Star Trek Into Darkness first poster revealed http://blog.newsok.com/nerdage/2012/12/03/star-trek-into-darkness-first-poster-revealed/
Someone sent my wife a story about it yesterday. It's scheduled release date is our anniversary. Thank you, Star Trek franchise, for never has it been this easy for me to plan our night.
I read about it here: http://www.ksl.com/?sid=23229430&ni...ek-into-darkness-poster-is-painfully-familiar
From the official synopsis: How can you "detonate a fleet"? Or "everything it stands for"? Is it really so hard to hire someone that knows English? And why is "our world" in a state of crisis? Starfleet is a multi-system organization (or it was until the first movie destroyed an important part of it). This parochial thinking shows they don't get the show at all.
When I saw that episode as a little kid, the concept frightened me. I remember watching it on NBC and wondering how Captain Kirk could defeat Gary Mitchell.
That bugs me, too. But then again, my post in this thread has "it's" when it should be "its," so I have to let them slide. But seriously, are they outsourcing copyediting and hiring people who don't have a full grasp of idiomatic English?
Wow that's a terrible synopsis. Banal and semi-literate. It wouldn't be a good effort from a 10th grader.
"Five Legendary Star Trek Captains Reunite at Destination Star Trek London" (Saturday, 10/20/12) Did they already start filming this latest movie by that point? If so, is that the reason why Chris Pine wasn't with the other captains at that event? -G
Watched the trailer, it wasn't interesting -- CGI crash bang burn. Yawn. But a dull trailer doesn't necessarily mean a dull movie, it might just mean that the marketers were targeting young when putting together the trailer.
It's hard to believe just how much Abrams has Abramsed the franchise. Which once again begs the question: couldn't they have hired someone who has a genuine appreciation for the series, instead of his referential and overrated hack?
I'm curious. How does the Abram version of Star Trek differ from the series? Is it the unmaking of the classic timeline (and yeah, I can see why time travel can be an automatic deal breaker for some folks)? More reliance on special effects (and is that actually true)? Are the characters portrayed differently (and if so, why isn't youth a reasonable explanation)? What is it that makes the Abrams version so problematic?
It's because the feel of the original shows is lost. The Star Treks were a product of the Enlightenment. They were lead by scholar-athletes and crewed by the talented who all worked to get where they are. They perform their mission through thinking and reflection and understanding and empathy. The JJ Kirk lucks his way into everything. He's in his position with his crew and his ship only because he was destined to do so from the beginning and the universe bends itself to make it so. Basically, the current Star Trek is Star Wars. Even in the details it's Star Wars. There are animals far too active and large for their environment to support. There are walkways above bottomless pits with no railings. They even had a stupid "always a bigger fish" moment. That's the turd frosting on the crap cake. He's not only made a new Trek, he obliterated the old Trek in the process.
