It has a name: Star Trek: Into Darkness.

[OMNI]

ugh post conversion.. so it will be SHITTY 3d at that.. as when its done in post it can never measure up to footage shot in 3d from the go...
--- merged: Mar 31, 2013 at 2:26 PM ---

Yep, all of that is coming together in this massive flush which will be Star Trek: Into Darkness. I think the title is quite apropos, even thouygh nobody has seen the movie...I dont like the fact that the sentient turn/horned toad thing is returning. Wow. We get to see it climb on things so Scotty can tell it to "get down from there". . And the 3D is not just any 3D...its IMAX 3D.

http://screenrant.com/star-trek-sequel-imax-3d-kofi-179541/

View attachment 27995

no it isnt its a post 3d conversion so its not real 3d.

 

[Overmind One]

So true!!!

--- merged: Mar 31, 2013 at 2:27 PM ---

ugh post conversion.. so it will be SHITTY 3d at that.. as when its done in post it can never measure up to footage shot in 3d from the go...
--- merged: Mar 31, 2013 at 2:26 PM ---
no it isnt its a post 3d conversion so its not real 3d.

The old one is a conversion (2009). The new one is being shot in it. Read the article.

 

[OMNI]

View attachment 27997


--- merged: Mar 31, 2013 at 2:27 PM ---


The old one is a conversion (2009). The new one is being shot in it. Read the article.

"we then found out ST 2 will be post converted"

 

[Overmind One]

"we then found out ST 2 will be post converted"

WHEW! I did not notice that...But still there are conflicting bits out there about the 3D in ST: ITD. I am hearing confirmed filming in 3D (including viewed footage by some). Like this article:

http://collider.com/star-trek-2-into-darkness-imax-prologue-recap-review/

But the latest news seems to confirm what you just said. The thing is being shot in IMAX and then post converted into 3D.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2012/dec/14/star-trek-into-darkness-3d

Well, who the fkk is going to pay to see Trek in 3D? . Lets bring back double headers and just throw The Avengers and Trek in for a mere $30.00 ticket

 

[shavedape]

Well, who the fkk is going to pay to see Trek in 3D? . Lets bring back double headers and just throw The Avengers and Trek in for a mere $30.00 ticket

For $30.00 a ticket I better get complimentary head in my seat while I watch the movie and when I leave the theater my car had should be freshly washed and waxed.

 

[Gatefan1976]

All of this is just your opinion, GF! Canon is/isnt what the fans/individuals make it. For me, (and millions of others), Enterprise is not canon in Trek. Same with SGU in the Stargate franchise.

I don't give a flying toss what FANS think in this instance, and this is NOT my opinion. IF I had a choice, yes, neither SGU or ENT would be canon, but IT IS NOT OUR CHOICE.

Bolded...YES, it is. Perhaps this will help:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_canon

Read Memory Alpha's rules on canon:
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Memory_Alpha:Canon_policy

The creator of Enterprise was NOT Roddenberry.

No, it wasn't it was those who were given stewardship of Trek after Roddenberry died, the same way the new Bond movies are still canon after Albert Broccoli died. Stewardship passed to the "next generation"
Is Unfinished tales by James Tolkien "non canon" as well?

So using your own flawed understanding of what canon is in Trek, Enterprise would not qualify.

My understanding is not flawed. I have the capacity to differentiate between what I would like and what actually is.

"Based on Star Trek by Gene Roddenberry" does not qualify anything as canon, sorry!

Yes it does, sorry!!

You can take the ruby slippers back...they are not my size.

They were not for you.

Bullshit! The fans DO get to say what is canon. The fans frequently determine canon and correct it for the creators (especially when the creators listen. like Roddenberry did).

Is that too small??
You have just admitted that the final word lies with the creators, not with the fans. Fans can inform the creators, this is true, but the ultimate decision lies with either the creator, or those given leave to speak on the creators behalf.
Why is this such a problem??

Roddenberry was dead when Enterprise was made. He had nothing to do with the making of Enterprise and thus things within it were not Roddenberry creations or canon. Many Trek fans do not consider Enterprise canon. By definition, your statements apply and make Enterprise canon, but Roddenberry would consider it "apocryphal".

After Roddenberrys death, canon lies with those given charge of his "creative estate" Tolkien may consider the entire LOTR movie series Apocryphal, but who knows? Do YOU know what Roddenberry thinks of ENT? would you like a Ouija board, or do you have one?

The fans arguably have even more power than the creators of towering franchises like Trek. With Roddenberry gone, that does not mean that JJ Abrams has been given the "canon wand". The fans need to give him that power. Also Paramount may own the Trek franchise, but they do not decide what is Trek canon since they did not create Trek.

Fans have the power to like or dislike, and they can kill franchises if they don't like where they are going, but that's about it.

