there is atleast one new alien species never seen in a star trek movie or series and the klingons.
have some faith in J.J.
he will as always deliver
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Star Trek Into Darkness - Full trailer released
- Thread starter duckroll
- Start date
- Status
there is atleast one new alien species never seen in a star trek movie or series and the klingons.
have some faith in J.J.
he will as always deliver
Phoenix
Member
* You can't have orions because then the audience won't be able to adapt.
* Can't have anything more than a buddy cop relationship arc or the audience won't be able to adapt.
* Must have lots of pew pew lasers or the audience won't be able to adapt
* Can't have complex villains or the audience won't be able to adapt.
In short, Hollywood thinks you are all morons...
The Librarian
Banned
Aside from the casting decisions, special effects, and some action set pieces, he didn't deliver on the first movie either. No faith.
Ehhh, I don't like that at all.
pants
Member
I'm not a Star Trek fan.
It doesn't even seem like a good adventure template considering the setting.
That's one ell of a conclusion to jump to. Many 'StarTrek fans' loved 09. It doesn't make Into Darkness seem any less generic on its own merits, either-way.
Sherlock is probably Peter Wheller's super soldier clone run amok.
That's one ell of a conclusion to jump to. Many 'StarTrek fans' loved 09. It doesn't make Into Darkness seem any less generic on its own merits, either-way.
Sherlock is probably Peter Wheller's super soldier clone run amok.
To me it's more about trying to generate drama and emotion on the cheap. It's going to be hard to really give a shit about the events in that synopsis since
Kirk only had his ship for 40 odd minutes. Who gives a shit if he loses it again, and he never really wanted to be in starfleet anyway. You can't take away things that have developed no meaning and expect people to give a shit.
Edit: And if he wanted to be caught, I will kill a small animal. Hollywood needs to relearn how to write bad guys.
Blake'sGrave
Member
I heard that, sick to death of those plot lines.
I understand peoples' reservations about the film but I'm looking forward to it. At best I'm expecting pulpy action sci-fi, at worst 90 minutes of SFX fodder. Either way I plan to disengage and enjoy it.
I'm not bothered by it either. In fact, its kind of obvious - they are going to focus on the three leads, like pretty much every popcorn movie does.
Separating them from the crew
NotTheGuyYouKill
Member
It doesn't even seem like a good adventure template considering the setting.
That's one ell of a conclusion to jump to. Many 'StarTrek fans' loved 09. It doesn't make Into Darkness seem any less generic on its own merits, either-way.
Sherlock is probably Peter Wheller's super soldier clone run amok.
Whoa.
Just to be sure who is the third lead? Uhura?
I still believe this movie wil be great and I fully expect to love it (I already watched the first more than 10 times), but I'm just a little disappointed they choose this direction.
My dream would be some epic all out space exploration / warfare trilogy.
Correct.
Uhura is not one of the 3 being discussed. In the article it implies the three who are
from the Enterprise are Kirk, Spock, & McCoy.
Abrams even talks about how making Kirk/Spock/McCoy trifecta the centerpiece was very important to him and felt it wasn't prominent enough in the first film.
I assume she and Scotty will anchor the Enterprise side of the story.
separated and go on the adventure
Abrams even talks about how making Kirk/Spock/McCoy trifecta the centerpiece was very important to him and felt it wasn't prominent enough in the first film.
I assume she and Scotty will anchor the Enterprise side of the story.
The Librarian
Banned
So not McCoy? lol The Spock/Uhura relationship was already creepy to the nth degree in the first movie, and I don't know how they can make it any better in the second.
Does it? My bad, then.
Even still, I would call Uhura the third lead over McCoy. Just look at the first film. She was featured more prominently and they had two sides of a standard love triangle all set up.
Basically the ST2009 hierarchy is:
Kirk
Spock
Uhura
McCoy
Everyone else
NotTheGuyYouKill
Member
That sounds pretty good to me.
TrumanBurbank
Member
Interview with everyone's favourite writer Damon Lindelof
http://collider.com/damon-lindelof-star-trek-2-into-darkness-interview/220137/1
http://collider.com/damon-lindelof-star-trek-2-into-darkness-interview/220137/1
Sounds awful. And if this is really the direction that Abrams is taking his second Trek movie it's a major, major misstep. I've always said that Abrams has yet to prove he's a great director he is certainly a smart director. But nothing about what I've seen thus far suggests he's being smart about the direction he's taking Trek 2 never mind great.
