DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => Movies and TV => Topic started by: Kotowboy on April 28, 2013, 01:55:36 AM
-
Feel free to discuss the movie here with spoilers and all and leave the other thread just for general Star Trek chat.
I can't wait ! Just over a week now til I see it :)
-
I thought i'd be more disappointed at the [Big Villain News]... But I'm really not.
I'm excited to see what they do with it.
It's been so long since the last film [ Almost exactly 4 years ] that I just wanna watch it now.
I wish I was the type of person who could ignore trailers and clips but I get too excited .
I'd never ever ever watch a screener though. The first time I see the film will be in the IMAX on release day.
I'd never watch it filmed on a camera in the cinema.
Anyway. Can't wait to see all the key scenes. Especially all the Starship stuff. :)
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=4rOpVQHX49I&NR=1
Zach Quinto slips up.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2316404/Star-Trek-Into-Darkness-Captain-Kirk-confronts-villain-board-Enterprise-new-clip.html
???????? And Kirk Face off ( contains Spoilers )
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2316404/Star-Trek-Into-Darkness-Captain-Kirk-confronts-villain-board-Enterprise-new-clip.html
-
Dang I get more and more excited with every little snippet.
I shouldn't watch them but I can't stahp ! :P
-
Sexy new Poster :
(https://comicbook.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/imax-poster.jpg)
-
Yeah, I'm looking forward to it, but I probably won't see it until it comes out on BluRay. Haven't gone to the theater in, oh, I dunno, probably a decade. Don't care to go back now either.
-
:omg: But it's Star Trek !
All the reviews are giving it 4/5 and saying that at worst - it's just as good as the last one and in some scenes it even exceeds it.
-
Looking forward to it, saw the first one on cinema and absolutely loved it. I hope this is just as good or better.
-
What does "select footage captured by IMAX" mean? Only some scenes actually utilize IMAX technology and the rest is just normal movie theater?
-
Basically that yes.
Some scenes shot with IMAX cameras ( bigger negative ) whilst the rest is classic 24fps anamorphic film.
-
Are most IMAX versions of movies like that? I get that it's likely a cost thing, but I think I might be upset if I went to an IMAX showing and it wasn't primarily IMAX film. Maybe for IMAX lovers its not a big deal. :dunno:
-
IMAX screens are enormous. You're paying for the massive immersive screen.
-
Are most IMAX versions of movies like that? I get that it's likely a cost thing, but I think I might be upset if I went to an IMAX showing and it wasn't primarily IMAX film. Maybe for IMAX lovers its not a big deal. :dunno:
Not at all, it's still amazing.
-
:metal Yay !!
Won a ticket to see Star Trek Into Darkness a day early !! Now going to see it on Wednesday AND Thursday :)
oo !
-
Holy shit I think I just connected some dots. Though I'm sure someone beat me to it.
[SPOILARZ]
Kirk: Name one good reason I should trust you.
Sherlock: There are 72 of them and they are aboard your ship.
In "Space Seed," the landing party finds a cargo of 84 humans, 72 of whom are still alive and brought back to the Enterprise.
Also, a few weeks ago I dreamed Into Darkness was a 'roided up Space Seed.
-
Yeah the cat is pretty much out of the bag anyway now.
Even IMDB has changed Cumberbatch's character from Rumoured to confirmed.
-
Three hours til I see it !!!! :eek :zydar:
And when it's done i'm going to London the same day to see it again in 3d IMAX...
I'll write a report here :)
-
:'( :'( :'(
Dear God I love Star trek.
Vengeance ploughing into San Francisco was worth waiting two hours for :P
I love big epic crash scenes in movies. I loved the one in Prometheus. This one probably tops it.
- Blob probably won't like this film.
-
:omg: :tup
-
:omg: :tup
???
-
It's a fantastic movie. Totally different in feel to the first one.
The first film was a lot more upbeat and triumphant whereas this one is a lot more sinister throughout.
I thoroughly enjoyed it.
+ Benedict is just an outstanding villain. What he can do with his voice and facial expressions are just extraordinary. In Sherlock he's this quiet genius but in Star Trek Into Darkness he just exudes pure evil.
