|
7thBatallion posted:What if they kill off old Spock? I'd love to see a scene where old Spock references two dimensional thinking or another lynchpin of TWOK and NuKirk is completely unimpressed.
|
#
¿
May 7, 2012 15:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 10:08 |
|
|
ConanTheLibrarian posted:First Contact is a piece of poo poo. It introduced stupid stuff like the borg being able to travel through time and the queen, plus it rewrote characters so they acted in direct opposition to how they should have. How so?
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2012 15:21
|
|
|
piratepilates posted:It's really amazing just how badly Voyager managed to take the concept of the Borg out back and raped it violently. TNG Borg are all huge threat to the galaxy, leave destruction in their wake and there's nothing you can do to stop them, VOY Borg are like a nuisance of the week that somehow this lone ship piloted by people really bad at their job manages to easily dispatch several times, I think they somehow ended up killing all the Borg at one point too. This is more thought than the Voyager writers ever put into it, but I always imagined that the Borg queen was essentially the result of the TNG crew meddling--Hugh and probably Picard's experience--as the collective tried to cope. Like, a glitch in the system or whatever. It would explain the Borg's sudden obsession with humanity and account for how the collective essentially broke down throughout Voyager's run. I always thought that was an interesting way to look at it. Cuz, in a way, Picard and the Queen were both after their own white whales in First Contact.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2012 01:51
|
|
|
The Dark One posted:If it does happen, let's hope it goes like that and not the Phoenix hint at the end of X2. I'd love to see Khan as the villain behind the scenes a la Moriarty. The Klingons, resurgent and suddenly more aggressive led by an unknown force. A Starfleet officer turncoat. What I'm saying is I'd like to see a rehashing of several TNG and DS9 plots with a sprinkling of Nemesis. Just, ya know, done well.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2012 15:56
|
|
|
Well, Mitchell was the villain of the second Ongoing comic. If Orci and Kurtzman were right in saying the comics would tie into the movie, they have a decent opening left for themselves.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2012 23:18
|
|
|
For anyone following the comic series, the end of the Return of the Archons was pretty interesting.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2012 16:43
|
|
|
The official website has been posted, along with the official poster: https://www.startrekmovie.com
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2012 15:07
|
|
|
treeboy posted:I can't wait for this movie to come out, I'm also glad its looking like Khan won't be the villain. Why reboot a series if you're going to do the same stories just slightly different? (spiderman you were good, but c'mon Sony, just let the franchise go) I read a really compelling argument regarding Khan. Basically, we know that The Dark Knight trilogy is a huge inspiration for JJ et al. Fortunately for us, as fans, Orci and Kurtzman (the primary writers) are huge fans who seem to know trek pretty well. For all the bellyaching, JJTrek did have an element of The Human Experience in it. Questions, in context, of what we're to become and how we handle ourselves. Finding out Best Destiny, as it were (I remain convinced that the book Best Destiny was a huge inspiration for the first movie.) Essentially, the argument is that -- regardless of superhero reboot -- there's always the iconic villain. Like the Joker, the Green Goblin, Lex Luthor, etc. One of the few villains from TOS that ever achieved popular awareness was Khan. So why would a TOS reboot not include that iconic foil in some way? It only makes sense. Having said that, I'm hoping against hope that they'll use this movie to slowly set us up for Khan in the third movie. There are a myriad ways to do it, and I actually have faith in them to find one.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2012 15:00
|
|
|
Each show and movie has to be taken in context, though. Each series tackled social issues of the time (and even foresaw some problems a la computerized warfare.) The movies--with the exception of TUC and TVH--seem to be focused more on personal matters. TWOK & TSFK: Growing old and mortality. TFF: Friendship, family, and loyalty. GEN: Again, mortality, and what it means to be human. FC: I'd argue this is the only movie that actually explores revenge. Insurrection: Loyalties and moral challenges. Nemesis: Well, who knows. I'd argue it's got a deeper subtext of nihilism and defeatism. Also heavy-handed questions of nature and nurture. Now, all of those are definitely framed with action and, in some cases like TFF and Insurrection, by larger political issues. And, for all it's failings story wise, JJTrek really did try to raise questions of nature vs nurture and finding our true selves and questioning our purpose. Nero had no true purpose. He was bent on destruction without a true motivation (ignoring the context the comics provide). Kirk and Spock are exploring their purposes and their place in society. I'll ignore the Countdown comics here because I consider them fan-wank. Even though I really enjoyed them.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2012 15:40
|
|
|
