Star Trek Into Darkness (Pre-release)

Mola Rob

Sr Member
In regard to them redesigning the ship, phasers, communicators, etc. I wouldn't be too surprised considering the toy line didn't sell all that well. I'm sure the studio would love to have a toy line that's even a fraction as successful as the Star Wars toys have been but they're not going to get it with butt ugly designs that don't appeal to the long term or new fans.

I think profits are all they're concerned with so I can see the Enterprise zipping out of dry dock with a spiffy new design that's more fan friendly. Kirk merely mentions all the damage the ship suffered in the Zorakian conflict or some such nonsense. Add a quick line about the new more powerful hand phasers blah blah blah and the new toy line is ready to go!
 
Last edited:

CB2001

Master Member
In regard to them redesigning the ship, phasers, communicators, etc. I wouldn't be too surprised considering the toy line didn't sell all that well. I'm sure the studio would love to have a toy line that's even a fraction as successful as the Star Wars toys have been but their not going to get it with butt ugly designs that don't appeal to the long term or new fans.

I think profits are all they're concerned with so I can see the Enterprise zipping out of dry dock with a spiffy new design that's more fan friendly. Kirk merely mentions all the damage the ship suffered in the Zorakian conflict or some such nonsense. Add a quick line about the new more powerful hand phasers blah blah blah and the new toy line is ready to go!
You comment is not only agreeable, but it actually reminds me of this soda commercial.
 

Sparticle

Well-Known Member
Nope, you're ALL wrong!
...
Just kidding!
Reboot Trek is a necessity as the Original, TNG, DS9, VOYAGER crew could probably not carry a New Movie. It maketh me sad to realise that, but 'struth.
LOVE Shatner, Nimoy, Kelley (RIP), Doohan (RIP), Nichols (sigh), Takei, Koenig;
But Pine, Quinto, Urban (yay), Pegg (hurrah), Saldana, Cho, Yelchin, do an excellent job in re-imagining the characters for a new era.
Instead of redoing 'Wrath of Khan" Ad Nauseum, couldn't they do a 'Devil in the Dark' or a 'Wolf in the Fold' or an 'Obsession' for the modern audience?
Every single encounter doesn't have to be an Apocalyptic World-Ending event...
 
Last edited:

TheStig

Active Member
I liked the new movie. If I had any complaint, it was that the villain was a little weak. But the purpose of the movie was to re-introduce the characters and get them on the Enterprise working together. So it really isn't that big of deal. Hopefully since they won't have to reintroduce everything again in the next movie, they can more of the story focused on the villain.
 

YenChih Lin

Sr Member
- less lensflare
- size reality
- no beer brewing main engineering like a hall bigger than the E
- another Pike story would be nice, or being Kirk's mentor in need
- new comms, new tricorder, new phaser closer to the original - they should ask St.Louise Kid
- better villain, someone with a deeper background
- ehhh, where is the superior message behind the trek movies, missing that one
- bridge redesign, a bit less iStore, more Trek
- more traditional species from Trek like Andorians etc., less SW
- Phaser rays, not pulses
- more Trek fanfare
 

CB2001

Master Member
- less lensflare
- size reality
- no beer brewing main engineering like a hall bigger than the E
- another Pike story would be nice, or being Kirk's mentor in need
- new comms, new tricorder, new phaser closer to the original - they should ask St.Louise Kid
- better villain, someone with a deeper background
- ehhh, where is the superior message behind the trek movies, missing that one
- bridge redesign, a bit less iStore, more Trek
- more traditional species from Trek like Andorians etc., less SW
- Phaser rays, not pulses
- more Trek fanfare
A more plausible Enterprise design would also be beneficial. I'm sorry, that "Hot Rod" design just doesn't appeal to me.
 

Kerr Avon

Master Member
They could supply sunglasses to the crew as standard issue. Then they could do more marketting product placements while they are at it.
 

locusta

New Member
I really look forward for the next installment of the ST franchise. I was very positively surprised by the last flick and pretty sure the next one won´t disappoint.
 

jlee562

Sr Member
I understand a lot of the criticisms that JJ Trek "isn't Star Trek." And I do actually wish they would focus a bit more on the original vision. Star Trek was always supposed to represent a more utopian future, and I think they would do well to put a little more "sci" in their "sci fi."

