I think i enjoyed the kids and their relationships more than the actual alien. so yes, the alien was a bit of a letdown.

Wow, didnt get that at all? Seymore-Hoffman made a great villian.

Zachary Quinto slips up and says "Khan" at 1:01

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/rN6-Fx6lrVw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I also loved Super 8 and MI:3 (and Cloverfield, for that matter). But I feel like this is the intrinsic difference of opinion when it comes down to people who like JJ and people who don't (or people who like Lost and people who don't).

It's not about the alien.

But he also says it when he means Nero. So does it mean anything?

The problem is that we've seen it before in E.T. except that in Super 8, it was boring and rehashed. There was nothing really original about the film and it was easy to guess what would happen next.

If you'd seen E.T., you've seen the best parts of Super 8 (which were still weak in comparison). If you've seen Independence Day, you've seen the alien.

The best part of the film, IMO, was the zombie sequence at the very end.

The rest was just blah.

If you "loved" those movies (Cloverfield was complete shit. If it not for the single motion, jittery camera nonsense, no one would know the film), then we have absolutely no common ground in which to discuss these films.

You're just now realizing this?

The film wasn't meant to be original. It was meant to be derivative. It was a celebration of nostalgia, an homage to all those movies that you've mentioned (and others, like Goonies) that came before. It was about being a kid again, and turning off the analytical brain and getting swept up, like a kid, in the adventure.

It captured those feelings, the spirit and essence of imagination and childhood adventure so perfectly.

LMAO

Yes, we all know it was a money grab.

Just one more reason to hate JJ Abrams and his crew.

I missed you Dane.

I actually like JJ, because his production company brings interesting, off-the-wall genre things to TV that nobody else does. Maybe they aren't perfect, but it's not medical dramedy number 27 or legal drama 746 or police procedural 959 or reality show number 8427421.

As far as Super-8 goes, I enjoyed the movie up until about the last half hour. It just fell apart. It was eerily reminiscent of a Stephen King novel. Great set up, and I thought interesting characters, but man-oh-man they were so incredibly far off from sticking that landing.

Man, a lot of Abrams backlash in this thread....

I guess you guys are still pissed he's never made a "Felicity" movie for you.
Posted via Mobile Device

what are you talking about. The majority of posters here are psyched for this movie. Only a very few are hating on Abrams. Hell I agree with them on some things too but as far as Star Trek goes, I can't friggin wait.

Completely agree. And he's probably missed more than few times. I haven't seen everything he's produced. But in general, you're right. Hit the nail on the head.

I won't argue that. Honestly, I don't know if I even remember much of the ending beyond what happens after we see the alien.

Either way, the rest of the movie was charming and fun and endearing enough to me that I overlooked a lot of it. It just took me back, reminded me so much of the movies of my childhood.

I had a blast.

The last one was one of the best evah in the Star Trek franchise. Yeah, looking forward to this one.

In case there's any confusion over the bad robot discussion, I loved the 2009 Star Trek movie (actually own it on DVD, it's in its own little plastic enterprise case!) and think everything that I've seen of the sequel looks great.

I've got that one, too.

Problems with Abrams

1. Lost
2. Dicking around and taking forever to make a sequel.

That's pretty much it.

Judging from the 10-minute IMAX "prologue" I saw three times today, the flavor of "Star Trek Into Darkness" seems to be the same as "Star Trek". Same music, same sweeping "reveal" of the ship, same hot Uhura, same snappy banter between Kirk and Spock and Kirk and Bones, same humor and line delivery from Scotty, same energetic pace (the prologue was very reminiscent of the segment where the Enterprise appears at Vulcan and Kirk, Sulu, and Redshirt bail from the shuttle to go hand-to-hand on the dangly energy-blaster-thingy). Seems like Abrams and the bigwigs said, "It worked once, let's not **** it up too much." Which is fine by me.

Oh, did I mention how bad I want Zoe Saldana? :hump:

I had the hugest crazy psycho cyber crush on Zoe Saldana after Star Trek and Avatar.

God, me too. She's outstanding.

On second thought....where is my Felicity movie Abrams?? There can never be too much Keri Russel.

Don't forget about The Losers too, riding topless on Jeffrey Dean Morgan... lucky asshole :)

Me three.

Lucky him, but she was covered up on screen and we couldn't see anything.

9 minutes were spectacular.

Felt pretty fresh and original even though it was just a prologue obviously.

Real Indiana Jones vibes. LMAO

I didn't get to see the 9 minutes yet, or the new trailer. Which is pretty freaking badass.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/r5gdbUC9mWU?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Pretty cool......it looks like they are giving Pine the classic Shatner hairstyle of the early 60s as well.

This thing is gonna be so ****ing good.

Can. Not. Wait.

I remember Frazod talking about it after he got one. I don't remember if I went to Target and got one and told you they had a couple left or if it was the other way around and you told me. Either way Four!

:thumb:

I can't remember either. heh

Mine is still displayed prominently on my entertainment center.

A good theory i read out there yesterday was that this might be a "re-imagining" of the Space Seed episode. In this timeline, instead of the crew getting Khan out of suspended animation, its another crew member (Cumberbatch) they let out first. Khan would then show up later in the movie.

