"Star Trek Into Darkness - last trailer." Topic

Super Cool!!
I can wait to see it!.

YouTube link

And you?

Amicalement
Armand

"Starfleet is not about a vendetta, Kirk."

Truer words were never spoken.

*Sigh*

I very rarely go to the cinema, and didn't see the last film until it came on telly. Huge error; it was blooming amazing, and I can't wait to see this one on the big screen…. :-)

Yawn.

I loved the first movie, just bought it on DVD.

Can't wait to see the second.

I'm looking forward to it quite a lot.

Doug

Who is the blonde babe striking the "check this out" pose?

Alice Eve I think – Trevor Eve's daughter.

Altfritz,

That would be Alice Eve, form "She's Out of My League", credited on IMBD as Dr Carol Marcus.

Carrol Marcus (in some other imaginary time line,she invented the Genesis device which lead to some guy named Kubli or Ricardo, or something like that causing the death of Spock, or so I'm told).

I watched it and thought "where was Star Trek in any of that?". Going to give it a miss.

Loved trek all my life but never thought they made a decent movie until the last one, that said I didn't think the last one was very "trek"

This one looks to be the same, a great Sci-Fi action romp, but perhaps not offering what trek did best on the small screen.

Ah, yes…Alice Eve…

I was thinking about this (the movie trailer, guys. Eyes here, please), and I realized that if this movie were titled Galactic Patrol or something similar, and the characters were not named Kirk, Spock, Uhura, Scotty, etc., and the ship were not the Enterprise, I would be way more excited about the movie than I am. Which is a darn shame, and is actually the key to my complaint about Abrams's approach.

You see, the cardinal rule of writing is don't take the reader out of the story. It applies to screenwriting as well. It's linked to the willing suspension of disbelief; you do not give the reader, listener or viewer a moment where they'll say, "no, I don't believe that." Humans are willing to forgive a lot in order to be entertained. We'll accept starships that operate outside the laws of physics, artificial men, aliens with rib cages on their foreheads, and a whole host of highly improbable or even impossible things, but we won't accept behaviors, actions and events that are not true to the story or to the characters we have come to know. And that's Abrams's error. I can accept everything in his Star Trek except that he's labeled it Star Trek. He's taken situations, societies and characters whose traits, philosophies and behaviors I know intimately well, and he's abandoned those traits, philosophies and behaviors while expecting me to accept that these are the same situations, societies and characters as before. But I know better. I know who Kirk is, how he thinks and what he would do, and the character whom Abrams is presenting to me as Kirk isn't Kirk. Ditto for all the rest. And that takes me out of the story, because I'm constantly watching and thinking "Kirk wouldn't do that," or "Spock wouldn't say that," or even simply, "that doesn't look like the Enterprise." Abrams's choices send me out of the story.

So it doesn't surprise me that those less familiar with Star Trek or those who never "got into" the previous versions would have a different reaction to Abrams's Trek than I do. In a way, I envy that. They can watch what he puts forth and accept that his Kirk is Kirk and his Spock is Spock. But I can't, because I "know" different. I can't suspend that area of my disbelief. Abrams has broken too many rules.

I suppose I'll try. I'll sit there and pretend that Kirk is named Cook and Spock is name K'ops and Scotty is Paddy, and so on. But I'll know better.
I just wish Abrams did.

> while expecting me to accept that these are the same situations, societies and characters as before

No he doesn't, the Trek Universe in the reboot is not the same as the original timeline.

I just look at this as being an alternative universe option or a "Mirror, Mirror" movie; I can accept that. Looks a good sci-fi romp, and I plan to see it at the flicks.

That's how I view it too – Star Trek has a long line of "alternate history" plots with the various mirror universe episodes over the years, so I just view it as another alternate. (In many ways the new films seem to feel more like the mirror universe to me, or even the SFB universe rather than the "old" movies; not bad, just not the same….)

My friend Parzival, I enjoy very much your comment.

I was a fan of the show (many years ago) and have seen all the movies too.

So, a question, why you said that this is not Kirk?

When I saw the last movie, he WAS Kirk in his youth.

His "ticks" are the same. Even his face!
I think that we consider Kirk as captain of the Enterprise as a man of 40 or more.
This is a post teen of 22 or 25 maximun.
So, how we can consider how was Kirk at that age?
I concurr with the writers that he had to be a little crazy and a guy very thrown of character.
He run, jump and fight as a man of 25 not of 40 or 50.
He laught for things that maybe, 20 or 25 years latter only provoke him a wink or a grimace.

