Teaser trailer…
I saw this elsewhere but I see it’s in the OT also.
|
|||||
 |
From the Trailer Park — Star Trek: Into Darkness23 comments to From the Trailer Park — Star Trek: Into DarknessLeave a Reply |
 |
|||
|
Copyright © 2013 threedonia.com - All Rights Reserved Powered by WordPress & Atahualpa |
|||||
Well, it ain’t Khan. Gary Mitchell?
Is Terry Garr availible?
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.
Q
I always enjoyed Q’s appearances. The guy who played him was a regular on my mom’s soap opera (Days of Our Lives) back in the day.
J. J. Abrams does “dark” really well, doesn’t he?
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.
I thought about that.
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.
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.
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.
LG, I concur with your assessment. Here’s what I thought of the movie then (and still do):
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.
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
I’m thinking Gary Mitchell too.
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 [...]