I am unashamedly stoked by every single one of those revelations. It's such a great reversal of all the speculation over the last year. They kept the Trekkies and the blogs talking the entire time just to turn everything around on us. Perfect.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2012 15:41
|
|
|
Some Other Guy posted:Well, now I have no idea what to think, except Carol Marcus is in Starfleet? What? Did they ever say Carol Marcus wasn't in Starfleet at some point? As someone else mentioned, she defended Starfleet up until the very end.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2012 17:35
|
|
|
I'm just gonna also echo the earlier sentiments that, with the technology necessary to withstand the extreme stresses and damage the ships experience constantly, water should be a piece of cake.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2012 00:42
|
|
|
Tars Tarkas posted:Starships being underwater is dumb because what if the Titanic hit the Enterprise??? The Enterprise was always meant to hit the Titanic. Then Spock was forced to assassinate Archduke Ferdinand to preserve the timeline. Also Edith Keeler and JFK. It's all there in the canon.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2012 15:08
|
|
|
Tequila Bob posted:Back to the topic, since Countdown into Darkness refers to the Star Trek Ongoing comic series, is it safe to assume that Ongoing is canon? (If so, I've got some catching up to do!) Orci and Kurtzman have made some confusing statements about it, refusing to put it down either way. But, most recently, they conceded that canon is only what's been on screen but the comics are as close to canon as you can get without it being on screen. So, yes. They're canon unless they're explicitly contradicted later, it seems. Either way, I'd give em a read. They're pretty good and supposedly there are a few threads here and there that show up in the movie.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2013 16:04
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Most of the humor in Star Trek tends to be verbal, or in subtle gestures. In The Trouble With Tribbles, Kirk sat on a tribble like it was a whoopie cushion. Just saying.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2013 16:05
|
|
|
So, returning to the upcoming movie. The newest Countdown to Darkness makes a few interesting reveals. Starfleet believes Robert April is dead. HIS Enterprise was decommissioned and Pike/Kirk's Enterprise was built shortly thereafter. April faked his own death with the help of his second in command with the last name Marcus. They, too, were on a routine survey mission when they witnessed a genocide. April was too overcome to remain uninvolved. He stole guns and armed the underdogs. We also meet a young lady smuggler named... Mudd. Overall, a really well done comic.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2013 15:45
|
|
|
Aatrek posted:I'd be great if this is what she turned out to be. They actually bear a striking resemblance. Although, in the comic she appears to be Bajoran. The things that are intriguing me most are the small bits sprinkled here and there. I have no problem with them explaining April's Enterprise since--as many more pedantic fans have pointed out--it matches the years in the Prime Timeline for the original Enterprise's launch and subsequent handover to Pike. On the other hand, April's second in command is named Alex Marcus which is either just an Easter egg or the Marcus family plays a role in the events of the movie. It seems like an odd coincidence that both characters would play quasi-essential roles in the separate stories. There's also the implication that Mudd is supplying April while a separate entity is supplying the hostile aliens. Orci's in record saying this doesn't necessarily tie directly into the movie the way the first Countdown series did. So, maybe this is all clutching at straws. Also, I don't know the rules for spoiler tags here so sorry for the over or under-use.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2013 18:16
|
|
|
Hasters posted:It's already been confirmed that Alice Eve is playing Carol Marcus. Which is why I think it's too much of a coincidence.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2013 01:57
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:So a prequel comic has a character from the movie is a coincidence? I was referring to April's first officer, Alex Marcus referenced in the comic.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2013 20:03
|
|
|
Kingtheninja posted:Is there some aesthetic reason they try to keep Kirk out of the captain's shirt in these movies? Like the yellow/gold isn't appealing for a main character to have? I can understand why he wouldn't be in one for the first movie, but it seems like the new one is designed to keep him out of the captain's shirt as much as possible. I suspect there is. Like the art directors don't think the command gold is a good color for Pine. It does seem to make him look a bit shorter, I think.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2013 13:36
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Good question. Somewhere I have an old, out of print Gene Roddenberry bio that I need to read which covers the production of Star Trek. "The Making of Star Trek" by Gerrold is a good read on that.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2013 20:16
|
|
|
Another "Ongoing" comic and another mention of "Commander" Marcus.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2013 23:59
