"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."
So Cumberbatch is playing Darth Vader? Star Trek is sounding more like Star Wars all the time.
--------
'Random chance seems to have operated in our favor' -- Spock
It doesn't have to be a remake of WNMHGB. The idea was to tell an origin story, while setting things up so they aren't bound by what came before.
The tragedy of Gary Mitchell is a pretty good story that could use a new take. Kirk was friends with Mitchell in the academy, so making him a major character would have made sense, and given the changes that are possible, his fate wouldn't have been sealed.
Now if it IS Mitchell, and the comics ARE to be considered as events that happened (to the extent not contradicted), then they aren't going to remake Where No Man. They are going to make it a sequel. If they go that route, then at best, we'll see a brief remake of Where No Man, and the bulk will pick things up AFTER Mitchell is buried.
The movie universe does have an advantage in knowing what was going to happen to Mitchell, and writing that story from behind. It helps them.
spoilers...lol
Right, but if I were Abrams, I would have been very mindful of the history.
They took major liberties with Chekov, who really should have been like 11 years old during the events of this movie.
Yes, Nero could have made his parents have sex earlier, and that's really a brother of our Chekov, but I don't think that was the intent.
If it were me, I wouldn't have had Chekov in the movie at all. It gives the audiences something to speculate about later, and the hardcore fans couldn't complain too much because again, Chekov is 11 years old. At best, I do a cameo of the 11 year old Chekov.
Using Mitchell in the last movie would involve a fair significant rewrite. I would give him the Chekov function--smart navigator and that super beaming scene would be Mitchell's moment.
I would have actually considered making Mitchell a childhood friend of Kirk's that goes into the academy with him. Either that, or he meets Mitchell on the shuttle with McCoy, and instead of McCoy being his best friend alone, they become a group of three.
The key is the make Mitchell very likeable in the first movie with the idea of turning him into the sad villain in the next movie.
The TV show got this right without realizing it. When we meet Kirk and Spock, they are not best friends. They respect each other, work well together, and are somewhat friendly, but the seeds for their true friendship truly begin with Mitchell's death. Spock filled a void in Kirk's life, and Mitchell's death seemed to be the first time Kirk saw that Spock wasn't some emotionless Vulcan.
Oh well. They didn't go that route.
They can still establish a strong friendship between Kirk and Mitchell. We all know Abrams does flashbacks quite well.
Hm, this description is silly and doesn't really reveal much.
But "one man WMD" indeed points to Mitchell. That would be amazing. Of all ideas discussed, the idea of a "Where No Man Has Gone Before"-inspired new movie stands out as by far most thrilling to me. :)
I mean, "WNMHGB" was a simple but brilliant classic SF idea. I can't even begin to imagine how cool a new, modernized take on it in a 100 million dollar movie could be.
--------
"In earlier religions the spirit of the time was expressed through the individual and confirmed by miracles. In modern religions the spirit is expressed through the many and confirmed by reason."
"Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings."
- Heinrich Heine (1797-1856)
That's my reaction to that synopsis: meh. I know a trailer would help, but as of right now I have zero desire to see this movie.
And that sucks, I love Star Trek, but this movie synopsis sounds like a cheesey low budget movie. Not anything I would pay money to see.
RE: Yeah
by Italiantrek @ 17:43:56 on Nov 29
RE: Meh
by cdydatzigs @ 21:54:44 on Nov 27
RE: Meh
by VZX @ 20:54:33 on Nov 29
RE: Meh
by StillKirok @ 12:31:42 on Nov 28
RE: Meh
by cdydatzigs @ 15:22:21 on Nov 28
RE: Meh
by StillKirok @ 16:24:26 on Nov 28
RE: Meh
by cdydatzigs @ 16:51:15 on Nov 28
RE: Meh
by StillKirok @ 20:14:43 on Nov 28
RE: Meh
by cdydatzigs @ 22:10:14 on Nov 28
RE: Meh
by StillKirok @ 12:27:36 on Nov 29
No wonder JJ didn't say anything until now. I'd hide that turd of a description, too.
This is the plot for a GIJOE movie...I'm sorry, I'm wrong: It is a plot for an Abrams trek movie...Er, no. It's a plot for any Abrams blockbuster (Star trek, M:I...)
M:I III weapon of mass destruction, bloody villain,state of crisis, chaos, complots, action, efx...Hole plots
ST 2009: weapon of mass destruction, bloody villain, state of crisis, chaos, complots, a lot action, a lot of efx...Hole plots.