The way he reveals his [true identity] to Kirk is just amazing. I thought [that bit] would be cheesy and lame but it was performed perfectly by Benedict.
+ i know already people on here are going to have a problem with *the ending* - even i'm not 100% sure on how I feel about it.
It's either a loving homage to an earlier movie / putting a spin on a classic scene ... or it's just a cop-out.
Right now I like it but I will definitely understand if others do not .
TL;DR : It's a hugely entertaining space adventure with amazing visuals and set pieces that at times doesn't live up to the first film but at other moments it exceeds it.
-
I accidentally read some spoilers about the end. I think I'm okay with it as long as it doesn't feel forced. My question is: is there any "cat and mouse" in this movie? The end of TWoK felt like a chess match. I want that.
-
Let's just say there is more of it than there was in Nemesis.
There's a period at the end of the film where the two ships are disabled and they're both trying to figure out their next move.
It's not a tense battle of wits like in TWOK but it's certainly not a 5 second battle in a nebula like in Nemesis.
As per the ending you mentioned I think it's handled very well and if anything feels like a loving homage rather than a knock-off.
It's emotional and performed well.
Also - you know exactly what Spock is going to say ;) .. I was not looking forward to it but it actually works well.
-
Hmm. I'm not sure if I feel like they've known each other long enough for Spock to convince me with that line. If it's the line I think you're talking about.
-
Is this a spoiler thread, can someone spoil what you two are talkinga bout in detail?
-
HUGE SPOILERS BELOW !!!!
Cumberbatch is playing Khan and takes control of a huge secret starfleet defence ship. He disables the Enterprise and ]The Enterprise core goes out of alignment so Kirk has to go inside the core to realign it. He dies of radiation and his last conversation is with Spock who says he is having trouble controlling his feelings. Kirk dies infront of him and Spock yells out Khans name but it's really not as awful as it sounds as the scene is interrupted by Khan's ship zooming past as it hurtles towards earth.
Meanwhile - Bones finds out that Khan's blood has restorative properties and orders Spock to bring back Khan to the ship.
Kirk wakes up in hospital.
SPOILERS END
-
Huh, it does sound like it would be bad. If they pulled it off without it being distractive, big time kudos to them.
-
Like I said - it doesn't feel like a lazy knock-off. It's performed well. That's pretty much the only scene that is borrowed from an earlier film.
It is it's own movie up until then and after then too.
but I can imagine BlobVanDam flat out hating that scene. But then again he may surprise me. ;D
-
Caught it today. Not a Trekkie at all - loved the previous film, but only watched it once, in the cinema, so... yes, four years ago! Loved this one, too. Possibly moreso. Didn't know Benedict's character, but knew his significance, and knew his name was notoriously yellable. Enjoyed that they actually did it.
Regeneration clever, well set-up. Family theme laid on with a trowel, a bit, but not irritating. Couple of bits where I lost plot threads, usually in the midst of rapidfire exposition, but I caught up as the story wore on. Good film. Great film. Really liked it. 10/10 feels generous, 9/10 a little mean. Let's say 5/5.
-
Just saw it tonight, will sleep on it and then comment my thoughts here tomorrow :coolio
-
Glad ya liked it Rob !
I'm seeing it for the THIRD TIME on Wednesday . It's just that good.
;D ;D
-
Family theme laid on with a trowel, a bit, but not irritating. Couple of bits where I lost plot threads, usually in the midst of rapidfire exposition, but I caught up as the story wore on. Good film. Great film. Really liked it. 10/10 feels generous, 9/10 a little mean. Let's say 5/5.
The most important thing is - it has Plot threads for you to get lost in! Unlike Transforemrs movies which have mind numbing super-extreme-close-up CGI fight scenes for two hours and nary a hint of any story!
-
Star Trek Into Darkness (2013)
Saw this last night and I have to say that it was really great. Better than the first one even thought I thought it wouldn't be. Chris Pine is great as Kirk. Spock is awesome as Spock, yeah not Zachary Quinto, in this movie Spock plays Spock. But the best part of the cast is of course Benedict Cumberbatch, as expected. I have been a big fan of his since I saw Sherlock and it was really cool to see him play a bad guy here.
