I can already tell that, even though the Klingons SHOULD have smooth foreheads; they won't if they appear.
Eh...I'd love just the Tholians...and mainly because we don't see much of them at all. (2 eps I think?)
Interesting casting. I only know him from his Bond villian role.
....when was Del Toro a Bond villain? My brain's blanked a bit.
I read that as TARDIS....No lie
Mmh dunno i like the part of standalone...
Do they mean like not the stuff like in star trek 2-3-4? and more like first contact, insurrection etc?
That is what he meant (forgot the 'I'). Its the episode of ENT where they found a ship that was bigger on the inside.
She can "Beam me up" anytime :)
Likely they mean that while it's obviously same characters and all that, you won't necessarily have to have seen the first one to see this one and get it.I hate that it's going to be in 3d.
I HATE that release date!!! :(
Peter Weller. Awesome.
Don't forget our new Trek lady, Alice Eve.
(http://img.trekmovie.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/alice.jpg)
Imagine her in a Starfleet issue mini-skirt. :dance
If they do bring in Khan, then JJ is going to have to do an AMAZING job...for this movie to be worth seeing. I didn't want a Space Seed redux. EVER. I hope the Khan crap is lies and misdirection on the part of the crew to keep people guessing.I couldn't agree with you more. My biggest fear for this movie was some kind of Space Seed/Wrath of Khan rehash, and that's the LAST think I (or probably ANY Trek fan) wants. I hope Khan is just a rumor and completely false.
We?re shooting on film, 2-D, and then we?ll do a good high-end conversion like the ?Harry Potter? movie and all that. Luckily, with our release date now we have the months needed to do it right because if you rush it, it never looks good?. "We were talking about [shooting in IMAX] and I would love to do it. IMAX is my favorite format; I?m a huge fan," he added.
The next ?Star Trek? installment, directed by J.J. Abrams, will have no members of the original cast. No Shatner, no Nimoy. No classic recipe Kirk, Spock, Bones, Scotty, Uhura, Chekhov or Sulu. The last ?Star Trek? film featured Leonard Nimoy as Spock. But sources close to the next film, many of whom worked with Abrams on the new ?Mission Impossible,? confirmed for me last night that none of the originals has been invited back this time. ?MI4??s Simon Pegg, who now plays Scotty (original Scotty, James Doohan, is in space heaven now with original Bones, DeForrest Kelly), quipped, ?That would involve time travel. And if the real Scotty showed up, that would be something.?
What is exciting about it is, unlike the last film where we were restarting and resetting up all the characters, we are going to jump right in and we don?t have to set up everyone again and we can go right into it. For those who haven?t seen it, go get it right now. We are kind of in a mad dash at the beginning of the film. In all of our conversations we reference our favorite films and in Empire Strikes Back it is spectacular how they were able to pick up immediately and carry on from the last one.
There are amazing villains throughout the Star Trek universe, as well as new villains as we did in the last film. There are a lot of directions we can go in the film and in this particular case we chose to do something that would be original and unique and different and again on paper I think we made the right choice.
First reported by our friends at ScreenRant, TrekMovie has confirmed that British actor Joseph Gatt has been tapped for an unspecified role in the Star Trek sequel. A spokesperson for the actor tells TrekMovie that Gatt will begin shooting some tests this week.
The 37 year-old actor and former model has a career going back to the late 90s. Most recently he has been seen playing a CIA agent on Chuck and playing Grundroth the frost giant in Marvel?s Thor movie. Gatt also has a lot of experience doing voice and motion capture work for video games, including recent titles "Gods of War 3" and "Star Wars: The Old Republic"
EW is reporting that Canadian actress Nazneen Contractor has joined the Star Trek cast. She has been tapped to play the wife to the "family man with wife and daughter" played by British actor Noel Clarke (cast earlier this week).
The 29 year old actress was born in Mumbai, India and raised and educated in Nigeria and London, later immigrating to Canada at the age of ten. Contractor?s acting career dates back a decade and she is known to Canadians for a recurring role as Sgt. Layla Hourani on the CBC drama The Border and will best be known elsewhere for her regular role as Kayla Hassan in the 8th season of 24.
Firstly Abrams gave some details on the nuts and bolts of the production:
?Shooting starts Thursday (actually 3 days earlier than TrekMovie?s previous reporting), and will last four months
?Will shoot on film with anamorphic lenses, with 3D version using a conversion
?Studio pushed for 3D version, 2D version will also be shown
Regarding the recently announced casting of Benedict Cumberbatch, Abrams would not confirm he was playing the villain, but did have this to say about the actor:
He?s a genius. Honestly, he?s just an incredible actor. If you?ve seen his work in Sherlock, he?s just got incredible skills. He?s an amazing stage actor. He did amazing work (on stage) in Frankenstein. He?s brilliant. You try to cast people who are great. We got lucky.
Abrams also appears to confirm previous reports that there will be no returning original series stars for the sequel.
boborci
I?ll tell you this. There are some cool improvements to engine room!
Not gonna happen, half of them are 6ft under. :P
Not gonna happen, half of them are 6ft under. :P
I still think if they disabled the lens flare generators at the end of XI, they wouldn't have needed to eject the warp core(s) due to the extra boost of energy.
I do hope all the Ent interiors are sets for this film. It is the biggest turn off for me in XI.
Not every set but most. Especially with ep3 where they did use more real sets.
I call baloney on that. I watched the docs for Ep3. Far too much green-screen.
With the JJ Enterprise using the brewry for all the lower decks just didn't work and feel right. Totally at odds with the Trek design ethic.
I wouldn't have minded the "brewery" so much if I hadn't seen the concepts of what could have been...
And I honestly think that all Trek ships should be scaled up anyways, IMO. The original ship only being as long as an aircraft carrier doesn't sit well with me. We're humans. We build big things!
We're pakleds. We build big things!
I think the NX-01 engine room looked about right... "Primitive" but still look somewhat advanced. The "Brewery" of JJ Enterprise, is one of the few things I had serious issue with. The other, being the obvious oversized ship. And the installed lens flare generators ofcourse :)
watched the Background material, any, for Reboot? the only Generated lensflares were for the CG shots. Abrams specifically picked the camera lenses he used to GET all those flares (how he didn't break the Cameras with all that manual shaking of them is a mystery)
and we also know why the JJprise was oversized....for the details.
In this first look at director J.J. Abrams' currently shooting "Star Trek" sequel, we see quite clearly that Zachary Quinto's returning Spock and the newcomer played by Cumberbatch are very much not friends. The two are locked in battle on top of what's being described as "a Space Barge set."
During the battle and in the photo you can see here, Spock does his best to stop his foe using his famous Vulcan Death Grip, but the move fails; Cumberbatch's character is able to overpower the grip and regain the upper hand in his struggle against the Star Fleet officer.
Interestingly, Spock is not the only one wearing a Star Fleet uniform. Cumberbatch's unknown character is seen wearing a black version of the uniform under his silver overcoat. A sign that this man was a friend before he was a foe?
In another shot from the epic battle, Zoe Saldana joins the fight once again as Uhura. She's using a phaser to save Spock from Cumberbatch's villain, though whether or not she'll be successful is a completely different story altogether.
Don't believe everything you read.
I hope this isn't going to be another Star Trek film where it'll only make sense if you have read a comic first
Say it isn't so http://collider.com/star-trek-2-sequel-villain/162992/
They already said that the villain would absolutly be original and unique...only time will tell. Until then im calling this false.
I will say this though. If the Klingons are involved, then this will obviously be different than a "Space Seed" rehash.
I don't recall them saying that. In fact, I seem to remember them saying that the villain would be familiar to Trek fans.
I will say this though. If the Klingons are involved, then this will obviously be different than a "Space Seed" rehash.
Orci: Star Trek Sequel Not A Remake
Last week TrekMovie.com joined the growing chorus of other websites (AICN, Latino Review, Vulture, FirstShowing, and others) reporting sources saying Benedict Cumberbatch will be playing Khan. Some have taken these reports to say that if true, then the Star Trek sequel will be just like the original Star Trek episode "Space Seed," where Kirk and crew first encounter the genetic superman from the past, or possibly even a rehash of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, when Khan seeks revenge for marooning him on a doomed planet.
Today in response to these concerns, Star Trek co-writer/producer posted the following comment here at TrekMovie:
boborci: "No remakes. No rehashes."
And to add some more context to recent debates, I also think it helps to bring back a comment from Orci?s fellow producer Bryan Burk who spoke about the villain in the film and their decision (in general terms).
Bryan Burk (speaking to MTV in December): "There are amazing villains throughout the Star Trek universe, as well as new villains as we did in the last film. There are a lot of directions we can go in the film and in this particular case we chose to do something that would be original and unique and different and again on paper I think we made the right choice."
So maybe TrekMovie and the other sites are all wrong and Khan is not in the film (and I admit this is entirely possible). I have also noted that reports of Khan are still officially rumors from Paramount?s point of view.
However, for the purpose of discussion, lets say the Khan reports are true, then how does that fit with what Orci and Burk are saying? It seems to me that the team are sending the message they have their own story (even if it has known characters). And just look at their often used example of Heath Ledger and the Joker for The Dark Knight. While using a well known character, director Christopher Nolan found a way to tell a unique story, which turned into a monster hit with great reviews.
My thoughts?
If you have seen me opine about this at cons over the last few years (it always comes up), I have consistently said that using a classic character does not mean that you are using the same story. If you just use your imagination, you can probably dream up a number of different ways an exiled genetically-enhanced leader from the Eugenics Wars can make headlines in JJ Abrams new Star Trek universe, and none of them have to look like ?Space Seed.?
In fact, I have always found the debate kind of odd actually. With every new superhero movie there seems to be no question that they will use a classic villain. The new Superman movie has Zod, the next Batman movie has Bane (and Catwoman), the new Spider-man has The Lizard, and the list goes on. It seems to be a given that they will use classic villains, and yet with Star Trek this seems to be controversial for some. The irony of course is that the only Star Trek film that re-used a character for the villain was Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, which is still considered by most (including myself) to be the best film of the franchise.
In a way I think JJ Abrams obsession with secrecy just exacerbates the controversy. As noted with these other films, announcements on who the villains are usually comes with casting news, months before production. These other filmmakers don?t see how revealing a character is a big deal and know that it really doesn?t tell you anything about the story.
I agree, no one wants to see a remake or a rehash. But this team have always said they don?t want to be a cover band, they want to tell their own stories in the Star Trek universe (and they even made a new Star Trek universe for added flexibility). So for now, I take them at their word. They have a new story to tell and in the end that is all that matters. Whether it includes a known villain character or not, is really secondary.
Well, Peter Weller dropped a hint, probably on accident, about his character in the film. He isn't an alien and he has his own ship. Boy, that sure narrows down the possibilities. :funny
I doubt he's Mudd. The banter between Kirk, Spock, and McCoy really should be the only comedic element needed in a good TOS character movie. The presence of Mudd might be something of a Jar Jar in the franchise. Keenser is already pushing the envelope a bit.
You know, I don't understand why people consider him annoying...
Alice Eves character is a member of starfleet(same new flight jumpsuit as Spock and co.) and Peter Weller says he has his own ship.
I didn't really think of him as annoying. I'm just judging him as a film critic. He was useless, he added a small comedic element that in the end is useless, and he has the potential of being an annoying sidekick. I do not want to see him in XII, just like I did not want to see Jar Jar in II and III. Thank god George minimized his role in both movies.
I like the secrecy, it makes the waiting even more exciting ;)
My only problem with Khan is that most people automatically associate him with The Wrath of Khan, which even if this movie were to be a re-hash, it wouldn't be of TWOK, it would be of "Space Seed". And considering we've got Peter Wellers on board as a supposed "secondary" villain of sorts, that doesn't fit with "Space Seed".
Honestly, they could just give us the title and I'd be happy. Calling it Star Trek XII is only marginally better than "Untitled Star Trek Sequel".
Isn't that Scotty's line, Bones? ;)
I don't want to know everything, but they haven't told us anything besides the main cast. They could at least give us a little something.
Also, the hats for the dress uniforms are straight out of WW2.
I still don't think it's Khan. Simon Pegg is going to get lots and lots of flack if he's wrong. To use sketchy wording to misdirect is one thing. To say "Cumberbatch is not Khan" and get caught lying? That would be one of the most idiotic things an actor could do, to both his career and public perception.
I'm sorry Shadowknight, but I definitely disagree with you on that.
Counterpoint:
Everyone hates Michael Bay anyways.