But reading this Empire synopsis it suddenly put so many other things into perspective for me. For example the first official studio synopsis for Star Trek Into Darkness was genuinely the worst studio synopsis I have ever read and now I see why. It was awkward. It was needlessly wordy. It was evasive. Basically it was trying to disguise the fact that Trek 2 isn't (potentially) a FUCKING STAR TRK FILM.
Over the last few years Paramount have been notorious in mercilessly cutting production costs across the board. I just assumed that Trek (along with Transformers) would have been one franchise that would have been bullet proof from such changes. Perhaps not.
A (potential) Trek sequel with little space action in which our heroes are in 'space civvies' (potentially) largely hunting down Cumberbatch's on Earth screams 'smart budget' filmmaking. Seems like a studio trying to perhaps save a couple of dollars by cutting back on those expensive space based VFX even with SkyDance co-financing.
Either that or the studio and Abrams are trying to second guess the all important International audience (where Abrams Trek film wasn't a hit) by making something they think they want. Some kind of weird futuristic mash up of the Dark Knight?! Never a sound strategy.
Could Abrams be so obsessed with Nolan's Batman films he's just thrown everything Trek out of the window and just making a futuristic version of the Dark Knight?! Jumping to conclusions yes but that treatment just screams 'abandonment of source material' to me.
Hell he might alienate all those Trek fans with this sequel (if that synopsis proves true) but he might get the gig of rebooting Batman in the a few years time.
This is an excellent point. Abrams successfully separated 'his' Trek from the rest of the sizable Trek universe and in doing so separated all the previous history with it meaning audiences aren't going to automatically assume that this crew of the Enterprise have been together for years.
This seems like the sort of idea that would only have worked as third film, when we've established the crew and their working history together, NOT as a direct sequel to the first film.
Future Foundation
Member
Busty, where the hell did you pull that from?
Insomnia is a harsh mistress and a powerful motivator when you're staring at your laptop, wild eyed, at two in the morning willing sleep to come.
*rubs eyes with near manic energy*
I might take a look at the Zapruder film while I'm at it.
The Paramount stuff (etc, etc, etc) I've heard from friends (in the industry) everything is just speculation by way of what I know.
To be clear I've heard directly nothing about 'Trek 2' itself and I'm not claiming otherwise.
If it ain't Earth or humans, audiences can't relate to it.
Of course, to be fair, this mindset has invaded almost all of the sci-fi movies next year. Fucking shame.
How was that sequence in the first film not too cutesy? That guy was so fucking retarded and blatantly suicidal. "I'm not going to do the most basic thing that would make sense because the script demands I kill myself so that audience members can chuckle and elbow each other."
Grrrrrr. I'm so far from being a Trekkie* but this dumbass reboot pisses me off to the extreme. It's just overtly dumbing down a franchise to sleek, mindless action scenes.
*I've only seen The Wrath of Khan, The Search for Spock, First Contact, Insurrection, Star Trek 2009 and "Space Seed". Khan and First Contact are fantastic.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Oh fuck off dude, seriously. Not everything needs to be relatable. Sometimes, as crazy as it sounds, I watch movies to be transported to places I can't relate too because they're too fantastical. Nuts, I know!
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
I wonder how much of that extra $50m is taken up by the cast's inflated sequel salary, shooting scenes in IMAX and the shitty 3D conversion.
The Librarian
Banned
God damn, some of the ridiculous conclusion jumping and negativity is comically absurd.
Calm the fudge down, people. It's just a movie. I'm a huge Star Trek fan, I loved ST2009, and this one is looking really great, judging from the trailers and the 9 minute footage I've seen.
I'm going to reserve judgment until the movie releases, but I've seen nothing to make me concerned by the film being any less fun than the first. I suppose if you hated the first one, this one probably won't change your mind, but I have a feeling that those that enjoyed the first, won't be walking away disappointed in this one.
I just think some people are working themselves up into a frenzy for nothing. It's not that serious.
Calm the fudge down, people. It's just a movie. I'm a huge Star Trek fan, I loved ST2009, and this one is looking really great, judging from the trailers and the 9 minute footage I've seen.
I'm going to reserve judgment until the movie releases, but I've seen nothing to make me concerned by the film being any less fun than the first. I suppose if you hated the first one, this one probably won't change your mind, but I have a feeling that those that enjoyed the first, won't be walking away disappointed in this one.
I just think some people are working themselves up into a frenzy for nothing. It's not that serious.
pants
Member
As much crap as I give Star Trek, most of the people (myself included) that I talk with regularly on sci fi boards agree it was a fun movie, a good sci fi romp. No one is taking that away from it. There is an almost universal sense of "This is not Star Trek" though and this movie seems to veer more into the "not star trek" field.
