# Startrek 2 (2013)



## soliloquy (Dec 4, 2012)

i know its a few months away, but the first one was incredible! so heres the trailer for the second one


----------



## leonardo7 (Dec 4, 2012)

The first one was downright entertainment at its best. It was just awesome!

That trailer was super lame cause it was a totally ridiculous tease, but I am glad to know now that this is only a few months away


----------



## Xaios (Dec 4, 2012)

FYI, that trailer is fake. Or, in Star Trek terms...









It was debunked several months ago. Granted, it's pretty great for a fake, but a fake it remains.

However, we do have a new poster, which just debuted yesterday!






The Dark Trek Rises. 

(Interestingly enough, if you're careful, you can see details which point to that being the skyline of London, England.)

But seriously, a new trailer is coming out on Thursday, and another trailer is debuting in front of The Hobbit. Unless you see it in Imax, in which case you'll see the first 9 minutes of the movie!


----------



## ilyti (Dec 4, 2012)

NOOO ITS REEEEEEEEEEEEALLLLLLL

Related:
Star Trek (&#8217;09) |


----------



## Xaios (Dec 5, 2012)

ilyti said:


> Related:
> Star Trek (09) |



Just finished watching, that was actually pretty great. 

I will, however, disagree that it was The Dominion War that ruined Trek. It was simply the culmination of what Star Trek had become after 30 years, 3 series, and 8 (soon to be 9 at the time) Trek movies. DS9 is actually my favorite Trek series, overall.


----------



## mcleanab (Dec 5, 2012)

ilyti said:


> NOOO ITS REEEEEEEEEEEEALLLLLLL
> 
> Related:
> Star Trek (09) |




Brilliant!!!!


----------



## ilyti (Dec 5, 2012)

Plinkett knows his stuff, seriously. Unbelievable research goes into these reviews. He's done reviews of all (?) the Star Trek movies, all the Star Wars prequels (I died), and he did a great one about Avatar.


----------



## JStraitiff (Dec 5, 2012)

The first one was amazing. I loved it. I hope the second is just as good.


----------



## Xaios (Dec 6, 2012)

Trailer time!



Also, the japanese (don't worry, still english, only the subtitles are japanese) trailer has an extra scene.


----------



## mcleanab (Dec 6, 2012)

Xaios said:


> Also, the japanese (don't worry, still english, only the subtitles are japanese) trailer has an extra scene.



Oh damn... that extra scene looks like it's implying A LOT from the original movies...


----------



## Xaios (Dec 6, 2012)

mcleanab said:


> Oh damn... that extra scene looks like it's implying A LOT from the original movies...



Indeed. It's without a doubt an intentional callback to...


Spoiler



Wrath of Khan. Except this time, the dynamic is reversed. It seems to be the science officer on the far side of the glass who's fairing better, which would seem to imply Spock is standing over someone else, and that someone else is dying. Who that is? Who's to say.



I'm glad that they're staying the course of getting someone who knows movies and entertainment in general at the helm of these reboots, rather than a director who comes from Trek. After all, Nicholas Meyer knew practically nothing about Star Trek before he signed on for Wrath of Khan, and I'd say that turned out pretty damn well. One could argue that it backfired in the case of Stuart Baird directing Nemesis, but that was more interference from Patrick Stewart and Brent Spiner, as well as (and especially) Rick Berman.


----------



## Rev2010 (Dec 6, 2012)

Xaios said:


> I'm glad that they're staying the course of getting someone who knows movies and entertainment in general at the helm of these reboots



Please tell me you are not referring to JJ Abrams....


Rev.


----------



## Xaios (Dec 6, 2012)

Rev2010 said:


> Please tell me you are not referring to JJ Abrams....
> 
> 
> Rev.



In fact, I am. Feel free to disagree.


----------



## Rev2010 (Dec 6, 2012)

Xaios said:


> In fact, I am. Feel free to disagree.



