Cumberbatch & Abrams Talk Into Darkness Villain + Quinto Talks Kirk & Spock Relationship & more | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Cumberbatch & Abrams Talk Into Darkness Villain + Quinto Talks Kirk & Spock Relationship & more December 27, 2012

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Abrams,Spoilers,ST09 Cast,Star Trek Into Darkness , trackback

Another set of interviews from the recent Star Trek Into Darkness publicity tour have emerged, this time from Korea. See below for excerpts of what Benedict Cumberbatch and JJ Abrams had to say about the film’s villain John Harrison, find out why JJ says the movie’s 3D is like none you have seen before and see what Zachary Quinto had to say about Kirk and Spock’s relationship in the film. [minor spoilers]

 

Cumberbatch: John Harrison controls people’s minds in ‘Into Darkness’ + more from JJ, Zach & Chris

There is a newly released set of Star Trek Into Darkness video interviews from the Korean site Naver Movies, featuring director JJ Abrams and the actors Benedict Cumberbatch, Zachary Quinto and Chris Pine. Below are some of the highlights of what they had to say…

Benedict Cumberbatch talked about his character, John Harrison, saying…

Cumberbatch: He is an extraordinary terrorist of sorts. He uses himself as a warrior with weapons and close hand combat to just reap devastation and havoc wherever he goes and a trail of destruction follows him. What is interesting from an acting point of view — beyond doing the stunts and choreographed fight sequences….was also the psychological warfare that he acts out. He has an incredible ability to control people’s minds to his bidding and make them – well confuse the radar of their loyalties and prerogatives, so that was great fun. So it was a great mixture of intense acting scenes and action scenes.  


Cumberbatch speaking to Korean site Naver Movies

And director JJ Abrams also weighed in on the villain role and what Cumberbatch brought to it…

Abrams: Benedict is an amazing actor. He is someone who brings this incredible intelligence and depth and truth to whatever he does. When I saw Sherlock I thought "here is a guy who is making Sherlock Holmes into a character that I absolutely relate to, love watch, makes me laugh – I really feel for him. It’s Sherlock Holmes but someone Benedict Cumberbatch is  completely bringing it to life and making it real. We needed someone for this character who is going to ground the character and make him relatable and be frightening and intense and believable. Not because he is raving and insane but because he is rational. And he brought this incredible sense of sophistication and psychological complexity to the role and we were very luck to get him.

Abrams also talked about how the film tests Kirk…

Abrams: This movie begins with this group already together….idea is that it is this group of people who are being tested in a way they have never been tested before. Especially one of the main characters played by Chris Pine who really has to sort of earn his position as captain and do everything he can to protect his crew.

(bear in mind that Abrams is speaking in generalities for a Korean audience who likely are not very familiar with Star Trek, even the 2009 film which ranked 40th for the year)

Abrams also spoke at length about the 3D process, saying…

Abrams: First of all the studio required us to shoot in 3D. They said we have to do that for the economics of it. So I was really bummed because I am not a huge fan of 3D at all. So approaching this thing I went in very cynically. I knew I wanted to shoot the movie on film. I knew I wanted to shoot it anamorphically, which means we couldn’t shoot it in native 3D. But I wanted to make the version of the movie that was that was the version I wanted to make in 2D. And I thought that if we can augment it and make it even cooler in 3D, then great. Well luckily we are working with an amazing stereographer and 3D crew and we have been doing work converting the movie. There is this myth that if you do a movie that is not shot natively in 3D then it will not look as good, which is absolutely not true. The look of the movie – there are some tricks and techniques that have never been used before. And the look of this 3D is beyond what we have seen before, especially with what you can do with IMAX. The frame of the IMAX is so much bigger than the 35MM frame. The resolution is so high. In this movie all the exterior shots are done in IMAX, whether filmed or rendered if it is a CG shot. So the cool thing there you have this massive scale plus the 3D. It is really going to be a cool experience for the audience.


JJ Abrams speaking to Korean site Naver Movies

Naver movies also spoke to Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto. Pine mostly talked about how JJ Abrams is an "incredible talent." Quinto did give some details on how Kirk and Spock relate to each other in Into Darkness

Quinto: I think [Kirk and Spock] operate from different places. This movie is no exception. It is just an undercurrent of who these characters are. I think in this movie in particular each of these characters learns from the other one about how more fully to be effective in their job and in their lives.


Zachary Quinto and Chris Pine speaking to Korean site Naver Movies

You can watch the full interview at Naver Movies.

Comments

1. The Last Vulcan - December 27, 2012

The way I’m reading it is that Harrison is very persuasive but does NOT have mind control powers. I hope that we don’t get into that particular scifi chestnut…

2. Mel - December 27, 2012

There is no IMAX anywhere where I live, so that it looks good in an IMAX cinema is kind of useless for me. I just hope the 3D looks good on normal screens, too.

3. heyberto - December 27, 2012

I saw the IMAX 3D preview. I’m still not a fan, but the digital projection seems to have solved the brightness problem. I think JJ is just towing the company line here. It’s just too distracting. I hope I’ll be able to see this on a real IMAX screen, not the somewhat bigger screen this one screened on.

4. Richardus - December 27, 2012

@1
I never believed that he would have Mind powers, i think what they are talking about is how smart he is to be able to manipulate people into doing things. If you have seen Sherlock, think of Moriarty, hes the perfect example of a super intelligent manipulator.

5. Robman007 - December 27, 2012

The biggest issue I have with the IMAX format is generally, the speaker systems are way too loud and the bass way too pumped up. Makes dialogue way too much a pain to hear.

I saw Dark Knight Rises in the IMAX and while it was normally difficult to make out what Bane was saying, it was near impossible in an IMAX theater. Same went with trying to hear what any character tried to say unless they spoke with a growl like Batman. Just comes out as mumbles because the background noise is pushed up in volume

6. LtPiper - December 27, 2012

No IMAX for me here either. I’m hoping hoping hoping that this 3D is going to be a good what Hobbit had on our smaller screen as it’s the first 3D move that didn’t give me a migraine watching it.

7. Jack - December 27, 2012

I want to see the thing in 2D first — I still find even the best 3D (Life of Pi) too darned dim. In the IMAX preview, it was a) Dim and b) Tough to focus on the big picture (visually) because, between the giant frame and the 3D, there was a lot going on (in a movie where there’s already be a lot going on visually anyway).

If you’re watching a movie filmed in IMAX on a non-IMAX screen, does it still look different than it would had it not been filmed in IMAX.

8. Curious Cadet - December 27, 2012

@4. Richardus,
“I never believed that he would have Mind powers, i think what they are talking about is how smart he is to be able to manipulate people into doing things. If you have seen Sherlock, think of Moriarty, hes the perfect example of a super intelligent manipulator.”

Yes well in Sherlock Moriarity is MAJOR SPOILER: willing to kill himself to achieve his goals. I doubt John Harrison is willing to go that far.

THE WAY I READ THIS is “these aren’t the droids you’re looking for” …

… and that to me sounds more and more like Gary Mitchell’s half brother John Harrison with the super high ESPer abilities that runs in the family, and somebody Starfleet intelligence would be very interested in after the events at the Galactic Barrier.

9. David Oakes - December 27, 2012

Definitely going to see Into Darkness in 2D IMAX first – as it was filmed.

Maybe go see it in 3D on a regular screen after that to see which I prefer.

10. Vulcan Soul - December 27, 2012

One thing that has certainly not changed since the Berman – Braga times is the never-ending self-congratulatory “He is great I am great everything is great” song… Yes, we get it: Trek 12 (sic!) is the greatest movie ever and Abrams the reincarnation of God himself. Too bad they’re simply rehashing the 1930s Flash Gordon serials with slightly better explosions ;-)

11. Emperor Mike of the Empire - December 27, 2012

After seeing the first 9 mins in Imax 3d I can’t wait to see the rest of the movie. It was pure Beauty. As far as Kirk and Sock this should be the coming together of the two greatest of Starfleet History. Cumberbatch is a top notch Actor who I believe will make a wonderful Villian and I can’t wait to see what he has in store for us.

