Star Trek - Into Darkness

UlsterguyUlsterguy Posts: 3,306
Forum Member
✭✭✭
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.
«13456725

Comments

  • Keefy-boyKeefy-boy Posts: 13,561
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I saw the film last night. That article is total cobblers. Spock/Uhura is just a side-show and the aspect that stupid article bigs up simply isn't in the film, they got almost everything mis-construed. Top film though!
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 465
    Forum Member
    Keefy-boy wrote: »
    I saw the film last night. That article is total cobblers. Spock/Uhura is just a side-show and the aspect that stupid article bigs up simply isn't in the film, they got almost everything mis-construed. Top film though!

    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.
  • DarthFaderDarthFader Posts: 3,880
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    FInd it annoying it is upscaled 3D rather than native, but the 10 minute preview when I saw The Hobbit in IMAX looked stunning. Is any or all of it in native IMAX film or is it the usual upscaling?


    PJ
  • Virgil TracyVirgil Tracy Posts: 26,805
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    DarthFader wrote: »
    FInd it annoying it is upscaled 3D rather than native, but the 10 minute preview when I saw The Hobbit in IMAX looked stunning. Is any or all of it in native IMAX film or is it the usual upscaling?


    PJ

    apparently some of it was shot in 65mm Imax , like the Dark Knight I imagine .
  • starsailorstarsailor Posts: 11,347
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    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.


    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
  • UlsterguyUlsterguy Posts: 3,306
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Keefy-boy wrote: »
    I saw the film last night. That article is total cobblers. Spock/Uhura is just a side-show and the aspect that stupid article bigs up simply isn't in the film, they got almost everything mis-construed. Top film though!

    Is it true that a character beams from Earth to Qo'noS?
  • Keefy-boyKeefy-boy Posts: 13,561
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Ulsterguy wrote: »
    Is it true that a character beams from Earth to Qo'noS?
    I don't think it would be a major spoiler to say yes. But then how would you know that??!!
  • deano0501deano0501 Posts: 1,365
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Ulsterguy wrote: »
    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:
  • UlsterguyUlsterguy Posts: 3,306
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Keefy-boy wrote: »
    I don't think it would be a major spoiler to say yes. But then how would you know that??!!

    I read it on a review. Tells me all I need to know about the film.
  • UlsterguyUlsterguy Posts: 3,306
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    deano0501 wrote: »
    Earth to Qo'noS?!?!?

    Taking more liberties with established Trek science canon again :rolleyes:

    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.
  • Keefy-boyKeefy-boy Posts: 13,561
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Ulsterguy wrote: »
    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.
    If you didn't like the last one you won't like this one. If you did like the last one (like me) you'll love this one. In my opinion this is a huge step up with a big budget that shows on the screen.
  • TassiumTassium Posts: 31,639
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Liked the first one very much at first, now cannot watch it. Too tricksy and emotionally false, like everything JJ does it seems.
  • UlsterguyUlsterguy Posts: 3,306
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Keefy-boy wrote: »
    If you didn't like the last one you won't like this one. If you did like the last one (like me) you'll love this one. In my opinion this is a huge step up with a big budget that shows on the screen.

    And a huge step down in the writing! Beaming between planets.
  • InkblotInkblot Posts: 26,889
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Ulsterguy wrote: »
    I'm getting the feeling the re-boot was a flash in the pan

    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...
  • Keefy-boyKeefy-boy Posts: 13,561
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Ulsterguy wrote: »
    And a huge step down in the writing! Beaming between planets.
    It is explained how, it's not a normal transporter. But come on, is that really going to ruin the film for you? I'm a die-hard fan who knows all the canon stuff but I'm just grateful that someone is producing superb quality entertainment set in a Trek universe (right one or not!)

    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.
  • RebelScumRebelScum Posts: 16,008
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Ulsterguy wrote: »
    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.

    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.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 117
    Forum Member
    I absolutely loved the 2009 Star Trek so I'm really looking forward to this. I've heard great stuff about Cumberbatch as well!
  • UlsterguyUlsterguy Posts: 3,306
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Keefy-boy wrote: »
    It is explained how, it's not a normal transporter. But come on, is that really going to ruin the film for you? I'm a die-hard fan who knows all the canon stuff but I'm just grateful that someone is producing superb quality entertainment set in a Trek universe (right one or not!)

    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.

    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.
  • Rip the TV EyeRip the TV Eye Posts: 1,687
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Ulsterguy wrote: »
    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.

    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.
  • Keefy-boyKeefy-boy Posts: 13,561
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Ulsterguy wrote: »
    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.
    This debate has been done to the death over the last four years. Each to their own. I once saw an interview with Jonathan Frakes when he said something along the lines of 'I used to work on a fictional starship called the Enterprise'

    Shocked or what.
  • UlsterguyUlsterguy Posts: 3,306
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Keefy-boy wrote: »
    This debate has been done to the death over the last four years. Each to their own. I once saw an interview with Jonathan Frakes when he said something along the lines of 'I used to work on a fictional starship called the Enterprise'

    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?
  • Keefy-boyKeefy-boy Posts: 13,561
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Ulsterguy wrote: »
    I wonder what Abrams will do to Star Wars?
    Only improve it.
  • UlsterguyUlsterguy Posts: 3,306
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Keefy-boy wrote: »
    Only improve it.

    Only in an alternate universe.
  • Big Boy BarryBig Boy Barry Posts: 35,293
    Forum Member
    It's too late for Star Wars. The damage has been done. With Star Trek they were able to freshen things up while still not pissing over the established incarnations. Star Trek's producers understand what Lucas never did. Take their remastering of the Original Series. They cleaned up the sound, the picture and redid the special effects, but didn't touch the stories or characters. Lucas never understood that concept. He essentially vandalised the original Star Wars trilogy by messing with scenes, changing character dynamics, dialogue and plot points. Then he made it worse with those awful prequels and terrible animated Clone Wars series. Abrams is simply going to have to build upon Lucas' terrible work when what he needs to do, is restore the original trilogy, ignore the prequels and essentially start again from 1983.
  • Delboy219Delboy219 Posts: 3,193
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Inkblot wrote: »
    Daily Telegraph says that with Into Darkness Abrams has invented a new genre: the unboot.

    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.