Jump to content
Peter T Chattaway

Star Trek Into Darkness (2013)

Recommended Posts

We should start calling the J.J. reboot universe "NuTrek" because that sounds super cool. :P/>

My internet Trekkie buddies all refer to the Abrams continuity as "nuTrek," but they mean it as a derogatory term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We should start calling the J.J. reboot universe "NuTrek" because that sounds super cool. tongue.png/>

My internet Trekkie buddies all refer to the Abrams continuity as "nuTrek," but they mean it as a derogatory term.

In case it wasn't clear, I meant it to be derogatory and tongue-in-cheek.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(In other news, I read somewhere--probably Tumblr--that the skyline in the poster is actually London. Which could indicate that we'll be seeing more of JJVerse!Earth than we ever saw of Prime!Earth, at least in the movies)

As far as I am aware, Star Trek has NEVER shown us the London of the future. San Francisco many times (it's Starfleet HQ after all), Paris a few times (home to the office of the Federation President), but not London.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm... I'm wondering if the Star Trek franchise has *ever* said what happened to England, or Great Britain, or the Monarchy, in the future. This is what I can find at Memory Alpha:

So, nothing there, really, apart from references to people's birthplaces and the like.

(Man, I hate the way the current board software refuses to post things the way they looked in the previews, and refuses to just let you go back to the code after it's done the formatting in the preview...)

Edited by Peter T Chattaway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(which for some reason won't embed for me)

Den of Geek has the Japanese version, with added footage

....which, I try to be positive and not pre-judge a movie or go all fanboy on it. I liked ST2009 and have high hopes for the franchise, but--

NuTrek hasn't earned that shot.

[Oh, and notice that Cumberbatch says "vengeance"--which ya'll will remember was the original title of The Wrath of Khan. So Into Darkness seems to be doing its darndest to draw comparisons with TWOK.]

EDIT: Oh, and this doesn't seem to be the teaser after all. It's the announcement teaser, whatever that is.

Also, I'm fairly comfortable just calling it Into Darkness now, since the Star Trek part seems to emerge in the title as an afterthought.

Edited by NBooth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like nuTrek, all right, with all that entails.

See, there's lots about NuTrek that I like. I don't think the Trek franchise has really gotten futurecool since...I dunno, The Motion Picture. Don't get me wrong, I love [about half of] the TOS movies, and I've learned to enjoy TNG. But The Original Series had, I think, a feeling of space-age daring and vibrancy and color that just got washed out (some would argue that it was "washed out" in TMP, but I like the slick lines and think that, for all the lack of color, there's still that same space-age feeling).

NuTrek brings back futurecool. And I like that. And I really do like the cast.

But everything I hear about this movie makes it sound like it's keeping all the flaws that have [legitimately] been pinned on ST2009, ramping them up to eleven, and [as of now] I'm not seeing any compensating positive stuff--ideas, for instance, or real human emotion.

That shot--that shot--is presumably designed to get the emotion in. But since I don't know these incarnations of the characters like I know the originals, it just comes off as cynical.

For the life of me, I can't figure out why this movie is bothering me so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TREK '09 was okay; I've given it a rough ride sometimes (and yes, its script is thoroughly terrible), but the cast had enough charisma to make the thing watchable. I suspect the same will be true of INTO DARKNESS.

But like its predecessor, it will likely miss what made Star Trek, at its best, so special: its warm humanism, its sense of virtue, its love of mature friendship. nuTrek has no time for such quaint things. Instead, everything must bend to its central directive: everything must be cool.

Edited by Ryan H.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Den of Geek has the Japanese version, with added footage

...

[Oh, and notice that Cumberbatch says "vengeance"--which ya'll will remember was the original title of The Wrath of Khan. So Into Darkness seems to be doing its darndest to draw comparisons with TWOK.]

And, um... there's the shot at 1:02. Spock's death scene, anyone‎?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, clearly Cumberbatch is Khan and they lied, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those of us who have simply mildly enjoyed some of the Star Trek films over the years, what's going on that the "Trekkies" are upset about?

"nuTrek"? I assume that's some sort of slang for the new Abrams Star Trek films. Is that supposed to be funny? In the new trailer, everyone's talking about "that shot" but I don't know what "that shot" is, or why it's not supposed to be there. Some of them have been dismissing the new film as going in that direction. Many of us have no idea what you're talking about. I watched the trailer. It seemed to have lots of half second shots of violence and explosions in it, which seems like what all trailers for franchise films try to do these days. What are "the flaws" that have "been legitimately pinned" on Abrams' first Star Trek film? I thought the film was rather fun. But I wasn't ever expecting anything much of depth from it. Did something bad just happen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NBooth wrote:

: Oh, and notice that Cumberbatch says "vengeance"--which ya'll will remember was the original title of The Wrath of Khan.

Wasn't the original title of ST2:TWOK "The Undiscovered Country"?

Incidentally, TrekMovie.com noted yesterday that "Vengeance" is not only the current movie's title in Russia, it was also the Russian title of Star Trek: Nemesis.

J.A.A. Purves wrote:

: It seemed to have lots of half second shots of violence and explosions in it, which seems like what all trailers for franchise films try to do these days.

Well, that's *one* of the problems with the J.J. Abrams films, though it affected a lot of the earlier films too. The TV show was about much more than "action", but the movies have been about little else.

