Star Trek Into Darkness


Recommended Posts

Personally, I don't see why the Klingon's couldn't be a part of it, we don't know what the destruction of Romulan space has done to the Alpha Quadrant, you'll now have the Federation, Klingon's and most likely the Cardassian's vying for control, as well as some of the minor races could perhaps take control of more space left behind. Terrorism, no thanks, not in Star Trek '2', we saw enough of that through TNG/DS9 and even Voyager with as Frozen said, the Maquis.

Actually, wouldn't only the Vulcans be gone? The Romulan planet died out in an alternate universe. With Nero going back in time, the Romulan planet never would've been destroyed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the graphic novel pre-quel if you haven't already read it, is a must in setting up and explaining some of the storyline for the film.

...and that, to me, is how Star Trek failed to get top marks. C'mon, can't a movie stand on its own without requiring viewers to read a freakin' comic book?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, wouldn't only the Vulcans be gone? The Romulan planet died out in an alternate universe. With Nero going back in time, the Romulan planet never would've been destroyed?

Ah of course that was a major mind blank on my part!!! You are of course correct Lawtai, it would indeed only be the Vulcan's that have essentially lost their home!

@ _dandy_

There is no need to read it, the film does amazingly well by itself, I downloaded the graphic novel for my ipod and found it a very good read and it adds to the depth of the film and explains in a bit more detail. I don't think the 'every day' person who watched it is going to need to read it, but for those of us who love Star Trek, it's all the more juicy.

Star Trek is still ultimately in my mind THE film of the year :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really hope you just got that wrong and meant Romulans, because the Klingon's are still alive and kicking in this 'alternate' time line. :)

Technically we did see Romulans...Nero...was Romulan, as were his crew...the graphic novel pre-quel if you haven't already read it, is a must in setting up and explaining some of the storyline for the film.

well, didn't they say in the movie that he had decimated the Klingon empire? so no Vulcan and maybe no Klingon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well, didn't they say in the movie that he had decimated the Klingon empire? so no Vulcan and maybe no Klingon.

Not the Klingon Empire, are you kidding? They'd NEVER get rid of the Klingons in any Trek, ever. It's bad enough what they did to the Vulcans. And to be clear, he wiped out a Klingon fleet of ships in Klingon space, not the Klingon Empire like I said :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Writer Roberto Orci answered fan questions on the Don Murphy message boards. Among other things: He and cowriter Alex Kurtzman won't let Scotty become a one-note joke. And he likes the Borg a lot, but also says you have to admire the Klingons' style. But the movie's script is "still a twinkle in our eye." Quick, let's start a rumor that the script is finished and it features Scotty become a Borg! [TrekWeb]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Today we have some updates on the upcoming sequel to this year?s Star Trek reboot, from both director J.J. Abrams and writers Alex Kurtzman and Robert Orci. The topics of discussion range from the story ideas for Star Trek 2 to the news that the sequel will possibly be shot in stereoscopic 3D.

All of this wonderful Star Trek 2 info comes our way thanks to the diligent work of our friends over at Collider.

Let?s start with J.J. Abrams talking about shooting Star Trek 2 in Steroscopic 3D. Here is a snippet of what the director had to say on the subje

Paramount talked to me about doing the first one in 3-D and, having it only be my second film, I was petrified just at the addition of it. I thought it would be another dimension of pain-in-the-ass. I was just like, ?I want to make a decent 2-D movie.??I?m open to looking at it ?cause now I feel a little bit more comfortable. And, if I, in fact, direct the Star Trek sequel, 3-D could be really fun, so I?m open to it? open to it?

Well with every film new and old getting the 3D treatment these days, why not Star Trek, right? But what kind of film are Abrams, Kurtzman and Orci cooking up? And is it the kind of film that will warrant 3D (a rare but important question, I think)?

Here are some of the quotes from Alex Kurtzman and Bob Orci about where they are in the scripting proces Bob: We?re still just brainstorming, internally. We?re going to get together soon and see what happens, and start putting it together.

Alex: Where we?re starting is, ?Okay, where are our characters now? What are interesting complications that we can put in their lives? What feels like an organic emotional place for us to get to? How do we want to test them?? And then, you look at everything and start asking, ?Who would be the best foe??

Bob: There are mental exercises we play. You can?t be a fan of this and not sit around and wonder.

Alex: But, the short answer is that we haven?t landed on anybody yet.

And regarding the (prematurely) rumored Guantanamo Bay/torture political allegory theme for the sequel:

Bob: The torture thing was just a for instance. Someone asked, ?Modern day issues?,? and we said, ?Yeah, sure, modern day issues.? But, we?re not doing a story about Gitmo. I read on some site that it was going to be about Guantanamo Bay. But, now that we?ve established the characters, we can have a more philosophical allegory, where what?s happening in the future represents our world, like the best versions of it in the ?60?s did with women?s rights and racial equality.?60?s did with women?s rights and racial equality.

Abrams added this bit on t> ?with Star Trek, it?s not like we?re looking to make the second movie some kind of heavy political allegory. I think that it?s important that there is metaphor to what we know and that there is relevance, and I think allegory is the thing that made shows like The Twilight Zone and Star Trek resonate and still be vital today. But, because the first movie was so much about introducing these people?it made it difficult to also have the film go as deep as it could?it is the job of the next film to go a little bit deeper. It shouldn?t be any less fun or take itself too seriously?just examine [the characters] a little more closely, now that we?ve gotten through the pleasantries and introductions closely, now that we?ve gotten through the pleasantries and introductions.

