Star Trek Into Darkness - In theaters May 17, 2013

[jefXfree]

From IMDB:
With: Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Karl Urban, zoe Saldana, Anton Yelchin, Simon Pegg and more...

Trailer:
More on Apple.com
(Youtube video is dead...)

Teaser trailer:


New Trailer just aired today (2013/04/16)



Old infos:

Spoiler

'Star Trek' Sequel Gets A Release Date

UPDATE: Paramount has confirmed to MTV that the projected release date for the "Star Trek" sequel is indeed June 29, 2012.

This counts as news, but there's not much to it. We all know there's a "Star Trek" sequel coming. Hell, Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci, writers/producers of the May reboot, were talking about sequel possibilities as far back as the week after the first movie came out. Now we have a date to pin our hopes to: June 29, 2012.

Nothing else is known or announced, so don't ask. Maybe director J.J. Abrams will return to helm the sequel, maybe he won't. Maybe Khan will be the villain, maybe not. For all we know, the plan is to give us an epic "Star Trek Meets Star Wars" crossover. Could happen, right?

The news comes from a variety of sources, including Ain't It Cool News and Box Office Mojo, but there's no Paramount-issued press release that I can find. The information ran through some trustworthy sources, but we've yet to receive comment from the studio directly.

Regardless, there really hasn't ever been any doubt that we'd be seeing more "Star Trek." Abrams' take on the series made it friendly to an entirely new, much wider audience than its ever known before.

 

[alvinhwang21]

Spoiler

True but imagine waking up from a cryofreeze, I am sure you would be disoriented, then someone sticks a needle in your arm and puts you back to sleep. Wham, Bam, Thank You Maam

Also one other point was Khan evil becuse thats how they all were or because of circumstance both being used for evil intentions and because of the injustice of it. But againn they still needed to take care of him either way

Not being a Star Trek fan I thought for a second he could have been borg. I just remembered seeing those guys in a commercial or two

Spoiler

and that was my biggest complaint of the movie. They did a excellent job exploring the roots and anger of eric bana in the first one, why didn't the do the same for khan in this one ?

---------- Post added at 12:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:52 PM ----------

this movie followed the same exact template as the first but with less character development and more explosions

 

[GVZER]

Spoiler

and that was my biggest complaint of the movie. They did a excellent job exploring the roots and anger of eric bana in the first one, why didn't the do the same for khan in this one ?

---------- Post added at 12:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:52 PM ----------

this movie followed the same exact template as the first but with less character development and more explosions

The movie was paying tribute to the older ones,

Spoiler

They weren't aware of who was Khan and thats why he contacted old Spock, it was all part of the story, also when he takes over the bigger ship, Kirk mentioned he was wanting to purge humanity and leave only those that were up to his standards. Khan was a higher being. But ultimately Abrams went in assuming most of the people already knew who Khan was. Funny thing they were playing that episode of the first time they found Khan. It was hilarious.

Cumberbatch is top villains of all time with his portrayal.

 

[mllNY]

Spoiler

did he seem a bit to davidish from prometheus

maybe similar but he did was very good

 

[dboy99]

Can someone explain this one plot hole for me

movie spoilers, obviously as I want to discuss plat holes

Spoiler

Khan is a genetically altered super human whose blood can revive dead tissue. He is trying to save the 72 other members of his crew

Why does McCoy need his blood when he has 72 other popsicles to choose from who are also altered and whose blood is just as likely to revive Kirk

Saw it this past Wed, and we really enjoyed it!

Spoiler

i dont think you can with draw blood from a frozen body(i may be wrong) but i didnt think they wanted to chance these guys waking up either

Spoiler

no matter what they do have to get Khan but getting his blood I dunno

You don't have to wake them all up just one of them.


Also if Khans blood regenrates dead cells is he then immortal

Spoiler

I thought about this same thing when I was watching the movie.
Although to be fairly honest, you are seeing one dude do so much damage, would you risk having another do the same?

