Can't believe none of us have posted this yet:
http://youtu.be/BrHlQUXFzfw
Printable View
Can't believe none of us have posted this yet:
http://youtu.be/BrHlQUXFzfw
Well, that just provides more evidence that the "tease" that Paramount is engaging in (It's Khan! It's Gary Mitchell! It's Bob the Builder!) is deflection. Not only does it sound like Cumberbatch is playing Khan, but it looks like we have Spock's Wrath of Khan death scene as well. Since they already spammed "I have been and always shall be your friend" in Abrams' last Trek faceplant, they had to come up with something different.
I wonder if Spock will give Bones his shakra as well.
Seriously, I wish people would stop paying J. J. Abrams to destroy my childhood. *sigh*
I think if Chris Pine screams "Khaaaan!" at any stage, I will simply lose it.
I like what I'm seeing, but it doesn't point me to Khan in any way, shape, or form. The "Wrath of Khan death scene" is, I think, the producers of the trailer (not necessarily the same people who put together the movie, in case you're wondering why I phrased it that way) giving fans another red herring.
I don't believe it's Khan, nor was it meant to be. That was just a bunch of fanboys, I think, wanking about because they can't conceive that someone would want something different.
That said, the trailer infuriates me because it doesn't answer any sort of questions...which, I know, is part of the point, but they seem to forget their audience wants to know some basic info.
I enjoyed the 2009 film; I'm going to reserve judgment on this one for the time being.
You make a good point about the Khan red herring thing, Patrick. My problem isn't that I want it to be Khan - I desperately don't want it to be. I think expanding the Gary Mitchell stuff could be really interesting, but I'm not convinced it would be him, either. I just hate the idea that they would be essentially remaking Wrath of Khan.Quote:
Originally Posted by PGoodman13
That said, my problem with the 2009 film (and likely with this one, if the trailer is anything to go by), is that I didn't dislike it as a science fiction film. I just disliked it as a Star Trek film. If Abrams had changed the names, I would have probably enjoyed it, too.
Unfortunately, after my experience with the 2009 film (where I nearly walked out when Spock marooned a fellow crewmate on a desolate planet, after nearly walking out when there was Nokia product-placement, after...well, you know), I won't be bothering with Into Darkness.
Star Trek - in terms of new stuff - is essentially dead for me, now. Continuing down Abrams' path means I will rely (happily so) on the DVDs (and soon, Blu-rays) of TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT for my Trek goodness...
This isn't Khan. Heck, John Harrison could even be "Johnny" from the first film car theft sequence.
(Actually, an idea just hit me...what about the possibility that Gary Mitchell, who apparently dies in IDW Issue #2, is able to survive in some ethereal form and possesses a body of someone familiar to Kirk...like his childhood friend from Iowa?)
Anyway, I'm in the "it's about bloody time!" camp. I'm looking forward to seeing the film. I loved Star Trek (2009), and have strong hopes for an even better story this time around.
I hope he's Garth and that cool temple is Antos IV.
And by "hope" I mean "This is a wild guess, it's not like I'm actually going to watch it."
It comes off to me as brilliant marketing. A lot of people saw the 09 Trek. It was a breakthrough film that made stars, money, and revived the franchise. The second one is going to be a blockbuster and the questions raised in the trailer are exactly what the film needs to get a buzz going from people who are already hip to it. Smart stuff.
I think JJ and company are good at what they do... it's not Trek to me until I can sense some kind of moral or thoughtful insight. Star Trek is supposed to be a story about *us*... not these characters. I think Trek for the sake of Trek is what killed the franchise; that is to say when it has nothing vital to say. The 09 film was successful because it was a cash grab and that will be my opinion of JJ's work on Star Trek until I see something special out of it. :cool:
It's only brilliant if it works. More of my friends are put off by the trailers thus far than attracted by it. This is one of those "only time will tell" things.Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronVonStevie
True. But fewer people liked it than saw it- and I don't know of a single "convert" who disliked Trek before they saw that movie and liked it afterward.Quote:
A lot of people saw the 09 Trek.
I can't name anyone who goes back and rewatches this movie the way they do the others.
Trek 2009 is something you watched once to see what the hubbub was about- and then shelved until Elvira Mistress of the Dark threatened to run a twelve hour Cloverfield marathon commercial free and uninterrupted.