12. Emperor Mike of the Empire - December 27, 2012

#10. I agree with you to a point. Berman and them praised themselves way to much. J.J can do that. But here is the thing. Trek 09 was a fantastic movie and this one looks much better. Of course we will have to wait for the finished product of Star Trek Into Darkenss to see if J.J Really Deserves it.

13. Emperor Mike of the Empire - December 27, 2012

I don’t think Harrison is Gary Mitchell or Khan. He could either be an Augment or maybe a brother of someone Kirk had to Kill.

14. Emperor Mike of the Empire - December 27, 2012

Hey Anthony. Did you ever find out if your name was used in the new Trek Movie.

15. AJ - December 27, 2012

My impression is that Harrison’s ‘persuasiveness’ is on a par with the character of Saruman in LOTR. He never waved his arm, or used his staff; he was just able to use an adversary’s weaknesses to be incredibly persuasive.

16. Anthony Pascale - December 27, 2012

RE: My name
I dont think so, ask Bob next time he is around.

Maybe the threequel

17. J.C. England - December 27, 2012

It’s nice these folks are giving interviews & all,
but we’re still FIVE MONTHS away from this release…
These interviews & innuendos are going to be
forgotten by the time we see the movie…

18. MJ - December 27, 2012

“There is this myth that if you do a movie that is not shot natively in 3D then it will not look as good, which is absolutely not true.”

I don’t think this is scientifically accurate/factually correct, no matter how much JJ may want to believe it is so.

19. Jack - December 27, 2012

10. They were saying that during the filming of Trek V. ;).

And that’s the thing — nothing interesting ever usually gets said, for any film project, in these advance interviews. Unless there’s a funny story involving an embarrasing nude scene, or a funny-but-not-serious accident on set or something. So the interviews and the stories are usually vague and boring. I wish they’d make up a story about a drunken fistfight on set, or a Cho/Yelchin or Orci/Kurtzman romance or something to sell this thing ;).

20. dmduncan - December 27, 2012

1. The Last Vulcan – December 27, 2012

The way I’m reading it is that Harrison is very persuasive but does NOT have mind control powers. I hope that we don’t get into that particular scifi chestnut…

***

Why do you think persuasiveness is not a mind control power?

21. dmduncan - December 27, 2012

Took me a long time to understand Frank Herbert when he said that what he called in his Dune universe “the voice” was real and not a fiction of his imagination.

There are no Bene Gesserit that teach it, I think, but it is real just the same.

22. somethoughts - December 27, 2012

I saw the 9min imax preview and was blown away, hats off to JJ, and all involved. My only wish is that it was out now :) and that it would be 2hrs 45mins like a true epic not a 2hr half epic one

23. Sybok - December 27, 2012

Mind Control eh? If Harrison starts asking to share everyone’s pain, I think it’ll be obvious what character he’s playing.

24. Ed Waters - December 27, 2012

I believe Harrison, as powerful as he is, is being
controlled by the real threat to the Federation.
Cumberbatch’s character, while capable and
menecing enough by himself, is but a StarFleet
officer who has had his principles and morals
changed drastically, but we may not discover
this until near the end of the movie. It will
be a cliff-hanger with a sequel planned.
My guess is that the actor John Gatt, who is in
the movie but whose role is top secret still,
plays the real enemy – and if I’m right,
I know well who he is and that he is the
greatest threat ever to the Federation ever.

25. Obsidian - December 27, 2012

Sigh. It sounds awesome, but one ST episode every three years? Come on, bring trek back to TV.

Even one two hour made for TV movie each 3-6 months would be awesome.

26. Bob Tompkins - December 27, 2012

The more we hear, the more we have to believe that Harrison is Khan or his right hand man, the political leader of Khan’s uprising; the Augments’ power over the minds of their followers was charismatic, not mind weapon- based.
He’s not Garth of Izar; that would reduce Cumberbatch’s role due to his shape- shifting. JJ would not do that.
He’s not Gary Mitchell, who had no mind powers over others’ behavior.
Harrison’s not powerful enough to be Trelane or Q, who wouldn’t need to influence the minds of men to get things done.
Section 31 would conveniently fit in since they are canon and dealt with in a few canon Enterprise episodes- and have ways of making people angry and disillusioned.
The real giveaway is the bodies in the cryotubes.

27. Bob Tompkins - December 27, 2012

Bring it back to TV on CBS owned Showtime cable net…
It would open up whole new vistas and sneak in a little nudity here and there..The Great Bird would like that…..lol

28. Captain Archer - December 27, 2012

26. Bob Tompkins

And maybe he’s JUST John Harrison.

29. Brandon - December 27, 2012

So it’s looking like we have the “manipulative villain allows himself to get captured as part of his diabolical plot” plot.

…again. Silva from Skyfall, the Joker from TDK, Loki from The Avengers…and of course our villain is a perfect mix of Joker, Hannibal Lecter, and Jack from the Shining. Unbeatable, even though he’ll no doubt be beaten.

Did a 14-year-old on some Trek message board write this fanfic?

30. Brandon - December 27, 2012

And since when does everything have to be about revenge? II, VIII, IX, X, XI, and now XII….Quentin Tarantino would be proud of all these revenge pics.

31. Curious Cadet - December 27, 2012

@27. Bob Tompkins,
“Bring it back to TV on CBS owned Showtime cable net…
It would open up whole new vistas and sneak in a little nudity here and there”

I can see it now. A crossover with the Spartacus Vengeance planet. Imagine Kirk Spock & McCoy with that version of Merrikus …

32. braxus - December 27, 2012

#7- Yes IMAX improves picture quality even on 35mm screens, because they started with a high rez source to begin with. That said I saw Dark Knight Rises in both IMAX and digital AVX projection. The digital projection was half as bright and no where near as detailed or sharp. Im not a fan of digital projection at this time, until they improve it to at least 4K or better. I see the screen door effect too often with digital projection. Film doesn’t do that.

33. Basement Blogger - December 27, 2012

J.J. Abrams says above, “There is this myth that if you do a movie that is not shot natively in 3D then it will not look as good, which is absolutely not true.”

It’s not a myth, J.J. I’ve seen between twenty and thirty films in 3D. All the conversions lacked pop and were too dark. To paraphrase Roger Ebert, you cannot make a 2D movie into 3D. That’s because the conversion process is like creating a cinematic pop up book. I will commend Abrams for thinking about 3D when filming. Maybe he adjusted the lighting. We do know he had camera shots of the sets without actors to assist the conversion process. But again, it’s logical to see that native 3D is better than the pop up books of conversions.

Link. How to convert a 2D movie into 3D and why shooting natively in 3D looks better.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2010/01/how_do_you_convert_a_flat_movie_into_3d.html

34. Curious Cadet - December 27, 2012

@28. Captain Archer,
“And maybe he’s JUST John Harrison.”

We can only hope. However, the IDW comics give us some food for thought …

Maybe is is REAL mind control. It’s canon that a shadow organization within Starfleet was behind the Archon experiment in mass population mind control. If Starfleet could implement that level of mind control over an entire planet, what could they do on a localized level? John Harrison may well be an average guy who became the Starfleet prototype a la Captain America …

35. Buzz Cagney - December 27, 2012

these aren’t the droids you are looking for….. Cumby is playing Obi Wan.
No wonder JJ isn’t interested in Directing Star Wars. He’s just made 2 of them already.

36. Forgotten Evil - December 27, 2012

If they really wanted the Korean market, they could have Psy play one of Khan’s people.

37. Jack - December 27, 2012

32. Thanks. The dimness really makes it tough to watch a movie.

38. 750 Mang - December 27, 2012

Harrison is one of Khan’s crew. The only one they woke up. Spock Prime told Starfleet about the Botany Bay, to avert chaos from Khan in the future. Starfleet was using Harrison as a one man Seal Team 6. Kept the others in suspended animation until they are needed. The movie will end with Khan being awakened.

39. Jack - December 27, 2012

Basement Blogger: The bit about the myth is qualified, to explain why he thinks it’s now a myth:

“There is this myth that if you do a movie that is not shot natively in 3D then it will not look as good, which is absolutely not true. The look of the movie – there are some tricks and techniques that have never been used before. And the look of this 3D is beyond what we have seen before, especially with what you can do with IMAX. ”

That’s what he’s saying. Whether or not we agree with him, we’ll have to see.

