Star Trek Into Darkness Synopsis Revealed!!
- Thread starter StarTrek1701
- Start date
- Status
Shilliam Watner
Commander
It's possible. it could be that the detonation of the Red Matter by Spock prime in the last movie somehow disrupted Lazarus in his normal reality. Maybe in the movie Lazarus meets his alternative self for the first time creating a catastrophic circumstance that causes the fleet to be 'detonated'. I like it.
LAZARUS DOES NOT EXIST IN JJTREK!!
Shilliam Watner
Commander
Why not?
Between his positive/negative flashing and JJ's lens flare half the audience would have a seizure. It would be dangerous.
Unless Lazarus' beard keeps changing, this film will suck AND not be true to the original.
Drago-Kazov
Fleet Captain
The concept sucks or how it was written?
Well, like a good synopsis, it raises more questions that it gives answers.
"...an unstoppable force from within their own organization...." If it's someone from inside Starfleet, it will take one hell of a backstory for it to be Khan. Despite a murky past, a quick background check by Spock in "Space Seed" was enough to know Khan was dangerous. Do former despots from the past get admitted to Starfleet Academy as a rule?
"...detontated the fleet and everything it stands for...." Well the fleet and what it stands for except for the Enterprise, apparently.
"With a personal score to settle...." Kirk's mother and brother get killed? Or, maybe Pike, the closest thing Kirk has to a mentor and father figure, buys it in the first nine minutes trying to defend against the unstoppable force. Or maybe the score is to be settled with someone who turned his brother into the force. "acrifices must be made for the only family Kirk has left..." because he had to defeat his brother the same way TOS Kirk realized he had to defeat Mitchell.
"...a war zone world...." An on-going conflict further ignited (or, detonated) by the unstoppable force, or a new one created by the unstoppable force? A local war or an interplanetary one? A last stand or a jumping-off point?
"...a one man weapon of mass destruction." One-man because of his leadership over well-armed blindly devoted followers that do whatever he asks quickly and without question, or because he has enhanced powers of some kind and is acting alone?
Is he rational? Crazed? Tragically or unwillingly became the terror?
What is his motivation? Conquest? Revenge? Random terror? Revolution?
Also, if he is a one-man weapon of mass destruction who was able to disable the entire fleet, then why can't he crush the Enteprise like a bug when he comes across it? Does he have a motivation not to?
In general: When does all this take place? Not long after Nero was defeated? The full four years? What is the general state of the Federation at this moment? Is it vulnerable given it lost Vulcan and a good chunk of the fleet was already destroyed by Nero? Don't forget the 47 Klingon ships Nero destroyed, too. Is there a power vacuum someone is trying to exploit at this weak moment in the Alpha Quadrant?
So many questions. Still no answers.
Hell, perhaps it's Robert April, and he's pissed about the canon debate over him all these decades. Maybe when they chose to make Pike the first captain of the Enterprise in this universe, it was just too much for him to handle. "That was my chance! That ship should've been mine! I could've been official canon. I could've been somebody, instead of a cartoon, which is what I am, let's face it."
Seriously, we're speculating about charcters who became villains in TOS. Why couldn't Cumberbatch be someone who was a "good guy" in TOS who goes bad in this movie? Someone even speculated it could be Kirk's brother. Why not? That certainly trumps best-friend Mitchell as a tragic figure and foil for Kirk. And, while we know Kirk emerged from a bad childhood with his fate restored, what happened to his brother?
"...an unstoppable force from within their own organization...." If it's someone from inside Starfleet, it will take one hell of a backstory for it to be Khan. Despite a murky past, a quick background check by Spock in "Space Seed" was enough to know Khan was dangerous. Do former despots from the past get admitted to Starfleet Academy as a rule?
"...detontated the fleet and everything it stands for...." Well the fleet and what it stands for except for the Enterprise, apparently.
