I was thinking about the "war-torn planet". Could it even be Earth? Just how far into chaos will Earth be plunged by Starfleet's betrayal and destruction?
Star Trek Into Darkness Synopsis Revealed!!
- Thread starter StarTrek1701
- Start date
- Status
We don't even know if Starfleet is destroyed, betrayed, or anything. We only have a few clues to the puzzle right now, with the new Trek game and Countdown Into Darkness being the major ones we need to get a good grasp on things.
I think you mean Tarsus IV, and yes, that what I was thinking too. Peter Weller might be Kodos, somehow genetically engineering Sam Kirk for unknown reasons. We don't know if Tarsus IV happend in the nuUniverse or how Nero changed that part. For all we know only Sam went to the planet, leaving Jim and Winona behind on Earth. Now he returns as a sleeper agent, infiltrating Starfleet... or something along the line.
But Cumberbatch as Sam Kirk makes way more sense than Mitchell
I'm a bit bugged by some of the language used in the press release. Some of the choice of words and phrasing strike me as odd, such as:
"detonated the fleet"
and
"leaving our world in a state of crisis"
Why "the fleet"? And why "detonated"? Also, why say "our world"?
I don't know. Perhaps it is a real press release or perhaps it isn't.
However, if it is real, it sounds as if it was written by a summer intern.
Then again, I suppose I could see some copy editor at the Paramount PR department changing "Starfleet" to "The fleet", and "The Federation" to "our world" in order to make it sound less "Star Trek-ish" and more general.
Agreed, but if they keep churning out the same old tired 'revenge' device the theatre audience might start to realize the failings of recycling this device.
I'm still stoked on the movie (even though it's too late by a year at least) and I'll still see it, I just wish the intellectuals in the seats would be given something to mull over besides "he hurt me, I'll hurt him back until he's dead."
I know I said that I'd 'honestly lost track' of this... so I guess I lied.
But this is where we are:There were no revenge concepts in plot A of The Motion Picture, The Search For Spock, The Voyage Home, The Final Frontier and Generations. Since Generations it's been like a skipping record.
REVENGE PLOT
1. Bad man causes trouble to the world (galaxy), the captain and his ship
2. Captain chases the bad man. People die. Things explode.
3. Captain gets his revenge by killing the bad man.
CASE STUDIES:
Wrath of Khan (Khan), The Undiscovered Country (Chang), First Contact (Borg), Insurrection (Ru'afo), Nemesis (Shinzon), Trek XI (Nero).
NOTABLE QUOTES:
"I've never trusted Klingons, and I never will. I can never forgive them for the death of my boy."
— Captain Kirk, Star Trek: The Undiscovered County
"And I... will make them pay for what they've done!"
— Captain Picard, Star Trek: First Contact
"I got your gun."
— Acting Captain Kirk, Star Trek XI
Last edited:
Aside from that being a bit tortured, you didn't address any of the major points. There's no evident correspondence between this synopsis and anything specific to Mitchell's story, and no other good reason to suspect that it's Mitchell.
Therefore...
I wouldn't be surprised if the press release was written by someone without a writing background or was tossed out there as is because people were tired of dealing with Bad Robot's secrecy fetish. This press release really feels like they gave up after getting tons of memos about what they couldn't say and stuck in the weird stuff as a "fuck you" to Bad Robot.
Therefore what?
The synopsis is much to vague to have "evident correspondence" to anything really... No wait, but it DOES have! Or you don't think Gary Mitchell qualifies as a "human WMD"?
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.
Drago-Kazov
Fleet Captain
Was there ever an ST movie about making first contact besides the whale movie and V'Ger one which was terribly boring?
Ya know I am sick to the death of this "ADD generation" bull crap. I'm twenty and I enjoyed TMP just fine, the problem wasn't that it was "too big" but that it's story plodded along with filler and a stretched out story line. The Final Frontier simply failed in all forms.
