesn't even know, himself.

Here's a question for everyone...

What words would you use to describe STID to a friend who hasn't seen it yet? And how short can you make the summary?

EX: Cool stuff happens in space on a ship in the future.
 
I think someone who has never watched the original series can enjoy The Wrath of Khan. Kirk and Spock's friendship is no different than a friendship in a stand alone movie about two friends who have known each other for a long time.

Did that 5 months ago, but no. Without any knowledge of relationships and history, wrath of khan not an interesting movie. It moves slowly and is dull. Khan feels incredibly dumb for a genius and you need to know the series for certain references. If I would watch WOK now, it makes more sense. However, it's not a standalone movie. You need the series to get the references and pacing. WOK left me laughing and maybe that changes when I finished TOS.

New trek isn't like that, and some people don't like that, others do. You can watch the movies independently, get the story and just have fun.

However, this is my personal opinion and experience.
 
Last edited:
What words would you use to describe STID to a friend who hasn't seen it yet?

Interesting...

"A superhuman tries to manipulate Starfleet into releasing his fellows from cryosleep via multiple schemes. The Enterprise goes after him. Lots of fighting ensue."

I've changed this several times before posting. Still feels unsatisfying. Maybe it is best described by this quote from RedLetterMedia on YouTube:

"Star Trek: The Fast And The Furious" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWLGH0VHUVs)

Oh, and, yes, the caps were quite annoying. The misspellings etc. are rather interesting, and, while reading, I wondered if it is a deliberate choice to make the writing style feel more hulk-ish. But I digress.
 
Last edited:
I was hoping that Abrams was going to explain in the TED talk (linked in the above review) why he makes a habit of not revealing useful information in his shows and movies - the significance of "Lost's" numbers, why the Narada is so much more than a simple mining vessel, why the Enterprise was underwater, stuff like that. And the discussion of the unopened magic box seemed like it was heading in that direction. But, like always, he went another direction, talking about how nice it was that everyone has access to the tools for film making.

Fooled me again, JJ...

Ugh, don't even get me started on Lost.

Sent from my Etch-A-Sketch
 
Did that 5 months ago, but no. Without any knowledge of relationships and history, wrath of khan not an interesting movie. It moves slowly and is dull. Khan feels incredibly dumb for a genius and you need to know the series for certain references. If I would watch WOK now, it makes more sense. However, it's not a standalone movie. You need the series to get the references and pacing. WOK left me laughing and maybe that changes when I finished TOS.

New trek isn't like that, and some people don't like that, others do. You can watch the movies independently, get the story and just have fun.

However, this is my personal opinion and experience.

That's interesting. While I was aware of TOS I saw the films long before I watched the series and thought they stood alone very well. They actually made me want to watch the series and learn more about these guys.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, that to me was one refreshing element (to me) of Star Trek V: it wasn't Earth endangered for once! :)

Earth wasn't in danger in ST2, ST3, ST6, ST7, ST9, ST10. :)
 
That's interesting. While I was aware of TOS I saw the films long before I watched the series and thought they stood alone very well. They actually made me want to watch the series and learn more about these guys.

- - - Updated - - -

Earth wasn't in danger in ST2, ST3, ST6, ST7, ST9, ST10. :)

Shinzon was heading to Earth to wipe out everybody in Nemesis (ST10). I don't blame you for forgetting that though.:lol
 
Earth wasn't in danger in ST2, ST3, ST6, ST7, ST9, ST10. :)

That's really weird, though: I wonder why I thought that at the time? :confused
I must've been thinking more that Earth wasn't in the movie...but then again, ST V started on Earth! :confused
What the hell was I thinking?! :confused :lol
 
You guys are all wrong. In ST2 Khan was going to use the Genesis device against Earth. In ST3, Kruge was going to use the Genesis device against Earth. In ST5, Sybok was going to ask God to destroy Earth. In ST6, Valeris was going to frame the Klingons and trick them into destroying Earth. In ST7, Nexus ribbon of Earth doom. ST9, those Ba'ku? On their way to Earth to take over and live until they all become babies.

:)
 
You guys are all wrong. In ST2 Khan was going to use the Genesis device against Earth. In ST3, Kruge was going to use the Genesis device against Earth. In ST5, Sybok was going to ask God to destroy Earth. In ST6, Valeris was going to frame the Klingons and trick them into destroying Earth. In ST7, Nexus ribbon of Earth doom. ST9, those Ba'ku? On their way to Earth to take over and live until they all become babies.

:)

:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol

Where's that damn :rollin icon when I need it!
 
You guys are all wrong. In ST2 Khan was going to use the Genesis device against Earth. In ST3, Kruge was going to use the Genesis device against Earth. In ST5, Sybok was going to ask God to destroy Earth. In ST6, Valeris was going to frame the Klingons and trick them into destroying Earth. In ST7, Nexus ribbon of Earth doom. ST9, those Ba'ku? On their way to Earth to take over and live until they all become babies.

:)


See? SEE!?! THEY'RE ALWAYS AFTER EARTH!!!
 
I was hoping that Abrams was going to explain in the TED talk (linked in the above review) why he makes a habit of not revealing useful information in his shows and movies - the significance of "Lost's" numbers, why the Narada is so much more than a simple mining vessel, why the Enterprise was underwater, stuff like that.

It says somewhere on the page that the TED talk was recorded in 2007.
 
Sorry, if we did, i apologize i havent chimed into all 38 pgs.
Its ok, i didnt really expect too much enthusiasm anyway.

I thought we already tried this exercise? ;)

Anyway here goes---


"A conspiracy within Starfleet threatens the very nature of the organization."


Kevin
Funny, at least your summary includes 'starfleet'. Just a reminder it is still Star Trek
 
Neil Blomkamp on why he won't do the next Star Trek movie.

"I used to be a Star Trek: The Next Generation fan, like, big time. But no, I probably wouldn't do that. I don't know if me getting involved with a franchise is the best thing for me. When studios smell franchises, they smell money. And they'll try to do what they can to the franchise to make it make the most money it can make, and a lot of those interesting ideas kind of fall by the side of the road. Do I like Star Trek on its own without the politics of making it? Yes, absolutely. But do I think that you could make it in the way that I would want to make it? Probably not, which makes me not want to make it."

I'd love to hear what he would do with Star Trek. I mean, he not only sounds like he actually cares about the franchise, he wants to do something with it that doesn't fit in with the expectations of a general audience i.e. spectacle over substance.
 
Wow, can't imagine the possibilities. A Star Trek movie by Neil Blomkamp would have been something extraordinary.
 
Back
Top