He did a terrible job of it. All of his movies are critical flops.
Michael Bay's reputation is basically:
Make big budget explosion filled movies that have cheesy lines, bad acting, and the like, and still make money because at least they have good special effects.
Examples:
Armageddon
The Rock
Pearl Harbor
Transformers 1, 2, and 3
A very well fan made teaser trailer for trek 2.&feature=player_embedded
Really hypes up for next year.
*Won't let me embed. :(
... still better title than Twilight :evil:
Oh my god no you didn't!!!!! :nono: :P
... still better title than Twilight :evil:
sorry :funny couldn't resist :D
I hate to go off topic but when the heck did you become a mod eclipse?? I missed that bit :lol:
About a month ago, now don't go offtopic ever again :dontcare: :P :funny
He can do whatever he wants as long as he keeps the crew where they need to be.
Considering I read the Silmarillion, the Hobbit, and the Lord of the Rings, you're missing out on the best fantasy epic of the past one hundred years. Harry Potter's got nothing on my homie John Ronald Reuel Tolkien. :P
I read some of LOTR but I just gave up after a hundred pages or so.
Not that tough a decision for me, no IMAX 3D anywhere near me.
In Summer 2013, pioneering director J.J. Abrams will deliver an
explosive action thriller that takes Star Trek Into Darkness.
When the crew of the Enterprise is called back home, they find an
unstoppable force of terror from within their own organization has
detonated the fleet and everything it stands for, leaving our world in a
state of crisis.
With a personal score to settle, Captain Kirk leads a manhunt to a
war-zone world to capture a one man weapon of mass destruction.
As our heroes are propelled into an epic chess game of life and
death, love will be challenged, friendships will be torn apart,
and sacrifices must be made for the only family Kirk has left: his crew.
Source: Paramount Pictures
Garth of Izar?
Could be, but I don't think Garth qualifies as a "one man weapon of mass destruction". I'm thinking, despite continuity issues with the comics, it must be Gary Mitchell.
Remains Unconfirmed, who Benedict Cumberbatch will be playing. The guy in the ETC video above, ASSUMES that Benedict will be playing Gary Mitchell.
And you don't suppose the actors might be doing a bit of misdirection, to keep people guessing?
Love how one commenter on IGN goes: "Looks like Mass Effect." I think most people fail to realize how many things ME took from Trek.
First impression: "more action, more BOOM, less plot".
You can't really tell that from one minute of footage. I am reserving my judgement until I see the film.
Well. That's a new one. Don't feel TOO bad c_o. I live in Oklahoma and there are only three theaters that are playing it, all of which are several hours away.
Holy shit, so do I. Where are you?
using my psp right now.
Oh you poor sod, I've tried that and it's awful! actually, I think it was seeing armondikov (remember him?) posting from his psp made me give it a go. PAINFUL!
Full STAR TREK trailer indicates hands against glass scene is actually Spock and Cumberbatch. If he?s Sybock? Well, kudos.
That said, Cumberbatch does NOT have Vulcan ears. Hands against glass scene seems to be Cumby in the brig.
Trailer opens with Pike VO, telling Kirk he has courage but no humility, and someday that will get him and his crew killed.
Oh yeah: there?s space stuff in the full TREK trailer. Space combat. Guy in a space suit zooming around.
Cumberbatch was definitely shown in some sort of brig
Chekov (Anton Yelchin) appears in a red tunic (instead of his regular gold tunic)
Someone wears a EVA space suit with similar design to the one used in Star Trek: The Motion Picture
No, you're not the only one. I noticed that it looked like the First Contact phaser rifle.
Alice Eve is confirmed to be Carol Marcus.
Any name confirmations, I won't believe until it's actually spoken in the movie or trailer.
I still think Cumberbatch is playing Mitchell, and Eve is playing Dr Dehner. Carol Marcus was never a member of Starfleet (Alice Eve is in a Starfleet uniform).
How so? The Prime Directive prohibits interference with the natural development of a pre-warp civilization.
I seem to remember an episode where they state that they can't to a single thing about a natural disaster that could do significant damage to a pre-warp civilisation (stopping a natural disaster would seriously alter the natural development of the civilisation), that they could only observe. This part of a prime directive generally got ingored, so I'm glad it's been changed to "you can help, as long as you don't get noticed".
Erm, the one I posted isn't quicktime. In fact I don't even have QT installed and haven't had it in quite a while.
I just had to
(http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/7602/stidt238btt.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/100/stidt238btt.jpg/)
:picardfacepalm: Why is it so difficult to believe that this guy isn't Khan?
My guess is it's Peter Weller's ship.
It's on youtube? I've done a quick search and have so far come up blank :(
I find it funny that people gripe about the ship being underwater. If the ship isn't seaworthy, what makes them think it'd be durable enough to take weapons fire the equivalent of nuclear weapons, be within the intense gravitational field of a sun or a black hole, or have fusion powered engines accelerate the ship with its large mass to nearly relativistic speeds?
I think Scotty was just being overprotective of his precious wee bairns.
what augmented reality app?
I've edited the speech bubble for spoiler reasons
Image of Revell's Enterprise model due out in May. Not bad, but I'm guessing it'll be a pain for people like me who don't do glue, paint, and decals.And it's a good size too-- 588mm is slightly over 23 inches long. I might pick up one for myself.
No idea why that link I posted was invalid though. It was the exact video that you posted.
I think that the Enterprise going down like that might be some kind of "nightmare scene" like the one in Apollo 13 where the capsule comes apart while in space
I think the Enterprise goes down, because dont forget, we see her surface from the water.
http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/xii/teaser/startrekintodarkness_hd_25.jpg
She's definitely crippled, and from the trailers, it looks like Spock was commanding her in the battle. However, I doubt this is the end of this Enterprise. Remember the Nemesis trailer? The end had the Enterprise-E crash into the Scimitar. A lot of people I knew thought the Enterprise was crashing and blowing up to end TNG.
erk one issue with that thought process... the ent rising from the water isn't damaged...
Cheers for that article Shadow, glad only 6 months has passed
Pity it hasn't been 6 months of real-time... 4 years wait is pretty long, if you wanna keep people interested in the franchise again. Then again, it was 7 years after Nemesis.
Just finished reading Countdown to Darkness 2, all I can say is "oooooo! aaaaaahhhhh!"
Tut tut Darkthunder.... Spoilers :pTell us, or we will eat you :twisted:
Wait, so...they're saying there was a Constitution-class Enterprise BEFORE the 1701 in this universe? WHAT?! This makes NO SENSE!
Doesn't mean it's the same character, does it? Just the same last name...
To be fair, the Enterprise in the prime timeline entered service in 2245. Maybe the stem-to-stern refit (i.e. TOS-to-TMP) was ten or fifteen years early? Though thinking on that, it wouldn't account for the size. The JJ-prise is HUGE - it has to be at least the size of a Sovereign, if not bigger. The original Connie was about half the size of a Sov.Most of the external scenes shows JJ's Enterprise to be around 300 meters in lenght ;) the best example is the scene where Kirk rides his motorbike to the Enterprise and gazes upon the Enterprise under construction (you can clearly see people around neck and nacelles ;) judging by their size, big-E is around 300 meters... same is when Enterprise encounters Narada and camera pans from viewscreen on the bridge to the ventral part of the saucer, Spocks size vs. the rest of the saucer can easily tell us it's a 300 meters ship ;) so it's rather close to the prime verse canon ;)
And you can't say "Oh, well, it hadn't been named yet" because IT BLOODY WELL HAD BEEN.
Defiant anyone?.... NX74205, destroyed, and reinstated NCC75633 USS Sao Paulo, renamed USS Defiant.
And it's suspect that a perfectly good ship gets scrapped after ten years of service
And last but not least, we're all basing our arguments on 20th century vessel naming practices and what little we've seen on screen. Both terrible ways to speculate how much military matters may have changed in several hundred years.
Actually April's Enterprise was at least 30 years old. The comic states it was decommissioned two years ago, April abandoned it 20 years ago, at which point he states he'd been already been captain for 10 years
It all falls into place if everything is fast tracked about ten years because of the Narada and rising tensions between Klingons and the Federation over it all. April gets a fast-laned Enterprise around 2235-40, which after twenty to thirty years, sees a nearly complete overhaul of the ship to approximately Prime universe refit specs, and is recommissioned under Christopher Pike as the flagship of the Federation. (Don't forget that a decommissioning is not necessarily destruction.)
check the ship out on the bottom right at 0:59
From the spacing of the nacelle pylons and the shape of the nacelles, that's either the ship we see crashing into the water so many times throughout these trailers or a similar ship. Heck, might be Robert April's Enterprise for all we know.
The one at 0:59 of that trailer looks a lot like the akyazi (http://www.ericksmodels.com/gallery/buran/buran2.jpg) class to me
Its the same ship for sure and no doubt Adm. Marcus(Weller) is on that ship. Thats gotta be our moon and clearly Kirk+1 are chasing after someone and gets that ship and the Enterprise in Earth orbit and they are both brought down somehow.
The one at the far left you mean right? The one on the right is the Newton type.
Or just hit the Youtube link above :P
oh and new Carol is tasty :dance
The only new shot(and a good one at that) is that of the impulse engines on the Enterprise going boom. Look at the pics of the Enterprise falling from space, there is a big hole right there.
Hey, Bibi Besch wasn't bad looking, give her some credit.
I admit that while I'm so-so with the Abramsverse, I do want to see this - if only to see more of the bad guy. Cumberbatch...if I were to choose a voice for a megalomaniacal character of some sort, he'd be a template. (I'm a sucker for British accents, so sue me, lol.)
Definitely aft section of the ship. Looks like the engine room. And those people are getting sucked out at warp speed. THAT is a bad way to go.
Yay! Someone shot the cucumber!Wait, what?
Wait, what?
I'm assuming he is referring to that building right of John in the poster.
Its not called The Cucumber, its called "The Gherkin" XD
The official unofficial name is the Gherkin. Everyone I know calls it the cucumber :P
I've hated the JJ Enterprise from day one but there is something upsetting seeing her fallingDoesn't matter what she looks like. She's still an Enterprise, and there's nothing worse than the idea of an Enterprise falling before her time. The Enterprise-D is my least favorite Enterprise design, and I still hated to see her crash on Veridian III.
That new ship looks almost like the JJ galaxy xDLooks more Excelsior to me. A bit bigger, yes. And were those...Starfleet issue RAILGUNS on that monstrosity?!
That big ship... where the hell did that come from? Wasn't the Ent supposed to be the newest kid on the block, and this movie is set only less than a year later or something like that? Looks interesting though, very Excelsior-ish. "Though some have said it looks like the D or E. Crazy people need to go and watch TNG.
theres a hollow in the saucer section?
strange...
I'm sure that if they can get the ship under water, its engines, thrusters, and inertial dampeners are strong enough to travel through an atmosphere without burning on entry. No, pretty sure that's an uncontrolled descent.Not to mention the lack of running lights.
I distrust a site that can't get the name of the movie that it's selling products for right. :p (They put a colon in.)
...and I look over at the STO thread, and you're complaining about their adaption of the mantra, hypocrite. :P
At least we aren't hating on a whole sentence. :p
At least I didn't feel the need to reverse an argument :P
When in doubt, always revert the argument of the neutron flow. :p
Nice TV spot. Showed the Enterprise blasting off from inside a planetary atmosphere. I'm not sure if it's after the mission to Nibiru or what though.
Oh my!I so read that in Takei's voice.
To me it looks like the Klings got their hands on a Fed ship.
i hate it.It makes the giant duck(Ent-D) look elegant by comparison. :P Honestly, I'm not sure how I feel about it. On the one hand, it embodies big, bad-assery, but if it's a Section 31 design, it seems a bit overstated for covert ops.
And finally...where are the BFG's?
see those 2 big spheres on either side of the deflector? I think they come out of them.
Maybe it's not a S31 ship after all. Perhaps it's a ship that the feds built as a response to nero, which the section had an influence in, only for Harrison to steal it (as part of an operation for S31/some other agent perhaps?)
Why does every questionable action involving Federation starships/personnel always evoke Section 31?Because rabid Gene fans think the Federation is too perfect for them to build a warship unless it were done by a semi-rogue agency?
see those 2 big spheres on either side of the deflector? I think they come out of them.
Also Wiley, if those are escape pods, then my grandmother's a wagon. That ship is far too big for those to actually be escape pods.
And finally...where are the BFG's?