40. Jack - December 27, 2012

And that was a 3-year-old Slate article you linked to — again , agree or not, it sounds like JJ is saying that THIS film looks pretty great in 3D.

41. MJ - December 27, 2012

@39. Jack, Basement Blogger is 100% correct. JJ is deluding himself. Conversions never look all that great and are always darker. It’s like coloring black and white movies — the result is never as good as if it had been originally shot in color because of the actual physical/scientific limitations of trying to produce something as good as original source materials.

42. Jeff O'Connor - December 27, 2012

#38

The thought has definitely crossed my mind as well. I wouldn’t be surprised and it would fit the Hollywood modus operandi of the Comic Book Super-Movie like a glove.

I wouldn’t mind it either, really. I’ve kind of hoped for a more attached 2-and-3 pair of movies for years now. But my only major hope would be that at that point we definitely saw a fourth film with this crew, so there’d be at least just one more grand sweeping outing with them that has nothing whatsoever to do with the Augments. Otherwise it would almost feel like the Abramsverse assembled the Starvengers with the sole purpose of defeating Khan.

43. Jack - December 27, 2012

Okay. My only point was — it sounds like in the quote he’s saying they can, with new techniques — look good. Again, it’s been a few years since Alice in Wonderland. Some conversions, like that last Harry Potter, looked pretty great (it was in 3D, wasn’t it?).

44. Punkspocker - December 27, 2012

I saw the IMAX 3D preview and to be honest, I didn’t care for the 3D. It didn’t make me feel like I was emotionally or physically connected to the film. The first few minutes of the story most certainly did, however. Hey, JJ’s the filmmaker, I’m the audience who just wants a kick ass, award winning freakin’ Star Trek. I think we’re going to get get it.

45. Curious Cadet - December 27, 2012

@38. 750 Mang,
“The movie will end with Khan being awakened.”

While I can get on board with your premise otherwise, if they tell us Khan is gonna be in the next movie, what exactly will they have left to tease us with?

46. Daz - December 27, 2012

Chris Pine always looks as bored as hell at these things..

47. Jack - December 27, 2012

44. I didn’t love it either. The chase scene was really cool. But JJ’s camera moves around pretty quickly — add 3D to that, and it’s tough to see/follow everything that’s going on. And FX usually looks especially phone in 3D, IMO.

So, even with native 3D, is all the FX work essentially done in conversion? IE, on the computer using the same (or a similar) process as converting? Since it’s all CGI, anyway?

48. Jack - December 27, 2012

phone = phony. Again, just my opinion.

49. The Last Vulcan - December 27, 2012

@4. Richardus – As long as he doesn’t become some sort of Jedi “take over your mind power” guy, I’m happy.

@19. Jack – Orci/Kurtzman romance. Now THAT I’d like to see.

@20. dmduncan – Sure, being persuasive is a mind control power to some degree but it’s a far cry from the tired scifi cliche of taking over someone else’s consciousness to have them do things, bla bla bla.

@23. Sybok – Yeah, I dare say that some of the characteristics are rather Sybokian, as well as taking vengeance against Earth, the center of the Federation, for doing not much of anything while Vulcan was zapped… but I still don’t think that JJ, boborci & Co. would go in that direction.

50. 750 Mang - December 27, 2012

@45 It’s just like the end of Batman Begins when we knew the Joker was going to be in the sequel. That didn’t hinder any anticipation for The Dark Knight.

51. Basement Blogger - December 27, 2012

@ 40 43

Jack, the 3D conversion process has not changed. That Slate article is basically correct. 3D cameras will catch much more information, light and shadow, that you won’t get when you convert. The conversion process can’t put all that information in It can’t show the depth, nooks and angles of a cave wall for example. But read my post on 33, I DO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT ABRAMS IS DOING SOMETHING DIFFERENT IN CONVERTING 2D TO 3D. . He shot scenes without the actors to assist in the conversion. That should tell you the basics of conversion are the same. It’s still a cinematic pop up book.

And by the way I saw two conversions with the “new” technology that you claim is here. Titanic and Star Wars: The Phantom Menace, THE 2012 CONVERSIONS. . Cameron spent a lot of money converting Titanic. I’ll just let Roger Ebert talk about the 3D conversion for Titanic.

“But “Titanic” was not shot for 3D, and just as you cannot gild a pig, you cannot make 2D into 3D. What you can do, and he tries to do it well, is find certain scenes that you can present as having planes of focus in foreground, middle and distance. So what? Did you miss any dimensions the first time you saw “Titanic?” No matter how long Cameron took to do it, no matter how much he spent, this is retrofitted 2D. Case closed.” Link below.

Star Wars: The Phantom Menace (2012 conversion) was too dark and lacked pop. The little girl sitting behind me cried, “Daddy I can’t see anything.”

The best 3D film I saw was a dance documentary called Pina. Great because director Wim Wenders shot in 3D and set up shots to take advantage of it. Link. If you want to see how great native 3D looks in a recent movie, go watch The Life of Pi 3D.

Links.
Roger Ebert’s review of Titanic the 3D conversion for THIS YEAR.
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120403/REVIEWS/120409998

Trailer for Pina; you can almost see the 3D in this 2D preview; check out the last comment by the Wall Street Journal
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNuQVS7q7-A

52. Curious Cadet - December 27, 2012

@50. 750 Mang,
“It’s just like the end of Batman Begins when we knew the Joker was going to be in the sequel. That didn’t hinder any anticipation for The Dark Knight.”

Except that’s not these guys’ m.o.

Hard to imagine Abrams giving away the farm to set up the next film. It’s just not his style. More likely it will be an obscure TWOK “Remember” moment, so that way he can play his little guessing games with the fans for the third film.

53. 750 Mang - December 27, 2012

@52 They almost did it with ST09. They were very tempted to show the Botany Bay after the credits. Just because you know it will be Khan doesn’t mean there won’t be lots of plot points to hide. Besides, these guys love the Nolan movies. Just look at the new poster, it’s a total pull of the Dark Knight Rises poster.

Either way, I’m just keeping my fingers crossed for decent dialogue n the new movie. #EitherThey’reGoingDownOrWeAre

54. BulletInTheFace - December 27, 2012

#26: It’s obvious he’s NOT Khan.

55. Jack - December 27, 2012

No, sometimes conversion is absolutely lousy. Although it’s getting better. But does that mean a good-looking converted film is impossible?

That’s what I took from JJ’s comment.

Plus, he’s also selling a darned movie.

And Ebert hates 3D. I agree with his reasons. I think Life of Pi and Hugo were the only movies where he’s said he’s thought 3D added value to the experience.

56. Curious Cadet - December 27, 2012

@53. 750 Mang,
“They almost did it with ST09. They were very tempted to show the Botany Bay after the credits.”

Yeah that keeps getting troyted out … wasn’t that something Lindelof said by himself? Did anybody else ever verify this was a serious consideration?

Also, I never heard the commentary on the DVD, did he say it perhaps meaning it would have been cool to do something like that if they had known Khan was going to be in the next movie?

I guess what I’m getting at is they ultimately didnt do it, even if it was considered, because Abrams doesn’t do this. Lindelof is a small part of the team, and he may have really wanted to do it, but they couldn’t commit on Khan, and/or Abrams put his foot down. We just can’t know.

And I’m not entirely sure Lindelof’s comment wasn’t the first of many misdirects we have been given as blatantly obvious clues. Either way, this is not enough to convince me Abrams would lock himself into that kind of sequel, or deprive himself of the ability to maintain the mystery surrounding his movies.

57. 750 Mang - December 27, 2012

@56

I hear ya. But these guys keep talking about this as a trilogy. If it is the second part of a three story arc then there must be connective tissue.

But I could be wrong. It’s been known to happen. When I read the shooting script of ST09 I never thought fat hands would make the cut, so whadda I know?

