StarDestroyer.Net BBS

So the official synopsis for Star Trek 2013 is out;

In 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.

Reckon the antagonist will be a character from the canon?

Sounds like Gary Mitchell to me.

I'm wondering what "detonated the fleet" means. The wording honestly makes me cringe.

I too wonder what, exactly, that is supposed to mean.

Srelex wrote:Sounds like Gary Mitchell to me.

The IDW comics already used him and adapted that episode for their opening arc, but the film may ignore it.

I'm currently favoring the Alternate Trelane or Arne Davin.

Skylon wrote:I'm wondering what "detonated the fleet" means. The wording honestly makes me cringe.

Command Navigation Program got uploaded to all the iShips

It could very well be Khan. He comes out of deep sleep, finds his bearings and try to retake Earth.

Enigma wrote:It could very well be Khan. He comes out of deep sleep, finds his bearings and try to retake Earth.

I'll admit Khan would be a safe bet and I'd like to see his Alternate counterpart eventually. But I'm still hoping it's someone else. Doing Khan so soon is just too easy.

Augments are meant to be tough, but I don't think they quite qualify as 'one man weapons of mass destruction' like it says there.

A little old, from co-writer Alex Kurtzman (http://trekmovie.com/2012/06/28/kurtzma ... -tos-crew/):

…I tend to look at things first and foremost as a character’s journey from beginning to end, and oftentimes the journey won’t be resolved at the end, it will just be the completion of whatever that moment in their journey is. Jim Kirk, for example, inherits the Enterprise at the end of Star Trek but that doesn’t mean he fully understands what it means to be Captain. It just means, oh, he has the Enterprise now — so now what? He’s never sent men and women to their deaths before, so what’s going to happen when that kind of question comes up for him?

I am mixed if this is the route they are going. If they wanted to make a series of movies about the crew of the Enterprise coming together, than I wish the first film ended with Kirk graduating the academy and beginning his first tour aboard the Farragut, and over the next film or two we see Kirk forged into the Captain he becomes. However, I doubt the Paramount suits would have allowed that. So, I do hope this is accurate - that the writers are addressing that this Kirk hasn't faced the same circumstances as TOS-Kirk and still needs to, well, face death.

Skylon wrote:So, I do hope this is accurate - that the writers are addressing that this Kirk hasn't faced the same circumstances as TOS-Kirk and still needs to, well, face death.

Something else I hope we see in the film is that while the crew has come together in spite of Nero's temporal hijinks, they're not yet the well-oiled machine of the Prime Reality. Likewise, Kirk and Spock have made their peace, but they've not yet achieved the depth of relationship their Prime Reality counterparts had. They -- and by extension the rest of the senior staff - are still getting to know one another and I hope this gets played up.

An official poster has been released.

Could just be a random scenery asset with no meaning but the 'Gherkin' building in London can be seen in that cityscape.

Poster reminds me a bit too much of the Joker variant for TDK, but it's still a good teaser poster.

I am so ridiculously unhyped for this movie right now.

It indeed is a good teaser poster...for something other than a Star Trek movie. At least not any Star Trek movie I want to see. But then, I wasn't particularly happy with the reboot movie to begin with so maybe I'm just not part of the target audience.

Why do people seem to have such a hard on for seeing Khan?

He had a movie, it was awesome. There's no need to go there.

I want a gritty big screen reboot of A Piece of the Action.

And I want a seriously whacky time travel phenomenon that means they get to use the original cast for another half dozen movies. Sometimes, we don't get what we want.

Batman wrote:And I want a seriously whacky time travel phenomenon that means they get to use the original cast for another half dozen movies. Sometimes, we don't get what we want.

Yeah but then they'd have to spend half the budget on a costume that'd fit Shatner.

No they wouldn't. Time travel, remember? We get the cast as they were during TOS.

Gandalf wrote:Why do people seem to have such a hard on for seeing Khan?

He had a movie, it was awesome. There's no need to go there.[/i].

Because fanboys can be idiots sometimes. Seriously, whenever somebody advocates "listen to the fans!" as a solution to problems with a sci-fi/fantasy/comic franchise, I say eight times out of ten you probably shouldn't.

If this movie had Khan it would also be the creators admitting that they got nothing else to do, but attempt a remake of the best Star Trek film. Personally I think that would be the equivalent of following up "Casino Royale" with a remake of "Goldfinger."

If it is Gary Mitchell, then frankly I'd call it good attempt at use of the character, and a good job by the creators for going back through TOS and playing with concepts from those episodes. Because, if it is Mitchell then the concept sounds like "what if Kirk didn't kill Mitchell?" My main regret is that he should have been in the FIRST film then. Build him up as Kirk's buddy, then have him go all god-powered and crazy in the second film, and make it have some more impact than it did the first time around, when we just met him in one episode.

You know one thing I always watched Star Trek for was the whole Star Trek bit. Space, other worlds, impossible situations. A man hunt on earth? No thanks. Plus we already had a whale hunt on earth movie.

That poster makes me expect zombies. Zombie borg whales seem sadly unlikely.

Zombie Borg whales would at least be interesting in a 'you gotta be fucking kidding me' kind of way.

I'm currently favoring the Alternate Trelane or Arne Davin.

Wasn't Arne Darvin the Scooby Doo villian of the week?

"And I would've gotten away with it too, if it weren't for Kirk and those damn Tribbles!"

Trelane is great, but too obscure. Mitchell had the potential for a more emotional story, if they had bothered putting him in the first film. They missed the boat on that, now it's all up to the script to fix. With that poster, I can only picture Gary Lockwood doing a Dark Phoenix impersonation a la X-Men III.

But if they'd put Mitchell in the first one. How would they have time for comedy russian accents? Or Sulu's fencing? Or the comedy stylings of Scotty? The film just wouldn't have worked without all the TOS cast crowbarred in there!

Though random thought, we know have the make up and effects to handle doing live action M'Ress and Arex! Whoo! Catgirls and tripods in the sequel please.

Sea Skimmer wrote:You know one thing I always watched Star Trek for was the whole Star Trek bit. Space, other worlds, impossible situations. A man hunt on earth? No thanks. Plus we already had a whale hunt on earth movie.

Why do you think Earth? The synopsis above describes that:

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.

Whatever the threat is in this film probably trashes some shit on Earth, then flees to the "war-zone" world described in the synopsis.