Star Trek Into Darkness Discussion

Supposedly it's "Star Trek Into Darkness"
http://trekmovie.com/2012/09/07/exclusive-star-trek-sequel-title-confirmed/

Not loving it. At all..

Oh no......

Well, at least it wasn't called Star Trek: LOST or Khanfield.

I am not surprised, since Star Trek's going from all things good, bright and positive, into dark and gloomy.

Makes sense, since Cumberbatch is by reports playing Gary Mitchell. With a major motion picture budget to play with, I'd hope Mitchell's descent into madness gives us some Lovecraftian Visual moments.

I like it. It's a nice, evocative title without spoiling anything. Looking forward to this movie and how they do the Kirk/Mitchell friendship in this new timeline. Just sad it took the TOS Reboot to give us a "Q" Movie, but the TNG Movies are barely above SyFy Channel Original quality to begin with so maybe it's for the best.

Gary Mitchell already appeared in the comic based on this timeline. His story has been dealt with, and it happend much the same way it did in the original show. So unless he was just playing possum when he got shot, and he let them shoot him into space in a giant sunglasses case, and somehow looks like Cumberbach now, then it isn't Gary Mitchell. I think the Mirror Universe would make a better movie any how.

Starfleet shall bring light to where there was once only darkness!

mattmanw54301 wrote:

Gary Mitchell already appeared in the comic based on this timeline.

You say that as though that would somehow stop them from telling the story differently on the big screen. The Comic is something viewed by a handful of fans. The Movie reaches the masses. If they choose to dismiss the comics, that's hardly the first time a secondary media has been "put down" in favor of a blockbuster push.

But leaving aside the potential of the villain being Gary Mitchell, all I can say is a really well and truly pray it's not Khan. Ricardo Montoban's performance and his interplay with William Shatner is what made Star Trek II a success, not the character himself.

The imdb site has him listed as "Khan (rumored)".

Rust wrote:

mattmanw54301 wrote:

Gary Mitchell already appeared in the comic based on this timeline.

You say that as though that would somehow stop them from telling the story differently on the big screen. The Comic is something viewed by a handful of fans. The Movie reaches the masses. If they choose to dismiss the comics, that's hardly the first time a secondary media has been "put down" in favor of a blockbuster push.

But leaving aside the potential of the villain being Gary Mitchell, all I can say is a really well and truly pray it's not Khan. Ricardo Montoban's performance and his interplay with William Shatner is what made Star Trek II a success, not the character himself.

When they started the comic, they said the purpose was to create a continuation of the first film, and that the stories were all official canon. So that the comic does actually 'count', which usually they don't. Roberto Orci supervised the writing so that they wouldn't overlap with what they wanted to do in the second film.

It sounds like they're trying hard not to dismiss the comic, but in the grand scheme of things the movie will trump a comic every time.

The New Series Who already ignores stuff from the official BBC novels and Virgin books. The publisher says, "this comic will be different, it will really count" in order to try and boost sales but all will be forgotten in a year.

Besides, seeing as how comic books are a dying medium (Much like all printed media, really) it's kind of stupid to deny yourself story potential simply because you did it in a comic book only the most die hard fans have bothered to track down.

It's not like the good old days when every retail chain carried the things.

I'm totally confused. There have been so many Gary Mitchell/Khan denials and confirmations and tooing and froing, I'll wait for an official announcement.

Turns out we're all wrong and it turns out to be Harry Mudd.

...wait no. That'd be awesome.

~Reminds himself to simply take a nap that day~

It could be a lot worse- Charlie X, Lazarus, Apollo, Gorgon the Friendly Angel...

Cruel Angel wrote:

It could be a lot worse- Charlie X, Lazarus, Apollo, Gorgon the Friendly Angel...

Maybe he's Trelane!!!

I hope he will be someone new and original.....but I doubt it.

Well, if this one is anything like the first movie, it should be called.

Star Trek, The Empire Strikes Back!

LastWho wrote:

Well, if this one is anything like the first movie, it should be called.

Star Trek, The Empire Strikes Back!

No kidding, I would not be surprised if we see someone getting frozen, or someone loosing a hand, seeing as how JJ, or should I say Jar Jar Abrams, is making Star Trek into Star Wars from the start.....oh, yea, and more lens flares, I bet.

It wouldnt be a Abrams movie if it didnt have those dopey lens flares.

Whoosier Whovian wrote:

It wouldnt be a Abrams movie if it didnt have those dopey lens flares.

Well, Jar Jar Abrams is a dope if ever I seen one, I'll give you that.....does not mean he should keep doing it. You also forget another thing he likes doing: Killing off characters, just for the purpose of bringing in new ones.



Oh, yea gods, how I hope we get more guys like Wise, Kubrick, and Scott again, you know real film makers.

One thing is for sure, I'll most likely be popping in Star Trek: The Motion Picture the day Jar Jar's second bowel movement, errrr, "Trek" film comes out, or in the very least a smart episode of TNG, like "Where No One Has Gone Before". Jar Jar's not getting my money.

Ronpur wrote:

I hope he will be someone new and original.....but I doubt it.

With guys like Jar Jar? You gotta be kidding.
To Hollywood, words like new and original are taboo and dirty....it's not 'hip' and "cool....sorry......kewl" to be new and original, why do you think TV is loaded with stuff like American Idol, the Kardashians, Jersey Shore and Honey Boo Boo?

Why do you think I made new named for networks?

NBC = Nothing But Crap!
ABC = Absolute Bull Crap!
CBS = Clearly Bull Sh*t!
FOX = ...........It's FOX......
USA = Utterly Sucking Ass!

And that's just a handful.

The Castellan wrote:

You also forget another thing he likes doing: Killing off characters, just for the purpose of bringing in new ones.

Somehow I doubt Paramount will allow that in Trek's case.

Quote :

One thing is for sure, I'll most likely be popping in Star Trek: The Motion Picture the day Jar Jar's second bowel movement, errrr, "Trek" film comes out, or in the very least a smart episode of TNG, like "Where No One Has Gone Before". Jar Jar's not getting my money.

I'm in agreement with SF Debris on TMP. It's not a bad film, but the effects get in the way and end up grinding the movie to a screeching halt. It's the Star Wars Prequels equivalent of a Star Trek film.

Also, fun factoid: Encounter at Farpoint has 20% more dialogue in it then Star Trek: The Motion Picture.

Possibly "into darkness" means that to make up for the overabundance of lens flares the entire lighting deptartment has been sacked. They haven't been replaced either. The entire sequel will be so dark you might as well be paying to see a radio play.