Amph JJ Abrams' Star Trek Into Darkness

Nah they're showing his backside, so he obviously farted and blew everything up.

 

I like it. Originality is overrated.

 

Cool. I like a new Batman movie...

oh, wait!

 

Okay, you really are wockying this up.

 

Of course it's derivative and trying to draw on Batman, but who cares? It's interesting. For one thing, none of you have seen any of the film so you've no idea if it feels like ST or not. PR is PR. And mind, it needs to feel like new ST, not old ST. If you hate this notion, then don't see it. But I'm sorry, I would rather see a mediocre new Trek film than any old ST. You can call that the lowest common denominator if you like, but it's not like I have generally awful taste or that I even see most crappy blockbusters (e.g. Transformers).

I think I represent New Trek fans pretty well: people who love sci fi, have seen some ST and found it conceptually really interesting but really poorly paced and for the most part awfully acted. TNG is a bit better but can still be dreadfully unengaging and dry. Trekkies can pretend this is only the viewpoint of idiots, but that's just not true. It doesn't make me an idiot to want to have exciting things happening alongside clever writing and interesting characters.

Sometimes I swear I don't understand Trekkies at all.

If I had to bet, I would wager that they wanted to just call it Into Darkness, but the studio probably insisted there be a Star Trek in there for identification purposes.

 

That poster looks like the nerds wanting to eat lunch with the jocks.

 

I don't know what to make of it. It's an interesting poster (though why is it not of a damaged San Fran skyline instead of a London one?), but I think I'll have to see the trailer before I decide if I like where things are going or not.

 

I wish you wouldn't be so dismissive. Wocky is a deliberate troll, I'm merely deeply bummed out at all the Hollywood groupthink B* that is surrounding a movie that I really deeply want to be excited about.

Or am I not allowed to dislike Abrams, Orci, Kurtzman, and Lindelof?

 

I can see hardcore Trekkie angst about that awful poster. It is extremely generic and does look like ST has nothing to do with it.

That being said it's just a poster, we'll see how the rest of the campaign progresses.

 

I'm not worried about synopses or posters, as they're generally not indicative of the quality of the actual movie. This is why I (and Ender, it seems we're actually agreeing on something) call it wockying when lowbud says "It's a shame they're almost hiding the fact that this is a Star Trek movie though."

 

So I'm not allowed to express my displeasure at the marketing campaign (which does tell us an awful lot of the tone the filmmakers are likely trying to achieve) either?

My trepidation about the movie doesn't derive from the promotional material, although that plot description is wearingly generic blockbuster boilerplate, but from the creative talents behind it and the attitude they seem to have brought to it.

 

Maybe Trek decided to stop threatening SF (or maybe just setting things in) all the time. Give London a shot.

A shame it isn't Paris, though. That's where the Federation is supposed to be HQed, right?

 

I'm not quite as pessimistic as DLB, but for some reason I was struck by the generic cityscape in particular. I guess because ST tends to focus on the "space" side of things we rarely saw major (human) population centers up close except San Fancisco in the TNG era.

 

Starfleet's HQ is in San Fran, the Federation President's HQ is in Paris I believe.

 

Why do I feel like the London cityscape has more to do with Cumberbatch's character than with Starfleet, though?

 

That's quite the strawman you have here, considering I'm critiquing your statements themselves rather than making a comment about what you're allowed to or not allowed to do.

 

Maybe there'll be a scene featuring his character in a London taxi.

 

Star Trek Into Sherlock

 

Yeah. The figure in the poster is just begging for a change of coat.

 

Get real, Star Trek is serious business. There's no place for silliness like Sherlock Holmes or a computer generated Moriarty who becomes self-aware!

 

Oh God, I can see Everton's 10,000-word "review" now.

 

Good, I'm not alone

The poster is cool. It's definitely cool. It's just not very Star Trek. (Mind, I've only ever seen one ST movie, and that was the 2009 one, but still.) As others have said, it's not about space. London + Cumberbatch = Sherlock, not Star Trek.

And I do think it's a bit odd that their first promo is of the villain. Guess it shows Cumberbatch's rising star power, which is nice, but you'd think they would show one of, say, Kirk. Especially as, unlike Bane or the Joker, we don't know who this villain is. So what they're basically showing us, what people are seeing (obviously--see, you know, this thread), is Benedict Cumberbatch, not Star Trek.

Terrible plot synopsis, wrong poster ... I'll still see it, obviously, and still be quite excited to, but whoever's running the PR campaign is doing it wrong.

 

Honestly? They have mentioned Cumberbatch and how awesome his performance is in like every interview. I think they are trying to get him a Oscar nomination. Which actually isn't beyond reason. It's okay to give nods to great actors in supporting roles in genre films, it happens a lot... just no leads.

 

I mean, great for him. He's a great actor, and he will probably deserve that award at some point.

It just seems odd to play up the unidentified villain in a sequel rather than the main cast. I know he's popular right now and likely to get attention from fans who might not otherwise be interested. It still seems odd, though.