To me it looks like the Klings got their hands on a Fed ship.
oooh and the ship that crashes to the city is actually that big dreadnought ... at least the deflector area looks lik itWhich, if true, will let us estimate the size of this behemoth, assuming anyone knows how bit Alcatraz is. :P
I'm not a big fan of it myself (Give me the good ol' Geneiverse any day!) But I'm gonna see this myself :)
I'm not a big fan of it myself (Give me the good ol' Geneiverse any day!) But I'm gonna see this myself :)
The lens flares in Man of Steel look worse. :PIt's JJ's trademark :D set lens flares to OVERKILL :D
And finally...where are the BFG's?
The lens flares in Man of Steel look worse. :PStill looks like a damn good movie, which Superman desperately needs. Between Iron Man 3, Star Trek, Man of Steel, and any other movies that I might be forgetting, my wallet's gonna hate me this summer. :(
In any case, it sure beats looking for God or breaking Starfleet regs to help a bunch of immortal technophobes.
Final Frontier and Insurrection weren't THAT bad...*gigglesnort* :uberlol:Final Frontier, no. It had some good character moments, especially for McCoy and Spock.
Remember Rotten Tomato has non-spoiler reviews if anyone is curious. I've seen multiple 3.5/5 and 8/10 reviews on there. Seems on par with the first movie."Well. Nobody's perfect." - Leonard McCoy, Stardate 8390.0
And it makes me wonder just what happened to make her leave Starfleet and enter civilian research.
Spock seems a wee bit jealous. Can't blame Kirk for wanting the hot blonde with the sexy accent over the stuffy pointed ear hobgoblin. Also, doesn't the Enterprise have 14 science labs? Surely a second science officer isn't a bad thing.
LMFAO I was one of the 1701 for that viral campaign. xD
I got my poster and 3D glasses for the vid tomorrow. xD
LOL Same here! Came home and there was this tube on my bed, picked it up and saw it was from Paramount!
David
LMFAO I was one of the 1701 for that viral campaign. xD
I got my poster and 3D glasses for the vid tomorrow. xD
captain_obvious There was a viral campaign that started with one of the trailers called AreYouThe1701?. You sign up and apparently 1,701 of us were sent a poster and a pair of 3D glasses to view a new trailer tomorrow.
i think it still looks stupid as the last one... of course ill see it in theaters, but im just not a fan like at all of this new reboot nonsense...
ah well...
The USS Vengeance -may- have been an officially commissioned starship by the Federation, which was later commandeered by Section 31, and retrofitted with experimental technologies. That would allow the USS designation on a covert ship.(http://scifanatic.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/stid-t5-25.jpg)
That Imax poster makes the little e look rather good. Actually no, a connie just looks plain old awesome from that angle, JJprise or not!
That Imax poster makes the little e look rather good. Actually no, a connie just looks plain old awesome from that angle, JJprise or not!
That's a bit naive, saying there's nothing wrong. Convoluted contradictory canon, cheesy entire 23rd century... let's be honest, if you showed a new person the Prime timeline, you'd get comments along the likes of:
1. TOS is extremely campy, no wonder it was cancelled.
2. TNG had 80's gym clothes in the future. WTF? And most of the first three seasons sucked.
3. DS9... well I don't have many complaints about DS9. Started up slowly though.
4. Voyager had its super campy moments like TOS.
5. ENT... well you all know.
If you're going to defend your franchise, drop the rose-tinted glasses first.
And no, Gene Roddenberry wasn't that optimistic. How are we supposed to get to utopia? Apparently it took WW3 and 600 million deaths in open warfare. That part isn't particularly nice.
You forgetting that World War 3 was mentioned in Encounter at Farpoint?
What I'm saying, and especially with the "rose-tinted glasses" thing, is that prime universe Star Trek is far from perfect. Saying there's nothing wrong with it is naive.
And no, Gene Roddenberry wasn't that optimistic. How are we supposed to get to utopia? Apparently it took WW3 and 600 million deaths in open warfare. That part isn't particularly nice.
I'm one who would say that the prime timeline is "old and tired" as you put it. Apparently for me to think that, there must be something wrong with me, again, as you put it.
I realize that the remark "just something wrong with the people that thought it was old and tired", that I made was too all-encompassing and for that, I humbly apologize. That was not at all my intent.QFT.
And you're partially right, Gene Roddenberry wasn't that optimistic, he instead was extremely idealistic - something that I think if put more in practice, would make all things in life a little bit better. I met and chatted with him at length at a convention in 1988 and it was an awesome experience. He was more optimistic than you would tend to believe considering that he went through WW2 and was an LA police officer.
I still feel that my statement in saying that there was nothing wrong with the prime universe Trek rings true. On the objective side, there were obviously tons of holes in much of it, but once again, that's not what I was getting at, and I'm not going to go into specifics of what I mean by that as it would take too long. I'm sure there are (and will be) mistakes and inconsistencies in the JJ Trek also... but who cares, it's still Star Trek - what we love.
I was not trying to single you out by the way. Your comment got me thinking about a lot of the silly stuff behind Old vs. New arguments though, and that's what I was talking about. I love the prime timeline to death. But it's also an old relic beat to death with hardly any room for originality. If I were put in charge of the franchise post-ENT, I probably would have done what JJ did, minus a few lens flares and then immediately segueing into a new series honestly examining both science fiction ideas and society problems in the modern world. I hate the argument that anything new and overwriting means your not a real fan or that Gene Roddenberry is rolling in his grave over it. Frankly, I think if Gene saw that he had a rabid following that made death threats against people that varied the Star Trek formula he wouldn't want anything to do with them. If Gene wanted a tolerant world, I think step one is being tolerant to the people who don't see eye to eye on that tolerant world. You're not getting off to a good start otherwise.
My turn for QFT!
You can't claim to be a protector of Trek, yet not practice the very ideals of Trek. Tolerance is a huge part of Star Trek's ideals.
My turn for QFT!IDIC: Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations
You can't claim to be a protector of Trek, yet not practice the very ideals of Trek. Tolerance is a huge part of Star Trek's ideals.
warp core on a starship would be divided into a hundred segments and fired out of the ship like bloody projectiles.
I detest phasers being turned into 23rd-century rail guns mounted on the ship's hull.
And what was up with those semi- seagull wing doors of the shuttlebay?Sorry what?
Engineering looked like a damn Brewery.Haha yeah... though I can kinda see past it.
Captain in the span of 2 hours. I mean....that's just implausible, in ANY military organization.
Gee more like a few weeks... also their is a thing call field promotion. Where does outlaw even come in?
Umm sorry but all trek did that... we just never saw the whole system ejected.... just the core... their are also things called anti-mater containment pods. (if you look at the TNG tech manual you see they are able to be ejected.)Qft.
They looked fine to me... its a mix between TOS and TMP styles... you notice it more cause they seem to fire slower. (only thing I didn't like was the reuses of the B5 starfury gun sound effects)
Haha yeah... though I can kinda see past it.Tbh, I'm not feeling most of the set designs in JJ trek. The seem to "apple-y" (:D) and frivolous to me. But then you have the contrast.
Gee more like a few weeks... also their is a thing call field promotion. Where does outlaw even come in?
Ugh, yet again someone uses the term "Cadet" as an actual rank in Starfleet. It isn't. Cadet is merely a term for an officer that has not graduated from the Academy. This has been seen before in actual Trek lore. Biggest example: Lieutenant Saavik. And as an in-movie example in ST 2009: Uhura. She was still technically a cadet, but she held the rank of Lieutenant. Now, do you seriously expect me to believe that she and Kirk were at the Academy for the exact same amount of time but she outranked him? Kirk was at LEAST a Lieutenant when he boarded the Enterprise. Even in the Prime timeline, Kirk was a Lieutenant at the Academy before he went out into space. Pike then granted him a battlefield promotion to First Officer, which could make him either Lieutenant Commander or Commander in rank(which, why was Spock always a Lt. Cmdr.? Why didn't he get a promotion?). While Spock believed he was acting logically in removing Kirk from the Enterprise, it was in violation of regulations, so Spock isn't perfectly clean here either. Kirk returned to the ship and took over as acting Captain, which is part of the duty of a first officer if the Captain or previous acting Captain are incapacitated or unfit for command. Starfleet merely formalized that rank because of Kirk's actions in saving Earth. Yes, Kirk did jump to command quick. But well within Starfleet's chain of command.
Well said. Although Kirk's rank is never stated during the movie, I very much recall Uhura being referred to as Lieutenant, despite Pike calling her a Cadet just a few moments earlier.
I also think of another comment by Pike early in the movie; "You can be an officer in 4 years, you can have your own ship in 8". Kirk's response was in regards to being an Officer, "I'll do it in 3". 3 years later, and we see Kirk taking the Kobayashi Maru test for an unprecedented 3rd time. The test is designed for aspiring command officers who seek the Captain's Chair. I doubt they'd allow a junior Cadet to take that test once, much less three times.
The display showing them space diving to the drill says "Lt. Kirk".Huh, I didn't notice that detail before, nice catch FarShot!
Let's be fair, all the characters were remarkable when they were first shown, virtue of their race. Anybody turning on the TV back then would've said, "Whoa, a black lady? She must be something special!"
That doesn't apply anymore these days. If all they had Uhura do was answer the comms and call Kirk up to the bridge, there would be public outrage that the black female is just a secretary.
Thank God. Had to be one of the oddest scenes in Star Trek VI.
Wow Farshot. You must have the eyes of a hawk. I had to look very closely at the film during that scene to find it. And it's only visible for about a second.
(http://s4.postimg.org/sgglb3pel/spacedive.jpg)
That actually makes a whole lot more sense. Kirk's "rapid" promotion to Captain wasn't as rapid as we are led to believe. Nowhere else in the movie is it stated that Kirk is a Lieutenant. But it does make sense, in regards to being able to give orders to "lower ranked" officers.
Upon further reflection:
It appears that Kirk's official rank during the movie was "Lieutenant" as evidenced by the above screenshot. When Pike promoted Kirk to "First Officer", and handing over Command to Spock, one could assume Kirk became an "Acting Lt Commander".
Do remember that there hasn't been much precedent for saving several billion lives from certain annihilation. Archer maybe, and his tour paved his way to the presidency.
Someone mentioned that New Sulu was a Fencing Master and it was almost as if they were saying Prime Sulu wasn't.....uhm, did they not see The Naked Time? Prime Sulu=ALSO Fencing master...As Aparent when he walks onto the bridge with a foil in hand???
Just wanted to point that out!
I'm still keeping my optimism about Into Darkness.
Were the Wtf parts bc JJ and his team contradicted cannon or just wtf bc it add no logical sense
Adam
Interesting, thx for the heads up, although I really wanna not see it so I don't put any money in JJ's already big pockets, I am tempted bc a lot of people say it isn't really that bad, I'll see how I feel after I return from vacation. Maybe it's worth seeing...
Adam ;)
I think Trek ultimately belongs on television. Where they have a much greater ability to tell longer stories, and not cram everything into a 2 hour movie.
Going to the cinema to see the movie tomorrow evening with a group of friends. Looking forward to it :)
Loved it! I for one have room for the two Universes in my life :)
Well Trekkies keeping evolving everyday, I hated TOS when I was growing up, I started off with TNG, but for the last couple of years I've started getting into TOS which I really enjoy now. Guess things change, takes time to adapt. But to each his own, I just personall think that JJ made a good Syfy movie, I wouldn't label it Star Trek. Far from it, but had it been a Syfy story with the Trek taken out, I'd be pleased to watch it, lots of action, lots of special effects, etc... But what Im trying to say is that it doesn't have the substance to create a whole fandom, doesn't have what Star Trek had to create various games, RPGs, board games, conventions, series, many movies, home made movies, etc... It will just be a couple of movies not as epic as Star Wars which were just a couple of movies but we see how far that went, I hope Im getting my points across. Not dissing the JJ movies just saying it lacks the spark to create what we've seen good Syfy stories have produced in the past.
Adam
What is a "real Trekkie" ? I've been a fan of Star Trek since I was 4 years old, when I first watched The Next Generation. Loved every incarnation of Trek so far, and have enjoyed the 2009 movie many times over. Going to the movies tonight to see Into Darkness which i've anxiously been waiting for, for 4 long years.
Anways, Baz mentioned something about alterations to the ship by the end of the film...I'm kinda nervous about that. :lostit:
Me too :)
Returned from the cinema a few hours ago, and I loved every minute of the new movie. I was sad about one or two scenes, surprised in another, and thoroughly enjoyed the rest. I personally thought it was better than the 2009 movie.