Yes, and they were poor entertainment that didn't even really "make you think" because the writers' notions of big ideas were ill thought-out and sophomoric. Neither movie was even good by Star Trek "thought-provoking" standards, which have rarely been as high as trekkies assert.
Oh, I loved The Motion Picture. I'm an unabashed and completely out of the closet with my love for the "V'ger one." It's a beautiful film (especially the Director's Cut), even if it is somewhat lethargically paced.
And yes, there was, you know, First Contact, the TNG one, but even that kind of followed the new credo of more action, less interaction. I just hope this new film has a heart that the last four or five films have lacked.
And yes, there was, you know, First Contact, the TNG one, but even that kind of followed the new credo of more action, less interaction. I just hope this new film has a heart that the last four or five films have lacked.
Those are all valid points. I mean, I'm in my twenties myself, and maybe it was unfair of me to use the "ADD generation" card. Still, I guess it's just a matter of taste in the end.
I feel wholeheartedly that Star Trek was best as a television show, and the movies have always paled in comparison to the TV version, because the show was always meant to exist as a long, overarching saga, not self-contained two hour films that have to please everybody and as many demographics as possible. These new films are clearly intended for a wider audience (the older films tried this too, but it was never more obvious than now), and I can sympathize with those that find this a little strange. I can also sympathize with the other viewpoint, that Star Trek should be for everyone. I can see both sides.
The one with the most "heart" to me was The Voyage Home simply because you had the crew being heroes even when they have nothing but a rust bucket of a ship.
But the one that screamed Star Trek to me was XI. It was TOS on steroids, adventure and action and fun PLUS the drama and fighting that we gained back in DS9.
Those are all valid points. I mean, I'm in my twenties myself, and maybe it was unfair of me to use the "ADD generation" card. Still, I guess it's just a matter of taste in the end.
I feel wholeheartedly that Star Trek was best as a television show, and the movies have always paled in comparison to the TV version, because the show was always meant to exist as a long, overarching saga, not self-contained two hour films that have to please everybody and as many demographics as possible. These new films are clearly intended for a wider audience (the older films tried this too, but it was never more obvious than now), and I can sympathize with those that find this a little strange. I can also sympathize with the other viewpoint, that Star Trek should be for everyone. I can see both sides.
My problem isn't with those that believe that Trek should be like 2001 or Avatar or whatever, my problem is with those who believe that it has always been like that. It wasn't, Star Trek was everything that just so happened to take place on a ship named Enterprise. XI proved that the basics of Star Trek are the adventures of Captain Kirk and his crew through space.
Will there be big questions asked? Yep, but not all the time, and when the makers do those episodes or films, they'll do it the way they want to, it won't be 100% the way we want it.
As an aside, can you imagine what The Motion Picture will be like when they redo it? Can you imagine how magnificent V'Ger will look?
Last edited:
I loved TVH. It was probably the most successful of the movies in terms of trying to include mainstream audiences.
Redo it? I'm not sure what you mean. They have the Director's Cut, which I'm hoping they will transfer to Blu-ray someday. What do you mean by redo it? Rebooting it?
Drago-Kazov
Fleet Captain
He wants a remake. If ever was one it would go straight to DVD.
Of course. There's no market for it.
I'm perfectly content with the Director's Cut. It's not going to get any better than it already is, logistically speaking. It's a film that is a product of the times, and even if it's not perfect, it holds a special place in the hearts of many trekkies that saw it as their first Trek film ever. It's got some fine performances, has some wonderful character scenes between Kirk, Spock, and McCoy, and it would just be strange to see a remake. Perfect or not, it deserves to be left alone.
Usually when the studio releases these summaries they give you a pretty clear idea of the characters and the basic conflict. Case in point is the 2009 film in which it laid out how to outcast from different worlds must get over their conflict and work together. Simple, to be sure, but well written and defined.
This summary left me baffled beyond reason. What the hell is this movie about?
This summary left me baffled beyond reason. What the hell is this movie about?
- Status
Similar threads
