Star Trek Into Darkness Synopsis Revealed!! - Page 11

Tom · November 28 2012, 04:28 AM

Hmm.. if it is Gary Mitchell, and he trys to destroy/takeover Starfleet.. sounds like something he tryed to do in another little Star Trek movie (cough, cough)I know, just like destroying Vulcan.. LOL

RAMA · November 28 2012, 04:29 AM

The Wormhole wrote:

RAMA wrote:

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:

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

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.

Khan was tough, but hardly a "weapon". It didn't say one man with weapons of mass destruction.

Weller makes me wonder if Colonel Green hands off his legacy to someone in Starfleet...but I still feel Mitchell makes the best fit so far.

RAMA

Set Harth · November 28 2012, 04:30 AM

Drago-Kazov wrote:

Was there ever an ST movie about making first contact besides the whale movie and V'Ger one which was terribly boring?

It's too bad they never made a ST film called "First Contact".

The Wormhole · November 28 2012, 04:41 AM

RAMA wrote:

The Wormhole wrote:

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.

Khan was tough, but hardly a "weapon". It didn't say one man with weapons of mass destruction.

Weller makes me wonder if Colonel Green hands off his legacy to someone in Starfleet...but I still feel Mitchell makes the best fit so far.

RAMA

Khan could be a weapon, if looked at from a certain point of view. If there were one man who could be considered a weapon, that would certainly be a genetically enhanced superman.

teacake · November 28 2012, 05:02 AM

The Wormhole wrote:

Khan could be a weapon, if looked at from a certain point of view.

See it is just like Star Wars.

Let's merge all the top threads in this forum into one!

M'Sharak · November 28 2012, 05:28 AM

teacake wrote:

The Wormhole wrote:

Khan could be a weapon, if looked at from a certain point of view.

See it is just like Star Wars.

Let's merge all the top threads in this forum into one!

But if I do that, it'll create a vacuum. By tomorrow morning, there could be 17 new threads about Abrams' monomaniacal obsession with secrecy being detrimental to the movie's box-office success.

Melakon · November 28 2012, 05:49 AM

Charlie Evans? Dave Bailey returns, commanding the Fesarius after Starfleet forgot about him? Trelane doesn't make "an error in time" for once? Three words: Harcourt Fenton Mudd?

teacake · November 28 2012, 06:29 AM

M'Sharak wrote:

teacake wrote:

The Wormhole wrote:

Khan could be a weapon, if looked at from a certain point of view.

See it is just like Star Wars.

Let's merge all the top threads in this forum into one!

But if I do that, it'll create a vacuum. By tomorrow morning, there could be 17 new threads about Abrams' monomaniacal obsession with secrecy being detrimental to the movie's box-office success.

JJ's secrecy creates a vacuum of information and the same vacuum breeds threads about JJ's secrecy.

FOREVER IT SHALL NEVER DIE.

Oso Blanco · November 28 2012, 06:49 AM

Regulas One wrote:

My money is they are going to kill Pike off.

Nooooo! I hope he stays until the end of this movie series to watch over the crew. It's good to have a recurring character in the movies instead of some random Admiral of the year.

As for Weller, I think he'll be the head of Section 31. Cumberbatch could be some S31 experiment gone wronge and rogue.

Drago-Kazov · November 28 2012, 09:23 AM

Pike is part of the spaceilluminat( we don't know what the heck it is) according too the ongoing comic.

Admiral Buzzkill · November 28 2012, 03:12 PM

People pushing the "Mitchell" theory overlook the specific political overtones of the use of the words "terror," "weapon of mass destruction," "war-zone" and even "state of crisis." None of that, crowded into two paragraphs, is random.

But I'll humor you.

CoveTom · November 28 2012, 04:21 PM

Kruezerman wrote:

V'Ger is perfect to deal with. If 2001 is popular still today, I'm fairly certain that TMP re-made minus the fluff will be just as fantastic.

No. Wait, let me think about that some more... no. Wait. Scratch that... hell no.

2001 is still popular today, but as a legendary sci-fi film that people watch in their homes and in a very rare special theater presentation. But a film like 2001 would never be made by a Hollywood studio today, and it certainly would not have the mass market appeal to draw in the "blockbuster" sized audience Hollywood seeks. Heck, 2001 wasn't hugely successful, in box office terms, when it was released in the 1960's. You think it would work today? Superman Returns made nearly $400 million at the box office alone. It was considered "a disappointment" by the studio. Studios are interested in nothing but the lowest common denominator because they consider anything less than a gagillion dollars to be a failure.