This same thing is now happening in the Aliens universe with Ridley Scott. Is Prometheus to be considered canon in the Aliens franchise? Fans say yes. Ridley says no, but the movie has too much obvious connection to the original Alien movie like the crashed "Engineer" ship, the alien creature in the movie, etc. The final say of the creator is only part of the process, and in the case of Enterprise, the creators are Brannon Braga and Rick Berman and Roddenberry had nothing to do with it.

Final say, reread that dude FINAL SAY. It is indeed part of the process, but it is the FINAL part of the process. All that came before can be shit-canned at that point.

 

[shavedape]

Sorry folks, this won't be a ranting screed so please don't be too upset.

I think the question here is can canon be changed retroactively (either by the originator or by the premise's heirs)? Technically the answer seems to be yes since they own the story, but the fact is that messing with canon for a popular fictional premise is a rather stupid thing to do.

Abrams seems to have done a clever thing in terms of being able to re-write ST canon. Gotta give him props for pulling that off with such a classic franchise. Conversely, we've all seen the reaction Braga got when he messed with canon in Enterprise. Many ST fans were not pleased and let it be known.

As for Stargate and SGU, if I remember correctly there were some serious canon issues/questions there. I can't remember them all off the top of my head and don't have the time to sift thru the old threads. Suffice to say BW/RC messed with their own canon and look where that got them. The fans didn't like it and told them so. Arrogantly they chose to ignore that fan criticism and now they're done (and hopefully won't be back anytime soon).

So, the moral of the story is that canon may be "owned" by certain people but their stewardship of it is oft regulated by fan feedback. In the immortal words of raucous soul singer Millie Jackson: "Bite the hand that feeds you and your ass will starve to death."

 

[Overmind One]

Sorry folks, this won't be a ranting screed so please don't be too upset.

I think the question here is can canon be changed retroactively (either by the originator or by the premise's heirs)? Technically the answer seems to be yes since they own the story, but the fact is that messing with canon for a popular fictional premise is a rather stupid thing to do.

Abrams seems to have done a clever thing in terms of being able to re-write ST canon. Gotta give him props for pulling that off with such a classic franchise. Conversely, we've all seen the reaction Braga got when he messed with canon in Enterprise. Many ST fans were not pleased and let it be known.

As for Stargate and SGU, if I remember correctly there were some serious canon issues/questions there. I can't remember them all off the top of my head and don't have the time to sift thru the old threads. Suffice to say BW/RC messed with their own canon and look where that got them. The fans didn't like it and told them so. Arrogantly they chose to ignore that fan criticism and now they're done (and hopefully won't be back anytime soon).

So, the moral of the story is that canon may be "owned" by certain people but their stewardship of it is oft regulated by fan feedback. In the immortal words of raucous soul singer Millie Jackson: "Bite the hand that feeds you and your ass will starve to death."

Well put...another example of "canon" which will never be considered canon, despite its stewardship (temporarily) is Tim Burton's Planet of the Apes. It will never be considered Apes canon by the fans. The stories do not at all connect to the Apes timeline nor does it get counted in with the "real" Apes movies (including the new one). The rebadged Chevrolet Cavalier in the 80s called the Cadillac Cimmaron was never a Cadillac, despite its badges and the fact that it was sold by Cadillac. I think that GF is concentrating on the literal definition of canon and ignoring the spirit of canon. The fans can decide what they think canon is and isnt on an individual basis which has nothing to do with who is stewarding a franchise at any given time. Canon cannot be forced down anyone's throat. And also, the title of "creator" is not transferable. If Paramount sells the rights of Star Trek to Dell and then a secretary writes a story which changes Kirk to a woman and changes Spock to a Klingon, that is not canon in my book, but according to GF's understanding, it is canon because the stewardship has been passed to Dell and its secretary/author? Im not with that.

 

[YJ02]

There will be Klingons in the movie with helmets and brow ridges

it is quick glimpse but they are in the trailer at the below link

and the villain's name is john harrison--so much on guessing on a "redo" of a TOS villain

http://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie...star-trek-darkness-viral-video-005121224.html

 

[Gatefan1976]

Well put...another example of "canon" which will never be considered canon, despite its stewardship (temporarily) is Tim Burton's Planet of the Apes.

Multiple movies with the same background, choose your canon to like, same as shit like all the Spiderman reboots or Batman reboots.

It will never be considered Apes canon by the fans.

It is a *separate* story.

The stories do not at all connect to the Apes timeline nor does it get counted in with the "real" Apes movies (including the new one). The rebadged Chevrolet Cavalier in the 80s called the Cadillac Cimmaron was never a Cadillac, despite its badges and the fact that it was sold by Cadillac.