For all you Trekkies out there worried that the next film was going to go all Michael Moore on you, I guess you can breathe a little bit easier now; seems as though the filmmakers have their heads in the right place to progress the story in a logical (get it?) yet entertaining way. I really feel a bit more at ease hearing Abrams in particular reaffirm that the sequel - no matter what the subject matter - should still retain the fun factor. Star Trek was definitely the most fun (maybe the only pure, start to finish enjoyment) that I experienced at the movies all summer.

Screenrant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

im thinking that a 3-D Star Trek would not be very fun then again i am not a big fan of 3-D movies.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Enough with the 3D. When will that horrible fad die? 3D doesn't add anything to adult films IMO, it, in fact, takes away from them. Kids films in 3D are okay because kids enjoy that kind of cute stuff, but it is total **** with live action films.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Will the Original Captain Kirk Be in Star Trek 2?

The last Star Trek film was by all accounts a huge success, both financially and critically. The reboot brought in $384 million worldwide since its May 2009 release and with the DVD soon to hit store shelves November 17th, the financial gain is sure to continue. Director J.J. Abrams, along with writers Alex Kurtzman and Robert Orci managed to reinvent the Roddenberry franchise without the use of *gasp* William Shatner.

Some people questioned why they wouldn?t bring Shatner on board for the reboot - not because he is the greatest actor in the world, but rather because he essentially IS the embodiment of Star Trek. Our friends at Cinema Blend pointed us towards The West Australian, who were at a Los Angles press conference promoting the Star Trek DVD, where J.J. Abrams addressed that very topic and it looks like William Shatner MAY (not will) show up in the new Star Trek sequel

?The problem was his character died on screen in one of his Trek films and because we decided, very early on, that we wanted to adhere to Trek canon as best we could ? the required machinations to get Shatner into the movie would have been very difficult to do given the story we wanted to tell and also to give him the kind of part that he would be happy with.?.?

I suppose that makes sense. Shatner did die in the Star Trek: Generations movie only to come back from the afterlife ?Nexus? and die again later in the movie. So why wouldn?t Abrams and company do the same kind of thing f

?It was a foregone conclusion we wanted him in the [star Trek]. It was this thing where it would have felt like a gimmick in order to get Shatner in the movie, which would have honestly, to me, been distracting.? distracting.?

Not quite as distracting as Leonard Nimoy returning to battle a snow beast as his home planet is destroyed, or as distracting as a green alien hottie in her underwear, but I understand what he means. Trying to start a franchise basically from scratch so that it may continue to live through numerous sequels is tough enough to do without bringing back in a familiar face just for the sake of branding.

So what has changed in the Star Trek universe that would allow Abrams to include Shatner into ?In terms of moving forward, I am open to anything. I feel like the first movie did some of the heavy lifting that needed to be done in order to free us to continue going forward. Maybe there?s less of a burden and there?s going to be more opportunity to work with him (Shatner).?ork with him (Shatner).?

I?m not really sure how I feel about that statement. The inclusion of Shatner in any manner other than portraying Captain Kirk would just be strange. That means in order to use both Chris Pine and William Shatner as Captain Kirk there would have to be time travel involved and honestly that would feel gimmicky to me. The whole topic is covered in detail on the upcoming Star Trek DVD, in a feature called ?The Shatner Conundrum?.

I honestly don?t think Shatner should return to the franchise. He had his three decades of fame from Star Trek and should now fade into the background and enjoy watching younger actors pick up the torch and run with it. I?ve enjoyed watching him in his more comedic roles lately and who doesn?t like the Price Line Negotiator? But he most likely will play ?I would love to work with [shatner]. We speak. We actually have a lunch date planned. ?. We actually have a lunch date planned. ?

What do you think about William Shatner coming back on board to play a part in Star Trek 2? Should he leave well enough or alone or does he deserve to be in every Trek movie as long as he lives?

The Star Trek Blu-ray and DVD comes out in the US November 17th, 2009.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to say that im not a huge Star Trek nut like most people but I will always watch a re-run of the old episodes as I do find it very compelling. That being said I just got around to watching JJ Abrams reboot and it is easily one of my favourite movies of this year and it just reaffirms my theory that the man can do no wrong...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wow....save the 3D for the current batch of kids movies, if this is the only format it's shown in at theaters, I'll wait for the DVD. 3d always leaves me with a headache.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The wife and I are looking forward to the Disney Christmas one in 3D this year, but we both feel that the 3D was more of a test year for here. I don't think we will see too many 3D films much longer.

As for the Star Trek sequel, I sort of lost my love of Star Trek when Enterprise came out. Dunno why, but it didn't really mesh with me. Might venture to see this on DVD or something but not in theater I'm afraid.

[/EndOpinion]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Zoe Saldana says she can't wait to take off her shirt again, although she presumably doesn't know if that's happening in the new movie. She also hints that filming may take place next year after all, despite all those delay reports. [E! Online]

So what's the new one about? J.J. Abrams offers some vague ideas:

The second one has an obligation to go deeper and maintain the fun and adventure in the sense of optimism and scale that [Gene] Roddenberry created. But I do think it has to evolve and not become some polemic over-the-top, on-the-nose allegory. It needs to be something that is not just about the characters meeting each other and having their first adventure; it needs to be about having their most meaningful one.

But he says it definitely won't be called Star Trek 2.[MTV]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.