Star Trek: Into Darkness

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Star Trek: Into Darkness

Post by Ringleader on Fri Dec 07, 2012 5:45 pm



The trailer came out yesterday.

Before anyone asks, yes, that is Khan...













Actually, I have no idea, what's going on? The Enterprise is underwater, and in a volcano.
avatar
Ringleader
Crimson Muse

Male Number of posts : 1993
Age : 25
Registration date : 2009-06-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness

Post by Vigil on Fri Dec 07, 2012 6:16 pm

Still not confirmed to be Khan, but the Japanese trailer severely hints in that direction as the 13 seconds of extra footage calls back to a very memorable moment from that film (and a potential spoiler for the ending of this film.)

I kinda liked the first film, and as a fan of Star Trek I'm interested what they'll do with this. If it is Khan, I'm a little bummed out as for a Indian prince, he looks way to white, and they'll never top what Montalban did in the role.

Also, the Enterprise crashes into San Francisco bay? I know a Bird of Prey did in the Voyage Home, but the Enterprise is significantly bigger.

_________________



A still more glorious dawn awaits.
Not a sunrise, but a galaxy rise
A morning filled with 400 billion suns
The rising of the milky way

You can fight like a Krogan, run like a Leopard
But you'll never be better than Commander Shepard
avatar
Vigil
Dark Knight of the Flames

Male Number of posts : 4810
Age : 28
Location : Unknown.
Registration date : 2009-01-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness

Post by Ringleader on Fri Dec 07, 2012 10:04 pm

The bad guy might be Dr. Mitchell from one of the first few episodes of Star Trek TOS, (the guy who became omnipotent), but I don't think that's likely based on this trailer. He's shown beating the crap out of a few Klingons, and wielding a gigantic weapon of some sort, so he's super strong, and intelligent enough to capture the Enterprise. Possibly one of those genetically enhanced supermen from Khan's group, remember the space-time doohickey was changed, so the story might diverge a little. The guy looks nothing like Khan, or Dr. Mitchell though.

The reason people have been saying that it's Dr. Mitchell is because the woman looks similar to the same woman in that TOS episode, Dr. Dehner:


She becomes Omnipotent too, later on, and her eyes change to silver. In the trailer, it looks as though one of her eyes is blue while the other is slightly green? Maybe foreshadowing?


avatar
Ringleader
Crimson Muse

Male Number of posts : 1993
Age : 25
Registration date : 2009-06-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness

Post by Nocbl2 on Fri Dec 07, 2012 10:05 pm

Is Khan...

BENEDICT CUMBERBATCH? I mean, I only saw a little bit, but... damn.
avatar
Nocbl2
Lord's Personal Minion

Male Number of posts : 4811
Age : 18
Location : California
Registration date : 2009-03-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness

Post by Vigil on Sat Dec 08, 2012 2:39 am

Ringleader wrote:The bad guy might be Dr. Mitchell from one of the first few episodes of Star Trek TOS, (the guy who became omnipotent), but I don't think that's likely based on this trailer. He's shown beating the crap out of a few Klingons, and wielding a gigantic weapon of some sort, so he's super strong, and intelligent enough to capture the Enterprise. Possibly one of those genetically enhanced supermen from Khan's group, remember the space-time doohickey was changed, so the story might diverge a little. The guy looks nothing like Khan, or Dr. Mitchell though.

The reason people have been saying that it's Dr. Mitchell is because the woman looks similar to the same woman in that TOS episode, Dr. Dehner:


She becomes Omnipotent too, later on, and her eyes change to silver. In the trailer, it looks as though one of her eyes is blue while the other is slightly green? Maybe foreshadowing?


Yeah, I heard that rumour to. Would be interesting to use 'Where no man has gone before' (Which the first episode after the pilot, and the first with Kirk as captain) as the basis of the movie, but Mitchell could warp reality as he was able to conjure up Kirk's grave by a single thought. They might have to tone down his abilities as he was damn close to being unkillable. I can't remember, but I think Dehner had the eye thing as well, and it was a plot point as well, as the story was how she was trying to resist Mitchell and in the end she weakens him to let Kirk stop him. It could possibly also be Nurse Chapel.

