Star Trek Into Darkness

[SiHart]

The first trailer for the new Star Trek film is available now. Looks ace!

http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/star...-into-darkness

[Dirk Gently]

That doesn't want to play.

[Larry]

the first film brethed much neededl life into the Star Trek fanchise it was IMO one of the best Star Trek films and this one potentialy looks like it's going to be even better.

[Dirk Gently]

OK, got it to play. Looks rather good.

[Jonno]

Do we know if Benedict is Khan, or is that just speculation at this stage?

[Anthony Williams]

Do we know if Benedict is Khan, or is that just speculation at this stage?

Just speculation right now, Jonno! Others are speculating that he's Gary Mitchell... I guess we may not know until next Summer!

[Jonno]

Cheers Ant - but who's Gary Mitchell?!

[Andrew Curnow]

Wasn't he married to Sharon and ran the Queen Vic?

[Anthony Williams]

Cheers Ant - but who's Gary Mitchell?!

Bloke from Where No Man Has Gone Before who developed God-like powers

[Zbigniev Hamson]

Hmmm. Just seems a typical "dramatic music with no real content" Hollywood trailer to me. I thought the last film was crap anyway so I'm not too enthralled by this.

[SiHart]

Well, I saw it on Monday and absolutely loved it!

[Simon R]

We're going Sunday. I don't really do Star Trek but I really liked the previous film.

[Mike Saville]

I loved it. No spoilers, but there are sections that the fan boys will love and hate in equal measure.

[Andrew Curnow]

We all watched it tonight, and all enjoyed it - I think Claudia mainly went for Benedict Cumberbatch, but she enjoyed it nonetheless!!! If you're planning to see it soon, make sure you don't find out the plot. I'll just say I think they did what they did very neatly, without it being too obvious, and then made it their own without it feeling like a cop-out. Really enjoyed it very much...


...and the young lady playing Carol Marcus is gorgeous, who is she?!

[Rob McCow]

1. Did anyone really think Chris Pine hadn't signed on for another film?
2. A spaceship crashes into San Francisco and NOBODY MENTIONS IT. Or even seems to care. It destroyed like 20 buildings!
3. There were so many references to old Star Trek film moments. Only this time - reversed! So Spock gets to shout Khan and Kirk dies in the radiation chamber.
4. Binckydonck Cummerbund's blood makes people not be dead!
5. The Starship engines still seem to be located in a big food processing refinery.
6. The denouement was a PUNCH UP on a MOVING VEHICLE. Yawn.
7. Was it all Bunnydick Cabbagepatch's plan all along?
8. Robocop was running Starfleet. Got to be a bad idea.
9. This whole Spock - Uhura thing. Seriously?!
10. Simon Pegg looks about 78. Older than James Doohan ever looked!
11. This film could ONLY have been saved if, when Sulu sat down in the Captain's chair, he'd have said "Oh my!"
12. People left before the theme music finished. DOWN WITH THEM.
13. When Kirk was dying and we were all supposed to be sad, these totally distracting robot doctors turned up. They were so cool! Who gives a crap about Kirk dying?
14. There's a bit where they fly through a really narrow gap!
15. It was fun, but it lacked the soul of the originals - or even the previous film.

[Si Hunt]

The only bit I didn't like was when Kirk is being held prisoner on the Admirals ship, helmed by Khan. Khan is about to blow up the Enterprise, but he won't succeed and shortly afterwards Kirk will pilot it away and there will be a chase. The plot therefore requires Kirk to be on the Enterprise, not Khan/The Admirals ship. So, just before he destroys it, Khan expends the time and energy to beam Kirk back to his ship, simply because he thinks "a Captain should go down with his ship". i.e He bothers to beam his prisoner back to a ship he is about to destroy. Of course, when he can't destroy it, Kirk is in place to escape. Hmmm.

Si.

[Andrew Curnow]

I'll admit, I really went along because Zel wanted to see it - although I quite liked the first one when I saw the DVD a few weeks back, none of the trailers for this one had really 'done it' for me.

But I thoroughly enjoyed it, I was even holding my breath at certain dramatic moments. I really, really liked how they gave us a swapped-around version of the Kirk/Spock sequence from The Wrath of Khan - it became obvious what they were up to, but it wasn't obvious too far ahead, it was paced just right so that (IMHO) the audience twigged what was coming just far enough ahead to make it exciting, not so far ahead that we were clock-watching waiting for the plot to catch up with us.

