|
I liked the last Star Trek, but I'm not exactly sure that dark and menacing is the direction I want see at this point. We'll see how it works out, but I hope it doesn't turn out to be like another "Nemesis" where you're left with a sick and tired feeling at the end. I know JJ Abrams would rather do Star Wars than Star Trek, and that's apparent in the last movie, but I was hoping for something more Star Trekky the second time around now that we're all going to see it either way. Like, I don't know, a fun space adventure -- which can certainly have dark elements -- where we see the characters grow (because thematically we DO need to see that at this point) with maybe even some philosophical elements. I dunno, something that captures the spirit of TOS or TNG. This trailer just reminded me of the new Batman movies, which I guess is marketable -- but, there's Batman and there's Star Trek. I dunno. Also, there just wasn't enough SPACE in the trailer. It was almost all on earth. Which apparently is dark, grimy, and militaristic now. This actually brings me to a small complaint about something I didn't like about the first movie: the depiction of earth. You got facist looking speeder-bike cops, huge canyons in Illinois from strip-mining, and apparently corporations such as Nokia and Anheiser Busch still flourish after poverty and want have been eliminated. I miss communist-Utopia Star Trek  Oh well, it was just a teaser trailer.
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2012 18:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 09:12 |
|
|
thexerox123 posted:I made this case in the TVIV Trek thread, but considering it's firmly established as a separate universe from TOS/TNG/etc, I feel like it's a bit like being annoyed that the Mirror Universe is dark and over-the-top. Yeah, but they never made a Star Trek movie about the mirror universe or presented that as the Star Trek universe. It's mostly a small complaint, but from a sociological standpoint it's interesting to see how thematically the new Star Trek universe has evolved from this hopeful Utopia into what it was in the last movie and whatever it's going to be in the new one. Don't get me wrong, I loved DS9, which of course was darker and in many ways might have made Gene spin in his grave, but that works because DS9 needed to be a different series. They'd certainly never make a DS9 movie. I guess I'll put it this way: from a movie making standpoint I can understand it. You can't just market a movie to the hardcore nerd fans. It bothers more on that sociological level that Star Trek has to be this to sell itself. But again, it's just a teaser trailer so who knows how the movie will be.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2012 19:00
|
|
|
kippa posted:The USS Yamato was another Galaxy class ship that got blown up in one of the early seasons of TNG. That's not shaped like the Enterprise at all. It looks more like a shuttle-craft or a science ship or something. I don't really see how you can make out the "17" either.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2012 22:26
|
|
|
Apple Jax posted:Looks like it could be a nacelle or something. But, who knows. It looks like nacelle for a smaller ship. If you watch the trailer (as I have about twenty times) you'll see the ship is way too small to be the Enterprise plus it's shaped all wrong. The ship crashing into the water looks like the Enterprise, though.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2012 22:34
|
|
|
This isn't really worth nitpicking over despite the fact that this is a Star Trek thread, but don't you think it's a little over the top to say that it's insane not see the 17 in this picture? Those numbers could be anything. I see a 3 and a 2. Or maybe a 5. It could also be a 17 I guess. I think this is a "Face on Mars" kind of thing. Now that I look at the video, though, I guess it could be a single nacelle of the Enterprise emerging. I can't really tell anymore. I guess I'm not familiar enough with the new Enterprise.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2012 22:50
|
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:Aside from being faintly visible, is there some other significant Star Trek NCC ship they're going to tease in their Star Trek teaser trailer? They could be teasing that it's the Enterprise when it isn't -- every ship says "NCC" on it. Judging by the shape I now think it does look like it, but you can't make out the numbers at all and that was deliberate. edit: But yeah, if I had to guess anything at this point I'd guess Enterprise. Mulaney Power Move fucked around with this message at 23:04 on Dec 6, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2012 22:57
|
|
|
I'll make a deal with this movie: if they put a Ferengi in it I'll like it no matter what.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2012 23:02
|
|
|
Cheesus posted:Unless it's only the secondary hull. Now that I've looked at more pictures of the new Enterprise design it could easily be a nacelle. When I first looked at it I thought the first half of the nacelle was the whole nacelle and then the rest that emerged a millisecond later was the ship instead of the rest of the nacelle. I also thought the saucer section should be higher and clearly visible if that much of the nacelle came out of the water, but now that I look at the new pictures I just don't know. Haven't they gone underwater in Star Trek before? Wasn't there some Voyager episode with a water world or whatever? Oh, and what about that episode of of Enterprise where they find the Xindi thing underwater?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2012 23:24