I really don't buy that, for the reasons I mentioned above, and as outlined below:Quote:
It was a breakthrough film that made stars, money, and revived the franchise.
Not a single one of the "headliners" is demonstrably more popular or "in-demand " today than before the premier. I'm not aware of any evidence that their careers have "taken off" since Abrams abomination was vomited up onto the big screen.
Chris Pine is just as notable for his role in Unstoppable as his role as Kirk.
Most of the people screaming and swooning over Quinto were and are Heroes fanboys to begin with. Of the eleven gigs Quinto has since Star Trek came out, two are video games, and three are directly associated with the Trek franchise.
Two others are shorts, and one is a TV miniseries.
None of it is exactly Oscar material.
Zoe Saldana has had thirteen roles since 2009: two of those roles are Avatar, three more are Trek related, and the rest are B-movie skin flicks. She headlines in only one of those roles. Saldana's career appears to be matching trajectories with Carmen Electra's (and for the same reasons).
Karl Urban has eleven new roles since the premier- notably, headlining in the new Judge Dredd and as the antagonist in RED opposite luminaries Bruce Willis and Morgan Freeman. In my opinion, he is arguably the most successful of the new crew- but Christian Bale he's not (even if Urban is a MUCH better actor).
Anton Yelchin has had nineteen new roles. The peak of his career was playing the young Kyle Reese in the dismal Terminator: Salvation. Most of the rest of his work is either directly related to the Trek franchise or direct-to-video brilliance such as The Smurfs Christmas.
As to rejuvenating the franchise, I am torn between derisive laughter and soul-wrending sobs.
With the exception of a handful of designer toys marketed largely at collectors, Trekkers, and fanboys, I see no evidence that the franchise is any better off when they were punching Jonathan Frakes' time clock on a biennial basis.
Is there any evidence to suggest that the sales of Trek books are up? Magazines?
Comic books?
Movies?
Is there a plethora of new material? Of new fans?
Walmart in Utah has all but remaindered the Abrams Trek, selling em for three buck a copy.
Much the same can be said of the franchise as a whole....
Part of me is afraid you're right- but for the wrong reasons.Quote:
The second one is going to be a blockbuster and the questions raised in the trailer are exactly what the film needs to get a buzz going from people who are already hip to it. Smart stuff.
The 2009 movie was a triumph of marketing, not filmmaking. It was the success of Michael-Bay-all-flash-no-substance dazzle-em-with-special-effects-and-leave-em-deaf eye candy.
Because of the sychophantic praise heaped on that wholly-precedented waste of time, we can expect more of the same in this go-round.
And "people who are already hip to it" translates directly to "bringing in the die-hards who'll watch anything with Abram's name, Zoe Saldana's breasts, or a Star Trek logo".
All three of those demographics are fading.
The 2009 movie may have temporarily slowed the trajectory- but it's done nothing to stop it, and I have little hope that the 2013 movie will fare any better.
If you define "what they do" as "self-evidently announcing their own brilliance", I am inclined to agree.Quote:
I think JJ and company are good at what they do...
If you define "what they do" as "good, original Star Trek that doesn't insult the audience" then I disagree violently.
Matters and insights which were notably absent in the first Abram's Trek.Quote:
it's not Trek to me until I can sense some kind of moral or thoughtful insight.
Quinto stalking around the set brooding like Kurt Cobain on a bad day is not deep- it is merely annoying.
I agree, to a point. Ideally, Trek should be a vehicle through which we can imagine a better world than the one we are in and in which we can address serious moral and intellectual issues at a safe remove.Quote:
Star Trek is supposed to be a story about *us*... not these characters.
The 2009 Trek movie fulfilled none of those roles.
Yes- the 2009 movie was a good popcorn flick. What few moments it had were made by talented actors (such as Pine, Pegg, Urban, and Greenwood) and by script-writers who gave them some snappy lines ("You can whistle reeall loud")...
...but it wasn't good Trek by any stretch of the imagination.
I am more inclined to believe that Berman, Braga, their collosal egos and near-deliberate mismanagement by Paramount is the more likely culprit, but that's just my opinion.Quote:
I think Trek for the sake of Trek is what killed the franchise; that is to say when it has nothing vital to say.
