|
Maxwell Lord posted:I think I'd be more enthusiastic if the last two Trek films hadn't also had Khan-esque villains- one guy driven by vengeance over the death of his homeworld, another guy driven by anger about... something, I dunno, I've blocked out most of Nemesis. I'm not sure if you're saying this exactly, but I think Star Trek (movies) work best when the Enterprise is up against real people instead of concepts or just in general getting too sci-fi-y. It was funny after reading your post that I thought "it should be like... a series of pirate movies. Great captains and their crews facing off, except in space." And then Jersualem posted this a couple posts down: Jerusalem posted:I'll also be happy so long as we get more stuff like this: If that isn't a boat majestically cresting a wave then I don't know what it is.
|
#
¿
May 4, 2012 03:31
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 12:26 |
|
|
MorgaineDax posted:So, Karl Urban might have let it slip in a recent interview that the villian Cumberbatch plays is Gary Mitchell. Which is a way better choice than Khan, in my opinion. Does the character have another name? Something about "Oh no! It's... GARY!" doesn't fill me with much dread.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2012 16:35
|
|
|
It's a little corny but it's pretty cool. Sets a precedent for using the title like that in other ways instead of only ever having a subtitle.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2012 00:39
|
|
|
Timby posted:"Star Trek Into Darkness" feels like they looked at Live Free or Die Hard and A Good Day to Die Hard and did their best to mimic that style of title. Or Batman Begins.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2012 17:03
|
|
|
I don't suppose the ship's shields would protect against water and/or pressure?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2012 23:30
|
|
|
Is Gary Mitchell ever referred to by any other name or title? Or might they have used the character but changed his name? Maybe the only reason the filmmakers don't want you to know he's the main villain is because "Gary Mitchell" is terribly plain, boring, and non-threatening.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2012 22:20
|
|
|
Gorn Myson posted:I'm glad you said this. Although I would love it if the story was about the Federation facing the horrendous threat of a posh, psychic bloke called Gary. It might even be fine within the movie after some point but I'm mostly talking about keeping it under wraps for the marketing. No trailer in the world could sell an audience on that name except for the fans who were already going no matter what anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2012 02:28
|
|
|
That costume design is just fab.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2012 19:18
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Abrams revealed in an interview that the studio forced him to release 'Star Trek Into Darkness' in 3D for 'economic reasons'. He didn't want to do it, but wasn't given a choice in the matter. He claims he's come around on the format somewhat, but in general dislikes it because he can't really watch 3D movies himself without issues. So in finalizing the film is he just alternating between sitting in the editing room and puking in the washroom?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2013 03:03
|
|
|
The Fuzzy Hulk posted:So on Friday I go to work, and the woman in the cube next to me had ACCIDENTALLY dressed up as Commander Riker. Probably safe to say this Riker looks better without the beard.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2013 06:25
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Technology is boring when it works properly and should fail the second it would make a scene more exciting. Make it explode, have it sabotouged, make the enemy block it, whatever it takes. Star Trek thrives on that stuff. Mission: Impossible: Ghost: Protocol used this idea well throughout the entire movie and was way better for it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2013 21:41
|
|
|
Wanna see the Enterprise circle-strafe a bitch.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2013 03:00
|
|
|
OrganizedEntropy posted:Well, at least the producers did think about it though! This chart uses velocities that were given for each value of warp in the Star Trek TNG Technical Manual. I don't quite get the "Across Federation" part. The Federation is about 50-60 years across? How does anyone ever go outside Federation space?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2013 04:11
|
|
|
One thing I don't quite get is the complaint that there were no spaceships around Earth to respond immediately to the battle. Are there supposed to be entire ships that just stand guard the whole time? If an enemy warship suddenly materialized on the shore of some American city and started shelling the hell out of it there'd be probably ten or twenty minutes before anything in the Air Force or Navy could respond, unless it decided to appear in the heart of Norfolk or something.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2013 23:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 12:26 |
|
|
Alchenar posted:It's a bit hard to suspend disbelief on that point when the film establishes that: Ah ok, I don't remember the first part then. Do you mean there were other ships in the vicinity?
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2013 23:16
|
|