Star Trek Into Darkness

[yoco]

Release Date: May 17, 2013 (3D/2D theaters and IMAX 3D)
Studio: Paramount Pictures
Director: J.J. Abrams
Screenwriter: Alex Kurtzman, Roberto Orci, Damon Lindelof
Starring: John Cho, Bruce Greenwood, Simon Pegg, Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Zoe Saldana, Karl Urban, Anton Yelchin, Benedict Cumberbatch, Alice Eve, Peter Weller
Genre: Sci-Fi

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.

As our heroes are propelled into an epic chess game of life and death, love will be challenged, friendships will be torn apart, and sacrifices must be made for the only family Kirk has left: his crew.

[mammamia11]

im not fans of star trek tv show but i liked the last one that went in theater, this one look promessing

[slikrapid]

When the crew of the Enterprise is called back home

running out of ideas? as if there wasn't enough sequels/episodes with powerful enemies attacking 'home'

'called back home' - uncle sam(wise) wants you (to fight his wars)
'force of terror' - terrorist(s) are at large
'from within their own organization' - watch out for the cloaked terrorists in your neighborhood
'detonated the fleet' - the terrorist attack
'and everything it stands for' - the national pride got hurt
'leaving our world in a state of crisis' - our? (megalomania) world? (globalism) - to fix the crisis you gotta find some scapegoats to punish (a bunch of goat herders can be the ideal patsy since the sheeple will believe anything), gotta have the 'war on terror'
'With a personal score to settle' - what kind of a president breaks the 'start at least 1 war while in office' tradition
'leads a manhunt to a war-zone world' - invade a foreign country (while you're at it)
'to capture a one man weapon of mass destruction' - at least here they found some wmd's (on the big screen)
'As our heroes are propelled into an epic chess game of life and death' - where they proudly play the expendable pawns
'sacrifices must be made' - attaboy
'for the only family ... left: his crew' - your fellow soldiers, sharing the same mess

the plot seems to be referring to the 9/11 scam all over again, as if there wasn't enough movies parroting the same nonsense - its 'indoctrination 101': repeat until everyone memorizes the keywords and subconsciously believes the official story


other than that, most of the star trek movies were decent enough entertainment (earlier are better), as for the series, these are good:

Star Trek (1966) - funny, cheesy, over-the-top cowboy-style space adventure
Star Trek: The Next Generation (1987) - likable, more mature but also melodramatic, best star trek series
Star Trek: Voyager (1995) - likable, best cgi, very good outcome

[yoco]

[Blocker]

Ohhh the last Star Trek movie was good in my opinion ,

I hope this new one won't disappoint me!

[SealLion]

The producers of these series knew a good thing. Gene Rodenberry did it right. He started a TV series in the '60's and probably didn't know how long his Sci-Fi invention would keep going. Speaking for myself only, I would find that the original series produced in that period had original Sci-Fi ideas. Something that IMHO is rare and not that often visually expressed on film. Most Sci-Fi will have exorbitant amounts of blood and gore in them. I don't recall it being so in the original series. Someone might have to correct me on this one.

Regardless, you can tell how popular this sort of series is. It's been going on for about 40-50 years now and that tells you this franchise isn't dead yet. Something that isn't all too much over the map. With the exception of some really low quality, stupid-as-hell franchises like Scary Movie version x.......well, you get the idea, eh?? Perhaps there's a few exceptions with respect to the latter mentioned. Though hopefully, those won't last all too much because they really ought to be brought to the graveyard. Buried there and forgotten. But one's like Star Trek. There's a winner, IMO. The characters may change a bit here and there to reflect newer ideas of the characters but the main personality tenets of those characters, like logical Spock, endearing-to-end-Captain-Kirk, the doctor and so forth. They still have the character builds of the original series if you look deep enough.

