RougeAvenger81
Well-Known Member
I couldn't stop laughing. "I have been, and always shall be, your friend." Classic
Star Trek Into Darkness (Pre-release)
- Thread starter Dave Porter
- Start date
I couldn't stop laughing. "I have been, and always shall be, your friend." Classic
JiminSTLouis
Sr Member
DuneMuadDib
Sr Member
Perhaps becauseKhan was genetically engineered. He could potentially be from any genetic origin and still have the name Khan depending on where he was created. Don't get me wrong, I liked having a Hispanic actor playing... Middle eastern? Asian? Mongolian? but in reality, as an engineered being, he could look like anything. Plus, it's difficult to resurrect Ricardo Montalban and to de-age him.
The whole premise of this reboot is that the timeline is unchanged before Nero arrived. Kahn was already suspended on the Botany Bay in the late 20th century. Nothing about Nero showing up in the 22nd century affects the genetic engineering of a man born in the 20th century.
TheDoctor
Sr Member
But the premise is false anyway - there are TONS of things that are different BEFORE Nero arrived (not the least of which is the Enterprise insignia being used for all of Starfleet, unlike the TOS). Also, they talked about it being a ripple effect - there's an insertion at a certain point, but the effects ripple into the future AND the past.
- - - Updated - - -
0:43 - JJ is a Supernatural fan?
DuneMuadDib
Sr Member
I don't recall the ripple point talk, where was that in the film?
I wouldn't necessarily call the Kelvin using the delta a timeline change. Some of the Enterprise-era Starfleet and UESPA insignia used the delta. Also, Starfleet has a habit of reusing ship names, what's to say they didn't reuse ship-specific uniform insignia in the 23rd century (shame on me getting that wrong in my last post, shame on you all for not calling me on it)? Admittedly that's grasping at straws, just being argumentative
I wouldn't necessarily call the Kelvin using the delta a timeline change. Some of the Enterprise-era Starfleet and UESPA insignia used the delta. Also, Starfleet has a habit of reusing ship names, what's to say they didn't reuse ship-specific uniform insignia in the 23rd century (shame on me getting that wrong in my last post, shame on you all for not calling me on it)? Admittedly that's grasping at straws, just being argumentative
Jaitea
Master Member
Just saw the film and loved it, the effects were first class....impossible to distinguish between practical & CG, I have full faith in JJ for the new SW film,....can't wait
Not a spoiler.....but one scene that struck me...I got goosebumps when a ship rose out of the clouds
J
Not a spoiler.....but one scene that struck me...I got goosebumps when a ship rose out of the clouds
J
RougeAvenger81
Well-Known Member
^^^ I was hoping it would get good reviews regardless of the issue stated above. Can't wait for it's release later this week so I can see it. Even with the "secret" I was hoping it would be just as good as the previous.
Hoping and I'm sure he will do well on SW as well.
Hoping and I'm sure he will do well on SW as well.
nickytea
Master Member
As someone who read everything that was out there spoiler wise, nothing can compare to the experience of seeing everything play out. It's the authenticity of the moments between characters.
And after sleeping on it, as far as Benedict Cumberbatch, I'm going to say that I haven't been as impressed with a villain performance since Ledger in The Dark Knight.
And after sleeping on it, as far as Benedict Cumberbatch, I'm going to say that I haven't been as impressed with a villain performance since Ledger in The Dark Knight.
There's always the possibility of enjoying a film you don't look forward to seeing. Even I fall into that category on numerous occasions. But for me, I just don't see what these movies give to Star Trek outside of just existing. Even if I find this film to be entertaining, I can't help but feel disappointed in Star Trek's current direction because when I look at the last film and compare it to what I've seen of this film, all I see is "Summer blockbuster action flick". There's nothing wrong with a Star Trek story that focuses on a lot of action, I just miss seeing Star Trek stories that didn't involve a lot of action in order to tell it's story. But since Star Trek is now categorized as a summer blockbuster action series where the film makers are doing everything they can to appeal to everyone, I don't see Star Trek wanting to do something non-action oriented any time soon. I understand why they must stick to this route, but it will never convince me that it's the best and only way to tell a good Star Trek story.
Which is EXACTLY what STAR TREK in theaters should be. On TV they have far more opportunities to explore other things, it has always been that way, and always should be.
If you can't accept there is a difference between the screen TREK and TV TREK then you are missing the point. One is not better or more then the other, they have always had their differences and always will. Your apparent resentment of that demonstrates a profound lack of understanding of how TREK has developed since TOS went off the air. Where you even alive in the post TOS, pre-TMP era? And by that I mean aware of pop culture in any meaningful way? Those of us old enough to see how TREK developed from TV to film and back to TV appreciate this distinction.
While I don't agree on the notion that neither is better than the other, I do accept that there are differences between the two and each one has the capacity to tell one heck of a story. I would never want them to be 100% alike because they can both present Star Trek in different ways. But here's the thing. Star Trek on TV will always give the franchise what made it so unique, and that is variety. The exploration of ideas. With a TV Trek, you could get a whole story dedicated to a minor character and actually get to know them outside of what their role on the ship is. With movie Trek, it's always going to be about the two main characters with the minor characters getting nothing more than a moment in the spotlight. With TV Trek, you could have stories that are dedicated to either action, drama, tragedy, romance, suspense, and even comedic goofiness. With JJ's movies, it's all about the action with a little bit of everything in an attempt to capture everything. With TV Trek, you could have story arcs that span seasons and character arcs where we see our heroes grow and develop in various ways that you couldn't possibly cram into a single movie.
Star Trek will be back when it's being renewed for additional seasons, not another movie sequel every three to four years. And if we get both, that's when we'll know that Star Trek is really big again.
Similar threads