I know the universe is different now because of Nero, but arguably this happened before he meddled with the timeline, as the Eugenics wars probably still took place in the 1990s, and as much as it would make sense for them to use another one of those supermen, Khan is the only one everybody remembers, so I think if they are going to do them, they'll go with him. (Unless you want to do the dumb Enterprise plot where Dr Soong's ancestor made a bunch of clones that went nuts and attacked the Klingons).

Also watch the extra footage here. I think it could hint what they're going to do.

Spoiler:

_________________



A still more glorious dawn awaits.
Not a sunrise, but a galaxy rise
A morning filled with 400 billion suns
The rising of the milky way

You can fight like a Krogan, run like a Leopard
But you'll never be better than Commander Shepard
avatar
Vigil
Dark Knight of the Flames

Male Number of posts : 4810
Age : 28
Location : Unknown.
Registration date : 2009-01-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness

Post by Vigil on Sun May 12, 2013 3:36 pm

Well, I saw this today.

So what were my thoughts of this movie in a sentence?

It is essentially this new vision of Star Trek's version of Wrath of Khan. Take that as you will.


_________________



A still more glorious dawn awaits.
Not a sunrise, but a galaxy rise
A morning filled with 400 billion suns
The rising of the milky way

You can fight like a Krogan, run like a Leopard
But you'll never be better than Commander Shepard
avatar
Vigil
Dark Knight of the Flames

Male Number of posts : 4810
Age : 28
Location : Unknown.
Registration date : 2009-01-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness

Post by Rasq'uire'laskar on Sun May 12, 2013 11:38 pm

Is it as crappy as the old one?
avatar
Rasq'uire'laskar
Crimson Scribe

Male Number of posts : 2927
Age : 27
Location : Follow the cold shivers running down your spine.
Registration date : 2008-06-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness

Post by Vigil on Tue May 14, 2013 11:11 am

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:Is it as crappy as the old one?

If you mean the 2009 Reboot, it's pretty much the same movie as that, with a better villain, slightly improved character development and pathos, a little less lens flare and better shot action scenes with finally some decent space combat. But unfortunately, it's premise tries to imitate a better movie and doesn't pull it off as well as the original.

If you want to the spoiler version of what I think go ahead and ask.

_________________



A still more glorious dawn awaits.
Not a sunrise, but a galaxy rise
A morning filled with 400 billion suns
The rising of the milky way

You can fight like a Krogan, run like a Leopard
But you'll never be better than Commander Shepard
avatar
Vigil
Dark Knight of the Flames

Male Number of posts : 4810
Age : 28
Location : Unknown.
Registration date : 2009-01-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness

Post by Rasq'uire'laskar on Tue May 14, 2013 5:12 pm

Vigil wrote:
Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:Is it as crappy as the old one?

If you mean the 2009 Reboot, it's pretty much the same movie as that, with a better villain, slightly improved character development and pathos, a little less lens flare and better shot action scenes with finally some decent space combat. But unfortunately, it's premise tries to imitate a better movie and doesn't pull it off as well as the original.
I mean is it as crappy as the original Wrath of Khan?

It's one of the Star Trek movies I've bothered to watch, and I'm still not impressed. They just spend so much time talking up Khan as a genius, but they never actually showed it...
avatar
Rasq'uire'laskar
Crimson Scribe

Male Number of posts : 2927
Age : 27
Location : Follow the cold shivers running down your spine.
Registration date : 2008-06-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness

Post by Vigil on Wed May 15, 2013 6:46 am

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:
Vigil wrote:
Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:Is it as crappy as the old one?

If you mean the 2009 Reboot, it's pretty much the same movie as that, with a better villain, slightly improved character development and pathos, a little less lens flare and better shot action scenes with finally some decent space combat. But unfortunately, it's premise tries to imitate a better movie and doesn't pull it off as well as the original.
I mean is it as crappy as the original Wrath of Khan?