|
|
at my own suggestion)
|
Maybe in the next movie they could trek to the Bajor system and try to link up with The Sisko who can help them put the timeline straight and get things back to canon.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2012 00:16
|
|
|
Madurai posted:That's the aft end of the nacelle, where it (still) has the two little fins sticking up. In the other shot, it's either Enterprise or something Enterprise-shaped, nose-down so the saucer is acting like a plough. Yeah, I see that now. The new enterprise has some big old monster truck nacelles all right.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2012 02:06
|
|
|
I wanted them to redo Balance of Terror in a way that shows Kirk confronting his inexperience and leads to an unlikely situation in which Kirk does an Enterprise C type thing, winning the admiration of the Klingons. Then they team up and together save the day, leaving us with a message of peace and cooperation whilst showing how noble Kirk is willing to be to do the right thing. And they bring in Ferengi for comedic purposes at some point. And Captain Sisko makes a cameo
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2012 02:09
|
|
|
Pioneer42 posted:There's definitely a time-and-place for both. Spectacle just won out more as all the shows went on. DS9 had both at any rate. "Starship Down" is probably the best example of the "submarine" style. In fact, that was more submarine-y than anything on TNG. But TNG wasn't really about that sort of thing either way.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2012 22:08
|
|
|
So I just watched TOS "Where No Man Has Gone Before" i.e., the one with Gary Mitchell again. It's not a bad episode but it is pretty awkward, which is only natural since it was the 2nd pilot episode (the first one being the one with Captain Pike which was dubbed too boring). After watching it, it reinforced the idea that this is the episode they're basing the new movie on -- probably in combination with aspects of other episodes as well as the movies. I also recall that Abrams mentioned that the antagonist would be based on a lesser known villain from the first season. Being that it's the second pilot episode, I can see why you'd choose it to base the first non-origin movie on. In some ways it's kind of lazy to do this, but given that every Season 1 episode is just a random space adventure, it kind of makes sense. Might as well go with the first one where there's a clear villain and a clear conflict between Kirk and the antagonist. I also see why they'd choose this episode from a more thematic point of view. The theme of the episode is "absolute power corrupts absolutely," which is actually a phrase uttered by Kirk in the episode. It's not exactly the deepest of ideas, but it's one that has mass appeal and that has been present in Hollywood recently. In fact, when I was watching the episode, I thought of the movie "Chronicle." Abrams is probably smart enough to realize that Star Trek should have some sort of philosophical theme behind it, and this is one that is simple enough to build a movie around and reach a large audience. In fact, it's incredibly loving basic as far as ontology in Star Trek is concerned, so why not go with the simplest idea for your movie? It doesn't surprise me that a guy who doesn't really like Star Trek would apply KISS to the theme of his second Star Trek movie. There are a few smaller details which also make me think they chose this episode. (1) Outside of the fact that the blonde lady in the trailer is obviously the same lady in the episode, Cumberbatch's look in the trailer also matches Gary. Same hair, though, I guess they all have hair like that in ST. (2) The scene where they're running through the red vegetation has a very similar look to a scene in the episode where Gary creates a landscape on a barren part of a planet and fills it with alien looking vegetation. In the TOS episode it's mostly cheesy prop plants, but everything has a reddish tinge and the grass is red. (3) The planet they stop at in the episode is some sort of mining facility on a barren planet. In the trailer we get a fight scene that looks like it could take place in a similar setting. Abrams just added the lava because lava is the bestest for fight scenes if you're an idiot and you liked the fight scene in Star Wars 3. (4) The title, "Into Darkness," is a reference to the dark tone of the film, but it's also a plot element of the episode. Gary gets his powers when they attempt to leave the galaxy (going into Darkness, get it?) (5) Though it's undeveloped in the episode, Gary begins to try to take control of the Enterprise. It also seems that this is occurring in the trailer with Cumberbatch's character. There aren't too many episodes in Season 1 where someone tries to take control of the Enterprise. Space Seed is one of them, and I bet you that Abrams combines elements of that episode as well since he probably considered going the Kahn route, but decided that would be too hackneyed. This is also probably the next closest episode to that one in terms of the basic plot. All right, that's my theory. I think most of us already assume that the character is Gary anyway, but rewatching the episode gave me a better idea of the