Nah, it's fine if you admire a man who is nothing but an empty mystery box. Lost = no answers at all. Cloverfield = no answers at all (and even in Godzilla you learned how the monster came to be and why it's attacking the city). Then there's Fringe, oh geez I won't even get into that. I didn't like the new Star Trek movie at all either. It took all the intellect out of the whole premise and made it a blazing fast action movie in which a guy that isn't even supposed to be on board the ship can magically be promoted ahead of everyone else to first officer simply because the captain admired his dad. I absolutely cannot understand why anyone likes the guy. I've not seen one thing his name is attached to that was good, so I've therefore just avoided everything with his name on it since.


Rev.


----------



## Xaios (Dec 6, 2012)

Rev2010 said:


> Nah, it's fine if you admire a man who is nothing but an empty mystery box. Lost = no answers at all. Cloverfield = no answers at all (and even in Godzilla you learned how the monster came to be and why it's attacking the city). Then there's Fringe, oh geez I won't even get into that. I didn't like the new Star Trek movie at all either. It took all the intellect out of the whole premise and made it a blazing fast action movie in which a guy that isn't even supposed to be on board the ship can magically be promoted ahead of everyone else to first officer simply because the captain admired his dad. I absolutely cannot understand why anyone likes the guy. I've not seen one thing his name is attached to that was good, so I've therefore just avoided everything with his name on it since.
> 
> Rev.



Not being a connoisseur of his television work, I can't really comment on it, as I've never seen a single second of Lost or Fringe. Cloverfield was a big dumb monster movie, and thinking anymore about it is simply looking too deep. It's a giant fucking monster, who really cares where it came from? Just because Godzilla gives some (mightily bullshit) explanation that it's the product of nuclear research or something, that makes it more plausible? Uh, no.

Regarding Star Trek, he didn't take any of the intellect out of the premise, he simply didn't turn the movie into a thinly veiled political allegory, like a lot of the TOS stuff. Don't get me wrong, I love old school Trek as much as the next guy, but they weren't as intellectually challenging as your rose-tinted glasses say they were. They were only exceptional because they dared to ask certain questions within the confines of being a pop-culture TV show. And the movies weren't exactly subtle about their messages, either. Genesis Device = Nuclear Power, The Voyage Home = Green Peace and environmentalism, The Undiscovered Country = Chernobyl and the fall of communism. And what did we get when the movies dared to try and recapture the "exploration of the unknown" spirit (which actually wasn't all that prevalent, if you go back and re-watch the show) of the original series? The Motion Picture and The Final Frontier, generally derided as being the worst Star Trek movies ever made (although, for my money, that title belongs to Insurrection) because they *don't work as movies*.

The strongest element that Star Trek has always had going for it is its characters, and the GOOD Star Trek movies played their interaction above all else. That's why the first JJ-verse movie worked so well, because it brought those characters back again, in a manner that was both updated and modern, but also consistent with their original incarnations.


----------



## Captain Butterscotch (Dec 6, 2012)

Cue lens flare


----------



## Xaios (Dec 6, 2012)

Captain Butterscotch said:


> Cue lens flare



The trailer is actually generally devoid of artificial lens flares compared to the 2009 film.


----------



## Choop (Dec 6, 2012)

Meh, I liked Lost and the Star Trek reboot.  Looking forward to the sequel!


----------



## flint757 (Dec 6, 2012)

Xaios said:


> Trailer time!
> 
> Trailers...



BWAAAHHHHHHHH!

What is with these sci-fi trailers these days.  So clever, you played one note...



Choop said:


> Meh, I liked Lost and the Star Trek reboot.  Looking forward to the sequel!



I really liked Cloverfield from an artistic perspective as well.


I'm personally looking forward to it.


----------



## Xaios (Dec 6, 2012)

flint757 said:


> BWAAAHHHHHHHH!
> 
> What is with these sci-fi trailers these days.  So clever, you played one note...



Yeah, it's kinda the thing to do in trailers ever since Inception. But hey, it puts asses into seats, and that's what marketing folks are there to do.


----------



## Bobo (Dec 6, 2012)

And I thought I'd already seen the Prometheus trailer lol. But in all seriousness, I'm very excited for this. I like the direction they have gone to breathe new life into one of the best movie series ever.


----------



## petereanima (Dec 7, 2012)

Xaios said:


>











dat scene.


----------



## ilyti (Dec 7, 2012)

Xaios said:


> but also consistent with their original incarnations.



