[Trailer] Star Trek - Into Darkness

[Morrus]

Also, I still have trouble parsing the title. Should I be reading it as [Star Trek] [Into Darkness] or [Star Trek into Darkness]?

Me too! [Star] [Trek into Darkness] kinda works, but leaves the "star" hanging. [Star Trek] [Colon here] [Into Darkness] would work if they had a colon or something there. It does bug me a little - sounds so clumsy to me!

Agreed on anticipation of BC. Love him in Sherlock, looking for a return of that series, and eagerly anticipating his appearance as Smaug in the next (or next-next) Hobbit.

And the Necromancer/Sauron, don't forget!

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Me too! [Star] [Trek into Darkness] kinda works, but leaves the "star" hanging. [Star Trek] [Colon here] [Into Darkness] would work if they had a colon or something there. It does bug me a little - sounds so clumsy to me!

Yeah, I considered [Star][Trek into Darkness]. [Trek into Darkness] works pretty well, but there's that hanging Star .... A colon solves all.

And the Necromancer/Sauron, don't forget!

D'oh! Of course, how could I forget!

 

[sabrinathecat]

Because by that time, I was totally disgusted by the movie and am working from memory?
You know what would have allowed JJA to reboot the series? Just saying that he was rebooting it. That's all. People seem to have liked the New BSG series. Did they have to say they were rebooting? No. They just did. No explanation needed, and most people seem to have liked it just fine.

It isn't the biggest plot hole, simply the first. And by that logic, the timeline Kirk & Spock left to pick up whales resulted in a dead planet, and some other timeline suddenly had a second Kirk&Spock, and was saved from a completely different alien probe by whales from a completely different Earth.

As for the picture of the ship--thank you, but no, it does not really show me much. It looks like an artichoke with spiked plates, but still not much in the way of detail.

 

[Dannager]

Because by that time, I was totally disgusted by the movie and am working from memory?

Uh-huh.

You know what would have allowed JJA to reboot the series? Just saying that he was rebooting it. That's all. People seem to have liked the New BSG series. Did they have to say they were rebooting? No. They just did. No explanation needed, and most people seem to have liked it just fine.

Yeah, but why do that when he can do what he did? Abrams' reboot technique was brilliant. It was consistent with Star Trek lore, it rebooted the series in a way that acknowledged everything that came before it, and it provided a very neat way to start over with the same characters but with enough differences in the timeline to avoid falling into the doldrums of rehashing old storylines.

It isn't the biggest plot hole, simply the first.

It's not a plot hole. It's really important that you understand this.

And by that logic, the timeline Kirk & Spock left to pick up whales resulted in a dead planet,

I could be wrong, but Star Trek IV involved using the slingshot technique to travel only through time, not to an alternate universe. The Earth they traveled back to and the Earth they returned to were the same planet.

As for the picture of the ship--thank you, but no, it does not really show me much. It looks like an artichoke with spiked plates, but still not much in the way of detail.

This is a really inane nitpick. The movie is filled with close-up and distance shots of the Narada. This is made doubly inane by the fact that despite the repeated presence of Klingons and frequent mention of their ships, we never saw a Klingon starship until the third season of The Original Series.

 

[sabrinathecat]

Well, some people may think it was cool. I am not one of them.
So now we're using two different sets of the laws of time? Whichever happens to be convenient?
Do you remember the beginning of a movie called Falling Down? How the camera was zoomed on on a couple of hair follicles on Michael Douglass' face, and then pulled back? The shots of the Narada are like that: either way too close to see anything, or way too far back to see anything. Pretty sure Errand of Mercy (season 1) had klingon ships. I know Trouble with Tribbles (mid season2) had a klingon ship.

 

[Dannager]

Well, some people may think it was cool. I am not one of them.

Sure, but your reasoning seems to boil down to, "Because I think it's dumb."

So now we're using two different sets of the laws of time? Whichever happens to be convenient?

