|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Dec 10, 2012 23:37:17 GMT -5
There's a part of me that still really hopes Section 31 is involved somehow. I don't know how, but I think it would be nice since we know nothing of it in the 23rd Century really. -TK |
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Dec 11, 2012 2:42:07 GMT -5
Looks like they lied previously.
Over at Zap2it.com:'Star Trek Into Darkness': Alice Eve's role revealed Some of the tightly kept secrets of sci-fi sequel "Star Trek Into Darkness" -- including the name of the character played by Alice Eve -- are starting to leak out as the film ramps up its publicity in advance of next year's May 17 release date. MORE: blog.zap2it.com/pop2it/2012/12/star-trek-into-darkness-alice-eves-role-revealed.html
|
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Dec 11, 2012 7:03:42 GMT -5
You could be right of course.
While I don't seriously think that Harrison is that character from TOS, it would be very funny if it were.
I still am holding out hope we're not dealing with Khan, because I still think that's the worst choice ever.
It would be kind of a let down if the villain turns out to be the guy everyone has been guessing all along.
|
|
|
|
Post by TrekBeatTK on Dec 11, 2012 8:41:04 GMT -5
If she is indeed playing Carol Marcus, this may point more to Mitchell than to Khan. She's another character that it was a shame we never saw in the first movie and if indeed the "blonde lab technician" that Kirk almost married was Marcus, maybe having both her and Mitchell in the film is a nod to "Where No Man...".
If however this is all a bizarre remake of TWOK, I want JJ's head on a platter. A platter supported by Kurtzman and Orci's heads.
-TK
|
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Dec 11, 2012 9:21:40 GMT -5
I suppose it's possible that Harrison kills Marcus off, as another timeline divergence.
It looks like Harrison IS really the villain.
If so, I really do hope it's the same Harrison that was the background character.
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Dec 12, 2012 1:01:04 GMT -5
I'm not saying a word ....I don't have to, but I look forward to hearing the Abrams fanatics bending over backwards trying to defend it.
Over at Blastr:Real-life Scotty says Trek 2 trailer's underwater scene is impossible You know that epic shot in the new trailer for Star Trek Into Darkness that shows the Enterprise emerging from a body of water? Forget it. An engineer says that it just can't happen. MORE: blastr.com/2012/12/real-life-scotty-says-tre.php
|
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Dec 12, 2012 9:32:41 GMT -5
You know, given that Star Trek employs technology that engineers today would not understand (because if they did, they could PRODUCE IT), this doesn't really bother me.
Let's not forget that Enterprise's shields are so powerful, they can get relatively close to a star and not buckle. They can take weapons fire that makes nuclear weapons look primative.
I think they can take water.
There are issues I have had in the past, and I'm sure this movie will be nitpicked to death, but this one doesn't bother me.
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Dec 12, 2012 15:55:25 GMT -5
You know, given that Star Trek employs technology that engineers today would not understand (because if they did, they could PRODUCE IT), this doesn't really bother me. Let's not forget that Enterprise's shields are so powerful, they can get relatively close to a star and not buckle. They can take weapons fire that makes nuclear weapons look primative. I think they can take water. There are issues I have had in the past, and I'm sure this movie will be nitpicked to death, but this one doesn't bother me. |
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Dec 12, 2012 16:53:42 GMT -5
I'm avoiding Spoilers here for the moment, unless one of you tell me it doesn't reveal much.
Over at Blastr:Cumberbatch shares tantalizing details about his Star Trek 2 villain John Harrison. That's apparently the name of Benedict Cumberbatch's Star Trek Into Darkness big baddie. After months of speculation (Khan, not Khan, Gary Mitchell, not Mitchell) the name feels a little flat. But Cumby—as he's lovingly called by his fans—had some very tantalizing things to say about his character. MORE: blastr.com/2012/12/cumberbatch-reveals-some.php
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Dec 12, 2012 17:00:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Dec 12, 2012 18:14:05 GMT -5
Well written.