thought process behind choosing it. My guess is that instead of Kirk killing Gary on the planet he's to be marooned on, he'll barely escape and that's when Gary comes after him. The scene where Kirk and McCoy jump off the cliff kind of supports this. The only way they could survive that would be a transporter. So Kirk fails to kill Gary, is beamed away, and they decide to just leave after barely escaping. If my theory is correct, the Earth scenes would all take place in the latter part of the movie. (see edit below) I don't really see how the line "Is there anything you wouldn't do for your family?" fits into the episode, since there's no mention of Gary's family at all in it. Maybe it's a reference to coming after Elizabeth, who also starts to develop the god powers? If they're both mutating into god beings, I guess she would be the closest thing to family. Another idea that could get put into movie, as someone else suggested, would be to have Pike gets irradiated and there you have the WoK rip-off scene. It would then set up the next movie to rip off The Menagerie pt. 1 and 2, which would actually make a pretty good movie if you did it right. edit: So I actually just stumbled on the official synopsis for the new movie -- Kirk must settle an old score against a one man weapon of mass destruction that comes from their own organization, etc., but it also suggests that the majority of the movie will indeed take place on earf. There's also some weird line about him "detonating the starfleet." If this is the case it suggests that the events of the episode will mostly be backstory that doesn't occur on screen. It makes me wonder how the movie will go about explaining Gary's character and his relationship with Kirk. WoK was kind of like this. The movie was based on basically just a random episode and the movie didn't really do much to explain Kahn and Kirk's history except for one scene of expository dialogue with Chekov who actually wasn't even on the Enterprise at the time but somehow remembers Khan, but still did a good job of making them feel like old enemies. It's funny because if you go back and watch "Space Seed," Kirk and Khan part on pretty good terms. So if you watch the episode and then the movie, Khan's hatred for Kirk can seem a little jarring, but they make it make sense since Khan suffered so much on the planet that Kirk left him on...even though everything that went wrong on the planet was basically just bad luck and had nothing to do with Kirk. Mulaney Power Move fucked around with this message at 08:25 on Dec 8, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2012 06:19
|
|
|
It also fits because Gary's character descends "into darkness" as absolute power begins to corrupt him. There's a line in the episode about how a human being growing omnipotent also means that "the dark parts of men's souls" will also be amplified. edit: Haha, and I also just read that they were indeed deliberately trying to make this movie like "The Dark Knight," which in my opinion is kind of a hack move, especially for a Star Trek movie. So there you go: into darkness. Mulaney Power Move fucked around with this message at 08:26 on Dec 8, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2012 07:09
|
|
|
The big difference is that superhero films like Batman are way more about iconic villains than Star Trek ever was. The only reason Khan is iconic anyway is because Wrath of Khan was a great movie and the actor that played him was more noteworthy than most. If they're going to bring back any "iconic villains," it would be Klingons before Khan, at any rate. I honestly don't think they'll do a Khan thing as a major storyline. The fact that they were considering it and went with the Gary Mitchell thing for this one says as much. It's just too much of a hack move to resurrect the villain from the most popular movie again. At this point it's 99.9% likely that the villain is Gary Mitchell. The synopsis describes the villain as a "one man weapon of mass destruction from Kirk's own organization," or something along those lines. That's Gary Mitchell, not Khan -- plus all the other reasons why it's Gary that have already been listed. Could Khan be in the third movie? It's possible. At any rate, I think this can definitely make for a good movie, as long as it's more trek than "Dark Knight." I also have some trepidation as to how they're going to explain Gary's character. If Kirk has some history with him, you can't just introduce him as a mysterious villain. You have to explain how they're related and how Gary got his god powers. Whether they do this on screen or with expository dialogue or however they do it could spell whether or not this turns out to be a good movie, in my opinion.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2012 18:06
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Star Trek has always been about pulpy, two-fisted space adventures, starring Kirk, where they go around gawking at weird poo poo and occasionally loving or punching it. The utopianism of the original series is overhyped - like they allowed a Ruskie on the crew, and will drop the occasional line about how they eliminated poverty (but not how they eliminated poverty, natch). That's not the focus of the show. This is pretty much true if you watch TOS. There are some deeper episodes but other than that it's a Western in space. I think a lot of us probably have TNG in mind when we think of "the spirit of Star Trek."