So that's one positive and one negative.
What do you guys think? Will Into Darkness be as divisive among the fans as ST2009? More? Less(lol)?
I bet I know what scenes you are talking about :)
But all in all I agree 100% top film, was also talking to a friend who took his misses to see it on Thursday night. He has zero interest in Star Trek but thoroughly enjoyed the film! To the point he wants to watch more Star Trek now...
Trying to explain the Tv series are massively different didn't put him off, so what do I lend him? Thinking Enterprise or DS9
I thought Harrison was a great villain. Much better developed than Nero was. Alot more information of what's going on between the Federation and the Klingons in this timeline as well. Also an explanation as to just where the USS Vengeance came from, and why it's so much larger than the Enterprise.Wouldn't be hard to be better developed than Nero. The Gorn captain had more development. I really think getting rid of the Rura Penthe scenes really hurt Nero's character in the 2009 film. As to the Vengeance, my guess is that it's a result of 9/11-like paranoia from the destruction of Vulcan.
Going tonight for the midnight showing. Actually doing a double feature with Iron Man 3 first(still havn't seen it yet!).
Another surprise is the New Ent has actually grown on me some more with the new shots in this film. xDDoes the Big E get some nice, SLOW camera pans this time? She had, what, 3 in the last one?
Though I have to say WTF those torp placements.
EDIT: Also loved the ST3 Scotty throwback xD
Does the Big E get some nice, SLOW camera pans this time? She had, what, 3 in the last one?
I heard a model of a NX-Class ship is seen on a desk some where in the film. I'll have to keep An eye out
I might be seeing it tonight, but more then likely tomorrow.
you mean you didn't see the ST3 throwback? I mean it was quite obvious.
If I did, I don't remember it.
I heard a model of a NX-Class ship is seen on a desk some where in the film. I'll have to keep An eye out
I might be seeing it tonight, but more then likely tomorrow.
Spoiler:
*SNIP*
"A welder is needed on the THIRD NACELLE". Anyone else catch that?
Given the writers and directors poor knowledge of Treknology that wouldn't surprise me.
For some reason disabling the Enterprise's aft nacelle will destroy life support :hithead:
Did someone research how far the moon was from Earth in miles and simply changed miles to kilometers because the moon isn't 237,000 kilometers from Earth....LOL!! It is 237,000 miles though.
From Wikipedia:
"The distance between the Moon and the Earth varies from around 356,400 km to 406,700 km at the extreme perigees (closest) and apogees (farthest)."
As to the rest of your science points:
1. Gravity. Gravity plating failure perhaps? We've seen examples of the gravity plating failing, causing people to become weightless. Perhaps there was a malfunction in the gravity plating, causing the "shearing" effect whereby people either fall, or end up running on walls.
2. Falling through the clouds. We have spacecraft today which doesn't have shields, yet they manage reentry just fine without them.
3. Vengeance falling to San Francisco. How do we know the Vengeance started falling from the area of the Moon? As long as they are within Earth orbit, Earth's gravity is more than capable of pulling down objects which are without power.
4. Jumping off a cliff into water. Yes, it was a rather high dive into water. How do we know that their suits wasn't lined with some form of inertial dampening system?
From Wikipedia:
"The distance between the Moon and the Earth varies from around 356,400 km to 406,700 km at the extreme perigees (closest) and apogees (farthest)."
1. Gravity. Gravity plating failure perhaps? We've seen examples of the gravity plating failing, causing people to become weightless. Perhaps there was a malfunction in the gravity plating, causing the "shearing" effect whereby people either fall, or end up running on walls.
2. Falling through the clouds. We have spacecraft today which doesn't have shields, yet they manage reentry just fine without them.
3. Vengeance falling to San Francisco. How do we know the Vengeance started falling from the area of the Moon? As long as they are within Earth orbit, Earth's gravity is more than capable of pulling down objects which are without power.
4. Jumping off a cliff into water. Yes, it was a rather high dive into water. How do we know that their suits wasn't lined with some form of inertial dampening system?
The jump was irrelevant. It was the dive that was the problem as soon as they enter the air lock they should have died from the bends. It was space magic...
About the heat of re-entry
Perhaps it was done for dramatic effect.The bridge? Why bring up the bridge? THE BRIDGE CREW WERE BUCKLED IN WITH SEAT BELTS. Gravity controls in that situation = irrelevant.
(Edit: Even with a mention of gravity failure...why did the bridge and other parts of the ship have gravity and no inertia problems but others didn't" That's why made me ask the question. Just how specific was the line? I doubt it made that much of an explanation.)
Are we forgetting that these are spaceships and that the Ent was built on Earth? Of course it's hull will be designed to withstand reentry. (a lot more heat/radiation resistant and it is armor)
As for the holes in the hull? Yes while the ship reentered the atmosphere it did break apart a little but the structural integrity held... The ship isn't a little thing like the Shuttle or an Apollo capsule... it is gigantic and can withstand a lot more buffeting.
You know, it just struck me that if it was so terrible to bring the E out of the water at the start, why the heck did they put it there in the first place? Surely there wasn't anything that stopped them from beaming from orbit.
Then there's the whole "prime directive thing". Even if they came down in the middle of the night they would still have been seen and/or heard. Big metal machine with big glowy bits on would stick out a wee bit I think. It'd make on hell of a splash on contact with the water, not to mention a hell of a wave due to the amount of water displaced.
That said, I don't have an issue with a ship doing it. If it can handle a gas giant, then it'll handle a bit of water!
Saw it last night. Loved. It to the point that I wanted to see more just to "flesh out" some, IMO, not fully resolved details. I hated the death of Pike but overall, an excellent movieSupposedly Paramount wants the next one by 2016 in time for the 50th anniversary. And I will say, for a good 2 hour long movie, Into Darkness moved at a very quick pace.
Now do we have to wait another 4 freaking years for the next film! :evil:
Hated:
-Nibiru. This one I don't so much 'hate' as just find not well enough explained. Why did Kirk steal that scroll? Why was the Enterprise in the water, rather than in orbit? Why the lack of a backup plan with the volcano? (Though the latter one can be explained by the debrief/yelling scene with Pike where it's implied that Starfleet didn't know about the volcano, and Kirk made a quick decision to save the planet.)
-Kirk being in command. This one is just a through-back to one of my biggest problems with the first film, though: A cadet suddenly getting the most advanced ship in the fleet? Please. It doesn't really apply to this film. I guess it just still really bugs me.
-Seeing the Akiraprise on Marcus' desk. I immediately said to myself "Whelp, this whole reboot is now no longer canon!" Goddammit. :banghead:
As for the movie itself, I agree with many of ShadowKnight's nitpicks--the diving, the gravity falling stupidity, etc. It made for a good movie, though!
Sorry they wouldn't be suffering from the bends because they weren't breathing any high pressure gasses.... people suffer bends when they surface to fast and don't allow the gasses in their blood system to dissolve properly... Think of a can of pop what happens when you shake it then open it? the gasses bubble up...
And gentleman...assuming we ignore Sulu's establishment of the peril from reentry. We can not summarily rule that technology is so advanced that reentry is now irrelevant. Saying "Advanced technology" as an explanation for strange movie events isn't reasonable or logical. In this situation the Vengeance and Enterprise are falling from Luna orbit at some where close to 25,000 miles per hour. The hull will ablate. IT's physics plain and simple. Of course an object of this size would survive reentry. (even Skylab survived reentry) but not intact. If a shuttle can't take a thousand degrees of indirect heat from a volcano then we can't just assume technology has made us impervious to heat. That reentry must have been several thousand degrees...less the hull is constructed out of Rhenium or Tungsten which would make them excessively heavy and expensive.
The hulls of starships aren't. They're made of duranium. Also the shuttle itself wasn't taking a whole lot of damage from the heat - the engines themselves were overheating. Bit of a difference there as its individual components failing and not the duranium hull.
Sulu did make mention that the ash was fouling up the shuttle's engines.
And come on Saquist. The NX-01 had a duranium hull, did it not? Considering that the NX-01 definitely existed in this new timeline, it's reasonable to assume that starship hull construction is the same as in the Prime timeline.
Either way I look forward to the break down of the films script. It will tell us 2 things about J J Abrams. 1: just how bad of a story teller he is. 2: How much irreverence he has for Trek.It's not opinion based. Star Trek Enterprise IS canon. It takes place before the original series. Period. Canon isn't something you can say "maybe" on. If it happened on screen, it happened.
It wouldn't surprise me either way.
But I'll tell you this. I don't think of ENTERPRISE or "JJ Trek" as any part of "canon" Trek. I treat them as islands onto themselves.
It's not opinion based. Star Trek Enterprise IS canon. It takes place before the original series. Period. Canon isn't something you can say "maybe" on. If it happened on screen, it happened.
And for one thing, I see a LOT of Trek in these movies. Into Darkness was a post-9/11 allegory for crying out loud. And I wish people would stop laying everything on Abrams. He didn't write the damn movie. Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman did, and they're huge Trek fans, just like us. I see a LOT of reverence for what came before, but I also see a willingness to put it aside and not be shackled by it like Berman was.
...if you let fake science and technology from a multi-decade history of already convoluted history/canon ruin a couple movies for you, you are missing the entire point of Star Trek. "Wagon Train in space." The important part is the "Wagon Train" not the "in space". Star Trek's treknobabble/backstory is and always has been a vehicle to suit story telling needs. If a bit of that vehicle is fudged over for the story's purposes, so be it. The Motion Picture did it so with making the Enterprise the only vessel to intercept V'ger. TWOK did it by having a slow and extremely inefficient torpedo loader. SFS did it by making a large, ungainly starbase. TVH had them go to the '80s to acquire some whales when a much earlier time would have been much better, and lets not forget alien space magic that throws Earth in peril. I don't even need to talk about TFF. VI... did anyone wonder why the Enterprise and Excelsior are the only ones at Khitomer? You only have the leaders of the two most important space governments in a perfectly destructible building. Generations, yet another "only one available" story. And why didn't Soren just fly a ship in? Or if he needs to be master of his own world, why not just get a holodeck? First Contact had its own batch of character sabotage and overwriting TOS canon. Insurrection and Nemesis don't need me to argue for them.
For every loose bolt in the JJVerse, there's a dozen more in the prime timeline.
Was anyone else expecting the Enterprise to separate her saucer? I saw the seatbelts pop up and I was like, Oh man, they're gonna do it!. Also did anyone notice any changes to the ship at the end besides the impulse engines? It seemed like the saucer felt just a little different. It was so quick that I couldn't really tell. I am going to get to see it again soon though.
I agree with everything you said Farshot. And my point Saquist is that expecting them to not play fast and loose with canon is dumb. In fact, it's a miracle there's as many nods to canon as there are. And I think you are missing Farshot's point, but oh well.
Kori Barnes:
Honestly, I think i like Into Darkness more then 09
btw the island measures 1,675 feet (511 m) by 590 feet (180 m) and is 135 feet (41 m) at highest point during mean tide
Then... it's just a coincidence that your view of canon ("on screen is absolute") isn't actually how the Franchise looks at it anymore? You can't go around telling people what to believe when you don't know yourself.
Isn't this more about taking a personal stake in "canon"?
Believe what ever you want to. Agree with who ever you want to it's all just as valid.
For me...It's just okay. Not particularly good and certainly not bad.
It wasn't Lord of the Rings, Matrix, Empire Strikes Back or Dark Knight.
Rather it was more like Charlie's Angles, Wild Wild West, Men In Black, any James Bond Movie.
Did anyone ever question why in 1959 they apparently had the ability to bring people back to life and superior biological medicine than the 23rd century?
Thought I'd throw this back in here.
The Vengeance is supposed to be twice the size of the Ent and that is most likely volume. Though from all the shots she certainly looked a lot longer than the Ent.
Thing to consider about the Vengeance hitting Alcatraz... She hit the main building on the island not the the entire island. But we should still be able to get a good judge of size. xD
For me...It's just okay. Not particularly good and certainly not bad.
I so want to see that jjprise taken out. It's probably the only on screen ship that's ever repulsed me. Heck, I didn't even hate the NX as much as this thing!For me, that would be the Enterprise-D. I've slowly grown to appreciate her over the years, but she's still my least favorite Enterprise design. The proportions just throw me off.
You misunderstand.
You seem to be neglecting the fact that there are strong moral lessons and exploration of the human condition behind this movie. Follow authority before following gut. Don't demonize your enemy. Due process should be afforded to everyone. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Kirk and Spock finally understand one another, deeply and personally. Spock stikes a balance between human feeling and vulcan stoicism. None of those four movies you mentioned have any of that.
