or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Star Trek 2 - Page 7

post #181 of 682
Check out the Japanese version of the trailer.

http://youtu.be/BrHlQUXFzfw

What does the addition footage at the end (which isn't in the American trailer) remind you of?
post #182 of 682
Hmmm.... are they going there already?

post #183 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Simonian View Post

Hmmm.... are they going there already?
"Jim, do I really have hairy palms?"
post #184 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Simonian View Post

No dude, I am not playing your dumba$$ Vulcan paddy-cake game again...
post #185 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Simonian View Post

You want me to stick WHAT between your fingers?
post #186 of 682
The rumour of the villain being Kahn had my enthusiasm lowered for this movie. As in "Please, please, Kahn's been done..in the TV show...already in a movie...can't we just explore something new rather than regurgitate over and over?" And isn't that what the spirit of Star Trek itself was all about? You always wondered each episode what new idea, new world, new plot you'd encounter because it was so wide open.

Seeing that this might be the Gary Mitchell character does get my hopes up somewhat more. While it wouldn't be new and original, at least it's not bloody Kahn again, and it would at least be a tribute to one of my favorite episodes of the original series. I always
found the Mitchell-turns-God-like episode enthralling and creepy. So if it's got to be a take on an old episode, I'd be happy with the Gary Mitchell story.

And oh how I wish the film could get a bit more cerebral at least for decent portions. Though that I understand tends to be asking too much of any big budget blockbuster these days. I don't mean intelligence wouldn't work in a movie, only that it is seen as a risk. I think most audiences actually respond well to intelligent ideas, plots, heady dialogue exchanges. When done right they only enhance the movie experience.
post #187 of 682
We likely won't even know who the damned villain is after seeing the IMAX preview this month! Wouldn't surprise me a bit.
post #188 of 682
Doesn't really matter to me. I plan on doing a media blackout for this movie just like Prometheus and Dark Knight Rises. I enjoyed the previous Trek and Super 8 enough to not have all the complaining, like Prometheus and TDKR attracted, be any kind of factor for me.
post #189 of 682
Cumberbatch seems to be acting like he's Kahn in the trailer, but the part where his eyes turn silver says to me that he's probably Gary Mitchell.
post #190 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Cumberbatch seems to be acting like he's Kahn in the trailer, but the part where his eyes turn silver says to me that he's probably Gary Mitchell.
Plus, the officially released plot synopsis suggests someone from Starfleet:

"When the crew of the Enterprise is called back home, they find an unstoppable force of terror from within their own organization has detonated the fleet and everything it stands for, leaving our world in a state of crisis."

"With a personal score to settle, Captain Kirk leads a manhunt to a war-zone world to capture a one man weapon of mass destruction."

Kirk doesn't have any sort of "personal score to settle" with Kahn when they first meet. So even though IMBD lists Benny Batch as Kahn, I'm going to guess that's not who he plays.
post #191 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

So even though IMBD lists Benny Batch as Kahn, I'm going to guess that's not who he plays.
Turns out he's not Gary Mitchell either, but a character named John Harrison:



Note the Starfleet uniform.
post #192 of 682
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Gary_Mitchell

Gary Mitchell was Starfleet too.
Edited by darthrsg - 12/10/12 at 3:00pm
post #193 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Cumberbatch seems to be acting like he's Kahn in the trailer, but the part where his eyes turn silver says to me that he's probably Gary Mitchell.

Lol! What trailer did you watch? All I saw of him was him swing a big gun or something, get punched in the face and then punch something below the frame ...and then a shot of him in a chair looking all snarley.
post #194 of 682
All of you are wrong. The villian is Q biggrin.gif
post #195 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Simonian View Post

Lol! What trailer did you watch? All I saw of him was him swing a big gun or something, get punched in the face and then punch something below the frame ...and then a shot of him in a chair looking all snarley.

While I have not seen it myself, I heard that the Japanese trailer gave a slightly bigger hint as to who the villain is. Perhaps that is what is being referenced?
post #196 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Check out the Japanese version of the trailer.
http://youtu.be/BrHlQUXFzfw
What does the addition footage at the end (which isn't in the American trailer) remind you of?
$10 says Abrams intentionally added that snippet in a foreign trailer to further the geek rumblings. He's just f&*king with us.