58. Jack - December 27, 2012

What does ‘they almost did it’ mean? I didn’t hear the commentary either (damned iTunes) — but, in whatever context they talked about it, if they seriously did — they didn’t do it.

And also. With these guys. It seems unlikely that they’d so readily telegraph the identity of the villain of the next movie. Not impossible — but it doesn’t fit Abrams MO (I know, Abrams didn’t write it or the sequel, but still… and I know, they also like clues… and misdirection). So it’s entirely possible.

59. Aix - December 27, 2012

I’m a bit tired of them complimenting Cumby here and there. Aren’t the cast/ crew overselling him a bit? I went to the movie house yesterday and when the STiD trailer came up and Cumby’s face was focused there were shameless squeeing from the audience! It’s hilarious. I say, SOLD.

I hear this is the first time an IMAX film is converted to 3D. Hope it turns out great. Now that would make JJ a ’pioneering director’.

60. Jack - December 27, 2012

Sorry, basically the same thing 56 said better than I did.

61. 750 Mang - December 27, 2012

@58

Hey, I don’t really care if they do or don’t introduce Khan. I just want a great Star Trek movie again. ST09 could have been, the cast was perfect, but the script sucked. The villain’s motive was thin, at best. Nero blamed Starfleet and Spock for not stopping a supernova? Where was the Romulan fleet?

And how exactly did Kirk’s father dying advance Trek technology by 100 years?

Lastly, the dialogue was terrible. I’m hoping that was because there was a writer’s strike happening while it shot preventing the team from fixing bad stuff as they heard it.

Ehhh… it doesn’t matter. The brain trust quit sending me Christmas cards years ago.

#NumbTongue

62. Jack - December 27, 2012

I just read the 2007 version of the Trek 09 script online — if it’s legit, it’s generally better at parts (like K and S meeting in the cave and the supernova bit), or at least explains more, than what made it onscreen. Some cuts (the email with the virus) were good.

Quite a lot of dialogue was cut…

63. 750 Mang - December 27, 2012

@62

Sadly, fat hands and numb tongue survived.

64. 750 Mang - December 27, 2012

I should add that fat hands / numb tongue is as painful to watch as Worf’s zit in Insurrection.

65. virgin vulcan basement nerd - December 27, 2012

I saw The Hobbit and the Star Trek 9 minute preview on the IMAX 3D recently and was BLOWN AWAY. I had read so much naysaying online that I had low expectations. For me all the criticisms seem pretty bullshit and I would really prefer to see Trek in 3D.
Btw, I saw The Hobbit in 2D as well and it’s a very different experience. 3D IMAX pwns.

66. Jack - December 28, 2012

“I should add that fat hands / numb tongue is as painful to watch as Worf’s zit in Insurrection.”

Ha! Me, I thought Urban, Pine and Michael G. mostly pulled it off, but yeah.

The interrogation scene — completely pointless, maybe apart from showing Nero’s wife. There wasn’t even particularly important exposition. Basically, had all the dialogue in that scene may have well just have been “homage, homage” “homage!”

67. 750 Mang - December 28, 2012

@66 Jack

Agreed. The actors did a great job with bad material.

The interrogation scene was pointless. Nero destroyed all those ships at Vulcan but needed to torture Pike for Starfleet defenses?

pffft…

68. WellH - December 28, 2012

@59 They were just responding to the journalists’ questions, in this case, a Korean movie website supposedly only for Korean audiences; it’s just nowadays there are no boundaries in terms of the web-verse, plus the villain is still mysterious and Cumberbatch is a hot commodity at the moment; it’s normal that the press would be curious. To be fair to the cast and crew, you won’t expect that they’ll trash Cumberbatch while answering questions about his casting or performances in the movie, will you?

69. J - December 28, 2012

What Abrams said didn’t make much sense

70. Jack - December 28, 2012

I haven’t mentioned this yet, but the volcano threatening to destroy a planet (to quote a character) seemed a little hyperbolic. The civilization and a big chunk of a continent, maybe? Geologists?

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2012-superVolcano.html

71. Jack - December 28, 2012

71. …and reminded me of a certain supernova.

Nice shout out to Nibiru, though.

72. Jim Nightshade - December 28, 2012

I think this 3d Imax movie is going to be the best conversion so far….I . saw the 9 min. preview and the Imax three d was brighter and clearer….our heroes running thru the red vines really made the vines look three d and other shots looked great too….it looked better to me than popup….you know hi wants the best for his movie…..it’s great he filmed it in Imax that seems to help the brightness clarity three d issues…least it seemed brighter n better to me…I also like the superior sound systems in Imax theatres…
In our area the only huge Imax screens..are in Seattle at science center we have two newer chain Imax certified theatres one at southerners mall another in lackey wA….while not as huge they are bigger n loudr than all other
theaters ….except the huge screened Imax theaters….

73. Son of MJ - December 28, 2012

72 when are people going to understand a dark 3D image has nothing to do with it being converted or native 3D, if your theatre is showing a image thats to dark, get off your but and complain to the management and the projectionist.

The reason the image is to dark is that they are trying to be cheap and save on bulb hours, by either setting the lamp output to low or using a bulb that should have been retired months ago.

74. MJ - December 28, 2012

@73

My son,

I have seen many movies that were both shot originally in 3D and ones that were converted to 3D, and I have seen these in a variety of different theaters. As a result, I can categorically state that converted 3D movies always look darker that movies that were filmed with native 3D cameras. This is a fact.

75. Mark from Mainz - December 28, 2012

IN MEMORIAM Jesco von Puttkamer has died today. RIP.

76. Garth Faction - December 28, 2012

Yes, just because they considered having the Botany Bay at the end of the first doesn’t mean Khan is the villain. Even if they showed it, wouldn’t mean this, but could be more like “look who he faced off with next” while skipping over it (ala Red Dwarf).

As for technology: I think Nero’s ship has brought a lot of advanced technology back into time. As has Spock Prime.

Imagine if Spock Prime ended up being connected to the villain of the trilogy — that he had good intentions, trying to salvage the Federation, but in doing so ended up creating all kinds of messes and power-grabs? He started with directing them with warnings about things he knew was to come, and people saw the opportunity and slowly directed him to their own desires.And so he is being used for some black-ops group which has fundamentally taken over control of the Federation?

77. Mark from Mainz - December 28, 2012

Here is the link
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1695

78. spock69 - December 28, 2012

The whole issue of 3d darkness is exactly the same issue as 2d out of focus. Mindless people are left to run our cinemas nowdays who couldn’t give a rats arse about quality and have no idea how to set up an a/v system. You can go from one cinema to another and watch exactly the same movie and have a completely different experience because the staff have no clue as to the requirements for setting up! They are the same people that have a tough time making those rotten hot dogs. Nuff said.

79. Optimistic Doodle - December 28, 2012

“…and we were very luck to get him.”

I doubt they’ll be so lucky to get him back for the sequel.

However, I guess it’s better he doesn’t return.
(I mean, this ain’t a television series ;-)

80. Davidos - December 28, 2012

I have an (off topic) question.

There’s been all the fuss from the film makers that the name of the film shouldn’t have a colon in it. Apparently this would carry some negative connotations. I’m pretty sure that throughout history there are some colons which have done terrible things and some colons which have been both effective and unnoticed. I am not sure that the failure of Nemesis was down to its use of a colon.

I wouldn’t consider myself anything but a casual viewer despite the fact I am posting here. But I’m sure I’ve seen loads of films with colons in the title. Why has it been so important to avoid one here?

The title sorta sounds a bit weird to me without a colon. Maybe they should call it Star Trekking Into Darkness. That’d be better.

81. CAPT KRUNCH - December 28, 2012

I always figured TREK did well in Asian countries, but that isn’t the case.. especially Japan, who are so into scifi, anime, manga, etc…
As far as 3D…i figure ill see it in all of it’s formats..IMAX 2-3D regular 2-3D..probably a couple of times…I saw TREK’09 11 times when it ran and loved it everytime….as most of you probably will or did..
Seeing the shot with the cryotubes, or whatever they were, one would be drawn towards the Khan sleeper scenario, though it seems odd that JJ would give that much away…they keep calling Harrison a super being, one man destructive force with physical and mental abilities greater that normal men…this certainly sounds like Khan or one of his people???…
I had had this idea originally that the Klingons found the Botany Bay first and sent one of them back to infiltrate Starfeet as a spy or whatever.. or maybe it was race between Starfleet and the Empire to find the Botany Bay based on what prime Spock knew..etc….Its seems that Prime Spock would be a pretty good resource to have around for possible future events..though I suppose the future is unknown in the JJverse….