Blah, Blah, Blah.
If it was badged as a caddie, it WAS a caddie, weather we like it or not.
It is that simple.

I think that GF is concentrating on the literal definition of canon and ignoring the spirit of canon.

Yes, yes I am, So what?

The fans can decide what they think canon is and isnt on an individual basis which has nothing to do with who is stewarding a franchise at any given time.

Yes, they can think Spock was a pastafarian from the planet Punjab for all I care about, Canon says he is a Vulcan. You are arguing that "just because I think he is a pasafarian he IS" and that's just crap. In JJ's universe Vulcan is gone, destroyed by a piss-poor plot device; Do you think he is gonna change that because some fans think "you can't blow up Vulcan??"

Canon cannot be forced down anyone's throat.

YES IT DAMN WELL CAN!!!
NO-ONE however can force an individual to accept it.

And also, the title of "creator" is not transferable. If Paramount sells the rights of Star Trek to Dell and then a secretary writes a story which changes Kirk to a woman and changes Spock to a Klingon, that is not canon in my book, but according to GF's understanding, it is canon because the stewardship has been passed to Dell and its secretary/author? Im not with that.

I don't care "what *you* are with" What *you* want does not mean shit, nor does what *I* want. *I* think Trek has been turned into a piss-poor background for an action/adventure series and *I* think ST2009 missed what *I* thought Trek was about for the most part, but that does NOT change the fact that ST2009 is CANON.

Got it??

 

[shavedape]

Multiple movies with the same background, choose your canon to like, same as shit like all the Spiderman reboots or Batman reboots.


It is a *separate* story.

Blah, Blah, Blah.
If it was badged as a caddie, it WAS a caddie, weather we like it or not.
It is that simple.


Yes, yes I am, So what?

Yes, they can think Spock was a pastafarian from the planet Punjab for all I care about, Canon says he is a Vulcan. You are arguing that "just because I think he is a pasafarian he IS" and that's just crap. In JJ's universe Vulcan is gone, destroyed by a piss-poor plot device; Do you think he is gonna change that because some fans think "you can't blow up Vulcan??"


YES IT DAMN WELL CAN!!!
NO-ONE however can force an individual to accept it.


I don't care "what *you* are with" What *you* want does not mean shit, nor does what *I* want. *I* think Trek has been turned into a piss-poor background for an action/adventure series and *I* think ST2009 missed what *I* thought Trek was about for the most part, but that does NOT change the fact that ST2009 is CANON.

Got it??

 

[Overmind One]

Multiple movies with the same background, choose your canon to like, same as shit like all the Spiderman reboots or Batman reboots.


It is a *separate* story.

Blah, Blah, Blah.
If it was badged as a caddie, it WAS a caddie, weather we like it or not.
It is that simple.


Yes, yes I am, So what?

Yes, they can think Spock was a pastafarian from the planet Punjab for all I care about, Canon says he is a Vulcan. You are arguing that "just because I think he is a pasafarian he IS" and that's just crap. In JJ's universe Vulcan is gone, destroyed by a piss-poor plot device; Do you think he is gonna change that because some fans think "you can't blow up Vulcan??"


YES IT DAMN WELL CAN!!!
NO-ONE however can force an individual to accept it.


I don't care "what *you* are with" What *you* want does not mean shit, nor does what *I* want. *I* think Trek has been turned into a piss-poor background for an action/adventure series and *I* think ST2009 missed what *I* thought Trek was about for the most part, but that does NOT change the fact that ST2009 is CANON.

Got it??

Just LOL. Whatever....individuals are the boss of themselves and what THEY consider to be canon. I don't give a shit about the "official" definition of canon and there are millions who feel the same way. That is why the Chevrolet Cavalier rebadged as the Cadillac Cimmaron dropped like a cement turd, as did Tim Burton's PotA, and Stargate Universe and New Coke. Its why Tea Party morons calling themselves Republicans does not make them so, and why even your definition of "canon" is never going to be immutable. If YOU think that something is not canon, I accept that or don't accept it and you can do the same.

 

[Backstep]

IMO the best reboot should have been to go back to GR's original writings, stories and theme. Instead we got the tired and boring "Hey lets reset with Alt Universe", they will buy it If the AU doesn't work out there is the next avenue "It was all a dream".

 

[YJ02]

There will be Klingons in the movie with helmets and brow ridges

it is quick glimpse but they are in the trailer at the below link

and the villain's name is john harrison--so much on guessing on a "redo" of a TOS villain

http://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie...star-trek-darkness-viral-video-005121224.html

So, uh..how about that new star trek movie?

and who the F is John Harrison? sounds like Abrams picked a Beatle to be his villain--could he be any more mundane?

