Star Trek into Darkness

OK, I loved the reboot. the ship, the characters, the whole universe..excellent. I do have one issue though, what was up with the whole water plant thing on the ship's engineering section. made the place look like a brewery.

 

It's a nice thing to want that, however, I remember a few years ago during "Enterprise" there was concern Paramount was trying to kill the franchise (until a game company came in and tried to sue).

My problem with these "reboots" is very simplistic as a lifelong fan. CONTINUITY. The Original ST stated that the Romulans had not been seen since the war ended 100 years prior to the ship seeing them in the series, and then they were a secretive race that no one could remember what they looked like. I lived with Enterprise using the Romulans and the movie to some degree. i even overlooked the "Kirk NEVER met Pike until the court martial.

IF this movie contains "simply because they needed a villian like the last movie" Khan (whom again the original crew had NOT faced until they found his ship) or the Klingons look more like Warf than they did in TOS... then I'm done. I'll stick to the ST universe I know and love and that's that.

IF you bring the Borg in, there better be a damn good reason how and WHY and WHY there was no previous account mentioned in later generations like TNG, Voyager, DS9 (which is the ONLY 1 I truly hated).....

Abrams has already played enough games with the series and changed history. It's NOT (pardon the pun) rocket science or even having to be too creative to follow the history AS already prescribed. They need to come up with BETTER villians than rehashes that destroy the timelines. There was Kodos, the man Kirk had a history with prior to TOS, Harry Mudd who had history with Kirk and the ship (that could be great IF written properly), Lt Cmd Ben Finney and the friendship him and Kirk had prior to his "accident" and so on, or CREATE your OWN and make your OWN signature alien. It's space and you have CGI, you can CREATE anything, you want JJ. Oh wait a minute..... this is JJ Abrams we're talking about, creative and his name I don't think have ever appeared in a sentence together until now.

Also, since talk is Quinto may not go forward after 3, what will they do with Spock's character?

To me what Paramount is doing to the franchise now is pretty much what Lucas did to the Star Wars series with his "Prequels". It didn't really work for Lucas and came close to destroying that whole legacy, what Abrams and Paramount are doing is just as bad, but Star Trek will persevere one way or another.

 

I so agree with that.

 

Whatever they do, it'll sell a lot of popcorn.

 

pan6467, I couldn't disagree with you more. Especially with the comment about what Lucas did to Star Wars.

I too love TOS and the Universe in which all the other series live but heck, this is what we do with stories -- we re-imagine them, re-purpose them. How many versions of Treasure Island, Peter Pan, Pride and Prejudice, etc. have been made? Many. People take the story and do something new with it.

With the original actors how played Kirk, Spock, McCoy, etc. dead or aging is it fair to just say, "Nope. I don't want to see these characters anymore." Ignoring for the moment Paramount's desire to cash in on this, why shouldn't creative people play with archetypes of pop culture? Why shouldn't there be retellings of the stories we tell ourselves? There is a very (very!) long history of this. And just like little Jimmy, who at his father's knee says to him, "You don't tell the story of Jack and the Beanstalk like Grampa did" you are the voice (amongst many) who don't like the changes. I ask this -- doesn't it excite you that in 300 years, someone may be dreaming of a new re-boot for Star Trek?

 

I'm a little hesitant about this, only because of a leaked storyboard I found depicting the opening sequence:


Only kidding, of course. I do think the poster reminds me of the imagery for "The Dark Knight Rises", so if they were going to be a bit derivative, why the hell not go all the way and do something like this?

(To be honest, I would totally watch the shit out of this.)

But all jokes side, I enjoyed the first one and will see the sequel, provided they include little golden moments such as this:

 

While I truly understand what you and Baraka are saying, I just truly feel it is too soon. If 20 - 30 years from now they wish to change the history of TOS around then have at it. However, (I admit I am a vocal minority and this is just my opinion and feeling on the subject) for me it is too soon. Creative is NOT taking an icon and rearranging the storylines simply to make a buck.

you use Shakespeare as an example, MacBeth is MacBeth, Hamlet is Hamlet, King Lear is King Lear and so on, no matter where you see it the story is pretty much always the same, they may change the time period, the language and what not but the very essence of those plays remains the same. People don't say ok Hamlet in the end marries Ophelia and they forever live happy.... NOT happening, NO ONE would pay to see it. Take West Side Story same exact premise as Romeo and Juliet only difference is they modernized the story, changed the names and made it a musical, but it took over 400 years to do so.