[slikrapid]

the last Star Trek movie was good

along with the convoluted script, its major problem is that none of the main actors were able to reproduce the level of charisma that their predecessors had in abundance, the newcomers remained decent but nevertheless pale imitations - thus it can be said that many earlier star trek movies were much more interesting to watch (even regardless of several occasions of very low-level script material)

It's been going on for about 40-50 years now and that tells you this franchise isn't dead yet.

any franchise can be 'resurrected', just look at the (ever-rising) number of prequels/sequels/remakes/... getting currently/regularly spawned
star trek has been 'as good as dead' since ~2001, the 2009 movie being more of a half-baked cash-in re-visitation...future prognosis? not good at all

[SealLion]

What makes you think it's as good as dead?? Not everyone shares that opinion. Some franchises out to die right out. Others just keep on tick'in.

[slikrapid]

'as good as dead' means (almost) nothing relevant gets produced or 'way past its prime', i'd say star trek sure fits here very well ('voyager' ended around 2001), unless you can offer arguments to support another view

[SealLion]

An opinion is not a stated fact. A fact is something that hinges on evidence. An opinion, such as yours, is some kind of appraisal formed in the mind. I don't share your opinion. It's not past it's prime. I like the series. And I'm still going to watch it.

[slikrapid]

I don't share your opinion. It's not past it's prime.

not the kind of arguments i had in mind

I like the series. And I'm still going to watch it.

i like some of it...and will do the same regarding this latest movie, but they better get their (f)acts straight or else there will be no entry in the 'worth watching' list hehe

anyways, whoever is interested in more info may boldly go to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_trek

[SealLion]

Ya. I was at the link too before when I wanted to read up on Star Trek a bit. What interested me the most at the link is the cultural and technological impact the series has had over the years. It's just amazing.

Not just this series, but other Sci-Fi shows have as well. I remember the Predator series. Most especially the 1st one which gave advanced ideas and technological construction toward ventures into pseudo-invisibility in military research. Over the years you may have noticed some militaries, most especially the advanced and larger ones, put quite a bit of money into research towards making their soldiers almost invisible. Not invisible per se, but having this characteristic of camouflage whereby you can't even see the soldier unless you looked very hard. That's what I mean. The impact of movies towards technological and cultural change and advancements.

[czullo]

I like first "new" start trek movie from J J Abrams but the new trailer looks like this:

BOOM!
"You liked the Batman films right?"
BOOM!
"This has the word "dark" in the title too!"
BOOM!
"And those blaring horns that Nolan uses!"
BOOM!
"Who cares if it looks nothing like a Star Trek movie, you like dark stuff, and horns!"
BOOM!

[slikrapid]

I remember the Predator series. Most especially the 1st one which gave advanced ideas and technological construction toward ventures into pseudo-invisibility in military research.

umm, you sure about that? seems 'active camouflage' via wearable devices was (scientifically) researched in ww2 and as far as i can remember there was nothing technical mentioned/seen in the movie (push the button, reflect the background, move stealth-like and thats about it), naturally, camouflage in general is as old as war-like conflicts (or hunting or ...)

The impact of movies towards technological and cultural change and advancements.

well, the impact is probably significant (like any mass media), more importantly its being actively used to steer those changes in such ways that are favorable to the 'big players' and their agendas, whereas what is mostly focused or discussed are usually relatively mild subjects (take the wikipedia choice of star trek influences for example)

"You liked the Batman films right?"

batman (movies) != 'the dark knight' (movies), two different guys wearing the same costume aka subversion (of a story/character)

[SealLion]

umm, you sure about that? seems 'active camouflage' via wearable devices was (scientifically) researched in ww2 and as far as i can remember there was nothing technical mentioned/seen in the movie (push the button, reflect the background, move stealth-like and thats about it), naturally, camouflage in general is as old as war-like conflicts (or hunting or ...

Ya. I'm pretty sure about that. It's this invisibility cloak that is one of the newer technologies in some combat forces. It's suppose to be this hyper-stealth technology that, from what I recall reading, bends light to create the effect of 'invisibility' Seems that since around the Predator' time, someone from the US forces, I think, expressed a strong interest in getting this kind of sci-fi technology to become a reality. Regardless. It's an example of the influence that sci-fi has in innovative technology. It's like the Star Trek hand held devices in the original series leading to the eventual development of cell phones.