Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 28, 2024, 07:55:25 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Star Trek Into Darkness (2013)

Started by The Region Legion, December 03, 2012, 06:13:43 PM

Previous topic - Next topic
So, after over 3 years since Star Trek got a flash new reboot with Hollywood's hottest new stars, the promotional campaign for the next one has (finally) kicked into gear. Poster was released today:



and a few days ago the official synopsis (contains very mild spoilers):

QuoteIn Summer 2013, pioneering director J.J. Abrams will deliver an explosive action thriller that takes Star Trek Into Darkness.

When the crew of the Enterprise is called back home, they find an unstoppable force of terror from within their own organization has detonated the fleet and everything it stands for, leaving our world in a state of crisis.

With a personal score to settle, Captain Kirk leads a manhunt to a war-zone world to capture a one man weapon of mass destruction.

As our heroes are propelled into an epic chess game of life and death, love will be challenged, friendships will be torn apart, and sacrifices must be made for the only family Kirk has left: his crew.


Based on the description, the poster and comments from Roberto Orci and Karl Urban I'm putting my money on Benedict Cumberbatch (for it is he in the poster) playing
Spoiler alert
Gary Mitchell, who Trek fans will remember as Kirk's school buddy who gains god-like powers and goes insane in the very first episode of the original series
[close]


Generally speaking, I'm excited - they did an incredible job last time balancing a sense of Star Trek with the demands of a modern Hollywood experience. It wasn't perfect, and I doubt very much whether this will be either, but it's a step in the right direction.

Trailer is meant to be out before the end of the year and there's a rumour that there's a presentation taking place in Tokyo tomorrow - if that's the case it could be this week.


Thoughts? Expectations? I'll get this one out of the way now - the official synopsis sounds like it was written by a 5 year old ("detonated" the fleet and everything it stands for? That doesn't even make sense. Also, the title sucks).


Tiny Poster

QuoteAs our heroes are propelled into an epic chess game of life and death

Three-dimensional chess?

MojoJojo

"Detonated the fleet"? What that mean?

olliebean

That poster, it's a bit Dark Knight-y, isn't it?

Benevolent Despot

I've had enough of this darkness business. Why don't they just make a fun Star Trek film? A fun Batman film? Something fun. Anything fun. Aren't we all a bit jaded by dark gritty threatening drama?

(Rhetorical questions).

biggytitbo

I thought Cucumber was meant to be playing KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHNNNNNNNNNNN!!


?


Also, this film has a stupid title.

Norton Canes

Let's hope they keep Scotty as a comedy stooge. That was hilarious.

spock rogers

I enjoyed the first one, but Abrams better get rid of the lens flare for this one. God, that was fucking annoying. It's the cinematic equivalent of an Instagram filter.

KLG-7B

I'm going to slice anybody who uses the phrase "good use of negative space" in relation to this poster.

KLG-7B

Negative Space might be a good title for it, if it's shit (it will be shit).

Blumf

Why does it always have to be some world shattering (literally) story? Just because it's a movie doesn't mean it has to turn the risks up to 11. It was the biggest flaw with the first rebooted Trek film (which I liked overall), just too big a threat leaving you cold.

In contrast, the recent Judge Dredd film was all the more engaging because it was a relatively small story from a larger universe.

Mister Six

Why is the bloody Gherkin in there?

Other than that, I don't like the look/sound of all this darkness business. I suppose the first film was quite dark, what with an entire planet getting blown up, but it managed to be fun as well. Hopefully this one will get that same balance, despite the shit title and cack poster. I really enjoyed it, even if (because?) it was so bloody lightweight.

Also I hope they make the third film in a more timely fashion. At least the cast were already ancient when they did it with the original lot.

Artemis

That poster looks like a cross between Matrix Revolutions and a Dark Knight film. I'm not a fan.

Good call on the Gherkin, too. What the fuck is that about?

Acceptable

Maybe it's supposed to be FUTOR-LONDON. I mean that giant Ferris Wheel on the far left could well be the London Eye...although that'd put Starfleet Headquarters somewhere in Peckham, so maybe not.

Catalogue Trousers

I suppose that Lumberjack's character could also be
Spoiler alert
Charlie X - a naive guy raised by hyper-powerful aliens who gave him superhuman powers that he couldn't control properly -
[close]
as well. Either way, KHAAAAAAAAAANNNN is seeming increasingly unlikely. Which is good. I love old Noonian Singh, and no way could wee Benedict measure up to big Ricardo.

