Star Trek - Into Darkness | May 15, 2013

  • Thread starter CodeRedR51
  • 149 comments
  • 11,110 views
Star_Trek_Into_Darkness_Kirk_Spock_.jpg


From IGN:

Now here's the thing: The caption on the image, released by Paramount, says Benedict Cumberbatch is playing "John Harrison." Who? With all the speculation as to who the villain of the film is, this is likely a decoy name placed by the studio… but still, let's fan the flames even more Paramount, eh?

A new trailer and the aforementioned nine minutes of IMAX footage will hit this Friday… though don't expect any more info on who Cumberbatch is playing there either.
Click to expand...

Also the Alice Eve mystery is solved for now. Also from IGN:

IGN's own Jim Vejvoda attended a press event today where director J.J. Abrams and other members of the Star Trek team were on hand to discuss the film. During the event, it was revealed that Alice Eve is playing Carol Marcus in the film. You will recall that Marcus was created for Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan as an old love interest of Captain Kirk's -- and the mother of his son, David! (She was also one of the designers of the Genesis Device, natch.) Whether or not this means Star Trek Into Darkness is going with a Khan story is unclear, since the events in this film of course take place decades before the Khan/Marcus story from Wrath of Khan, so stay tuned...
Click to expand...
 
Could you take him seriously if he were German, Austrian or Russian, hmm? You'd spend the whole movie giggling at the accent.
 
I loved the reboot, especially the cast that was chosen to fill the shoes of the original (and true) crew.

Watched the trailer and I am officially hyped!
 
Leonidae@MFT
Could you take him seriously if he were German, Austrian or Russian, hmm? You'd spend the whole movie giggling at the accent.
Click to expand...

Err, yes? Providing the accent was very good or genuine, why not have a villain from somewhere else other than the British Isles or the mainland United States?

Why would I giggle because someone had a foreign accent?
 
We can rule out Kahn as the villain.

http://omg.yahoo.com/news/benedict-cumberbatch-im-not-playing-khan-star-trek-212619493.html

Confirmed here:

http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/12/13/cumberbatch-talks-star-trek-into-darkness-villain

Apparently, he is indeed playing "John Harrison" which according to some research by an IGN poster:

I think I know who the villain could be from this "John Harrison" thing.

So I searched John Harrison and it gave me a wikipedia page:

Apparently this man invented loads of thing and did some remarkable stuff.

But his biggest contribution was the Chronometer - It vastly advanced the development of Naval technology in the 1700's.

So I searched "Star Trek Chronometer" and what do you know?

Such a thing exists -

This can't be just a coincidence right?

So I clicked on the first related episode(TOS episodes) and the first episode I checked proved to be the best fit(The rest didn't have a big male part):

It involves a man called 'Joe Tormolen' who played a large part of the episode.


Apparently he died during the episode but was an influential character and somewhat of an antagonist.

WHAT is Joe Tormolen is Benedict Cumberbatch?
It would FIT as he's supposed to be associated with Kirk and Spock and have an agenda against them.

What do you guys think?

But wait...there's more :)

The same actor played another character in TOS called Hanar -


Hanar seems to be an even better fit for a villain, it could possibly and more likely be him.

PLEASE LET IT BE HANAR!
Click to expand...
 
As this is now an alternate reality, I thought it would've been awesome to still have Kahn integral to the plot, however this time, having to join forces to fight a nastier common foe. Would've been nice reference to 'old' series of films.
 
But if this Harrison thing is a man who has a grudge against the Enterprise, the whole revenge thing makes it still very Khan-esque.
 
Another villain that you are overlooking that has akin properties is Gary Mitchell. Unlike Kahn, Mitchell never appeared in a movie, has a beef with both Kirk and Spock, and is confirmed alive in the alternate reality(see IDW's Star Trek comics).

Though the casting of Carol Marcus scares me.
 
Sanji Himura
Apparently, he is indeed playing "John Harrison" which according to some research by an IGN poster:
Click to expand...

Hmmm, studied John Harrison in grad school - specifically the impact of the H4 on navigation. Not very many people know that he revolutionized navigation and made crossing the ocean a much less deadly form of transportation, all by inventing a pocketwatch.