82. Gary - December 28, 2012

Damon Lindelof Talks STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS

http://collider.com/damon-lindelof-star-trek-2-into-darkness-interview/220137/

83. Captain Mackenzie Calhoun - December 28, 2012

@ 61.
“And how exactly did Kirk’s father dying advance Trek technology by 100 years? ”

I’m not sure how much I buy into this but I heard someone say that the reason the technology is advanced is because Starfleet wanted to be “on guard” and “prepared” for any new threats. They funded or whatever they do in the future (extra gold-pressed latinum steered into projects?) new technology because they felt “out-gunned” (and rightly so) by Nero’s advanced weaponry and ship.

And I also agree with your script issues. I enjoyed Trek ’09 and am grateful for NEW Trek. I just have a problem with explanations like this NOT being in the movie. I don’t need everything laid out for me but huge gaping plot holes need to be filled. For example, where the heck was Nero all that time? (Yes, I know the Klingon prison camp but only because of the DELETED scenes that are on the DVD.)

84. crazydaystrom - December 28, 2012

81. CAPT KRUNCH –
“I saw TREK’09 11 times when it ran and loved it everytime”

I saw it 10 times, which is FAR more times than I’ve ever seen a movie at the theater. It be came a project for me, with a date, with buddies or alone…support the franchise! And yep, in spite of the few things i didn’t like about it, I LOVED it every time!

85. The Last Vulcan - December 28, 2012

84. crazydaystrom – I saw it a mere four times but the last time with my wife. She enjoyed it far more than me even on my first time around. As a complete non-Trekker, she couldn’t understand why I wanted the movie to stay on the Kelvin. :(

86. The Last Vulcan - December 28, 2012

82. Gary – Sounds like Damon is doing just a tiny bit of damage control as it seems that the producers have been aware of the shudders through Trekdom that some of their pre-release info and scenes have created. Still, it will make no difference. It’s still gonna make half a bil at the box office and more than that on DVD, etc.

87. Basement Blogger - December 28, 2012

@ 55

Jack says,

“No, sometimes conversion is absolutely lousy. Although it’s getting better. But does that mean a good-looking converted film is impossible?

That’s what I took from JJ’s comment.”

That’s not what Abrams said. Here is what Abrams said again.

“There is this myth that if you do a movie that is not shot natively in 3D then it will not look as good, which is absolutely not true.”

He is making a statement that a converted movie will look as good as native 3D. That’s pretty much impossible since, again, a 3D camera rig will catch much more visual information than converting a 2D image by creating a cinematic pop up book. I agree that technology changes and there maybe someday that a supercomputer will be able to capture all the nooks and crannies of a scene. But that day is not here yet.

And I never said that a converted movie can’t look good. But you are getting an inferior visual product in comparison to native 3D. I do believe that the CGI shots will look good. Again, I have seen the latest technology in Titanic and Star Wars: The Phantom Menace. The pictures are too dark and they lack pop.

Ebert is correct in loving Hugo and The Life of PI. Both films were shot in native 3D i.e. with 3D cameras. And Scorsese took a lot of effort to set up the 3D shots in Hugo. Scorsese continually says he wants to shoot in 3D again. I have yet to hear him say conversion is okay.

88. BeyondtheTech - December 28, 2012

Ugh. The wait is so long. Why are they doing this so early?

Bookmark the countdown. At the time of this post, 139 days to go.

http://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/generic?iso=20130517T00&p0=179&msg=Star+Trek+Into+Darkness

While I’ve never been to a convention or wore a uniform, my iTunes copy of Star Trek ’09 has had a permanent, reserved space on my iPhone, so I could watch it or revisit any scene on demand. Can’t say that about any other movie I’ve watched or owned!

89. Jack - December 28, 2012

80. Davidos. Hmm, saw this bit on Star Trek’s, er, colon. google Chris Pine and colin and you get other kinds of sites entirely.

http://arts.nationalpost.com/2012/12/27/cultural-lessons-of-2012-star-trek-into-darkness-is-banishing-the-colon-and-thats-a-good-thing/

90. Reign1701A - December 28, 2012

83: Actually, Uhura’s dialogue to Gaila (which Kirk repeats to Pike later on the bridge) confirms that he was on Rura Penthe (“Klingon Prison Planet”). So Nero’s time is still accounted for, albeit not as clear as it could’ve been had they kept the deleted scenes.

Uhura: I was tracking solar systems and I picked up an emergency transmission.
Gaila: Really….
Uhura: Yeah, from a Klingon prison planet.
Gaila: No…
Uhura: Yeah, a Klingon armada was destroyed. Forty-seven ships.
GAILA: So… you’re not going back to the lab tonight?

That’s the Narada’s work.

91. Basement Blogger - December 28, 2012

@ 72

Why 3D movies are too dark.

Son of MJ, first let me warn Jack and others who hate when I re-post research, that you are making my argument that it’s okay to repeat a thought. Why? Not everyone has read the original thought or research. Obviously you have not read the research on why 3D cinema is too dark. So Jack avert your eyes from this post. I don’t want you to get upset. Second, I have to fight with the son of MJ now? Oy vey.

Here it is again, okay. The reason why 3D movies are too dark has nothing to do with a perceived light bulb problem. It’s because you get two separate images, one for each eye. You then wear DARK POLARIZED GLASSES to decode the images. Link.

Why 3D Cinema is so dark from Film.com. . It’s a very short article.
http://www.film.com/movies/why-is-3-d-cinema-so-dark

92. Jack - December 28, 2012

“….And (not all industry experts agree with Lipton that this makes a big difference), if filmmakers didn’t plan ahead and initially shoot the feature in 3-D, allowing the director of photography to add light and optimize it for the big screen — you guessed it — darker. And none of the above factors in the projector, which is also wearing 3-D glasses (i.e. a polarizing filter). Better theaters compensate with brighter projectors but odds are your aging, butter-stained neighborhood multiplex doesn’t. In Lipton’s opinion it all adds up to 3-D films screening with one-third the light level of a 2-D film.”

93. I am not Herbert - December 28, 2012

yeah… this will be a hard-sell in Korea too… very sophisticated… =)

there are some GREAT movies coming out of Korea!

see:

Musa the Warrior

Legend of Shadowless Sword

War of the Arrows

94. I am not Herbert (retired) - December 28, 2012

yeah, John Harrison is a “mash-up” of Khan & Gary Mitchell…

i know it’s stupid, but that’s what we get from Bob, JJ, et al… =(

95. Gary S. - December 28, 2012

94. that is a guess.
We dont really know who Harrison is .

96. Captain Mackenzie Calhoun - December 28, 2012

@ 90.

Maybe I do need things explained to me in movies after all. Lol. But I still don’t see how that accounts for all those missing years to the average movie-goer. Joe Non-Trekkie didn’t have his his trusty 4 issue mini-series “Countdown” comic book or listen to the commentary and watch the deleted scenes on the DVD. Maybe I’m just dense but thought the script (or at least the editing) had some problems. I really enjoyed the movie. I’m not out to bash it. Just thought it had some flaws. But maybe it’s my brain and short attention span that’s the problem. Really looking forward to STID regardless!

97. Robman007 - December 28, 2012

I’m not really sure I care anymore who Harrison might be or might not be. He looks like a compelling villain. Can’t wait to see.

On a side note..anybody listen to the Star Trek: Original Series 15 Disc Soundtrack? What an amazing piece of work. Totally worth every penny. My favorite Star Trek soundtrack release ever.

