StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Prometheus Unbound wrote:
weren't there 72 survivors in Space Seed?

Yup, not counting Khan.

Skylon wrote:

Prometheus Unbound wrote:
weren't there 72 survivors in Space Seed?

Yup, not counting Khan.

Guess that settles it - I wasn't sure if it was Khan or not.

Still want to see this - the initial reviews are giving it 3.5-4.5 out of 5 stars...

think the designer of this latest poster released for the film got the scaling off a bit

Looks like Klingons still like their melee weapons;



And look a bit mean under the mask;

Wow, Stark and Batman have a nerd pissing match going on if ever there was one. I've got a voice of reason for the both of you:



Holding STID to WOK and TUC standards isn't totally invalid, bit it's a road to ruin in my opinion, because nuTrek isn't that kind of movie, and it isn't trying to be. I'll be going into it expecting the same thing I got three years ago: An action movie with a few stirrings of higher thought to it, some top-quality special effects and acting, a plot that is fast-paced if not consistent, and a truckload of TOS references.

Lilgreenman wrote:Wow, Stark and Batman have a nerd pissing match going on if ever there was one. I've got a voice of reason for the both of you:

hehe yes this is quite old (from 2009) - but still relevant.

So, the reviews are in, and the consensus is basically "First Khan-tact".

Movie curse intact or not? You decide!

Just got home from the premiere of Into Darkness at my local cinema.

And the synopsis posted here... is : Spoiler The ending: Spoiler There are so many things this movie could have done. And they pretty much copy Star Trek 2 - The Wrath of Khan.

Good popcorn movie. Some nice continuity with the first one (Cumberbach uses Scotties transwarp beaming to escape!) and to the old canon (remember Praxis? it already went kablooey).

I think this movie is better then the first nuTrek movie but fails on its chance to do something new with the material. Just a rehash of Space Seed and TWoK. And while the ending is not a Deus Ex Machina as it was forshadowed right at the beginning it just plain fails the gravitas of the original TWoK with Spocks live as the price for the crews survival.

Spoiler

That was a fun film.

The story is imperfect and has some flaws, but ultimately it was good fun.

The film is far more entertaining than that synopsis makes it sound. It fits together much better than the previous film as well.

And it's unfair to say they just copied Khan or Space Seed.

Up until the end none of the important plot points are the same.
Spoiler Spoiler

Zac Naloen wrote: Spoiler

With regards to killing Kirk, there was no point leaving him dead. Kirk is Trek and it would have led to a pretty shit second film as well.
The resurrection was lampshaded in the first minute of the film, so story wise it works and in my opinion it didn't ruin the drama either. Everyone who knows trek knows that with the situations reversed Spock was resurrected by magic.
They just got the resurrection out of the way at the end of this film so they could just get on with the next film without that hanging over them. No one wants another search for Spock. Do they?

Spoiler

ray245 wrote:
Spoiler

If the audience can see the death scene and the resurrection scene coming miles away, it takes away the dramatic impact of Kirk's sacrifice. JJ Abrams seems to have reinforced my negative view of him as the director of the next Star Wars. Rather than have the balls to make something different from Space Seed or TWoK, he basically lifted the plot from them. The part whereby Abrams decided to turn Khan into a villain for no other reason than he is named Khan is quite disappointing to see.

Spoiler

Zac Naloen wrote:

ray245 wrote: Spoiler

First off, the plot is nothing like Space Seed.

And is only superficially like Wrath of Khan for about 5 minutes, the mirroring of that situation serves a thematic purpose as they've spent most of the film setting up the Vulcan feelings vs Human feelings dichotomy. The point being that it doesn't matter what you feel, you still care. This was spelled out during the conversation in Mudds trade ship and in the final monologue of the movie.

And with regards to Khan being a villain, have you ever read his back story? There is no way they could retcon him into a "good guy" he was a genocidal maniac before the time lines split ergo he's a genocial maniac.

And yet they went through all that trouble with Star Trek 2009 to tell us that the old timeline is gone...
The new Kirk never went back into the 30s to meet Edith Keeler and the hobo never killed himself with a phaser. He never went back into the 60s to meet Gary Seven and never destroyed an Air Force plane with the tractor beam.

All we know about Khan through the old series, movies and non-canon books/comics is void.
Spoiler While I agree that it is a good movie, I still think they essentially remade TWoK with different details instead of taking it into a different direction.

Just saw it in a almost empty screen (not a good sign on a friday night!) Really enjoyed it, apart from Pegg's accent.

Dartzap wrote:Just saw it in a almost empty screen (not a good sign on a friday night!) Really enjoyed it, apart from Pegg's accent.

Huh, so posting spoiler tags in here for reviews? How... inelegant.

