Trek XII - Images, Videos, Discussion, ect...

posted on April 22nd, 2013, 5:51 pm

clip from the movie: http://trekmovie.com/2013/04/22/watch-f ... -darkness/

posted on April 24th, 2013, 1:41 pm

New clip

posted on May 11th, 2013, 2:47 am

Some interesting thoughts on the implausibility of the Star Trek movies (and most sci-fi involving aliens in general):

http://www.sciencealert.com.au/features/20130805-24349-2.html

posted on May 17th, 2013, 3:22 am

SPOILER!



what did you guys think of the movie?

Connnn!!! or better, in what way? every way!

I liked it though they trying to change the story and keep it the same at the same time did not work.

I think it would have bean better to take out Khannnn!!!! and kirks death. Thare could have bean made better. I also feel like there needs to have bean a bit more drama around loss. Like have us get to know more about that little girt or her fother be for the bombing at the start of the movie.

Having said that the move was good not grate.

posted on May 18th, 2013, 5:01 pm

This movie broke the odd and even - bad-good movie chain. Being the last two star trek movies where bad. If you want to see it don't. JJ needs to direct some other franchise. There where scenes from the first one that were exactly the same (audio and video).

There was a lot of people crying : Kirk twice, Spock, Ojura, the admiral's daughter, Scotty, Pike, and even Khan!

One thing I don't get is why does the Admiral go to meet kirk at "Kronos" (Alternate universe now not Star Trek) When he could have killed him at earth?

These movies are defiling the franchise. Do Not watch Star Trek Into Sadness. They should have destroyed the Enterprise and made a new one in the next. It would have been good if they had to clips from the last one.

Dreadnought VS Enterprise, Scimitar VS Enterprise-E It been done before. However I do like the USS Dreadnought.

posted on May 18th, 2013, 6:25 pm

I disagree. I think the movie was spectacular! It held true to the old Trek as being an allegory for real world political events. In this case that happened to be terrorism. I can not believe you are complaining about the crying. There are a few tears here and there. It is no different than the amount of crying in many other TV shows and movies. Suggesting that people should not see this movie because of the sadness and crying is just absurd. It has been done in many previous incarnations and demonstrates the human condition-- which is something that Trek has always done. I would also like to point out that the title of the film suggested that there would be tragedy, or do you think that they just arbitrarily chose the name Into Darkness?

Also, there were some great moments of genius given to us by the writers of this film. The inspiration for this film was obviously the Wrath of Khan, and that is fine by me because this is the second movie of the JJ franchise. It parallels, or mirrors, Wok in some outstanding ways. One would be the death scene. I thought that it was absolutely brilliant to speak the same lines but have Kirk be on the other side of the glass. The role reversal was brilliant simply because of the line from WoK (and repeated in this movie), "you would have done the same". Yes, I did laugh at the "KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!!!!!" outburst but I laugh the same when Kirk does it in WoK as well. Something else that I found great would be the continued theme of a reversal from WoK. In the Wrath of Khan, the crew is growing old and is questioning their ability and usefulness. It wonderfully mirrored in their youth in this film. Also, I really loved the involvement of Section 31. It explained to me why the bad guy was so powerful, why the admiral was so menacing and willing to commit genocide/ start a war with the Klingons, use the enterprise to do his bidding, and to destroy the Enterprise when it became an inconvenience. I also like how that brought a Deep Space Nine element to this movie. It makes wonderful sense that Section 31 would try to recruit Khan. In DS9 they tried to recruit Julian, who was also genetically enhanced, for the same reasons as they sought after Khan in this movie: his intelligence and strength. It is also true to DS9 in the sense that this film is darker. That was the whole point of the DS9 series. It was to give a darker take on Gene Roddenberry's universe. This is doing a similar thing, but at the same time it still has great moments of cheerful playfulness like the original series. Simon Pegg was great in this film! He captured the originally Scotty if not a better one with his own take and humor.

Please don't listen to the other's whining and complaining over this film. Yes, this Trek is a little bit different than what you're used to, just as the Next Generation was very different from the Original Series, but this film does a better job of being true to the franchise than the 2009 Trek did. This new form is immensely popular, and is bringing the franchise great success. The alternative is nothing, so show your support for this franchise and see please see the movie. It is amazing, especially when you pick up on it's subtleties!

posted on May 19th, 2013, 12:14 am

It held true to the old Trek

I was surprised by this, what with how much "It's not Trek" talk there is going around. Judging by the trailers it really did look like it was going to be the exact same plot of Nemesis: Enterprise vs really big ship with some guy that wants to blow up earth.... because. The movie actually felt a lot like and made a ton of references to Star Trek 6, which is my favorite movie in the series. Sulu being in command, Praxis being destroyed, corrupt Admirals wanting to start a war, etc. If anything it was much more like Undiscovered Country than Wrath of Khan.

There was a lot of people crying

Pretty sure there was more crying in Wrath of Khan from Shatner alone.

One thing I don't get is why does the Admiral go to meet kirk at "Kronos" (Alternate universe now not Star Trek) When he could have killed him at earth?

Probably because he expected Klingons to take care of the Enterprise after the attack and to be a witness of the Klingons retaliating so he'd have a justification for firing on them and starting a war. Remember he was surprised that the Enterprise was still there? If anything he probably was going to make it look like he was responding to a distress signal and come in to save the Enterprise conveniently after the Klingons destroyed it.

"Kronos"?

I always thought that was just how Humans generally pronounced it and Qo'nos was just the proper Klingon word. Qo'nos was referred to as Kronos in Star Trek 6, even Chancellor Gorkon, a Klingon, pronounced it "Kronos One" when referring to his ship. I guess Star Trek 6 isn't Star Trek though.