Cool dude.
 
More on Benedict Cumberbatch as John Harrison:

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/60161

Further reaffirming my belief that Abrams, Orci and Kurtzmann simply watched every film that made money since 2009, and then mashed them all together and shoehorned it into the STAR TREK universe.

With every new detail revealed, this is looking more and more like a trainwreck.
 
Sanji Himura
I'm starting to see the Kahn influence in the villain.
Click to expand...
Really? Because all I'm seeing is a mash-up of every villain that has featured in a film that has made money and been well-received critically. Granted, I'm not familiar enough with the franchise to know much about Kahn, but I still see everything rom the Joker to Raoul Silva.
 
prisonermonkeys
I'm not familiar enough with the franchise to know much about Kahn,
Click to expand...
Khan was a genetically modified human from the Third World War, known as an augment. They were super strong and super intelligent, superior to normal humans in every way. The augments, led by Khan, nearly took over the entire Earth before being defeated, but before Khan and his most trusted followers were captured they escaped on a cryo ship called the Botany Bay, intending to return in a generation or two to a more advanced Earth that would see things his way.

Flash forward to the first season of the original series, in an episode called "Space Seed," and the Enterprise finds the derelict Botany Bay, where all systems had failed except for the cryochambers. Upon awakening, Khan lies about their identities and then progresses to take over the Enterprise by seducing crew into following him or having his augments learn the ship systems controlled by crew that were too loyal to Kirk. Realizing he had an entire galaxy he was beginning his plan to rule the galaxy. Kirk eventually stops him, and realizing Khan could escape any prison, left he and his augments stranded on an Earthlike planet that had no civilization.

Jump forward to Star Trek II, the Reliant, with Chekov on board, is researching an inhospitable desert planet when they stumble upon Khan's shelter. The planet they left Khan on had been knocked out of its original orbit and became this wasteland. Khan and a handful survived due to their superior abilities, but most died. As Kirk did not make an official record of Khan, to prevent anyone purposely going to him, no one ever checked on the status of Khan. And Khan wants revenge. First Kirk, then the galaxy.

Now, read the Ain't It Cool article again. He is superhuman, there are cryochambers, he wants revenge, and he plots a way to force Kirk to aid his plans.

All we are really missing is Kirk's ex and son used as leverage against him.


Before someone corrects me on something, I'm 99% sure I may have gotten some of the finer details incorrect.
 
Last edited:
prisonermonkeys
Well, I'm still seeing a film that is a mish-mash of everything that has been successful since 2009.
Click to expand...

I think you give modern filmmakers too much credit. I see stuff going back way further than that, and none of them were new in the films you reference. I also see scenes emulating Star Trek scenes that were emulating other films far before then.

Let's be honest, sci-fi/action hasn't had many original moments for 30 years. The biggest thing a sci-fi film can do to stand out is show real science, like silence in space.
 
prisonermonkeys
Well, I'm still seeing a film that is a mish-mash of everything that has been successful since 2009.
Click to expand...

I find it odd that you are one of the biggest Bond fans on this site after your latest posts in this thread.

As for the film, I have no comment as I try to stay in the dark until I see the film.
 
Justin
I find it odd that you are one of the biggest Bond fans on this site after your latest posts in this thread.
Click to expand...
I don't deny that there is an obvious influence from the likes of THE DARK KNIGHT on SKYFALL. And while some people do point to scenes like the villain's capture being a part of his plan as having been taken from THE AVENGERS, the script was actually written in 2010 and early 2011, but the film remained in development hell because of MGM's financial troubles, so those similarities are simply down to poor timing.

However, the difference here is that SKYFALL had original content. Two scenes in particular stand out in my mind: when Bond first meets Silva and Silva starts telling him about his grandmother's island and how they dealt with the rat problem; and when Silva forces Bond to play the William Tell-style shooting game (with scotch instead of an apple). Both have been hailed as examples of the "benign bizzare", that ever-so-slightly larger-than-life quality that was a trademark of Ian Fleming's (like Rosa Klebb in From Russia with Love, who attacked people with poisoned knitting needles).You wouldn't be able to see scenes like the two I described in any other film but a Bond film.