For a few minutes there I actually thought he'd be a good guy anyways, when he cries and tells Kirk that Marcus is the bad guy and all that shit. There I thought "oh, I thought it'd be cool for him to just be the villain all the way but okay fine I can roll with this". But then of course he's all "I will walk over your cold corpses" with his Cumberbatchy voice and is all awesome.
This movie disappointed me at one point though. One of the best things about the 2009 movie was the "silent-space" thing. That was illustrated really well two times in that movie and it is probably the detail that made really interested to begin with. And then this movie comes along and has a like 3-minute space jump scene, and it's just noisy as shit. That scene would have been one of the best in the movie if it was done in silence. I'm not talking about music here, they could have used music since it's a pretty long scene, but I would have been so happy if they had skipped the ridiculous sound effects from the jet packs and objects passing by.
One thing I thought when watching this was also "trek fans will be soo happy". At least I think they will be, I think I would have been if I was a hardcore Trekkie. I have never seen any of the old Star Trek movies and never a single TV-episode, but there was still moments in here that I felt was really monumental. First of all, we get to see the Klingons, something I have heard people felt was missing from the first movie. Then we have all the Wrath of Khan referenses, when Spock calls old Spock, hands on the glass, even the Khan-yell. I haven't even seen Wrath of Khan and that was still awesome.
Best movie so far this year (out of the three that I've seen..).
8.4/10 - Great
-
:tup
Now go and watch the Wrath Of Khan ;)
-
Third time seeing this tomorrow in the space of a week.
Normal 3D
IMAX 3D
Normal 2D.
I've a feeling the 2D screening tomorrow will be the best one. I can just relax and watch the film without any distractions.
-
I've now read two reviews in the media that pissed all over it. Usually, this means I will enjoy it :lol
-
I've now read two reviews in the media that pissed all over it. Usually, this means I will enjoy it :lol
I've seen almost unanimous praise for the film.
4/5 in almost every review i've seen.
-
Waiting in line. I am excite.
-
I just got back from it and I don't know any Trekkies who are awake right now! AARBLBHBH
HEAVY SPOILERS
+ Benedict is just an outstanding villain. What he can do with his voice and facial expressions are just extraordinary. In Sherlock he's this quiet genius but in Star Trek Into Darkness he just exudes pure evil.
This is one of the things I intended to post. I haven't had a villain made me feel that uneasy since Nurse Rachet.
The way he reveals his [true identity] to Kirk is just amazing. I thought [that bit] would be cheesy and lame but it was performed perfectly by Benedict.
Eh. All he said was "My name is Khan." If you're referring to how he reveals his true identity to the audience, however, I think that was masterful. Trekkies who know their stuff should have been able to figure out pretty early on that Khan's crew was stuffed in the torpedoes.
+ i know already people on here are going to have a problem with *the ending* - even i'm not 100% sure on how I feel about it.
It's either a loving homage to an earlier movie / putting a spin on a classic scene ... or it's just a cop-out.
I loved it solely because of the role reversal. To me, it illustrated that no matter how their situations differ from the prime universe, there are certain points of their destinies that cannot be avoided.
-
Bob Orci was answering fan questions on TrekMovie last night and he said he didn't think it was the timeline correcting itself - it was more like the multiverse theory where this new timeline is one of many alternate timelines where similar things happen in each of them.
And that this scene was to finally show Spock what it means to be a friend.
-
Eh. All he said was "My name is Khan."
I know but I mean the way he delivered it coupled with his face and the eerie music.
-
Eh. All he said was "My name is Khan."
I know but I mean the way he delivered it coupled with his face and the eerie music.
Fair enough. After reading your initial post, I was expecting some elaborate reveal where he releases the information through small bits that Kirk has to piece together or something. :P
-
Saw the movie last night in IMAX 3D.. this was the first Star Trek anything ive ever actually watched and it was realllllly fucking good imo.
-
:)
-
Saw the movie last night in IMAX 3D.. this was the first Star Trek anything ive ever actually watched and it was realllllly fucking good imo.
You should see the previous film next then.
Then " The Wrath of Khan " and finally " The Undiscovered Country. "
-
Saw the movie last night in IMAX 3D.. this was the first Star Trek anything ive ever actually watched and it was realllllly fucking good imo.