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2012 00:43
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:If Star Trek 2013 is bringing back a canon villain, is there any reason to restrict the candidates to TOS? Star Trek doesn't really have any "canon villains." These aren't super hero movies. Klingons or Romulans would be the closest things, I guess, but those are belligerent races which is different than a "canon villain." I remember reading at some point where it was stated pretty clearly that the villain for this movie would be a character from the first season of TOS. Everyone seemed to assume Khan because of this. Then I read something else that came out later that said it would be a lesser known bad guy from Season 1 -- probably because they decided doing Khan again would be a hack move. Did anyone else read this stuff or am I the only one? I'd try to dig up the links but it's been a long time so I wouldn't know where to begin other than the wikipedia entry for the new movie.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2012 06:25
|
|
|
Kazy posted:Did the mods switch the movie and show threads? Yeah no poo poo, I'd like to see more wild speculation on the movie instead of reflections on the series!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2012 18:42
|
|
|
It's also a reference to the USO (unidentified submerged object) phenomenon. All those UFOs that are currently monitoring earth often chill out and hide in the ocean, didn't ya know?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2012 20:22
|
|
|
Aatrek posted:All right then, the hand behind glass is Cumberbatch. Hey, now, shouldn't the brig have a force field?! What is this? Did they make it some futuristic transparent-aluminum like material just so they could have a scene where they put their hands on the glass?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2012 20:43
|
|
|
korusan posted:Force fields jails are dumb idea anyways, just like the force field window in First Contact. Soon as the power's knocked out you'll have every yahoo running rampant around the ship in an already stressed situation. I know, that's what's great about them. How else would Gul Dukat have escaped when he was being transported to earth for his trial?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2012 20:54
|
|
|
sean10mm posted:The deflectors survive weapon hits measured in megatons. Meanwhile we've been building subs with our lovely technology for over a century. I believe he meant the main deflector array, not the shield system. As everyone knows, the main deflector array can be reconfigured to do just about anything.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2012 20:55
|
|
|
mind the walrus posted:Only if you reverse the polarity of the neutron flow, then tech the tech so we can tech tech the tech while we tech. One of my favorite parts of Star Trek is how sometimes an entire episode can revolve around the technical details of how they'll solve a problem but in the movies sometimes it just comes down to "Recreate the vortex." such as in First Contact.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2012 21:03
|
|
|
Zoe posted:Where does he poop? Where does anyone in Star Trek poop? There's not a single toilet anywhere in any of the series. I think there's only one toilet on the entire Enterprise D. My theory is that in the future we have evolved beyond pooping via technological means. Hey if you can just take a dialysis pill, why not?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2012 21:44
|
|
|
mind the walrus posted:That's why Gary Mitchell would be the best possible compromise, in a marketing sense. It gives everything that's decent about Space Seed plus the angle of "one of their own" turning. I wonder if Kirk will just end up defeating Gary Mitchell with a pipe that's laying around in engineering like how he beat Kahn in Space Seed?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2012 22:15
|
|
|
Siroc posted:I got annoyed when the Enterprise-E reversed propulsion and pulled itself out of the Scimitar. In space, nothing would "hold" the Scimitar in place; the E-E would pull both ships in that direction. ...what? John Harrison? That sounds a lot like "Gary Mitchell" except it's not Gary Mitchell. Unless someone else knows who this is my guess is they just changed the name since he was a minor character anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2012 22:20
|
|
|
Riker just seems like a raman noodles kind of guy
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2012 22:56
|
|
|
I've rolled my eyes a couple of times at this whole mystery villain thing. It is the type of thing that I'd expect the hacks behind "Lost" to come up with. What's next, a teaser clip where there's a polar bear on the bridge?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2012 03:17
|
|
|
Aatrek posted:Oh, come on dude. You seriously have a problem with producers of a film wanting to keep details quiet until it's released? Sort of. It doesn't really bother me, but it seems like a lot of marketing hype for something that's not really a big deal. I didn't really think that much of it until today when I saw that picture released with the new caption, right next to a new poll asking "NOW who do you think the villain is going to be!?" At that moment I was like "ehhh, whatever." You keep the details of your plot a mystery, but do you really need to keep the bad guy a mystery? I guess since the audience is so curious it makes sense that they'd play it up, but once I stopped caring...well I'm talking about it now and posting in the thread about it so I guess they were on to something.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2012 04:34
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:But is anyone actually involved with the film making a big deal about the so-called "mystery villain", or is it just blogs and forums speculating like they do before every big release? Good question. I guess it could just be the blogs. I can't even tell the difference anymore. Maybe it's just ME
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2012 04:38
|
|
|
Blade_of_tyshalle posted:If she is Carol, they're really setting up the movie franchise for a long stream of films over the next couple decades. This is planning, folks, this is how you create a legacy. So much for the theory that she's the psychiatrist from "Where No Man Has Gone Before." And that was one of the main reasons that I was personally leaning toward the villain being Gary Mitchell.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2012 04:42