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:Trekkers weren't necessarily the primary intended audience, but they are a large and vocal group, and their good will would definitely help sell the reboot to its primary intended audience. Would Joe. Q. Moviegoer go see a Trek movie that even the Trekkers thought was bad? Trekkers needed to be on board. They still comprised the bulk of the target audience. ST09 was a huge risk, IMO. Trek fans have split off into weird "factions" that are often extremely hostile to one another. Just look at TrekBBS. I cut my teeth with Next Gen, but I'm mildly curious when Trekkers began focusing on canon so narrowly. I could be wrong, but it's not a phenomenon I've noticed to this extent in other franchises. For instance, the size "discrepancy" of the NuPrise. How many other franchises have people rationalizing something like that instead of accepting it and moving on? Instead Trekkers have compiled volumes comparing the sizes and shapes of the various prime and nu timeline ships. Did people do that when The Motion Picture came out? It's virtually impossible that the Enterprise in TMP is a simple refit. It has similar components but they're completely different shapes. The ship would have had to be almost completely rebuilt from the keep up. tl;dr It was necessary to bring existing Trek fans on board for the built-in audience. The alt universe chicanery was necessary because Trekkers are almost neurotic when it comes to small details.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2013 16:39
|
|
|
Nemesis is pretty bad in a lot of ways, but I don't think it deserves all the scorn it gets heaped on it. It's atmospheric and I enjoy the cinematography quite a bit. And, as Blistex said, it had a really great space battle. I left the theater smiling so I can't count it as a total loss.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2013 01:35
|
|
|
I'm gonna indulge a little here ...Blistex posted:
This is pretty easily explained by Shinzon knowing the course of the Enterprise and activating the beacons at the right moment. quote:Shinzon's motivation made no sense. "The Romulans were mean to me, so I took them over and will now kill everyone on Earth". What? I figured it was more about jealousy over Picard's opportunities. Note that, throughout the film, the Viceroy is urging Shinzon to just get the plan over with but Shinzon seems obsessed with meeting Picard and studying him. The destruction of Earth and subsequent Romulan hegemony seemed almost an afterthought. quote:Pacing was really strange, and every time there was a lull, they tried to "up" the tension with a mind-rape. To be fair, that set up the really great scene later on where Troi finds the cloaked ship. quote:Picard's character, acts out of character. Goofy, careless, shocked to the point of standing and waiting to die. This is my biggest pet peeve with critics of the movie. What a humanizing moment for Picard. For an entire series we've watched him with cold detachment and dedication to duty. Here and there we see through that exterior, true. But here, Picard essentially watches his younger self die the same way he, himself, almost died decades earlier. In that context, in find it be an incredibly powerful moment. Picard's question of circumstances and character finally come full circle. Here is his clone suffering the same fate Picard narrowly avoided by virtue of his privilege and upbringing. quote:What the hell is Wesley doing there? Isn't he supposed to be some sort of space ghost? A million times this. quote:Bottomless pit in the Enterprise E? Did the Emperor from Star Wars have a hand in the design? I always assumed it was a turbo shaft and the gravity was reversed so that the Viceroy hit the bottom of the saucer somewhere. quote:The Romulans, who have been established as masters of spying don't notice their slaves building a gently caress-off huge ship? This is also pretty easily explained. Shinzon had Romulan collaborators. At the beginning, the Romulan Senate is discussing a shortfall in the Reman quotas. Siphoning off supplies, I presume. I think a lot of it comes down to different suspensions of disbelief, honestly? I don't know. But a lot of it can be best understood in the context of Shinzon as a young human with conflicting interests. YMMV EDIT: Having said all that, I still think the movie drops the ball in a lot of places. But there's some subtextual reading that can repair some of the damage. Great_Gerbil fucked around with this message at 14:45 on Apr 21, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2013 14:43
|
|
|
Blistex posted:Nero and Shinzon were just one-dimensional badguys who were all, "Argh! I'm going to blow up Earth because. . . stuff!" Khan at least had the motivation of revenge because his wife was killed, and even the guy from Insurrection had a motivation what was understandable. I sort of liked Soran from Generations because he was just an obsessed person who wanted to get back into heaven due to his tragic life being too unbearable. He wasn't really going out of his way to kill people, they were just in his way. Maybe it's a stupid question, but what makes a character one dimensional? That they're cookie cutter or that their motivation is hollow? I'd never argue that Shinzon or Nero were complicated characters. But they had motivations that, while not the focal point of the story, are evident and meaningful. I'm wondering if Into Darkness won't be TWoK reversed. This time, it's Kirk chasing HIS white whale.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2013 00:56