You seem to be forgetting that superman genetic engineering wasn't impossible. It was outlawed. They could do cell altering super biological medicine if they wanted. But they don't.
Spock: "KHAAAAAAAAN!!!" Originally spoken by Kirk in a completely unrelated scene. To be honest, Spock's rage at Khan here feels a helluva lot more real than Kirk's in Wrath of Khan. Why was Kirk so absolutely livid with Khan when he knew the Enterprise would be there in two hours?
Eh, Kirk's Khan yell is still slightly silly.
Also, I want to apologize...
1. Kirk stole the scroll to get the natives out of the temple that was right by the soon to erupt volcano, presumably just in case the pre-eruption totaled the temple. Which it did.Was this stated, or are you implying this from the scene? Honestly, I didn't understand a good chunk of what Bones said during that scene, so I might have missed it. If it was stated, thank you for the clarification.
As for the Enterprise being under water instead of in orbit, Chekov's line about the planet's magnetic field probably has a lot to do with it. The magnetic field obviously interferes with transporter ability, and I think the general audience doesn't want to sit through five minutes of Trek-nobabble, even though we the fans would appreciate it.Ah! Okay, I'll buy that one. Even if that wasn't the case, you gotta admit, seeing the E rise out of an ocean was BAD*SS. :D And seeing the natives worship it afterwards=LOL It's just like our own history!
2. I hate having to CONTINUE to defend this. First off, CADET ISN'T A RANK. Kirk was a Lieutenant when Pike field promoted him to first officer. All "cadet" means is that the officer has yet to graduate Starfleet Academy.Okay, so it's equivalent to a student at a naval academy suddenly being given command of an aircraft carrier. Yea, that makes a lot more sense, now. -.-
Also, Kirk saved Earth and the Federation. Good deeds get rewarded.Now that's a much better argument! Fair enough.
But this film was about Kirk having to come to grips with ALL the responsibilities of command.Agreed.
3. Enterprise is canon. Period. Get over it.NEVER!! :P (Seriously though, I think Saquist pretty well described the fluidity of the canon, and how it's subject to opinion.)
4. I think you're mistaking me for someone else. MY nitpicks were about Scotty getting canned(and not drinking nearly enough scotch as a result), the Enterprise taking a pounding without giving one back, no explanations for Khan's "nationality" and very little explanation for the regenerative capacity of his blood, and the new impulse deck the Enterprise gets at the end. I'm no diving expert, nor do I really care if that was accurate or not, and I felt that Spock saying that the gravity was going offline was explanation enough.My apologies. I was thinking of Saquist.
That being said, I agree completely with your "Loved" list.:D
Okay, so it's equivalent to a student at a naval academy suddenly being given command of an aircraft carrier. Yea, that makes a lot more sense, now. -.-
Here are all the models seen on Marcus' desk
http://www.qmxonline.com/news/stid-history-of-starflight-models/
A bunch of props in Into Darkness were made my Quantum Machanix
http://www.qmxonline.com/news/qmx-offers-props-from-star-trek-into-darkness/
really not seeing much different other then the impulse drive.
also it would seem the whole nacelle actually got thinner.... oh and this looks less sharp.
(http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/7034/1701r.jpg)
I think it is just before warp so it isn't stretched yet.Pretty sure the nacelles are the same apart from the fins and those new glowy bits in the indents on top of the cowl.
saw it. just came back.There never was an even numbered movie curse...it was the ODD numbered movies that were considered crap.
[size="7"] WHOA[/size]
dump the stupid hats.
and the even numbered movie curse is broken!
tho i havent seen it yet, this is kinda what i would expect...
film sounds about as lame as i figured lol
Star Trek Into Darkness: The Spoiler FAQ (http://io9.com/star-trek-into-darkness-the-spoiler-faq-508927844)
-They promote a Cadet to Captain...
Kirk was a Lieutenant before being promoted to First Officer, and later replacing Spock as Captain. If you're gonna hate on the JJ movies, atleast have your facts straight.
I prefer my dose of humble pie seasoned with explanation.
Do you mean that Cadet Kirk held a rank of Lieutenant in the Academy or that he graduated (which I didn't see before they left for Vulcan) and his first rank was lieutenant?
Because while I can understand the accuracy issue it still amounts to the same thing. Kirk was only Trainee hours before and he was put in command of a Starship over dozens of more qualified individuals and then Given official command which seems absolutely ludicrous every way I look at it.
Ok, calmed down a sec. This is getting to be too heated. Guys it's a movie. there's no need for all of the huff and puff. Just relax have a cool beer and enjoy the fact we have Trek. I am!I'm perfectly calm. And others are making my points for me, for once.
A phaser permanently set to kill doesn't feel right to me.
Check this out for yourself;
(http://s15.postimg.org/4gagb9ksb/spacedive.jpg)
As has been said repeatedly, Cadet is merely a title that means you haven't graduated from the Academy yet. There are several examples in canon where someone graduated from the Academy with the rank of Lieutenant, and some even serving aboard active starships As a Lieutenant, without graduating. Case in point, Lt Saavik, Lt Valeris. Kirk (in the Prime Timeline) graduated from the Academy as a Lieutenant as far as I recall. Pike promoting "JJ" Kirk to First Officer is the equivalent of a Battlefield Promotion to Lt Commander. When Spock steps down as acting Captain, Kirk rightly assumes command.
I'm perfectly calm. And others are making my points for me, for once.
I'm gonna see it for myself before I give an opinion...but my opinion remains the same on the first, it's essentially a generic action movie with the label slapped on it. Not bad, but not great either. And I am willing to look at other Treks with critical eyes too - ST5 still makes me go "seriously?", TMP was slightly improved by the director's cut, "the one with the whales" is okay...but my favorites remain TWOK/TSFS, TUC and FC.
I don't think one should be labelled "not a real Trekkie" for liking these movies. My friends who are also Trek fans have all liked them. That doesn't make us any less Trekkies. Personally, I find these movies to be on par with the Prime timeline movies. The big problem is that what we, THE FANS, want...is a series. We want something that will take its time over a season rather than having to cram plot and exposition down our throats in 2 hours. I think there needs to be an animated series(either traditionally or CGI) set during the new timeline's 5 year mission. I also think there should be a series based on the Kelvin's adventures during the Prime timeline.
Star Trek Insurrection gets a lot of flak as well (I liked the movie), but I'd claim that it probably was among the most "Trek" of the original 10 movies. Despite the character flaws of Picard, or the unneeded humor from Data ("Have you noticed how your boobs have..."), it dealt with the very kind of issues Trek did so well during the shows; A relevant social issue (in this case, the forced displacement of a minority, in favor of the majority). The United States have been great on the forced location of other cultures in the past (such as the Native Americans), so I can understand why being reminded to such atrocities via a movie allegory, could be upsetting. People don't want to be reminded about the bad things of their past.See, I used to not think Insurrection was that bad, but then I watched all of Next Gen and came across an episode where Picard was ordered to do this EXACT SAME THING. He was ordered to uproot a group of Native Americans from this world because of the Cardies. They didn't want to go. They'd made the planet their home. Did Picard say "Screw orders" and load up? No. He might have had some misgivings, but he was still set on carrying out his orders. Insurrection makes it seem like he sides with the Baku because a)they're white people or b)he wants to **** Anij.
more like a combination of TWOK and TOS novel "Dreadnaught!". after all, JJ nodded to the author of Best Destiny in the first one, why not one of her other novels? I see the "starfleet is full of loopy admirals" tradition is still in place.
what, you guys weren't expecting khan to get a rehash? my first thought on seeing the screencap of him in the cell was 'i wonder if that's Khan?'
if you people are gonna start screaming the old chestnut about "nobody writes anything original anymore", I'm gonna start wishing I could dope slap people. the guys that write this stuff are in their forties, and are writing their preferences. that's why there's an eighties nostalgia wave going on, right now. in ten years someone's gonna start getting nostalgic about Seinfeld and Animaniacs and everything nineties and turn it into movies. for pete's sake, the Power Rangers are starting to evoke nostalgia.
Joshmaul: am I the only one that found 5 hilarious?!
Nebs: nah, they'll rehash the one with the whales, next! XD
Ugh, so sick of the Wrath of Khan "rip-off" claims. Two scenes. Just two. And the dialog was totally different between Kirk and Spock except for ONE LINE. Frankly, and I am going to get a LOT of flak for this...I think I like Cumberbatch's Khan better than Montalban's...at least Montalban in TWOK. I'm gonna flat out say it, I hate the whole "I HAVE TO KILL KIRK" motivation Khan has in ST2. In "Space Seed" and in Into Darkness, Khan is a charismatic, manipulative bastard, doing everything he can to further his own goals. In ST2, he throws aside the lives of the people that have been at his side for decades just so he can get revenge on an aging, admittedly going senile, Starfleet Admiral. Did it make for a good movie? Yes. But it also seemed to throw everything that Khan was in "Space Seed" out the airlock.
Also, I found Kirk's percussive maintenance of the warp core a lot more interesting than Spock pulling black shadows out of the dilithium chamber. Seriously, one of you guys that knows the Trek-nology better than me, WTF was going ON in that scene?!
Oh, and I've seen a few complaints about Marcus flat out telling Kirk and Spock about Section 31, which is supposed to be highly classified way beyond what they'd be cleared for. The answer to that was simple. Marcus was sending Kirk and company to slaughter. If Kirk had carried out Marcus's orders rather than deciding to capture Khan, he would've fired torpedoes at the Klingon homeworld. His ship would've been stranded and a Klingon battle fleet would have obliterated the Enterprise, giving the perfect excuse for Marcus to begin full militarization of Starfleet, ala. Admiral Cartwright.
I don't think one should be labelled "not a real Trekkie" for liking these movies. My friends who are also Trek fans have all liked them. That doesn't make us any less Trekkies. Personally, I find these movies to be on par with the Prime timeline movies. The big problem is that what we, THE FANS, want...is a series. We want something that will take its time over a season rather than having to cram plot and exposition down our throats in 2 hours. I think there needs to be an animated series(either traditionally or CGI) set during the new timeline's 5 year mission. I also think there should be a series based on the Kelvin's adventures during the Prime timeline.
Finally...am I the only one that's glad that they didn't kill off Khan? I really hate when movies introduce a compelling villain and then kill him/her by the end. Good example, Jack Nicholson's Joker in the 1989 Batman.
@qft!!!!
:bow:
Lmao
Well I just got back from seeing this "Movie" and while certain aspects were entertaining I have to say that for the most part I was very unimpressed to be honest. At times I kind of thought that I was watching a crappy remake of a combination of TOS episode "Space Seed" and TWOK. I mean seriously, they even had to redo the scene with Kirk and Spock but with the roles reversed and Kirk dying instead of Spock??? WTF??? One would think that they could at least come up with an original story line and not use the same subject matter that was used in TWOK. :banghead:
Well without going into a big rant about it I'll just say that this one gets the thumbs down from me. :dontcare:
Today's audience would walk out of Star Trek The Motion Picture.
Now that JJ did the 5-years mission ending, it would be wise to go for a series as this is the perfect moment to start new ST series ;)
they'd walk out of 2001 and the cut down version of TMP for being too slow paced.
what makes you guys think an author like Timothy Zhan would touch trek? fans aren't the only snobs. I think trek is too "soft" for hard fi writers, and too "hard" for soft fi writers. If we could get someone in like Diane Duane, that'd be ideal. besides, I think JJ's hauling Zhan in for when he takes over the Star Wars franchise.
ShadowKnight has a point, though. they'd walk out of 2001 and the cut down version of TMP for being too slow paced.
Universe was awesome. I was sad when it was cancelled.Quite honestly, it was the only SG series I really loved :) I was really mad at syfy they cancelled it ...
Michael Bay??! are you CRAZY?!
he'd just replace the lens flares with explosions and produce the same thing we just saw!
I have kinda mixed feelings about this movie, I enjoyed it really but there were few details I didn't like but those were really minor things :) plot holes were bigger problems but even tho it is a solid Trek movie, now that I cought up with your comments guys, I think I'm fully agreed with all the positive comments :P
Khan plot was predictable to show up, since he first show up on screen I knew it isn't Harrison but Khan :P
Cast was great, I especially liked Bones and admiral Robocop :P
Now that JJ did the 5-years mission ending, it would be wise to go for a series as this is the perfect moment to start new ST series ;)
Brad Bird pull a Mission Impossible 4 with Star Trek XIII maybe.