|
|
|
MadScientistWorking posted:Continuity wise the psychiatrist from Where No Man Has Gone Before isn't actually on the Enterprise when the comic book adaptation occurs. Well I don't know nothing about no comic books. My new guess it that the villain is actually Wesley Crusher. We know that he can travel in time, because he's like Mozart.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2012 05:44
|
|
|
Well, now I have no idea what to think, except Carol Marcus is in Starfleet? What? And GATT2000? What?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2012 17:07
|
|
|
Great_Gerbil posted: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. She defended Starfleet against her son who was against the institution as well as Kirk. She never really acted like she used to be an officer and neither did her son. Yeah, she could have originally been in Starfleet, left, and became a civilian scientist. It's a new timeline so who knows. It seems to me that it's just a contrivance to introduce an easy love interest for Kirk.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2012 18:19
|
|
|
If you're going from TOS it's not like there's very strong canon anyway. According to TOS, WW3 takes place in the 1990s, it's the "United Earth Space Probe Agency," and Spock is part human because of a "distant ancestor," just to begin with. I'm more interested in the decision process behind taking certain elements of the show and rehashing them for the reboot. For Carol Marcus I can see a conversation like this happening: "Kirk needs a love interest for this film, a more mature one than just banging some chick, plus we already did the Kirk bangs a green chick thing..." "All right, who else can we go with?" "Well, there's that scientist from Star Trek II that he had a kid with." "Yeah, sure, go with that. Make her a young science officer on the Enterprise..." "Next, the Klingons. We need to hulk them out and make them look more badass. Let's give them creepy masks too, so fans will be surprised when they see how badass we make them." These are good marketing decisions if you're reintroducing Star Trek to the masses, and it makes for an entertaining movie. It's not really the little details that bother the hardcore Star Trek fans so much I think, rather it's that they're remaking Star Trek into science fantasy instead of science fiction and turning it into "Space Adventure in Space" when fans seem to want something more, just like we wanted something more from the lovely TNG movies. That's the problem, the hardcore fans want a "great movie" that's creative, smart, and original yet somehow still faithful to the series. A fun and exciting space adventure or a dark and exciting space adventure isn't good enough. We want something that a general audience would dismiss as nerdy.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2012 18:46
|
|
|
MadScientistWorking posted:At its best Star Trek pushed heavily into science fantasy more than science fiction. This is more true of TOS (aside from the first movie) than the other series, which is something I and other fans these days tend to take for granted. TNG was much more concerned with the technical nuisances of how things worked, such that they consulted with NASA and all that poo poo. I've said it before, but most of us seem to have TNG in mind when we think of "what Star Trek should be." The problem is that no one in their right mind would try to make a movie like that if you want to fill theater seats. The idea is to keep all the memorable elements from TOS, emphasize them, and then make a fun science fantasy action movie out of it. The trekkies take issue because it's obvious what they're doing, even if it does make for an entertaining movie. Another issue is the "Star Wars vs. Star Trek" thing. There's always been a distinction between the two such that it has long been the source of Internet nerd wars, going so far as to create fictional examples of the two universes colliding and what would happen if the Enterprise went up against a star destroyer? When Star Trek basically becomes Star Wars, a lot of hardcore Trekkies groan because they always saw Star Trek as something different.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2012 19:09
|
|
|
MadScientistWorking posted:Well it still doesn't explain why people like Some Other Guy are utterly confused and baffled about a cyborg in the movie despite it not even being mentioned at all in TOS. It's not at all baffling. The dude is probably just the same race as the bald chick from Star Trek 1. Any character named "GATT2000" would make me go "what's that?"
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2012 19:13
|
|
|
MadScientistWorking posted:The Next Generation had freaking space Rumpelstiltskin in it. There are plenty of fantasy elements in TNG and it's all bullshit anyway, but I think my point about the difference between Star Trek and Star Wars still stands. I always liked both but I could see how plenty of fans wouldn't like the new direction they're going in. I think this is one the things that's at the heart of several complaints, but it mostly just gets articulated in nitpicks. Most fans under the age of 30 probably don't remember just how goofy and lame TOS was at times because we're used to TNG or DS9 or something. But what are they gonna do, make a DS9 movie?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2012 19:32
|
|
|
Aatrek posted:Drew McWeeny over at HitFix has a very compelling theory about Cumberbatch's true nature. Huh, I've never heard of Commodore April before. I just assumed they were sticking with the TOS episodes. I've never read any of the books or watched the animated series, so no wonder I can't figure out who this character is supposed to be.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2012 19:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 09:12 |
|
|
Spaceships going underwater doesn't really bother me because that's what UFOs are known to do in real life anyway. "Budweiser Classic" existing in the future is what bothers me. THAT'S the beer you replicate in the future?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2012 02:47
|
|