Star Trek Into Darkness Synopsis Revealed!!

[Admiral Buzzkill]

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]

 

[CoveTom]

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]

The villain is "Cupcake." Bank it.

 

[Kruezerman]

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]

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.

 

[RAMA]

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%

 

[The Wormhole]

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

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.

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

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.

 

[RoJoHen]

DETONATION.

Fleets. Worlds. Friendships. Love.

All will be detonated!

This should be on the poster.

 

[SeerSGB]

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.

A personal score to settle - wait we're getting another gods-damned revenge story? I've honestly lost count of how many revenge Trek films in a row there have been...

No strange new worlds or new life and new civilization?
Comic Book Guy: "Worst. Synopsis. Ever."

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

 

[MisterPL]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Drago-Kazov]

We need 20 more minutes of the Enterprise slowly moving in space.

 

[RAMA]

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.

 

[Trekker82]

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.

 

[RAMA]

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.

\
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

 

[bullethead]

It sounds like JJ is going to ruin Star Trek even more. Let's just blow everything up. What happened to exploration, diplomacy, etc?

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.

 

[Drago-Kazov]

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.

This will dal with some shady Section 31 like stuff. there will be more drama.

 

[Trekker82]

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.

 

[Galileo7]

The villain is probably Mitchell, Khan or an original character. However, I think it has to be Gary Mitchell.

 

[Drago-Kazov]

They had to do that kind of story because they needed as many people as possible to like the movie.

 

[Kruezerman]

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.

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.