It's one of the Star Trek movies I've bothered to watch, and I'm still not impressed. They just spend so much time talking up Khan as a genius, but they never actually showed it...

That is something we're going to have to disagree on.

Khan is clever, but he isn't really that smart in the story, as the whole point of it is he's virtually blinded by the need for revenge against Kirk. Khan even acknowledges it himself, as all his quotes from Moby Dick is him admitting he is becoming like Captain Ahab. It's how they manage to fool him several times throughout the story as well as the fact he's 300 years out of his time, so his knowledge of how Starfleet and the Federation work is rudimentary at best.

The main core of the story is Kirk dealing with his mortality and coming to terms with how to face death as well as life. The whole Kobyashi Maru thing, is how Kirk has always cheated death by his ingenuity, but because of that he had never contemplated what would happen if he entered a situation where he couldn't do it.


_________________



A still more glorious dawn awaits.
Not a sunrise, but a galaxy rise
A morning filled with 400 billion suns
The rising of the milky way

You can fight like a Krogan, run like a Leopard
But you'll never be better than Commander Shepard
avatar
Vigil
Dark Knight of the Flames

Male Number of posts : 4810
Age : 28
Location : Unknown.
Registration date : 2009-01-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness

Post by Rasq'uire'laskar on Fri May 17, 2013 10:46 pm

Vigil wrote:
That is something we're going to have to disagree on.

Khan is clever, but he isn't really that smart in the story, as the whole point of it is he's virtually blinded by the need for revenge against Kirk. Khan even acknowledges it himself, as all his quotes from Moby Dick is him admitting he is becoming like Captain Ahab. It's how they manage to fool him several times throughout the story as well as the fact he's 300 years out of his time, so his knowledge of how Starfleet and the Federation work is rudimentary at best.
I watched it a month after playing Halo 4, and I heard people talking up Khan as a great villain, so I evaluated the movie based on how good of a villain Khan was.

As a general rule of thumb, if this isn't a screwball comedy and your villain relies on the protagonist(s) being a complete idiot, you're doing something wrong.

Khan got the jump on Kirk because Kirk ignored Federation contact... OK, he goes out to investigate a problem with the Genesis Project and lets the Reliant close in to weapons range even though it's acting as fishy as a Pike Place street vendor.
And then there's the Kirk Maneuver used to get the jump on Khan. Yeah, sure, Khan's thinking was two-dimensional because he wasn't trained for space battles. I'll buy that. But Kirk's vaunted 'Three-Dee Thinking' involved diving... and then resurfacing.

What.

Vigil wrote:The main core of the story is Kirk dealing with his mortality and coming to terms with how to face death as well as life. The whole Kobyashi Maru thing, is how Kirk has always cheated death by his ingenuity, but because of that he had never contemplated what would happen if he entered a situation where he couldn't do it.
Seem to recall him suffering some sort of tragedy in "City on the Edge of Forever", but I can't remember the details and I'll give you this one.
I thought that Spock's death was well-handled in the movie. Space battles, the Genesis Project, and Ceti Alpha Six/Five, not so much.
avatar
Rasq'uire'laskar
Crimson Scribe

Male Number of posts : 2927
Age : 27
Location : Follow the cold shivers running down your spine.
Registration date : 2008-06-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness

Post by Vigil on Sat May 18, 2013 5:22 am

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:I watched it a month after playing Halo 4, and I heard people talking up Khan as a great villain, so I evaluated the movie based on how good of a villain Khan was.

As a general rule of thumb, if this isn't a screwball comedy and your villain relies on the protagonist(s) being a complete idiot, you're doing something wrong.

Khan got the jump on Kirk because Kirk ignored Federation contact... OK, he goes out to investigate a problem with the Genesis Project and lets the Reliant close in to weapons range even though it's acting as fishy as a Pike Place street vendor.
And then there's the Kirk Maneuver used to get the jump on Khan. Yeah, sure, Khan's thinking was two-dimensional because he wasn't trained for space battles. I'll buy that. But Kirk's vaunted 'Three-Dee Thinking' involved diving... and then resurfacing.