98. steve - December 28, 2012

Hi Boborci, if you’re reading this thread: been trying to catch you with a question about the 3D. Is there any chance of doing a deal with the theaters to present at least some IMAX showings in 2D? I know the theaters all want to show films in 3D IMAX because of the higher ticket prices, but for those of us doomed to always see the “flicker” in 24fps 3D presentations, this would be a great option allowing us to see the big screen IMAX presentation without the flicker-fest…

Perhaps the IMAX theaters could be persuaded to show a 2D version just once a day, like maybe the first showing, which is usually pretty sparsely attended?…

99. Odradek - December 28, 2012

Jesco von Puttkamer

Ruhe in Frieden

100. Red Dead Ryan - December 28, 2012

Paramount is in the business to maximize profits, and to keep costs as low as possible while keeping the shareholders happy. That is why J.J Abrams has to convert the sequel into 3-D. He obviously doesn’t want to, as his statements are clearly about towing the company line.

Paramount has to maximize profits off of the Trek sequel to compete with other studios’ blockbuster releases.

Plus, they know that a lot of suckers will pay good money to see the movie in sub-par 3-D conversion.

101. ManCity - December 28, 2012

should have been bloody Gary Mitchell – the best villain created by Trek!

102. Lt.LanaShelby - December 28, 2012

I still like Talosians as the best Trek “villans”. They were not just evil, they had a purpose and in the end were reasonable.

103. Robman007 - December 28, 2012

Best Trek villain ever was

The Doomsday Machine

Nuff Said

or Piglet.

104. Do You Wanna Dance - December 28, 2012

Seriously, though. Why “John Harrison?” Were they afraid of using a name that sounded Arabic, Indian, Spanish, French, Asian, or just plain alien?

I get Cumberbatch is as white as toast and the name probably matches now, but we know that he was not first pick to play STID’s villain.

105. LogicalLeopard - December 28, 2012

61. 750 Mang – December 27, 2012

Hey, I don’t really care if they do or don’t introduce Khan. I just want a great Star Trek movie again. ST09 could have been, the cast was perfect, but the script sucked. The villain’s motive was thin, at best. Nero blamed Starfleet and Spock for not stopping a supernova? Where was the Romulan fleet?

***************************

I thought the script was okay. The villiian’s motivation requires a bit more knowledge to justify, perhaps. The lead in comics I believe established more of Nero’s backstory, and his pregnant wife who died on Romulus. Apparently, he was the leader of the miners who delivered decalithium to Vulcan so it could be turned into red matter. After he did so, the Vulcans voted against giving the Romulans red matter, and Nero vowed that if anything happened to Romulus, he was going to hold them accountable.
And when you think about it, if you’re a Romulan, and you watch the Vulcans withhold red matter long enough for Romulus to be destroyed, then Spock comes to contain the supernova, what would YOU think? That it was intentional. The kids on Romulus are probably wearing “Nero was Right” t-shirts.
**********************************************

And how exactly did Kirk’s father dying advance Trek technology by 100 years?

************************************************

The simple answer is that technology isn’t advanced 100 years, but the bridge looks updated because the 1960’s Enterprise set looks ridiculous now.
The in-movie answer is that technology is probably advanced because of the scans taken of Nero’s ship and weapons by the Kelvin. And, if you believe the deleted scenes are somewhat canon, the information that the Klingons got from Nero’s ship directly, which was probably also gained by the Federation and Romulans through spying.

***************************

Lastly, the dialogue was terrible. I’m hoping that was because there was a writer’s strike happening while it shot preventing the team from fixing bad stuff as they heard it.

********************************

What was bad about the dialogue? I thought it was pretty good and natural from the most part. Of course, there were some painful moments, “This cadet is trying to save the bridge”, but it was pretty good from the most part. “I’m not going to be there” is the most heartbreaking line I’ve heard from a Trek movie since “Ship….out of danger?” Pike’s speech was great (aside from the Federation peacekeeping force slip up) Bones’s intro speech was great. And I loved Spock’s “However, if you think the crew would be better served by my roaming the halls weeping…” line as well

106. Basement Blogger - December 28, 2012

More on why 3D cinema can be too dark; showing 2D films with the 3D filter still on; what Abrams thought about the darkness issue in 3D cinema ….

Yes, Jack not everyone agrees that 3D is too dark. (@ 92) But as you correctly quoted the article, the projector is also wearing a filter. To demonstrate that this also dims the light, certain theaters would refuse to remove the 3D filter for 2D films. The result? The 2D movie was too dark. Link. (Sorry to link articles, but this is actual evidence, since the Boston Globe’s reporter had sources inside the the theater.) I actually had this happen to me while watching Super 8. Had to see it in two theaters to realize this. The manager of the first theater told me they did leave in the filter for 2D movies. At the Hobbit, a manager told me they now remove the 3D filter for 2D movies.

The article also points out when filming in 3D, the director of photography can make adjustments for the darkness factor plus the 3D camera rig is capturing more light and shadow for 3D. The result? Movies shot in native 3D don’t suffer as much. For example, no problem seeing what was happening in Prometheus’s scenes inside the alien ship or the goblin cave in The Hobbit. When 3D is an afterthought, there’s a problem. The Last Airbender and Thor (both conversions) were visual mud. I liked Thor by the way.

But back to Star Trek Into Darkness 3D. By the way what was Abrams’ thinking about the 3D darkness issue before he was “required” by Paramount to release STID in 3D? Abrams said this in 2010:

“When you put the glasses on, everything gets dimmer. It all gets a little gray and muted. You get into it, my brain adjusts to it after a while, but for the first few minutes, it seems less than the experience…I’m not totally on board.”

Abrams at Comic Con 2010.

Anyway, I am encouraged that Abrams was thinking about 3D and its conversion before he started filming. Perhaps he made adjustments to lighting. As I said before, he did assist in the conversion process by shooting sets without the actors.

By the way, Jack, I’ve noticed you like disagreeing with me. Okay, let me give you some more red meat. Here’s my quote:

“When I can go outside, here on earth, during the daytime and there are no clouds, the sky is blue.”

Enjoy, Jack and post away.

Links

1. Some movie theaters would leave in 3D filter for 2D movies causing them to look too dark,
http://www.boston.com/ae/movies/articles/2011/05/22/misuse_of_3_d_digital_lens_leaves_2_d_movies_in_the_dark/

2. What did J.J. Abrams think about the 3D darkness issue; from Comic Con 2010
http://trekmovie.com/2010/07/22/jj-abrams-talks-3-d-movies-super-8-at-comic-con-full-abramswhedon-panel-report/

107. olly - December 28, 2012

Cumberbatch is huge in Korea and Japan so I think Star Trek will do very well there.

108. Jeff O'Connor - December 28, 2012

I quite liked the script for the last movie. I never suspected the writers hadn’t been given the chance to properly touch it up and such. There were indeed a few iffy lines, but the vast majority of the flick was up my alley.

I wish I could make a universal alley for my fellow Trek fans, but alas. :\

109. MC1 Doug - December 28, 2012

I saw the nine minute trailer yesterday on an IMAX screen (and in 3D). If this nine-minutes is any indication, this looks to be a VERY exciting movie (and this is from someone who has some major issues with the TREK 2009)…

And what was maddening (but in a good way) that even after seeing what we did see, I still haven’t the foggiest idea who the villain is. I still want it to be Gary Mitchell.

One quibble…. what the hell is the Enterprise doing beneath the surface of an ocean? The Enterprise is a starship, not a submarine!

110. Optimistic Doodle - December 28, 2012

Hopefully, they’ll put more cool bonus material on the discs.
E.g. more deleted scenes, making of stuff …
A bit more backstory is always nice.

111. Basement Blogger - December 28, 2012

@ 109

I too had issues with Star Trek 2009 though liked it. And I agree with you. The first nine minutes of Star Trek 2009 are very promising. I don’t think Harrison is Mitchell. Still back to the first nine minutes. They raise the Prime Directive. I’ve complained that the first movie needed to be more like Star Trek and they deliver with a conflict regarding the Prime Directive. We’re going to be talking about this for sometime. What was Gene’s intent?

And get this. They demonstrate the need to keep secret their existence secret just like TNG’s episode Who Watches the Watchers and dare I say, Star Trek; Insurrection? That’s the reason why they hid the Enterprise underwater. And yeah, the question will become does Kirk violate the Prime Directive to save Spock? I really hope non-Trekkers get the Prime Directive since it went by so fast but there could be more on this in the film.