But I don't think the last film was all that bad. I thought it was pretty darned entertaining actually. I enjoyed the cast, and I think they went about the alternate timeline in a fairly cleaver way.
 

Jumpergal

Member
I've watched Star Trek since it was first broadcast, this movie took me back to the youngster I was - primary colours, interesting characters and way cool stuff in space. OK, I may have inadvertently described Star Wars too, but the point is this movie, though not with the original actors, was still Star Trek to me.

Hubby and I have a thing, when watching science fiction where something happens that is totally out of the realm (ie: the red matter) - one of us will (naturally) make a comment on the situation and the other one, if still enjoying the tale, will respond with "shut up, I'm watching Star Trek". It's a catchphrase for the suspension of disbelief that we willingly undertake when watching any science fiction. (Mind you if we don't like it, cue the Mystery Science Theater comments...hysterical laughter to follow...)

Point is, we were invested in the characters and found the villain worthy of the best Christmas panto.
 

DARTH SABER

Master Member
I don't want to step on anyone's toes, but there's something I dont get.

Those who didn't like the movie say that it's lacking the deeper more important factors that that define Star Trek.
But whenever they point out the specific things wrong with the film, or things that need to be fixed in the new film, 90% of the stuff mentioned is trivial cosmetic details.

Lens flare
Continuity with the props and costumes
The design of the bridge.
The design of the ship.
The brewery for the engine room
The types of aliens


It's starting to sound as though the only things that define Trek is the production designs.
 

Ozymandius

Sr Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
I don't want to step on anyone's toes, but there's something I dont get.

Those who didn't like the movie say that it's lacking the deeper more important factors that that define Star Trek.
But whenever they point out the specific things wrong with the film, or things that need to be fixed in the new film, 90% of the stuff mentioned is trivial cosmetic details.

Lens flare
Continuity with the props and costumes
The design of the bridge.
The design of the ship.
The brewery for the engine room
The types of aliens


It's starting to sound as though the only things that define Trek is the production designs.

I think the reason you're not getting it is because you are confusing two different arguments. One group doesn't like it primarily because it strayed too far from classic Trek. The other group, which I happen to be in, is okay with the idea of reinventing the franchise but just thinks that Abrams is an amaturish oaf with childish ideas.

On the other hand, some people dislike it because it's not classic Trek AND it's just plain dumb.

Either way you look at it philisophically, it's still just a dumb movie.
 

CB2001

Master Member
I don't want to step on anyone's toes, but there's something I dont get.

Those who didn't like the movie say that it's lacking the deeper more important factors that that define Star Trek.
But whenever they point out the specific things wrong with the film, or things that need to be fixed in the new film, 90% of the stuff mentioned is trivial cosmetic details.

Lens flare
Continuity with the props and costumes
The design of the bridge.
The design of the ship.
The brewery for the engine room
The types of aliens


It's starting to sound as though the only things that define Trek is the production designs.
Okay, deep details. I like Chris Pine. In fact, my two favorite performances by him are in Bottle Shock and Unstoppable. However, I just didn't buy him as being James T. Kirk. He just didn't give any common details to the character that said, "This is James T. Kirk. His history was affected, but its still him." The same with Uhura. I'm sorry, Zoe Saldana may be a good actress, but she didn't give off anything that reminded me of Uhura either. She comes off as being more of Uhura's sassy sister who didn't go to Starfleet and just wants to jump on a Vulcan. Simon Pegg, who is a pretty good comedic, barely had some of the same humor that the Scotty character is prone to have, but not the seriousness of him. We barely got much of Sulu, so I can't make any judgements on that. The same with Chekov. The only two characters that seemed to get things even remotely right in the film are Bones and Spock. Urban pretty much hit the nail on the head with Bones. Quinto had the correct look, but he's still got a bit ways to go to convince me he can do a good Spock, but he did an okay one so far.

But the biggest issue is the lack of heart that is common with all of the ST works. No matter what show or movie, there was always this thing that seemed to run through them that seemed hopeful, even in the most dire situations presented in them. Abrams' movie lacked it. You could throw in all the money you want, but Abrams' didn't capture the heart of Star Trek. I don't know if anyone else gets what I mean, but I'm sure at least one ST fan knows what I'm talking about.
 
Top