Star Trek: Into Darkness - SPOILERS

[Lutz]

We're getting pretty close to this right?

What do you make of the cast saying "it's no fun if it's already a tight knit crew"? I understand there are still teething problems but the strength of almost every other iteration of Star Trek has been the extremely tight knit crew.

Normally it rings alarm bells for me because infighting amongst the main characters is generally the lazy way to write BUT Star Trek 11 was fairly decent...

Also. I hope they have a more Star Trek sounding soundtrack this time.

[Leman Russ]

I was very surprised by the last movie, and have been looking forward to ST 12 for a while. I just hope they do not use Khan as the villain. You could never top the original Khan, and to even try would be pretty insulting. Plus, it basically screams out that the writers can't come up with anything new on their own.

[eversonpoe]

i think calling it Star Trek 12 is kind of misleading. it should be Star Trek B2 or something. haha.

i HATED the score for the last film (and i usually love michael giacchino's work). i found it distracting and irritating.

[REPLICA]

I can't wait for ST 12 (ST B2), I thought the last one was pretty good. I just hated how in the ST XI universe, Vulcan is gone, Spock (Original) is stuck in the XI universe and there was an ice planet right near Vulcan - that didn't make sense to me.

Anyway, I too, hope they don't use Khan as the villain. It should be all good though. I think it would be interesting to show a lot of the other "new" technology that the XI universe has - ship designs, possible hand phaser upgrades and such.

I thought the score was pretty good overall, I did notice a time or two when it did seem like it was misplaced in the film.

[Fixer808]

Seemed to me like there was way too much flexible reality in regards to space and/or warp drive capabilities in the last one.

[REPLICA]

Seemed to me like there was way too much flexible reality in regards to space and/or warp drive capabilities in the last one.

I'll agree with that. It seemed to me that they were at Earth one second and the next, they were at Vulcan.

[Leman Russ]

Seemed to me like there was way too much flexible reality in regards to space and/or warp drive capabilities in the last one.

It seems like that is done for nearly any movie with faster than light capabilities. "How much time do we need to explain something/show a dramatic scene/setup the next part of the movie? Great, that's exactly how much time it will take them to get from Point A to Point B".

[Fixer808]

It seems like that is done for nearly any movie with faster than light capabilities. "How much time do we need to explain something/show a dramatic scene/setup the next part of the movie? Great, that's exactly how much time it will take them to get from Point A to Point B".

Yeah, but at least other movies tend to make it clear through editing that a reasonable amount of time is passing, like Star Trek 6. It feels like that movie takes place over the course of at least a few weeks, unlike the latest one, where it seems like hours (barring the whole "skip forward 25 years" part). Mostly what bothered me was the "Look, it takes 30 seconds to get to Vulcan now! Whoops, we're meeting up with the rest of the fleet in the next sector, that's gonna take a while. Hey look, you can see Vulcan from this adjacent planet! The same one we're going to pass by 8 times, just so Kirk has enough time to meet old Spock, young Scotty, and beam aboard!"

[REPLICA]

Yeah, but at least other movies tend to make it clear through editing that a reasonable amount of time is passing, like Star Trek 6. It feels like that movie takes place over the course of at least a few weeks, unlike the latest one, where it seems like hours (barring the whole "skip forward 25 years" part). Mostly what bothered me was the "Look, it takes 30 seconds to get to Vulcan now! Whoops, we're meeting up with the rest of the fleet in the next sector, that's gonna take a while. Hey look, you can see Vulcan from this adjacent planet! The same one we're going to pass by 8 times, just so Kirk has enough time to meet old Spock, young Scotty, and beam aboard!"

That's exactly what I was thinking! Plus the fact that the crew can go from engineering to the bridge in about 20 seconds on those new turbolifts. I remember on TNG, it would take them a few minutes to get to the bridge from engineering. I can understand that if it is faster on a smaller ship but still, the Constitution class is a big ship.

[Fixer808]

Same with the Jeffries Tubes, there were episodes on all the series from TNG on where at some point someone's gonna be going up or down several decks and it takes ages. Hell, half of First Contact felt like it should have been called "SO MANY FUCKING TUBES UP IN THIS SHIP!"

I GET that it's done to hurry up the pace, but seriously, Spock gets in a turbolift and half a second later the door opens to the bridge!!

[botley]

Silly bickering over unimportant shit like this is why the Star Trek franchise disappeared up its own arse and was tarred with the "irredemably geeky" brush for decades. Trekkies should by all rights be tripping over their own boners to hear that J.J. Abrams is making their movies more eye-popping, more sexy, more emotionally resonant, more COOL than any they had before (as the 2009 reboot was), and be willing to give up their red-shirt-uniform-clad firstborn to get them.

