Options
Star Trek - Into Darkness
According to the Mail
'Her love makes her a liability': Uhura shares a passionate kiss with Spock as her loyalty to the crew is questioned in new Star Trek Into Darkness trailer
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2318237/Star-Trek-Into-Darkness-trailer-Uhura-shares-passionate-kiss-Spock.html
I'm not a fan of the Abrams ST. I'd be interested to know if this kiss is explained by Pon Farr, or is it just included to 'sex up' the film? I always thought Spock worked hard at controlling his human side; In TOS Spock strived to be Vulcan.
'Her love makes her a liability': Uhura shares a passionate kiss with Spock as her loyalty to the crew is questioned in new Star Trek Into Darkness trailer
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2318237/Star-Trek-Into-Darkness-trailer-Uhura-shares-passionate-kiss-Spock.html
I'm not a fan of the Abrams ST. I'd be interested to know if this kiss is explained by Pon Farr, or is it just included to 'sex up' the film? I always thought Spock worked hard at controlling his human side; In TOS Spock strived to be Vulcan.
0
Comments
Glad to hear it. I don't think they have any chemistry. I hear that Uhura has pretty much taken over Bones as one of the main 3 characters even more this time. Is that true? I don't really like how she seemed to get more focus the first time around. I'm still confused that the main poster had Spock/Uhura/Kirk on it.
I hear the movie is good, so even with less Bones it's probably still worth watching. Benedict looked amazing too.
PJ
apparently some of it was shot in 65mm Imax , like the Dark Knight I imagine .
Hate to say it, but that's clearly to make uhura more of a central character, so it's less male centric for ´todays´ audiences
Is it true that a character beams from Earth to Qo'noS?
Earth to Qo'noS?!?!?
Taking more liberties with established Trek science canon again :rolleyes:
I read it on a review. Tells me all I need to know about the film.
I'm getting the feeling the re-boot was a flash in the pan, I detested the 2009 film, alternate history aside, Ensigns commanding flagships after one trip and emotional Vulcans just isn't Trek.
And a huge step down in the writing! Beaming between planets.
Daily Telegraph says that with Into Darkness Abrams has invented a new genre: the unboot.
I've rarely seen trailers that put me off a film as much as this one's do. Bad reviews and bad trailers: if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
These films have to make money which means they have to appeal to a wider audience. If they don't turn in a profit there won't be anymore to moan about. I know what I'd rather have.
Thats ok. I enjoyed the last movie and I'm looking forward to the new one. If you didn't like it just ignore it, just like I ignore Final Frontier, Insurrection & Nemesis...& Voyager...& Enterprise seasons 1&2. Even amongst the more saner Trekkies it's rare to meet ones who like ALL the Treks unreservedly. I'm happy to accept that there's plenty there to satisfy most tastes. I just got so bored of seeing discussions descend into nerdy dummy out of the pram tantrums after the last movie came out. I'm just hoping we're over that now.
This must be a new meaning of the word quality that I was previously unaware of.
Personally speaking, If this is the future of Star Trek, then I'd be perfectly happy with it stopping at Nemesis.
For me, it ignited the only interest I've had so far in the original series - the only ST series I haven't been bothered to watch.
Shocked or what.
I'm aware it's all fiction. It's how the fiction is written and directed that I don't like. I wonder what Abrams will do to Star Wars?
Only in an alternate universe.
That was Robbie Collins that did that review. He's never happy. Also, judging by his twitter, he's a numpty that's best ignored.