Star Trek: Into Darkness (2013 J.J. Abrams film) <possible spoilers>

Wow, some interesting news:

Paramount Pictures will release the first 9-minutes from J.J. Abrams Star Trek Into Darkness on 500 IMAX 3D screens beginning December 14 on runs of the Peter Jackson-directed The Hobbit.

Full story on Deadline Hollywood.



I liked (but did not love) the last movie he did, but I'm hoping this one will be decent and do well. At least 1/3 of the movie is being shot in 65mm 15-perf Imax, so I don't doubt it'll be visually spectacular. Let's hope this time we'll have fewer lens flares...

 

That's a long time to wait for the next movie. Maybe they're hoping to use real starships?

John K.

 

Well, that is a very interesting ploy. I like the use of 65mm IMAX - at least it's not just Christopher Nolan who's still interested in shooting on film - and 65mm 15 perf film!

 

They don't need starships in Star Trek anymore.

 

Yeah, I feel about like Vidiot. I liked the first one okay, although parts of it annoyed me (giant water pipes in Engineering? transporting at warp? destroy all of Vulcan? etc. wtf?). But somehow the chemistry of the main players worked pretty well for me. I worry that they are going to try to bring Kahn back for this one. Seems like a bad idea to me.

 

Looks like I'll miss the movie, since I won't be around then. But at least I'll get to see the trailer when The Hobbit is released.

 

I hate, despise, loathe and down right dislike the first JJ Abrams Star Trek film but I am willing to give this a shot. I will wait to read reviews of the nine minutes to see how it goes and if it is just nine minutes of lens flairs or not.

 

I won't waste my time watching abrams spin on star trek.
if can even call it that. Should of called it. Sex trek.

 

The play on words double entendre in the title bugs me.

Other the that I'm looking forward to it, I really enjoyed the first one

 

I liked the first movie.

Interesting they are running the first nine minutes. They must feel like there is enough excitement in those nine minutes to set the story while also not giving too much away. Usually Star Trek movies are a slow build.

 

Sounds similar to what they did for the two previous Batman films - showing the first few minutes in December in front of another tentpole, and only in IMAX. Except this is only 3D, correct? That's lame, I'll skip the headaches.

The first one was okay IMO. At least the new one has Benedict Cumberbatch ...

 

I just hope there is no more senseless destruction of vintage Corvettes.

 

I just hope there is no more senseless destruction of vintage Star Trek.

 

I thought Abrams film was pretty good in spite of some issues with the overuse of lens flares, etc. to give it a sense of "reality". The original "Star Trek" is still there no one has changed it this is just a reinterpetation and for me it did a nice job of rebooting the franchise and moving it into a fresh unexplored direction outside the increasingly claustrophobic confines of the "Trek" history that's been established.

This will be interesting to see.

There's no "destruction" of vintage "Trek"--it's still there.

 

Is it though? People will now think of flashy filming techniques, swashbuckling action, sex, and CGI when they think of Star Trek whereas, before, people thought of Humanism, Progress, Technology, Sci-Fi, and so on. The intellect behind ST was brutally shoved into the shadows by Abrams, and only true fans of TOS, TNG, DS9. etc will know any better...

 

Do you know what "people" thought of when they thought of Star Trek?

NERDS

 

My wife was bending my arm to see The Hobbitt on IMAX - no more cajoling necessary, LOL!

 

Which people? The people who never went into a Star Trek film but flocked to the latest one because it was popular? On the contrary for good or Abrams film attracted a new generation of fans some of whom will discover and appreciate Star Trek who wouldn't have before.

Abrams made one film (soon to be two)and there's 46 years of Trek legacy all around. Hes done nothing to tarnish a legacy that conintues to exist both inside and outside the reinvention of Trek. Reboots always run the risk of alienating current fans and changing expectations but lets remember that not every episode of the Original Series was thought provoking and they could be action filled.

Heaven forbid that the franchise should expand its appeal beyond the core (and shrinking) group that was following Trek. That's the nice thing about Trek--it's been a good vehicle to include a wide variety of styles and approaches.

There's no way that the religious themes of "Deep Space Nine" for example would have been examined in Roddenberry's secular version of "Trek" and yet his creation allowed others to examine a wide variety of themes and ideas including not examining them by having action.

As far as the sexiness factor goes...those short mini-skirts and other elements were certainly there from the beginning and did examine the sexy aspect of Trek. Again, Trek like any good story evolves to include elements from contemporary culture that's what keeps it vital and alive.

 

STAR TREK: The Homer Simpson version!

Frankly weve bashed the first movie endlessly, but it was for sure entertaining and filmed nice, except for the silly lens flares, but it was not that they reimagined it so much, but that it had almost ZERO spirit of the original.

A reboot was perhaps wise, even needed in many ways, but totally forgetting what star trek means and its philosophy, wasnt the way to go.

It to me was simply dumbed down to the level of any typical decent enough Sci-fi/action movie. In other words, they just used the star trek "Name" and stuff, but none of what it stood for.

I look at it, now after a few years of though, as not really part of Real star trek, but a side line franchise of space action movies that are just using the logo.

 

Why didnt he just call it, ( and im being serious!) Starship troopers new timeline, or something similar?

Or was the Star Trek "name" alone the main appeal?

 

It's had a couple of years to grow on me, and I gotta say - Loved the movie, actually like the lens flares (Ooo, look, somthin' shiny! ), very much looking forward to this new one.

 

I'd also point out that Roddenberry's Trek had as much swashbuckling as was allowed for the day (and the budget). His vision--unaltered by others that is--only extends truly to the original series and the first film. Everything else builds on Roddenberry's vision of for his creation. I'd argue that beneath Abrams film there was that element of humanism, progress and technology just because it's dressed up differently doesn't invalidate it.

After the first Trek film when Nick Meyers and Harve Bennett came on board there was much the same criticism and yet their films added to the legacy of Trek.

 

I have no idea what attracted Abrams to Trek but clearly there was something even if he admitted he was never a huge fan. I suspect though that the characters and their relationships appealed to him as much as the challenge to try and reinvent "Star Trek" for a new generation of fans while trying to maintain ties to the original.

We could ask the same question of Nick Meyers and his return to the Horatio Hornblower aspect of "Trek". Again, reinventing something or expanding on that universe doesn't mean that the original material is lost or abandoned--it's still there.

You might as well ask the same question of "Enterprise" or "Star Trek Voyager" or even"Deep Space Nine" where they varied from the original vision but used it as a backdrop to expand on Roddenberry's vision for the show. The big appeal with original Trek are the compelling characters, their relationships and the drama that came out of those relationships.

Even when Roddenberry invented "Star Trek: The Next Generation" he did so partially because he knew he could sell the Trek franchise easier than making it a "new" universe or series (as he had tried with others prior to "Next Gen"). It's easier to repackage an older idea with an audience than a new one but it also allows you the freedom to do something that you might not otherwise be able to do because the money men green lit it.

Let Abrams do his new Trek film and let's see where it goes before judging it.

 

A big problem for me is the actors -- or at least their costumes & make-up. They look like Star Trek Babies, not Star Trek.

 

I feel the exact same way. The first one was garbage (except for the first 10 minutes, which actually was astoundingly good). But I might give the follow-up a shot if there is some credible praise.