I agree- it was a flash-in-the-pan designed to make money, rather than a lasting impact.Quote:
The 09 film was successful because it was a cash grab and that will be my opinion of JJ's work on Star Trek until I see something special out of it. :cool:
But as you admit above, Star Trek is- and should be- about something far more than stroking Abram's ego and filling Paramounts wallets.
Having been praised lavishly for producing a cheap knock-off with little artistic or intellectual merit, Abrams has little incentive to provide anything other than more of the same.
Indeed, Abrams approach to the franchise can be summed up in the lines of an Academy instructor:
"Is he not taking thisseriously?"
lol I'm not going to respond to that. I'm just going to wait until the movie comes out and makes a gazillion dollars to prove that they know what they're doing.
Like I've said elsewhere, "you can take all the license with Trek you want. just don't make it dumb or take away its soul". Perfect example is TMP vs Wrath of Khan; the second film is nothing like the first, but it ends up telling such a good story and with such heart that nobody thinks about it. I don't mind young actors and thrilling action scenes... I don't mind lens flares or Romulans with tattoos on their faces... just don't give me something stupid and loud with nothing to say and call it Star Trek.
I think JJ made a fun movie, but I can't take another one *exactly like it*
I still can't get over the 'Bane-esque' VO; yes i know that villians have always had a voice over in just about every modern trailer for a blocbuster, but this is the 3rd trailer of a major summer movie (two will be going head to head) with some guy going on about revolutionary stuff. (bane, this guy, and i guess the Mandrin in IM3).
If it's Kahn, he loses a lot of his punch without the personal conflict he had with Kirk. Sure, you could have him some how show up in the Trek present, and decide that he must rule again, but then he just becomes a supervillian. You could swap out any bad guy from any franchise (Dr. Doom, Goldfinger, Scar from the Lion King) and have the same basic movie.
Gary Mitchell brings us a little more; but I wonder if they would be cutting away the 'omnipotence' angle of things (although it would make the Starship crashing into the bay scene work well: the flung it out of the heavens) and replaceing it with the Skyfall villian's MO: I have a lot of knowledge about how things work in SF, and I am going to break it all! Again, still not that groundbreaking, although not used a lot in sci-fi, except in the "Balthar betrayed us" kinda thing.
Why can't JJ just TELL US what is what in his movies? I know people who thought Cloverfield WAS Godzilla, and my brother knows people who thought it was VOLTRON!?! (yeah, he has some out there friends)
yeah come to think of it there was a silly amount of mystery about Cloverfield. In this case though, I think JJ wants a buzz amongst the already initiated.
You contradict yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronVonStevie
Wrek 2009 was stupid and loud and did take away Trek's soul.
And you loved it.
I agree- he made a fun movie.Quote:
I think JJ made a fun movie, but I can't take another one *exactly like it*
But it was unworthy of the mantle of Star Trek for precisely the reasons (no story, petty, and pandering) that you named.
In your opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by selek
A lot of folks loved the film, and certainly didn't think it was "stupid and loud" or take away Trek's soul.
As someone who feels TOS is the heart and soul of Trekdom, I loved Star Trek (2009) and thought it did good service to the original crew...heck, I watched the film four times in the theaters!
Sorry, Sea Tyger- that's the rum talking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sea Tyger
You'll feel differently at reveille... :p
Ultimately, though, you are correct: it is my opinion.
The material was trite, hackneyed, and an in-your-face affront to those who actually care about issues like canon, consistency, and intellectual integrity.
There was nothing original in the 2009 movie. Every major plot point was derivative: the teasing Spock endured was lifted directly from the Animated Series. The lecture boy-Spock received from Sarek after the brawl was lifted word-for-word from the Animated Series episode "Yesteryear".
The death of Captain Robau was the same tried-and-trite "I will commit an utterly senseless act of violence against an innocent person just to show how bad I am" used by every other B-movie villain for the last hundred years.
You could've switched out Nero with Bond's Hugo Drax without any appreciable change in the movie.
Kirk's father's death amd Pike's consignment to a wheelchair were both lifted directly from canon. The buggies that Nero used to extract the defense codes from Pike were a cheap re-use of the plot point from WoK.
The villain was a two-dimensional cardboard cut-out of a Romulan with a new supership/superweapon intent on destroying the Earth- lifted almost whole cloth from Nemesis.
