Star Trek Into Darkness (Pre-release)

JBReplicas

Sr Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
I seriously don't see them re-re-designing the enterprise, I think we have to live with the one they have given us, although if it gets blown to bits then we can all start hoping they'll dust off the TMP refit again
 

Nwerke

Master Member
I seriously don't see them re-re-designing the enterprise, I think we have to live with the one they have given us, although if it gets blown to bits then we can all start hoping they'll dust off the TMP refit again
Yes please. Story-wise, just blow the engines off in a fight. Put 'new improved' ones on it, ones that look less like a kitsch sex toy. Reduce the pylon angle at the same time; don't even bother with an explanation, nobody will care and anyone with an ounce of taste will be grateful.

Also, build an engine room set, FFS.

So you guys will have an extra year to complain and then go see it anyway.

Congrats.
I'll have an extra year to look forward to it and will go and see it two or three times. The first Abrams movie saved Star Trek, let's face it. :p

No, really. It did.
 

Mole

Well-Known Member
LOL! I didn't even notice the flares in Kirk's eyes! :thumbsup

Needs more Bones! Urban was without a doubt the best thing in the last Trek film.

And I wouldn't be against them recasting Scotty. I think Pegg is brilliant but he was totally miscast in this.
 

CB2001

Master Member
LOL! I didn't even notice the flares in Kirk's eyes! :thumbsup

Needs more Bones! Urban was without a doubt the best thing in the last Trek film.

And I wouldn't be against them recasting Scotty. I think Pegg is brilliant but he was totally miscast in this.
I agree with everyone that they got Bones right. I thought Pegg was okay, considering that there's not many other actors these days that I think could even remotely capture Scotty very well (seriously I can't think of one). Spock, I'm still a little iffy on. Sulu, I'm also iffy on. I say they need to recast Uhura (seriously, Uhura had way too much attitude in comparison to the original Uhura that she doesn't remotely invoke any similarity in appearance or attitude) and Kirk (no offense to Chris Pine. I thought he did a great job in Bottle Shock and in Unstoppable, but he just doesn't scream Kirk to me).
 

Harada357

Sr Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
It is tough for a director to break the framework of a franchise as set in its ways as Star Trek. Abrams Did it !! :eek In a cool way !! :cool

This gives the franchise a rebirth - endless possibilities for a future.







Several of the movies almost killed it - Most notably STAR TREK V - one of the worst films ever made -

Next to Star Trek V - ( even the following horrible films looked GOOD )

Robot Monster - had plot and interesting characters in comparison :eek

... or Leonard Part 6 - :sick

.. or Eddie Murohy in Pluto Nash ..... :confused :thumbsdown Pluto Nash was a masterpeice next to Star Trek V - :cry OMG I can't believe I even said that ....

Maybe Star Trek five needed some lens flare ... and plot ... and good lines ... and well ... it needed just about eveything .... It did produce my favorite Star Trek prop - the assault phaser. And Lt Uhuras Fan Dance ... :$

Gordon

I had read somewhere that Abrams was so taken with the idea that the Enterprise was brand new, and that the Star Trek future was so "bright and hopeful", that he just went nuts with those lens flares (which were for the most part done on-set by shining lights directly into the camera lens from just out of frame - not a an effect added in post).

Since the release though Abrams has admitted that maybe he went a little overboard on the flares.

k
 

CessnaDriver

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
It is tough for a director to break the framework of a franchise as set in its ways as Star Trek. Abrams Did it !! :eek In a cool way !! :cool

This gives the franchise a rebirth - endless possibilities for a future.

Several of the movies almost killed it - Most notably STAR TREK V - one of the worst films ever made -

Next to Star Trek V - ( even the following horrible films looked GOOD )

Robot Monster - had plot and interesting characters in comparison :eek

... or Leonard Part 6 - :sick

.. or Eddie Murohy in Pluto Nash ..... :confused :thumbsdown Pluto Nash was a masterpeice next to Star Trek V - :cry OMG I can't believe I even said that ....

Maybe Star Trek five needed some lens flare ... and plot ... and good lines ... and well ... it needed just about eveything .... It did produce my favorite Star Trek prop - the assault phaser. And Lt Uhuras Fan Dance ... :$

Gordon
The other films don't get JJ out of jail for me. He attempted TOS remake and that means certain things needed to be there.

JJ pretty much changed so much it's not Star Trek to me in any important way. So maybe he made it cool, but I don't recognize it as Star Trek.
Some character impersonations, a cameo, and a ship with nacelles and saucer doesn't for Star Trek make for me.
It's JJ Trek and it's a different animal, I will always look at it non-canon and a sad departure from what could have been.
 

CB2001

Master Member
The other films don't get JJ out of jail for me. He attempted TOS remake and that means certain things needed to be there.

JJ pretty much changed so much it's not Star Trek to me in any important way. So maybe he made it cool, but I don't recognize it as Star Trek.
Some character impersonations, a cameo, and a ship with nacelles and saucer doesn't for Star Trek make for me.
It's JJ Trek and it's a different animal, I will always look at it non-canon and a sad departure from what could have been.
Amen to that. How anyone thinks that Abrams is a good storyteller, let alone how he continues to get work, is beyond me. The fact that he rode the fence is the thing that ticked me off. If you're going to be true to the canon of the show, then do it. If you're going to do a re-imagining and go in a different direction, then do that. Riding the fence and remaking Star Wars as a Star Trek film is insulting.
 