*snicker* I bet Jonathan Frakes could do it.
Well, without Berman over his shoulder, he might pull it off. Just cause Insurrection sucked balls doesn't mean he's a bad director. He DID do First Contact after all.and a bunch of good episodes too.
SG1 was the best, Atlantis was ehhh and Universe was even more ehhh.
I miss SG1 but we can complain. It lasted longer than most.
Adam
hillbilly is one word.
you're looking for art in a world of what readers call "Extruded Book Product"? :funny
the only time a film turns into a great piece is if they're fishing for Oscars, andonly if they do it that way on purpose.
I'll explain "Extruded Book Product" only if someone asks. film does it too.
"Extruded Book Product"You got some splay-nin to do, Lucy.
When did this happen?
When did we forget that Movies were an art form? When did we forget that we making a vision for everyone not just a vision for me.?
the soviet/russian/eastern block car industries are infamous for doing ityeah, just look at post-soviet Poland and it's crap-car industries like FSO :facepalm: thank god it's gone now, good riddance :funny
shadowknight: why did you pick new years eve 97?January 31, 1997 was the release date for Star Wars: A New Hope Special Edition. Basically when a pretentious director decided film was more about his vision than what was good storytelling and entertainment.
1. Obviously Star Trek 2009 and Into Darkness are not visions for one person. The general public seems to enjoy it a lot, as do a fair amount of Trek fans. It just happens that the Trek fans who dislike the films are a bit louder. :p
2. But to answer your question seriously? I'd say it started January 31, 1997.
I think it says something, when we take that which was clearly intelligent and humbling (if imperfect) and we reduce it further to just entertainment. And I mean "just" entertainment.
Movies have become an allegory for the American Educational System and it's standards. An Allegory for what we truly value.... Entertainment over Education. Frankly I don't know how we're supposed to get from here to there (Trek) with this sort of attitude.
---
You've got to applaud CBS for not Turning TOS-R into something like Star War's special edition.
The deepest one was TMP and it did terrible at the box office. It's a lot easier to be deep and philosophical in a 3 or 4 episode story-arc.
and on top of that, you guys want the series to be "less action and more drama"? hell no!... they wouldn't even sign for one episode if there was no action at all...
it would be, plain an simple, BORING.
They weren't. The deepest one was TMP and it did terrible at the box office.
Like 5-10 min dedicated solely to admiring the Big E? Nah, that wouldn't fly in todays moviegoing audience.
And they're what I like to call "heretics". That is one of the three scenes I can watch over and over again. (The others are the opening bit with the Klingon battlecruisers and the V'Ger flyover.)
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=startrek.htm
.... The Motion Picture made the most money PRIOR to the 2009 movie.
As for tv series, I don't see what the problem would be. Use a new crew, on a different ship, but set it within the "new timeline". Why does every show have to be about the Enterprise? Surely Starfleet is larger than just 1 ship and crew? :P
And therein lies the problem. Story is sacrificed for special effects and cheap laughs.
Entertainment is supposed to be entertaining. I make this argument often. I don't play video games to learn super deep life lessons, I play them to enjoy myself and have fun. Movies should be the same. And don't try to say the Trek movies prior to 09 were deep. They weren't. The deepest one was TMP and it did terrible at the box office. It's a lot easier to be deep and philosophical in a 3 or 4 episode story-arc.
And I do applaud CBS for that. I was concerned when TOS-R was first announced.
I don't know about the 2 hour excuse because there are tons of 2 hour movies that are memorable and spectacular. So that just leave terrible writing and lens flare....You had a bunch of Nitpicky idiots in your theater then. I'm sorry, but if you're complaining about LENS FLARE, then you have even less of a life than people say we Trekkies have. And for the record, the lens flares seemed to be toned down a great deal from the previous film.
When I left the theatre all you heard was the people complaining about the lens flare. Too much.
And let's be realistic, you get paid how much money to make sure you write a good story within the allotted time. Come on, these are suppose to be experts/professionals. No more excuses. :nono:
Adam
Did anyone notice any upgrades to the Enterprise's bridge? If I recall correctly they may have made more sense of the controls under glass that didn't make sense, but I could be remembering the game.*scratches head* Hmmm...I'm not sure, it looked the same. Only thing I really noticed was Uhura's "Wash Switches" that she hit when hailing someone or something. I'm hoping to see it again this weekend, so I'll try to keep a lookout for anything else. :idk:
Did anyone notice any upgrades to the Enterprise's bridge? If I recall correctly they may have made more sense of the controls under glass that didn't make sense, but I could be remembering the game.
also... was that bald guy in blue shirt an ANDROID? 0o
Double posting...I know, bad form...but I just posted this on another forum, and felt it deserved mentioning here as well.
Defending Star Trek Into Darkness(with some minor criticisms):
I'll be looking at some of the more common complaints and/or WTF's I've seen in regards to the movie and trying to defend them, though I am making allowances in some cases. Let's get started. WARNING, SPOILERS FOR EVERYTHING!
Nibiru
First off, the biggest question is why was the Enterprise under water and why didn't they just beam Spock out from space. I would THINK that most Trekkies could easily extrapolate from Chekov's line about the planet's magnetic field that transporters were not very reliable, and in fact, I would wager that the only reason they were able to get Spock OUT of the volcano is because the Enterprise moved directly overhead and within a certain distance. This might also account for why the Enterprise wasn't in synchronous orbit OVER said volcano. It's been shown in a few instances that magnetic fields disrupt transporters. Now, as for the Enterprise being under water...while the transporter thing could account for that, they could have just used shuttles. So why was it under water? Simple. Rule of Cool. There isn't really any other explanation. And it was cool, but the whole scene COULD have used a little more dialog to explain WHY they hid the ship at the bottom of the ocean.
Kirk's demotion/re-promotion
So, Spock is saved, but Kirk blatantly violated the Prime Directive and then lied about it in his logs. While Spock was correct in stating that, had things gone according to plan, the Prime Directive wouldn't have been violated, Kirk still covered up everything in his log. This lead him to be demoted and have his command stripped from him. Makes sense. Pike realized that Kirk hadn't learned humility and sacrifice by legitimately working his way up the ranks. But he also recognized the potential and got Kirk assigned back to the Enterprise as Pike's first officer. Again, makes sense. Where people got irritated is after Khan's attack on Starfleet HQ that results in the death of Pike, Kirk asks for command of the Enterprise back to go after him. Admiral Marcus agrees, gives him his ship back as well as 72 advanced torpedoes to blow the crap out of Khan with. This also makes sense, as I'll detail next.
Admiral Marcus's Plans and Section 31
So, Kirk, Spock, and Scotty find out that Khan used Scotty's transwarp beaming to beam to Kronos, Kirk and Spock tell Marcus and request permission to go after him. At this time, Marcus tells Kirk and Spock about a top secret Starfleet division called Section 31. So top secret that Marcus pretty much tells them everything. Why do this? Simple. It's all part of the plan. See, Marcus felt that the only way to have a good Federation is to have a militarized one. So, he put highly advanced torpedoes on the Enterprise and ordered Kirk to go and fire them at the Klingon homeworld to kill Khan. A bit harsh, yes? Well, not if killing Khan isn't the point. See, a Federation starship, firing at the Klingon homeworld, would be an act of war to the Klingons. It wouldn't matter if the ship weren't in Klingon space or the torpedoes hit an uninhabited region. So. Marcus told Kirk and Spock all about a top secret Starfleet organization, gave them torpedoes, and told them to shoot at the Klingons. Then the Enterprise's warp drive breaks down. From here, it's all easy-peasy. Marcus didn't care if Khan lived or died. He sent the Enterprise and the trouble-making Kirk to be lambs for the slaughter. The only reason he told them everything? He didn't expect them to make it back. They were meant to die, which he would then use as an excuse to begin a war against the Klingons and building up Starfleet's military. So, in this context, it doesn't matter that Kirk had just been demoted. He was being sent to die anyways, so why not give him command.
Khan Stupidity?
Let's get the big elephant out of the room first. Khan is white. Not just normal white, but pasty British white. This was something that could have been solved in one scene. Kirk or Spock looks up the historical database and finds Khan, asks what the hell, Khan says, "Section 31 surgically altered my appearance so I wouldn't be recognized by anyone." This should have happened. Now that that's out of the way, the torpedoes. Khan put his people in them. People seem to forget that he did so to try and pull one over on Admiral Marcus. Marcus, probably correctly assuming Khan would do this, got hold of the torpedoes. Khan then assumed that Marcus pulled the plug, cue vengeance. This isn't hard to understand, really. But people don't quite get it, I guess. Now, when Khan beamed over the torpedoes? He had no reason to believe Spock would pull a stunt like that. Khan is, and always was, an arrogant, egotistical, manipulative bastard, and anyone who doesn't see that needs to rewatch Space Seed. He was manipulating the Enterprise crew from the moment he woke up. That's why I like this portrayal. It seemed more like Khan than the raving, maniacal, Moby Dick-quoting lunatic from Wrath of Khan. And on to the next Khan-related thing...
The "Magic" Blood
This has pissed a lot of people off. But here's my thing. Khan was engineered for perfection. Why wouldn't he have been given a genetic trait that let him heal rapidly and stuff like that? Everything that was done to Khan was never fully explored. Rapid healing and regeneration just MAKES SENSE FOR A SUPER-SOLDIER. Why make him superior in every way but one? As for why it worked on a tribble? I don't know. All I do know is that McCoy obviously just had a dead tribble lying around and wanted to test the extent of the regenerative abilities of Khan's genetic alterations.
Kirk's death/Spock's emotional breakdown
This whole scene pays homage to The Wrath of Khan. There's no getting around that. But it is a role reversal and very little of the dialog is actually taken from TWOK. Kirk learns humility and the meaning of sacrifice. He saves the ship and crew at the (temporary)cost of his own life. And Spock learns, too late, the value of friendship. Now, I haven't heard too many complaints about the death scene itself, but I am going to give my own opinion on it. Chris Pine OWNED that death scene. I could feel his heartbreak in knowing that he paid the ultimate price for victory. Definitely a much better death scene for James T. Kirk than in Star Trek Generations("Ow, I'm under...a bridge...and I can't...get up!") But where some people gripe is Spock's emotional breakdown afterwards, and I think this gripe extends back to the 2009 film. Spock has trouble with his emotions at times. But let's look at it closely. In the 2009 film, he was fine up until he watched his mother perish in front of him and then his planet imploded. I don't know about the rest of you, but I sure couldn't stay in command of my emotions after that. And Kirk deliberately poured salt in that wound. Yes, they made up afterwards and everything seemed to be hunky-dory, but the thing is...that kind of wound will not close. This Spock is never going to be as emotionally controlled as Spock Prime was at that age. And watching the man that saved his life out of friendship die trying to save Spock and everyone else on the Enterprise was even more salt in the wound. Naturally, Spock was upset. We've seen Spock have emotional moments when it came to his Captain. "Amok Time" is one great example. After he learns Kirk is "dead", Spock snaps out of the drive that causes Vulcans to DIE unless they screw a woman. He then, understandably, mourns the loss of his friend and prepares to be placed under arrest for killing an officer. When Kirk is shown to be alive, Spock breaks out in a huge grin. Emotionless? Perhaps not.
Until then, Live long and prosper.
So, just got back from a second viewing. Still love it. Took my sister, a nonTrek fan. She did know OF Khan, so she was surprised when Cumberbatch said "My name...is KHAN." And her reaction to Kirk's DEATH, not his death and rebirth: "Oh my god...that is bullshit." These were both quiet reactions, the small ones that I know are true reactions from her.
And Saquist, while I understand your feelings, I have to disagree on one point. Khan had NO reason to expect the torpedoes to be armed. He didn't expect skullduggery from the logical Vulcan. And I still found Kirk's percussive maintenance of the warp core more plausible than Spock pulling undefinable black shadows from a glowing ray of light. Seriously guys, you should know. WHAT WAS SPOCK DOING?!
I seem to recall, O'Brien occasionally used the "kick it until it works" solution on DS9. I did not see a fault with Kirk's "death scene". I thought it was handled better than the scene it pays "homage" to. Never did see a warp core in Spock's death scene in Wrath of Khan. Instead, we saw some weird small cylinder, with a glowing beam of light, apparently spewing radiation.Yeah, O'Brien was a huge proponent of percussive maintenance. :funny But yeah, I agree, Pine sold that scene. No matter that he came back in five minutes("He's only MOSTLY dead."), Kirk's death in this movie was more poignant and far more fitting than being squished under a bridge.