My take? Simply a visual nod to Wrath of Khan, nothing more. No Enterprise crew member will die in the new movie, much less Spock....there's a 3rd one to be made for God sake! I just do not see Abrams & Co mirroring the 2nd and eventually 3rd TREK films that way.
post #197 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Closet Geek View Post

All of you are wrong. The villian is Q biggrin.gif

Have always been disappointed that he was never used in the TNG movies.

Le sigh. frown.gif
post #198 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Simonian View Post

Have always been disappointed that he was never used in the TNG movies.
Le sigh. frown.gif
Agreed.
post #199 of 682
I know everybody likes Q but he was made for TV imho.
post #200 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by darthrsg View Post

I know everybody likes Q but he was made for TV imho.

I think I'd actually agree with this. Q was so popular that you'd have to do a who movie around him and his character IMO wasn't menacing enough. He was more mischievous than anything else. However, and upfront I don't know if this could be pulled off or not, but if you rewrote him to me more menacing or more of a rogue of the continuum then it might work. But I still think it would be hard sell to keep it from feeling like they're just trying to incorporate tv show concepts for the purpose of doing so.
post #201 of 682
Other than opening episode of TNG, Q comes across as a being of great complexity.
Don't know how well that would translate....
post #202 of 682
It took 3 seasons for TNG to get "good" Abrams has 2 hours.
post #203 of 682
Since I had to look up what "TNG" stood for I guess that means I can go in with no expectations... other than to best the last film which I really enjoyed biggrin.gif
post #204 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Closet Geek View Post

I think I'd actually agree with this. Q was so popular that you'd have to do a who movie around him and his character IMO wasn't menacing enough. He was more mischievous than anything else. However, and upfront I don't know if this could be pulled off or not, but if you rewrote him to me more menacing or more of a rogue of the continuum then it might work. But I still think it would be hard sell to keep it from feeling like they're just trying to incorporate tv show concepts for the purpose of doing so.

I always had hoped they would have used a Q storyline in one of the TNG crew movies. Could have been more over the top with how he screws with Picard & Co. compared to the series (in a good way).
post #205 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by jwebb1970 View Post

I always had hoped they would have used a Q storyline in one of the TNG crew movies. Could have been more over the top with how he screws with Picard & Co. compared to the series (in a good way).


And I'm soooooo glad they never did. I hated that character. Or maybe it was just how the actor portrayed that character. I just never found it either intriguing or entertaining.

BTW, that screen cap up above looks very Gary Mitchell-like in scenario. Like a part where he is beginning to get too powerful and threatening, and this is the first attempts to contain him.
post #206 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by jwebb1970 View Post

My take? Simply a visual nod to Wrath of Khan, nothing more. No Enterprise crew member will die in the new movie, much less Spock....there's a 3rd one to be made for God sake! I just do not see Abrams & Co mirroring the 2nd and eventually 3rd TREK films that way.
Folks who've seen scenes from the film have leaked that one of the key lines from 'Wrath of Khan' is also in this movie ("needs of the many..."?) As for a cast member dying: does anyone really die in these things? They either come back at the end of the film (E.T.) or in the next movie (Spock, Jean Grey). So even if they do kill off a main character, I doubt they'll stay dead.
post #207 of 682
Can't help but to think that Abrams is somewhere laughing his hind parts off about this.
post #208 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Folks who've seen scenes from the film have leaked that one of the key lines from 'Wrath of Khan' is also in this movie ("needs of the many..."?) As for a cast member dying: does anyone really die in these things? They either come back at the end of the film (E.T.) or in the next movie (Spock, Jean Grey). So even if they do kill off a main character, I doubt they'll stay dead.
True, it is almost impossible to stay dead in Star Trek. Nimoy, Shatner, James Doohan....hell even Denise Crosby could attest to that.

As to the "needs of the many" line....STII was not the only place that line came up (see opening on Vulcan in STIV) and is surely a normal Vulcan axiom.
post #209 of 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Closet Geek View Post

Can't help but to think that Abrams is somewhere laughing his hind parts off about this.
Abrams is a geek @ heart. You are right - probably loving all the online speculation based off of a teaser trailer & some IMAX footage.
post #210 of 682
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home