Uhura is a sexy ambitious supergenius linguist in the new one. SHE CAN'T EVEN SPEAK KILINGON fo real.


----------



## Xaios (Dec 7, 2012)

ilyti said:


> Uhura is a sexy ambitious supergenius linguist in the new one. SHE CAN'T EVEN SPEAK KILINGON fo real.



You can blame that on bad writing...


...in the original.


----------



## ilyti (Dec 9, 2012)

Also apparently I can't spell Klingon..


----------



## 3074326 (Dec 10, 2012)

Rev2010 said:


> Nah, it's fine if you admire a man who is nothing but an empty mystery box. Lost = no answers at all. Cloverfield = no answers at all (and even in Godzilla you learned how the monster came to be and why it's attacking the city). Then there's Fringe, oh geez I won't even get into that. I didn't like the new Star Trek movie at all either. It took all the intellect out of the whole premise and made it a blazing fast action movie in which a guy that isn't even supposed to be on board the ship can magically be promoted ahead of everyone else to first officer simply because the captain admired his dad. I absolutely cannot understand why anyone likes the guy. I've not seen one thing his name is attached to that was good, so I've therefore just avoided everything with his name on it since.
> 
> 
> Rev.



Well, this just goes to show how different people can be. Couldn't disagree more! But I respect your opinion. I thought Lost was incredible and loved the first Abrams Star Trek. Cloverfield was mindless fun, which is nice once in a while. Can't wait for the next one Star Trek. 

Also, I really like things without everything being spelled out for me. Lost was great in that regard. It had enough answers for me. The unanswered questions allow(ed) me to use my imagination. Gives it re-watch value as well.


----------



## flint757 (Dec 10, 2012)

Lost didn't seem to leave any stoned unturned by the end of it all.  As best I could tell the whole thing was one big interpretation of religion. I suppose some of the greater things weren't answered, but it isn't like I check a ships integrity in a movie for validity.  I just assume everything is A-okay.

Completely agree nonetheless. I hate it when everything is described to me in painstaking detail. I'm more than capable of using my brain.  I hate that in books too.


----------



## Xaios (Dec 11, 2012)

So, apparently some of the press just recently visited Bad Robot and were treated to some spoilers (Link: Alice Eve&#8217;s Character + 7 More Star Trek Into Darkness Spoilers Revealed At Bad Robot Visit | TrekMovie.com)

The one that I'm most interested in (partially because it proves I was right about this character) is...


Spoiler



...that Alice Eve *is* playing Dr. Carol Marcus. I'm glad that they're delving into this part of Kirk's past, and interested to see if they make any changes. In the Prime timeline, she was a civilian, but in the JJ-verse, she's going to be a member of Starfleet.


----------



## Xaios (Dec 12, 2012)

I love Trek, but some of the hardcore fans are just embarassing sometimes. Over on TrekBBS, there are actually some people that take issue with the Enterprise being underwater.

Seriously?

In the last movie, it was shown to have been able to survive the stresses of a) skirting the event horizon of a black hole, and b) being expelled from said black hole (whilst still under the influence of its intense gravitational pull) by a large antimatter explosion. But people still take issue with it being able to operate under water??

Sheesh.


----------



## Xaios (Dec 17, 2012)

They released the 2 minute trailer on the internet this morning.


----------



## flint757 (Dec 17, 2012)

Looks awesome!


----------



## Randyrhoads123 (Dec 17, 2012)

When I saw The Hobbit, they showed a clip from the new Star Trek movie before the Hobbit started. Seemed longer than 2 minutes and it was pretty badass. YouTube link is dead btw.


----------



## flint757 (Dec 17, 2012)

It's a trailer to promote their movie and they chose to remove it. I know piracy is a problem, but they need to get their priorities straight. More people seeing the 'commercial' for a movie should be a good thing not bad. Silly movie industry.


----------



## Xaios (Dec 18, 2012)

I think it's because it's supposed to be an "Itunes Exclusive" or something.