Damn. There are so many bits that are so much more enjoyable if you know your Trek-verse.
(Informative post for Scurby)
Back in 1967, an episode aired called "Space Seed." The Enterprise found a drifting ship containing cryo-tubes, which contained Khan plus 72 of his crew members. Khan wakes his crew and tries to take over the Enterprise, but Kirk gives him an ass-whoopin'. Kirk decides to exile Khan and his crew on an abandoned planet called Ceti Alpha V, where Khan is free to start his own "kingdom."
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-S55UsMpbfjE/UOi15ZOkOKI/AAAAAAAAF2g/t0jG02sGhY0/s400/tumblr_ly5v5sAwJQ1qeenqto1_500.jpg)
Which leads us to the movie "Wrath of Khan." Perhaps still the greatest Star Trek movie of all time. The entire movie is basically a cat-and-mouse match between Kirk and Khan, as Khan tries to get revenge for being stranded on the desolate planet (a nearby planet exploded, rendering Khan's home a hostile environment). There's another subplot that is good in the movie, but really not worth mentioning here.
Also, after watching Into Darkness, this might look a bit familiar to you: (It's spoilery if you plan on watching Wrath of Khan)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntrmRExwS7M
-
Since when did The Wrath Of Khan come out in 1991 ? :P
1991 was The Undiscovered Country.
Same Director, mind.
-
I'm going to see this tomorrow afternoon. I am excite.
-
https://www.giantfreakinrobot.com/scifi/joke-jj-abrams-lens-flares-simon-pegg-fck.html
Totally hilarious. Simon Pegg responds to JJ's 'lens flare' critics.
-
Pegg is so fucking intelligent and well-spoken, it's unbelievable.
-
Just got out of the theater. I don't know, I didn't like it as much as the first. Mostly, I think, because of the reenactment of the Kirk-Spock death scene. It just made a gimmick out of a scene that defined Star Trek.
Thing is also, I really like Cumberbatch as an actor. But he's not Khan. The original Khan was oozing a superiority complex and that was exactly what became his downfall. This new Khan just seemed mindlessly violent.
And, too much action. The plot was scattered between minute-long scenes of CGI and fist fights.
-
Just got out of the theater. I don't know, I didn't like it as much as the first. Mostly, I think, because of the reenactment of the Kirk-Spock death scene. It just made a gimmick out of a scene that defined Star Trek.
Also, too much action.
I expected that scene to be controversial. I liked it. Like I mentioned above, I think it shows that certain aspects and moments of their friendship are unavoidable, no matter the timeline. But I get your take on it, too. Definitely see how it could be construed as a cop-out or gimmick.
-
Especially the fact that they had Spock do the Khan yell was not good. IMHO.
-
I thought that was awesome.
-
I thought that was awesome.
Same.
-
Oh, I forgot to mention this! The number one type of movie death that gives me shudders (and I absolutely cannot watch) is someone's head getting crushed or smashed. The scene with the mace in Braveheart? Have to close my eyes. I actually have made a point to avoid Inglorious Basterds because I'm aware of a scene that depicts exactly this. Most violence I can tolerate; I'm not sure why it's such a touchy issue for me. Now I know it was only implied in Star Trek, but damn them for putting the imagery in my head. Had to go all out with the squishes and crunches. *shudder*
-
Someone's head got smashed? I don't remember that.
-
Someone's head got smashed? I don't remember that.
It was Robocop who got his head crushed. They didn't show it on screen, but they showed Carol's reaction scream. It was pretty cool. DAT CRUNCH!
Just got out of the theater. I don't know, I didn't like it as much as the first. Mostly, I think, because of the reenactment of the Kirk-Spock death scene. It just made a gimmick out of a scene that defined Star Trek.
Thing is also, I really like Cumberbatch as an actor. But he's not Khan. The original Khan was oozing a superiority complex and that was exactly what became his downfall. This new Khan just seemed mindlessly violent.
And, too much action. The plot was scattered between minute-long scenes of CGI and fist fights.
Mostly this.
I didn't buy a pasty white British guy as Khan Noonien Sigh for a second. He made a very good villain, but he did not make a good Khan. Unfortunately it's hard to ignore it when the entire plot hinges on the fact he's Khan. I love how the big reveal had absolutely no impact, since Kirk obviously has no clue who he is.