|
|
|
|
Post by gavin1701 on Dec 12, 2012 20:06:21 GMT -5
You know, given that Star Trek employs technology that engineers today would not understand (because if they did, they could PRODUCE IT), this doesn't really bother me. Let's not forget that Enterprise's shields are so powerful, they can get relatively close to a star and not buckle. They can take weapons fire that makes nuclear weapons look primative. I think they can take water. There are issues I have had in the past, and I'm sure this movie will be nitpicked to death, but this one doesn't bother me. I read a quote somewhere, can't remember if it was from the Making of Star Trek the TV Series, where Roddenberry says he always wanted to land the Enterprise on a planet but the budget wouldn't allow it. Just like in TNG they always wanted to have the saucer crashland on a planet, but they couldn't afford the effects until Generations. By the time Voyager landed on planets the effects had come further cheaper and CGI was possible. |
|
|
|
Post by TrekBeatTK on Dec 14, 2012 22:39:00 GMT -5
Well, I saw the trailer with The Hobbit today (haven't yet seen it in IMAX for the 9-minute sequence) and it's nothing special. It's mostly just a different cut of the trailer(s) we already saw, with the addition of some Pike voice-over that talks about how Kirk lacks humility and it might get him and his friends killed someday.
We still are no closer to having any clue what this movie is about.
But for some reason, Chekov is in a red shirt.
-TK
|
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Dec 17, 2012 15:15:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Dec 17, 2012 16:01:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Dec 19, 2012 12:10:10 GMT -5
I don't read Spoilers, but that's just me.
Over at Blastr:Revised synopsis sheds new light on Star Trek Into Darkness plot
 Paramount has released a new synopsis for its upcoming tentpole summer movie Star Trek Into Darkness that may shed a slightly different light on the film ... and even perhaps its villain. MORE: blastr.com/2012/12/new-start-trek-into-darkn.php
|
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Dec 19, 2012 14:44:41 GMT -5
It really doesn't add much new. The synopsis really isn't much of a spoiler, if that.
|
|
|
|
Post by TrekBeatTK on Dec 19, 2012 16:35:23 GMT -5
Agreed. They basically changed 5 words and Blastr is acting like it's new information.
-TK
|
|
|
|
Post by Mel on Dec 20, 2012 15:11:47 GMT -5
There's a part of me that still really hopes Section 31 is involved somehow. I don't know how, but I think it would be nice since we know nothing of it in the 23rd Century really. |
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Dec 20, 2012 17:21:25 GMT -5
Agreed. They basically changed 5 words and Blastr is acting like it's new information. -TK Pathetic. Thanks guys. |
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Dec 26, 2012 17:35:38 GMT -5
I don't read potential Spoilers.
Over at Blastr:[/img][/center] Those two recent trailers for Star Trek Into Darkness promise us a somber tale in which Captain Kirk and his crew must face insurmountable odds, frightening challenges and heartbreaking sacrifices ... or do they? J.J. Abrams hints that things won't be as bad as they seem. MORE: blastr.com/2012/12/did-jj-abrams-just-promis.php
|
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Dec 27, 2012 7:22:32 GMT -5
I would be surprised to see Section 31 pop up. I'd even be surprised if Abrams knows about it.
What's interesting is that Harrison is supposed to be some average guy in Starfleet.
If that's the case, in some ways, he could parallel Gary Mitchell's fall. But even more interesting, it could be that he is indeed that background character from TOS.
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Dec 29, 2012 17:18:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Dec 29, 2012 17:28:57 GMT -5
Over at Blastr:Abrams and Cumberbatch tease his Star Trek Into Darkness villain Seems to us that the more we're getting closer to Star Trek Into Darkness' release date, the more we're getting tantalizing bits and pieces about J.J. Abrams' highly anticipated sequel and its extremely enigmatic villain, John Harrison, played by Benedict Cumberbatch. MORE: blastr.com/2012/12/abrams-and-cumberbatch-te.php
|
|
|
|
Post by TrekBeatTK on Jan 5, 2013 19:56:09 GMT -5
I was finally able to get to The Hobbit in IMAX today so I could see the extended Trek preview. For those interested, here's what it involved. Spoilers ahead of course, so read no further if you intend to maintain your JJTrek maidenhead.
It opened with an alarm clock chiming at 5 AM. A rather normal-looking (almost retro-looking) alarm clock. A black man and his wife wake up and get dressed. Their bedroom looks pretty normal and present-day. But then we cut to the exterior and see all the futuristic cityscape and learn that this is in fact London in the future. The date given is bizarre. The title reads (in that annoying JJ font) "LONDON 2298.55" I may not be remembering those middle digits in the date exactly right, but I do know it ended in 55. And that's weird. Is this a normal date? A stardate? No stardate has ever had two decimal places. And the year would be correct if this is the 23rd Century, but if it's a year then what the frak do the decimals mean? Are they factoring years by the decimal now? Does that mean this is sometime in early August??
