New Empire magazine STID photos

[Gojira]

If I want to watch a Star Trek Captain just play by the rules I will watch Captain Picard.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Aside from all of that:

Based on what we know now, it's virtually certain that the rule Kirk breaks which gets him into trouble is broken in order to save Spock's life. That doesn't make him a "bad boy" and it doesn't owe a thing directly to Kirk's current image in popular culture - it descends directly from similar behavior in TOS.

[BillJ]

My Name Is Legion wrote:

---

Aside from all of that:

Based on what we know now, it's virtually certain that the rule Kirk breaks which gets him into trouble is broken in order to save Spock's life. That doesn't make him a "bad boy" and it doesn't owe a thing directly to Kirk's current image in popular culture - it descends directly from similar behavior in TOS.

Why would Uhura and Scott also be separated from the Enterprise as well over the possible Prime Directive violation done by Kirk?

If Kirk got the boot for saving Spock, then I agree that it is different than continuing the bad boy angle.

[Kruezerman]

I'm thinking that Harrison is a bad guy but Peter Weller's character is THE bad guy pulling everybody's strings.

Or something like that.

[Franklin]

Christopher wrote:

---

True. The only time in TOS that Kirk ever overtly violated a direct order was "Amok Time." In other cases, he bent the rules from time to time, but generally obeyed orders even when he hated it -- he was ready to abandon Spock and McCoy in "The Galileo Seven" because the High Commissioner gave him a direct order, and was willing to leave McCoy behind on Yonada because an admiral ordered it. True, he was flexible in his interpretation of the Prime Directive, but that was his prerogative as the commander on the scene, in a time when it was often not feasible to get direct orders from superiors and captains were expected to use their own judgment to interpret the rules. And in most of TOS, Kirk was portrayed as a disciplined career soldier.

The popular image of Kirk as a renegade and rule-breaker comes mainly from The Search for Spock and The Voyage Home. But again, as in "Amok Time," he only violated orders as an extraordinary measure for the sake of saving a friend and colleague. It wasn't his regular MO.

Let's keep in mind, though, that the Abramsverse Kirk was intentionally given a very different, far more troubled backstory. This Kirk actually is the hotheaded maverick that his counterpart is only mistakenly assumed to be. They're the same at the core, with the same intrinsic leadership skills and virtues, but this Kirk's life history has led him to be more unruly, brash, and undisciplined. So they shouldn't be treated as identical characters.

Very well put. If anything, Kirk had a keen sense of duty and loyalty to his crew that sometimes conflicted with keeping the chain of command or following rules to the letter. Kirk sometimes lived by the the words of the late Admiral Grace Hopper, "If it's a good idea, go ahead and do it. It is much easier to apologize than it is to get permission."

Kirk was a unique character who often put himself into (or found himself in) uncommon situations few other Starfleet officers experienced. These situations challenged conventional regulations and required imaginative solutions.

Given how many TOS captains and officers did screw up planets, I'd say TOS Kirk was completely trustworthy and conscientious. But, the J.J. Kirk hasn't gotten there, yet.

Also, I don't think the Nibiru planet incident is what

cost him his command.

That may have prompted the lecture from Pike, but the way the Empire article is worded

some reaction by Kirk associated with the terrorist attack cost him his command.

At least that's how I read it.

[DWF]

The old Kirk was a rule breaker, he did violate orders in Amok Time but was later allowed to go to Vulcan, just as he crossed the Neutral Zone in Balance Of Terror before he was given permission, Then there's breaking the Prime Directive in A Private Little War. But this Krik lost his father at an early age and clearly is a rather more reckless person than the other Kirk. Still though I can't see his command being returned to him by the end of the movie.

[Gojira]

Kruezerman wrote:

---

I'm thinking that Harrison is a bad guy but Peter Weller's character is THE bad guy pulling everybody's strings.

Or something like that.

That is what I am thinking to.

Harrison is Bane and Weller's Character is Ra's al Ghul.

