Star Trek Into Darkness (Pre-release)

MooCriket

Master Member
Don't get me wrong, there was much to be happy about in the film. I have often wondered how cool it would have been to see a television series based off of the Kelvin with George Kirk as the second in command. The opening scene was awesome.
 

TeenageVorta

New Member
There were certain aspects of the film I really liked, like the actors, they're potrayls of the characters, the sleeker interior design of the Enterprise (although I agree that the brewery engineering section needs to go), the Starfleet academy uniforms, hell, I didn't even mind the crazy Romulan!

The one thing that made it difficult for me to enjoy was the whole "red matter" business. I just thought it was....kind of a bad plotpoint. And Super 8 didn't really live up to my expectations either. The 3D filming of ST XII just doesn't seem like that good of an idea to begin with.
It's a well made film, and I appreciate it, but it's just not my cup of tea.

The biggest reasons I enjoy the film have nothing really to do with the quality of the film at all. It brought Star Trek back to my generation. I know so many other sci-fi loving teens my age who know so little about it, and the movie got them interested in it. My friends suddenly wanted to watch DS9 and TNG with me. It was actually pretty cool to see them enjoy Star Trek, and who knows? Maybe the new movie will be fantastic, and will put all our worries about this 'new Star Trek' to rest (hopefully).
 

JMChladek

Sr Member
I know Ron Moore's history with Trek all too well. He would have indeed been a great choice for a reboot. But, it didn't happen that way. Manny Coto could have come up with some interesting concepts himself if given a chance (but of course that didn't happen either).

And all things considered, I believe part of the reason why Moore went and did BSG is he probably didn't want to be constrained too much by an established universe. With BSG, he was able to go more free form and reimagine it since it only had one or two years of back story versus the over two decades of established Trek (or a little under one decade if you only go by TOS and Enterprise). I love nu BSG for the most part, although I think the shakey war zone cam perspective on the CGI got to be about as over used on BSG as the lens flare was on the last Trek film.

As for the Klingons, the extended scenes in the last Trek film (primarily the ones involving Nero and his crew on a Klingon prison planet) addressed the ridge head issue rather well as you had the Klingons all wearing helmets with ridges on them. Under the helmet, you never saw their foreheads, so you don't know if they had the ridges, or the human brows instead.
 

darthgordon

Sr Member
I don't see anything particularly wonderful about what Abrams did with Trek. He was given a budget higher than Trek had ever had before. With that kind of money a ton of people could have made a great Trek movie that everyone would want to go see and could still do it with established canon.

Look at any summer blockbuster from the last 20 years or so. The formula is pretty simple. Big budget, special FX, young/ hot cast, decent pacing and huge advertising campaign. That's all you really need. The plot is inconsequential as to whether or not people will go see it. The last thing that helps is using an already established franchise... whether that be a comic book character, a successful book series, a sequel, a prequel or a remake. The name is already in people's heads from pop culture.
 

CessnaDriver

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
Abrams and I are oceans apart on the hows, whys and whos of a TOS era based film.

I never would have reused the existing characters, and least not the whole crew.

The film should have been true to the Trek mission statement.
Exploration of space, serving this greater cause, best of the best on this starship that's mission is more important then self. Risk for great reward, not to save our asses because we have to, because we want to. Because we put ourselves out there in harms way because we choose it, not because we are forced to.

I think Captain Pike with a very retro Enterprise could have been done, recast Spock as that would be necessary but no more.
We saw what could be done on Enterprise and nobody complained about original looking bridge with some updated displays. Fans loved it.

And for god sake hire some GOOD science fiction writers! Give them that famous mission statement as core theme and go back to the roots of wagon train to the stars.
Boldy go again, strange new worlds, seek out NEW life and NEW civilizations.

Now, perhaps, maybe before I die, I might see something like that again.
 

SSgt Burton

Sr Member
The plot is inconsequential as to whether or not people will go see it.
And the studios are banking on opening weekend grosses to recoup the budget (and maybe *gasp* turn a profit). They don’t care about repeat viewings (which... you know... would happen if the script was decent). All that matters is getting butts into seats at least once.

It reminds me of being a kid and lining up to see the “Living Human Snake Lady” at the amusement park. Massive build up and excitement to be shown a woman’s head sticking out of a table (with mirrors around the table legs), attached to a fake snake body.

Walking out the exit all I could think was that I had been gypped. :thumbsdown


Kevin
 

CB2001

Master Member
Abrams and I are oceans apart on the hows, whys and whos of a TOS era based film.

I never would have reused the existing characters, and least not the whole crew.

The film should have been true to the Trek mission statement.
Exploration of space, serving this greater cause, best of the best on this starship that's mission is more important then self. Risk for great reward, not to save our asses because we have to, because we want to. Because we put ourselves out there in harms way because we choose it, not because we are forced to.

I think Captain Pike with a very retro Enterprise could have been done, recast Spock as that would be necessary but no more.
We saw what could be done on Enterprise and nobody complained about original looking bridge with some updated displays. Fans loved it.

And for god sake hire some GOOD science fiction writers! Give them that famous mission statement as core theme and go back to the roots of wagon train to the stars.
Boldy go again, strange new worlds, seek out NEW life and NEW civilizations.

Now, perhaps, maybe before I die, I might see something like that again.
Amen to that.
 