Ginyard

Quote from: Artemis on December 04, 2012, 12:59:13 AM
Good call on the Gherkin, too. What the fuck is that about?

Maybe Kirk's just blown a hole in London Bridge hospital.

MojoJojo

Quote from: Blumf on December 03, 2012, 10:20:05 PM
Why does it always have to be some world shattering (literally) story? Just because it's a movie doesn't mean it has to turn the risks up to 11. It was the biggest flaw with the first rebooted Trek film (which I liked overall), just too big a threat leaving you cold.

In contrast, the recent Judge Dredd film was all the more engaging because it was a relatively small story from a larger universe.

Yeah, this was my thought too. Didn't earth's fleet get destroyed in the first one? It was just about justifiable in there because they needed some way to get Kirk from the academy to the captain's chair.

Also, it looks like they've forgotten the enterprise, and space. From the picture and the synopsis it sounds like almost the whole thing could be set on Earth - which would be an odd way to take it.

Dark Sky

Quote from: The Region Legion on December 03, 2012, 06:13:43 PM
Based on the description, the poster and comments from Roberto Orci and Karl Urban I'm putting my money on Benedict Cumberbatch (for it is he in the poster) playing
Spoiler alert
Gary Mitchell, who Trek fans will remember as Kirk's school buddy who gains god-like powers and goes insane in the very first episode of the original series
[close]

I hope every three years they make a movie based on each episode of the original series, in order.

Quote from: Benevolent Despot on December 03, 2012, 08:39:12 PM
I've had enough of this darkness business. Why don't they just make a fun Star Trek film? A fun Batman film? Something fun. Anything fun. Aren't we all a bit jaded by dark gritty threatening drama?

(Rhetorical questions).

The previous Star Trek film wasn't 'dark' at all, it was a fun adventure with lots of humour (much of it misjudged but never mind).  And yes, I do know what "rhetorical" means.  (It means, "quick!  Answer this question straight away!  I demand an answer, damn you!")

Not sure why people are moaning about the Gherkin and the London Eye.  Surely that just means it's meant to be London?

Ginyard

Quote from: MojoJojo on December 04, 2012, 08:44:15 AM
Also, it looks like they've forgotten the enterprise, and space. From the picture and the synopsis it sounds like almost the whole thing could be set on Earth - which would be an odd way to take it.

The Voyage Home was largely Earth based, with a bit of Bird of Prey and a giant fish tank for spice, and that was one of the better Trek movies.

BTW was the guy really called Gary Mitchell? Was he a cockney pub landlord with an eye for local skirt?

Norton Canes

All I can say is, there had better be Tribbles in this one. And those flying pancake things that landed on Spock's back once.

Obel

Quote from: Benevolent Despot on December 03, 2012, 08:39:12 PM
I've had enough of this darkness business. Why don't they just make a fun Star Trek film? A fun Batman film? Something fun. Anything fun. Aren't we all a bit jaded by dark gritty threatening drama?

(Rhetorical questions).

The Avengers not fun enough for you?

Jerzy Bondov

Quote from: MojoJojo on December 04, 2012, 08:44:15 AMAlso, it looks like they've forgotten the enterprise, and space. From the picture and the synopsis it sounds like almost the whole thing could be set on Earth - which would be an odd way to take it.
No it doesn't, it says they go on a 'manhunt' to a 'war-zone world', and then they play chess.

That said, when they zoomed off at the end of the first one to have fun adventures, I did sort of hope we might get to see some of them.

Shoulders?-Stomach!

Isn't that the same poster for every single action movie and first person shooter of the last eight years?

Dark Sky

They all had the Star Trek logo, you mean?

Jerzy Bondov

Will there be a Cling-on in this film?

Shoulders?-Stomach!


MojoJojo

Quote from: Ginyard on December 04, 2012, 09:17:28 AM
The Voyage Home was largely Earth based, with a bit of Bird of Prey and a giant fish tank for spice, and that was one of the better Trek movies.

Fair point, but that was the fourth film, and it had the series behind it too. And it was time travel at least. You'd think they'd want to establish the Enterprise a bit in this new series, unless they are deliberately wanting to do that of course.

Meh - there's not much to go on, except the fact it doesn't really look like a Star Trek film at this point.

Mister Six

Quote from: Shoulders?-Stomach! on December 04, 2012, 12:41:30 PM
Isn't that the same poster for every single action movie and first person shooter of the last eight years?

No, some of the shooters were brown.

Jerzy Bondov

You'll get a shit view from the London Eye with all those enormous futuristic skyscrapers in the way