Future releases

But it cant be good if the very things that made ST good in the first place are absent.

It can be good in a different way. It's not like JJ Abrams ever made a secret of the fact that he wanted to make Star Wars instead, but I think he still turned out a pretty fun space adventure movie. Not as good as the original Star Wars and obviously very different from "real" Star Trek but still enjoyable to watch.

It can be a good film- I said right at the start it was an ok popcorn fiction thing- thats not the point the point is is not good star trek- its not even recognisable as star trek, if you just change all the names of everything and everyone it could be any old action cgi star wars rip film.

And the reason thats a problem is it says 'Star Trek' right there on the poster- its got vulcans, and pointy ears, and the enterprise- but its such bad ST its no longer the thing it is trying to be- so whats the point?- why drag the reputation of the original, and the material it saught to cover, down to this popcorn level?
They've taken the away the whole reason for ST exisiting in the first place.

Presumably they wanted something that would actually make money, unlike the final movies and TV series of the late '90s and early '00s that drove the franchise into the ground.

Oh dear ! theres nothing like starting something & walking away

The problem there is like many tv to film things they make an odd error- they make it not like the tv show- and change everything- instead of leaving the wining formula alone.
ST is a classic example of this- dont make kirk an admiral, split all the crew up and have a spurious excuse to reunite them all- give them ANOTHER 5 year mission and just start where we left off- out in space looking at stuff that turns out to want to kill them, then not because of the interersting moral lesson we learnt along the way and the bloody clever way they had of revealing it. And we learn a bit of science- I only know about Hiesenberg because I was curious about the hiesenberg compensator on the enterprise transporter- no kid is going to watch the new ST and be inspired to science from it. Thats ST!

Yes Azriel- get back in the bloody fight where I can be crabbit at you too!

Im here,hiding under the table ! I agree the educational aspect is missing from the new ST, The moral issues also & how to execute them, The whole hearted seriousness is not there in spades either, BUT, I still bloody like the new films ! (so there!)....(Im just crawling out now! gaining strength) There is ONE thing thats not been forgot... William(oh god,Ive shat me pants AGAIN!) ner & crews CAMPNESS, camp,camp,camp,camp ! (but I still loved it !!)

Kirk camp! How dare you- I mean-



And I'd like to see the new guy match this awesomeness-

Backed down a weenie bit ? Campness got ya didnt it ! I do believe jim Carrey did a very good impersonation of William ( oh no,NOT again! ive shat me pants!) ner, Tho I did like William( its gonna blow!) "Shat"ners boyish looks !

Not in the least! Next Generation could be even camper- first series the blokes wore dresses on board!
And the tv shows are not above getting a an increasing amount of crabbit- Spcoks Brain from the original series for example-both NG and DS9 got off to terrible starts- NG didnt get half way decent till midway through series 3 and DS9 took till the Circle episodes end of series 2 to even get interesting and its last series was a disaster that ruined a lot of what had come before.
Voyager was mainly terrible and Enterprise was running on empty with a bad idea.

But despite that they are all recognisably Star Trek, and its more than transporters and starfleets and klingons that make them all recognisably ST. Even when they are doing it badly.
The new films arent- take away the iconic names and things and there is nothing in the story or charcaters that says ST about it.
Its like a filmic changling.

Well,theyve got phazers, and Spocks EARS & I think Chris Pine does a good likeness of William (Ive got the klingons!) Shatner

Phasers, spocks ears and Pine looking a bit like Shatner is not better than transporters, starfleets and klingons- its just more stuff on the same list - take that away and its not ST- its just a mediocre, plot hole ridden cgi space fantasy, wearing a ST mask and demanding sweets off you.

I think they did a good job of setting up the characters as younger versions of themselves. It wasnt supposed to be all deep and meaningful, because the characters have only just met each other. The first reboot was there as an introduction and a set-up for all the moral/trekkie stuff which will develop as they do. I also thought the casting was pretty great for a reboot. It was exciting, well made, and had the hallmark trekky humour and there was never a dull moment. I am sure the second film will start to tackle more typically tv Star Trek stories.

Hee-hee ! I did enjoy that, its fun gee-ing people up. I bet your little wee sporran is curling a bit? Im glad Im not a "trekkie", could end up with.......

You'll know when my sporran curls up alright! It looks like this-

my (right back at ya )

As I have tried to explain to Mrs Figg in the past- that is a gesture only males should be allowed to make- its postively uncouth from a female! I dont know, you'd think getting the vote would have been far enough.

http://www.totalfilm.com/news/star-trek-into-darkness-to-preview-nine-minutes-of-footage-in-imax-3d

I didn't know that they'd even started filming. Goes to show how closely I've been following Star Trek I guess.

Kinda curious to see this but I'm not sure if/when I'll see The Hobbit in IMAX. I'll have to keep this in mind though.

Is this the oddest video game to film bidding war eve? Probably.
Asteroids. Yup the rickety, now ancient vector graphics game with the very simple premise- blow up big asteroids into little asteroids, then blow them up- is not only due for the big screen, it was in a bidding war with four studios for the rights! With Universal emerging the winner.
What is it they all see in Asteroids? Ive no idea- at best I can imagine some sort of disater movie about asteroids striking the earth- but thats been done before and never to much effect (armegeddon anyone?).

For those to young to have played the original asteroids it looked like this-



And was most notciable for its 'thrust/inertia' control which made it nigh on impossible to control the ship with any accuracy - i wonder if they will keep that notable feature in the film.

Ok technically this might not be a real film- and should probably come with a warning (pun intended!)

Just me then?

Star Trek 2 news. Theres an official plot synopsis-

“In Summer 2013, pioneering director J.J. Abrams will deliver an explosive action thriller that takes Star Trek Into Darkness.
When the crew of the Enterprise is called back home, they find an unstoppable force of terror from within their own organisation 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.”

'explosive action thriller' (at least the word thriller is in there, bet it should be in much smaller type though )

'terror from within their own organisation has detonated the fleet and everything it stands for'-
its hard to know what this is supopsed to mean due its stunning similarity to something written by an immigrant who has not learnt english yet. How do you 'detonate a fleet?' And does this mean having ripped Vulcan from the Trek universe Starfleet is next?
(and here I was hoping they might fix their portrayal of Star Fleet, as they didnt seem to understand the releationship between the Academy, Star Fleet and the Federation).

'With a personal score to settle'- personal? Rumour based on something Urban said hints at Gary Mitchell* being the adversary- in original ST he was Kirks best mate through the Academy- so for it to be 'personal' we should have met him last film. Are they going to shoehorn something in at the start so we know its 'personal'?

"sacrifices must be made for the only family Kirk has left: his crew.”- um what happened to his brother George and his mother? Or the uncle whose farm he grew up on?


*the synopsis would suit Khan just as well- especially the one man weapon thing- Khan was afterall gentically modified to be superior in every way. Perhaps they are sort of covering the Eugenics wars.

well it sounds ok in theory.

I'd say it sounds slightly better than say, leaving a toilet in a hurry and catching your manhood in the zip. But not much.