|
Aatrek posted:Just because (if) she's Carol Marcus, it still doesn't make Cumberbatch Khan. David was already like 25 when Star Trek II rolled around. Although we probably have a guarantee that Kirk nails her!
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 04:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 21:56 |
|
|
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.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 04:31
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 04:37
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
MikeJF posted:The big issue isn't that they'd be incapable of making a starship that can fly in an atmophere and go underwater, it's that they didn't. They very clearly made one that's meant to stay in space, which is obvious just looking at it, and no matter what century, when you do ridiculously stressful things with something that you're not meant to do, they tend to fall apart. Some Other Guy posted: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. MadScientistWorking fucked around with this message at 05:21 on Dec 11, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 05:17
|
|
|
AICN says: In "Space Seed," Harrison was nearly suffocated to death on the Enterprise bridge by unfrozen superman Khan Noonien Singh.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 05:36
|
|
|
Yeah, that 'Harrison' guy was in a handful of different episodes of the original series as a glorified extra. It's a super common name, and I'm betting it's just a coincidence.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 05:37
|
|
|
I really, rrreeeeaaaalllly hope they aren't doing the whole overplayed HE GOT CAUGHT AND PUT IN THE BRIG ON PURPOSE deal with that shot
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 05:40
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:I really, rrreeeeaaaalllly hope they aren't doing the whole overplayed HE GOT CAUGHT AND PUT IN THE BRIG ON PURPOSE deal with that shot I'm sure he did. His scheme involves an exploding com badge in one of his hench men.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 05:47
|
|
|
I think that "brig" looks more like an medical isolation chamber. The kind of place a crewman might be put after he was exposed to super-duper space gamma rays or some poo poo. Also, the expressions they have don't really read as "captive" and "captor" so much as Cumberbach looks like he's saying "what the gently caress, Jim, I feel fine".
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 06:01
|
|
|
Barometer posted:I think that "brig" looks more like an medical isolation chamber. The kind of place a crewman might be put after he was exposed to super-duper space gamma rays or some poo poo. Also, the expressions they have don't really read as "captive" and "captor" so much as Cumberbach looks like he's saying "what the gently caress, Jim, I feel fine". Exposed to inappropriate levels of The Dark One fucked around with this message at 06:19 on Dec 11, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 06:15
|
|
|
The Dark One posted:Exposed to inappropriate levels of This would be amazing, but I would probably sound like a crazy person in the theatre, excitedly trying to explain to whoever I was seeing it with just what Heat Vision and Jack is. "And Owen Wilson was a talking motorcycle! This is just like it!" thexerox123 fucked around with this message at 06:39 on Dec 11, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 06:37
|
|
|
TrekMovie's got a new article with a bunch of details up. I'm still not overly thrilled about the Carol Marcus-in-Starfleet thing. http://trekmovie.com/2012/12/10/alice-eve-character-7-more-star-trek-into-darkness-characterstory-details-revealed-at-bad-robot-visit/
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 13:12
|
|
|
I'm wondering now if the Klingons are going to suffer the same fate as the Vulcans. Spoiler text from the article: Mitchell/Harrison's going to Qu'noS Also, "GATT2000"  
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 14:20
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Well, now I have no idea what to think, except Carol Marcus is in Starfleet? What? And GATT2000? What?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 17:07
|
|
|
GATT2000 is the most baller name for any Star Trek character ever
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 17:08
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
It doesn't seem outlandish that she and Kirk met while serving and she just mustered out into the civilian world after a while, maybe once they broke up or something and she didn't want to keep running into him. Then she could dislike Starfleet because The Job got in the way of their relationship or something.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 17:47
|
|
|
I'd also still say that one of the massive, massive failings of the first film is that Bruce Greenwood is about 16,434,922 times more charismatic and CAPTAIN-Y than new-Kirk ever seemed to be. I'd be a lot more excited to see side-series movies with him and a different crew doing things in space.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 17:53
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:I'd also still say that one of the massive, massive failings of the first film is that Bruce Greenwood is about 16,434,922 times more charismatic and CAPTAIN-Y than new-Kirk ever seemed to be. I'd be a lot more excited to see side-series movies with him and a different crew doing things in space. I'm actually hoping we see a maturation of Kirk in this movie (hopefully he starts it off a little more wizened) and he's not just running from set to set stammering like he's a reject from Transformers. I was fine with it in the first movie since he was sorta out of the chain of command as a pseudo-stowaway until Pike threw him in as 1st officer. He's a captain now, he needs to act the part, even if full of youthful energy while doing it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 17:57
|
|
|
Aatrek posted:TrekMovie's got a new article with a bunch of details up. I'm still not overly thrilled about the Carol Marcus-in-Starfleet thing. Wow, Carol Marcus in Starfleet is pretty hosed up. Also, Alice Eve is no Bibi Besch. The only small hope that arises from this is that hopefully the Kirk/Marcus relationship will replace the horrible Spock/Uhura romance.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 18:03
|
|
|
I was all for Dr. Dehrer being in the film but my sperg senses were tingling as soon as I saw her blonde part was on the wrong side 
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 18:11
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
The entire premise of the first film was an elaborate way of establishing "things are allowed to be different now" in a manner acceptable to even the most canon-anal fans, and yet the dance continues.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 18:22
|
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:The entire premise of the first film was an elaborate way of establishing "things are allowed to be different now" in a manner acceptable to even the most canon-anal fans, and yet the dance continues. Nothing says "I got a big-rear end stick up my butt!" quite like whining about Star Trek. TheBigBudgetSequel fucked around with this message at 18:48 on Dec 11, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 18:45
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Some Other Guy posted:
That's what TOS was, though. I mean, the concept of "a captain and his crew chartering the great unknown" is about the closest thing outside of Doctor Who to the old pulp serials, even/especially if they include some theme on the nature of man (HG Wells' The Time Machine dealt with class issues, as one example).
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 18:54
|
|
|
Some Other Guy posted: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. Xenophon posted:GATT2000 is the most baller name for any Star Trek character ever MadScientistWorking fucked around with this message at 18:57 on Dec 11, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 18:54
|
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:The entire premise of the first film was an elaborate way of establishing "things are allowed to be different now" in a manner acceptable to even the most canon-anal fans, and yet the dance continues. That's because it was a dumbass approach to a non-problem in the first place. They could have just cold said "It's all new, we're going to be doing things differently, there is zero established continuity with the original series. We could make Kirk a eunuch and Spock a comedian if we want to. gently caress you." Some whiners would have howled and the movie would still have been a blockbuster with the general audience. Instead, they took the cowardly way out and tried saying "oh it's the same universe, the timelines just diverged" so now there's some meager ground for fans to question perceived laziness or exploitation on the part of the writers with "well wait why the hell did that happen/change?"
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 18:59
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:Instead, they took the cowardly way out and tried saying "oh it's the same universe, the timelines just diverged" so now there's some meager ground for fans to question perceived laziness or exploitation on the part of the writers with "well wait why the hell did that happen/change?"
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 19:04
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Some Other Guy posted: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." MadScientistWorking fucked around with this message at 19:24 on Dec 11, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 19:19
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Drew McWeeny over at HitFix has a very compelling theory about Cumberbatch's true nature.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 19:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 21:56 |
|
|
Some Other Guy posted:
That's really ironic considering the type of people that inhabit Wookiepedia/the EU.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 19:36
|
|