And then, having done it, it was entirely right that this new era then gave the sequence its own twist, by not leaving Kirk dead after all. That was again signposted, but not with a sledgehammer - I realised seconds before we suddenly had a big close up of the Tribble, what was going to happen, but it didn't feel a cheat or a cop-out, I think it worked very well indeed.

[Andrew Curnow]

I'll tell you what I find really fascinating, and I don't know whether anyone else has a view on this. We're used to such figures as Tarzan and Holmes and Robin Hood coming around and around, every generation seemingly having its own go at those characters - some versions are very different to the originals, some are better than others, etc, but we automatically accept them as being different spins on the same basic character, we don't try and contrive absurd justifications for them being the same character in every 'vision' of them.

With this last couple of Trek films, do you think we're just beginning to edge into an era where that sort of applies to the original crew, and maybe then in a wider sense to the more iconic TV heroes? Granted, they brought in Leonard Nimoy in the first one to give it a link, a continuity even, to the existing Trek universe. But if they'd made that film in, say, 20 years time, when that would not be possible, can you see us being at a stage where it's perfectly acceptable, even natural, for a modern generation to have its own stab at Kirk & Spock, entirely freed from what's been done before, in just the same way as we watch Mr Cumberbatch's Sherlock.

I'm not sure I've quite made my point, but it's really the suggestion that now TV figures are reaching an age when they may well become as universally-known as Tarzan and Sherlock Holmes, and thus never-endingly ripe for new interpretations.

Well, I find it intriguing anyway!

[MacNimon]

It was fun, but it lacked the soul of the originals - or even the previous film.

My thoughts exactly! I agree with most of your points there, Steve.

I saw it a couple of nights ago and enjoyed it. As usual though with many of these films, it just doesn't live up to the hype, does it? I found it to be pretty slow going in much of the early stages, although once it really got going I was thoroughly entertained right through till the end theme. There were flaws though...I felt at times that certain things were put in just because they were going to look 'cool' on-screen (the Enterprise rising out of the sea, for example) which just didn't make much sense. It looked great, though, didn't it? It was certainly a memorable scene so it worked on that score but I seem to remember from somewhere in the original series/films that the reason why they have a transporter system is because the Enterprise is simply too big a ship to easily enter a planet's atmosphere and land (or in this case hide in the sea!)...that's why they used transporters and shuttlecraft! I know that they've created a new timeline here but surely that doesn't change pretty basic stuff like this?

The most annoying thing about the film was how they basically reworked the main plot points of Wrath Of Khan and reversed the roles of Kirk and Spock. Those scenes were enjoyable enough, though unsatisfying. Like Andrew says, you could see what was coming next but only a minute or two before it happened. My daughter, for example, who has never seen any of the Classic Trek movies, couldn't understand why I was laughing at a serious scene when I realised what was going on. I've got to admit, I was wondering how thet were going to resurrect Kirk before he was even dead...I had forgotten about the presence of that dead Tribble and thought perhaps Carol Marcus may have been going to give him the kiss of life or some other sort of pick-me-up...

I think my biggest problem with the film is the new cast. It's not like they've miscast anyone really, it's just the obvious fact that it's not Shatner, Nimoy etc playing the parts. I know that sounds stupid because even the youngest surviving member of the original cast must be well into his 70s by now so there's simply no way it could ever have been done. But it's exactly the same problem I had with the last film, you spend half the film thinking this is supposed to be Kirk/Spock/McCoy/Scotty etc rather than this is Kirk/Spock etc...by the time you're getting used to (and accept) the new faces the film is just about over! Now, if this was a new tv series this wouldn't be a problem because you'd have a new episode coming next week and the week after, so you'd be used to the new crew in no time. However, in this case the next episode will probably be in 3 years or so, by which time I'll have long forgotten about the performances these guys put in and I'll be back in the same position.

The film was good fun though, an entertaining way to spend a couple of hours. But it just could have been much better!

[MacNimon]

I'll tell you what I find really fascinating, and I don't know whether anyone else has a view on this. We're used to such figures as Tarzan and Holmes and Robin Hood coming around and around, every generation seemingly having its own go at those characters - some versions are very different to the originals, some are better than others, etc, but we automatically accept them as being different spins on the same basic character, we don't try and contrive absurd justifications for them being the same character in every 'vision' of them.