Anyway, a transit takes the couple to a hospital where a doctor speaks to them briefly in a hallway, and then we see them in a room with what appears to be their daughter in a hospital bed. Obviously she is sick and dying. But then a voice off-screen says, "I can heal her", and it is revealed to be Benedict Cumberbatch.
Smash cut to Kirk and Bones in gray robes running through the jungle. An onscreen caption tells us it's an M-class planet (Nubiri or something like that). It's that world with the red vegetation you see in the trailer. They are running from some primitives. Meanwhile, Sulu, Uhura and Spock are in a shuttle craft above them nearby hiding among volcanic ash. Spock is preparing to dive into the volcano (in a protective suit of course -- though I'd inject that a VULCAN is probably the most suited of them to this VOLCANO job anyway). He is going to put a device in the volcano that will render it inert (Kirk refers to it essentially as a high-tech ice cube).
The shuttle needs to pick up Kirk and Bones, though it's having trouble (I don't remember why, if it was ever said). Spock asks if Kirk maintained the prime directive and kept his identity secret from the natives. Kirk says yes, which is why he's running from them in disguise. Spock spends a lot of this scene commenting about the Prime Directive. With Spock in the volcano (and the levels in it getting dangerous for him), Sulu says he has to abandon the shuttle and head back to the Enterprise (or maybe they took it back to the Enterprise? I couldn't really tell), leaving Kirk and Bones to get back to the ship themselves. This whole time, Kirk has had something in his hand. At one point he gets it stuck in a tree branch and just leaves it, and it unfurls, revealing it's some sort of scroll. The natives stop and some bow before it; apparently it must be sacred. So Kirk and Bones run until they jump off a cliff (as seen in the trailer) and into the water where... the Enterprise is hiding. Yeah, the hid the ship in the friggin' ocean. So once the swim aboard, Scotty complains that the ship can't take the sea water much longer, but they meanwhile have to see how Spock is doing. Spock needs a bit more time with the device or something, and communication is going out. Kirk wants to go save him, but Spock reminds him that while the volcanic ash may have hid the shuttle, the Enterprise is far too large and would be spotted by the natives. Spock says that the Prime Directive is an absolute and that they cannot risk breaking it to save him. Then he says "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" for the first real Khan parallel we've had yet. There was a little more "what do we do?" stuff, but that was basically it and then the ran the main trailer.
A lot of reactions here. First, can I just ask why Cumberbatch's voice sounds amplified all the time? You can hear it in the trailer too. For some reason his voice is extra boomy. What does this signify? Does he in fact have god-like Gary Mitchell powers?
The chase through the jungle smacked of the opening of Raiders of the Lost Ark to me. So not only has JJ injected Star Wars into this franchise, he's dumped some Indy in there now too. Look, I love all of them, but please JJ keep your Lucas out of my Star Trek! This entire sequence, though it uses Trek tropes like the "needs of the many" aphorism and the Prime Directive, just doesn't quite feel like Star Trek. And so little of it makes sense. WHY is the Enterprise underwater? What a ridiculous hiding place. They couldn't hide it somehow in orbit? Like on the other side of the planet? And if the whole point of it being there was to not be seen.... HOW DID IT GET THERE WITHOUT BEING SEEN? I could understand if it had a cloaking device; a cloaked ship underwater would be a pretty good hiding place. ...except if your ship had a cloak you could just cloak it in orbit and wouldn't need to hide it in the ocean! I felt definite similarities to the sequence in Nemesis where they find B-4. It doesn't quite get that loose with the Prime Directive, thankfully, but I still felt the whole premise was dubious. It smacked of something that Trek has sometimes been guilty of, but not often on this grand a scale: the "because it looks cool!" principle.
The red vegetation was a nice visual though.
I don't know what the purpose of this mission is for making the volcano inert. I might surmise it's to keep it from erupting and killing the natives, but then wouldn't THAT be a violation of the Prime Directive (as Beverly Crusher sort of asks in the TNG episode "Homeward")?
I did like the tease about Cumberbatch's character and I wanted to get more of that. I expected to get an action sequence, but I was glad we got that little bit as well.
