Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 

Star Trek - Into Darkness


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-05-2013, 07:30
Ulsterguy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,280

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...iss-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.
Ulsterguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 03-05-2013, 09:09
Keefy-boy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brighton, UK
Posts: 8,480
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!
Keefy-boy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2013, 10:25
ThereCanBeOnly1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: The Shire
Posts: 459
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.
ThereCanBeOnly1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2013, 16:50
DarthFader
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Fareham, Hampshire
Posts: 3,395
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
DarthFader is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2013, 17:17
Virgil Tracy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 20,037
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 .
Virgil Tracy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2013, 18:05
starsailor
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 10,673
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
starsailor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2013, 19:07
Ulsterguy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,280
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?
Ulsterguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2013, 22:55
Keefy-boy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brighton, UK
Posts: 8,480
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??!!
Keefy-boy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2013, 23:01
deano0501
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,346
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
deano0501 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2013, 23:04
Ulsterguy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,280
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.
Ulsterguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2013, 23:07
Ulsterguy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,280
Earth to Qo'noS?!?!?

Taking more liberties with established Trek science canon again
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.
Ulsterguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2013, 08:36
Keefy-boy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brighton, UK
Posts: 8,480
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.
Keefy-boy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2013, 08:49
Tassium
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: It's Grim
Posts: 16,514
Liked the first one very much at first, now cannot watch it. Too tricksy and emotionally false, like everything JJ does it seems.
Tassium is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2013, 09:39
Ulsterguy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,280
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.
Ulsterguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2013, 09:43
Inkblot
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: West London
Posts: 21,048
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...
Inkblot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2013, 09:45
Keefy-boy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brighton, UK
Posts: 8,480
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.
Keefy-boy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2013, 09:54
RebelScum
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 9,171
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.
RebelScum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2013, 10:26
Marly Z
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 117
I absolutely loved the 2009 Star Trek so I'm really looking forward to this. I've heard great stuff about Cumberbatch as well!
Marly Z is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2013, 10:53
Ulsterguy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,280
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.
Ulsterguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2013, 11:10
Rip the TV Eye
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,581
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.
Rip the TV Eye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2013, 11:42
Keefy-boy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brighton, UK
Posts: 8,480
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.
Keefy-boy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2013, 12:14
Ulsterguy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,280
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?
Ulsterguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2013, 12:18
Keefy-boy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brighton, UK
Posts: 8,480
I wonder what Abrams will do to Star Wars?
Only improve it.
Keefy-boy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2013, 12:24
Ulsterguy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,280
Only in an alternate universe.
Ulsterguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2013, 12:50
Big Boy Barry
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Barry's Manor
Posts: 23,020
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.
Big Boy Barry is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 21:04.