logo Sign In

Star Trek Into Darkness — Page 2

Author
Time
 (Edited)

FanFiltration said:

Holy shit. That has to be the most inconsequential teeny-tiny nitpick I have ever seen. Seriously, people are complaining about this??

<span style=“font-weight: bold;”>The Most Handsomest Guy on OT.com</span>

Author
Time
 (Edited)

TMP

TWOK

TSFS

TVH

TFF

TUC

GEN

FC

INS

NEM

(The 2009 movie had no subtitle)

STID (or should it just be ID?)

Forum Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Did not the screenwriters say a couple of years ago this would be more dark like the Dark Knight, comparing the first film to Batman Begins as an origin story.

That made me as worried as the idea of a Dark Superman ripoff of the Batman Nolan movies.  Now i hope i am wrong about Man of Steel and Star Trek Into Darkness, but its a wait and see thing.

Hopefully the villain in the new trek film is not another Khan ripoff like Shinzon or Nero.  Or worse a Dark Clone of Kirk. Like a remake of Nemesis.

“Always loved Vader’s wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin’s ghost. What a fucking shame.” -Simon Pegg.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

SilverWook said:

STID (or should it just be ID?)

Sexually Transmitted Infectious Disease.

Or a little rearrangement to become [:SITD:] which is a band I enjoy.

Keep Circulating the Tapes.

END OF LINE

(It hasn’t happened yet)

Author
Time

could the borg be the bad guys for the new movie? 

Author
Time
 (Edited)

They are taking a casual interest in us from the Delta quadrant so I doubt it.

It would take them about 80 years to get here and depending on which origin story you use may not even exist in this universe despite already meeting Archer and mucking about during first contact.

Is it the same Enterprise E or an alternate Enterprise E that stopped that?

This arm of the film series is a whole load of new suck.

Author
Time

skyjedi2005 said:

Did not the screenwriters say a couple of years ago this would be more dark like the Dark Knight, comparing the first film to Batman Begins as an origin story.

That made me as worried as the idea of a Dark Superman ripoff of the Batman Nolan movies.  Now i hope i am wrong about Man of Steel and Star Trek Into Darkness, but its a wait and see thing.

Hopefully the villain in the new trek film is not another Khan ripoff like Shinzon or Nero.  Or worse a Dark Clone of Kirk. Like a remake of Nemesis.

As for Man of Steel, it's produced by Christopher Nolan so I wouldn't worry about that being a TDK rip-off.

And I don't think there's anything to worry about here with STID. Didn't you say that they compared ST to BB? So what's wrong with STID being compared to TDK? Yeah, TDK was darker, so that just means that STID will be darker than ST. It doesn't mean that it will be TDK level dark. Just darker.

So I think darker is a good thing. Why? Let me recall another sci-fi franchise you might have heard of, whose second part was darker. What was its name? 

Beats me.

Author
Time

DominicCobb said:

skyjedi2005 said:

Did not the screenwriters say a couple of years ago this would be more dark like the Dark Knight, comparing the first film to Batman Begins as an origin story.

That made me as worried as the idea of a Dark Superman ripoff of the Batman Nolan movies.  Now i hope i am wrong about Man of Steel and Star Trek Into Darkness, but its a wait and see thing.

Hopefully the villain in the new trek film is not another Khan ripoff like Shinzon or Nero.  Or worse a Dark Clone of Kirk. Like a remake of Nemesis.

As for Man of Steel, it's produced by Christopher Nolan so I wouldn't worry about that being a TDK rip-off.

And I don't think there's anything to worry about here with STID. Didn't you say that they compared ST to BB? So what's wrong with STID being compared to TDK? Yeah, TDK was darker, so that just means that STID will be darker than ST. It doesn't mean that it will be TDK level dark. Just darker.

So I think darker is a good thing. Why? Let me recall another sci-fi franchise you might have heard of, whose second part was darker. What was its name? 

Beats me.

Starship Troopers 2: Hero of the Federation!!

 

What do I  win?

<span style=“font-weight: bold;”>The Most Handsomest Guy on OT.com</span>

Author
Time

DominicCobb said:

skyjedi2005 said:

Did not the screenwriters say a couple of years ago this would be more dark like the Dark Knight, comparing the first film to Batman Begins as an origin story.

That made me as worried as the idea of a Dark Superman ripoff of the Batman Nolan movies.  Now i hope i am wrong about Man of Steel and Star Trek Into Darkness, but its a wait and see thing.

Hopefully the villain in the new trek film is not another Khan ripoff like Shinzon or Nero.  Or worse a Dark Clone of Kirk. Like a remake of Nemesis.

As for Man of Steel, it's produced by Christopher Nolan so I wouldn't worry about that being a TDK rip-off.

And I don't think there's anything to worry about here with STID. Didn't you say that they compared ST to BB? So what's wrong with STID being compared to TDK? Yeah, TDK was darker, so that just means that STID will be darker than ST. It doesn't mean that it will be TDK level dark. Just darker.

So I think darker is a good thing. Why? Let me recall another sci-fi franchise you might have heard of, whose second part was darker. What was its name? 

Beats me.