[Fixer808]

I dunno, I just feel like it breaks me out of the movie, especially since they'd been building this universe for 50 years! AND OH MY GOD MORE LENS FLARES!

[botley]

Dammit Jim, I'm a storyteller, not a goddamned documentarian.

[REPLICA]

I agree with both points you guys are trying to make. Yes, I enjoy the fact that the current movies are shiny in all the right places and sexy in all the wrong ways. Yes, I would love to see more sexy Orion girls in Starfleet with or without uniforms on.

But I also want a Star Trek film that remembers some of the smaller details or past events.

[botley]

The last Star Trek was full of winking references to past events especially for fanboys, just not in an intrusive way that would disrupt a first-time viewer's enjoyment. I mean, I only just realized that the beagle Scotty accidentally beamed into space belonged to Capt. Archer, from the (horrible) Scott Bakula-era Enterprise.

[REPLICA]

Well.... Now that you mention that, I actually remembered a few little references too. I know there were a whole lot more references then there were in the later TNG movies.

And not to go off topic but, yes I too thought the Enterprise series was terrible. I did though, enjoy In A Mirror Darkly.

[Leman Russ]

AND OH MY GOD MORE LENS FLARES!

^This. I think the same thing every time I watch it.

[Fixer808]

I also hated Karl Urban's forced impersonation of McCoy...

[Lutz]

Silly bickering over unimportant shit like this is why the Star Trek franchise disappeared up its own arse and was tarred with the "irredemably geeky" brush for decades. Trekkies should by all rights be tripping over their own boners to hear that J.J. Abrams is making their movies more eye-popping, more sexy, more emotionally resonant, more COOL than any they had before (as the 2009 reboot was), and be willing to give up their red-shirt-uniform-clad firstborn to get them.

This seems like a contradiction to me because I thought that Star Trek disappeared after it tried too hard pandering for a new audience while ignoring and loosing it's already inbuilt irredeemably geeky one who the makers considered would watch it regardless.

[eversonpoe]

I also hated Karl Urban's forced impersonation of McCoy...

wait, what? he was perfect as mccoy!

[botley]

This seems like a contradiction to me because I thought that Star Trek disappeared after it tried too hard pandering for a new audience while ignoring and loosing it's already inbuilt irredeemably geeky one who the makers considered would watch it regardless.

It is probably true that the team behind the previous decade or so of TV/movies stopped caring about what the hardcore fans thought, but that's far from the only reason it was so full of failure.

[Lutz]

It is probably true that the team behind the previous decade or so of TV/movies stopped caring about what the hardcore fans thought, but that's far from the only reason it was so full of failure.

I think another reason they lost people is because it developed so far sideways and then so far backward when it should have been going forward. I mean Voyager was happening basically at the same time as DS9 and then DS9 finishes just before the last Next Gen movie. They really explored what everyone was doing everywhere in the galaxy at THAT time. They've kind of made the same mistake in going backward again and they are going to face the same problem on where to take this moving forward because even though resetting the timeline means they're not saddled with strict continuity anymore they are still saddled with the same universe which has already been explored.

[REPLICA]

WARNING: A little off topic.

I think another reason they lost people is because it developed so far sideways and then so far backward when it should have been going forward.

I know they added on for the comics and the online game but still, I want to watch something on tv. If anything, I would like to see Picard hand over the Enterprise E to someone else or have a whole new crew and ship set sometime after the events of Nemesis.

[marodi]

I also hated Karl Urban's forced impersonation of McCoy...

wait, what? he was perfect as mccoy!

I believe Fixer hates almost everything Karl Urban has ever done. I say "almost" because nobody on the planet is allowed to hate on Eomer.

In other Karl Urban/Star Trek news:

Urban totally trolled Comic Con

I love him.

[Leman Russ]

Star Trek Into Darkness? Am I alone in thinking this is a pretty awful title?

[Fixer808]

So far you're alone in knowing what the title is! Was it just announced?

But yeah, that sounds worse than "Attack of the Clones"...

[marodi]

The "facepalm" is meant for the new title. Picard is going to get one massive headache from all the facepalming he'll be doing over this.

That title is beyond ridiculous. "To boldly go where no moronic movie title has gone before"?

edit: Fixer, it was announced yesterday, actually: http://insidemovies.ew.com/2012/09/1...-sequel-title/

[sentient02970]

Lame!! Unless it's implying to guest starring this guy:

[Leman Russ]

Unless I missed something, neither Charlie Murphy nor Wesley Snipes have been cast in the movie.

[DF118]

I actually really like the title. It's evocative while Star Treky. They're Star Treking. Into Darkness. Boldly going there, presumably.

What's the problem?

Plus you're all stupid.