Star Trek into Darkness

[Lycaon]

Oh, hell. I just noticed that bit near the end. That (and checking Mr. Cumberbatch's IMDB page) tells me this will be Khan. Wonder why they won't reference that in the title?

[Mr. Hakujin]

Nurse Chapel was my thinking as well.

 

p.s. who -1'd Haku's last post? T'was pretty harmless.

Some people, right?

 

I noticed you weren't quick to +1 it to negate the neg either. ;)

[The NZA]

ya'll need to make a "WHY DID I GET NEGGED HERE WAAA" shack thread already, so meta-discussion can go there. i mean, this thread's already a hot bed of neggers.

[Reverend Jax]

ya'll need to make a "WHY DID I GET NEGGED HERE WAAA" shack thread already, so meta-discussion can go there. i mean, this thread's already a hot bed of neggers.

[The NZA]

[crimsonfire]

It's Kirks old friend Gary Mitchell not Khan. I forgot how but in the original series he slowly gains omnipotent powers and loses touch with humanity until he becomes a more angsty Dr Manhattan type character.

 

To summarise: Not Khan.

[Reverend Jax]

I still see the image fine, but here's another one:

 

 

Or...

 

[Lycaon]

It's Kirks old friend Gary Mitchell not Khan. I forgot how but in the original series he slowly gains omnipotent powers and loses touch with humanity until he becomes a more angsty Dr Manhattan type character.

 

To summarise: Not Khan.

for some reason, the IMDB entry that shows Benedict Cumberbatch as Khan now says (rumored), but there's still the scene in the trailer that seems to reference a scene from the Wrath of Khan. What is it that has you convinced that he's Gary Mitchell and not Khan?

[crimsonfire]

It doesn't fit for some reason. If it was Khan I assumed they'd make a bigger deal of it for the hardcore Trekkie street cred. Something along the lines of a giant neon sign flashing "This is Khan!".

 

Khan was arguably the finest villain in Trekdom. His battle of wits with Kirk was marvellous. They could risk cheapening him as Generic Bioengineered Badass #4673.

 

[Mr. Hakujin]

Pshh. As if anything could cheapen this:

 

 

That luxurious hair. That tanned chest. You know you'd bend over for that, Crim.

 

#notgayifonprisonplanet

[Mr. Hakujin]

It's Kirks old friend Gary Mitchell not Khan. I forgot how but in the original series he slowly gains omnipotent powers and loses touch with humanity until he becomes a more angsty Dr Manhattan type character.

 

To summarise: Not Khan.

Well, he's apparently John Harrison. They have a good point here.This sounds an awful lot like Nolan saying It's not Talia al Ghul; it's Miranda Tate.Khan twist? Maybe Khan Jr.?

[Reverend Jax]

So, I saw the first 9 minutes at the Hobbit midnight screening last night (or more accurately, this morning). It was as action-packed and intense as any James Bond pre-credits sequence, meaning it had more of the things that some of the die-hard Trekkies didn't like about the 2009 reboot/prequel/sequel. If the first 9 minutes are indicative, any Trekkie who disliked the 2009 movie will probably dislike the follow-up even more, and those that did like it the 2009 have something that was worth the wait.

[crimsonfire]

I liked the 2009 one as a movie in its own right. I loved it a lot. Even as a Trek movie I can still tolerate the whizzbang, lazy technobabble and beautiful people because they were very careful to explain that it is a different timeline to the original Trek universe. You could almost imagine them winking at the camera as if to say "We just said a whole load of timeline related shit so you hardcore Trekkies can officially stop seething and enjoy yourselves".

 

It's a different kind of Star Trek which is cool. I do mourn the loss of patience and the sensory numbness of the public the entertainment industry needs to work with these days though. If it doesn't have at least 12,000 effects shots showing half of a city turn upside down and catch fire then it's "boring". Fuck humanity.

[Iambaytor]

It's a different kind of Star Trek which is cool. I do mourn the loss of patience and the sensory numbness of the public the entertainment industry needs to work with these days though. If it doesn't have at least 12,000 effects shots showing half of a city turn upside down and catch fire then it's "boring". Fuck humanity.

