Star Trek Into Darkness - Official poster revealed, teaser trailer now online

Status
Not open for further replies.
I want to see the full prologue for the first time in IMAX tomorrow... but I really want to find a bootleg of the two minute trailer tonight. Shit.
 
Catnip is a good call. Kryptonite is a repellent, not an attractor.

For me, Cumberbatch's appeal seems to be similar to Alan Rickman's. Not that I can really quantify that reasoning all that well, but the attractions seem to be similar. The combination of unique looks, voice, demeanor, and charm.
 
jiji said:
He's broody and tortured and odd and he puts on a good ambiguously gay relationship with Martin Freeman's Dr. Watson. It's fangirl kryptonite.
Click to expand...

Uhh, also he is pretty distinctive looking, and not in a bad way. If I had features like that, I would not be concerned about my ability to draw women.
 
Anyone consider the whole "What would you not do for your family?" line could be directed at the father of the sick girl and not Kirk? He obviously wants something from that man in exchange for helping his daughter.
 
I watched the 10 minute preview.
I enjoyed the first movie since it was a pretty well done, fun action Sci-fi movie though it was a pretty bad Star Trek movie. Looks like this film will be more of the same, which I pretty much expected, though I'm surprised I found 2 things to nitpick about in the first 10 minutes.

Why hide the Enterprise underwater when having it in orbit would most likely be easier and just as effective? I'm sure it's just to establish the Enterprise can go underwater for the clips where we see it crash into the water in the trailers but it seems silly. How did the aliens not see the Enterprise go underwater when it's in fairly short running distance of their village?

Also saving a species from being wiped out by something natural like a volcano is violating the Prime Directive. There was a TNG episode dealing with this, with Data in contact with an alien girl who's planet was being destroyed. It was made clear that saving them violated the prime directive, even though their species was going to be wiped out.
 
Bluth54 said:
I watched the 10 minute preview.
I enjoyed the first movie since it was a pretty well done, fun action Sci-fi movie though it was a pretty bad Star Trek movie. Looks like this film will be more of the same, which I pretty much expected, though I'm surprised I found 2 things to nitpick about in the first 10 minutes.

Why hide the Enterprise underwater when having it in orbit would most likely be easier and just as effective? I'm sure it's just to establish the Enterprise can go underwater for the clips where we see it crash into the water in the trailers but it seems silly. How did the aliens not see the Enterprise go underwater when it's in fairly short running distance of their village?

Also saving a species from being wiped out by something natural like a volcano is violating the Prime Directive. There was a TNG episode dealing with this, with Data in contact with an alien girl who's planet was being destroyed. It was made clear that saving them violated the prime directive, even though their species was going to be wiped out.
Click to expand...

TOS era prime directive wasn't that strict.
 
vUT4i.gif
 
Bluth54 said:
Why hide the Enterprise underwater when having it in orbit would most likely be easier and just as effective?
Click to expand...

They mention that the volcanic activity is accompanied by magnetic disturbances, making transporter use unreliable. Kirk and McCoy wouldn't have been able to make a clean getaway if the Enterprise were in orbit.

There's no plothole there.
 
maharg said:
TOS era prime directive wasn't that strict.
Click to expand...
Yeah I guess it didn't seem as strict as on the later shows, but it still bugs me.

Ignis Fatuus said:
They mention that the volcanic activity is accompanied by magnetic disturbances, making transporter use unreliable. Kirk and McCoy wouldn't have been able to make a clean getaway if the Enterprise were in orbit.

There's no plothole there.
Click to expand...

The plan wasn't that they were going to swim to the Enterprise though, Sulu was going to pick them up in the shuttle until it got damaged and he told Kirk he would have to make it to the Enterprise on his own. In fact Sulu says they are going to ditch the shuttle since it got damaged, I have to wonder how they made it to the Enterprise as fast as Kirk did. Another plot hole!
 
Bluth54 said:
I watched the 10 minute preview.
I enjoyed the first movie since it was a pretty well done, fun action Sci-fi movie though it was a pretty bad Star Trek movie. Looks like this film will be more of the same, which I pretty much expected, though I'm surprised I found 2 things to nitpick about in the first 10 minutes.

Why hide the Enterprise underwater when having it in orbit would most likely be easier and just as effective? I'm sure it's just to establish the Enterprise can go underwater for the clips where we see it crash into the water in the trailers but it seems silly. How did the aliens not see the Enterprise go underwater when it's in fairly short running distance of their village?