|
|
|
Blistex posted:That still doesn't make sense to me. Spock and the Federation use their fastest ship to try and stop a supernova. Spock races to the source, drops the red matter, but it is too late, Romulus is destroyed! It seems lazy. That would be like making a move about a husband who loses his wife in the WTC attack, and decides to kill everyone in the New York Fire Dept, for not preventing the attack. But, because it's "space" this line of thinking is totally acceptable. On the other hand, there are people who do believe the government deliberately allowed or even committed the WTC attacks and many of them ate violent. So,
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2013 13:44
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:This is true but the comics are still very bad. The Countdown Comics had a lot of fanwank that padded out some of the more detail-oriented segments like the tattoos, Nero taking over the remains of the Romulan Senate, and his relationship with the Narada. But, other than that, a lot of meh. Doesn't Worf die like Robau? The Ongoing comics and the Countdown to Darkness series, however, are pretty good.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2013 14:26
|
|
|
Josh Lyman posted:Looking to buy tickets, all I can find for opening weekend are IMAX 3D, RPX + RealD 3D and regular RealD 3D. I don't want to watch a post-converted film. I'm going to bite the bullet and see it in 3D at the premiere the in 2D the inevitable 4 or 5 other times.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2013 15:37
|
|
|
The guy everyone is citing seems extremely angry about it. Every other review I've read says it's a good movie. So, I dunno.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2013 20:48
|
|
|
mind the walrus posted:Regardless of execution, dredging up Khan the whitest Indian alive is and always will be a creatively septic design choice. Not because Star Trek is serious, or because Khan is sacred, but because it's a retread of a story that could have been equally resonant at this point in the timeline if they used Gary Mitchell or some random Augment. Well, it has worked well for marketing. Drumming up a lot of talk and all. But, I feel like they wouldn't have gone that route unless it felt right. I think this could be interesting because it sounds like a thematic mirror to Wrath of Khan where a lot of the situations are reversed.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2013 14:24
|
|
|
ApexAftermath posted:It seems to clearly be the Enterprise falling out of the sky with pieces of it flying off at the camera. Unless the shot of the Enterprise falling out of the sky, and the ship crashing into the water are two different things but I doubt it. They are two separate things. Harrison's ship crashes, the Enterprise is in a precarious spot.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2013 20:27
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:Or Memory Beta - the wiki for the Star Trek EU There was a novel set before the Enterprise E was officially launched where we learn that Scotty came back from retirement to help design it. Then Kelsey Grammar's character from the time loop episode steals the Enterprise to exact some sort of revenge. Picard and Scotty team up to stop him. It was very bizarre.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2013 14:20
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Re: the leaked spoilers. Given the whole discussion of whitewashing specifically with regards to South Asians, not spoilering the posts is going to result in people very quickly figuring out that Cumberbatch = Khan. There's still an argument to be made about Ricardo Maltiban being cast in that role being inappropriate. But, I'm not going to make it. I don't disagree that the lack of minority characters in movies is troublesome. I do disagree that this is a discussion worth having here. In this instance, it seems like a no-brainer to cast someone of Hispanic or Indian heritage to play Khan. On the other hand, it's a no-brainer to cast someone who can own the role. We know Benicio Del Toro turned it down at first, so they obviously went that avenue. It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't. I think their biggest concern was finding an actor that would be able to fill some big shoes. It looks like they've done that here.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2013 13:42
|
|
|
Some Other Guy posted:Someone else told me it was because the homeworld was all harsh and there was gas or dust or something everywhere. That shouldn't happen til after Star Trek VI. Edit: 
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2013 01:16
|
|
|
jeeves posted:What's even more funny is if you take into consideration the retarded original sizing for the new Enterprise that the cgi-nerds making the new movie pulled out of their rear end. Most people would accept that as a VFX goof and let it go. But not Trekkies. That's like going back and rationalizing this mistake from TNG:  By saying, "Well they must have a backup phaser emitter in there." Then drawing up detailed charts for it down to the power junctures and getting upset that it wouldn't fit. Although, there are various rants online about the Captain's Yacht on the Enterprise-E not really fitting, so that might have already happened. Poster's just for dramatic effect. You can see from the trailers that the Vengeance is only about twice the size of the NuPrise.  EDIT: I'm not gonna pretend that this stuff doesn't nag at me a little as a fairly diehard Trekkie. I just don't think it's worth all of this. Great_Gerbil fucked around with this message at 13:58 on May 3, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 3, 2013 13:47