"With a personal score to settle...." Kirk's mother and brother get killed? Or, maybe Pike, the closest thing Kirk has to a mentor and father figure, buys it in the first nine minutes trying to defend against the unstoppable force. Or maybe the score is to be settled with someone who turned his brother into the force. "
"...a war zone world...." An on-going conflict further ignited (or, detonated) by the unstoppable force, or a new one created by the unstoppable force? A local war or an interplanetary one? A last stand or a jumping-off point?
"...a one man weapon of mass destruction." One-man because of his leadership over well-armed blindly devoted followers that do whatever he asks quickly and without question, or because he has enhanced powers of some kind and is acting alone?
Is he rational? Crazed? Tragically or unwillingly became the terror?
What is his motivation? Conquest? Revenge? Random terror? Revolution?
Also, if he is a one-man weapon of mass destruction who was able to disable the entire fleet, then why can't he crush the Enteprise like a bug when he comes across it? Does he have a motivation not to?
In general: When does all this take place? Not long after Nero was defeated? The full four years? What is the general state of the Federation at this moment? Is it vulnerable given it lost Vulcan and a good chunk of the fleet was already destroyed by Nero? Don't forget the 47 Klingon ships Nero destroyed, too. Is there a power vacuum someone is trying to exploit at this weak moment in the Alpha Quadrant?
So many questions. Still no answers.
Hell, perhaps it's Robert April, and he's pissed about the canon debate over him all these decades. Maybe when they chose to make Pike the first captain of the Enterprise in this universe, it was just too much for him to handle. "That was my chance! That ship should've been mine! I could've been official canon. I could've been somebody, instead of a cartoon, which is what I am, let's face it."
Seriously, we're speculating about charcters who became villains in TOS. Why couldn't Cumberbatch be someone who was a "good guy" in TOS who goes bad in this movie? Someone even speculated it could be Kirk's brother. Why not? That certainly trumps best-friend Mitchell as a tragic figure and foil for Kirk. And, while we know Kirk emerged from a bad childhood with his fate restored, what happened to his brother?
I'm guessing they probably wouldn't have been auditioning Benicio Del Toro if it was meant to be Kirk's brother. Although I suppose that might be just as strange as a pasty white Khan.
Drago-Kazov
Fleet Captain
We met him in in the comic already.
serenitytrek1
Commander
Well, like a good synopsis, it raises more questions that it gives answers.
"...an unstoppable force from within their own organization...." If it's someone from inside Starfleet, it will take one hell of a backstory for it to be Khan. Despite a murky past, a quick background check by Spock in "Space Seed" was enough to know Khan was dangerous. Do former despots from the past get admitted to Starfleet Academy as a rule?
"...detontated the fleet and everything it stands for...." Well the fleet and what it stands for except for the Enterprise, apparently.
"With a personal score to settle...." Kirk's mother and brother get killed? Or, maybe Pike, the closest thing Kirk has to a mentor and father figure, buys it in the first nine minutes trying to defend against the unstoppable force. Or maybe the score is to be settled with someone who turned his brother into the force. "acrifices must be made for the only family Kirk has left..."because he had to defeat his brother the same way TOS Kirk realized he had to defeat Mitchell.
"...a war zone world...." An on-going conflict further ignited (or, detonated) by the unstoppable force, or a new one created by the unstoppable force? A local war or an interplanetary one? A last stand or a jumping-off point?
"...a one man weapon of mass destruction." One-man because of his leadership over well-armed blindly devoted followers that do whatever he asks quickly and without question, or because he has enhanced powers of some kind and is acting alone?
Is he rational? Crazed? Tragically or unwillingly became the terror?
What is his motivation? Conquest? Revenge? Random terror? Revolution?
Also, if he is a one-man weapon of mass destruction who was able to disable the entire fleet, then why can't he crush the Enteprise like a bug when he comes across it? Does he have a motivation not to?
In general: When does all this take place? Not long after Nero was defeated? The full four years? What is the general state of the Federation at this moment? Is it vulnerable given it lost Vulcan and a good chunk of the fleet was already destroyed by Nero? Don't forget the 47 Klingon ships Nero destroyed, too. Is there a power vacuum someone is trying to exploit at this weak moment in the Alpha Quadrant?