Also saving a species from being wiped out by something natural like a volcano is violating the Prime Directive. There was a TNG episode dealing with this, with Data in contact with an alien girl who's planet was being destroyed. It was made clear that saving them violated the prime directive, even though their species was going to be wiped out.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure the Enterprise could've gone underwater at a further entry point and just moved closer while underwater. That's a simple explanation.

Also, if there were magnetic disturbances interfering with the transporter, that's a simple enough reason for them to want to be as close as possible for the mission.

As for the TNG episode, it's called Pen Pals and saving the species from a geological natural disaster was not a violation of the Prime Directive. Data's contact with the pre-warp alien girl via radio was the violation. Picard was fine with them discretely solving the planet's problem as long as the inhabitants didn't know they did it. Picard even thought it was ok to save her life as long as her memory of the Enterprise could be erased.

Cultural contamination of a pre-warp society seems to be the most consistent concern of the Prime Directive. Other than that, leaving species alone when dealing with internal conflicts such as civil wars to prevent favoring any faction also seems to be part of the Prime Directive. Leaving species to die of non-cultural reasons is an area where the Prime Directive seems to have varying interpretations. If you can save the species from disaster without being discovered, that seems to be acceptable to everyone but Janeway.
 
Alan Rickman is more of a cult thing with Harry Potter, I don't think there's hundreds of tumblr pages dedicated to his good looks.
 
Villain is definitely Robert April. Drew McWeeney's theory works too too well. As a person whose exposure to ST is 1) the '09 reboot 2) probably 3 episodes total of the original series 3) two episodes of TNG, I'm perfectly fine with that. A family theme coupled with examining Kirk's role as Enterprise patriarch sounds functional.
 
big ander said:
Villain is definitely Robert April. Drew McWeeney's theory works too too well. As a person whose exposure to ST is 1) the '09 reboot 2) probably 3 episodes total of the original series 3) two episodes of TNG, I'm perfectly fine with that. A family theme coupled with examining Kirk's role as Enterprise patriarch sounds functional.
Click to expand...

Is there a link to this mad theory?
 
DoctorWho said:
Is there a link to this mad theory?
Click to expand...

Right here

Also, as a note: I debated whether or not to spoiler tag that name in my other post, but I saw others putting it untagged so I went for it. That said, the way this writer came up with this theory involved seeing something on a set visit. Not really a full spoiler, but he added up clues and stuff. I dunno. I don't think knowing who the villain is should bug people, especially when it's technically just a theory.
 
Enterprise definitely gets fucked up.. can't wait! Maybe they'll destroy her and we'll get a new 1701-A in the third film.


edit: or maybe at the end of this film! Perhaps that's why ILM needed that extra time before they started filming: new enterprise scenes/setup!
 
PhoncipleBone said:
Google Fu to the rescue!
Click to expand...

big ander said:
Right here

Also, as a note: I debated whether or not to spoiler tag that name in my other post, but I saw others putting it untagged so I went for it. That said, the way this writer came up with this theory involved seeing something on a set visit. Not really a full spoiler, but he added up clues and stuff. I dunno. I don't think knowing who the villain is should bug people, especially when it's technically just a theory.
Click to expand...

Thanks!
 
big ander said:
Villain is definitely Robert April. Drew McWeeney's theory works too too well. As a person whose exposure to ST is 1) the '09 reboot 2) probably 3 episodes total of the original series 3) two episodes of TNG, I'm perfectly fine with that. A family theme coupled with examining Kirk's role as Enterprise patriarch sounds functional.
Click to expand...

If this is true, could Weller be playing the old April?
 
looks like mass effect dooky butter poopy butt. buncha pretties chinned up 45 away from camera.

graphx looks nice but it's 2012 i expect more. will watch 4 spock.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Astartes II – Official Teaser Trailer
1
438
Apocryphon replied
HIM | Official Teaser Trailer (Sports Horror Film)
5
326
StueyDuck replied
Star Trek: Section 31 Trailer
2
86
4K
Captain Zyrain replied
Now You See Me: Now You Don’t (2025) Official Trailer
32
219
Come On Tars replied
Section 31 Rottenwatch: Kurtzman makes a worse Star Trek movie than Into Darkness, Nemesis, and Final Frontier combined
2
93
5K
Fluffytheterrible replied
Top Bottom