----------



## flint757 (Dec 18, 2012)

Even so it makes little sense. I'd get the industry taking down a sneak preview or something, but seeing the trailer isn't taking money out of their pocket and I'll still see a paramount movie in theaters even if I already saw all of the trailers prior to the movie (since it wouldn't be the reason I was there in the first place ).

If anyone is bitching I'd guess it were Apple. They don't like Google stepping on their financial toes. That's the only rational explanation at least.


----------



## ShadowAMD (Dec 20, 2012)

I really like the first one, I'm sure some will strongly disagree.. But I actually think it would of been better without Leonard Nimoy in it..

Just my 2p.


----------



## Xaios (Feb 3, 2013)

Badabump!

New 30-odd second Superbowl trailer:


----------



## axxessdenied (Feb 6, 2013)

AMAGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Chickenhawk (Feb 6, 2013)

Yup. Excited.


----------



## Xaios (Mar 23, 2013)

New trailer is AWESOMESAUCE.


----------



## Captain Butterscotch (Mar 23, 2013)

I think Benedict Cumberbatch's voice could make me gay.


----------



## petereanima (Mar 25, 2013)

This has Robocop in it. It will rule.


----------



## Xaios (Apr 8, 2013)

I lol'd at this:


----------



## ilyti (Apr 8, 2013)

Where's Magneto? 

I lol'd at myself.


----------



## flavenstein (Apr 14, 2013)

If anyone here is an appreciator of Wikipedia talk page drama, this is about as good as it gets:

Talk:Star Trek Into Darkness/Archive 1 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And it doesn't stop there; there are *nine* pages of archived talk page material, most of which are dedicated to arguing whether or not "into" needs to be capitalized.


----------



## Mexi (Apr 16, 2013)

new epic trailer is epic


----------



## Xaios (Apr 17, 2013)

Hot damn.






My first thought?

"We're gonna need a bigger boat..."


----------



## Xaios (Apr 17, 2013)

Seriously though, the world premiere is in only *6 days*.

MAH BODY IS READY.


----------



## New Age Moron (Apr 18, 2013)

Has anyone seen Regarding Henry? It's from 1991, written by Abrams, and is a genuinely character driven, emotionally charged piece of film. 

New ST looks fun.


----------



## Xaios (Apr 22, 2013)

World premiere is tomorrow. Technically, it's actually today for the aussies.


----------



## groverj3 (Apr 22, 2013)

I am so pumped for this!


----------



## Xaios (Apr 23, 2013)

Now THAT'S a ship!


----------



## uberthrall (Apr 30, 2013)

Yup, the kiddies and me will be seeing this. On the topic of Cloverfield, I liked that one personally. I'd like to see a follow up on it actually.


----------



## Xaios (May 2, 2013)

Reviews are really starting to come in faster. Most of them are glowing, but there are a few of the "OMG JJ IS RAPING GENE RODDENBERRY'S VISION! BETRAYAL!! BETRAAAYAAAALLL!!!" type reviews as well.

A word of advice for anyone who might have the same idea: Remember Zefram Cochrane's speech to Riker in First Contact where he said "You know what my vision is? Dollar Signs. Money." *THAT* was Gene's vision, don't let anyone tell you different. He actually wrote never-recited lyrics to the original Alexander Courage theme so that he could screw Courage out of royalties and collect them himself, which is pretty selfish for a guy writing about an idealized future where money is abolished.


----------



## Xaios (May 9, 2013)

Alright, so the movie is out now in Aussieland and the UK, anyone gone and seen it yet?


----------



## New Age Moron (May 9, 2013)

It's great. Much better than the previous film.
I'm a lot more excited for Star Wars 7 after seeing this.


----------



## Genome (May 12, 2013)

I saw it last night, I enjoyed it. Great acting, Benedict Cumberbatch is fantastic.

I did enjoy the first one a little better though, they were pretty much equal until the last section of the film which I didn't feel was "climatic" enough. It seemed like the film was building up to more than it did. 

Great though. And very shiny. Boy does JJ enjoy lens flare.


----------



## Mexi (May 12, 2013)

Xaios said:


> A word of advice for anyone who might have the same idea: Remember Zefram Cochrane's speech to Riker in First Contact where he said "You know what my vision is? Dollar Signs. Money." *THAT* was Gene's vision, don't let anyone tell you different. He actually wrote never-recited lyrics to the original Alexander Courage theme so that he could screw Courage out of royalties and collect them himself, which is pretty selfish for a guy writing about an idealized future where money is abolished.