Spoiler

True but imagine waking up from a cryofreeze, I am sure you would be disoriented, then someone sticks a needle in your arm and puts you back to sleep. Wham, Bam, Thank You Maam

Also one other point was Khan evil becuse thats how they all were or because of circumstance both being used for evil intentions and because of the injustice of it. But againn they still needed to take care of him either way

Not being a Star Trek fan I thought for a second he could have been borg. I just remembered seeing those guys in a commercial or two

Spoiler

and that was my biggest complaint of the movie. They did a excellent job exploring the roots and anger of eric bana in the first one, why didn't the do the same for khan in this one ?

---------- Post added at 12:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:52 PM ----------

this movie followed the same exact template as the first but with less character development and more explosions

The movie was paying tribute to the older ones,

Spoiler

They weren't aware of who was Khan and thats why he contacted old Spock, it was all part of the story, also when he takes over the bigger ship, Kirk mentioned he was wanting to purge humanity and leave only those that were up to his standards. Khan was a higher being. But ultimately Abrams went in assuming most of the people already knew who Khan was. Funny thing they were playing that episode of the first time they found Khan. It was hilarious.

Cumberbatch is top villains of all time with his portrayal.

Spoiler

did he seem a bit to davidish from prometheus

maybe similar but he did was very good

This one was easy to answer.

Spoiler

Has everyone forgotten that quickly that no one knew how to open the pods without killing the people inside?It was a special way to thaw them but if done wrong they would die instantly.

 

[mllNY]

This one was easy to answer.

Spoiler

Has everyone forgotten that quickly that no one knew how to open the pods without killing the people inside?It was a special way to thaw them but if done wrong they would die instantly.

Spoiler

No they just said that it was older technology, not that it could not be done. Also if Khan could be awoken then others could

Also iirc they seemed to be able to cryofreeze Kirk pretty much on the fly

 

[dboy99]

Spoiler

No they just said that it was older technology, not that it could not be done. Also if Khan could be awoken then others could

Also iirc they seemed to be able to cryofreeze Kirk pretty much on the fly

Spoiler

Well they know how to cryo freeze people in the future so freezing him was easy.I could recall them saying they could not thaw them out for a certain reason.

They had all of them on the ship why not thaw them out?

 

[Colombianlove41]

Movie was awesome and I thought it was much better than IM3

Spoiler

dboy99 is correct. They didn't go into much details about it but they did say there was a reason they couldn't thaw the other people. Probably because kahn's body could take it

 

[Sir Hilary Bray]

Why do Americans make noises in cinemas when watching films I don't get it. We Brits don't cheer at a scene or line of dialogue we keep quiet through the film and only laugh at the precise times it calls for. I couldn't imagine someone behind me yelling 'kick his ass' or something and we certainly don't get over exicited when a soldier raises a flag.

Would love that over here in the UK.


I remember reading a review for Rocky IV once, and it was saying how the people in the audience were cheering, taking every punch, feeling all the emotions etc.......Sounds like a great experience to me!


Anyway, just come back from seeing this, awesome film! and Peter Weller, he's a legend isn't he?

 

[Waboman]

Just got back from this. With a pit stop for some late night Chinese takeout.

 

[Marina Blue]

wow am i the only one who thought this epically failed to compare to the first star trek ? ya it was amazing to look at and damn funny, but there was no substance.

The genius of the first movie was the character development and how each was introduced and the way they tied into each other

this movie had no creativity nor originality as in the first and they could have done ANYTHING to make this into a new story line,

now please dont get me wrong here, i thoroughly enjoyed every minute of this film but IMO fails hard to live up to the first movie

Exactly!

Also, I thought the role of Khan was poorly cast. I looked up Benedict Cumberbatch on IMDB and as expected he was a dry, theater actor. "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan" (1982), with a surprising performance from Ricardo Montalban, was the only Star Trek film I liked until the (2009) J.J. Abrahm's "Star Trek", which I loved!

The Enterprise was beautiful and along with the scope and great special effects, was the star of "Star Trek - Into the Darkness".

I was disappointed with this one.

 

[dboy99]

Exactly!

Spoiler

Also, I thought the role of Khan was poorly cast. I looked up Benedict Cumberbatch on IMDB and as expected he was a dry, theater actor. "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan" (1982), with a surprising performance from Ricardo Montalban, was the only Star Trek film I liked until the (2009) J.J. Abrahm's "Star Trek", which I loved!

