Star Trek Into Darkness Synopsis Revealed!!

[Melakon]

Spock/Uhura Fan wrote:

---

. . .avoiding someone like Michael Bay doing Star Trek is exactly why JJ was needed. . .

The only Bay film I've seen is The Island, in my library. At least he kept the explosions to a minimum. And it was nice to see Ethan Phillips without Neelix on his face.

[teacake]

I thought The Island was underrated.

[Spock/Uhura Fan]

Melakon wrote:

---

The only Bay film I've seen is The Island, in my library. At least he kept the explosions to a minimum. And it was nice to see Ethan Phillips without Neelix on his face.

I saw Bad Boys, and that was good for an action/buddy film. Transformers 1 and 3 were okay with some nice special effects. Transformers 2 was terrible and offensive, and allegedly the most Bay influenced. That's my Bay experience.

I think Mr. Bay can make nice action films, but JJ strikes me as a thinker. Trek needed that, and a new direction, imo.

[Enterprise is Great]

The synopsis for Into Darkness makes me want to read the one for Star Trek 2009. I want to see if that had any goofy writing in it like "detonated the fleet". i can't find it anywhere though...

[teacake]

Someone hurry up and post it!

[Tom Riker]

Kelso wrote:

---

If Admiral Leonard James Akaar shows up from the future with Picard and Crusher's baby, I'm out.

I love you

[Gojira]

I love the synopsis. Yeah it is vague but it does still sound like it is going to be good.

[DarthPipes]

I hate to say this but this synopsis reminds me a lot of the third season of Enterprise.

Detonate the fleet? It was one thing to wipe out Vulcan but the entire fleet? That's overkill. Then again, just about every Starfleet ship that popped up on the original series was either destroyed or heavily damaged.

I hope we get some classical Trek elements to go with what seems like another action/revenge film. Still, I'll reserve judgment. I loved the last Star Trek film and it seems like this movie will focus more on Kirk with the crew. So we'll see what happens.

[Temis the Vorta]

Minuet wrote:

---

The movies aren't about big ideas. They're about lasers and explosions and sword fights and cute little cuddly engineer sidekicks that look like mutated Furbies.

But that's what we've been reduced to. The standard Hollywood audience has no attention span for big ideas anymore. Ironically, the two most maligned films of TOS, The Motion Picture and The Final Frontier, were the closest to the original television show in terms of story scope--big sci-fi ideas and concepts that make you think.

So, you know, the new film is going to be fun. I'm sure it will be. But if they were trying to reboot the old show with the new films and update it for a new audience, there's no question that something was lost in translation. And I really, really enjoyed the 2009 film. It's just...I feel like Gene would have said the same thing. It's missing heart. The tone is completely off.

I'm optimistic though. I hope it'll get better over time.

It won't. Hollywood is making too much $$$ off empty, dimbulb action flicks to change the formula. Some of them are a bit less dumb that average - Star Trek's at the upper end of that continuum - but this movie is going to be the usual simplistic "our heroes fight the dangerous villain who is easy to explain to the audience" approach that offers the best chance at big box office.

That's why I've been saying it's gonna be Gary Mitchell and not Khan for a while now. Mitchell is easy and quick to explain to the uninitiated, Khan not so much if you have to start from scratch with no revenge plot set up by TV. I don't care which one we see personally and I know why Khan is a non-starter, so I'm not going to stress about any of this.

If you want smart Trek, pray for a return to TV, ideally cable or maybe Netflix if Moonves is feeling adventurous, but the level of intelligence we've seen lately in the movies is as good as its going to get. In fact, I expect less intelligence and more action now that the backstory setup is out of the way.

[CaptainWacky]

"Does anyone remember when we used to be explorers?"

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

For comparison, this is the original paramount plot synopsis for the first film:

One grew up in the cornfields of Iowa, fighting for his independence, for a way out of a life that promised only indifference, aimlessness, and obscurity.
The other grew up on the jagged cliffs of the harsh Vulcan desert, fighting for acceptance, for a way to reconcile the logic he was taught with the emotions he felt.
In the far reaches of the galaxy, a machine of war bursts into existence in a place and time it was never meant to be. On a mission of retribution of the destruction of his planet, its half-mad captain seeks the death of every intelligent being, and the annihilation of every civilized world.
Kirk and Spock, two completely different and unyielding personalities, must find a way to lead the only crew, aboard the only ship, that can stop him.

[Ghost Bones]

Sounds just like Attack of the Clones.

[RAMA]

My Name Is Legion wrote:

---

So, the Mitchell theory hangs now on the notion that instead of being zapped at the edge of the galaxy with god-like powers that manifest themselves fairly quickly as telekinesis and matter transmutation in such a fashion as to unbalance him and fill him with contempt for human beings, Mitchell now:

1. Acquires "weapon of mass destruction" powers;
2. Returns to Earth as part of Starfleet so he can blow up a bunch of spaceships;
3. Runs away to hide out on a distant planet, because - SHUT UP!?
4. ???
5. Victory!

Oh, and despite spending literally years now involved with a studio franchise which has successfully kept the lid on Star Trek secrets and has made it clear to everyone employed that leaking would be a "career-limiting move," Karl Urban decided to blurt out the biggest secret of the upcoming film in a public forum with a laugh and a wink. The fact that he continued to joke publicly about having done so for months afterward is all part of his cunning plan.

Uh-huh.

Instead of playing fanboy guessing games based on the notion that TPTB are accidentally letting clues to their Big Secret slip every time they make a statement, try this: what does the synopsis, trivial though it is, suggest about the motives of the villain(s) as they affect the plot of the film and how does that square with any possible precursors in the franchise?

The motives sound more like Mitchell than Khan....Khan wasn't part of Starfleet and he didn't turn on anyone. Garth of Izar also sounds like a potential villain, or even Ben Finney, but Khan? I see nothing of him in the synopsis at all.

[The Wormhole]

RAMA wrote:

---

The motives sound more like Mitchell than Khan....Khan wasn't part of Starfleet and he didn't turn on anyone. Garth of Izar also sounds like a potential villain, or even Ben Finney, but Khan? I see nothing of him in the synopsis at all.

A "one man weapon of mass destruction" could be Khan, especially if you consider that this war zone of a planet is Ceti Alpha V.

This synposis has got me wondering about Peter Weller's character, who early details described as a CEO type with his own starship. Could he be this renegade officer that detonates the fleet? And could that be Starfleet's Chief of Staff (or Commander Starfleet as the title was in Trek III)? That would certainly make him a CEO type and explain why he has his own starship.

[teacake]

Peter Weller would make a helluva Garth of Izar..