What.

Kirk is always headstrong and besides he knew the Reliant was the ship Chekhov serves on. He knew it was damn peculiar and admitted as such. He didn't raise shields because he had no idea who or what was going on that ship and on the Reliant's approach they were trying to establish what was wrong. Savvik calls him out on it during it stating starfleet general orders but he ignores it. A bit of arrogance on his side.

As for that, think of it as a battle between two Submarines. Kirk realized that Khan was probably right on their tail and hadn't thought about the Enterprise either ascending or descending. The fact their weapons couldn't lock due to the interference meant that they had to get as close of possible to make sure they hit, while remaining undetected.

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:Seem to recall him suffering some sort of tragedy in "City on the Edge of Forever", but I can't remember the details and I'll give you this one.
I thought that Spock's death was well-handled in the movie. Space battles, the Genesis Project, and Ceti Alpha Six/Five, not so much.

He loses a woman he falls in love with because her death is necessary for the timeline to remain the same. Spock's death is a key part of this movie as it where Kirk finally faces the no-win scenario and has to confront his own mortality, as a lot of the earlier film is him dealing with him getting older and feeling that he may no longer be relevant, and like the possessions on his wall is just an antique. The Genesis project is a allegory to that as when they watch the Genesis planet form Kirk says he feels young showing that despite the hardships, Kirk has accepted his role as Captain and that he needs to continue his command.

I also think the project overall was something the Peace Loving Federation would build, as it would allow easier terra-forming of planets, but in the wrong hands could be a deadly weapon. The Space battles are probably some of the best in a Trek Film because unlike every other space battle, each shot carries real meaning and weight behind it. It's much more reminiscent of naval combat instead of the traditional dog fighting archetype.

The only thing I'll agree with is the Ceti Alpha V/VI thing as the fact nobody noticed that a planet exploded and shifted the orbit of all the other planets is pretty dumb.

_________________



A still more glorious dawn awaits.
Not a sunrise, but a galaxy rise
A morning filled with 400 billion suns
The rising of the milky way

You can fight like a Krogan, run like a Leopard
But you'll never be better than Commander Shepard
avatar
Vigil
Dark Knight of the Flames

Male Number of posts : 4810
Age : 28
Location : Unknown.
Registration date : 2009-01-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness

Post by Rasq'uire'laskar on Sat May 18, 2013 10:18 pm

Vigil wrote:Kirk is always headstrong and besides he knew the Reliant was the ship Chekhov serves on. He knew it was damn peculiar and admitted as such. He didn't raise shields because he had no idea who or what was going on that ship and on the Reliant's approach they were trying to establish what was wrong. Savvik calls him out on it during it stating starfleet general orders but he ignores it. A bit of arrogance on his side.
Savvik points out that Chekhov was lying about the Reliant having communications problems. And Spock didn't do anything either. Where was the Vulcan logic?

Anyhow, it would have been good to see Kirk called out on this later in the movie, as it would have played into Kirk's late-life crisis. As it is, he was criminally reckless with the Enterprise despite his experience in the original series. Either he is incredibly rusty from his time as a desk officer, or he is generally unfit for command.

Vigil wrote:As for that, think of it as a battle between two Submarines.
No, I won't.
First of all, the need to resurface is completely nonsensical if both ships are considered 'Submarines'. Because Khan was an idiot, the Reliant was stuck searching in planar space. In that sense, it can be approximated as a surface ship.

Second, the Enterprise is not a submarine because it can travel unrestricted in 3D space AND orient itself away from the direction of travel. So, hypothetically, the Enterprise could have matched velocities with the Reliant and then oriented itself so that the torpedo tubes were facing the enemy.

By 'resurfacing', Kirk actually made his task harder. First of all, the Reliant has a much larger cross-section from the underside/topside than it does from the rear. Second, Kirk put himself in the Reliant's planar space, where Khan was searching for him. >.>

Vigil wrote:He loses a woman he falls in love with because her death is necessary for the timeline to remain the same. Spock's death is a key part of this movie as it where Kirk finally faces the no-win scenario and has to confront his own mortality, as a lot of the earlier film is him dealing with him getting older and feeling that he may no longer be relevant, and like the possessions on his wall is just an antique.
The above is the part of the movie that I thought actually worked.

