Amazon Holiday Deals

3D Tip Jar

Amazon mp3s

Promote Your Blog

From the Trailer Park — Star Trek: Into Darkness


Teaser trailer…

I saw this elsewhere but I see it’s in the OT also.

23 comments to From the Trailer Park — Star Trek: Into Darkness

  • JS Lawalin

    Well, it ain’t Khan. Gary Mitchell?

  • RGallegos

    It’s got to be Khan. Gary Mitchel was godlike…so I say KKKHHHHAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNN!!!!!

  • They can call him whatever they want. He won’t be Khan.

  • -fritz-

    J. J. Abrams does “dark” really well, doesn’t he?

  • goozer

    They can call it whatever they want — it won’t be Star Trek.

    • Sure it is. Star Trek isn’t William Shatner any more than Shakespeare is Laurence Olivier or Star Wars Mark Hamill. I like Trek too but let’s not make any more out of it than it was. :-)

      • I just heard a head explode over at Commentrama. :)

          • Loyal Goatherd

            Not presuming to speak for others, I find it difficult to call this just Star Trek, I call it ST: the Reboot, ST was not about special effects and villians. It was about humanity, the human condition. The morality plays were to spur further thinking. What has JJ give us? Weak script “corrected” with CGI, no thinking required, see the pretty explosion? NOT STAR TREK!

            PS. let’s not talk about the reboot destroying the original ST timeline in the first 15 minutes a lot of story, lore and subsequent history destroyed. Q, who’s Q, that timeline has ended!

            • If he had kept the timeline then you’d be bashing him for leaving out some arcane detail from Episode 37 ) said in hushed tones).

              He did the right thing changing the timeline. It frees him from Nerdvana.

              • Loyal Goatherd

                Possibly, I was sure there was a lot in the old timeline we had not seen, but be that as it may, (it was a post script). What insight of the human condition was illustrated in the 1st reboot movie? (Cool explosion, huh?) What moral quandry did our characters wrestle with? (Blue or orange fireballs). For that matter what was the main plot? Someone from the future hates us and goes back into the past to kill us and boom blows up, lots of stuff. Not a satisfing ST experience, sorry.

                • I didn’t say it was, I’m just saying a mechanical adherence to a timeline would’ve been a useless exercise whomever directed it.

                  • Loyal Goatherd

                    Agreed, it was still hard to let that go. Otherwise, the reboot is at least as good as Battleship was. :)

                    NBC said Star Trek was too cerebral way back when, they were ahead of their time.

        • No heads exploding, at least not today. :-)

          I had an interesting conversation with a Facebook friend about the movie. She’s excited to see it and doesn’t care who the villain is. I’m excited to see it but I think it’s a mistake to bring back a character from the show. In a universe of near-infinite possibilities, why not – wait for it – create an ORIGINAL character? Besides, the whole “mad man who wants to destroy Earth” routine has been done to death.

      • goozer

        LG, I concur with your assessment. Here’s what I thought of the movie then (and still do):

        Time to turn in my OG* Card…

        I have always felt (and have seen it expressed on various other sites) that if you have to break the toys someone else created to tell your story, then it’s best you don’t play with them. So many of the current geek crowd fail to grasp this simple concept. They think that (insert favorite character/story) would be so much cooler if only it were like this (insert personality/motivation/power/plot never hinted at and often diametrically opposed to who they are or what the history is) instead of building upon the firm foundation already there. Why must we laud those who cannot seem to be able to create stories using these legends without totally deconstructing them? And rest assured, this movie does exactly that.

        The TOS characters are iconic – when I look at the new cast, I get a whiff of the ironic. To re-invent Kirk as a rebellious teen needing the discipline of Starfleet to make him into the ‘man’ that that is presented here is so fundamentally wrong to who we KNOW the character is as to move beyond cliche into full-on bullshit. To have Spock and Uhura have any sort of ‘relationship’ removes any sense of ‘alienness’ from his character, not to mention killing off his mother, which is what gave strength to his ‘human’ side – come to think of it, I guess explains the former ‘plot’ point. Oh, and while we’re at it, let’s blow up Vulcan! These are but three examples of the pathetic attempt to ‘reinvigorate’ the characters and legend we have grown up with.