Spock/Uhura romance was once a staple of fan-fic.
To misquote Flynn from Tron, "So one night, our boy Flynn, he goes to his terminal, tries to read up his file. I get nothing on there, it's a big blank. Okay, now we take you three months later. Dillinger presents Encom with five video games, that's HE'S invented. The slime barely changed the names, man! He gets a big, fat promotion."
I would not be surprised by any measure if it were discovered that they decided on the plot by writing all the major elements of previous Star Trek episodes on ping-pong balls, tossed 'em in a hopper, and wrote the story based on the first six balls they drew out lottery-style.
The "throw-aways" that Abrams included in the film as a sop a/o "tribute" to the die-hard fans were universally insulting to their intelligence.
Nor am I alone in that assessment:
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/in...ies-trekxi.htm
What is not opinion are the metrics I mentioned in my original foaming-at-the-keyboard rant.
Is there any empirical evidence to support the lauditory (if not worshipful) tones in Baron's charges above?
If there is, I haven't seen it.
And I have little or no hope that the newest Abrams abomination will do anything more to resurrect the franchise.
It is revealing, in my opinion, that Baron has now mentioned "the initiated" and "those who are hip to it" twice.
An organization and a movement do not grow by preaching to the choir.
Trekdom does not grow by putting art-majors, Abrams cultists, and grey-haired die-hards who remember when Shatner had teeth back in theatre seats.
By his own admission, these are the people Baron thinks are being targeted.
I'm afraid he's right....
For all the adulatory press and self-reverential declarations of brilliance which surrounded Wrek2009, there is no evidence (of which I'm aware) that new blood has been infused into the franchise in any meaningful or lasting way.
It certainly added nothing significant to the canon.
It's a very shiny sleight-of-hand, but it still doesn't answer the basic issue:Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronVonStevie
Is "what they're doing" defined as "self-evidently announcing their own brilliance"?
Or is "what they're doing" defined as "good, original Star Trek that doesn't insult the audience"?
In the echo-chamber which is Hollywood, they can make a gazillion dollars at the former just as readily as the latter.
Whatever soul Trek had fled a decade before Orci and Kurtzman were handed the cadaver.
no I don't. I just don't drop myself firmly in the camp of "anti" or "pro". I liked the first movie for what it was; just fun. It captured elements of Trek, but it also didn't deliver in fundamental areas. I'm comfortable with it up to a point. I don't gush all over it saying it's the greatest movie of all time nor do I want JJ Abrams' head on a pike.Quote:
You contradict yourself.
I'm very eager to see Into Darkness though. I want to see a *fun* movie and I want to see if it's more Trek than the first film was. For what I got out of the first one, that seems fair to me.
Oh, preach it, brother! :)Quote:
I can't say I'm very surprised by this trailer. As someone who did not like the 2009 movie at all, I find the trailer quite similar in spirit: basically, an action movie with some Trek slapped on it.
If I had to bet, I would say that the villain is an entirely new one (or maybe a known villain, but in name only). Marketing has fun leading fans to make guesses, as was mentioned above, but we are not talking about a comic book adaptation here, where we expect known characters to appear.
The feeling I got from the movie was that Abrams wanted to create his own Trekverse (as evidenced for instance by the lack of almost any canon alien in it apart from the Vulcans and Orions), and this would go with its own villains and stories.
Which, by the way, is not bad in itself, as it avoids to end up watching bland remakes (with better CGI), but of course people like me who were put off by the Abrams interpretation of Trek will keep being disappointed. I guess the others will be able to enjoy it.
I saw it yesterday, and I have to agree with C5; it looks like another mindless action fest with ST skins. I hope I'm wrong, but there doesn't seem to be much reason to hope.
Can I quote the original Mr. Scott?
"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
I'll pass until Star Trek has moved away from its Shakespearean mode.
"...Full of sound and fury, signifying...nothing."
I liked the new movie and I expect the new movie to be entertaining to.
With star trek nemesis i feared star trek was at an end. That movie sucked so bad .... Everything that ever could happen to star trek from there was going up.
I say go abrams.
Let's do something new with star trek.
You guys will probably think i am flaming.
No, I just think you expect different things out of Trek than I do.