Five months is long time to wait….

112. Theta Sigma - December 28, 2012

So Benedict Cumberbatch is playing The Master from Doctor Who

113. Jack - December 28, 2012

‘By the way, Jack, I’ve noticed you like disagreeing with me. Okay, let me give you some more red meat. Here’s my quote:’

I’m not a big fan of lazy thinking — or bullying people who disagree with you or who don’t think in absolutes (like you did with Montreal Paul, accusing the guy of impersonating people and of insulting Trekkers — simply because he disagreed with you).

114. Ran - December 28, 2012

I saw the 9 minutes. preview and as much as I was blown away by the visuals, I was getting the feeling that, again, the movie is a summer blockbuster non stop action. The actors are running, jumping, falling, ascending, diving, flying and shooting. All these in the first 9 minutes. I really hope the script is better than the first J.J. movie.

115. Basement Blogger - December 28, 2012

@ 113

Jack says,

“I’m not a big fan of lazy thinking — or bullying people who disagree with you or who don’t think in absolutes (like you did with Montreal Paul, accusing the guy of impersonating people and of insulting Trekkers — simply because he disagreed with you).”

Well, Jack you don’t have a sense of humor. (the joke @ 106) And now you’ve now accused me of lazy thinking. You’ve also attacked my thought process. Yeah, all that research I post to support a point is lazy thinking. And wow, I’ve never given you anything by calling you anything. You’re the one that jumps on me constantly. But I believe in free speech so PLEASE DISAGREE WITH ME IF YOU WISH. You also accuse me of bullying people. Please ask my friends on this site if I bully people. Ask MJ or DMDUCAN who don’t agree with me on issues if I’ve bullied them. That thought is probably making them laugh. And how did I bully someone on this site? Please enlighten us. Did I threaten to take a Trekker’s lunch money?

But I want to make this ABSOLUTELY CLEAR. I NEVER ACCUSED MONTREAL PAUL OF IMPERSONATING PEOPLE. I HAVE GOTTEN INTO SPIRITED DEBATES WITH HIM BUT HAVE NEVER., REPEAT NEVER ACCUSED HIM OF BEING SOMEONE ELSE. .

116. Jack - December 28, 2012

“Please ask my friends on this site if I bully people. Ask MJ or DMDUCAN who don’t agree with me on issues if I’ve bullied them. That thought is probably making them laugh. And how did I bully someone on this site? Please enlighten us. Did I threaten to take a Trekker’s lunch money?”

Fine, you’re delightful and popular. And now your rounding up a posse. I’m incorrect –I can’t find the post about Paul — maybe you called him a troll. It was something to the effect of the guy disrespected all Trekker’s opinions — because he disagreed with you. And maybe someone was impersonating you. I have no idea. But it bugged me and I should have said something then. How ’bout mocking everybody who disagrees with you?

There’s pointing out factual and logical errors — and then there’s respecting opinions. I get that you’re a lawyer, but posting a few links isn’t going to convince me of anything more than that you have an opinion. Maybe you were kidding with the Khan stuff and the continuing repetition of evidence and insistence that people don’t have a right to make up their minds for themselves. And if you start claiming you have a watertight argument — well, then some folks might be tempted to point out the flaws.

Even now, instead of a fair discussion — you’re bringing your buddies into it. “Enlighten us” Not too sporting.

117. Jack - December 28, 2012

BB — please forget I said anything. Name-drop away. Post links like crazy. It’s all fine. Yes, JJ is apparently absolutely wrong — you’ve proven that conversion cannot ever look as good as native 3D (in fact, you’ve just shown some opinions of Titanic and Phantom Menace [15ish-year-old films recently converted]).

Jeepers, disagree with the guy. But proving he’s ‘ scientifically’ (not your words) incorrect, by citing a few articles that actually do no such thing. Wait to see if the bloody thing can look good.

Or let us have a discussion about all this and how 3D works — but instead, you constantly call me out by name for disagreeing with you. Or pointing out that the stuff you’re posting as absolute evidence isn’t saying what you think it is. Have an opinion, sure — but let me have mine.

118. Son Of MJ - December 28, 2012

MJ and Red Dead, please don take this the wrong way but educate yourselves before you talk about things you know nothing about. like 3D conversions, and filming.

Again if you are seeing a movie in 3d CONVERTED or otherwise and its to dark get up and complain its the fault of the Theatre, FACT

119. Son Of MJ - December 28, 2012

Seriously if its darker it is cause the theatre is being cheap and trying to save on bulb hours by having it set at a lower level than its suppose to, or they are using a bulb that should have been retired months earlier.

Xenon bulbs are expensive and alot of chain theatres are cheapskates when it comes to this expense.

Seriously MJ or Red Dead have you seen a 3D movie in one of the Grand movie palaces like the Chinese or the El Cap, or the Village Theatre (you especially MJ your a SOCAL resident) or even in a venue like the Cinerama Dome. These venues with fully trained and staffed projectionist make sure the movie looks exactly as it should look.

And again if its to dark at your local theatre complain and get a refund then follow up with a complaint to the 1-800 number seen at the end of the film credits. so the studios will get on their case.

120. Jack - December 28, 2012

To BB. Forget I said anything. Bad day. I won’t comment on your posts.

121. Basement Blogger - December 28, 2012

@ 116, 117

Sigh. As I said above, I never said you could not have an opinion. If you don’t like me or anyone using your name, then post without one if possible. Heck, Aurore calls me by my first real name which is really boring. It’s Bernie. (Don’t get upset, ,I’m not asking her for support, it’s just an example..) Sorry, that you don’t like it when I support a point with sources. And I’ll have to accept the fact you seem to acknowledge I did not say Montreal Paul impersonated other people. He and I had a spirited arguments and he gave as good as he got. Can’t see how that’s bullying him.

As for other Trekkers viewpoints, I don’t agree with some of them at times. But I do look at them. A Trekker , I think it was Montreal Paul, asked me to re-watch TOS Assignment Earth which I did. I ended up agreeing that Gary Seven could overpower Spock making him a candidate for Benedict Cumberbatch’s character. And after the official synopsis came out, here’s what I said about the Gary Mitchell theory in post 165, November 26 story:

“Here’s my take. I’ve always said it’s Khan. But you Gary Mtchell supporters now have more evidence. Mitchell could be the “unstoppable force of terror within their own organization” that “detonates” the fleet. (Ugh, hate that word even if accurate. How about “destroy.” ) Anyway, that force could be Starfleet officer Gary Mitchell. And after Mitchell destroys the fleet, he escapes to the war zone planet and Kirk must this “one man weapon of mass destruction.” Okay, the Mitchell people could be saying that Mitchell could easily be a “one man weapon of mass destruction” because of his telekinesis.

What about the actual evidence for Gary Mitchell? Okay, going over the secret video, Cumberbatch had pointed sideburns and black hair. Gary Mitchell? Starfleet undershirt. Gary Mitchell?” Link.

See, I did try to see another viewpoint. I watched Assignment Earth and analyzed a question from another viewpoint. Anyway, feel free to disagree but might I suggest a solution. If my writings bother you, maybe you shouldn’t read them. You’ll be much happier.

1. Link. I see another opinion and look at the evidence from that viewpoint.. See post 165.
http://trekmovie.com/2012/11/26/breaking-official-synopsis-for-star-trek-into-darkness-revealed/

122. Basement Blogger - December 28, 2012

@ 120

I’m sorry you had a bad day. Feel free to comment on anything I have to say.

123. Vultan - December 28, 2012

Anyone else see this?

http://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie-talk/proof-hollywood-no-ideas-184257816.html

124. Poliander - December 29, 2012

Hey, I actually found out that Khan is indeed in the movie. Look here:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4913817/

125. Aurore - December 29, 2012

“Heck, Aurore calls me by my first real name which is really boring. It’s Bernie.”
______

Boring, you say?

I think “Bernie” is cute…

:)

I also think Benedict Cumberbatch plays John Harrison.
Not “that other name”.