        As for the story itself, it is little more than generic paint-by-numbers sci-fi plot devices and current stylistic elements: generic villain – check; generic revenge motivation – check; generic super-weapon – check; flashy CGI to provide eye-candy to the geeks – check; rapid cut editing to hide the fact that your story is actually boring – check; nauseating shaky-cam to cover the fact you have no concept of cinematography – check. The way that coincidence upon coincidence is used to get the crew together would be bad enough without having to further suffer the incredibly stupefying way that Kirk ends up with the conn! And the fact that everything isn’t returned to status quo ante at the end does this film no favors. You are still left with the fact that if you changed the names and took away just the specific dialog that ‘ties’ these new portrayals to the originals, the story would lose nothing at all and be revealed for what it is; generic.

        This movie is nothing more than an admission by everyone involved, from the studio on down, that they are not equal to the task of using what has gone before to create something fresh and exciting without destroying that self-same source. You can try and justify it by throwing out lingo like ‘reboot’, but then don’t pretend that this story has any real connection to the original creation other than sharing names (Nimoy’s cameo notwithstanding.) Attempting to justify it as an ‘alternate universe’ is also a poor story device to hang a franchise on; what happens when the hoi pollloi decide they’re done with Trek again? “Well, guess it’s time for another ‘reboot’! So sorry that you were invested in these characters and stories!” How special.

        My original assessment of this flick and the target demographic still stands: This week on Star Trek: 90210 – Kirk wrecks the Galileo 7 while taking it for a joyride with Uhura; Spock teaches McCoy the Vulcan Death Grip; Scotty gets drunk again; and Sulu wrestles with his feelings for Chekov. Guest starring Zach Braff, Hayden Panettiere, and Abe Vigoda.

        Fail.

        R.I.P. Star Trek.

        *Original Geek Card

        YMMV. ;-)

        • Again, I’m not going to defend Abrams’ vision (or version) as great but this line in your post was interesting:

          “The way that coincidence upon coincidence is used to get the crew together would be bad enough without having to further suffer the incredibly stupefying way that Kirk ends up with the conn!”

          Like EVERY ST film where Admiral Kirk was somehow always tapped to deign to take the conn? Nero’s vengeance was no different than Khan’s except Khans occurred in the Old Testament er… the 1960s first run. Generic super weapon… like the Genesis weapon or the whale sounding tube or the cyborg cube (the one from the New Testament)?

          Kirk as rebellious teen… how is that any different than Kirk as over the hill man in a girdle and toupee doing things no 60 year old man could really do?

          It’s a movie. Unclench just a little. Star Trek the reboot was a great popcorn flick. Shit man, you make it sound like they remade The Passion of the Chris. :-)

        • Loyal Goatherd

          goozer, same page. I wouldn’t watch TNG for the first 2 years, only reluctantly did I learn to tolerate it in re-runs. I have never watched Voyager, nor DS9, though I do intend to someday. I waited on Enterprise until it had cancelled and actually learned to like it. And the foreshadowing of the storyline, consistant with what will follow was done respectfully and added well to the ST universe, IMO. I didn’t want to like it, but it was done well enough to command my respect. So I fully expected, that same treatment in the reboot, not the whole universe just changed so too bad effect. To me, that was disrepectful of the fans (line up here to give us your money and then we’ll tell you what an idiot you are, see you in two years for the next one, moron!)

          Star Trek 90210 is good, I always pictured it instead as a “Love Boat” ripoff, so I’ll see your Abe Vigoda and raise you a Charro! and every other out of work Hollywood type once a season. I don’t have a problem with the new cast, the new effects, the new management or even the new timeline (though that one is hard to let go). My problem is that it doesn’t stick with the source material beyond a label, mis-labeling a product is fraud. So the new name: Fraudulent Star Trek

  • Matt Helm

    I’m thinking Gary Mitchell too.

  • -fritz-

    If this is the future of Star Trek, I foresee the mass suicide of millions of Trekky geeks!

  • [...] mentioned in my critique of the last film, it is the custom in genre fiction these days to give in to the ‘fanboi’ instincts by [...]

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>