|
Tuxedo Jack posted:The best thing that Roddenberry ever did for Star Trek was to die. I sincerely doubt we would have gotten DS9 with Gene still around. So yeah, I feel dirty for agreeing, but it really was.
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 20:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:44 |
|
|
Tuxedo Jack posted:The best thing that Roddenberry ever did for Star Trek was to die. Hell yes. I just hope we get some backstory as to who he is and why this is all happening.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 20:47
|
|
|
Aatrek posted:Excuse me. All these clips, while admittedly looking pretty awesome at times, still tend to remind me of just how much more I enjoy the suspenseful "submarine" style of starship combat as opposed to the nimble "jet-figher" style. It's just a personal preference, of course, but the more they try to be flashy with the action, the cheesier it looks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 20:47
|
|
|
Pioneer42 posted:All these clips, while admittedly looking pretty awesome at times, still tend to remind me of just how much more I enjoy the suspenseful "submarine" style of starship combat as opposed to the nimble "jet-figher" style. It's just a personal preference, of course, but the more they try to be flashy with the action, the cheesier it looks. If you poo-poo the latter you'd never get Sacrifice of Angels, for instance.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 20:55
|
|
|
So basically, 
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 21:01
|
|
|
Strange Matter posted:The difference there is that with the submarine style they're going for suspense, but with the jet-figher style they're going for spectacle. Both are good, just depends on what you're after. There's definitely a time-and-place for both. Spectacle just won out more as all the shows went on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 21:04
|
|
|
Pioneer42 posted:There's definitely a time-and-place for both. Spectacle just won out more as all the shows went on. It didn't hurt that, even when they were still using models, computer advances made it easier to do non-model effects like weapons fire, damage, and compositing multiple effects together into the same shot. Tension is often the fallback when you can't afford to do spectacle.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 22:06
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Can we agree that Star Trek is the poo poo
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 23:11
|
|
|
I'm honestly amazed they were able to do that in the 90s. Am I just underestimating CGI capabilities back then or was that actually amazing at the time? Cellophane S posted:Can we agree that Star Trek is the poo poo poo poo that explores the human condition with the occasional proton torpedo
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 23:22
|
|
|
Does anyone know why the Japanese trailer had the additional shot with the reference to Wrath of Khan at the end?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 02:31
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:Does anyone know why the Japanese trailer had the additional shot with the reference to Wrath of Khan at the end? This was just an announcement teaser (  ), I'm guessing that'll be in the full teaser that comes out next week.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 02:52
|
|
|
I hope Sherlock goes ballistic and kills the whole Enterprise crew and they make Sherlock in space movies from this point forward. But he will probably end up dying. Whatever happens, this will be 2nd best ST movie ever made!!
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 03:16
|
|
|
I read some interesting theory about that hand shot - we know that Bruce Greenwood is back for this one, and he was already Spock's commanding officer last time around... what if he's getting his Delta radiation poisoning behind that glass wall?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 03:19
|
|
|
I was wondering if Bruce Greenwood was coming back for this installment and it's awesome to hear that he is! So, I know this is crazy, but I get a serious Sovereign-Class vibe off of that shot of a Starfleet Vessel crashing into the bay... The angle on the front of the warp nacelle and the visible portions of the saucer scream Enterprise-E to me. Crazy, I know. Also, the nacelle pylon visible has the wrong angle... but still!
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 03:35
|
|
|
Well now I'm just hoping against all hope that Picard and crew show up in this universe to right the timeline and team up with JJKirk. Thanks a lot.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 03:51
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:Does anyone know why the Japanese trailer had the additional shot with the reference to Wrath of Khan at the end? Probably a free publicity gimmick, but possibly someone done hosed up and spoiled the surprise.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 05:10
|
|
|
Ville Valo posted:Well now I'm just hoping against all hope that Picard and crew show up in this universe to right the timeline and team up with JJKirk. Thanks a lot. Wouldn't that kind of ruin the whole point of doing the first reboot?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 05:36
|
|
|
Ville Valo posted:Well now I'm just hoping against all hope that Picard and crew show up in this universe to right the timeline and team up with JJKirk. Thanks a lot. I totally know who they could get to play young Picard. Tom Hardy. Wait...
