Star Trek Into Darkness Synopsis Revealed!!

Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies XI+' started by StarTrek1701, Nov 27, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Admiral Buzzkill

    Admiral Buzzkill Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2001
    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.

    [yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KW4lHnLr-bE[/yt]
     
  2. CoveTom

    CoveTom Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2003
    Location:
    CoveTom
    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.
     
  3. I Grok Spock

    I Grok Spock Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2000
    Location:
    Tooling around in my Jupiter 8...
    The villain is "Cupcake." Bank it.
     
  4. Kruezerman

    Kruezerman Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2012
    Location:
    Meatloaf with Macaroni and Cheese
    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.
     
  5. Drago-Kazov

    Drago-Kazov Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2012
    Let them get suprised in the theatre.
     
  6. RAMA

    RAMA Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 1999
    Location:
    NJ, USA
    Trelane: No, not in Starfleet, not interested in terror.
    Colonel Green: Possible, they'd have to play with the timeline a bit by our reckoning but it hardly matters in the new reality.
    Khan: Wasn't a terrorist, wasn't a one man weapon of mass destruction, wasn't in Starfleet....nope, definitely not Khan.
    Garth: Has the ability and power to destroy Starfleet from within, he may have gained some power after becoming a megalomaniac.
    Gary Mitchell: In Starfleet. Wanted to create worlds in his own image. Gained god-like power. May have a vendetta against Starfleet/Kirk for trying to stop him. Mentioned by an insider as one of the names that might be in the movie.
    Ben Finney: Sabotaged a starship for revenge. In Starfleet, no special powers.

    My possibility ratings:

    Trelane: 0%
    Colonel Green or associates: 20%
    Khan: 5%
    Garth: 20%
    Gary Mitchell:55%
    Ben Finney:0%
     
  7. The Wormhole

    The Wormhole Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2001
    That's not much of an argument. The King's Speech and Lincoln were in limited release in theatres (showing on less screens than an average movie) so there's a lower bar for them to be considered a success, and The Life of Pi came in fifth place on opening weekend. Titanic is the only true success out of that lot. And that was James Cameron, people flock theatres to see his movies.

    Although I make derisive comments about "dumb action flicks" if I'm honest I have to admit to enjoying them more than movies like 2001, which I found to be nothing more than a two hour screen saver.

    Take a look at all the box office number ones from the last decade. They have usually been:

    -Big ass action movies.
    -Family-aimed cartoons.

    That's where studios see the money, and in a world where studios are more considered with making a quick dollar than taking risks on anything new, that's what's going to continue to get the go ahead. Artsy movies will be sidelined as a niche thing unless you're James Cameron and can persuade billions to go to a theatre to look at a blank blue screen for three hours through name recognition alone.
     
  8. RoJoHen

    RoJoHen Awesome Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2000
    Location:
    QC, IL, USA
    This should be on the poster.
     
  9. SeerSGB

    SeerSGB Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2003
    Location:
    RIP Leonard Nimoy
    Sounds generic, as others have said, hell it damn near reads like ST 2009.

    I'm thinking that what we're going to get is some weird Khan/Gary Mitchel mash-up of a character. With augments being some form of barrier mutation that Starfleet was fucking around with.

    ~whistles nonchalantly ~ This is why I tell people that TMP is the most TOS of the Star Trek movies.
     
  10. MisterPL

    MisterPL Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2007
    What if we add a prologue? Take that five-minute overture and show the origins of V'Ger. That'd be a great way to spoil the revelation at the end of the flick, right? Never mind. I'm off my meds. :wtf:

    And for what it's worth, I agree that Trek works better on TV. That's the medium for it, not film. Paramount got greedy thanks to the success of Star Wars and I often imagine what the franchise would be like if the films had been television episodes instead.
     
  11. Drago-Kazov

    Drago-Kazov Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2012
    We need 20 more minutes of the Enterprise slowly moving in space.
     
  12. RAMA

    RAMA Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 1999
    Location:
    NJ, USA
    I saw someone mention that the 9 minute excerpt from ST:ID would basically summarize the Mitchell story in the comic book, from WNMHGB and the story would extend from there, with his "un-dead" body still floating in space in the opening.
     
  13. Trekker82

    Trekker82 Lieutenant Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Location:
    Maine, USA
    It sounds like JJ is going to ruin Star Trek even more. Let's just blow everything up. What happened to exploration, diplomacy, etc?

    Just keep Trek off of the big screen and keep it on TV, where it belongs.
     
  14. RAMA

    RAMA Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 1999
    Location:
    NJ, USA
    \
    Um yeah, there were no explosions, bad guys, etc in the first 10 movies...

    If I recall there was an attempt at diplomacy several times by Starfleet in the first JJ movie, and Starfleet was a fleet of exploration. It also happened to be an origin movie, but we still got to see more interesting planets, creatures, sights than in any of the other movies combined.

    RAMA
     
  15. bullethead

    bullethead Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2008
    It's hard to ruin something that was already ruined by a tapped out creative staff. But exploration and diplomacy aren't really the best stories for movies unless you have got the right scenario that can provide the kind of action and drama needed to drive and sustain the major motion picture, especially in this market.
     
  16. Drago-Kazov

    Drago-Kazov Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2012
    This will dal with some shady Section 31 like stuff. there will be more drama.
     
  17. Trekker82

    Trekker82 Lieutenant Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Location:
    Maine, USA
    I did single out JJ, mostly because IMO the movie was about explosions, inaccurate technicalities, disregard for lore (yes, I know it's an alternate reality), etc. The other movies were not that good compared to the TV series as well. I know my view isn't a popular one, but I prefer a more intelligent take vs a young, cocky and horny crew with more action and very little intelligence. I felt that the movie had a thin veil of Star Trek over a generic space action movie.
     
  18. Galileo7

    Galileo7 Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2010
    Location:
    east coast United States
    The villain is probably Mitchell, Khan or an original character. However, I think it has to be Gary Mitchell.:vulcan:
     
  19. Drago-Kazov

    Drago-Kazov Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2012
    They had to do that kind of story because they needed as many people as possible to like the movie.
     
  20. Kruezerman

    Kruezerman Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2012
    Location:
    Meatloaf with Macaroni and Cheese
    That's a very cynical view. But what I'm saying is that the audience is there for "artsy" movies, especially sci-fi which are very visual. Besides, how difficult was TMP to follow? Wasn't very complicated.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.