I want to see Star Trek be not only cool, but also topical. When people picked apart the Nolan Bat-films and said "I think this is commentary on _____"... I thought that was what Star Trek needed. TOS spoke directly to the 1960s and some of the films did to the 80s. I thought they were great for those reasons and I feel Trek has been missing that for years. I want that in Trek again.Quote:
I say go abrams.
Let's do something new with star trek.
@Selek and Alderon:
Thank you guys, for your early postings in this thread.
I myself have not been able to come up with a text that says what I feel and convey those feelings in an understadably manner (and not for the lack of trying, even in my native tongue german I don't get around to it quite as well as I'd like).
But now I don't have to: I'll just use yours! :)
Bearing this oppinion in mind, I'd have to answer the question "Will this keep me away from ST-ID?" with a decisive "Most likely not".
But I don't expect anything lasting to come from that visit to the cinema. What usually is quite all right but with Trek I've always wanted to have something to take home with me.
One thing that came up in this thread I hadn't considered so far and would like to comment on: Although I actually own the 2009-DVD (it was kinda cheap over here and I am sort of a collector...) I have actually re-watched it exactly one time and then in 2 sittings.
That has never been an issue with any of the previous movies. Those I have watched repeatedly: Alone and with friends (and yes, even Nemesis!). But there has been no need, no interest to revisit the 2009-feature. Not for me, not for my Star Trek friends and not among the block-buster-movie-goers among my buddys. Strange that it fails on that many different fronts. And a little sad.
I shall give the movie another spin before I go and see the sequel. That's a plan I just came up with.
On the whole "who's the bad guy" thing I have to admit, that I really don't give a damn.
Not giving a damn, would be such a sad thing to say about anything to have to do with Star Trek, but for me, that ship obiousvly has sailed.
The new series is something using visuals and names and some ideas from a beloved setting and using them in a newer, more modern way. I try not to judge, but the magic does not work for me anymore. Maybe that's how the old die hard TOS fans felt, when Gene Roddenberry dropped TNG on their setting. Maybe someone of the TOS over TNG faction could shed some insight on that thought please.
My Star Trek, making up a bulk of my fondest memories of watching, re-enacting, imagining, reading and gaming with and in that Universe, is the old setting. Where the Shat is Kirk and Picard is the man. If they'd just managed to give us back Data with a decent follow up after Nemesis I'd be good and happy ever after...
I can tolerate the new JJTrek, but I don't feel at home in it.
I've started re-watching the early TNG seasons recently and after years I still discover new aspects of storytelling and backgound that I have missed or not really known how to see or appriciate in earlier days. I think this depth is another aspect of those things that make Star Trek real special.
And I just don't see it in the new movie. Anyhow, May will come, I'll see that movie. And then revisit my statement :)
I wasn't expecting Star Trek (2009) to be topical. I expected it to reintroduce the characters, which I felt it did quite well. I didn't like everything about the film (including some of the Easter eggs within...the Delta Vega reference was a little annoying, for instance), but, overall, I loved the film (and it was certainly better than anything put out by the TNG crew).
To me, it was a good start. I wasn't looking for anything beyond that, and I don't know if anything beyond that would've been appropriate for a reintroduction story.
I saw the trailer (a teaser is the opening sequence in a TV show, before the credits, a trailer is an ad at the theatre) when I saw The Hobbit at the IMAX 3D last night, and I was very impressed. Unlike the first movie, he seems to have caprured the spirit of Trek in this one. It honestly felt like Star Trek. I liked the fact that the shuttle looked more like the Class F Galileo.
I will watch it, probably enjoy it too.
Will I care about it after that? Nope, excluding watching the rifftrax and plinkett review it will mean nothing to me. Just like 2009.
well, this is a classy thing to do. hats off to JJ...
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-204_162-...efore-release/
How great would it be if that guy posted a plot synopsis and a scathing review?
He won't. I'm afraid he has already died :(
Add to that the fact that his wife said he enjoyed it immensely, and I think the scathing review would have been out of the question even if Dan hadn't already passed away.
Like what JJ has done with Trek or hate it ... the man himself is a class act. That's all I've got to say on the subject.
A teaser is also a short trailer designed to spark interest in a film that's still a ways off (this use of the term has been in use within the industry for at least thirty years). English is a fun language. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Owen E Oulton
Interesting thing about the Spock, Kirk panel scene it looks like the roles are reversed.