Star Trek: Into Darkness - Pre-Discussion

This is the official plot synopsis:

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.


Yup, it's Gary Mitchell. Unless Garth of Izar's shape-shifting counts as being a "One man WMD". Trelane could meet that criteria too, but with Kirk having a "Personal Score to settle" and Friendships "being torn apart", it has to be Mitchell.
 
I really like the second TOS pilot with Mitchell, so the idea of a whole movie with him and his abilities sounds like it could be interesting.

I was wondering if the villain could somehow be Kirk's brother, George -- Kirk's "personal score" could also refer to that, the "love being challenged" could refer to that, and the bit about the crew being the "only family" Kirk has left. I dunno. :shrug: I read that Zachary Quinto recently said that he's ready to move beyond genre stuff, though, so do you think the "sacrifice" could be Spock? This movie's in Wrath of Khan's shadow, after all...

The title "Into Darkness" has me fearing Mirror Universe stuff, though.

Oh, and there should be a cameo by Tom Hardy as Alternate Reality Picard. :P
 
I feel nothing from that trailer at all. I don't hate it -- it looks like a good sci-fi film I can enjoy, but not a Star Trek film. Guess it's another 2 years of gradual acceptance for me. :redface2:

I really hope Star Trek Into Darkness ends up being the 2nd installment in a TRILOGY of J.J. Abrams' Star Trek. Then we get a 3rd final one not too long after and then back to the REAL Star Trek universe established over all the years... and we get the real "Star Trek XI" with a new crew and ship.
 
I feel nothing from that trailer at all. I don't hate it -- it looks like a good sci-fi film I can enjoy, but not a Star Trek film. Guess it's another 2 years of gradual acceptance for me. :redface2:

I don't like how it looks like it wants to be all Nolan-like. First James Bond tries to imitate Nolan (with Skyfall), and now Trek. Screw Nolan!
 
I don't like how it looks like it wants to be all Nolan-like. First James Bond tries to imitate Nolan (with Skyfall), and now Trek. Screw Nolan!

No offense, but your statement makes no fucking sense. How the heck can you get "It's Nolan like" from a 1 minute trailer? I mean it showed action scenes, characters saying stuff etc. I mean by this logic any action movie with anything at all serious is "nolan like"
 
Instead of Nolan, Michael Bay comes to mind for me... So I don't really see anything wrong with this. If whatever trending movie style is garnering the cash and viewers, then I have no complaints, unless it's a Justin Bieber movie.
 
then back to the REAL Star Trek universe established over all the years... and we get the real "Star Trek XI" with a new crew and ship.

Why should they go back to the old universe? To satisfy change-fearing virgins stuck in the past? Chances are if the Abrams 'verse endfs, a new universe will take it's place to better reflect changes in society. Reboots happen. Deal with it and move forward.
 
Why should they go back to the old universe? To satisfy change-fearing virgins stuck in the past? Chances are if the Abrams 'verse endfs, a new universe will take it's place to better reflect changes in society. Reboots happen. Deal with it and move forward.

It's not even a reboot. Not really.
 

Latest News & Videos

Latest News

Back
Top