The *other* big problem with the J.J. Abrams films -- or at least the one film that has been released so far -- is that they aren't really *about* anything. As David Poland noted three years ago, Star Trek stories always had some sort of Big Idea that they tried to explore, but the last movie (as I put it in my own review) was about little more than franchise self-perpetuation.

It remains to be seen if this new movie will have any Big Ideas or if it will simply be more bombast; see Ryan's comment above about the directive to make everything cool nowadays.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

J.A.A. Purves wrote:

: It seemed to have lots of half second shots of violence and explosions in it, which seems like what all trailers for franchise films try to do these days.

Well, that's *one* of the problems with the J.J. Abrams films, though it affected a lot of the earlier films too. The TV show was about much more than "action", but the movies have been about little else.

The *other* big problem with the J.J. Abrams films -- or at least the one film that has been released so far -- is that they aren't really *about* anything. As David Poland noted three years ago, Star Trek stories always had some sort of Big Idea that they tried to explore, but the last movie (as I put it in my own review) was about little more than franchise self-perpetuation.

It remains to be seen if this new movie will have any Big Ideas or if it will simply be more bombast; see Ryan's comment above about the directive to make everything cool nowadays.

Not only "franchise self-perpetuation" but simply a re-hash of the original plots when they had an opportunity to do something new. You know, "where no one has gone before" and all that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TREK '09 was okay; I've given it a rough ride sometimes (and yes, its script is thoroughly terrible), but the cast had enough charisma to make the thing watchable. I suspect the same will be true of INTO DARKNESS.

But like its predecessor, it will likely miss what made Star Trek, at its best, so special: its warm humanism, its sense of virtue, its love of mature friendship. nuTrek has no time for such quaint things. Instead, everything must bend to its central directive: everything must be cool.

Damn. I mean.

No, I do. I've seen the film's faults taken apart at punishing length and in damning specificity (I think this observation by Peter is one of the most incisively damning insights I've seen)...but in terms of summing it all up in one global, damning commentary, this takes the cake.

Edited by SDG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That shot--that shot--is presumably designed to get the emotion in. But since I don't know these incarnations of the characters like I know the originals, it just comes off as cynical.

For the life of me, I can't figure out why this movie is bothering me so much.

A lot of it goes to the question of who is on which side of that glass? What we have heard time and again about this movie is that in the last film, Kirk won the center seat on the Enterprise, but in this movie, he has to earn it. I'm betting that the scene at the end of the Japanese trailer plays out very differently than we might at this time think. How far would you go for your family?

So, clearly Cumberbatch is Khan and they lied, right?

I'm going to say no. For this reason - he's wearing a Starfleet uniform throughout the teaser trailer, and the plot description calls him "one of Starfleet's own" and a "one-man weapon of mass destruction." I'm betting on Gary Mitchell (despite the comics) or Garth of Izar (more likely). Alice Eve looks like an AMAZING Elizabeth Dehner, if that's who she's playing. Wow.

Talking more about that shot at the end of the Japanese version of the announcement trailer - I very much want for this film to take Kirk to his own real-life Kobayashi Maru test. That would make this very different than TWOK, and build very nicely on the 2009 Trek movie. In TWOK, Kirk faced death in the form of losing his best friend. What if, in this film, he faced death by offering his life in exchange for his crew?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That shot--that shot--is presumably designed to get the emotion in. But since I don't know these incarnations of the characters like I know the originals, it just comes off as cynical.

I guess for me, I've seen JJTrek about 15-20 times so far (including times I've just listened to the movie on my iPhone) and I come into it allowing that these are the same characters, more or less, that I grew up with, just skinnier. I suppose the real question will be if the MOVIE earns that shot, not whether the teaser announcement earns it. After all, characters die in genuinely emotional ways in one-off movies all the time, and we don't consider it cynical. What made Spock's death so -- beyond -- in TWOK was the history we had with the characters. But I know people who have seen TWOK as their first exposure to Star Trek who have found Spock's death profoundly moving. In other words, the history is not necessary to avoid cynicism. It's just helpful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is really wierd. Here, I see primarily doom and gloom over the trailer...on twitter all the Star Trek fans I follow are excited by the prospects. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole "big ideas" thing is something I will miss about the Star Trek universe, the NuTrek is fun and Star Wars-y, and Wrath of Khan-y, and yeah that Trailer gave me a strong Iron Man 3 trailer vibe as well....and I enjoy that kinda stuff as much as the next nerd, but I miss the Carl Saganish stories too, the ones that seemed like 2001, like The Motion Picture or some of the OS or TNG episodes. It seems all we want now is cool space battles and phasers and torpedoes and action shots and emotional deaths and awesome villains

and I'll enjoy watching it, but I will always miss the Star Trek that wasn't afraid to explore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CrimsonLine wrote:

: I'm betting on Gary Mitchell (despite the comics) or Garth of Izar (more likely).

The problem with both of those characters is that they got their powers from an alien source of some sort; there was a story, a *back* story, to those characters that would have to be fleshed out before *this* story could get going in any meaningful way. (Then again, the last film barely gave Nero any back-story -- for that, you had to read the comic-book prequel -- and it got away with it, so...)

I like your suggestion that it might be Kirk rather than Spock who offers his life here, BTW. I just wish J.J. Abrams could make one film that *doesn't* feel like it's borrowing from ST2:TWOK in some way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...