It wasn't an enterprise. I can tell by the pixels and having seen a lot of enterprises in my time.
Star Trek Into Darkness... Spoilers Ahoy
- Thread starter sixpackshaker
- Start date
- Status
Fuck off. Enterprise was perfectly fine.
Oh, so the show was slow during the first season?
Welp, people claim that DS9 was the best series for the Star Trek series and I'll agree with them.... however I endured 4+ seasons of build-up for the last few excellent seasons.
Enterprise's last 2 seasons were amazing.
If you haven't seen them then you're automatically wrong and need not reply.
Well I....oh darn. Fine. Humpf.
Ahem, no, I haven't seen the last seasons, and as far as I know, they could be awesome. And I was actually just joking, jeesh :-P Ragging on Enterprise is the new ragging on Voyager, you know that.
That said, the whole concept of Time Travel in ST is completely borke,d it was borked since the first time they used it, it got even worse the waythey used it in some of the movies, and the first 2 seasons of Enterprise did a good job of completely crapping it up. I can take semi-immortal semi-omnipotent creatures like Q and all that, but the way time travel is handled in ST was the straw that broke the camel's back as far as my immersion and suspension of disbelief goes for ST. Simply because it really breaks the story. It breaks and invalidates or renders useless/wrong/ignorant much of what Kirk and Picard did.
Aside from that, some of the cast members were pretty fun, some of the episodes were good; I like they went more Kirk and less Picard though (of course) here and there they suffered from "needing to top the last one" - but every ST series has had that problem, including TNG and DS9. Enterprise as a concept and most of the story had promise; I could easily forgive a number of the choices they made (esthetics etc), but the time travel thing just broke it for me, personally, to the point that I couldn't really enjoy any episode with any reference to the Temporal Cold War. I know the storyline's supposed to get a lot better, and I'm sure I'll watch it all some day. Just not now
I didn't hear any Montalban in the voiceover. Distinctly British versus Montalban's very latino drawl.
I think I can hear some of Montalban's cadence in the way he's speaking. Breathy pauses, etc.
fade
Staff member
Yeah, I just went back and watched it again, and I agree with you. Okay, so maybe by the time I posted, I had romanticized it to Montalban, but I was just coming in here again to say that he has Khan's speech pattern. I guess that was the tell to me. Sorry--I retract "dead on impression" then. My bad.
That said, considering the spoiler above, you may just be right.
I need to brush up on my secondary Trek characters...
Who's ensign hottie?
Who's ensign hottie?
I accept the new Star Trek movies because they are flat out said to be an alternate reality. That as far as I am concerned, means they can do whatever the fuck they want. That said, if they kill off Spock the same way as in the original movies, I might get miffed. Though you know that they probably just threw that in to fuck with people. Maybe.
Dr. Elizabeth Dehner from the second pilot of TOS, "Where no Man Has Gone Before". Lending credence to the "Cumberbatch is Gary Mitchell" theory. That said, I don't think Godlike powers require massive weapons or starships to succeed.
If I remember back to Khan's original Space Seed appearance, he was marooned into space in frozen people pods by the government of earth after the Eugenics Wars for 200 years. That may explain his return for vengeance in this trailer.[DOUBLEPOST=1354822846][/DOUBLEPOST]
You son of a bitch.Maybe he's supposed to be Gary Khan, the new amalgam character Abram's Gang of Four created so they can give fans the finger.
I guess, I dunno. Taking revenge on people hundreds of years later seems kinda flimsy. I'm gonna take a shot in the dark that they may make the whole eugenics thing take place in contemporary times in Star Trek and have this be when Khan was doing his whole terrorist thing. If he's Khan of course.
My box office 8 ball suggests "Not likely"
Released Movie Name 1st Weekend US Gross Worldwide Gross Budget
12/7/1979 Star Trek: The Motion Picture $11,926,421 $82,258,456 $139,000,000 $35,000,000
6/4/1982 Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan $14,347,221 $79,912,963 $96,800,000 $12,000,000
6/1/1984 Star Trek III: The Search for Spock $16,673,229 $76,471,046 $87,000,000 $18,000,000
11/26/1986 Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home $16,881,888 $109,713,132 $133,000,000 $24,000,000
6/9/1989 Star Trek V: The Final Frontier $17,375,648 $52,210,049 $70,200,000 $30,000,000
12/6/1991 Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country $18,162,837 $74,888,996 $96,900,000 $27,000,000
11/18/1994 Star Trek: Generations $23,116,394 $75,671,262 $120,000,000 $38,000,000
11/22/1996 Star Trek: First Contact $30,716,131 $92,027,888 $150,000,000 $46,000,000
12/11/1998 Star Trek: Insurrection $22,052,836 $70,187,658 $117,800,000 $70,000,000
12/13/2002 Star Trek: Nemesis $18,513,305 $43,254,409 $67,312,826 $60,000,000
Wouldn't Disney be more concerned about the new movie franchise taken separately?
The success or failure of the second one will likely make it clear whether the Abram's crew really has resurrected Star Trek as a franchise or whether the first movie succeeded largely in part by being "not a true Trek movie".
The success or failure of the second one will likely make it clear whether the Abram's crew really has resurrected Star Trek as a franchise or whether the first movie succeeded largely in part by being "not a true Trek movie".
BananaHands
Staff member
Showin' off dat "O" face.And you may also be wrong. I'm thinking it could go either way at this point.
Same thought ran through my head Mr Hands.
- Status