With this last couple of Trek films, do you think we're just beginning to edge into an era where that sort of applies to the original crew, and maybe then in a wider sense to the more iconic TV heroes? Granted, they brought in Leonard Nimoy in the first one to give it a link, a continuity even, to the existing Trek universe. But if they'd made that film in, say, 20 years time, when that would not be possible, can you see us being at a stage where it's perfectly acceptable, even natural, for a modern generation to have its own stab at Kirk & Spock, entirely freed from what's been done before, in just the same way as we watch Mr Cumberbatch's Sherlock.

I'm not sure I've quite made my point, but it's really the suggestion that now TV figures are reaching an age when they may well become as universally-known as Tarzan and Sherlock Holmes, and thus never-endingly ripe for new interpretations.

Well, I find it intriguing anyway!

I think you're right there, Andrew. I can easily imagine them making new Star Trek adventures well into the future, putting a new twist on it every time. The problem is transferring the popular, successful points of a series and making them appeal to a new generation without losing sight of why it was so popular in the process...as you said, we've seen it done with the likes of Sherlock Holmes and Tarzan, it's been done with Superman and Batman, and with Doctor Who.

However, a remake of a tv series really needs to be remade as a tv series, not a movie (series). To emulate the original success, you need to give the audience a chance to enjoy the new interpretations of the characters on a weekly basis, see them develop as characters in their own right. Which simply doesn't happen in a film, or film series where you're getting one installment every three or four years.

[Si Hunt]

Watching as a casual viewer, because although I've seen a lot of Star Trek I have no memory of the plot of any of the films, it's like being on the other side. You can see people not liking it because of whatever-it-was they did with Khan but it didn't bother me because I didn't know.

As for the Enterprise being "too big to land", well that doesn't really make any sense does it. How can I ship be too big to land? There's, like, bags of space on a planet. It was more logical to me that it had been designed to fly in space or hover in orbit, so didn't have landing pads or anything. But obviously that's not an issue in the ocean.

I thought it was cool. Quinto convinces me totally as Spock. The only bit I didn't like was Leonard Nimoy's silly cameo - not needed plotwise, done it before, boring, pointless, let's move on shall we? It was also slightly odd that for the second film running we ended with a "now we've rebooted, let's move on to the proper adventures" ending. Will they EVER happen?

Si.

[MacNimon]

You're quite right, Si...you've put it much better than I could. But water pressure would be a problem in the ocean, wouldn't it?

Of course the Enterprise is designed to fly in space and hover on orbit. Regardless of it's size, it's simply not designed for entering atmospheres any more than is absolutely necessary. Which doesn't mean that it can't, but when you look at the design of it you'd think it would struggle with the stress of re-entry, particularly if going down to ground level, although perhaps not with the heat because of the heatshields. And forgetting about all the hassle of taking the ship deep into the atmosphere, taking it underwater would cause other problems.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I would have thought that a spaceship would be designed the opposite from a submarine...ie a submarine is designed to keep the high pressure of water on the outside from getting in, isn't it? And unless it was designed to be a submersable as well, you'd expect a spaceship to be designed to keep the higher atmospheric pressure from escaping into space (which is a vacuum). Two different jobs. They could just take the easy way out and say that it was designed to do both jobs, but that's never been mentioned so far.

Sorry to seem nit-picking, I actually loved the scene and thought it looked great but it's just one of those scenes where you're thinking "no way should they be able to do that!"

[MacNimon]

I've just found a site where a scientist put over my points much more eloquently and in more depth than I could!

Enterprise Underwater

Somebody easily debunked the guys argument in the comments section at the bottom though with the simple argument: "They used a forcefield!"

[Rob McCow]

Perhaps the planet had a low-density atmosphere and ocean... only problem is that they probably wouldn't have had a breathable atmosphere either.

[Dirk Gently]

I thought that the Enterprise never went nearer than an orbit around a planet because of the gravitational stress caused by being in a gravity field.
For the same reason you can never have giant insects, for example, the Enterprise never enters a planets gravity, it'll just collapse.
These space craft are built in orbit & therefore can be pretty much any shape because there is little resistance to it moving, but add gravity & atmosphere & the whole thing would become unwieldy & break up.

Well that's what I think.