Star Trek: Into Darkness

[Surlyboi]

Wouldn't be the first time.

[murdoc]

Secret agent goes rogue, gets imbued with special powers.

It's like Mission Impossible.

Nah.

I'll wait to have my mind changed, of course.

Spoilered due to size.

[Venkman]

The trailer is showing explosions and wow stuff but it's keeping the plot close to the vest.

Wuh? Rogue super agent rabbits in a huge explosion with a WMD, Kirk et al go after him to get it back, first they and the ship get beat up, and then they rally and win.

Not exactly Usual Suspects 

I doubt there'll be much in the way of core "Trek" though. And really, what is core Trek anymore anyway? Throw in a few transports, a warp jump, and some shout-outs to Sulu, and you've greased the TrekCon crowd all you need. Like every other movie, even the good ones.

For the rest, more Carol Marcus. The look on her face in that scene was great.

Curious if they'll kill someone off. This one screams Wrath of Kahn/personal vendetta/personal sacrifice format. But given how he likes delivering stories, I see a twist.

[Lakov_Sanite]

I can tell when trailers are hiding big elements of plot and this one clearly is. I'll come back after the movie comes out to eat some crow but I don't see that happening.

[UnSub]

Star-Warsy?

No. Those are his next films.

[tazelbain]

I don't see the big ideas that made Star Trek and hard sci-fi great.  So Star Trek is dead.  Doesn't matter though, I will totally go see Mission Impossible: Enterprise.  It a strange world where the Batman franchise is more sci-fi than Star Trek franchise. But if they are good movies its alright.

[Pennilenko]

We are not the nerds they are marketing to...

[Samwise]

Roddenberry's Star Trek has been pretty well dead since DS9 wrapped up, if not earlier.  Voyager, Enterprise, and all the TNG movies were mostly shit.  And the "mostly" is a kind assessment.

[Fordel]

I want to say there are a lot of nerds who would argue DS9 wasn't even Roddenberry's vision either. Which is probably why it's the best startrek.

[HaemishM]

I want to say there are a lot of nerds who would argue DS9 wasn't even Roddenberry's vision either. Which is probably why it's the best startrek.

This. The reboot was the best Star Trek I've seen since DS9. The TNG movies were mostly shit and the TNG show itself really wasn't all that great - I stopped watching it after first season. I think the trailer looks great and if Star Trek is "hard sci-fi," I'm the fucking Pope. TNG had more hand-waving narrative laziness than fan fiction and would have been cancelled after two seasons if not for the strong actors and the Star Trek name.

[tazelbain]

Regardless, Star Trek DS9 still tried to deal some big ideas in between the sexy war stuff.  Star Trek: Lens Flair while a fun action movie dealt with none.

[Ironwood]

Oh Good, this DS9 argument again.

 

[Fordel]

What argument?

[Samwise]

The reason most nerds cite for DS9 not being Roddenberry's Star Trek are twofold:

1) Roddenberry had no involvement with it (he was dead by the time they started seriously working on even the concept of the show)
2) It took place outside of the utopic Federation society -- there was money, and crime, and stuff like that.  Too "dark" for some.

Those points notwithstanding, I feel like the fact that it occasionally actually tackled interesting concepts (culture clashes between alien races as opposed to pew pew between alien races, moral dilemmas as opposed to obvious good guy vs obvious bad guy, stuff like that) put it on the level of earlier Star Treks, at least in terms of being good sci-fi.

That was also the big difference between the TNG series (which, much like DS9, got much better after the first couple of seasons as it got its legs under it) and the TNG movies (which were consistently crap).  The TNG series was mostly decent sci-fi; the TNG movies were all purple space bazookas and dune buggies.  They were basically action movies, but not very good ones.

The ST reboot was also an action movie, but it was at least a decent one.  I'm not hating on it, but I think anyone thinking the next installment is going to be "trekky" is either deluding themselves or is using "trekky" more in reference to superficial tropes than to themes and plot.

[Ironwood]

That's not what I said.

[Lakov_Sanite]

Quitting TNG after season one was a huge disservice to yourself. It's only after season one, maybe two that things ramped up.  I still prefer DS9 and TNG did have a few stinkers but there were absolute gems in there you're missing.

[01101010]

Quitting TNG after season one was a huge disservice to yourself. It's only after season one, maybe two that things ramped up.  I still prefer DS9 and TNG did have a few stinkers but there were absolute gems in there you're missing.

Shaka, when the walls fell...

[Ingmar]

Quitting TNG after season one was a huge disservice to yourself. It's only after season one, maybe two that things ramped up.  I still prefer DS9 and TNG did have a few stinkers but there were absolute gems in there you're missing.

