Mola Rob
Sr Member
How did this drift to page 3?! Movie is only a month and change away. New image of JJ on the bridge...but not THE bridge.
Looks more Tron than Trek. Too many lights.
Last edited:
Star Trek Into Darkness (Pre-release)
- Thread starter Dave Porter
- Start date
Looks more Tron than Trek. Too many lights.
Too bad they don't fly into space anymore... :rolleyes
Quite fitting for a 'space' film that looks to have a good chunk of it take place on Earth.
Zuiun
Sr Member
The Voyage Home had that problem...
nwjedidave
Sr Member
double post
nwjedidave
Sr Member
Yeah, but you don't see me wishing that more Star Trek films were like that one. Even as Earth based as that film was, I still find a very enjoyable entry in the Star Trek mythos. For the original crew, The Voyage Home was a one shot deal. The remaining original crew films only featured Earth as a location and not as a planet that must be saved or defended. Star Trek Into Darkness is the third film in a row about a vengeance driven bad guy who wants to attack Earth. While I will give the last film some credit for giving us the impression that we would finally be going "where no one has gone before", it seems like Star Trek Into Darkness will be going back to Earth not once, but twice over the span of the film. Cripes, a lot of the action scenes we see in the trailers seems to paint Earth where all the action is taking place. Even the space jump scene looks to take place near Earth since Earth's moon is visible, and the bad guy's ship is going to end up crashing on Alcatraz.
I don't mind Star Trek for wanting to have a story that's about Earth. I would just like it if the writers didn't always fall back on the bloody planet to the point where they openly state Earth should be what New York is to Spiderman.
DARTH SABER
Master Member
Angelus Lupus
Sr Member
How did this drift to page 3?! Movie is only a month and change away. New image of JJ on the bridge...but not THE bridge.
Here: I fixed that for you (and JJ)
What double standard? There is such a thing as relying on something a bit too much.
Angelus Lupus
Sr Member
I think the imagined double standard is so that they can point at you and say that you can't really love old trek because there's things you don't like about it, therefore you're not allowed to criticise JJ.
Nonsense, says I. I can find faults in TOS, TNG, etc but still love them and yet simultaneously despise the direction JJ has taken this 'dark' and 'edgy' nu-trek.
(Why they gave trek to a man who really wanted to make a Star Wars film instead, I'll never know)
Nonsense, says I. I can find faults in TOS, TNG, etc but still love them and yet simultaneously despise the direction JJ has taken this 'dark' and 'edgy' nu-trek.
(Why they gave trek to a man who really wanted to make a Star Wars film instead, I'll never know)
MooMooEgg
Sr Member
I can appreciate what JJ is trying to do, modernizing and making Trek "cool", but honestly, from a design standpoint, his bridge (or any other one) is never going to be as iconic as the original. Even the TNG bridge isn't as instantly recognizable. Whenever anyone references the Enterprise bridge in art/TV/cartoons, it's always Kirk's. I was watching an episode of Littlest Pet Shop (do not mock me) a few weeks ago, and this is what I saw.
So the children of today are still getting exposed to TOS without realizing it.
I wonder if the children of today who first experienced Trek through the JJ trek will be referencing the lens flare bridge when they start working in the entertainment industry. It seems highly unlikely to me... maybe through a combination of design, as well as the lasting impact of the film(s). Maybe we'll just have to wait and see.
So the children of today are still getting exposed to TOS without realizing it.
I wonder if the children of today who first experienced Trek through the JJ trek will be referencing the lens flare bridge when they start working in the entertainment industry. It seems highly unlikely to me... maybe through a combination of design, as well as the lasting impact of the film(s). Maybe we'll just have to wait and see.
SSgt Burton
Sr Member
You kind of have it backwards.
It's not that "If you don't like JJTrek, you can't criticize TOS Trek" (that is what you are saying in a nutshell right?).
It is that when JJTrek does something someone hates (because the TOS was soooooo much better), and a parallel between Old Trek and New Trek is found, the Old Trek gets a free pass every time.
So JJTrek does "XYZ" = "JJTrek sucks!"
TOS Trek does "XYZ" = "Well it was okay for them to do that because at the time blah blah blah."
Double Standard.
Kevin
TMP was about saving Earth from Vyger.
And the Wrath of Khan, the film that's been wildly regarded as the best Star Trek film in the series, wasn't about saving Earth.
TheDoctor
Sr Member
Never mind, read further back in the thread...
Though, I see the point.
First Contact: Saving Earth (and the Federation)
Insurrection: Not Earth-centric
Nemsis: Saving Earth
ST09: Saving Earth
STID: Saving Earth*
*At least that's what the trailers make it look like... we don't actually know yet - it could have nothing to do with saving the entire planet.
Though, I see the point.
First Contact: Saving Earth (and the Federation)
Insurrection: Not Earth-centric
Nemsis: Saving Earth
ST09: Saving Earth
STID: Saving Earth*
*At least that's what the trailers make it look like... we don't actually know yet - it could have nothing to do with saving the entire planet.
Last edited:
Uh, no. I don't give the original series a free pass every time. One of my big problems I have with the new Star Trek is because of the very fact it's using TOS elements that Star Trek grew out of over the years.
Agreed, and VI, my second favourite also has nothing to do with saving Earth...
But you said that STIV was the only original crew film about saving Earth. It wasn't.
Similar threads