As for 3D?
I’ve never watched a movie in that format….yet.

I’ll know what to think about it in June….maybe.

:)

126. Disinvited - December 29, 2012

Happy trails, Harry Carey, Jr. (BTTF, GREMLINS). It was a good ride, pardner.

127. Disinvited - December 29, 2012

#126.

BTTF III that is.

128. olly - December 29, 2012

#123 Yes the poster was unoriginal and as someone who would have loved to have seen Cumberbatch up close on the poster I was disappointed. I much preferred his Empire magazine cover. Very powerful

129. Basement Blogger - December 29, 2012

@ 125

Hey Aurore,

I hope everything is going well. By the way, I don’t hate 3D. I just want filmmakers who deliver a movie in that format to use it well because there’s an extra charge for it. I don’t want it to be just a cash grab.

Recent films that I loved in 3D were the dance documentary Pina. Director Wim Wenders said he would not film in 2D again. Link. Martin Scorsese’to s Hugo was beautiful in 3D. Hard to imagine it in any other way. Scorses also wants to film in 3D again. There’s a film out now called The Life of Pi. If it’s still playing I recommend you see Ang Lee’s masterpiece in 3D.

1. Link. Wim Wenders tells NPR he will never film in 2D again. The 3D is so good that I thought the dancer were in the theater.
http://www.npr.org/2012/01/14/145123337/wim-wenders-on-pina-a-dance-documentary-in-3-d

130. Aurore - December 29, 2012

@ 129

I’m well, Bernie. Thank you for asking.
I hope you are too!

Thanks for the recommendations and the link ; I will check it out.

131. Baroner - December 29, 2012

Am I the only one who is afraid that this movie is going to be a generic action flick, which doesn’t really do any justice to the soul of Star Trek?

132. Basement Blogger - December 29, 2012

@ 131

Baroner,

I understand your concerns. We’re not going to get a cinematic version of The Inner Light. That being said Star Trek has always had action with its ability to say something important. See TOS “Arena.” So lets hope there are big things to think about along with the explosions.

Go see the first nine minutes with The Hobbit. You’ll be very pleased. The conflict is do our heroes obey the Prime Directive. I’ve been looking around the net as to see what Roddenberry’s intent with the law. It’s a very good start to Star Trek Into Darkness.

133. Ahmed - December 29, 2012

@ 123. Vultan – December 28, 2012

“Anyone else see this?

http://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie-talk/proof-hollywood-no-ideas-184257816.html

Thanks for the link, it seem that Hollywood is indeed the land of no new ideas. That why we see all these sequels, reboots .. etc

I hope that the final poster for Star Trek Into Darkness will be a different & unique one.

134. TrekMadeMeFat - December 29, 2012

Of course, the poster for the last one was very original and the true fans didn’t like that one either.

Indeed, if it seems like the true fans frequently contradict themselves by posting random negativity that doesn’t match up with their previous contentions, it’s because they do.

135. Ahmed - December 29, 2012

@ 134. TrekMadeMeFat – December 29, 2012

“random negativity” !! What are you talking about here ? If you look at the poster, you could easily see how uncreative the poster is. I don’t think it is considered negativity when we hope for a better poster.

136. Dennis Bailey - December 29, 2012

“Random negativity” pretty much covers it, yeah.

Like that song Grouch Marx sang in “Horse Feathers:”

“Whatever it is, I’m against it!”

137. Baroner - December 29, 2012

132: of course, I hope you’re right. It’s just hard when you get so little info leaked out about plot lines that are “trek significant.” I’m feeling optimistic now, though, as I just saw Skyfall and was very satisfied. Not that there’s any relation but there’s always that fear with Bond movies as well.

138. chrisfawkes.com - December 30, 2012

The nine minute preview gave some great character moments capturing the tos characters we all know.

Looking forward to this film but hoping we don’t have another wrath, vengeance film for the third film.

But then despite the fans crying that Iron Man 2 sucked because it was a rehash of iIron Man against someone else in an Iron Man suit they are trotting out the same story for Iron Man 3.

I won’t see Star Trek in 3d. I still believe that format will be dead in the water in 5 years.

The film did not seem darker this time due to the glasses.

The glasses are still very uncomfortable taking you out of the movie at times.

3d is simply ridiculous anyway even if the glasses were no problem.

139. Baroner - December 30, 2012

Couldn’t agree with you more, Chris. And thanks for the info.

140. John from Cincinnati - December 31, 2012

If John Harrison ends up as being the actual named villain in Star Trek all I have to say is…

Imagine the next movie title

Star Trek: The Wrath of John Harrison.

doesn’t quite cut the mustard.

141. Harry Ballz - December 31, 2012

Well, then, John, how about Colonel Green, in the briefing room with the phaser?

Ah, much better!

142. John from Cincinnnati - December 31, 2012

or how about this…

Star Trek: The Terror from Topeka

Star Trek: The John flushes

Star Trek; The Harrison Files

Star Trek: The Revenge of the unholy Evil John Harrison! (wooooo, scary)

143. John from Cincinnnati - December 31, 2012

Star Trek: The Harrison Strikes Back

144. Disinvited - January 1, 2013

STAR TREK: THE HARRISON FORDS HOME

145. Harry Ballz - January 1, 2013

They should have called the villain HARRY JOHNSON.

That way Uhura could have called for Spock’s help, yelling, “help! I’m being attacked by a harry johnson!”

Then just watch how fast Spock jumps through a glass window!

A trailer like that would pull in a much bigger audience!

146. TB - January 3, 2013

I believe John Harrison is a cohort of Khan, another superhuman from the 20th century. Because of the new timeline, Khan will die early on & Harrison will be the one to seek revenge against starfleet for killing his “family.”

147. Jackson Roykirk - January 3, 2013

I fear one of the major characters must die in this film. No spoilers for those who haven’t seen the original films, but one of the early Shatner-era Trek films featured a major character death, and it arguably helped make that film one of the best Shatner-era Trek films.

So, if there are only three Abrams-era Trek films, and if JJ wants to shake things up by killing off a major Trek character, he would probably need to do it in this film. It would be too much of a downer to end the trilogy with a major character death in the third film. And it’s also possible that STID could end on a cliffhanger to hype the third film. Shades of Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back.

Then again, maybe the simple addition of a few good Klingon characters would be enough to guarantee the success of the third film. They got cut from the 2009 film, they were the primary baddies in the ST:TOS timeline, and I think audiences would love to see JJ’s re-imagining of the Klingons. Done with Romulan baddies. Done with human baddies (after STID, anyway). Too early to roll out the Borg. But I digress.

Anyway, so why am I talking about a trilogy? Well, because the major cast members signed up for a 3-picture deal. JJ may not personally direct the 3rd film, but it would still be under his control. And he doesn’t seem to be interested in long-running movie franchises. At all.

And why am I talking about killing off a major character? Because killing off a major character would guarantee an emotional wallop. And emotion is what fills seats in theaters. Not 4K 3D CGI renderings. And look at it this way: since this is all happening in an alternate timeline, the departed character would live on in the 100% canon ST:TOS shows and original films. Win-win situation IMHO.

148. Jackson Roykirk - January 3, 2013

@ Baroner re: “…generic action flick…”

That was my problem with the first two Craig-as-Bond films. The creative team tried very hard to eliminate as many of the corny Bond-formula cliches as possible. And they ended up with an unsatisfying origin story followed by a rather ugly revenge story. Only at the very end of Skyfall do we feel that Bond is “back.”

Abrams’ team avoided much of the awkward getting-the-band-together origin tedium in the ’09 Trek film. And he had to. Because it’s not just Bond with a bunch of regular supporting characters. The Enterprise crew is an ensemble, and there are just too many backstories to tell (other than Kirk and Spock, of course.) He mashed them all together in a crisis and let them run with the ball. No final exam. Just get out there and save the planet.

(Non sequitur: Ralph Fiennes wears some of the best-looking suits I’ve ever seen in any movie in “Skyfall.” Top-notch bespoke Saville Row tailoring, as you’d expect for the character he plays.)

TrekMovie.com is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.