 

On one hand I agree with you on this because "Explosion, LOL!" does seem to be the modus operandi of most movies these days. At the same time Star Trek does feature a lot of big fancy battleships shooting at each other a whole bunch and I don't feel it's wrong to show them blowing up because you can only shake the camera and have sparks shoot out of a bank of lights so many times before that gets dull. I can only think of a couple action sequences in the first which really felt horribly egregious (pretty much the entire Not-Hoth section of the movie, really)

[Newtype]

[Mr. Hakujin]

So the comic book prequel has Klingons. Does this mean maybe Cumberbatch isn't Khan but instead one of the "genetically altered Klingons" from TOS? Eh. Not really, but I admit I almost like that possibility even better than Khan redux.

 

Edited January 23, 2013 by Mr. Hakujin

[Thrizzle]

Motion poster. Maybe if I put it under a spoiler it will keep it from autoplaying every time you come to this page?

 

 

 

<object width="398" height="360"><param name="flashvars" value=""><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><param name="movie" value="https://apps.paramountpictures.com/movie/startrek/motionposter/us/HH_fb_embed.swf"></param><param'>https://apps.paramountpictures.com/movie/startrek/motionposter/us/HH_fb_embed.swf"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="false"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="https://apps.paramountpictures.com/movie/startrek/motionposter/us/HH_fb_embed.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" flashvars="isEmbed=true" wmode="transparent" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="false" width="398" height="360"></embed></object>

 

 

[Reverend Jax]

This trailer is a lot more fun than the previous one, like the 2009 movie was.

 

Edited March 22, 2013 by Mr. Hakujin
fixed vid size

[Newtype]

[Jables]

Quite accessible like the first, I look forward to seeing feedback from loyalists to the source material though. I'm not going to bother discussing spoilers because you guys have proven that you can't be saved even from yourselves.

 

Well maybe this massive nugget>seriously, only click if you've seen the movie or have no interest in taking the ride as JJ Abrams prescribed

Are you Sure? Y/N

Yeah it's Wrath of Khan all over again. I haven't watched that movie all the way through so I don't have a greater frame of reference than any other pop culture buff with the benefit of having lived with a Trekkie but, John whassisname is indeed Khan. Hell, IMDB Is spoiling that anyway. Interestingly they switch and bait the ol' killing Spock trick though.

 

 

I have gripes which i'm sure a resident trekkie will gladly and pompously set me straight on(story spoilers follow).

I'm wondering: do they normally make up bullshit excuses for not reusing a perfectly serviceable plan? It seemed to me that beaming Kirk from a location on the ship to another could work out a little better than watching him die of radiation poisoning. And this isn't a question so much as an observation, but I guess the benefit of when ST2 was made way back when was, it had the tv series to really rack up histrionics and set context. Here what we had was 120-odd minutes of Kirk & SPock talking about how hard of BFFs they are without really knowing why/how. Seriously, if they had a spare minute they wanted the audience to know that they'd cross swords in Uhura just the next time they break for a set change.

 

[FireDownBelow]

I refuse to see this movie out of principle.

[Reverend Jax]

Which principle is that? Not liking the 2009 one? Did you not see the 2009 based on the same principle?

Edited May 8, 2013 by Reverend Jax

[FireDownBelow]

Actually, I saw the 2009 one. I didn't think it was a bad movie, but I didn't think it was a good movie. Very action oriented much like the later TNG movies such as First Contact and Insurrection were. It didn't have much in the way of a deep plot but then neither did any of the preceding Star Trek movies.

 

In all honesty, I don't wish to see this one because I don't feel that the 2009 'revamp' or jumpstart (whatever you want to call it) added anything of value to the franchise. Instead of going with what the various shows had already established and somehow trying to make a really good movie, they just scrubbed it. It feels as if they took the coward's way out, the path of least resistance. If there had been something inherently wrong with the franchise, I might be inclined to forgive this, but there wasn't-other than being outdated. And face it, everything and everyone gets old.

 

So, I just don't feel that this new movie is relevant or needed. It seems like a sell out. And I have no urge to go watch another 'meh' action movie. I did that when Ryan dragged me to the latest Die Hard flick.

[Panch]

The 2009 flick made a fan outta me (and tons more that weren't into the franchise). That's gotta count for something.

[FireDownBelow]

For the new franchise. It's not the same. As Crim pointed out many, many posts back, this is truly for the next generation. Oh, god...I'm sorry. I couldn't help myself. Really though, this jumpstart is for a new type of fan in a different era. I'm glad you liked it, but it's realy not the same thing anymore.