The screening I just came back from was packed. It was pretty amusing to see a foursome of OAPs try to squeeze in amongst a load of kids and twenty-somethings. The general audience reaction (aside from the odd knob who had to check his mobile every five minutes) was enthusiastic.

tezunegari wrote:

Zac Naloen wrote:

ray245 wrote:
And yet they went through all that trouble with Star Trek 2009 to tell us that the old timeline is gone...
The new Kirk never went back into the 30s to meet Edith Keeler and the hobo never killed himself with a phaser. He never went back into the 60s to meet Gary Seven and never destroyed an Air Force plane with the tractor beam.

All we know about Khan through the old series, movies and non-canon books/comics is void.


While I agree that it is a good movie, I still think they essentially remade TWoK with different details instead of taking it into a different direction.

The point of divergence is the destruction of the USS Kelvin. Khan pre-dates that by a wide margin.

Give me a fucking break. How is using Khan thirty years after TWoK any different from using Joker twenty years after the Burtan movie?

90% fresh on rotten tomatoes so far... there is hope yet.

Lord Woodlouse wrote:The point of divergence is the destruction of the USS Kelvin. Khan pre-dates that by a wide margin.

Agreed. The arrival of the Narada in Star Trek 2009 is the Point of Divergence.

But consider:
The Eugenics War and Khans rise to power is somewhere around the 1990. (TOS: "Space Seed")

According to DS9s "Trials and Tribble-ations" the Kirk has amassed 17 separate temporal violations;
least three have possible influence on pre-Eugenics War eras.

• 1930s: "The City on the Edge of Forever"
  • homeless guy vaporised by phaser
  • possible change to Edith Keelers death
• 1968: "Assignment: Earth"
  • unknown influences (possible predestination paradox)
• 1980s: Star Trek 4 - The Voyage Home
  • several interactions on earth
  • possible change of inventor of transparent aluminum (possible predestination paradox according to Scott)
  • scaring the crap out of some whalers
  • relocated a marine biologist (and two and a half whale) to the future

These three instances of time travel never happend and this might have changed things as well.

So while the arrival of the Narada IS the point of divergence, its influence on the timeline after its arrival; it also changed things before it actually happend.

Also, JJ Abrahms stated that everything that happened in the old timeline is not part of the new canon, therefore everything we knew about oldKhan could have been false for the new one.

Found a nice quote that describes it quite well:

hollywoodreporter.com wrote:One feels the dedication of a young musician at a recital determined not to make any mistakes, but there's no hint of creative interpretation, personal feelings or the spreading of artistic wings.

It's a good movie, but it lacks that little something that makes it special.

Star Trek 2 - The Wrath of Khan was Moby Dick IN SPACE.
Star Trek 4 - The Voyage Home was a comedy IN SPACE IN TIME; quite a different genre to put Star Trek in
Star Trek 6 - The Undiscovered Country was the the end of the Cold War IN SPACE with a little conspiracy mystery mixed in.

Into Darkness is well made. The actors and their chemistry were point on.
But the story fell short because Abrahms went for the whole formulaic Enterprise-vs-ubership that was already in ST-2009 and Khan being the idiot villain to turn on Kirk once he was in a position of power.

Lord Woodlouse wrote:The point of divergence is the destruction of the USS Kelvin. Khan pre-dates that by a wide margin.

Prove it. Kelvin was far bigger and far more heavily armed and obviously totally different to pre-TOS ships. People in the movie bang on about time, but visuals rule dialog remember? Their woogedy special effect clearly took them to a far more interesting place than 'when Kirk was born in Roddenberry Shitverse'.

There is a scene in the film where a number of model ships are clearly displayed on an Admiral's desk, these include the Phoenix and the NX-01, both as seen in FC and Enterprise respectively, so this AU certainly seems to share history at least up until the 2160s with the prime universe, supporting the point of divergence being thereafter.

Why? Does it make more sense to say that in between Enterprise and Kirk's birth they started making ships a dozen times larger due to 'divergence', or that it's just a different place that however shares a lot of things with the old series?

I mean we know that Khan exists and is basically nothing like he was originally, so I can thus place the 'divergence' in 1999.

Jon wrote:There is a scene in the film where a number of model ships are clearly displayed on an Admiral's desk, these include the Phoenix and the NX-01, both as seen in FC and Enterprise respectively, so this AU certainly seems to share history at least up until the 2160s with the prime universe, supporting the point of divergence being thereafter.

Um-there are desks with models of those ships out in the real world. All that proves is that apparently, the new Star Trek has both the old Trek fictional universe and fans thereof

San Francisco in the Abramverse's ST is much different than the one from the main time line. If you remember the scene in ST IV: Voyage Home, where they see the 1980's San Fran for the first time and McCoy says that it hasn't changed much. Well the San Fran we've seen so far in the Abram movies look a whole lot different than the main time line.

Welp, just got back from the movie and I was pleasantly surprised; apart from a few nitpicks...
Spoiler ...and a few problems I have with the script that I won't go into, this is a damned enjoyable production. One of the things that stood out to me was the sheer saturation of references - what would be a bombastic action drama if you've never seen Trek becomes a fast-paced and combat-filled Voyage Home-recalling comedy if you have.