How are you figuring that?
Star Trek Into Darkness - Official poster revealed, teaser trailer now online
- Thread starter rexor0717
- Start date
- Status
How are you figuring that?
sonikokaruto
Banned
The second one was a shitty remake of the first one
radios shipping overview
Member
I thought Yeoman Rand at first, but she was a redshirt.
Next I thought of Elizabeth Dehner from Where No Man Has Gone Before, who... was a blueshirt with a blonde bob and blue eyes. I think we may have a winner.
That wholly depends on what you think you're being right about. Yes, I was oversimplifying the "essential conflicts" of the original ST movies and I said as much. Point was to highlight the fact that revenge has already been a significant theme for most of the ST movies, driving quite a bit of the conflict. New Trek also has a major thread of revenge running through it? Why, I'm shocked.
None of this prevents other non revenge-based conflicts from also driving the drama, just like in the original movies and just like ST2009.
And the third will probably be a shittier remake of the first two.
BattleMonkey
Member
Hope Hangover III is not an Earth focused plot
sonikokaruto
Banned
Now that we all are on the same page, let's continue bashing the T2 of new trek movies
radios shipping overview
Member
I'm still betting this is a modification of the Gary Mitchell story. The Khan story as a personal conflict doesn't work without us first seeing Kirk screw him over. And we already saw a character show up seeking revenge for offscreen wrongs in STXI.
The Elite
BOSS
Transformers box office says people don't care about shit.
And ended up making more money.
Two scenes spring to mind for me, but it's more the scenes that aren't there rather than the ones that are.
But anyways, 1) when they teleport back to the Enterprise and one of them (I forget which) gets stuck in the tubes of the ship. Stupid slapstick.
2) They should've spent more time on Earth and condensed the rest of the movie. The character introduction for Kirk was like... another action-y scene that didn't need to be in the movie. (And it just felt out of place tonally given it was not more than five minutes after his father died in a really well done emotional scene). Then Kirk goes to the bar, and he just has to get into a fight. That kind of thing. So they show us Kirk is a dick, but not why he's going to be a good commander (which means Pike just has to tell us that it's genetic. Or something.)
It's like every five minutes, Abrams feels the need to add in something over-the-top action-y to make sure the audience doesn't get bored and it just ruins the flow of the movie for me. Less is more.
The second one got a pretty bad reception: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_hangover_2/
34% rotten and only 58% of the audience liked it. For comparison Transformers 3 has a 21% rotten rating, but 76% of the audience liked it, so it's not a case of 'panned by the critics / liked by the audience'.
The Hangover 1 grossed $277m in the US, while Pt. 2 was already down to 254m.
Internationally it's a different story, though, and things might get ugly for Trek.
Sickboy007
Member
The best/worst theory I've seen is that the baddie is this guy
"You took my car....REVENGE!"
Though I think Trek 2 will do better then the first Abrams film Star Trek is generally considered to be a 'break even' film for the studio.
I think it will grow with International audiences but I don't see it 'pulling a Skyfall'. But you never know.
*roll eyes*
sonikokaruto
Banned
BwahahahahaThe best/worst theory I've seen is that the baddie is this guy
"You took my car....REVENGE!"
I thought the Gary Mitchell (or at least a character based on him) thing had been an agreed upon fact for a while. There are a few references (such as that one shot from Wrath of Khan), but there is much more evidence for 'Where No Man Has Gone Before' than anything else.
See my post above. Sure The Hangover franchise is pretty succesful (especially for an R-rated comedy), but it's not a boxoffice juggernaut that steamrolls everything in its way. Maybe 'bomb' was a little bit strong, but it will most likely underperform.
Makes it sound like a summer action flick to me. Not really a problem, but I can see how it would turn someone off who enjoys things going at a slower pace.
Pretty sure this shot is not the whole ship, just one of the two engine parts. Probably the Enterprise.First one definitely isn't the Ent. Much more freighter like.
I thought it was pretty clear, that Kirk isn't a great commander, just like Spock isn't. He needs his crew and especially Spock around him. Kirk and Spock 'complete each other'. Star Trek was simply about setting up the franchise and getting us back to the status quo of Kirk being captain with Spock as his 1st officer.
Count Dookkake
Member
That's so not Star Trek.
SquiddyCracker
Banned
I'm okay with that.
We will see a Borg movie at some point, and it will be spectacular.
"Pretty successful?"
The Hangover sequel made nearly $600m worldwide. That's two hundred MILLION more than Abrams' Trek film made.
It made $137m over it's five day opening.
So the roll eyes were justified. And in fact here's another pair for you.
*roll eyes*
Makes sense (like I said, I don't know much about the Star Trek mythos)... it just came across as rushed for me.
Yep, you can just see the saucer rising up.
I sincerely hope not.
The Elite
BOSS
I'm really not too hot on the thought of them doing Kahn again. Hope it's something else.
PhoncipleBone
Banned
I would bet that Spock would warn Starfleet about Botany Bay this time. Kind of like "If you see this thing floating out there, just blow it up. It is the logical conclusion. Trust me."
Darth Pinche
Member
If it's not Khan, they are certainly trying to rep Wrath of Khan regardless.
Wow! Simply wow! Wrath of Sherlock?
My big piece of insider gossip (that turned out to be just a little right) before the first film was released was that an early draft of the script had NERO's ship made of salvaged Borg technology developed by the Romulans.
Rumours were the Federation would find the Borg tech and it would play into a sequel. They removed the Borg tech bit from the script and instead just limited the (very minor) plot point to the comic IIRC.
Messypandas
Member
Gimme dem tribbles
The title "Where No Man Has Gone Before" also has a close similarity in meaning and tone with "Star Trek Into Darkness"... hmm...
Isn't Old Spock about avoiding any timeline disruption issues? Everything he did in the original movie was to correct his mistakes and the shit he started and to return everything to the way it would have been had he not interfered. I doubt he'd go through and start warning the Federation about all the issues that will arise in the future.
The Elite
BOSS
Vulcan is gone. This timeline will always be drastically different. I think he shouldn't concern himself so much with disrupting the timeline at this point.
Sickboy007
Member
Nah, he acknowledges that it's a completely different timeline and says that he didn't help Kirk directly because he wanted him to bond with young Spock.
The Elite
BOSS
PhoncipleBone
Banned
That is my thought process on it. It is a completely different timeline now, so whatever knowledge he has wont affect his previous timeline.
PhoncipleBone
Banned
Fright Night had a vampire named Jerry.
PhoncipleBone
Banned
The name Loki is not low key though.
Or we could go back to the Spider Man movies. One villain was named Norman, and another was named Otto. Dark Knight had a bad guy called Harvey.
The best/worst theory I've seen is that the baddie is this guy
"You took my car....REVENGE!"
LOL George Kirk as the bad guy? Nah.
- Status