Yeah, O'Brien was a huge proponent of percussive maintenance. :funny But yeah, I agree, Pine sold that scene. No matter that he came back in five minutes("He's only MOSTLY dead."), Kirk's death in this movie was more poignant and far more fitting than being squished under a bridge.
Bones, Saquist...stop bringing up "nuclear" when referring to the Enterprise's warp core. I thought you guys were Trekkies, these ships don't use nuclear power anymore. :P But seriously speaking, if a little kick would upset the matter/antimatter reaction to the point of a core breach, then the warp core is more fragile than an ice swan. And also seriously speaking, I am so glad that they relocated the main section of engineering and gave us a better looking warp core this time around. It actually looked like a reactor that was the lifeblood of the ship rather than a flashing glowing tube or, in the case of the 2009 film, beer vats. :funny
We're going to watch a set of movies soon.
First Star Trek II: So he can compare what happened in this film to the original article.
Batman Returns: Because he's convinced there is no other Batman but Dark Knight as the Best Batman
Superman II: So he understands the potential rip-off factor of Man of Steel.
Seriously, that's the only thing that was keeping the core from reactivating.
Remember guys that anything that involves an atom at the atomic level can be called nuclear. There is even nuclear medicine.That's a shame. Burton's Batman IS the superior Batman. He's dark, broody, and doesn't have to sound like he smoked 50 pounds of cigarettes to sound intimidating. Don't get me wrong, I love the Nolan movies, but they're not the best representation of the Batman. Technically, neither are the Burton movies. Probably the BEST Batman period IS the animated series Batman. That show not only portrayed him as a martial artist badass, the show also depicted his detective skills, something that the live action films gloss over for the most part. The storylines in the animated series also can get pretty dark at times. If I had to recommend a few episodes, I'd be hard pressed to pick from some of them. The two-part episode where Harvey Dent becomes Two-Face is a really good one. Then there's "Baby-Doll" which is also a really good but also pretty dark. Then there's "Almost Got 'im" which is literally a series of stories between Joker, Two-Face, Penguin, Poison Ivy, and Killer Croc about the times they almost killed Batman...all while playing poker. Then there's the episode "Perchance To Dream". I really don't want to say too much about that one because it's worth seeing. Same with the late in the series episode "Over the Edge".
Antimatter reacting too matter to mutually annihilate is just as much a nuclear reaction as fusion or fission.
We struggled to compare the two batman movies but I think until he watches them again we're really not going to get him to give burtons a fair shake
That's a shame. Burton's Batman IS the superior Batman. He's dark, broody, and doesn't have to sound like he smoked 50 pounds of cigarettes to sound intimidating. Don't get me wrong, I love the Nolan movies, but they're not the best representation of the Batman. Technically, neither are the Burton movies. Probably the BEST Batman period IS the animated series Batman. That show not only portrayed him as a martial artist badass, the show also depicted his detective skills, something that the live action films gloss over for the most part. The storylines in the animated series also can get pretty dark at times. If I had to recommend a few episodes, I'd be hard pressed to pick from some of them. The two-part episode where Harvey Dent becomes Two-Face is a really good one. Then there's "Baby-Doll" which is also a really good but also pretty dark. Then there's "Almost Got 'im" which is literally a series of stories between Joker, Two-Face, Penguin, Poison Ivy, and Killer Croc about the times they almost killed Batman...all while playing poker. Then there's the episode "Perchance To Dream". I really don't want to say too much about that one because it's worth seeing. Same with the late in the series episode "Over the Edge".
But back on topic, when I took my sister to see it, I could sense that the tone of the movie and the danger to the characters changed for her once Khan's identity was revealed. Just a little gasp told me that she knew this was bad f***ing news. That's how well known Khan is. She hasn't seen the original episode, and I'm not entirely sure she's seen The Wrath of Khan. But everyone who knows anything about Trek knows about Klingons, Borg, and Khan. So I really think getting Khan out of the way NOW was a good idea, otherwise that shadow would haunt them, even if they only did one more movie.
I know how the moderators love an on topic thread so I'll keep going wishing Batman's Character in media could be discussed more.My sister turned 20 in April. :p And as for Batman, check out those episodes of the animated series I mentioned. They're worth a watch.
I don't know how old your Sister is but my Cousins are around 22 to 28 and they had no idea who Khan was. Mostly they didn't see his significance nor did they have any perception of who he was. To them it was like the first time and I find that the first time has a great amount of exhilaration than watching a reproduction. It's like with me Watching another Spiderman Intro Story or Intro Story's of anything that's been done over and over again.
I like the introduction of Section 31, I thought that had some clever potential than just a cursory line of text. Section 31 is one of the more interesting and controversial topics in Star Trek. And if he wanted to really get involved with the whole debate of unsanctioned action on foreign soil this would have been a great place to start.
Well put Nighthawk. Well put :)Indeed.
is that an Akyazi down there? :eek
is that an Akyazi down there? :eekNah, I think it's that odd ship with the two nacelles above the half saucer and the two secondary hulls under the saucer.
is that an Akyazi down there? :eek
What you're seeing is the 'Newton Type'
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/schematics/stxi_ships.htm
It was in XI as well.
hmmm... haven't visited EAS in a very long time... didn't know these guys had that much info alreadyNot to mention that the Vengeance was probably designed originally to combat the Klingon Empire. And modular construction makes sense considering the blocky nature of the ship.
there it says about the Vengeance, that it was "designed, built and launched in just one year, by an organization that is known for covert operations and not for shipbuilding, in a secret installation that likely didn't previously exist, and in the Sol system with its heavy space traffic that would make keeping the secret extremely hard"
with all the tech available even today, they never thought about modular construction.... which would have made the cover-up much more plausible, with different crews working on different pieces without them knowing the complete picture.
Found this great shot of the Enterprise from an upcoming issue of Cinefex. If the past pattern proves true, we should get a huge, hi-res version of the render used for the cover, as that was done for the Star Trek 2009 cover(Enterprise in front of Saturn, seriously the render was 6412x6347). Let's hope, cause this is a great shot.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/970893_611266205552728_1209792263_n.jpg)
I have to admit, I love the way that ship looks. It's a close second right behind the connie refit.She does grow on ya. Definitely grew on me faster than the Enterprise-D. Still think that ship looks unbalanced.
She does grow on ya. Definitely grew on me faster than the Enterprise-D. Still think that ship looks unbalanced.
I've come to grips with everything except the heft of her nacelles. If they went on a diet she'd be just right.Hey, I like her ample nacelles. :p
The saucer is about the only part of that thing that I think is pretty decent. The rest of it, the nacelles, the secondary hull, the pylons, the neck....they just don't look right.
The only thing that really bugs me is having the only underside registry being on the belly. What i'd like to see is keep the original under saucer positions but rotate them 90 and curve them to fit the hull lines. Also, add the ENTERPRISE and relocate it to the front side. The underside of the saucer is just too plain and doing this would be an improvement hands down.Don't give me ideas.
Don't give me ideas.
Don't give me ideas.You have too many for your own good. :P
Don't give me ideas.
Anyone have the novelization?
They had enough plot for a novelization?!:facepalm: Guess I should've known better...
:facepalm: Guess I should've known better...:D
Can't even take a stroll without some troll setting up some nice bait for an Abrams flamewar. :P
Gene would roll in his grave if he believed in an afterlife where he could watch his petty fanbois squabble after his fictional properties.It's called a joke. I'm quite sure they had those in the 60's as well :P
Yes captain_obvious(and your name has never felt more fitting lol)It only took 10 years for it to happen! :D
By Alan Dean Foster, who did the novelization for the last movie too. There's even an audio-book version read by Alice Eve.I thought the novelizations stopped years ago with the release of insurrection. That's the last one I ever heard of or saw anyway.
It only took 10 years for it to happen! :DI thought the novelizations stopped years ago with the release of insurrection. That's the last one I ever heard of or saw anyway.Nope, Nemesis had one too I believe.
"But when it comes to Kirk wanting the same, it's a bit more shocking, when you consider he's supposed to be a Starfleet officer. Guided by certain principles and morals. The Federation doesn't execute people for instance. And they certainly don't go around killing people they don't like."
Into Darkness had a plot. It was actually a similar plot to Wrath of Khan, only in reverse. In "Wrath of Khan", Khan wanted vengeance on Kirk. In "Into Darkness", Kirk wanted vengeance on Khan. Now with "Wrath of Khan", it wasn't as shocking given that Khan was overall a very bad guy. But when it comes to Kirk wanting the same, it's a bit more shocking, when you consider he's supposed to be a Starfleet officer. Guided by certain principles and morals. The Federation doesn't execute people for instance. And they certainly don't go around killing people they don't like.
Now, can we soon drop the "JJ Abrams" hatred? It's been going on for 5 years now, it's getting rather old.
Can't even take a stroll without some troll setting up some nice bait for an Abrams flamewar. :P
Oh god what have I done...What you had to do. What you always do. Turn a polite discussion into a flamewar.
What you had to do. What you always do. Turn a polite discussion into a flamewar.
Not my doing, so please ease off the accusations.
What the hell if with all the attitude in this thread anyway?!?!? Jeez guys, its just a friggin' movie FFS, who cares!!!!! :dontcare::yeahthat:
...I was joking. :(
What the hell is with all the attitude in this thread anyway?!?!? Jeez guys, its just a friggin' movie FFS, who cares!!!!! :dontcare:
To some people, it's the death of Star Trek incarnate! But nay, it is the dawn of a new frontier, where Trek need not be slow, boring, and filled with Treknobabble!
All hail JJ!
Death to the opposition!
*bolts for the door*
Time for this thread to go away me thinks, the film is out now and people have seen it.
Some hated it for valid reasons, some loved it for equally valid reasons.
All this thread is doing is flaring tempers from our more emotive and passionate members
"We did a lot of focus groups in a lot of countries, and asked what they liked and didn't like and we listened," Marcoly said. "Basically, it was more action, more of the adventure elements and less of the real Trekkie stuff." The stuff, in other words, that turned the 1960s TV show into a cultural phenomenon in America and launched the film franchise.http://movies.yahoo.com/news/star-trek-darkness-heading-where-none-gone-foreign-213331663.html
Movies have been slowly dumbing down more and more since the '80s. Ever since opening box office returns made the art of filmmaking into a football game scoreboard.
I know what you mean Kori. It's not a pretty ship, but it's grown on me. A lot like the oberth class I think.Indeed. A ship need not be sleek and curvy to kick ass.
It turns out that more extras were created for this release ? more featurettes and even an audio commentary with director J.J. Abrams and members of his crew. None of it is available on the wide release Blu-ray or Blu-ray 3D SKUs. The commentary can only be found as an iTunes ?extra? download. And those extra featurettes? Some are on a Target bonus disc. Some are on a Best Buy bonus disc. And some are only available via CinemaNow and VUDU downloads.
That?s right: More than half of the special features created for Star Trek Into Darkness were used by Paramount?s marketing team as retailer exclusives.
You know how I found out? Readers told me. Several readers e-mailed me talking about the iTunes commentary and something about its shifting aspect ratios, and all I could think was: ?Wait, there?s a freakin? audio commentary somewhere? and it?s not on the Blu-ray?!?
Target: ?Collector?s Set with Special Features Bonus Disc? Exclusively at Target, a collector?s set that includes unique package art and a Blu-ray bonus disc with over 70 minutes of special features including 30 minutes of exclusive content.
Best Buy: ?30 Minutes of Exclusive Never-Before-Seen Content? A Best Buy Exclusive, delve into the creation of the film?s unique alien creatures, get a first-hand look at one of the locations used for the U.S.S. Enterprise?s Engine Room and more.
Walmart: ?Limited Edition Gift Set with Steelbook & Villain Ship? Only at Walmart, this Limited Edition Gift Set includes the Blu-ray Combo Pack in collectible Steelbook packaging and a replica of the U.S.S. Vengeance(Hot Wheels).
Amazon: Starfleet Phaser Limited Edition Gift Set An Amazon exclusive, the Starfleet Phaser Gift Set includes a 1:1 scale authentic Starfleet phaser replica, gloss black display stand, brass plaque and the Blu-ray 3D Combo Pack.
Warp fins.
The "official" size is plain and utter BS. We all knew that. That image just confirms what we always suspected;
The nuEnterprise saucer is virtually the same size as the TMP Enterprise. The image confirms that the saucer "edge" has 2 decks, just like the TMP version.