 

[Overmind One]

IMO the best reboot should have been to go back to GR's original writings, stories and theme. Instead we got the tired and boring "Hey lets reset with Alt Universe", they will buy it If the AU doesn't work out there is the next avenue "It was all a dream".

THIS. Abrams is going to ruin Trek for the old fans, but I also think he will successfully open it up to a newer, dumber, less intellectual generation for the future. . If a movie like Transformers can make mega millions, a new dumbed down Trek can do it too.

Lets just have an alt universe mirror character in a different timeline dreaming in a comatose state, and then he wakes up and he is actually plugged into the Matrix.

"You think that's air you are breathing?"

 

[Backstep]

THIS. Abrams is going to ruin Trek for the old fans, but I also think he will successfully open it up to a newer, dumber, less intellectual generation for the future. . If a movie like Transformers can make mega millions, a new dumbed down Trek can do it too.

Lets just have an alt universe mirror character in a different timeline dreaming in a comatose state, and then he wakes up and he is actually plugged into the Matrix.

"You think that's air you are breathing?"

I weep for our future

 

[Joelist]

Let's remember that the REAL alternative to Abrams Trek is no Trek at all. The franchise was dead after the disasters of ST:Nemesis and Enterprise and Paramount took a big flyer on another Star Trek film and Abrams and Orci being willing to do it was a major factor in that.

And they did a very good job in the 2009 film, quibbles about some visual elements notwithstanding. They got the characters right, the tone and feel were right and they crafted a good origin story with a clever "alt universe" plot device that gave them the ability to write original stories with a real sense of the unknown and of peril to the characters (something not possible if they had stuck to the original universe - a common reason prequels usually fail) without damaging the original canon and thus upsetting long time fans in that respect. I did a pretty extensive review of Trek 09 here on GateFans and stand by it.

Based on their good work thus far, I will reserve judgment on this film until I see it. The early leaked reviews (few that they are) both are very positive and also indicate that the previews may be misleading us a bit as to the film as a whole.

 

[Overmind One]

Let's remember that the REAL alternative to Abrams Trek is no Trek at all. The franchise was dead after the disasters of ST:Nemesis and Enterprise and Paramount took a big flyer on another Star Trek film and Abrams and Orci being willing to do it was a major factor in that.

Frankly, sometimes its better to have nothing then an awful "replacement". I was (and still am) unwilling to accept something like SGU in lieu of Stargate. NOTHING is better than having SGU as the only Stargate available. But Trek can still move forward on this new track, even with the bad moves made so far.

And they did a very good job in the 2009 film, quibbles about some visual elements notwithstanding. They got the characters right, the tone and feel were right and they crafted a good origin story with a clever "alt universe" plot device that gave them the ability to write original stories with a real sense of the unknown and of peril to the characters (something not possible if they had stuck to the original universe - a common reason prequels usually fail) without damaging the original canon and thus upsetting long time fans in that respect. I did a pretty extensive review of Trek 09 here on GateFans and stand by it.

I agree with this pretty much.

Based on their good work thus far, I will reserve judgment on this film until I see it. The early leaked reviews (few that they are) both are very positive and also indicate that the previews may be misleading us a bit as to the film as a whole.

We shall see. I have watched the 2009 Trek now about 15 times and there is so much that I did not notice at first, and I have been nitpicking it. Still, it wasnt bad.

 

[Bluce Ree]

IMO the best reboot should have been to go back to GR's original writings, stories and theme. Instead we got the tired and boring "Hey lets reset with Alt Universe", they will buy it If the AU doesn't work out there is the next avenue "It was all a dream".

No, no, no, no, NO! I love GR's ST universe but the original stories were corny and filled with morals and lessons. TNG only became better and different after "Yesterday's Enterprise", when GR relinquished the reigns somewhat because the first few years of TNG were more of the same old TOS episode style of writing that nearly lost me completely. Women dressed like cheerleaders, the uniforms were nearly bodysuits and the stories were whimsical and corny and some of the lines delivered were pointless and out of place, just like in TOS. Data had a lot of those during the first and second season.

Now, if you're talking about the writing we got from TOS movies, then HELL YEAH!

 

[Backstep]

No, no, no, no, NO! I love GR's ST universe but the original stories were corny and filled with morals and lessons. TNG only became better and different after "Yesterday's Enterprise", when GR relinquished the reigns somewhat because the first few years of TNG were more of the same old TOS episode style of writing that nearly lost me completely. Women dressed like cheerleaders, the uniforms were nearly bodysuits and the stories were whimsical and corny and some of the lines delivered were pointless and out of place, just like in TOS. Data had a lot of those during the first and second season.

Now, if you're talking about the writing we got from TOS movies, then HELL YEAH![b/]

YEAH!

Now the burning question, will NuKirk be screaming the name Johnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn with a cliched fist as the name echoes across the fiery bulkheads?