Yeah, the first season is the worst by far, judging the series on that is kind of like judging B5 with knowledge of nothing but the pilot, which may have been the worst piece of scripted television ever produced.

[Ironwood]

Quitting TNG after season one was a huge disservice to yourself. It's only after season one, maybe two that things ramped up.  I still prefer DS9 and TNG did have a few stinkers but there were absolute gems in there you're missing.

Shaka, when the walls fell...

Or that fucking flute.

Actually, when you think about it, most of the best episodes were strong, strong Picard ones.  Odd that.

[Lakov_Sanite]

When you look up trek in the dictionary there should be a picture of that flute.

[Khaldun]

Man, a year ago Abrams et al were saying "The plot of this movie is basically Heart of Darkness with phasers". Khan/Mitchell/Garth/totally new guy, whatever he is, he's Kurtz. He's a guy the Federation sent up the river to do very bad shit, who discovered that the Federation isn't what it says it is, and he's going to bring the bad shit home. Kirk et al will have to sail up the river to kill him and face the insanity--and probably come home to clean house.

All the old fans who are going to cry about how this pisses on Roddenberry's great utopia and sense of hope and all that shit need to take a break, look at Memory Alpha for a while, and come back to tell me how many bugshit crazy Admirals there were in TOS alone, let alone TNG/DS9. All this does is kick that up a notch in terms of universe-building: in TOS, the sheer volume of crazy admirals was kind of inexplicable and weird, given Roddenberry's fantasies that the future was essentially a utopia. In Abrams' version, there's obviously going to be some rot at the heart of 'civilization' that makes corruption at the top way more explicable. With obvious allegorical application to our current times--just as Roddenbery's ST was working with late 60s America in mind.

I would bet a ton of money that Cumberbatch's super terrorist got sent to do something really bad by Peter Weller's admiral--hence his choice of initial target. And Weller's corrupt admiral will egg Kirk on in going after Cumberbatch's villain hoping that Kirk will do his dirty business for him (Kirk being cast as Marlowe in Heart of Darkness), Kirk will get his head handed to him, will have to face that he was manipulated because he's impulsive, and grow up some. At which point he will go get Cumberbatch's bad guy in a smarter way, come home and clean house, and deliver a speech about how humans have a lot of evolving to do or something like that.

[luckton]

Libertarian co-worker loves Star Trek, but he hates the whole "It's a Communist pipe dream" aspect. 

Anyways, DS9 was the greatest Trek, and I look forward to this new movie 

[Venkman]

I can tell when trailers are hiding big elements of plot and this one clearly is. I'll come back after the movie comes out to eat some crow but I don't see that happening.

Yea, between this and what Khaldun said about Heart of Darkness, I can see there being more to it. Would be nice in face. As much as I'm pretty sure I'll enjoy it if it's anything like the first, I don't truly want the Star Trek: Commander Sherpard Edition the trailers imply.

And I completely agree with you on:

Quitting TNG after season one was a huge disservice to yourself. It's only after season one, maybe two that things ramped up.  I still prefer DS9 and TNG did have a few stinkers but there were absolute gems in there you're missing.

My first real Trek was TNG, and even looking back from season 4, there was a lot of cringe-worthy stuff until Best of Both Worlds. I can see people not sticking around for three seasons hoping it gets better of course. But when people think TNG, they're not thinking Encounter at Farpoint.

Which is why I get that DS9 was considered awesome, but only in seasons well after the 1st, which is when I gave up on it.

As to Trek being hard sci fi as someone said? No fucking way. They skirt the mere edges of some interesting concepts. But they continually tried to increase their audience by lowering the common denominator with made up words to surround really pretty pedestrian concepts. Star Trek is hard sci fi only to people who think Star Wars was too 

Can't blame them though. Even with a trillion channels, TV is all about growing year over year reach.

[Mrbloodworth]

Best part of Ds9:

[HaemishM]

I saw SOME of TNG after the first season. Most of the Borg episodes which were some of the best. Some of the Data/Lore stuff. I just thought most of the plots and supporting characters (especially Whoopi Goldberg's - she always annoyed me because she was essentially a plot device to keep from having to do inner monologues) were shit. Also, I thought the writers were really unwilling or unable to shake up the series with real death. Other than Yar and Picard's two-parter as Borg, I didn't see a lot of non-redshirt death or tribulations. And the Federation was a bunch of pussies. DS9 at least had some meat to it and was much more willing to show a naturalistic society as opposed to the utopia of the Enterprise that never quite sat right with me.

Also, dilithium crystals? NOT HARD SCI-FI. They are as hand-wavy as my explanation for technomancers.

[Ironwood]

Best part of Ds9:

Well done, that doesn't work on SO MANY LEVELS.

[Merusk]

Best part of Ds9:

Well done, that doesn't work on SO MANY LEVELS.