Everything justifying the official size has to do with the CGI scaling/visual appearance. That is it. She was designed to be 366 meters long, and the CGI guys decided to make it bigger for a grander feel.
If we use that same justification for other canon things, then:
The Defiant is 30 meters long, with barely a deck, when compared to the Enterprise E.
The Enterprise D underwent a massive refit after a couple of years to make each armor panel stick out and add a second deck to the saucer rim.
The Enterprise A underwent a massive refit to squeeze in a couple dozen extra decks.
The Enterprise B has 30-odd decks and is as large as a Sovereign class.
Deep Space Nine has 20 meter tall Promenade windows.
Visual evidence/CGI model/studio model scaling has always been completely unreliable for determining size.
There's a thread at Trek BBS which discusses this with boat loads of visual evidence (including said corridor shot) much better than I can be bothered to do.
No, Ryan Church designed her to be 366 meters. ILM upscaled it. That's a big difference from "designed to be 725.35".
Do you have a link to said thread? I would like to read it.
and possibly a change in the design of the phaser turrets.
... snipped ...
Yes, I disagree with the "official" size.
As you may or may not be aware, the 2009 movie contradicts itself in it's own sizing. You correctly pointed out the "huge shuttlebay scene" when Pike, Kirk, Sulu and Engineer Olsen disembark. But again, the -look- of the saucer makes it appear to be close to the same size as the TMP Connie, which used a saucer of a very similar design (including it's 2 rows of windows). Now unless you're gonna claim that the saucer has entire decks with ZERO windows, besides the 2 obvious decks, i'll just conclude that we'll have to agree to disagree.
That is hilarious.And crazy.
*points to door*
The "official" size is plain and utter BS. We all knew that. That image just confirms what we always suspected;Ugh...Part of me really likes that image showing the corridor in the hull breach, but...why in the hell does it just confirm 2 decks then? To me, if there are just two decks, there's a LOT of wasted space in the saucer rim.
The nuEnterprise saucer is virtually the same size as the TMP Enterprise. The image confirms that the saucer "edge" has 2 decks, just like the TMP version.
Kori, pretty sure the plaque would still say "Starship Class". I don't know if Constitution-class was ever used on-screen, but the Enterprise 1701 was always called that even when the plaque said otherwise.
The name "Constitution-class" originated with the script for TOS: "Space Seed". Scene 44 of the Second Revised Final Draft for "Space Seed," dated December 13, 1966 has the following content:
44 ANGLE ON SICK BAY VIEWER
It is covered with mathematical symbols and diagrams. CAMERA PULLS BACK to show Khan studying with great concentration. He pushes a button. Another transparency appears: a chapter heading, reading: BASIC SPECIFICATIONS, CONSTITUTION CLASS STAR SHIP.
Ugh...Part of me really likes that image showing the corridor in the hull breach, but...why in the hell does it just confirm 2 decks then? To me, if there are just two decks, there's a LOT of wasted space in the saucer rim.
Most MSD's budget 3 to 4 meters per deck. Corridors aren't that tall.
From memory-alpha
Either the View Screen got bigger or the bridge got smaller. Actually the new exterior view screen matches the physical set better. (http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/xihd/trekxihd1279.jpg)
Contradictory much?
Enterprise is labeled as the length of the Chrysler Building (which is 319 meters with spire). At the same time, it says "Overall length: 750 meters".
So Into Darkness confirms the Enterprise in JJ-Verse is also known as a Constitution class. I believe in the first film it was just 'Starship-Class' like in TOS, that what it said on the plaque anyways.
Cover for Issue 3 of Khan, pretty cool.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-D-eruqfl91Q/UjV26SXqfUI/AAAAAAAAU3E/5tplX0KBXMA/s1600/IDW+Star+Trek+Khan+%25233.jpg)
This reminds me of the artist behind the Episode 1 &2 posters Drew StruzanStruzan did a lot more than that. He did the movie posters for all 6 Star Wars films(the actual posters, not the photoshop shit on the DVD covers), all the Indiana Jones movies, the Back to the Future Trilogy, and more. Surprisingly, I don't think he's ever done anything for Star Trek movies.
But I don't know for sure this is his work....
I don't get why Marcus would have a model of the Vengeance is his office.
"This is our new, top secret bad-ass ship. I'll just go and put a model of it on display right here in my office."
Yeah Cy, plot wasn't the strongest aspepect of both JJTreks but I'll admit one thing, both these movies were way more enjoyable than Insurrection and Nemesis ;)
Somewhat related. Orci had apparently talked to CBS, and CBS flat out told him that they have no interest in bringing Star Trek back to TV.
Honestly, and no offense to you guys cause I've yet to see true fanboy bitching on this forum, I'm starting to really hate identifying myself as a Star Trek fan. It seems the lot of them can't stand to see their franchise being "destroyed" when...really, it's gone back to its roots.Going back to the roots is something, but that doesn't automatically make it a good film or even a good idea.
It's fun, actiony, and does have underlying themes, unlike Next Gen, the TMP era movies, and so on that were slow paced and overly philosophic at times.
Do I think the JJ films are perfect? Hell no. I'm sick of Earth. Go EXPLORE STRANGE NEW WORLDS.
And let the Enterprise be bad-ass. She's not the Millennium Falcon where we expect the ship to take a pummeling.
But that being said, I do enjoy them, and I certainly wouldn't put them in the bottom of the list if I were to rank the films. They'd be right up there with TWOK and FC. Insurrection, TFF, and TMP are at the bottom.I wouldn't place the jj films right at the bottom, but they would definitely be very low down.
The only way it could get uglier and stay a fed ship is if they replaced it with the oddysey class from sto!
If I had the choice between only owning TMP or one of the JJ films it would be TMP every single time. May not be explosions every five seconds that audiences and studios want today but it has solid plot, beautifully made visual effects and strong acting from every single character
*punches in face* Haters gonna hate!
It's such a long time to wait... maybe we could get a TV special of some kind before then? Just use existing assets (Nothing would need to change) and make a Christmas special(Not Doctor Who-like, more like ABC and all the Shrek, Toy Story, Agents of Shield stuff they get up to.) for 2015. The comics help take off the edge but it's still a long time to wait.Less time than between Star Trek and Into Darkness...
(Inb4 people mention all the old gaps in Trek content.)
captain_obvious, I wasn't including the Next Gen movies in the "not enough action" set. Though Insurrection could have used a bit bigger budget and a better story. Hate Insurrection. I used to think it wasn't so bad, but then on my run through all of Next Gen, it got MUCH worse by comparison. And people say Nemesis is terrible.
As for your comments about the Enterprise, I disagree, but starship design is never an objective thing. I personally do not like the Enterprise-D all that much, but I'm very much in the minority on that. *shrugs*
But I do agree that CBS's inactivity towards Trek on TV is what's hurting the franchise. Yes, it can live on the big screen, but it won't ever be as engaging because it can't work as well at weaving a long story
mckinneyc, my problem with TMP lies primarily with the pacing, not the action or effects or acting. It's very, VERY slow. As much as I appreciate the views of the Enterprise, it didn't need to take over 5 minutes to dock with the ship and just as long to LEAVE SPACEDOCK. I can back out of the driveway faster than that ship moved out of spacedock.
This is a thing
http://www.startrek.com/article/captain-jane-tiberia-kirk-takes-command
This is a thing
http://www.startrek.com/article/captain-jane-tiberia-kirk-takes-command
To be fair, both would have been par-for-the-course for the Original Series.Oh my goodness that is the best idea for a TOS episode ever. One of the fan series should get on that. Right now. Make it as cheesy as possible.
The JJ Abrams side of the franchise is just messed up. He's departed leaving a partial mess to tidy up. The reboot dosen't bear any true connection to the true star trek and I would have prefered there not be a movie. But then again other people will say It has kinda made Star Trek Cool again, Yeahhh but in a cheesy way, too cheesey to accept. I mean for one the engine room on the enterprises looks like an oil refinery. How on earth will that become as iconic as the true enterprises engine rooms were. The only one thing that appears physically from the prime universe is a model of the NX-01 on certain Starfleet Admirals desks in Into Darkness.
The JJ Abrams side of the franchise is just messed up. He's departed leaving a partial mess to tidy up. The reboot dosen't bear any true connection to the true star trek and I would have prefered there not be a movie. But then again other people will say It has kinda made Star Trek Cool again, Yeahhh but in a cheesy way, too cheesey to accept. I mean for one the engine room on the enterprises looks like an oil refinery. How on earth will that become as iconic as the true enterprises engine rooms were. The only one thing that appears physically from the prime universe is a model of the NX-01 on certain Starfleet Admirals desks in Into Darkness.
(I'm still not sure where or if to include ENT into this, even though I finally got around watching it -up to 3rd season start)
I guess that is the point.
Star Trek started as Action-y /cheesy + (for the time) Utopian Society. TNG added some Philosophy to that -which got thrown away (most of it) again sometime during Voyager while growing an emphasis again on Action and Cheese. (I'm still not sure where or if to include ENT into this, even though I finally got around watching it -up to 3rd season start)
The nu/JJ -Trek (I must admit that I haven't seen "Into Darkness" yet) is just over the Top Actiony and cheesy with Plots that would also fit into a 45min Voy or ENT episode. It is no different in that than any of the new Comic-Hero Movies.
The new Trek is missing (e.g. via a TV show counterpart, like in "old" Trek) to showcase the other elemental part of "Star Trek" -which is a functioning Utopian Society (+ a bit of philosophy now and then).
By not incorporating that into their universe, it just feels "hollow" and stale (at least for me).
I think it's a matter of risk. The lackluster performance of Clone Wars on network TV probably raises some concerns about the viability of an extended science fiction show in todays market....not too many on TV right now that are considered successful.
I think it's a matter of risk. The lackluster performance of Clone Wars on network TV probably raises some concerns about the viability of an extended science fiction show in todays market....not too many on TV right now that are considered successful.
No, I believe that it is a study model that in the JJverse was never used, while in the prime universe it's the JJprise that was never used and remained a study model.I can actually believe that. The JJPrise in the Prime universe could have been a planned refit for the regular Connie.
I can actually believe that. The JJPrise in the Prime universe could have been a planned refit for the regular Connie.
According to the novelization of jjtrek, the woman who went on to design the tos connie died on the kelvin and the guy who designed the TMP refit ended up winning the contest to design the JJprise.Wow I never read all of that novel and never knew that.
Wow I never read all of that novel and never knew that.
Guess i'll have to now
Should've kept him as John Harrison throughout imho. Leave the "Khan connection" out of the movie, and the rehashing of Wrath of Khan in the finale (albeit with role-reversal).I totally agree with this - John Harrison could have easily been another augment who wanted to revive Khan and the others, while working for S31 and failing just like in the movie. This would have made a more "original" movie in my opinion.
They could've referred to him as an augment, left over from the Eugenics Wars, possibly as part of the recovered samples stolen by Arik Soong 100 years earlier (during ENT). It didn't make much sense to have the Admiral send out a fleet of ships throughout the quadrant, to find the Botany Bay (launched some 300 years prior), for the sole purpose of designing advanced (23rd century) tech and ships. Would've been far more believable to have John Harrison as a deep cover operative within Section 31, working against Starfleet (and the Admiral).
Should've kept him as John Harrison throughout imho. Leave the "Khan connection" out of the movie, and the rehashing of Wrath of Khan in the finale (albeit with role-reversal).
They could've referred to him as an augment, left over from the Eugenics Wars, possibly as part of the recovered samples stolen by Arik Soong 100 years earlier (during ENT). It didn't make much sense to have the Admiral send out a fleet of ships throughout the quadrant, to find the Botany Bay (launched some 300 years prior), for the sole purpose of designing advanced (23rd century) tech and ships. Would've been far more believable to have John Harrison as a deep cover operative within Section 31, working against Starfleet (and the Admiral).
In 2258 of the alternate reality, Section 31 performed secret investigations in unexplored space for means of better defending the Federation after the destruction of Vulcan. They discovered the Botany Bay, 262 years after launch, and Khan was awoken. With the other 72 augments still in stasis under Section 31's control, he was forced to join and work for Starfleet as John Harrison.
Admiral Marcus: I took a tactical risk and I woke that bastard up, believing that his superior intelligence could help us protect ourselves from whatever came at us next. But I made a mistake. And now the blood of everybody he's killed is on my hands.
...so, if you were a Starfleet Admiral in charge of a secret organization dedicated to defending the Federation from threats no matter the cost and you found a group of genetic augments, you would revive a flunky instead of the leader?
:funny