Definitely would need some plot hole filler for that one to start the movie. How long has Kirk been the captain now?

There is a shot in the trailer of something that looks like pods.

Im curious about that myself. and when does their "5 year mission" mission start? This movie?

The idea behind the reboot was that all ideas were used up. If this is Khan or Gary Mitchell and they're just redoing the same stories, what's the point?

I thought the idea behind the reboot was to allow them to use a new cast to fill old roles.

I thought the idea behind the reboot was for Paramount to earn millions of dollars from their I.P.

I see what you're saying and I mostly agree.

But I think they are ways to use the old ideas in new ways. Much like they did in the first one. I'm fine with using a lot of material from the initial timeline, just in a new way.

Its an easy way to steal material.

Sure.

But I don't really see it as stealing.

It's not "stealing" because Paramount owns the I.P.

Although if this villain is Khan or Gary Mitchell, I'll consider it lazy writing.

Its not technically stealing, but I bet the writers of the original episodes wouldn't agree.

It's called Work For Hire, so the writers knew the exact ramifications once they signed to write an episode.

And it doesn't matter if they agree or not, Paramount owns the I.P.

Doesn't mean they can't come up with their own ideas. I've already seen Gary Mitchell and Khan. They don't need to be rewritten.

You've already seen all these characters. None of it needs to be rewritten.

You're talking in circles

IN this case, its probably Paramount wanting an iconic "name" villain to help sell the movie. Which is funny, since they haven’t said who the villain is yet officially.

As for the stealing part, this happens all the time doesn’t it? New writers expanding on others characters or material. Also, the original writers who created the characters are dead im guessing....

:facepalm:

If you're hired to write an episode of television or a movie script, the production company/network owns the script. Period, end of story.

The studio can then exploit it (or not) without any further payment to the writer. If the script or film happens to air on television, the writer will receive residuals.

It is not "stealing" if a production company or studio, that owns the rights to a particular production, decides to reboot as a TV series or feature film.

In this case the studio is taking a story that was already written and instead saying it happened another way. Its just lazy and adds nothing.

So, you've read the script?

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=98350

Following the reveal earlier this month that Benedict Cumberbatch's Star Trek Into Darkness villain goes by the mysterious name of "John Harrison," GyaO! (via TrekMovie) caught up with director J.J. Abrams and Cumberbatch himself.

"When J.J. described the role to me… he described someone who was, in movie terms, a mixture of Hannibal Lecter, Jack in 'The Shining,' and the Joker in 'Batman,'" Cumberbatch said. "...He's someone who has enormous physical strength. He's someone who is incredibly dangerous, both as a physical entity and through the use of various technologies and weapons and who performs acts of what I would describe as terrorism. He's also a psychological master. He manipulates the minds of those around him to do his bidding in a very, very subtle way."

"His name is John Harrison and he is sort of an... average guy who works in an organization called Starfleet," Abrams added, "and he turns against the group because he has got this backstory and this kind of amazing secret agenda. After two very violent attacks, one in London and one in the US, our characters have to go after this guy and apprehend him. And it is a far more complicated and difficult thing then they ever anticipated. 'Into Darkness' is very much about how intense it gets and really what they are up against."

You've already seen Spock, Kirk etc too. Why bother watching it if it annoys you so much?

I think many Star Trek fans are wondering the same thing. You're taking what was a character driven moralistic series of stories and rewriting them to an action story format. Its not like this was Battlestar Galactica which really had no history or no big fanbase that only grew bigger with time. They actually did the opposite with BSG. They took campy adventure stories and rewrote them with some backbone. In Star Trek they have gutted the original universe and rebooted it. There will be no more stories unless they follow the new format.

I'm glad Abrams is breaking his own ground and not rehashing Khan or Mitchell or anyone else.

Bravo.

True.....but but I'm guessing there's a twist in here somewhere. Its Abrams.

FYP

ROFL


He gets a lot of crap for that, but I like it.

Me too. Bold stylistic choice that helped establish an aesthetic and a tone for the film.

Bold?

LMAO

No, it's not "bold".

So he's made the same bold stylistic choice in everything he's ever done? How bold.

hahaha!

You're right.

Must have missed it in everything else he's done.

He's well known for those lens flares.

Is he? Weird. I really don't recall him using them. And there's feature that talks a lot about the choice of the lens flares and how they did them for Star Trek.

Well, he had only made MI3 prior to ST and I don't remember them much in that?

He did use them a lot in Super 8.

I don't mind if he turns out to be Khan. We don't really know a lot about Khan.

Yeah, I don't give a good tin shit who the guy is playing. I just want a good movie. And so far, it looks to be a pretty good ****ing movie. Trailers can be deceiving, but I'm super optimistic.

Doubt this will last long...

<iframe src="http://www.movieweb.com/v/VIKxUEwUcSbmOQ/embed_video" width="400" height="225" frameborder="0" webkitAllowFullScreen mozallowfullscreen allowFullScreen></iframe>

Pretty awesome. Could have done without the chick giggling at every little thing though.