Ozymandius

Sr Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
You can add a big Harumph from me when it comes to Abrams. Just saw 'Super 8' last night and wanted to gag. And I realy wanted to like that movie.

I think what's really sad about Abrams is how close he gets to being a very good director, and it's always by the same amount. You get about 70% of a really great movie and then 30% that's pure face-palm drivel that drags all the rest down with it.

I could live with that ratio if there were any chance that Hollywood would learn from its mistakes and we had any hope of seeing better work in the future. But we all know from sad experience that once a director gets a hit, they get locked in that Hollywood bubble and never change after that. They all just turn into mini Lucas's and starting spouting the mantra that the complainers just had unrealistic expectations.
 

JMChladek

Sr Member
Well, who would you rather get to direct Trek? Michael Bay? Ewwww, now that is an EVIL thought.

Personally, I thought the reboot was not bad and all the cast did a good job with their roles (Urban was indeed the best though). The story had one big check brain at door bit (Kirk, out of the academy getting command of the Enterprise), but I didn't see it as any worse as what else has come before. You watch it, it is still Star Trek with its moral challenges and pretty good character development (even if Uhura and Spock as a couple did seem a wee bit forced).

About the only thing I could see to improve the sets is a new engineering deck as the brewery location needs to go. They need to come up with something for engineering that matches the set design for the bridge and the cooridors as the brewery seemed just a bit too cheap to me (it looked more like the engine room of the Titanic than a staship with exotic power). Externally, I think the ship is just fine.
 

CB2001

Master Member
Well, who would you rather get to direct Trek? Michael Bay? Ewwww, now that is an EVIL thought.
Honestly, I would have preferred Michael Rymer as the director and Ronald D. Moore as the writer. Now I know you're thinking, "These guys did the Re-imagined Battlestar Galactica! Why them?" First of all, if it hadn't been for Michael Rymer, the show's style wouldn't have existed. And he's proven himself to be a good director with the episodes he directed on the show (including the mini-series). And, he would have actually treated the characters as realistically as possible.

And I don't know how many people really know this or even paid attention to this, but Ronald D. Moore is a Star Trek alumni, having to have been a writer on TNG, DS9 and Voyager. In fact, he co-wrote Star Trek: Generations and Star Trek: First Contact films. And get this: the idea of the Galactica being decommissioned and turned into a museum and the crew being transfered to other duty stations was originally what was going to happen to the Enterprise-D for Generations. Moore came up with that idea and pitched it, to which the producers didn't like. And, he also was the one who written the Relics episode for TNG (which brought Scotty into the TNG timeframe) and co-written the final episode of the show. I think that between his writing ST shows and BSG, he pretty much could have come up with a better reboot of the ST franchise.

Of course, that's just me and my opinion. I could very well be wrong.
 

Angelus Lupus

Sr Member
Amen to that. How anyone thinks that Abrams is a good storyteller, let alone how he continues to get work, is beyond me. The fact that he rode the fence is the thing that ticked me off. If you're going to be true to the canon of the show, then do it. If you're going to do a re-imagining and go in a different direction, then do that. Riding the fence and remaking Star Wars as a Star Trek film is insulting.
Double ditto.
 

nickytea

Sr Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
I don't know about you guys, but I'm just glad you all have another opportunity to show me how clever you are with LENS FLARE JOKES!
 

CB2001

Master Member
I don't know about you guys, but I'm just glad you all have another opportunity to show me how clever you are with LENS FLARE JOKES!
How about this for a lens flare joke: The only reason why he had so many lens flares on the bridge set was to cover the terrible design choice he went with for his Apple Enterprise's iBridge.
 

TeenageVorta

New Member
BLINDED BY THE LIGHT!~ Err, I mean LENSFLARE!

I heard a rumor (Don't ask me where, I can't remember) that Abrams was going to make the Klingons a big part of this movie, but I'm more than a little curious as to if he's going to have the Klingons look like they did in TOS, or how they looked in the films and other shows.

I want to like JJ Abrams, I really do, but after Star Trek XI it's just...ugh. BTW, are they going to call it Star Trek 2 or Star Trek XII? And as if it couldn't be anymore troubling they're going to shoot it in 3D?

WHY DO YOU DO THIS TO US ABRAMS?!
 

nickytea

Sr Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
To try and balance out the wave of negativity, I'd like to say that I really enjoyed ST09. I thought it told a compelling, character-driven story. Spock's journey stands out at the fore, but upon closer inspection, Kirk's subtler parallel arc makes for a nice brother-narrative structure. Good stuff, to my eyes.

I trust Abrams, and look forward to what he and the boys come up with, especially with Lindleoff on board this time around.
 

micdavis

Master Member
Just yeaterday a group of us who were founding members of a Star Trek club that was formed in 1971, got together for a little mini-reunion.

All people who KNOW Star Trek.

Out of about 25 people only one didn't like AbramsTrek.

You folks, can post your three year old jokes and lenses flares all day, but I think that's a fine endorsement.
 
Top