Overall an enjoyable movie, if you know absolutely nothing about Star Trek or science, as neither the writers or JJ did. Despite a lot of improvement in certain areas, it was another big mindless action movie. And don't get me wrong, it was an excellent mindless action movie! But still flawed in many of the same ways as the first.
They did greatly improve the characters overall, and utilize them a lot better than the first one. Having Scotty head straight to the bar was fun, and having him leave because of his professional pride in maintaining the ship and the safety of the crew was believable, especially after it was justified.
Spock's quote of "the needs of the many etc" was kind of shoehorned in though. He wasn't saving anyone by sacrificing himself. He was just avoiding contaminating a culture. Why all the BS about upholding the Prime Directive, when the very reason he was going to die was because he'd already violated the Prime Directive? wtf? And hiding the Enterprise under water? Really?
"Dear Lord, that's over 150 atmospheres of pressure!"
"How many atmopsheres can the ship withstand?"
"Well, it's a spaceship, so I'd say anywhere between 0 and 1."
Kirk was definitely improved, especially with a lot more attempted dynamic with Spock and Bones. You could see they tried to play their development off each other to establish that. It didn't always work, but it was a lot better than in the first movie.
The Klingon ships looked badass, as did their costumes, but they ruined their look just as badly as they messed up the Romulans in the last one. In fact, they basically just made them look like the Romulans. Does JJ have to make every single bad guy alien look like a bald goblin with piercings and pointed ears? I would have kept the helmet on too.
The references were a mixed back. It was neat seeing the Enterprise ring ship from TMP (and it looked exactly like the more recent model from the SOTL calendar), and the NX-01, and the reference to Section 31 was ok (even though I hated the entire section 31 storyline even in DS9). The tribble was very forced in there though, as even if they did know about tribbles at this point, they would have learned better than to have even one on board. At least they didn't change them. It was a furry ball that had the same sound effect.
The rehashed TWOK scenes were a bit of a facepalm. It's not that they did them badly, but it was a mere shadow of TWOK, a movie where these characters had developed a strong friendship over so long. They did use it as a good turning point in the developing friendship between new Kirk and new Spock though.
Which brings me back to the awful science of the movie. So Kirk had to climb into this giant spherical generic scifi room to "realign" the thingy that was out of whack by kicking it repeatedly. I love the precision engineering of this ship, and the ease of access. How did this thingy even get misaligned? If it's something that radioactive and dangerous, you'd hope it's a bit more well constructed than "oops, it fell out" and "eh that's about the right spot".
And I'd love to know how the writers think artificial gravity works, I really would. The ship didn't seem to be close enough for the screwed gravity to be from the planet. The ship was hurtling too randomly for me to believe it was due to the acceleration of the ship. It was just "whatever the hell direction we need it to be in".
And that new ship was ridiculous. I'm not even going to touch the Iron Man scene with the shooting right into the port as it's de-pressurizing and throwing a guy out.
And what is with JJ's love for blowing shit up? It kind of lessens the impact when every single scene is destroying the Enterprise, or destroying all of Starfleet, or killing off every single Captain, etc. It just keeps going.
And at what point did they upgrade the Enterprise's warp engines to shit glitter? Twinkle twinkle little starship, how I wonder what they were thinking......
Khan's magical healing blood that revives people from the dead, and cures cancer and radiation and herpes........ riiiiiiiight...........
Anyway, more to say, but that's all I has time for now. Overall I did enjoy the movie, more than it seems from me focusing on the bad here, but it lacked the intelligence and optimism that I like to see in Star Trek. For a Hollywood blockbuster movie though, it's a movie I'd definitely watch again (not at the movies though). The CG was incredible, and some of the most seamless I've seen. And overall I'd say the movie was a bit better than the last, and I've watched that movie several times.
-
And at what point did they upgrade the Enterprise's warp engines to shit glitter? Twinkle twinkle little starship, how I wonder what they were thinking......
There is very much what you said I don't agree with, but concerning this we're on the same page.
-
Pegg is so fucking intelligent and well-spoken, it's unbelievable.