Yeah, that's a whole new level of hotlinking linkfailure.   Host it yourself.

Oh, and DS9 bored me. I stopped watching regularly after S1 and gave up entirely with the Dominion Herp-Derp.

[Soln]

I think Khaldun nailed it.

[Sir T]

Best part of Ds9:

Well done, that doesn't work on SO MANY LEVELS.

Yeah, that's a whole new level of hotlinking linkfailure.   Host it yourself.

Oh, and DS9 bored me. I stopped watching regularly after S1 and gave up entirely with the Dominion Herp-Derp.

I think someone didn't get the point... 

And DS9 was shit. And I've seen all the "good" episodes in other peoples houses. The "bit battle" episode, was An entire recitation of "the charge of the light brigade" Gul Dukat philosophizing about the concept of victory and some guy talking about how he could not appreciate art because he didn't have the genetics to appreciate art (Racism much?) and lots of people bouncing around the screen for ninutes with 30 seconds of spaceships shooting. Would have been better as a one part episode

But yeah. Season 1 and 2 of TNG were pretty awful. Its only in season 3 that it got into its groove. You should see 'Yeaterday's Enterprise' at least, which, apart from Denise Crosbie, is My vote for best trek episode ever.

[Lakov_Sanite]

I don't get people that like DS9 or TNG and not the other. TOS is one thing, so is voyager but DS9 and TNG are basically bookends content wise.

[Ironwood]

No.  I really don't think they are.

DS9 was when they moved away from a kind of 'Culture' Federation and pretty much just made it Wild West America.  With all the Americanisms that you so despise.  Let's bring money back in, let's start a war, let's have lots and lots of terrorists.  Let's have Jake be a Journalist and turn into exactly the wrong kind of journalist.  One that ignores the fucking truth.  Hey, let's make fucking religion a cornerstone of the series from the first episode and JESUS FUCK weren't the religious episodes some of the worst fucking tripe ever.  No-one killed Nurse Ratchett at first glance ?  Really ?  She was just allowed to wander around ?  Ok.


DS9 was utter, utter excrement and I'm glad it's over.

But, hey, we're doing this fucking argument again.  Great.

[Fordel]

What argument?


She really is pretty: http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/hottest-stars-sci-fi-universe-gallery-1.39013


All the bits are in the right spots.

[Ghambit]

TNG was the pinnacle of Trek.  Period.  But not until Berman had more say in the series after season 2 and especially so after Roddenberry died.  He kept most of Roddenberry's ideals but modernized their presentation, especially with regard to character development.  DS9 did much of the same but shaved it down to "life on a space station" which to me made it bland until they started fucking around more in the Gamma quadrant, the dominion wars, etc.  Really, it didnt get good until Wharf showed up and started kicking ass on the Defiant and sleeping with Trills.

Also, we musn't get hard sci-fi mixed up with "high" sci-fi or "low" sci-fi.  All hard means is that it's rooted in actual science and that's really it.  I look at TOS and TNG as high sci-fi because of the philosophy involved and the general air of hope; though in some cases it could be considered hard since the relevant science seems to be catching up with theory (they did employ physicists after all).  Abrams' pop culture sci-fi would be considered low; the sci-fi parts are really there just for flavor and entertainment (not message) is the main premise... there's no lofty in his Trek.  Which to me is somewhat a shame as the IP really isnt built nor meant for that.

Voyager I'd consider hard sci. fi, which turned a lot of people off.  That series was really made for the Trek grognard to feast on technobabble.  I personally liked all of the Trek series', even Enterprise.. with TNG being my fav.  They all had trouble ramping up in quality though and Enterprise actually sucked more the longer it went.

As much as we spit hate at certain production years and episodes, compared with the drivel we get these days it really wasnt all that bad.

[01101010]

What argument?


She really is pretty: http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/hottest-stars-sci-fi-universe-gallery-1.39013


All the bits are in the right spots.

Bunk. Me. In. 

[Simond]

No.  I really don't think they are.

DS9 was when they moved away from a kind of 'Culture' Federation and pretty much just made it Wild West America.  With all the Americanisms that you so despise.  Let's bring money back in, let's start a war, let's have lots and lots of terrorists.  Let's have Jake be a Journalist and turn into exactly the wrong kind of journalist.  One that ignores the fucking truth.  Hey, let's make fucking religion a cornerstone of the series from the first episode and JESUS FUCK weren't the religious episodes some of the worst fucking tripe ever.  No-one killed Nurse Ratchett at first glance ?  Really ?  She was just allowed to wander around ?  Ok.


DS9 was utter, utter excrement and I'm glad it's over.

But, hey, we're doing this fucking argument again.  Great.

What's it like, always being wrong about every sci-fi series?