The new international trailer for Star Trek: Into Darkness reveals a few plot clues, including a bit of the possible origin/motivation of the villain, played by Benedict Cumberbatch. Is he Khan? A disgruntled member of Starfleet? A rogue agent? Frankly, I don't care. All I know is that it's being released in the UK on May 10 (May 17 in North America) and I'm counting the days.
J.J.Abrams style is so unoriginal...opera music, super explosions, batman-voiced actors, people screaming like idiots while driving, i mean....again? this movie looks so derivative. I rated Star Trek 2009 like one of the worst Trek i ever saw (i can give that movie a 6, not more) and this one looks like copy-pasted
Jim
•
March 21, 2013 8:50 AM
Cool. Nobody cares.
Mad_Dog_Yayan
•
March 21, 2013 9:05 AM
I second this motion.
toni
•
March 21, 2013 12:35 PM
at least there is no inception horn
kitty
•
March 21, 2013 12:47 PM
Sour grapes much?
Don
•
March 21, 2013 4:43 PM
The movie was meant for the mass public and not Trekkies. It was meant as a reboot for the next generation of fans to gain some interest in a dying franchise whose movies had as much to do with politics as it did action (which personally I don't mind but today's kids don't like that).
Mr. Cavin
•
March 21, 2013 5:34 PM
Bluh. Every time I see one of these I want to apologize to Roddenberry. I want to tell him that, somehow, we have grown too immature for his vision of utopian science and philosophy. That we have resorted to retooling his ideas into propaganda for counter-terrorism and filled the remaining vacuum with bluster. It's too bad, this would have been such a neat cast in something else.
MD
•
March 22, 2013 12:51 AM
Like I always say, An action film rests on the shoulders of the antagonist. If You gotta a good villain at the driver's seat, your ride is assured to be fun.
ColinJ
•
March 22, 2013 2:35 AM
Love!!
Sorry to all the butt-hurt STAR TREK fans, but Abrams has reinvigorated the series for another decade at least.
fergus1948
•
March 22, 2013 7:26 AM
Benedict Cumberbatch's voice alone make me want to see this and I'm not normally a Star trek fan.
AnnaZed
•
March 23, 2013 12:57 PM
Super excited for this, crazed as a kid.
Jeff Wells at Hollywood Elsewhere pointed out that the disgruntled super-agent has just been done in 'Skyfall' and I still don't care. I will be there with bells on day one. JJ Abrams makes trilling, fun, witty films and Benedict Cumberbatch makes a great villain.
HipMan
•
March 23, 2013 7:48 PM
Well, at least there really aren't any overt homosexual overtones because Roddenberry was NOT down with that.
HipMan
•
March 23, 2013 7:50 PM
CORRECTION: He wasn't down with that for a year or two before his death. My mistake.
Mr. Cavin
•
March 23, 2013 7:54 PM
I like where you're going with that, though. It'd be interesting to lend our modern, more progressive vision to whatever his sixties populist definition of utopia might have been. There were indeed (plenty of) ways we could have improved on the concept. But this "super troopers battling off terrorist-type villains" isn't one of them.
-thumb-80x80-77472.jpg)
J.J.Abrams style is so unoriginal...opera music, super explosions, batman-voiced actors, people screaming like idiots while driving, i mean....again? this movie looks so derivative. I rated Star Trek 2009 like one of the worst Trek i ever saw (i can give that movie a 6, not more) and this one looks like copy-pasted
Cool. Nobody cares.
I second this motion.
at least there is no inception horn
Sour grapes much?
The movie was meant for the mass public and not Trekkies. It was meant as a reboot for the next generation of fans to gain some interest in a dying franchise whose movies had as much to do with politics as it did action (which personally I don't mind but today's kids don't like that).
Bluh. Every time I see one of these I want to apologize to Roddenberry. I want to tell him that, somehow, we have grown too immature for his vision of utopian science and philosophy. That we have resorted to retooling his ideas into propaganda for counter-terrorism and filled the remaining vacuum with bluster. It's too bad, this would have been such a neat cast in something else.
Like I always say, An action film rests on the shoulders of the antagonist. If You gotta a good villain at the driver's seat, your ride is assured to be fun.
Love!!
Sorry to all the butt-hurt STAR TREK fans, but Abrams has reinvigorated the series for another decade at least.
Benedict Cumberbatch's voice alone make me want to see this and I'm not normally a Star trek fan.
Super excited for this, crazed as a kid.
Jeff Wells at Hollywood Elsewhere pointed out that the disgruntled super-agent has just been done in 'Skyfall' and I still don't care. I will be there with bells on day one. JJ Abrams makes trilling, fun, witty films and Benedict Cumberbatch makes a great villain.
Well, at least there really aren't any overt homosexual overtones because Roddenberry was NOT down with that.
CORRECTION: He wasn't down with that for a year or two before his death. My mistake.
I like where you're going with that, though. It'd be interesting to lend our modern, more progressive vision to whatever his sixties populist definition of utopia might have been. There were indeed (plenty of) ways we could have improved on the concept. But this "super troopers battling off terrorist-type villains" isn't one of them.