The Enterprise was beautiful and along with the scope and great special effects, was the star of "Star Trek - Into the Darkness".

I was disappointed with this one.

some would consider that a spoiler.

 

[alvinhwang21]

some would consider that a spoiler.

no offense, but how ? we all know khan is the main villain before even going into this film

 

[mllNY]

Spoilers are a person to person issue. What some consider spoilers others don't and vice versa.

When in doubt if you are discussing plot points on a movie, especially when they made a point of not discussing it in commercials or other media it is generally polite to use a spoiler. And especially on a movie thread while the movie is in theatres. Some people do come into the thread who have not seen the movie

 

[Sir Hilary Bray]

It's a huge spoiler.

 

[Softwing]

Exactly!

Into Darkness Spoilers

Spoiler

Also, I thought the role of Khan was poorly cast. I looked up Benedict Cumberbatch on IMDB and as expected he was a dry, theater actor. "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan" (1982), with a surprising performance from Ricardo Montalban, was the only Star Trek film I liked until the (2009) J.J. Abrahm's "Star Trek", which I loved!

The Enterprise was beautiful and along with the scope and great special effects, was the star of "Star Trek - Into the Darkness".

I was disappointed with this one.

(Spoiler tag and description mine).

Cumberbatch a dry, theatre actor? I really don't agree with that. Just entirely curious, but is there a U.S. perception of British actors with good elocution as essentially 'luvvies'? And how is that a negative thing? Acting in theatre doesn't make one unfit for film/television acting; hell, if more actors read Stanislavski it would only be a good thing. in my opinion.

Into Darkness Spoilers

Spoiler

It's also being easily forgotten that Star Trek has always played fast and loose with it's casting and continuity. First you have Ricardo Montalban cast as a northern Indian, and while 'generically foreign' might have passed muster in the 60's, it hasn't for some time. Then in The Wrath Of Khan, Montalban reprises his role, but this time Khan and his crew have had a major makeover, most likely to evoke a Nordic/Aryan feel in reference to Nietzsche's Ubermensche. There's never been any real logic in Khan's portrayal.

The second point is one that has been brought up by the producer's since release, in that right or wrong, there would have been a huge outcry at the portrayal of a super-terrorist who was anything that could have been construed as Middle Eastern/Central Asian. Is that an admission to caving? Quite possibly. But they absolutely made the right decision not to court such controversy, whether that controversy was justified or not.

 

[akito]

I thought he did pretty well considering his role in BBC's drama series Sherlock. A bit different than the role he had there but still interesting. overall movie was awesome.

 

[Lollard2002]

Shame I can't stand these new Star Trek films. Hate the 2009 one and from what I gather I'd hate this one even more......

 

[NAT1976]

Shame I can't stand these new Star Trek films. Hate the 2009 one and from what I gather I'd hate this one even more......

Well I don't understand why, both were very well made and both excellent films, considering some of the crap that is out these films towers above quite a lot of them

 

[Lollard2002]

Hated the films because they simply weren't Star Trek. I find J.J. Abrams a one trick pony with everything he does. He clearly didn't understand or want to understand the Original Star Trek. He threw everything out that made the original show great and totally changed the nature of the characters. Even the "new' Enterprise looks like it was designed by a 3 year old. Sorry but he managed to alienate a hell of a lot of Star Trek fans (me included) with that 2009 film.
He does the same thing in all this work, poor scripts that lead nowhere, lens flare in every frame, special effects that aren't so special as they never stay still long enough of you to see them, characters with no depth, crap endings to all his work, rips off half his plots from films and TV from years ago and hope none stops the links......
He reminds me of The one that did the Sixth Sense....

 

[SonicBoom]

You must be in the minority because most people I spoke with love this film.

Yes, the lens flares are annoying, but apart from that he has given these old characters new life on a new trajectory. This is not your father's STAR TREK, and thank goodness for that.

Every franchise needs new blood to breathe new life into it. STAR TREK was getting stale as it was and Abrams turned it up on its ear. All of the television series were just more of the same, but these latest feature films have a great story and pay proper respect to the original series characters and stories.

It also balances that magic line that appeals to both new and old audiences, although it is expected that some people will never be happy no matter who creates a new movie.