Star Trek Fan Granted Dying Wish By J.J. Abrams Passes Away
 

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Star-...way-34947.html

It was a heartbreaking story with a positive twist that we could all feel good about. Dan Craft, a major Star Trek fan and an organizer of the New York Asian Film Festival, was dying of cancer. He knew he wouldn't live long enough to see the upcoming Star Trek Into Darkness, so his wife and friends took to the Internet with a special request: help them get in touch with J.J. Abrams and ask for some kind of early look at the movie.

Not only did Abrams comply, but he showed Craft and his wife an unfinished cut of the entire film. Just days later, Craft passed away. The New York Asian Film Festival announced his passing on their Facebook page, with this sad but poignant message:

Last night around 10:15pm, Dan Craft, who has been a member of Subway Cinema since 2004, passed away. His wife and brother were with him when he went, and he wasn't in any pain. He'd been a bit loopy for a few days as his liver failed and toxins built up in his blood, and on Thursday his wife asked him if he needed to go to the bathroom. "I'm going..." he proclaimed, "Into the future."

See you there, Dan.

Dan Craft: 1971 - 2013

We miss you.

Craft became somewhat famous online with a story that had a set ending: he knew and we knew that his time was limited, and the happy ending wasn't that he would be miraculously cured, but that he would get to see one last thing he loved before he passed. Craft's wish came true, and yet, it's hard not to be sad that the world has lost as passionate and determined a cinephile as he was. Congratulations to Craft's family and friends for making his Star Trek viewing possible, and condolences to all who knew him on their loss.

Yeah the initial request for this started on Reddit. Apparently his wife and friend that made the request had gotten him out to see the Hobbit which was supposed to have the extended trailer, but it turned out not to. The friend put the request out on reddit for some way for him to see the trailer or movie. Abrams called Dan's wife the next day. Awesome story.

http://www.reddit.com/r/startrek/com...star_trek_fan/

That's great. Major props to Abrams for doing that.

This has nothing to do with the new movie, but is Star Trek related. Holy ****, did I miss out on something cool. Last week, the chairman of my firm sent out an e-mail saying he had eight tickets to an event at the Lyric Opera Saturday night, free to whoever wanted them. When I saw "Lyric Opera" I immediately tuned it out. I may enjoy going to plays, but have no desire to sit through some friggin opera.

But this wasn't an opera. It was a Second City comedy event, hosted by Patrick Stewart.

Patrick Stewart. In person.

And I could have had fourth row center seats about 15 feet from the stage. FREE.

FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF****

:cuss:

Your only hope now is a temporal causality loop forming...

Where's Kelsey Grammar when you need him? :banghead:

D D D D D D D D DUMBASS

New theory about Cumberbatch villian.

Hes playing a character named Robert April that’s from an episode of Star Trek the animated series. I don’t even remember him because I haven’t watched those in forever. I guess they are available on Netflix.





http://www.bleedingcool.com/2013/01/...his-real-name/




Robert April first appeared in an episode of the animated Trek series called The Counter-Clock Incident. I’m told that animated Trek isn’t canon, but nonetheless, April’s name then popped up in various other places that were.

In tie-in novels, he was even revealed to be British – like Cumberbatch, and as far as we can tell, his character in the film.

One big clue is the weapon we see Cumberbatch using in the trailer. It’s a bloody big gun – and while it might not be a smoking one, it certainly adds some firepower to the evidence.

During his visit to the Bad Robot offices, Hit Fix‘s Drew McWeeny saw this same gun in a big book of production art. It was labelled April’s Gatling Gun. Not because they had a gun for every month of the year, but because it belonged to April.

But if Benedict Cumberbatch really is playing Robert April, why doesn’t the Robert April in the comic look like Benedict Cumberbatch?

First of all, bear in mind that David Messina’s art is interpretive, not photo realistic. His Kirk doesn’t look exactly like Chris Pine, either.

And then, if we go back to April’s original appearance in the animated show, there’s more. It’s complicated, but in essence, the story features characters ageing backwards. Could that mechanic be part of his story here too? Is he going to get younger in time for the movie?

If so, and if he has somehow gotten a degree of control over this de-ageing, then I can see why he’s of use to the parents of the young dying girl in the Into Darkness opening scenes. If she’s got something degenerative, he can likely reverse it.

It’s also worth noting that April was a Starfleet Commander and the first captain of the Enterprise. This matches both the costume and behaviour of Cumberbatch in the trailer.

April lost the seat of the Enterprise to Captain Pike, so I can see that they might have some powerful scenes together. Also, the rumours about Pike being liberated from his wheelchair might play into their relationship, with April using his de-ageing technique, whatever it is, to get Pike back on his feet.

Also see the promo image at the head of the post, putting Cumberbatch and Pine opposite each other, like reflections of one another, dark and light. The captain that came before Pike, the one that came after…

Now, we don’t know any of this for sure – only that the first Into Darkness comic ends on a humdinger of a tease. I do have a little suspicion that we’re being played and whatever we learn in the next issue will drive a truck right through the middle of this theory, but for now… for now it feels good.