Yes, this Trek is a little bit different than what you're used to

I think the only thing I find different in these new Trek movies is how fast paced they are. A lot of older Trek movies really took their time. People often say these new Trek movies are too action packed with not enough exploration etc, but look at Wrath of Khan, Search for Spock, and Undiscovered Country: There's pretty much nothing but ships shooting at each other and finding out who the bad guy is in those movies. Those movies are full of nothing but action and explosions and phasers (disruptors) shooting at ships. The only thing that's changed is how fast that action transpires on screen before going on to the next scene.

posted on May 20th, 2013, 10:52 pm

An io9 writer rips "Into Darkness" a new one. Spoilers, in case you hadn't guessed.

http://io9.com/star-trek-into-darkness- ... -508927844

posted on May 22nd, 2013, 6:26 pm

I liked the move dont get me wrong. Though it fell flat for me.

The move story line seemed to have bean taken in 2 directions at the same time.

Trying to match wrath of khan!!!! at the trying to make a new story line with is like truing to have a drunk rabbi do a cremation. fun to watch thought it leave you feeling bad when its over.

Because of the 2 story line it left not allot of time to develop ether fully in my opinion in the corse of the movie. The story line did not have me get invested the same way the last one did with the birth of kirk. "no drunk rabbi there"

I would have liked to have had the move make a bigger deal of pikes death. Have the movie develop him as a person more.

posted on June 18th, 2013, 2:55 am

For one last hoorah...

Since ST09 was a reboot, I prefer to call Into Darkness a sequel. It certainly had the feel. And for a sequel, it was top-notch. Any plot fail was minor. If you can't understand why any of the major events happened, you didn't think about it long enough. Khan was perfect as a villain. I to enjoyed the role reversal and Zachary Quinto nailed the 'Khaaaaan!' I do believe the flow of the movie was broken up a bit much, but the movie will probably be more attractive as a re-watch. It's a minor nitpick regardless.

I was too cheap for IMAX or 3D, but hopefully down the road there'll be a chance. It's certainly worth it to me.

I'd seen the movie last week, but I like to let my thoughts settle after a bit. It is sometimes a very horrible thing to have a visual communications professor as a friend. Especially one that can reveal the glitches, errors, and mistakes of filmography. The knowledge will haunt your every movie-going experience.

Also, this is the second time I've seen these movies' canonical legitimacy questioned. TNG is dead and it should stay dead. The series can be added to the hall of Trek legends along with DS9 and Voyager and of course the granddaddy OST. (You'll notice I left out STE) They were solid honorable additions to the series and should be remembered. That series however came to a close same as the OST. I was upset to see little closure in the OST and TNG movies, but it is what is is. STV was okay, DS9 closed in the best way. STE? Ha! ... Where was I? Oh right, haters- The story, the tech, and the characters are similar enough even if the actors aren't. There isn't a d*** thing wrong with an alternate universe since it's all fiction. What really matters is how well the story's told. I don't expect this little rant to change anyone's mind, but simply to give cause to those intelligent a thought possibly new to them to consider... -Peace.

posted on June 18th, 2013, 7:15 am

um, STV wasn't the last film with the original crew in it. That would be STVI Undiscovered Country (or the later ST Generations, if you count cross overs)

posted on June 18th, 2013, 12:23 pm

STV = Star Trek Voyager.

Probably should've clarified that. Still, It was nice to see what happened to Sulu. The rest of the crew went 'Second star to the right and straight on til morning'. Then a tid bit of closure in Generations plus Scotty and Mccoy in the series. After that, there's nothing I know of. Maybe in novels.

There was a little more closure for TNG, but thanks in part to DS9 for letting us know what happened to O'Brien and Worf.

*Crusher, Laforge* 'What about us? What happens to our real futures?' *Chekhov, Uhura* 'Join the club, we got jackets.' *crew of Voyager minus Janeway* 'What about us? We flew to Earth. That's IT?' *Chekhov, Uhura* 'We're gonna need more jackets.'

posted on June 18th, 2013, 5:06 pm

One thing that made me laugh about ST12:

Following "Harrison"'s attack on Starfleet HQ, Spock's dragged Pike to a comfy chair out of the way. They do the mind meld bit, Pike stops breathing, and that's it, he's dead.

Does nobody in the 23rd century know CPR? Not even a basic attempt at resuscitation!

Not that I particularly WANT to see that, it's just that this is a case of ignoring the obvious to uphold a bad bit of storyline. Just like hiding a starship in the ocean.

posted on June 18th, 2013, 5:17 pm

Does nobody in the 23rd century know CPR? Not even a basic attempt at resuscitation!

lol, right, since CPR is the proper medical treatment for a hole in the chest made by a charged particle weapon. That's RvB medicine along with CPR for being shot in the head and aloe vera on the neck for a bullet wound in the foot. Ah, nostalgia.

Spock should've ran for a med kit, but one could argue they both knew it wouldn't do any good.

posted on June 18th, 2013, 5:58 pm

*yawn* Drop the condescending attitude, kid, it won't do you any good in the real world. You'll just get it right back at you.

So, nobody ever survives being shot through the chest, is that what you think? You might want to check up on that.

It wasn't exactly a huge gaping hole, was it? Right-hand sided chest wound, missed the heart, would have penetrated a lung but that's survivable. Just keep the rest of the systems functioning with what's left (humans have TWO lungs, remember). Then treat the wound. Maybe not, maybe it was unsurvivable, you don't know.

Even in the really SEVERELY injured, you'll find that medics will at least try for a while.

Edit: I am, though, loving the fact that you specified "by a charged particle weapon", as if you know anything about charged particle weapons, how they do their damage, what kind of injuries they cause, anything like that. Because you don't. Because they're fictional.