Solo4114

Master Member
For me, it was entertaining, but it didn't feel like Star Trek. Which, I suppose, was the point, really. They wanted a Star Trek film that wasn't a Star Trek film, and that's exactly what happened. If that was the goal, it was admirably and entertainingly executed. But it just didn't feel like Star Trek to me. It's its own other thing, which is entertaining enough, but nothing ZOMGREVOLUTIONARYWOW! That's a new word, by the way. Look for it in the OED next year.
 

Too Much Garlic

Master Member
I kinda liked the new Trek. Made me wanna go back and see the original movies - The Captain Kirk ones, but not the Picard ones as I always thought they took themselves way too seriously. I hear there are theatrical versions and then extended versions - which are best?
 

SSgt Burton

Sr Member
The one film of the original 6 that greatly benefits from a Director's Cut is The Motion Picture.

The pacing has been tightened up: TMP moves at a snail's pace to begin with, so don't expect it to be much faster, however long drags have been snipped bit by bit to create a faster flow (again... it's still a slow paced movie).

There are many improved special effects and sound effects. Much of the V'Ger flyby has been revamped. V'Ger's plasma bombs have been improved (I think they look more organic). The end sequence of leaving the Enterprise to see V'Ger has had a new sequence added of V'Ger creating a bridge rather than the Enterprise just parked next to the V'ger platform.

However some lines like the thruster suit instruction monologue have been removed; I kind of miss that one.

In the original cut, there appeared to be a lot of tension between Kirk, Spock and McCoy. The Director's Cut removes a great deal of this creating the more familiar camaraderie of the trio.

The other pictures really have very little differences. Star Trek II has a sequence in which Ensign Preston (the young cadet who suffers fatal burns after Khan's attack) is revealed to be Scotty's nephew. James Doohan has a great acting moment when Preston dies. Other than this, none of the other films have any dramatic differences.


Kevin
 

Mola Rob

Sr Member
Abrams and I are oceans apart on the hows, whys and whos of a TOS era based film.

I never would have reused the existing characters, and least not the whole crew.

The film should have been true to the Trek mission statement.
Exploration of space, serving this greater cause, best of the best on this starship that's mission is more important then self. Risk for great reward, not to save our asses because we have to, because we want to. Because we put ourselves out there in harms way because we choose it, not because we are forced to.

I think Captain Pike with a very retro Enterprise could have been done, recast Spock as that would be necessary but no more.
We saw what could be done on Enterprise and nobody complained about original looking bridge with some updated displays. Fans loved it.

And for god sake hire some GOOD science fiction writers! Give them that famous mission statement as core theme and go back to the roots of wagon train to the stars.
Boldy go again, strange new worlds, seek out NEW life and NEW civilizations.

Now, perhaps, maybe before I die, I might see something like that again.
I agree 100% but will we ever see that sort of Trek on the big screen? If there is one common theme in the Trek movies it's that they're not about exploring or seeking out new life and new civilizations. They're about the Earth in jeopardy or some nefarious bad guy(s) trying to destroy the Enterprise. Science is usually the catalyst to get the bad guy into the story and consists of a few throwaway lines before the action starts. The closest we ever got to pure scientific exploration was Sulu checking out gaseous anomalies for three years.

Unfortunately space battles and sneering villains sell. Benevolent and peaceful exploration doesn't sell. Of course these elements have always been a part of Trek but with the movies they are not going to invest huge amounts of money to show the Enterprise crew opening new relations with a peaceful newly discovered civilization. Which leads me back to to the conclusion that Trek belongs on the small screen where every so often they can concentrate on something other than the villain of the week or the latest plot to destroy the Earth.
 

SSgt Burton

Sr Member
At least two of the original six dealt with "new civilizations"- the "V'Ger Probe" (the civilization of living machines), and the "Whale Probe" (the alien race that communicated with our whales).

I agree that the focus was "Earth in jeopardy", however there was no "nefarious" intentions or villain behind either case. Probably the closest any film came to dealing with "the unknown."

And yes I agree that a central villain is much easier to identify with, however they all seem to be poor clones of Khan to me. In fact at least three sequels since ST:II had the insane villain with the "super-destructo device." It gets tiresome when the same gift is re-wrapped.

And I also totally agree that Trek belongs on the small screen. Every season of every series had its share of stinker episodes, however there was some comfort in knowing that you only had to wait a week to see if the next episode would be better.


Kevin
 

CB2001

Master Member
I agree 100% but will we ever see that sort of Trek on the big screen?
Nope. Because Hollywood is more concerned with making a quick buck instead of making a product with a solid story and characters the audience can connect with that has a long-term standing and won't be forgotten a month later.

Of course, that's just my opinion. I could very well be wrong.
 
Last edited:

CessnaDriver

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
........... Which leads me back to to the conclusion that Trek belongs on the small screen where every so often they can concentrate on something other than the villain of the week or the latest plot to destroy the Earth.

I think so too.
A series can engage in entertaining digression from the main theme and not be too out of place as you always come back to the core touchstones from time to time.

How Trek returns to TV is of more concern to me then films.
 

darthgordon

Sr Member
Yeah, that worked out great for Green Lantern. :lol
Green Lantern still made over 100 million, and 53 million its opening weekend. While disappointing compared to its budget, those are still big box office numbers when compared to many other movies. You also have to consider competition during the summer and let's face it... The ads didn't even make it look good.
 
Top