Vigil wrote:The Genesis project is a allegory to that as when they watch the Genesis planet form Kirk says he feels young showing that despite the hardships, Kirk has accepted his role as Captain and that he needs to continue his command.
I'm not sure why I dislike the Genesis Project so much, because it tastes like a throwback to some of the pulp science fiction I enjoy so much.

Vigil wrote:I also think the project overall was something the Peace Loving Federation would build, as it would allow easier terra-forming of planets, but in the wrong hands could be a deadly weapon.
Star Trek has teleporters. The Genesis device ignores shields.
Congratulations. Every single ship-mounted weapon is now obsolete, and the Federation never realized it.

Vigil wrote:The Space battles are probably some of the best in a Trek Film because unlike every other space battle, each shot carries real meaning and weight behind it. It's much more reminiscent of naval combat instead of the traditional dog fighting archetype.
Actually, you got that in reverse.
"Traditional" space combat was the naval archetype, because that's what Star Trek always used. Quite simply, moving around models like the wooden ships of yore was much simpler to film, and the crew behind the original series decided to stick with this visualization. That's why, in Star Trek, ships are ALWAYS oriented in the same plane, unless they're derelicts. In that case, they'll be listing to the side.

Dogfights, as far as movies and TV shows are concerned, had to wait for Star Wars. And even Star Wars plays to the naval tropes, with the capital ships playing the role of aircraft carriers and battleships.

Admittedly, Wrath of Khan did play up the naval tropes, particularly with the 'loading the torpedo' scene. >.<

Anyhow, I am flat-out tired of space combat having to imitate Star Wars or Star Trek. When even a game like Mass Effect can't get a realistic space battle, something is definitely wrong with science fiction. And whenever I bring this up at a gathering of fellow nerds, someone will always say "Realistic battles will be boring". And that someone will probably be wearing a shirt that reads "Han shot first!" or "Live long and prosper".

Vigil wrote:The only thing I'll agree with is the Ceti Alpha V/VI thing as the fact nobody noticed that a planet exploded and shifted the orbit of all the other planets is pretty dumb.
Goes to show how tough the crew of the Botany Bay is, when the only atmosphere they have to breathe is the vaporized crust of Ceti Alpha V/VI.
=D
avatar
Rasq'uire'laskar
Crimson Scribe

Male Number of posts : 2927
Age : 27
Location : Follow the cold shivers running down your spine.
Registration date : 2008-06-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness

Post by Nocbl2 on Sun May 19, 2013 8:40 am

Space battles have always been limited because of technology. The problem now, though, is that people are too used to those limits, and still create things to them instead of really going somewhere different. Halo features interesting maneuvers in the books, but in-game it's pretty basic.

I recall Star Trek: Generations having a few things beyond a single plane of motion, but even so, it was constricted.
avatar
Nocbl2
Lord's Personal Minion

Male Number of posts : 4811
Age : 18
Location : California
Registration date : 2009-03-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness

Post by Vigil on Sun May 19, 2013 8:50 am

Nocbl2 wrote:Space battles have always been limited because of technology. The problem now, though, is that people are too used to those limits, and still create things to them instead of really going somewhere different. Halo features interesting maneuvers in the books, but in-game it's pretty basic.

I recall Star Trek: Generations having a few things beyond a single plane of motion, but even so, it was constricted.

From what I recall of Generations, the Enterprise sat there and took torpedoes for 5 minutes then flew off and fired a single torpedo that blew up the bird of prey.

_________________



A still more glorious dawn awaits.
Not a sunrise, but a galaxy rise
A morning filled with 400 billion suns
The rising of the milky way

You can fight like a Krogan, run like a Leopard
But you'll never be better than Commander Shepard
avatar
Vigil
Dark Knight of the Flames

Male Number of posts : 4810
Age : 28
Location : Unknown.
Registration date : 2009-01-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum