[QUOTE]The cast and filmmakers for Star Trek Into Darkness (a.k.a. Star Trek 2) have been dropping vague hints about the plot for a year now, but Paramount (sorta) finally pulled the curtain back by unveiling an official synopsis last week. Today, the studio has also released the first teaser poster, hinting at the catastrophic event that forces young James Kirk (Chris Pine) to truly earn his captain’s chair in the sequel.
However, it’s a fair bet that speculation about the movie – including, what is the villain identity of Benedict Cumberbatch (Sherlock) – is going to be set on the back burner temporarily, in favor of discussions about how much the poster rings a bell (with regard to one recent blockbuster sequel in particular).
As you’re sure to notice, the Star Trek Into Darkness one-sheet very much shows the influence of the Dark Knight Rises teaser poster (and The Expendables 2 poster, to a lesser extent). That is, we see a figure (Kirk, presumably) dressed in a flowing coat, surveying a demolished city – where the rubble and crumbling building in the foreground forms the outline of the Starfleet insignia, much like the demolished Gotham City skyline formed the Bat symbol in Dark Knight Rises‘ one-sheet (or Sly Stallone stood silhouetted by a giant ’2′ in the Expendables poster).[/QUOTE]
[url]http://screenrant.com/star-trek-2-into-darkness-poster/[/url]
[IMG]http://cdn1.screenrant.com/wp-content/uploads/star-trek-into-darkness-poster.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://cdn1.screenrant.com/wp-content/uploads/The-Dark-Knight-Rises-Teaser.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://cdn1.screenrant.com/wp-content/uploads/expendables-2-official-poster-280x414.jpg[/IMG]
That's... not very Star Trekky. I'm getting some really bad Mass Effect 3 vibes here, and it's not good.
I mean, Star Trek '09 was pretty good for what it was meant to be, but I'm not very hopeful about this from the look of this one poster.
Gray and orange? How dare they, clearly copyright infringement.
Familiar or not, I kinda like it.
[QUOTE=Negrul1;38689136]Familiar or not, I kinda like it.[/QUOTE]
It's a nice looking poster, that's for sure.
It's a similar concept but it's not like a blatant ripoff or anything. It's more of a recent trend in general.
Would never guess that it's for Star Trek though unless I was told. Even with the symbol carved out.
It's a cool poster but it doesn't fit Star Trek.
i dont mind
i want another star trek movie now
Neat, though doesn't tell us much. Guess we'll all know December 14th, when the first trailer shows up.
The lack of spaceships and space bothers me.
Dumbest title ever.
[QUOTE=TheKritter71;38689109]
[IMG]http://cdn1.screenrant.com/wp-content/uploads/star-trek-into-darkness-poster.jpg[/IMG] [[/QUOTE]
Look's it the Gherkin (the dildo shaped building)
plot confirmed for Benedict Cumberbatch still as Sherlock, however he Sherlocked too hard and must be stopped
person standing on the pile is wearing all shiny black. Section 31 is probably involved somehow.
So is it set in future London then?
[QUOTE=squids_eye;38689359]So is it set in future London then?[/QUOTE]
That or they just shopped it in because it looks all futuristic.
If it was set in London they'd probably do something really generic like have the Big Ben be a centerpiece or something, like what happened in ME3.
judging a book by it's cover is accepted in this thread?
Does this take place after the Reaper attacks?
[QUOTE=Tudd;38689259]Dumbest title ever.[/QUOTE]
[img]http://i43.tower.com/images/mm100689904/into-darkness-harry-turtledove-paperback-cover-art.jpg[/img]
Why 2 ?
Werent there about a million other Star Trek movies ?
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;38689471][img]http://i43.tower.com/images/mm100689904/into-darkness-harry-turtledove-paperback-cover-art.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
But, that's "Into The Darkness" not "Star Trek Into Darkness", which is a dumb title.
Man, the universes of all of these movies need to hire different engineers or something.
The structural integrity of their buildings is questionable :v:
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;38689521]But, that's "Into The Darkness" not "Star Trek Into Darkness", which is a dumb title.[/QUOTE]
Star Trek is the supertitle. It's not read as a sentence. The movie is Into Darknesss but it's set in the Star Trek movie universe. No one is dumb enough to say "Star Trek The Search for Spock" is a dumb title because most people know how to read titles.
[QUOTE=UnseeNova;38689516]Why 2 ?
Werent there about a million other Star Trek movies ?[/QUOTE]
This is a sequel to the reboot probably.
[QUOTE=UnseeNova;38689516]Why 2 ?
Werent there about a million other Star Trek movies ?[/QUOTE]
The 2009 one was a reboot unfortunately
Yep, it's a future London. There's the Gherkin on the right and the London Eye on the left.
[QUOTE=Blooper Reel;38689391]That or they just shopped it in because it looks all futuristic.
If it was set in London they'd probably do something really generic like have the Big Ben be a centerpiece or something, like what happened in ME3.[/QUOTE]
Isn't that the London Eye down in the bottom left though?
People must be bored of blowing up New York so London's all the rage.
[QUOTE=MelonGuy;38689638]People must be bored of blowing up New York so London's all the rage.[/QUOTE]
Blame BBC America showing the US London can get fucked up any time Dr Who is around :v:
Going by the poster I'd say it looks like the main villain in the next movie are the Borg.
Someone had a better guess than my Section 31 one. The guess is that Cumberbatch is playing Garth of Izar. [url]http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Garth_of_Izar[/url]
[quote]Garth of Izar was a decorated, highly-regarded officer in the Federation Starfleet, who rose to rank of Fleet Captain in the course of his service through the mid-23rd century. His career dissolved in a dramatic descent into madness and attempted genocide, resulting in his commitment to the Elba II asylum for the criminally insane.[/quote]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.