So many questions. Still no answers.
Hell, perhaps it's Robert April, and he's pissed about the canon debate over him all these decades. Maybe when they chose to make Pike the first captain of the Enterprise in this universe, it was just too much for him to handle. "That was my chance! That ship should've been mine! I could've been official canon. I could've been somebody, instead of a cartoon, which is what I am, let's face it."
Seriously, we're speculating about charcters who became villains in TOS. Why couldn't Cumberbatch be someone who was a "good guy" in TOS who goes bad in this movie? Someone even speculated it could be Kirk's brother. Why not? That certainly trumps best-friend Mitchell as a tragic figure and foil for Kirk. And, while we know Kirk emerged from a bad childhood with his fate restored, what happened to his brother?
WOW That is a lot . However your words has depth and subtance.I hope the writers have this too.
I should have said "potential easter egg". I see no risk in mentioning them, since there are supposedly as many deliberate red herrings as easter eggs for the new movie in IDW's "Star Trek Ongoing", and Bob Orci is seeding both types into the comics' storylines.
A potential easter egg that turns out to be misinformation is no spoiler.
Cupcake's real name, McCoy's ex-girlfriend, Kirk's brother and Aurelan, Sulu's recruitment, the origin of tribbles, Keenser's species name, the presence of Rand, Zahra, Mallory, Boma, O'Neill, Linstrom and Chapel, Sarek's dark secret: any or all of these may turn out to be easter eggs and/or red herrings. There hasn't been a blanket ban on the discussion of "ST Ongoing" in movie threads - because we have no way of knowing which ones will end up being in the film. Ditto the cover art for the "Countdown to Darkness" mini-series. Wild interpretations from fans, but if you want to be totally spoiler free, you really need to just avoid places like TrekBBS altogether.
This. I like this. I have no problem with it potentially being Khan so long as it's not a remake of Space Seed. I think it'd be pretty interesting to see how different the alternate reality is compared to the prime one; so taking characters and stories that we are familiar with and doing something completely different with them.
Works for me.
I think that Khan could be done in a Abramsverse movie and done well. However, I don't like the idea of using Khan in the first "real" film that's not the reboot story. Just from a perception standpoint. I think a lot of the audience will react to it like "wow, they're already redoing Khan, they must have no new ideas." I'd rather see them do a completely original story this time around, and then perhaps redo a familiar character with the third film.
How much of the target audience knows Space Seed or even Wrath of Khanwell enough to make a judgement about the filmmakers having no new ideas? Star Trek fans know those stories but I don't think the general audience would care anymore than they cared about The Joker being in The Dark Knight.
They don't care and in this era they expect the old stories redone.
I know lots of people who thought "wow, they're rebooting Kirk and Spock, they must have no new ideas" when they heard about the first movie. That's what reboots are all about, recycling successfull movies/tv shows instead of creating something new and original. In some cases it works, in others it doesn't. I still think it was not necessary to go back to TOS, a new movie could have been set post Nemesis just as well. With a new cast, a good story and a big budget it would have been just as successful as XI was. I'm just glad they had prime Spock there to make it actually a part of what came before instead of making it a real reboot.
Im not saying it can't be Khan, only that so far, the details we know make it sound more like Gary Mitchell. If it IS Khan then there are significant changes to the original timeline and character. I don't like Khan being in it, but if it IS him, I will reserve judgement till I see more footage.
RAMA
I think the BBS fans all over have it wrong, it doens't matter if Khan, Mitchell ect have chachet or are known, it only matters what they put on screen, and if people care about how believable/convincing it is.
After re-reading the generic synopsis, I thin the word "detonate" may be more deliberate than we thought, and probably not exactly what it seems to mean.
RAMA
After re-reading the generic synopsis, I thin the word "detonate" may be more deliberate than we thought, and probably not exactly what it seems to mean.
RAMA
- Status
Similar threads