On Twitter he said that he was overdubbing all the swear words for The World's End and it was taking ages.
I suggested maybe he not swear so much.
His reply ?
" Fuck off. "
Lovely man.
-
Blob seemed to like it a lot more than I thought he would !
:)
I'm surprised as I thought he would tear it to shreds.
-
And at what point did they upgrade the Enterprise's warp engines to shit glitter? Twinkle twinkle little starship, how I wonder what they were thinking......
There is very much what you said I don't agree with, but concerning this we're on the same page.
It wouldn't be so bad if it was at least consistent with what they already established, but the same ship didn't do that at all in the last movie. It was just a "because we can" type effect. Other than that, the warp shots were cool. I just could have done without the glitter and sparkle sound effects.
I forgot to mention, I was digging the new communicators too.
And another thing..... how exactly does a dangerous nut from 300 years ago help build an advanced warship? There was nothing on that ship that he could have given useful input to. It was all technology, nothing to do with tactics and ruthlessness like he said. Very contrived.
And why would you even let him know where you're building such an advanced warship? It doesn't seem they even kept Khan restrained or locked up before that point, and even the most basic profiling would make it clear that they did everything wrong letting him that close to the project. Secrecy was likely their most important defense, since Scotty flew straight in with a plain old shuttlecraft from the Enterprise with no resistance.
Blob seemed to like it a lot more than I thought he would !
:)
I'm surprised as I thought he would tear it to shreds.
I enjoyed the last one too. But it's possible to like something while still having things I dislike too. I even liked The Final Frontier, and that movie is awful.
-
We don't know for definite that it was the exact same Enterprise. They may have upgraded the engines.
If you look closely at the impulse engine on the back of the saucer at the end of ...Into Darkness...it's a new version.
I liked the warp effect - vapour trails included. It was kind of an update of the effect from TMP.
Despite JJ saying this film is mostly "fun" - I thought it was obviously a lot more serious in tone.
And Scotty's character was a lot better this time around. Not *just* the comic relief.
-
We don't know for definite that it was the exact same Enterprise. They may have upgraded the engines.
If you look closely at the impulse engine on the back of the saucer at the end of ...Into Darkness...it's a new version.
I liked the warp effect - vapour trails included. It was kind of an update of the effect from TMP.
Despite JJ saying this film is mostly "fun" - I thought it was obviously a lot more serious in tone.
And Scotty's character was a lot better this time around. Not *just* the comic relief.
Maybe they did upgrade the engines. I still think it's a lame effect regardless though. :lol
Agreed on the last two points. I didn't get a fun tone from this film overall. It's darker and more serious than the last one for sure. A lot of people getting killed, or seriously injured, and a lot of serious character moments, and more personal. Even though they blew up Vulcan in the last one, that was a fair bit into the movie, and it was kind of impersonal.
-
I'm pretty sure Star Trek was a PG certificate whilst this one was 12A which maks it the most adult star trek since TWOK - which was a 15 certificate in the uk ( back in 1982 ).
I loved the opening scene on Nibiru. I think it's fun seeing Enterprise in places where it's not supposed to be.
One of my favourite scenes was definitely Vengeance ploughing into San Francisco. I like how - just before it hits the water you can see how enormous it really is. Then the saucer section up-ends and is knocking over buildings.
It was amazing in IMAX !
-
One of my favourite scenes was definitely Vengeance ploughing into San Francisco. I like how - just before it hits the water you can see how enormous it really is. Then the saucer section up-ends and is knocking over buildings.
Yes, that was really cool. Like you said, it was awesome to see how freaking large these starships really are. You always see them blasting around superfast in space with no real reference to measure sizes by. But to see a ship out of place like that and when that thing stood up and just dwarfed the skyscrapers was a powerful sight.
-
Amazing. And tracked back as well so you can actually see what's going on instead of it being a blue of movement Michael Bay style.
I might have to try and edit that scene as Bay would have directed it - just zoom in the whole time :P
-
(https://cdn1.screenrant.com/wp-content/uploads/Star-Trek-Into-Darkness-Screenshot-Enterprise-Crashing.jpg)
If you look to the bottom left of this pic you can see a tiny wee ship to compare it to !