I'm more worried about the fact Superman has lost his little red swimming trunks. What the heck were they thinking? ;)

Forum Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

Wait until the new Star Wars hype machine gets up to speed. ;)

Forum Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

Starship Troopers had no sequels!

re: The Borg, First Contact era and the Enterprise E - isn't this current universe [the Abrams stuff] meant to be like a branch where both timelines continue to exist? If so, that stuff shouldn't really be affected by this new timeline.

re: the title - it kinda feels like they are digging themselves a hole out of refusing to deal with this stuff on the previous film. They knew then that they could not simply call all future films "star trek".

re: Superman - I think it IS possible to make a film about the character that doesn't suck, I just don't think we'll see that any time soon. Film makers just seem content to re-tread the same ground. - We don't need to see a young Clark Kent again, we've seen that enough and there was a TV series [Smallville] about young Clark that ran for 10 years.

 

Author
Time

Not to mention the 90's Superboy series.

Forum Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

I want to know why it's called "Star Trek", yet most of the films take place around Earth.  Let's get out into deep space! You know, that place where no one has gone before. Generations & Insurrection seem to be the only two films in the franchise that do not include any Earth bound segments. And that is excluding the  Earth holodeck scene in Generations. 

“First feel fear, then get angry. Then go with your life into the fight.” - Bill Mollison

Author
Time

They are both still more provincial than TMP.

It had scenes on Earth but it was mostly about the crew investigating something totally alien (even if Nomad was sitting in the command chair).

Author
Time

FanFiltration said:

I want to know why it's called "Star Trek", yet most of the films take place around Earth.  Let's get out into deep space! You know, that place where no one has gone before. Generations & Insurrection seem to be the only two films in the franchise that do not include any Earth bound segments. And that is excluding the  Earth holodeck scene in Generations. 

Because films have to appeal to a broader audience than the tv show. People care more about Earth than they do about other planets.

ROTJ Storyboard Reconstruction Project

Author
Time

Johnny Ringo said:

Starship Troopers had no sequels!

re: The Borg, First Contact era and the Enterprise E - isn't this current universe [the Abrams stuff] meant to be like a branch where both timelines continue to exist? If so, that stuff shouldn't really be affected by this new timeline.

I had thought that since history had be changed, that the new universe could be as different or same as the writers want it to be.  

Johnny Ringo said:

re: Superman - I think it IS possible to make a film about the character that doesn't suck,

well of course it is,  you have seen the first two Christopher Reeve Superman movies haven't you?   

Author
Time

FanFiltration said:

I want to know why it's called "Star Trek", yet most of the films take place around Earth.  

because "Star Trek" is the name of the tv series that the movies are based on?     In that series, they did go to other planets.  

Author
Time
 (Edited)

timdiggerm said:

FanFiltration said:

I want to know why it's called "Star Trek", yet most of the films take place around Earth.  Let's get out into deep space! You know, that place where no one has gone before. Generations & Insurrection seem to be the only two films in the franchise that do not include any Earth bound segments. And that is excluding the  Earth holodeck scene in Generations. 

Because films have to appeal to a broader audience than the tv show. People care more about Earth than they do about other planets.

The only Star Trek film that drew in a significant number of 'outsiders' was the hilarious comedy with the gays, it was barely Star Trek.

A) Studios need to know their property and stop mis-selling it. If you want something with mass appeal stop jigging things without mass appeal to appeal to masses. They will end up appealing to invisible silent people with no money.

B) Audience do weird things, just because you have made what you think is a niche product it doesn't mean it won't have run away mass appeal (nobody is going to see a Space Opera with the word War in the title with a monkey and a couple of robots as main characters in, not in 1977 they won't).

Author
Time

Well, I always saw it this way: they rarely visited Earth on the show, so the films were their chance to show it. As for why they kept coming back, I don't know. I guess they needed a grander scope. Generations and Insurrection both feel like the smallest of the ST films. Something about showing Earth and then showing deeper parts of the galaxy subtly expands the scope of the film, for whatever reason. Or maybe it doesn't. That's just how I feel.

Anyway, it made sense in the last one (origin story), and my guess is the reason for this one is that the bad guy (whoever it ends up being) attacks Earth, which would make threat more personal, I guess.

I definitely agree about The Voyage Home, though. Love the movie, but it's all on Earth! In the 80s! 

Author
Time

DominicCobb said:

Anyway, it made sense in the last one (origin story), and my guess is the reason for this one is that the bad guy (whoever it ends up being) attacks Earth, which would make threat more personal, I guess.

The past is another country, the future even more so.

Not only do they do things differently but have you tried to get a Visa for 25th Century Earth?

It's almost as screwy as 51st Century Earth.

I think suits are too stupid to realise that most people don't give a monkeys about a science fiction evil blowing up their planet after they are dead, they are more worried about characters they like getting hurt.

The last Alien film was all about stopping the Aliens getting to Earth.

Who cares?

It so different from your..our Earth it might as well be planet Zog (nice place BTW).

I didn't give a damn about an alternate version of Vulcan going all Alderaan last time around but I did care about Spock having to watch it happen.

I like Spock.

Author
Time

All good points but I was mainly meaning more personal for the characters (except Spock, of course). 

Author
Time

I wonder if the trailer will go live at midnight or will we have to wait a bit longer?

And will the internet buckle from the load? ;)

Forum Moderator

Where were you in '77?