Basically. You can travel through time by slingshotting, or you can travel through time and alternate universes by passing through a black hole/wormhole/red matter singularity. But you don't get to lay the "blame" for this at the feet of Abrams, Orci, or Kurtzman. Star Trek has had both kinds of weird-travel for decades now.

Do you remember the beginning of a movie called Falling Down? How the camera was zoomed on on a couple of hair follicles on Michael Douglass' face, and then pulled back? The shots of the Narada are like that: either way too close to see anything, or way too far back to see anything.

No, there are plenty of middle-ground shots. I think the issue is just that the ship is dark and casts all sorts of shadows on itself.

Pretty sure Errand of Mercy (season 1) had klingon ships. I know Trouble with Tribbles (mid season2) had a klingon ship.

Were you watching the more recently-released enhanced versions? They went back and added Klingon ships to the first two seasons because it was weird not having them in there.

 

[sabrinathecat]

I would say more "The style does not appeal to me."
No, I blame it on Trek having always had mostly sloppy time travel (exceptions already noted previously).
Yeah, middle-shots where you can't see... What was that about film being a visual medium?
I have been watching the new ones. In Tribbles, however, there was originally a klingon ship in orbit around the station. The CGI version just makes it visible outside the windows some times.

Yeah, what can I say--I'm an old geezer. And cranky. And picky. I try to keep up with the new stuff just to see what it is that is popular now. More often than not I turn it off. Wish I could say that it is just the new stuff, but there has been a plentiful supply of garbage. I'm just sad to see Trek (among so many others) fall so far from what it was, and what it could be with the right writers and directors.

 

[Dannager]

I would say more "The style does not appeal to me."

That's fine.

No, I blame it on Trek having always had mostly sloppy time travel (exceptions already noted previously).

It doesn't strike me as sloppy, per se. Just sort of kitchen-sink-ish. But that makes perfect sense when you're talking about a film and television franchise that's nearly 50 years old.

Yeah, middle-shots where you can't see... What was that about film being a visual medium?

That was the idea, I expect. You're not supposed to see every facet of the ship. The Narada was kept dark and shadowed because the direction team wanted it to come across as menacing and overwhelming. I think they did a stellar job. There's a certain brutality to the idea that you can show up with a mining ship but the fact that it's from a hundred years in the future means that it has the upper hand against anything thrown at it.

Yeah, what can I say--I'm an old geezer. And cranky. And picky. I try to keep up with the new stuff just to see what it is that is popular now. More often than not I turn it off. Wish I could say that it is just the new stuff, but there has been a plentiful supply of garbage. I'm just sad to see Trek (among so many others) fall so far from what it was, and what it could be with the right writers and directors.

What we're telling you (and giving what we feel are pretty solid examples for) is that Trek was never as incredible as you think it was - certainly not in film. And, above all, that the new movies do at least passable justice to the franchise as a whole.

 

[sabrinathecat]

I see it more like the James Bond franchise: it is capable of being brilliant (Trek 2, For Your Eyes Only, Trek 6, Living Daylights, but in the hands of those currently in charge, it never will be. (we'd be lucky to get something as good as Live & Let Die or Trek 8)

 

[Dannager]

I see it more like the James Bond franchise: it is capable of being brilliant (Trek 2, For Your Eyes Only, Trek 6, Living Daylights, but in the hands of those currently in charge, it never will be. (we'd be lucky to get something as good as Live & Let Die or Trek 8)

That's not a totally barren opinion (if a bit extreme), but there's a gulf of difference between lamenting a film franchise not reaching its full potential, and cursing its caretakers. Star Trek was not a ground-breaking film. But I didn't want it to be ground-breaking. I don't think a lot of people did. I think they wanted to be reassured that it was possible to make a film that was unquestionably Star Trek and be excited by it. We'd spent quite a number of years dealing with disappointment (and this is coming from a guy who was still in high school when Nemesis came out). The 2009 film was a breath of fresh (if not particularly inspiring) air. And, unlike you, I have a lot of respect for Abrams as a storyteller and I'm excited to see what he decides to weave next.