It was, but they had to make [SPOILER - highlight to read]: young Spock outsmarting Khan believable. Which was only due to Older Spocks warning, so young Spock was already prepared for Khan's betrayal before it happened.
On that note Shatner will be pissed that he's still not got to make an appearance Lol.
Kirk died in Generations. And although resurrected to simply allow a relationship between himself and Picard, should not be allowed to be a factor in this modern version of the series.
His character had his day in the Sun. And it was an awesome film. Leave it there.
It's like when Adam West was angry that he wasn't a part of Tim Burton's Batman franchise.
__________________
Last edited by the ninjak on May 13th, 2013 at 08:38 PM
Oh yeah I agree, it would be crazy for him to be coming back from the future as well. He obviously knows he died in Generations, but claims there's always ways to bring him back.
In all fairness though if they really wanted to include him, it's not that hard. It could just be a memory of Spock. Maybe they could have fit it in during his mindmeld with Young Kirk.
And then there's the fact that it's a completely different continuity now. So Old Kirk could come back from a different future now. But that would be a kind of huge story to somehow fit in.
I love how the reboot series is more popular to distance themselves from the original series which avoided action. The whole reason I like it was because it abandoned the original lackluster series.
I am right once again.
---
The fact that Into Darkness was also released in higher ticket-priced 3D certainly helped its performance, but there was a larger decision at play both creatively and marketing-wise to divorce Into Darkness from past Trek movies----
----"I guess less Trekkie, more action might be the short story,” Paramount’s head of international distribution Anthony Marcoly told TheWrap. “But since I arrived here 18 months ago, a primary part of my mission has been to make sure this movie succeeds at the overseas box office the way it will domestically, and our team has done a great deal to make sure that happens. ... Basically, it was more action, more of the adventure elements and less of the real Trekkie stuff.”-----
Dunno why everyone is excited about Cumberbatch playing the villain, they barely used Eric Bana in the first one, they'll probably give him about 15 mins screen time in total.
I think they were to me anyways. I am glad these film makers agree since its distancing itself from the older Star Trek. That's why I am on board due to action and it being far more entertaining than the original series.
Yeah you're right the original movies had plenty of grit. I just haven't seen them for years.
I don't think anyone disputes the original series fame.
I guess what I was trying to say was in reaction to what Quan wrote.
That the success of the new films is due to heavy action and little "Trekkie"...whatever that means.
Well yeah, they aren't successful because they're great Trek movies, even if they have some really solid Trek homages.
They're popular because they're flashy popcorn movies with good looking actors that are actually made well, even with the plot holes. And they were nice enough to give the franchise a bit of oomph that it had been lacking since the last tv show went off the air.
I am hoping the second one is better than the first, though.
Yes, more action oriented isn't what the original series of Trek was about. More Star Wars like in that fashion hence the resurgence since the original series is boring and not appealing to the masses.
KMC Community Forums
May 12th, 2013 11:15 PM