ST 2013...
I see, a 'genius'of the cinema. A very sophisticated author... A guy for 'Cahiers de cinema' ein?
Mr. Abrams, a secret: intelligent plots and commercial success are NOT ad odds.People is clever enough. Specially, trekkers.
So,no new species, no new worlds, no boldly go, no new explorations, no science fiction (well, Abrams does not like science action, so...), tons of explosions and efx. In ST 2009 they destroyed Vulcan. In ST 2013 Starfleet...
GIJOE, Transformers, Abrams's trek, It's the same stuff. Action movies in an endless army of action movies...with twin plots.
Why do we applaud the destruction of the ST soul?
The headline read: MAJOR NEWS. That was good enough! Seriously, someone needs to tell Steve that you can't overuse (i.e. water down) the term "spoiler" EVERY time news from the new film is announced. Seriously..
--------
-- Steve
"If a sixth Star Trek television series is ever realized, it will be set in the new universe." -- cdydatzigs, June 15, 2009.
Once again, the Abrams Ethic of "Make it PERSONAL" presents itself. He has his finger on the pulse of the selfishness and cynicism of this generation, which is why he was hired in the first place.
The US has seen 10 years of war, all kinds of ethical conflicts and problems but we get a "detonated fleet"( any English majors here? Is it possible to detonate a fleet?) and a personal score to settle. Once again. I may pass.
I watched MI3 to waste a little time and I was kicked in the face with all the over the top nonsense and the histrionics and of course, the PERSONAL SCORE TO SETTLE. And when I first saw that film, I kinda liked it!
Sense Of Wonder, not so much.
Oh well. I hope my expectations are proved wrong.
A one man weapon of mass destruction could certainly be Gary Mitchell. Garth of Izar would be interesting, but this sounds a lot more like Gary Mitchell than Garth of Izar.
A personal score to settle?
If it is Mitchell, it really is a shame he wasn't a major character in the last movie instead of Chekov.
One of the things that made Where No Man such an impact was that Mitchell, not Spock or McCoy, was Kirk's best friend. Obviously, we didn't get the background story to that, but the actors and writers did a good job establishing the camaraderie.
Imagine if Abrams had the foresight to know that Mitchell was going to be the bad guy in the sequel and made him a major character in the last movie?
Then the audience would be that much more invested in the character.
Of course, they can establish some of the friendship with flashbacks.
Mitchell would also be interesting in that this would not merely be a retelling of Where No Man, but a sequel to that story.
The comics covered this, but given how powerful Mitchell was, it isn't that unreasonable that he could have survived. I always thought a Mitchell followup would be an interesting story in the prime universe.
It's very possible that the movie can incorporate the post-Nero changed version of Where No Man that the comics covered.
COMIC BOOK SPOILERS....
It can also open the door for Dr. Dehner in this movie, because she was NOT in the comic book version of the story.
Sounds more like James Bond meets Star Trek than a decent Science Fiction story. And the beginning of the first sentence made me think of TNGs 2nd season episode Conspiracy.
And do we have to take has detonated the fleet and a one man weapon of mass destruction letter by letter or are those colorful paraphrases?
This official synopsis doesn't make it easier for fans to determine wich character is going to be the villain. But right now I would bet my money on the involvement of Garth of Izar. But I'm not sure if it's the role of Mr. Cumberbatch. Perhaps he's a new character.
I would have liked a space exploration story. But that's a fan's dream and wouldn't get many moviegoers into this film. They seem to need the connection to planet earth somehow. At least in Mr. Abrams book.
--------
living in darkness / longing for hope
That's for sure. I'm much more intrigued, and I'm thinking Khan is definitely not the villain.....
Sounds a bit Earth-centric with the threat level, but still could be great.
--------
"The future will be a technetronic control grid, governed by an elite not subject to traditional values." - Zbigniew Brzezinski, Between Two Ages: America's Role in the Technetronic Era (1970).
This seems like the kind of movie that could be great, if done right, and and really though out with minimal plot holes, unlike the last one, though it was enjoyable. However, this could just as easily turn out to be a disaster waiting to happen. It's all about the execution of the story and chemistry of the characters.
--------
visit my website blog at www.therealperception.com.
Double Post...
--------
visit my website blog at www.therealperception.com.
it sounds like the remake of star trek:5 with sybox big freekin deal cant jj & the surpreme court come up something origonal or what..
(1)