Even George Clooney with O' Brother Where Art thou, (which was just a retelling of Homer's Odyssey and made it a modern version, BUT changed the names and some events. when he redid Ocean's 11 he did not change that much of the story or characters. BUT therein lies the difference between a one time change of a story and changing the timelines of a whole universe (no matter how fictional).

My point is to me it is not creative to take a character that is so very popular and completely change their history. Instead, what would interest me is much like the books from the 70's and 80's that kept Star Trek alive. You take the characters and finish the 5 year mission or you prelude with the known pasts and not change them. There's a reason why David Soul as Rick in the 70's remake of Casablanca failed, they rewrote and changed beloved characters while the people who made those characters famous by seeing the original Bogart/Bergman version loved it so much (poor acting I am sure had a part to play in it's failure also). Just because Doohan, Kelly and Roddenberry are deceased does not mean that you go and change the characters THEY created.

Creative is TNG, Voyager, Enterprise, even as much as I despise it, DS9. You take the ST universe and you CREATE, you do not rehash. It's like TNG and all the others TOGETHER lived the same history and so on. Arguably Trlaine from TOS could have been a Q or even Q himself. TNG did the Naked Now and changed the antidote around while still giving a nod to TOS. TOS named Zefram Cochran as the inventor of Warp drive.... (Metamorphosis). It's just I look at the ST Universe and I see all kinds of possibilities that would be creatively ingenious and original and yet, changing characters and timelines and even MAJOR events just to sell tickets just doesn't seem very creative at all. To say, "you know all those characters and timelines you grew up and learned.... well fuck them all, we're throwing them out the window and creating a whole new vision and fuck you if you don't like it. We'll still sell millions of dollars worth of tickets and popcorn and DVD's, we DO NOT NEED YOU nor do we RESPECT YOUR loyalty. That same loyalty that kept this franchise alive for (what) 9 movies so far, 4 offshoot series and an animated Saturday morning series in the 70's."

I just see it as a huge middle finger directed at us loyal followers who kept it alive with ratings in syndication that were unheard of for second run shows, but again that is just my opinion. I really think they could have done this and not used TOS. It could have been the adventures of Captain Pike, #1, Spock and that crew. Fill in the gap between Enterprise (which itself played around with the timeline to some degree but those timeline shifts were shown to truly not affect the future well KNOWN generations). To me, Abrams and HIS ego are saying.... "FUCK what has been, ST is now MY creation and I will do whatever I damn well please with it."

I've given several scenarios that are far more compatible with what has been compared to what he would rather it be. The lack of CREATIVITY is absolutely amazing. NOONE would go to Bill Gates and say, "Windows was all wrong let's go back in time and change it so that it is more like Linux and let me take the credit for it all." We needed Windows so that a CREATIVE mind could create Linux. Just as we need the past ST universe timelines respected so that when people watch TOS and Abrams "prequel" versions, they can say, "ahhhh that's why Mitchell was pissed at Kirk" "That's the accident that put Adm. Pike in his chair" "That's how Kirk knew Harry Mudd." "Ahhhh so that is how we got from Capt. Archer to Capt. Pike. to Kirk." "So that was how their 5 year mission ended." The 4 series that followed and even the movies (until now) were very careful to keep the continuity alive, basing EVERYTHING off TOS. Which is now pointless because Abrams' ego is wanting to redo everything. It's like he has no clue to what happened in TOS or in any Treks at all.

 

I guess I just see it that TOS still exists. Making changes doesn't erase its existence.

And if you want to talk about directors with an ego (EGO) who makes changes that are offensive, look no further than Tim Burton. Abrams isn't perfect but Burton is living pustule of offense.

 

I could listen to Cumberbatch read the phonebook. He's voice is that great.

 

Looks superb visually from that "first look" featurette.
Hopefully they do a good job in the story and avoid making a mess like Avatar that has the look and practically nothing else going for it.
Still waiting for video on this one though, I nearly walked out of the last one despite how much the ticket cost.

 

Looking forward to this...just point me to the popcorn

 

Saw it, loved it. Good film, entertaining and fun.

 

I loved the movie, and I'll look forward to seeing it again. Lots of fun, good performances, and a good villain.

 

I liked the film but didn't love it.

I could have used about 30 minutes less action and 30 minutes more story.