About Spock I loved how they show him as a child with so "human" features.
Even, when he met himself was the highest point in the film.
An extraordinary acting.

Yes my thoughts only.

Amicalement
Armand

PS: That "girl" is fatal!!

> So, a question, why you said that this is not Kirk?

Simple, not a single dropkick in the whole movie…

The important point about Kirk is that his father dies in this version – causing his back story to be quite different the the original Kirk.

Parzival is right on the money. The JJ Trek franchise packs in enough references to Star Trek for the casual fan but not for the long term fan because they're not the target audience. The JJ movies are about making the most of the brand name Star Trek to rake in the money and to hell with what has gone before, because the enthusiasm of the cast and the fast pace of the action, plus the nods to the original will cover up the abandoning of the original Star Trek concept which was, yes it's an action TV show but it's an action TV show that uses sci-fi to tell morality tales.

The first JJ movie was flashy, but dumb and when Star Trek was dumb was when it was at its worst. But it was fast paced and enthusiastic dumb which did well financially. The first movie wasn't about a young Kirk, it was about a goofball rebel Kirk who has to go from washout to captain of the Enterprise in 90 minutes no matter what. And Spock loses all his logic and dignity because even Vulcans in JJ Trek have their emotions just barely supressed. Drama = conflict and if the big bad guy is too far away on another ship to have conflict then have your leading character clash with those around him…even though that is very anti-the ethos of original Star Trek.

The trailer for Into Darkness is even less like Star Trek than the previous movie because I suspect JJ and his team want to do their own thing without having 45 years of a show's history to contend with. But I liked that 45 years of the show and as Parzival said, all those departures from original Trek just remind me of what the show used to be like. For the record, the way they treated the Kobyashi Maru test in the previous movie was appauling considering how it was described in Star Trek II.

I've parted company with Star Trek. I wish JJ and his team well but his vision for it isn't for me.

It looks like one thing in common between the new and the old cinema movies is the destruction of the Enterprise. Always partial to the older cinema version one instead of the new one.

Cinematically, reminds me a *lot* of the Avengers trailer.

That was a great movie. It may make this one feel less original, or maybe that's just an accident of editing down into a trailer.

But . . . I will definitely see this. I'm not as bothered by JJ Abrams' approach to Star Trek as some people.

Heck, I remember watching "Star Trek" on TV back in the 60s and it thrilled me to no end, even though I was a little kid.

Later, I watched "The Next Generation" and enjoyed it.

Sadly, the flavor faded with "Deep Space Nine" and was gone for both "Voyager" and "Enterprise."

Perhaps I aged away from it, or perhaps the later shows gradually lost that ST feel to them.

I've seen all 11 of the movies and enjoyed a majority of them.

To me, JJ Abrams' first movie has approached the feel of the original shows, and until his movie disappoints, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. Of course, many Trekkies will disagree with me, but I also won't lose sleep over *that*, either. :)

Ditto what Parzival and Ubercommando said…. Same complaint with a certain 'reimaginimg' of another man's stories about an imaginary world with hobbits…

Oh wait, my complaints are being drowned out by the ringing of several million cash-registers and X-boxes….

Can't wait to see it! Abrams has done a great job with Trek, no matter what supposed "old school Trekkies" like to bitch and moan about. It doesn't matter what Star Trek series or movie is out there, they just like to whine about it. I've heard it all- from Roddenberry's TNG to Abrams Into Darkness. I just wish that they'd give it a rest. You guys understand the old Vulcan concept of IDIC? You know, Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations? It's not like Star Trek is a religion(well, for some out there it is)The world isn't going to end just because someone offers a different view or take on Star Trek. You want to know why Paramount let Abrams do with Star Trek what he's done? Because most "old school Trekkies" are a terrible market when you're trying to keep the franchise afloat. They're never satisfied, because only THEIR vision of Star Trek is right. All else is HERETICAL! Sheeeesh!!! One thing Gene Roddenberry tried to promote with the original Star Trek was open-mindedness and tolerance. Those principles are something I find lacking in most Trekkies. It's a shame.

P.S. I've been watching Star Trek since it premiered in 1966, so technically I'm an "old school Trekkie"