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 05:44
|
|
|
Buff Picard would kinda own. What we really need is Idris Elba as Sisko before he gets too old for the role.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 05:47
|
|
|
Is it me or does the starship crashing into the bay look a hell of a lot like the Enterprise as it looked in the Original Series (rectangular nacelles instead of the curved roundish ones)
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 05:57
|
|
|
THE RED MENACE posted:Buff Picard would kinda own. What we really need is Idris Elba as Sisko before he gets too old for the role. I just googled this guy and holy gently caress I want to see JJDS9 now. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 05:57
|
|
|
WarLocke posted:I just googled this guy and holy gently caress I want to see JJDS9 now. We can even have Sisko Prime being dropped off in the wrong universe by the Prophets! 
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 06:00
|
|
|
THE RED MENACE posted:What we really need is Idris Elba as Sisko before he gets too old for the role. Haha, this right here is a great idea.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 06:07
|
|
|
TheBigBudgetSequel posted:Is it me or does the starship crashing into the bay look a hell of a lot like the Enterprise as it looked in the Original Series (rectangular nacelles instead of the curved roundish ones) The nacelles were round in the original series. You mean in the original movies?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 06:14
|
|
|
MikeJF posted:The nacelles were round in the original series. You mean in the original movies? Yes indeed I do. This: 
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 06:17
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Some Other Guy posted:
quote: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. EDIT: Hahahaha.... The comic continuity sounds hilarious. The last great threat to Star Fleet if comic continuity is part of the mainline were Tribbles MadScientistWorking fucked around with this message at 06:51 on Dec 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 06:43
|
|
|
Some Other Guy posted:(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?).  I think you hit the nail on the head with this one. Simple, elegant, and it has a dual meaning...a literal "star trek into darkness."
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 06:55
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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) Also my avatar will again be relevant and topical!
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 08:22
|
|
|
Yeah either they are pulling a major fake-out here or it's the Gary Mitchell story Too many things point to it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 09:40
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Some Other Guy posted: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. Well look how much they left out when it came to Nero's backstory. All that stuff from the comics was definitely in the minds of the writers, they could have filmed some of that if they wanted, from framing scenes in the post TNG period to just some flashbacks with a nicer Nero in a smaller ship actually interacting with his wife. Instead, all most filmgoers knew about the character was he was an rear end in a top hat bald Romulan from the future in a gently caress off big "mining" ship who hated Spock because he blamed Spock for the destruction of Romulus. They didn't even bother to explain where he had been for 25 years, IIRC, because they edited out the Rura Penthe scenes. So I imagine there will be a big backstory with Mitchell, and it might even jive with the comics, but very little of it will be seen on screen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 19:57
|
|
|
Well, how about we can all agree that one thing this sequel needs more of is Karl Urban's McCoy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 21:17
|
|
|
So the full trailer for Star Trek Into Darkness premiered at something called "Buttnumbathon" which is some absurd film fest the Aint It Cool News guys run, and this guy is saying the "hand-on-glass" scene is between Spock and Benedict Cumberbatch. Is Sybok a possibility? That would actually make sense given how much of the rebooted franchise is Spock-driven. My expectations are so low that as long as it's not Khan I'll be happy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 21:56
|
|
|
Pastamania posted:JJTrek isn't Star Trek. As someone who has been watching Trek since the early 70's and really liked the first JJ Trek movie, I agree with this completely.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 22:01
|
|
|
WarLocke posted:I just googled this guy and holy gently caress I want to see JJDS9 now. You guys do realize that even if the JJtimeline has Picard and Sisko, they won't be in the movies without time shenanigans because almost no one human will even be born yet in the tos timeframe. also if all the captains are coming to the JJtimeline for some kind of party, you might have JJJaneway too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 22:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:44 |
|
|
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
|
|