While that is true, I think Gene's enduring legacy with Trek is what is portrayed in the movies/shows and the core "vision" of this Utopian human civilization, rather than his personal business decisions. Screwing Courage out of royalties is a dick move no doubt, but I would attribute that to being a control freak, considering the original series' lack of early commercial success, especially at a time when royalty payments were hardly lucrative (but not insignificant, granted).

Honestly, I think moving away from the TNG/DS9 era's focus on ideology was necessary to rebrand the franchise and I commend JJ for bringing Trek back into pop culture. I dislike all the branding in the new series (considering how far removed it is from the Trek I grew up with) but I think as long as it gets more people interested in the series, and possibly looking up other great Trek works, then it's all good


----------



## Scattered Messiah (May 12, 2013)

Saw it wednesday:
Went into the movies prepared for a rather bland "we'll fix all this with XtReEm Spexxial FeXXX" movie with flat plotline, medicore acting and no surprises.
What I got was:
a fucking great science fiction action movie, maybe slightly missing the philosophical element/vibe I got from some of the older Star Treks - but the first one with an imho really interesting and emotionally catching villian! A few nice plot twists, some references to a few scenes in older movies, pretty good acting - was worth the money and my time.

Not raising my hopes for Star Wars 7 though, Disney = Evil!


----------



## Joseph Kimbrell (May 14, 2013)

Its gonna be awesome! The first one was a VERY nice surprise


----------



## BigBaldIan (May 14, 2013)

It indeed was, by the way whenever JJ Abrams says something is definitely not the case, chances are it is.


----------



## Xaios (May 15, 2013)

Soon...


----------



## 7Heavyness (May 16, 2013)

Xaios said:


> Now THAT'S a ship!



Remember the space has no air so ships don't need to be aerodynamic so the best shape for a ship is with right angles cause there won't be waste of space, a square/rectangle-shaped ship would be perfect.

Yeah but movies won't look cool


----------



## Xaios (May 16, 2013)

Star Trek *has* done that...






Besides, developing a distinctive visual style is an important element of visual storytelling, especially in genre films and shows.


----------



## setsuna7 (May 16, 2013)

Saw it today, Awesome!! with the role reversal between Spock and Jim, we can only guess what's next for part 3.. or Star Wars 7/8/9...


----------



## Dan (May 16, 2013)

Awesome. Can't fault it, they've even toned down the lens flair 

Seriously really good, definitely going to catch it a few more times on the big screen.


----------



## Xaios (May 16, 2013)

Ladies and gents, a meme is born. 






EDIT: Sitting in the theater, waiting for it to start!


----------



## Xaios (May 17, 2013)

Yup. Movie fucking rocked. Definitely going to see it again tomorrow night.


----------



## setsuna7 (May 18, 2013)

Anybody noticed a


Spoiler



hordes of Wes Borland at the beginning?


----------



## Marv Attaxx (May 18, 2013)

^
Now give 'em some guitars and you probably have the heaviest planet in the universe!
Also: the movie rocked hard! Benedict's acting was flawless and intense.
Now bring on the Borg for ST 13! I think that could be the most badass sci-fi-action-horror movie since Aliens


----------



## groverj3 (May 18, 2013)

Saw it last night. I was very impressed.

It seems to me that the only people giving it bad reviews are the "old stuff is always better" crowd.

I thought the Klingons were kind of lame, but other than that it was a perfect movie. I really hope that the next director is a good one. With JJ doing Star Wars, I'd say that the chances of him doing the next Star Trek are about 0%

I too would like to see the Borg, but timeline-wise it wouldn't work very well. However, this alternate-reality created with the last movie would make that pretty easy to explain away. They've been done to death between TNG, First Contact, and Voyager... but they're still my favorite Star Trek villains. I think that a Klingon war storyline would be much more likely, especially after their inclusion in this movie. Just thoughts though.

Star Wars is in very capable hands. As long as the script doesn't suck.


