That's Mr. Trekker to you, bud!

frontier001:

hollow-pursuits:

frontier001 said: I liked him better. Wish he’d been Jim Kirk. The way he played George was closer to true Kirk.

I can see that argument, I think either actor would have been great for it. The issue about closeness to true Kirk though I think is more or writing. In both nu-Trek movies Kirk has been written as, let’s be honest, a bit of a prick. They have no idea how to handle his character properly ‘cause they forget about the diplomat, the strategic genius, the excellent command style, and emphasise the charming rogue and womaniser aspects. 

Apparently Chris Pratt was turned down for the role, I think he’d have been another very good choice.

The whole problem with nuKirk is so basic and simple: they write him as the stereo-type jokes made about Kirk from people who do not actually know Star Trek.  They make him the womanizer who sleeps around, starts fights for the sake of it, shoots to kill, all bravado and minimal intellect.  They write nuKirk as the caricature known to pop-culture rather than who he truly is.  Which is, in my humble opinion, the greatest most significant failing of the new films.

The character is not meant to be who they’ve written him as.  He didn’t face death for the first time as he was being born; he faced it first at age 13 on Taurus IV when he was nearly one of 4,000 of a population of 8,000 killed in a holocaust by Kodos over a good shortage. 

He didn’t sign up for the Academy on a challenge, never even finish and become a Captain over-night.  He completed his studies, and even taught at the Academy; he was a nerd for all intents and purposes.  A “walking stack of books with legs” - not some callous asshole who barely knows the name of the female Cadet he’s about to sleep with.

He rose through the ranks steadily but rapidly over the course of about a decade; he wasn’t handed command through patronage and technicalities and then allowed to keep said command cause, well, they needed some reason to keep him around with their ham-fisted story.

NuKirk is nothing but a frat-boy cardboard cut-out, unworthy of the name.  I don’t fault Chris Pine for this; I fault the writers and director.  They chose to make Kirk a shallow idiot; Pine’s just playing who they wrote.  Which is a shame because in the moment Pine’s Kirk does display the traits of Kirk Prime, it’s clear that he could easily play such if he was allowed to.

Excellent analysis: 

“I don’t fault Chris Pine for this; I fault the writers and director.”

actuallyjameskirk:

do u think abrams took this screenshot as evidence for “yo uhura and spock are dating i got proof ok”

actuallyjameskirk:

do u think abrams took this screenshot as evidence for “yo uhura and spock are dating i got proof ok”

…but Kirk doesn’t know how to drive!

toboldlygonowhere:

wilwheaton:

jenniferdeguzman:

He said Star Trek is too “philosophical”? Screw that noise.

mechcanuck:

I don’t know when this interview happened but I AM SAD AND ANGRY NOW 

The philosophies in Star Trek are kinda part of the actual setting. If you don’t get that, why are you allowed to make Star Trek movies.

Sigh. The whole point of Star Trek is that it’s philosophical. If you don’t want philosophical Science Fiction, there’s plenty of that for you to enjoy, but Star Trek is philosophical. Philosophy is part of Star Trek’s DNA, and if you’re given the captain’s chair, you’d better damn well respect that.

And for me, I’ve never been one to be too interested in fighting and warfare. A lot of television that was targeted at males, especially in the middle of the 20th century, had plenty of attention-grabbing action. Not that action is bad, it’s just that Star Trek was different. It brought something different to science fiction. It made science fiction what it is today. It put a whole new spin on things, making it so these stories weren’t just stories - they were allegories for not only the future, but the present, and every individual person’s struggles. And that it why I love Star Trek. It’s more than a story, it’s a philosophy.

All I can say is J.J. Abrams enjoys misleading fans. If you’ve seen Star Trek Into Darkness you know he stays true to Star Trek and it’s often (but not always) philosophical nature.

Why I did not like the new Trek movie (and why I tried very, very hard to like it anyway)

anarron:

Spoilers ahead! And a very, very, very long rant.

Read More

Why I DID like Star Trek Into Darkness in spite of agreeing with most of what anarron says above:

Read More

Star Trek sequel spoilers and my opinion

This is a reblog of a post I made 1 year ago, but it’s even more relevant now.

Read More

Yes, once I come down from my high I’ll have a bone to pick on an academic/moral issue. One I addressed way back when they announced something. However right now there is no way I’m going to complain.