-
I think they still can't make up their mind on the correct scale of the ships. The size of that ship was ridiculous, especially compared to an already ridiculously sized Enterprise. I didn't like that scene either. It was more senseless destruction. Then cut to the ending with the Enterprise fixed, and all of the buildings looking just fine. So what was the point?
-
I am hearing it sucks. I tend to believe that from the reasons why. No story, just lots of effects. I liked the last one and I am not a big Star Trek fan in general.
-
It was Khan's last ditch attempt to destroy StarFleet headquarters.
Plus Kirk mentioned it in his speech, commemorating those lost in the attack as a warning of what not to become again.
-
I am hearing it sucks. I tend to believe that from the reasons why. No story, just lots of effects. I liked the last one and I am not a big Star Trek fan in general.
If you liked the last one, and you're not a big Trek fan, you'll definitely like this one too. Just go and see it.
It was Khan's last ditch attempt to destroy StarFleet headquarters.
Plus Kirk mentioned it in his speech, commemorating those lost in the attack as a warning of what not to become again.
He mentions it quickly, after fast forwarding a year past any of the real repercussions of the carnage. It was very glossed over. The destruction of Vulcan was pretty glossed over in this film too imo. They make one mention to new Vulcan when new Spock calls old Spock, and that's about it. Oh, and Spock mentions it when talking to Uhura too.
I don't think the writers are big on consequences. They just do whatever they think is cool at that moment.
-
I am hearing it sucks. I tend to believe that from the reasons why. No story, just lots of effects. I liked the last one and I am not a big Star Trek fan in general.
There's LOTS of story. Admiral Marcus wants a war with the Klingons and so sets about exploring far flung corners of the Quadrant for tech that will help build improved weaponry. He finds the Botany bay and awakens Khan. He holds his crew hostage to force him to design super advanced ships and weapons. So Khan hides his crew in the same torpedoes. [ Admittedly this is the bit that confuses me.]
He gets found out and goes on the run, assuming that Marcus will kill his entire crew. He retaliates and then flees to Kronos to lure Marcus with the torpedoes. Meanwhile - Kirk is out for revenge at Khan for the attack on Starfleet and has a personal score to settle.
Spock believes that his revenge on Khan is no less morally right than what Khan did to Starfleet.
Instead of destroying Khan - they apprehend him and Khan goes willingly as they have 72 of his crew on the Enterprise. Khan reveals to Kirk what Marcus did and then Marcus shows up in the Vengeance to destroy the Enterprise under the false pretence that Kirk is in league with Khan.
Scotty meanwhile ( having been fired from the Enterprise for not signing for the torpedoes as he cannot verify what is inside them ) is on the Vengeance having been tipped off by Kirk to check out some co-ordinates given to him by Khan as proof that Marcus has built top secret ships. He has disabled Vengeance long enough for Kirk & Khan to space jump over and seize control.
However - Khan kills Marcus and disables Kirk and fires on Enterprise after beaming across the 72 torpedoes.
Unbeknownst to hm though - Spock and McCoy have rigged the torpedoes to explode and they cripple the Vengeance.
With both ships now plummeting towards Earth - Kirk sacrifices himself to re-align the warp core so the Enterprise can be saved.
Bones finds out that Khan's blood can restore Kirk's blood cells ( wich were heavily irradiated ) and he puts him in a cryo tube to save his higher brain functions.
Spock takes chase after Khan and disables him - allowing Kirk to be saved.
But yeah - no story to speak of.
-
I don't know if Tick wants the story spilled out in detail before going.
-
A lot of things happen, there's just not a whole lot of effort put into internal consistency or logic. Typical action movie fare, but I can't say I've heard many people say it outright "sucks".
I really can't see how anyone who liked ST09 could dislike Into Darkness, because I think this is the slightly better film, and at least no worse.
-
I don't know if Tick wants the story spilled out in detail before going.
Well it says Spoilers in the title and if he doesn't wanna know what happens - he wouldn't be reading a thread about it :P
-
A lot of things happen, there's just not a whole lot of effort put into internal consistency or logic. Typical action movie fare, but I can't say I've heard many people say it outright "sucks".
I really can't see how anyone who liked ST09 could dislike Into Darkness, because I think this is the slightly better film, and at least no worse.