[King Daniel Into Darkness]

Christopher wrote:

---

I'm increasingly starting to suspect that Harrison is secretly the descendant of Augments who went to ground after the Eugenics Wars,

Conspiracy theory mode: The 2007/8 fan film Star Trek: Of Gods and Men just happened to have a similar time travel/alternate reality plot to JJ's 2009 movie (STXI: George Kirk dies at Jim's birth, OGaM: Winona and unborn Jim bite the dust)

Fast forward to now, and the makers of OGaM are putting together Star Trek: Renegades, featuring Captain Lexxa Singh, a female descendant of Khan. I thought it was the fanwankiest thing I've read in years, but... coincidence?

*applies tin foil hat*

[SalvorHardin]

DWF wrote:

---

Still though I can't see his command being returned to him by the end of the movie.

I'm sure he's going to get it back.

Abrams: I don’t like going to the movies to feel bad. I don’t like going to the movies to feel depressed and feel diminished. The reason you go to the movies is to feel bigger and stronger and happier. So this is a movie that they certainly go ‘Into Darkness,’ but I would be the wrong director if it was about characters staying there. This is very much a movie about hope, about love, about romance, and about facing something that is truly terrifying and finding a way through the connection of your family and surviving and being stronger afterwards.

http://trekmovie.com/2012/12/22/jj-a...-flares-in-3d/

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Christopher wrote:

---

I'm increasingly starting to suspect that Harrison is secretly the descendant of Augments who went to ground after the Eugenics Wars, and maybe he's striking against the UFP's laws banning genetic engineering (what we see in the teaser trailer, the "I can help her" line to Noel Clarke, might suggest that). That could explain why a human member of Starfleet would have such enhanced physical and mental abilities. Maybe he's even looking for Khan and the Botany Bay.

Yeah, that's been proposed here recently.

[Donald Draper]

I been mocking all the crazy speculation but that is the most likely thing I have heard. Ego driven partially because I had the same idea. The real world comparison maybe neo-Nazi's and the Klan. The War might long be over but that does not mean there are not still those on the fringes of society would do not hold on to the ideas of the losers. Also it would be an original angle not explored before. JJ was motivated to do the first movie because the early days of the crew had not been explored on screen before.

[Phily B]

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote:

---

Seems they've based the story somewhat on Prime Directive by Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stevens, one of the best Trek novels ever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_D...tar_Trek_novel)

I actually brought this up in another topic, Orci said it was one of his favourite novels and that after watching the 9 minute trailer coupled with the trailers, I thought they might've gone in this direction.

[teacake]

One thing that really stands out in some of these pics and others we've seen.. SPOCK'S HAIR. It's mussy. Spock's hair is never mussy but it seems NuSpock is a bit lax on the product.

[throwback]

Prime Directive in the 24th Century
On some of the mission orders seen in "Conspiracy", three starships were sent to investigate the pre-warp civilization on Gamma Argus II. The captains were given discretion in making first contact with the native civilization.

Relationship between Spock and Surak
In "Journey to Babel", it was learned that the relationship between Spock and Surak became strained after Spock chose to enter into Starfleet. It took a series of events aboard the Enterprise to change the trajectory of the relationship.

One of the changes I feel that is being reflected in this new iteration of Star Trek is the loss of character for the Enterprise. I feel the ship is used either as a backdrop to establish scenes or as a disposable vessel to transport the heroes.

[billcosby]

SalvorHardin wrote:

---

Enjoy...or not

..With Earth under terrorist attack from Benedict Cumberbatch’s ex-Starfleet employee John Harrison, Kirk is this time forced into a rash decision that breaks a critical Starfleet command, puts his crew in danger & costs him his captain’s chair. Now out of uniform and dressed down in space civvies of black leather jackets and boots, our three heroes have separated from the Enterprise and headed off on a mission to try and rectify his mistake…

I'm going with not.

We waited what, four-five years for this film and finally it comes out and Kirk's not going to be in command of the Enterprise? Terrific. I'll bet the first nine minutes are the only time Kirk's in command. Why don't we get to see any business-as-usual Trek with these new cast members?

It's almost as awesome as the Toby Maguire Spider-Man films where Spider-Man always either takes his mask off or gets it knocked off. So instead of enjoying Spider-Man as he should appear we're looking non stop at Toby Maguire's grotesque face for 2 hours intervals.

Anyway... I'm sure as a 'film' it'll be good but Star Trek... oh, how I wish it was back on television where it rightfully belongs.

These five year waits between uninspiring revenge fantasies are not my cup of Earl Grey.