----------



## groverj3 (May 18, 2013)

7Heavyness said:


> Remember the space has no air so ships don't need to be aerodynamic so the best shape for a ship is with right angles cause there won't be waste of space, a square/rectangle-shaped ship would be perfect.
> 
> Yeah but movies won't look cool



I always kind of assumed that building aerodynamic ships would still be helpful because they can occasionally operate in atmosphere. I think too much though


----------



## Demiurge (May 18, 2013)

I have a hectic schedule, so I'll probably see it next week. It's very encouraging seeing positive reviews here as I've been reading a lot of mixed stuff elsewhere, but I'm far more inclined to trust opinions here.


----------



## groverj3 (May 18, 2013)

Demiurge said:


> I have a hectic schedule, so I'll probably see it next week. It's very encouraging seeing positive reviews here as I've been reading a lot of mixed stuff elsewhere, but I'm far more inclined to trust opinions here.



Movie critics are not to be trusted when reviewing good movies that have action and science fiction elements 

Rotten Tomatoes audience score gives it an 89%


----------



## Spinedriver (May 19, 2013)

Just saw it yesterday and have to say that JJ & crew are really embracing the 'alternate universe/timeline' theme of the series. I enjoyed it a HELL of a lot more than Iron Man 3. It's pretty safe to say that Star Wars VII is in very capable hands. The only bad news is that there won't be another Trek for at least 3-4 years. 

With Man Of Steel, Pacific Rim, Wolverine and several others coming up, it's looking like this might be one of the best summer movie seasons in a very long time.


----------



## wankerness (May 19, 2013)

What are teh several others? I saw a release list and didn't even know what 80% of anything was :O I'll definitely be seeing pacific rim, that superman movie could go either way though.


----------



## sakeido (May 21, 2013)

Saw this one last night. Blew my mind how good it was - awesome, awesome film. Will be seeing it again right away


----------



## Xaios (May 21, 2013)

sakeido said:


> Saw this one last night. Blew my mind how good it was - awesome, awesome film. Will be seeing it again right away



Welcome to the brotherhood.


----------



## technomancer (May 21, 2013)

7Heavyness said:


> Remember the space has no air so ships don't need to be aerodynamic so the best shape for a ship is with right angles cause there won't be waste of space, a square/rectangle-shaped ship would be perfect.
> 
> Yeah but movies won't look cool



Star Trek geek mode

The saucer sections can separate in an emergency and can operate in atmosphere, thus the reason they are aerodynamic. That's also the reason when you see enterprise-style ships there are what look like engines at the back of them.

The warp nacelles are suspended on pylons so they can be ejected in case of an emergency since they are basically huge antimatter containers.

The main hulls, ok they are streamlined so they look cool 

/Star Trek geek mode


----------



## Spinedriver (May 21, 2013)

wankerness said:


> What are teh several others? I saw a release list and didn't even know what 80% of anything was :O I'll definitely be seeing pacific rim, that superman movie could go either way though.




The ones I'm looking forward to in particular are:

Now You See Me - A group of magicians rob banks.
World War Z - Zombie apocalypse movie
The Wolverine - It's all in the title... ; )
Elysium - New movie from the director of "District 9".
Kick Ass 2 - If it's anything like the comic, it should be great.
Oldboy - Remake of the Asian cult classic
The World's End - The 3rd movie in the "trilogy" featuring Simon Pegg & Nick Frost.
The Hobbit : Desolation Of Smaug

Some of them might come out after the 'summer season' technically but still, that's a pretty decent lineup considering what's been coming out as of late.


----------



## Rick (May 21, 2013)

setsuna7 said:


> Anybody noticed a
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...



That was the first thing I thought of.


----------



## Spinedriver (May 21, 2013)

technomancer said:


> Star Trek geek mode
> 
> The saucer sections can separate in an emergency and can operate in atmosphere, thus the reason they are aerodynamic. That's also the reason when you see enterprise-style ships there are what look like engines at the back of them.
> 
> ...



I know the saucer separation thing was a part of TNG canon but was it ever mentioned in any of the original series' movies (1-6) ?