I should also mention the 3D. The movie has been post-converted because JJ says the studio demanded it. It's a good conversion overall. However, JJ's frenetic shooting style sometimes makes it very distracting. The shuttle bouncing around with camera shake is annoying with the 3D, and there's so much stuff flying by in the jungle chase that keeping the eye focused was hard at times. Some of the shots of arrows flying to the camera were cool though. Despite the 3D, the movie looks good on the IMAX screen.
I'm now continuing to be optimistic that we are not getting an outright Khan retread. However, this sequence also screams everything that is wrong with the Abrams take on Star Trek: emphasis on big blockbuster crowd-pleasing illogical action sequences. Like if you keep the pace up people won't know that it's stupid. While there are nuggets of Star Trek in there I never felt that the soul of Trek was there. Just because it's about the Prime Directive doesn't mean that the scene was ABOUT the Prime Directive; the scene as shown was about action. There are a lot of Enterprise episodes that felt more like Trek to me. So this preview leaves me with trepidation; while I am curious about the storyline, so far it seems the execution is still lacking something. I keep hoping that the issues I had with the first one would be rectified this time around. But that seems to not be; have they learned any lessons? If so, it's not what I'd want. Unfortunately, no one's going to ask, "What was wrong with this movie?" if the public ate it up. Star Trek II was great in part because it had to improve on the disappointment of TMP. On the other hand, Insurrection had so much misplaced humor partially because people looked at First Contact's success and said, "Let's replicate that! Get Frakes back, and people liked the funny bits so make it funny!" Trying to replicate success usually means you enhance the bad things and make it worse, or you become a pale imitation of the original. So far, Star Trek Into Darkness has me a little worried that it is both (the bad JJ stuff of the first one times two, and a failure to really be Star Trek). But I say this on only having seen 9 minutes. Maybe there's more to this movie than a silly action sequence, and I'm hoping there is.
-TK
|
|
|
|
Post by gavin1701 on Jan 6, 2013 19:17:47 GMT -5
If you want to know why Insurrection was such a bad movie, there was a free "making of" book written by Michael Piller which was released online for free after his death. It is called Fade In: The Story of Insurrection.
In a nutshell the problem wasn't frakes or the studio, it was Patrick Stewart. Piller had written a dark movie and I believe it ended with Picard having to deactivate/kill Data. Patrick Stewart balked. Said he was sick of Picard going through serious stuff and demanded light hearted fun. There are a lot of memos going back and forth between Stewart and Piller and its all in the book. Of course Stewart was a co-Producer by then and they had to keep their lead actor happy, so it pretty much backed Piller in a corner and forced the mess we ended up with.
I believe the only studio demand was to edit out the Picard/Anj romance because they felt it slowed down the movie. So it's only an implied romance in the final version.
Of course a popular rumour back then was that Rick Berman screened the movie and was seriously embarrassed by it. Imagine how bad something has to be if even Rick Berman is ashamed!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by TrekBeatTK on Jan 6, 2013 20:44:19 GMT -5
Hmm... interesting.
On one hand, you can see where Stewart had a point. In two movies he had first been the weepy guy who lost his whole family and then the crazy guy with a gun out for revenge. He hadn't ever really been Picard in a movie (though arguably, he still wasn't in Insurrection either. Nemesis got it right).
I had no idea. I only knew that Piller had said all the jokes and stuff were forced on him.
I think Piller's a good writer and I think there's still good stuff in Insurrecton. But for me beyond even the levity what hurts the movie for me is that the plan to forcibly relocate the Ba'ku to save them from forced relocation seemed ill-conceived, and the movie was rehashing things we'd already seen in other episodes ("Homeward" and "Who Watches the Watchers").
-TK
|
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Jan 6, 2013 21:37:20 GMT -5
Interesting stuff. But any studio that thought it was a good idea to kill Kirk is not going to know how to make a good movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Jan 7, 2013 12:13:36 GMT -5
Over at Blastr:Fan whose final wish was to see Star Trek Into Darkness dies at 41 Last week, we told you the heartwarming story of a dying fan who got an advance screening of Star Trek Into Darkness after an online plea reached J. J. Abrams. Now, we're sad to report that that fan, 41-year-old film buff Daniel Craft, died Friday. MORE: blastr.com/2013/01/fan-whose-final-wish-was.php
|
|
|
|
Post by Mel on Jan 7, 2013 21:06:40 GMT -5
RIP Daniel Craft 1971-2013.
|
|
