J.J. Abrams' Star Trek Into Darkness

[The Ween]

That was different because the Galactica connection was so loose and free. 2003 Galactica happened in an extremely different universe than the '70s one. The new Star Trek films are supposed to contain precisely the same characters as the old show/movies, different only in the timeline change and whatever resulted because of it.

The Khan thing really didn't bother me so much, but I think it would have made more sense to at least give whatshisface some of Montelban's mannerisms/look. That would better fit with the logic of how this new series is supposed to be moving forward. Klingons also looked quite different.

Cumberpatch with a mullet!

 

[Matt S]

If they got an actor that was anything like Montalban, that would've really been bad.

Honestly, I was holding out hope for Javier Bardem myself - he would have been brilliant, IMO

 

[CelticPredator]

I wanted Benico Del Toro.

 

[a-dev]

Well they tried to get members of the bridge crew that all looked and sounded somewhat like the original counterparts, so the creative team obviously thought it was important for those guys. But for Khan they decided it wasn't important. So there is some inconsistency there. There is really nothing about his look or demeanor to suggest that he's Khan.

That was different because the Galactica connection was so loose and free. 2003 Galactica happened in an extremely different universe than the '70s one. The new Star Trek films are supposed to contain precisely the same characters as the old show/movies, different only in the timeline change and whatever resulted because of it.

The Khan thing really didn't bother me so much, but I think it would have made more sense to at least give whatshisface some of Montelban's mannerisms/look. That would better fit with the logic of how this new series is supposed to be moving forward. Klingons also looked quite different.

That's a bingo. Why is Bones so much like the original Bones but Khan, without even an attempt to explain it in the film, is completely unlike Montalban in either looks or portrayal of the character. As I said he might aswell have been 'just John Harrison' or whatever that name was.

 

[The Ween]

That's a bingo. Why is Bones so much like the original Bones but Khan, without even an attempt to explain it in the film, is completely unlike Montalban in either looks or portrayal of the character. As I said he might aswell have been 'just John Harrison' or whatever that name was.

I think these movies are a mixed bag. The main characters are pretty much like younger versions of the originals, yet everything else isn't. And that's okay with me. If everything was close to the same, then these new movies would just be true reboots of the original ones. I'd rather they let that go, including old Spock. It makes me wonder what parts of Search for Spock will be in the next one. Is the new Kirk old enough to have a grown son?

Hmmm....Kruge. Now that could have promise.

 

[shockwave]

That's a bingo. Why is Bones so much like the original Bones but Khan, without even an attempt to explain it in the film, is completely unlike Montalban in either looks or portrayal of the character. As I said he might aswell have been 'just John Harrison' or whatever that name was.

 

[The Ween]

[ame]https://youtu.be/FCARADb9asE[/ame]

 

[Dr Daystrom]

Hmmm....Kruge. Now that could have promise.

No it doesn't. The way they cast non-Enterprise crew in these things, he'd just end up getting played by Tyler Perry or something (with no legit explanation why Kruge now looks/sounds/acts totally differently).

 

[imthebestatwhatido]

I am actually trying to watch the original tv series on Netflix because of the two new movies. Always liked star wars growing up but into darkness was very entertaining.

 

[Matt S]

They should have have Cumberpatch as just John Harrison, rogue terrorist.....

 

[The Ween]

I honestly don't see the big deal. Seems the way they are going is an altered timeline, so you're going to see different references to the old films.

 

[Matt S]

I honestly don't see the big deal. Seems the way they are going is an altered timeline, so you're going to see different references to the old films.

Alternate timeline is not the same as alternate reality, thus my 'issues' with a non Khan type guy being 'KHAN'

 

[Zen Mutiny]

Alternate timeline is not the same as alternate reality, thus my 'issues' with a non Khan type guy being 'KHAN'

Which is why they should just go ahead and make it official that Nu Trek existed in an alternate reality to begin with, rather than being a divergent timeline of the existing Star Trek universe. It would solve a lot of problems, free up the writers creatively, and eliminate a lot of friction that would otherwise continue to come their way from us nerd hecklers.

Of course, that's assuming that JJ and crew even care about that level of detail to begin with......

 

[Mad Old Lu]

Why the Star Trek Into Darkness Blu-ray is going to rip you off

Despite its mixed reviews, surely some of you were looking forward to the DVD and Blu-ray release of Star Trek Into Darkness. You were probably looking forward to checking out all the extras, too. Well, I have news for you, and that news is Paramount is about to screw you like Kirk in an Orion Slave Girl sorority house.

The official Blu-ray has seven mini-featurettes. Seems kind of bare bones for such a major summer release, eh? Indeed it does, because Paramount has divvied up all the other features — including the commentary tracks with the cast and director J.J. Abrams, and several additional featurettes — have been given exclusive to the Target release, the Best Buy release, and the iTunes download. Meaning 1) if you buy the normal version you're getting less than half the special features created for the home video release, and 2) if you want all of them you're going to need to purchase at least three separate versions.

Not that I was going to be buying this thing, but I hope this backfires massively on Paramount. Not just because it screws over the fans who are most supportive of the movie and the franchise, but because it's a terrible precedent to set for consumers. Hey, at least when Kirk is in an Orion Slave Girl sorority house, he ****s everybody equally.

[Via The Digital Bits]

...and here's a bit more about it:

https://www.thedigitalbits.com/columns/my-two-cents/082813_1415#.Uh9lglsfYyQ.twitter

 

[tomandshell]

That stinks. I would have at least liked to get the commentary track. That's a bizarre iTunes exclusive.

 

[a-dev]

Easy pass on the film anyway.

 

[CelticPredator]

I'll buy some cheap version down the road or something.

 

[Darkmatter]

if paramont wants to be greedy, i'll buy the cheapest version of the movie and screw the features. did anyone here the recent convention in vegas voted this the WORST star trek movie of all time? pissed off simon pegg big time.

https://www.blastr.com/2013-8-22/if-you-thought-darkness-worst-trek-film-simon-pegg-says-you

 

[Zen Mutiny]

did anyone here the recent convention in vegas voted this the WORST star trek movie of all time? pissed off simon pegg big time.

https://www.blastr.com/2013-8-22/if-you-thought-darkness-worst-trek-film-simon-pegg-says-you

If they had done something original, rather than rehashing old plot points for non-fan service, there never would have been any backlash.

 

[FQRizzo]

if paramont wants to be greedy, i'll buy the cheapest version of the movie and screw the features. did anyone here the recent convention in vegas voted this the WORST star trek movie of all time? pissed off simon pegg big time.

https://www.blastr.com/2013-8-22/if-you-thought-darkness-worst-trek-film-simon-pegg-says-you

It's not the worst, just one of the most disappointing. I loved the first JJ Abrams Trek...and then I saw this one.