On the other hand, when I watch the trailers for INTO DARKNESS, the first thing I think of is a fan-made "ultimate trailer", where someone has edited scenes from a dozen films together to create a trailer for something new. I don't know why I'm so surprised, really - Abrams' has been profiting off other peoples' work for years. SUPER 8 was an ET rip-off, but without any of Spielberg's brilliance. His work with "Lost" was minimal at best, but he is still credited as the creator of it. And there are half a dozen other shows that he has affixed his name to - like "Alcatraz" and "Revolution" and "Person of Interest" - and duly takes the credit for, even though he has nothing to do with them.
 
prisonermonkeys
I don't know why I'm so surprised, really - Abrams' has been profiting off other peoples' work for years.
Click to expand...
With the stuff you named, where he puts his name on other people's work, one could argue the creators profit off of his name. Well, except none are really taking off.

SUPER 8 was an ET rip-off, but without any of Spielberg's brilliance.
Click to expand...
Spielberg was a producer on that one. It was kind of meant to be an homage to ET. Kind of like a 2000's version of ET.

His work with "Lost" was minimal at best, but he is still credited as the creator of it. And there are half a dozen other shows that he has affixed his name to - like "Alcatraz" and "Revolution" and "Person of Interest" - and duly takes the credit for, even though he has nothing to do with them.
Click to expand...
Since when did producing mean having nothing to do with them? He's not in the studio, but his company approves or denies everything and puts up the cash. If it says Bad Robot on it he likely put his name on something that have it a green light. He may not have been a large creative force on that stuff, but saying he had nothing to do with them isn't accurate.

My brother-in-law has lost enough roles after it went for the producer's approval that I know they are definitely involved. Many times to the detriment of the quality.
 
FoolKiller
Spielberg was a producer on that one. It was kind of meant to be an homage to ET. Kind of like a 2000's version of ET.
Click to expand...
I'm aware of Spielberg's involvement in it. That doesn't change the fact that it still came off as a cheap, soulless version of ET. Abrams' problem was that he tried to make an homage first and a film that was its own second.

FoolKiller
Since when did producing mean having nothing to do with them? He's not in the studio, but his company approves or denies everything and puts up the cash. If it says Bad Robot on it he likely put his name on something that have it a green light. He may not have been a large creative force on that stuff, but saying he had nothing to do with them isn't accurate.

My brother-in-law has lost enough roles after it went for the producer's approval that I know they are definitely involved. Many times to the detriment of the quality.
Click to expand...
But Abrams is often credited as the "creator" of the series. In Hollywood parlance, that implies that he played a fundamental role in establishing the world of the series, which he didn't. If you look through the credits of all the major episodes - ie the ones that dealt directly with the mythology of the island - you will see that Damon Lindelof is credited as the writer. Lindelof was the guy who knew where everything was going. Abrams just put his name on it.

Justin
My point was more along the lines of Bond films borrow heavily from past Bond films and also use a lot of the same plot points. It's a science I guess you could say.
Click to expand...
Perhaps - I'll be the first to admit that A VIEW TO A KILL is a retread of GOLDFINGER, and that THE SPY WHO LOVED ME is just a remake of YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE - but the Bond franchise is only really borrowing from itself. Here, Abrams has pulled elements of half a dozen other films that are not related to STAR TREK, mashed them all together, dropped them into the STAR TREK universe and is now probably preparing his notes on the film for this next appearance at Comicon.
 

Similar threads

Populuxe
Star Trek: General Discussion
2
Replies
41
Views
7K
Famine
Famine
S
  • Question
Grumpy old man needs advice
Replies
15
Views
832
smashall
S
GrumpyOldMan
Why Can't PD Do These Simple Things?
Replies
4
Views
936
GrumpyOldMan
GrumpyOldMan
Sonygamer455
Who Still Plays Star Wars Battlefront II (2005)?
Replies
6
Views
1K
Sonygamer455
Sonygamer455
I
CSL Elite wheel. Pedals. Playseat. PS4. Plus games...
Replies
0
Views
721
Ian JB
I

Latest Posts

Back