When J.J. Abrams said he didn’t make it for the fans - he lied!

God I want to see it again!

firelordazula:

i like his visual style and his pacing because old trek sometimes meandered a bit too much but every time i watch or read a new jj abrams interview i get the feeling that he thinks he’s, like, elevating the franchise even though he’s just cherrypicking the bits of trek he finds acceptable, which for the most part are just the General Space and Sci-fi bits

it’s like… imagine somebody handing him an old family recipe for chocolate chip cookies and going, “hey, jj abrams, can you update this a bit, it’s not bad but it’s kind of getting old and there are so many ingredients you can use nowadays, here i have this big cupboard full of baking stuff that you can use, i trust you” but instead of making chocolate chip cookies he just makes chocolate milkshakes and a fucking pizza because hey, you had flour and milk and things in your kitchen, right

that’s nice jj and i’m sure the pizza is very good but maybe i just had pizza maybe we wanteD the Cookies today

Yes! Good analogy.

ssk-analogmedium:

Star Trek: The Animated Series Season One, Episode 2: “Yesteryear” VS. J.J. Abrams’ Star Trek 11

edgarwrights:

Elijah Wood on J.J. Abrams directing the new Star Wars

edgarwrights:

Elijah Wood on J.J. Abrams directing the new Star Wars

SOMEWHAT SPOILER QUOTES FROM ABRAMS AND QUINTO this is your warning to skip this post if u don’t wanna know shit ok

goldshirt-tightpants:

GUYS HELP ME

“The goal of this movie is to make you cry. If the movie does its job, then by the end of the movie, you will have had a reaction involving the eyes,” Abrams told MTV News. “If the movie works, then there’s definitely an emotional component.”

Zachary Quinto, who return to the role of Spock, hinted that some fans’ favorite characters may meet their demise in the film.

“There’s reason to worry” Quinto said.

IM SCARED HOLY SHIT WHAT IF IT’S CHEKOv I’M GONNA THROW UP FOR REAL (more at the source)

Chekov IS wearing red in the photos we’ve seen.

Hey Ralph! I know you like the new Star Trek movies, but I have a couple questions to ask you about how you feel about some things. I think the characterization of ZQ's Spock is all wrong: Spock is supposed to be polite, logical and serene except in intimate moments and those when he's psychologically compromised or influenced. ZQ's character is harsh emotional at all the wrong times, we only get a glimpse of True Spock when Mr. Nimoy shows up. Do you think the character will evolve?

I think I like J.J. Abrams Star Trek because of the very different portrayal of Spock. This is, and I think should be, a “reimagining” of the original series. I think it would be boring if they were all just exactly the same characters and stories as the original. No one can hope to be better than Nimoy as that peculiar version of Spock. However, Zachary Quinto can play a different Spock and maybe be as good or someday perhaps better. (ok, I doubt it) The change seems to be that in this altered timeline, Spock hasn’t rejected his human half, he seems much more influenced by his mother Amanda, rather than trying to prove himself to his father Sarek. So at least from what we’ve seen so far, he doesn’t deny his emotions and so has a love affair with Uhura. Also remember, this Spock and Kirk are younger than the characters in TOS. Kirk didn’t go straight to the Enterprise out of the Academy. They both had full careers in Starfleet and served on other vessels before the famous five year mission. Younger means less experienced and so more prone to make mistakes. Abram’s Star Trek is new territory, we can criticize the choices, but we shouldn’t criticize just based on the simple fact that it is different.

If this version of Star Trek has time, (meaning more than 3 movies) then I say Spock and all the characters have to evolve, if for no other reason than to remain interesting. 

trekkerbud:

Does anyone have more information on these uniforms?

So it seems the uniforms from this photo I posted a while back ARE from Star Trek Into Darkness.

trekkerbud:

Does anyone have more information on these uniforms?

So it seems the uniforms from this photo I posted a while back ARE from Star Trek Into Darkness.

So if Benedict Cumberbatch is Gary Mitchell, then is Alice Eve playing Dr Elizabeth Dehner? Or Abrams could put one outta left field and have Alice Eve play a young Dr Carol Marcus???

P.S. In the back of my mind I’m thinking Gary Mitchell as the villain is too easy. Is J.J. Abrams putting our chain?