|
|
|
der juicen posted:What. The. gently caress. This article about the differences between the refit Enterprise and the TOS model is probably my favorite. That alone should invalidate almost all of the groaning about inconsistencies but, for some reason, it continues. EDIT 2: Accidentally IMG leached.  EDIT: Also, "There is no canon evidence in any episode, but according to the Star Trek Encyclopedia the original starship Enterprise NCC-1701 was launched in 2245 (discounting the admiral's faulty claim in "Star Trek III" that the ship was just 20 years old in 2284, which can't be true)" Great_Gerbil fucked around with this message at 17:39 on May 3, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 3, 2013 17:28
|
|
|
Pioneer42 posted:I don't know why people in the Star Trek thread are making fun of people who do things like this. It's cool that people can have a thing they love and appreciate at this level. Would you really say Schneider is enjoying Star Trek? I can love and appreciate Star Trek without delving into minutia that doesn't contribute or detract from the story at all. It's great that people are passionate about these shows, I love reading what they write. On the other hand, have you ever read the TrekBBS? Fans have divided themselves into factions that argue over this sort of thing ad nauseum. They legitimately hate people who are fans of different series or movies and have completely put aside suspension of disbelief. For me, personally, I'm not going to let the size of the Enterprise or the location of the phaser banks (that changed weekly in the original series) ruin the experience. That's what people like Schneider are doing.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2013 19:27
|
|
|
Pioneer42 posted:I have no idea who Schneider or Bernd is or that site other than the previously-linked articles concerning ship designs and comparisons which I thought were interesting, so they may be actually be a terrible and intolerable persons--I don't know. Oh, believe me. I pored over that stuff, too. I still look at them from time to time. The Chronology was amazing. I read the Nitpicker's Guides with extreme curiosity. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that they're just super-nerds. But it does deteriorate the brand and kills franchises when the fans become like this. Enterprise, for instance, limped along for awhile but started to show its true promise in Season 4 but was killed. Partly because Les Moonves hated Star Trek. But, mostly because the fans turned on it and refused to enjoy it for what it was. I understand the disappointment with parts of Voyager, Enterprise, etc. What I'll never understand is the absolute vitriol spewed toward them in the name of "continuity" and "the franchise." ED: Especially when some of that "continuity" is really flimsy. Some of Enterprise's worst sins seem to be implied, not explicit. Great_Gerbil fucked around with this message at 20:43 on May 3, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 3, 2013 20:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 10:08 |
|
|
Tighclops posted:Most fans that "turned" on Enterprise did so because it was a needlessly boring retread of Voyager for the most part, which was itself a boring retread of TNG. When the characters are flat and the stories suck and the otherwise awesome setting is wasted (again, the same as Voyager) there's not much else to talk about. Now, years later we're getting some interesting behind the scenes info about what caused ENT to suck so badly as to get canceled from the blu-rays, but it wasn't because all the fans turned on it for not being a televised adaptation of whatever pre-TOS fanon they half remembered from the 70's. There are always going to be fans that completely miss the truly important things and focus on the minutiae of their obsession to an absurd degree, but outside of horrible internet places where they tend to gather and scream loudly like TrekBBS, I don't think they exist in great enough numbers to actually hurt a franchise. It depends who you're talking about. I was about 9 when TNG ended. So, even though I was familiar with all the episodes by the time Voyager and Enterprise aired, they didn't feel like retreads to me. I'm sure there are a lot of people who felt similarly. And, lest we forget, TNG reused the plot from "The Naked Now" in the first season. The problem with a massive fan base is that who's going to watch if even the fans don't like it? They needed to make stories that got people excited about Andorians or whatever on their own merits and not just through recognition. Whether they did that is definitely debatable. The consensus at time, though, was that Enterprise was slight to fans and continuity. Enterprise had some great early episodes like "Silent Enemy" or "Cogenitor." By the fourth season they were really starting to hit it out of the park. Obviously there a lot of reasons Enterprise went off the air--UPN's ponderous line-up not least among them--but fan enthusiasm definitely played a part.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2013 13:52
|
|