Not saying my anecdotal evidence speaks for everyone, but to me it is all that matters as I have a very long history (15 years about now) of debating sci fi with these folk and I respect their opinions (even when I disagree).
Guys, don't have an opinion, it's going to be good, really! Guys, be nice!
Yeah guys, people getting this salty over a synopsis isn't ridiculous at all!
pants
Member
Maybe, at least people are commenting on what has been shown, rather than giving generalised statements on trust.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
"space civvies" probably cost more to design/create than the uniforms they already have on-hand/available. Also, there's nothing that says being in outer space makes effects any more expensive.
The "this isn't Star Trek" shit is annoying specifically because the "Star Trek" people seem to be pining for when they say that didn't really exist until the mid-90s, when dry ass Jean Luc Picard was tooling around the galaxy drinking tea in an interstellar Dodge Spirit. There's an image/idea of "Star Trek" that the Original Series itself can't possibly live up to. For example:
Dan said:
None of those movies are particularly smart. But I gotta imagine that Dan thinks "Star Trek" stands for something way more cerebral/thoughtful/deep than what he's seen based on people constantly professing that there's a lot more to "Star Trek" than some basic, satisfying drama carried out on a spaceship.
Did I say the movie was going to be good? I said it looks good. About as good as the first one, but hey, my opinion is apparently invalidated, because it's positive, while the opinions of those that go into everything with an absurd level of cynicism are somehow more right. But again, if you didn't enjoy the first one, there's a higher probability of you not enjoying the second one, as it's looking to be more of the same. For those that did enjoy the first one, there's a higher probability of them enjoying this one. But there are no guarantees, of course. I loved the first Expendables movie, and didn't enjoy the second (but then again, I felt that the second one didn't have enough of the stuff that made the first one so fun).
I've said my piece. The movie looks entertaining. I'm not about to get wrapped up in a silly meltdown over a fricking synopsis. No sir, that's completely rational behavior! We'll just have to wait and see, ultimately. I'm not about to stress out over a movie trailer or plot synopsis.
Film makers, much like video game developers, don't actively set out to make shitty movies/games.
So, again, relax. Point your rage in another direction, not mine.
Dance, monkey!
Whatever you say, buddy. Have fun raging over 12 minutes of movie footage and a synopsis. There's clearly no point in trying to have a civilized discussion with you without you resorting to name-calling (as a black man, I could take offense at the "monkey" part of your post, but I'm a reasonable, and rational individual, and know you didn't mean it in that way...).
Count Dookkake
Member
You can't have it both ways.
If he didn't mean it that way, and there is no evidence to suggest that he did, then there is no point in even mentioning it.
Shameful.
If you think the movie is going to be good, that's fine; you're allowed to have that opinion. But why jump on people for not liking the direction it seems to be heading? You can't say that you're allowed to think it will be good but other people aren't allowed to think the opposite.
Hey, Mr 'I didn't say it, but I almost said it', you are in a thread talking about a trailer, what the hell do yo think will be talking about? Or should it be a circles jerk of platitudes?
Appreciated, but not needed
I figured I would let that sentence speak for itself.Never said that, I just think it's silly to rage over a plot synopsis. We simply don't know the quality of the movie. All we have to base anything off of are the 2 trailers, the 9 minute preview footage, and the plot synopsis.
That's simply not enough to say whether the movie is going to be a pile of shit. And even though it's not a guarantee, we do have the quality of the first film to, at the least, expect this one to be similar (and, ideally, better).
I enjoyed the first movie. I'm expecting I'll, at the least, enjoy this one. Carry on with your speculations. I didn't realize my contribution to the conversation would upset you so much and derail the thread.
Also, this is something I've been noticing a lot on neoGAF: when someone has positive things to say about something, they are immediately labeled part of some cheerleader, circle jerk club. It's like it's impossible for someone to enjoy a product, and talk about how much they enjoy a product, without them being jumped on. No one said to stop discussing what you think is wrong with what we've seen of the movie, only that the level of vitriol being spewed at such little information we have is kind of extreme. In my opinion.
Carry on, but if this is the tone that this thread is going to have, then I won't be a part of the discussion any longer. The hostility I constantly see in various threads across GAF towards others opinions is a big fricking turn off. Like I said, I never said to not criticize. I think the overblown, hyperbole laden cynicism is too much.
Perhaps, but what did he mean by it in the first place? Why even go on the attack and be insulting in the first place? It was hostile and unnecessary.
EDIT: Sorry for the double post.
- Status