Aside from that, though, why the obsession with remaking classics? Why in the world would I, as someone who loves TMP, want to see a modern remake of it? Based on the evidence presented in movie theaters over the last several decades, I have absolutely no evidence to suggest the ability of Paramount, or any other Hollywood studio, to remake TMP in a way that is respectful of the source material and produce a thought-provoking science fiction film. More than likely, if they were to remake it, they would keep the basic premise of a living machine threatening Earth, and everything else would be jettisoned in favor of millisecond long cuts, ShakyCam, and lots of 'splosions.

I Grok Spock · November 28 2012, 04:33 PM

The villain is "Cupcake." Bank it.

Kruezerman · November 28 2012, 05:57 PM

There is a market for that big, epic movie. There always will be, yes a lot of movies have action in them, doesn't mean it won't work. There's talk about doing 2061 now. They did 2010 back in the eighties so why does everyone think that 1) people won't enjoy when films like Titanic, Life of Pi, The King's Speech, Lincoln, and many others do so well and are clearly made and 2) that a modern remake will be so bad?

We're not stupid. We're not troglodytes. We're not savages compared to the moviegoers of the past. We still make good shit.

Drago-Kazov · November 28 2012, 06:02 PM

My Name Is Legion wrote:

People pushing the "Mitchell" theory overlook the specific political overtones of the use of the words "terror," "weapon of mass destruction," "war-zone" and even "state of crisis." None of that, crowded into two paragraphs, is random.

But I'll humor you.

Let them get suprised in the theatre.

November 28 2012, 04:28 AM	#151
Tom Rear Admiral Location: In your Mind!	Re: Star Trek Into Darkness Synopsis Revealed!! Hmm.. if it is Gary Mitchell, and he trys to destroy/takeover Starfleet.. sounds like something he tryed to do in another little Star Trek movie (cough, cough)I know, just like destroying Vulcan.. LOL __________________ Make it so...

November 28 2012, 05:49 AM	#157
Melakon Commodore Location: Unmarked grave, Ekos	Re: Star Trek Into Darkness Synopsis Revealed!! Charlie Evans? Dave Bailey returns, commanding the Fesarius after Starfleet forgot about him? Trelane doesn't make "an error in time" for once? Three words: Harcourt Fenton Mudd?

November 28 2012, 09:23 AM	#160
Drago-Kazov Fleet Captain	Re: Star Trek Into Darkness Synopsis Revealed!! Pike is part of the spaceilluminat( we don't know what the heck it is) according too the ongoing comic.

November 28 2012, 03:12 PM	#161
Admiral Buzzkill The Man Location: Defying Gravity	Re: Star Trek Into Darkness Synopsis Revealed!! People pushing the "Mitchell" theory overlook the specific political overtones of the use of the words "terror," "weapon of mass destruction," "war-zone" and even "state of crisis." None of that, crowded into two paragraphs, is random. But I'll humor you. __________________ I had steak and a loaded baked potato for dinner on Sunday. As a steak I enjoyed it a lot, but as macaroni and cheese I thought it was disappointing.

November 28 2012, 04:33 PM	#163
I Grok Spock Fleet Captain Location: Tooling around in my Jupiter 8...	Re: Star Trek Into Darkness Synopsis Revealed!! The villain is "Cupcake." Bank it. __________________ "Die quick and rot." - Mirror Universe Spock

STAR TREK

CSI

ABOUT US

November 28 2012, 05:57 PM	#164
Kruezerman Commander Location: South Texas	Re: Star Trek Into Darkness Synopsis Revealed!! There is a market for that big, epic movie. There always will be, yes a lot of movies have action in them, doesn't mean it won't work. There's talk about doing 2061 now. They did 2010 back in the eighties so why does everyone think that 1) people won't enjoy when films like Titanic, Life of Pi, The King's Speech, Lincoln, and many others do so well and are clearly made and 2) that a modern remake will be so bad? We're not stupid. We're not troglodytes. We're not savages compared to the moviegoers of the past. We still make good shit. __________________ Of course I don't want to eat something called a spittle pod. Go away. -Montgomery Scott-