----------



## Xaios (May 21, 2013)

Spinedriver said:


> I know the saucer separation thing was a part of TNG canon but was it ever mentioned in any of the original series' movies (1-6) ?



Nacelle separation _was_ discussed in TOS, although never used. Saucer separation on a Constitution class ship (original Enterprise + Enterprise A) is apocryphal, but was talked about behind the scenes.


----------



## Tyler (May 21, 2013)

Just got out of the theater not too long ago. GREAT movie. Now hopefully World War Z won't disappoint


----------



## 7Heavyness (May 22, 2013)

technomancer said:


> Star Trek geek mode
> 
> The saucer sections can separate in an emergency and can operate in atmosphere, thus the reason they are aerodynamic. That's also the reason when you see enterprise-style ships there are what look like engines at the back of them.
> 
> ...



Hmm let me try to save my reply fighting your Star Trek geek mode:

I said "ships" and not the Enterprise or any particular ship, I was talking about space ships and not ships that can operate in atmosphere.

Well.......I tried


----------



## mcleanab (May 22, 2013)

Man, I'm gonna be the bad guy here...

I love the original series, loved the snot out of TNG and even dug some of Voyager and DS9. Some of the films were great too, WRATH OF KAHN and SEARCH FOR SPOCK. Liked GENERATIONS and FIRST CONTACT too. (I still want to be Patrick Stewart when I grow up and I'm 40!).

This one and the 2009 were visual monsters! So much to see, so awesome to watch. Just really stunning sensory experience. I thought both had some great moments and some great moments of acting. Pacing and the action was damn good. But the story/plot holes in both films just bug the snot out of me! There are things in this new one that make no sense. Flimsy storytelling at the cost of a visual feast and "cool moments." 

I'll watch them both again, just because I'm a geek enough of the Star Trek universe to want to, but really really disappointed at some of the holes. Nothing trumps a good, well thought out story. And this one seemed like it didn't trust itself to do what it could, and relied on some gimmicks to support it instead.


----------



## groverj3 (May 22, 2013)

Xaios said:


> Nacelle separation _was_ discussed in TOS, although never used. Saucer separation on a Constitution class ship (original Enterprise + Enterprise A) is apocryphal, but was talked about behind the scenes.


 
Interesting, I thought that only Galaxy class ships could separate the saucer section. I'm not up to speed on my trek nerdage!


----------



## sakeido (May 22, 2013)

mcleanab said:


> But the story/plot holes in both films just bug the snot out of me! There are things in this new one that make no sense. Flimsy storytelling at the cost of a visual feast and "cool moments."



the first one had a ton of brutal plot holes, the new one I thought was much better.


Spoiler



Getting attacked in warp then popping up on the dark side of the moon then crashing into Earth a little while later was the only part that jumped out at me as being a little silly



other than that though I thought the script was genius. everyone was a foil to almost everybody else - the characters interacted in such dynamic and interesting ways, I thought it was one of the best scripted summer movies I've seen in a long time


----------



## Mordacain (May 22, 2013)

Guys, for ....'s sake, use spoiler tags



Spoiler



don't ruin the movie for people that haven't seen it yet


----------



## Xaios (May 22, 2013)

Gotta love how they put Chekov in a redshirt and then give him the ultimate "redshirt redemption" moment. Chek(h)ov's Gun inverted! 

I'm not gonna lie, as a long time Trekkie, the "warp at the speed of plot" trope bugs the hell out of me, but that's really the only thing in the new movie that bothered me.


----------



## sakeido (May 22, 2013)

Mordacain said:


> Guys, for ....'s sake, use spoiler tags
> 
> 
> 
> ...


whoops! sorry forgot all about em 



Xaios said:


> Gotta love how they put Chekov in a redshirt and then give him the ultimate "redshirt redemption" moment. Chek(h)ov's Gun inverted!
> 
> I'm not gonna lie, as a long time Trekkie, the "warp at the speed of plot" trope bugs the hell out of me, but that's really the only thing in the new movie that bothered me.


the look on his face when they gave him the shirt was hilarious. 


