I still maintain that detonate is used metaphorically, to show a burst of controversy and the division of starfleet in different factions based on their views for whatever idea it is Cumberbatch represents.
Star Trek Into Darkness Synopsis Revealed!!
- Thread starter StarTrek1701
- Start date
- Status
I still maintain that detonate is used metaphorically, to show a burst of controversy and the division of starfleet in different factions based on their views for whatever idea it is Cumberbatch represents.
Wouldn't anyone be a tad disappointed if they recycle an old character rather than come up with something new? Doesn't anyone credit them with originality?
Oh, right. You must have all seen Star Trek 2009 as well.
Oh, right. You must have all seen Star Trek 2009 as well.
Then why don't they just say "blah blah divided the fleet blah blah"? Detonated is so tied with explosions in the English language that any other use of the word is odd.
I think the entire point of "recycling" and old character right now is to give the fans a little treat to say "Hey! It's Gary Mitchell again!" or something. It's essentially harmless, especially if they do something different with the character. Even if they reveal to us his name, that's all we have, a name.
Who knows why. Maybe they wanted it to be ambiguous.
Even if the use of the word is odd, I still like my explanation better than the literal alternative.
I guess we'll have to wait and see.
Actually it is the odd use of "detonated" that makes people think it might not mean what it usually does. How exactly do you detonate a fleet, not to mention what its stands for? It probably doesn't mean every last ship blows up (though I wouldn't rule it out!). The "Starfleet" reference probably means more the organisation (or is such "subtlety" just wishful thinking?). Further, "divide" doesn't necessarily imply a violent event.
*** Edit:
"Force of terror" rather than purely missiles etc?
I also think it's interesting the describe the villain as a "one man weapon of mass destruction." They don't say he uses a weapon of mass destruction. They say he is a weapon of mass destruction.
Do they mean that metaphorically, in that he causes so much damage that he is colloquially described as a weapon of mass destruction? That would lean more toward a villain like Khan. Or do they mean that more literally, in that it is he himself who is the weapon? That would lean more toward someone with special powers, like Gary Mitchell.
Do they mean that metaphorically, in that he causes so much damage that he is colloquially described as a weapon of mass destruction? That would lean more toward a villain like Khan. Or do they mean that more literally, in that it is he himself who is the weapon? That would lean more toward someone with special powers, like Gary Mitchell.
serenitytrek1
Commander
[FONT=Calibri]In all honesty , am hoping the villain will be a brand new character, like star wars, strar trek should start expanding its universe more.
Oh yes, what a treat. They take someone else's creation and no doubt ruin it. How grateful fans should be.
Oh yes, a weird-looking bloke best known for playing a fashionable bastardisation of a classic character. Let joy be unconfined.
My joy is rampant. RAMPANT.
You mean a character no one outside of Trekkies that have watched every episode of TOS knows? Let's face it - most of the guest characters we care about mean nothing to outsiders. That doesn't mean that their Abramsverse versions will be terrible by default.
No, I meant Sherlock Holmes. And the Abramsverse is already terrible by default. Into Darkpiss will have to be pretty spectacular to make up for the abomination for the previous one, and I don't trust the two chancers who wrote the Transformers films or JJ "Lost (up his own arse)" Abrams to accomplish that.
He'd be a fantastic Garth of Izar.
Saying Garth of Izar over and over will make it happen.
Saying Garth of Izar over and over will make it happen.
Maybe you could just, you know, ignore it, since you seem to hate it so much.
I personally can't wait. I'm all for Khan if thats how they want to go with it, or Gary Mitchell.
I refer you to the quote in my signature. I'm a Star Trek fan, and so I pay attention when they fuck about with it.
You mean this one?
Look man, AbramsTrek obviously isn't your thing. No one holds that against you, but constantly shoving it in people's face is quite irritating.
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle about Sherlock Holmes:
Reportedly said to a playwright who asked if he could give Holmes a wife, "You may marry him, or murder him, or do anything you like to him."
(http://fanlore.org/wiki/Professional_Author_Fanfic_Policies)
When those who made the originals don't mind their work being reinterpreted and remade, I don't see why we should let it bother us, either.
Constantly? I've posted in this sub-forum probably an average of about once every 2 months. If you think voicing an opinion should be confined to people who both like something and agree with you then your sense of right and wrong is skewed.
It bothers me when it's pointless, shit and an obvious cash-in on an established name.
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle about Sherlock Holmes:
Reportedly said to a playwright who asked if he could give Holmes a wife, "You may marry him, or murder him, or do anything you like to him."
(http://fanlore.org/wiki/Professional_Author_Fanfic_Policies)
When those who made the originals don't mind their work being reinterpreted and remade, I don't see why we should let it bother us, either.
- Status
Similar threads
