Star Trek Into Darkness (Pre-release)

My mistake. I hit quote instead of spoiler. Sorry.

But seriously, I wasn't opposed to using Khan in a movie. I actually thought that maybe they could do something different with him that would better show off his character than what we got to see in The Wrath of Khan. Let's face it, Khan wasn't really a bona fide bad guy. He was just a man who wanted to rule his own empire and left Earth when the whole world turned against him. He only turned into a murdering psychopath after spending 15 years in hell where he lost many of his people including his wife. THAT is the bad guy Khan that this film seems to be going for.
 
Yeah I could care less about this film as my hatred of JJ's trek should be well known here, but man what a circus!

I'm finding out all sorts of stuff about it that gasp I may actually go and see it!!:lol

Everything will be revealed after the screening in Austin so all you spoiler free people better stay the hell off the net!! :lol :lol

JD said:
It's amazing. A year or so speculating on JJ and the gang's secrecy ruined practically overnight. I think the more secrecy there is - the more apt I am to start reading the real spoilers once they start spilling.
Click to expand...
 
Bryancd said:
I was a very committed 10 year old Star Trek fan in 1982 abd can assure you, Khan as portrayed in the film was a bona fide bad guy.
Click to expand...

Ya, in TWOK he was out for revenge because of what happened to him in his exile. His past torment gave that persona depth. :)

- - - Updated - - -

To be fair I don't get to see Trek until after it's released anyway (I'm on vacation when it comes out) so I'm sure it would have been spoiled for me anyway. Still though, these spoilers make me almost not want to see it. :(

Pretty disappointed if true.
 
I do think Trek needed a reboot and fans would've complained no matter which route they would've gone. There are thing's I don't care for in JJ's Trek, but then, there's much I didn't like about the latter movies, too.
 
Bryancd said:
I still feel like JJ should have done a hard reboot and not included the Spock prime conceit.
Click to expand...

I concur. Involving that "universe" means, in the minds of fans, that you affect that universe.

Fans would complain either way but the torch passing makes it harder to swallow for sure.
 
The new portrayals of the characters was strinfmg enough to carry the film without the clumsy connection. Reaction to to the movie would still have been positive and we would no longer be be holding it seems to the previous time line.
 
Bryancd said:
I still feel like JJ should have done a hard reboot and not included the Spock prime conceit.
Click to expand...
I have mixed feelings on this. But overall, I like it because it gives us a way to start over by tying JJ's to the original Trek. This was we get a fresh start, but are free to go to new places because of the timeline change.
 
JD said:
I have mixed feelings on this. But overall, I like it because it gives us a way to start over by tying JJ's to the original Trek. This was we get a fresh start, but are free to go to new places because of the timeline change.
Click to expand...

Personally I would have preferred the Batman/Dark Knight approach. Just come out and say "This is a different interpretation, take it or leave it" and forget trying to validate it with a link to the old.

I love Tim Burton's Batman and I love The Dark Knight (all other Batman films except the campy original I could do without). In my mind they don't compete, they're just different interpretations. I'd be pissed if Alfred went back in time and altered things so that Nolan's Batman could take place. That kind of connection just isn't needed.
 
Michael Bergeron said:
Personally I would have preferred the Batman/Dark Knight approach. Just come out and say "This is a different interpretation, take it or leave it" and forget trying to validate it with a link to the old.

I love Tim Burton's Batman and I love The Dark Knight (all other Batman films except the campy original I could do without). In my mind they don't compete, they're just different interpretations. I'd be pissed if Alfred went back in time and altered things so that Nolan's Batman could take place. That kind of connection just isn't needed.
Click to expand...
I understand what you're saying... however, I think you chose a bad example.

Bats has been interpreted so many ways... from the umpteen million different comic stories, the serials, Adam West, Keaton, Kilmer, Clooney... and yes, even Nolan's (imo terrible) take on the Dark Knight. While Star Trek has had for all intents and purposes one continuity. Up until this new Trek there had only been one Jim Kirk.

Regardless, I can understand the want for a clean separation from the old/new. But, I also think it's cool they at least tried to appease fans by establishing a new timeline.
 
This thread is more than 11 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.

Similar threads

PRFields
Star Trek: Starfleet Academy
2
Replies
32
Views
1,083
NakedMoleRat
NakedMoleRat
Captain Dunsel
Star Trek: Discovery Season 5
3 4 5
Replies
88
Views
3,467
CB2001
CB2001
kalkamel
Yet another new Star Trek movie announced... ad infinitum... ad nauseum...
Replies
11
Views
492
BB43MAN
BB43MAN
JiminSTLouis
Paramount Plans Another New STAR TREK Film, Set ‘Decades’ Before TREK ’09
2 3 4
Replies
74
Views
3,896
batguy
B
Jodo
The Phantom Menace Re-Release May 2024
9 10 11
Replies
213
Views
6,285
blewis17
blewis17
Back
Top