Spoiler



ditto when Kirk said the two red shirts could take them off for their mission, they looked so relieved



and yeah I always liked in the old series, warp made a lot more sense. particularly in TNG


----------



## superash (May 23, 2013)

As a long time Trekkie there were way too many inconsistencies with the plot and even the premise they set up in the 2009 film for me to not be disappointed. But as a Trekkie, I'll end up watching it again 'cause there aren't enough new ST adventures to satiate our collective desires


----------



## Seven (May 23, 2013)

I have never in my life seen anything to do with Star Trek (not even one TV episode, a book, comic or anything) and I was thoroughly entertained by this movie the other night. I'll be getting it on blu-ray.


----------



## Felvin (May 23, 2013)

Great movie! There's only one scene I don't like:


Spoiler



Spock asking his older self for help = lame.


----------



## technomancer (May 23, 2013)

groverj3 said:


> Interesting, I thought that only Galaxy class ships could separate the saucer section. I'm not up to speed on my trek nerdage!



It was never really talked about in TOS but it was intended based on notes etc etc from the show. IIRC it was also present in old Star Trek games like Star Fleet Battles.


----------



## mcleanab (May 23, 2013)

technomancer said:


> It was never really talked about in TOS but it was intended based on notes etc etc from the show. IIRC it was also present in old Star Trek games like Star Fleet Battles.



And that first showing in the first episode of TNG was AWESOME. I remember how excited everyone was waiting for the first episode to air.


----------



## Chuck (May 23, 2013)

Yeah that was a great movie. Gotta go watch the 2009 one again since I haven't seen it in awhile then I shall go and see this again


----------



## Xaios (May 23, 2013)

It's a shame that TNG didn't really play around with the saucer separation concept very much. The only episode where it was used to any great effect was in "The Best of Both Worlds." "Encounter at Farpoint" and "The Arsenal of Freedom" really didn't do much with it.

I guess Generations used it in line with the original concept by making it a sort of life boat. Alas, they then wasted it by letting Deanna drive.


----------



## Lorcan Ward (May 23, 2013)

I really enjoyed this! The plot was nothing at all what I expected after watching the trailers.


----------



## texshred777 (May 23, 2013)

Saw it the other day, awesome movie. I will likely go see it again, soon.


----------



## superash (May 26, 2013)

Xaios said:


> I guess Generations used it in line with the original concept by making it a sort of life boat. Alas, they then wasted it by letting Deanna drive.



This has easily gotta be the best comment on Generations I've seen in a while!


----------



## Captain Shoggoth (May 26, 2013)

Saw it today, loved it!



Spoiler



KHAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNN


----------



## Danukenator (May 26, 2013)

I have a very middle of the road approach to the film. As expected, the acting was solid (However, given the MASSIVE hype surrounding Cumberbatch, I was a little let down by his performance) the special effects were stunning (IMAX + 3D) and it had Peter Weller...of whom one can I'm a fan.

However, I found the story to be a little lack luster. It contains a few (but significant) plot holes that the story really hinges on.


Spoiler



Why did Kahn put people in the missiles? I get he was smuggling them but he was helping develop them. Did he think no one would notice he put 70 people in cryo tubes into the missiles. Even if that WAS his plan, why arm the missiles. Create dummy warheads, etc.


 I also found many of the "nods" to the other movies were a little distracting. For example, a Tribble (not a spoiler) appears at one point. A person familiar with the original series would say "Why was there a Tribble on the ship? Much less a dead one?" A person who hasn't seen the original series will just not get it. I enjoy the little nods but, to me, there were to many and a few were too blatant.


Spoiler



KAAAHHHNNNN! felt super forced. It was the most emotional scene in the movie.



However, griping aside, it was an exciting action packed film. The story, despite the flaws, did a good job moving the plot. The added character development was nice and some of the characters had a noticeable ark (which I hope will continue into the next film and not be abandoned). I have no doubt the Star Wars films will be great but I'd love to see another Star Trek film. I want them to create a more meaty story that has the moral dilemmas and depth or some of the original/TNG episodes. And there was Peter Weller.


Spoiler



I like RoboCop


----------



## soliloquy (May 31, 2013)

saw this last night. i enjoyed the original more.

i loved khan's character as he is equally insane in his Sherlock show. love how he is in london again too


----------