Yeah - the worst i've read about it is " It's as good as the last one. "
-
I don't know if Tick wants the story spilled out in detail before going.
Well it says Spoilers in the title and if he doesn't wanna know what happens - he wouldn't be reading a thread about it :P
Yeah, I suppose I said the same thing.
-
A lot of things happen, there's just not a whole lot of effort put into internal consistency or logic. Typical action movie fare, but I can't say I've heard many people say it outright "sucks".
I really can't see how anyone who liked ST09 could dislike Into Darkness, because I think this is the slightly better film, and at least no worse.
Yeah - the worst i've read about it is " It's as good as the last one. "
I think it really comes down to what you're expecting from this movie. There are Trek fans who are going to dislike it for its problems, and I can agree with them. There's also the average movie goer who wants an enjoyable scifi movie who will love it for the great action, and I can agree with them too. Neither one is wrong.
But objectively I can say that I haven't heard of anyone who liked the last movie, but disliked this one.
-
If anything I preferred the last one primarily for how it made me feel after watching it.
A few people have said that you won't walk away from this film with the same level of joy as the last one and that's true for me even though this film is really good.
-
I am hearing it sucks. I tend to believe that from the reasons why. No story, just lots of effects. I liked the last one and I am not a big Star Trek fan in general.
Actually, it has quite a bit of story.
87% on rottentomatoes and 8.3 on imdb. I have yet to hear anyone just flat-out say "it sucks."
-
https://connecticut.cbslocal.com/2013/05/16/star-trek-into-darkness-boldly-goes-where-weve-already-been/
This review exactly expresses how I feel about the movie.
-
As sequels go - Into Darkness puts Iron Man 2 to shame.
Iron Man 2 is basically " all action - zero plot " incarnate.
-
What I hate is walking out of a film you loved and hearing a group of teens already tearing the film to shreds - but with gripes that were adressed IN THE FILM.
:facepalm:
" Hurrr Hurrr - those two spaceships fighting that close to Earth and no other spaceships came to investigate LOL "
Admiral Marcus is the CEO of Starfleet and i'm pretty sure he'd want to keep the USS Vengeance a secret.
He wanted to destroy Kirk himself and blame it on him going rogue and siding with a known terrorist and possibly Klingons.
I'm pretty sure he would have ordered that no other ships be sent to help with bringing Kirk in to risk finding out the truth.
-
What I hate is walking out of a film you loved and hearing a group of teens already tearing the film to shreds - but with gripes that were adressed IN THE FILM.
:facepalm:
" Hurrr Hurrr - those two spaceships fighting that close to Earth and no other spaceships came to investigate LOL "
Admiral Marcus is the CEO of Starfleet and i'm pretty sure he'd want to keep the USS Vengeance a secret.
He wanted to destroy Kirk himself and blame it on him going rogue and siding with a known terrorist and possibly Klingons.
I'm pretty sure he would have ordered that no other ships be sent to help with bringing Kirk in to risk finding out the truth.
Not to mention most of the Captains/First-Officers for the ships around Earth were killed by Khan.
-
What I hate is walking out of a film you loved and hearing a group of teens already tearing the film to shreds - but with gripes that were adressed IN THE FILM.
:facepalm:
What about if they were walking out of the film talking about one of the many legitimate flaws and plotholes in the film that weren't addressed? Would that still be a problem?
-
MIND ASPLODE
Someone on Reddit pointed this out. McCoy was commenting on speed of cell replication in Khan's blood as he injected the tribble. Could that be the source of the tribble spawn rate?
-
MIND ASPLODE
Someone on Reddit pointed this out. McCoy was commenting on speed of cell replication in Khan's blood as he injected the tribble. Could that be the source of the tribble spawn rate?
As they multiplied just fine in the prime universe without being injected with magical fantasy blood, I'd say no.
-
MIND ASPLODE
Someone on Reddit pointed this out. McCoy was commenting on speed of cell replication in Khan's blood as he injected the tribble. Could that be the source of the tribble spawn rate?
As they multiplied just fine in the prime universe without being injected with magical fantasy blood, I'd say no.
How do you know they were never injected with magical fantasy blood?
-
MIND ASPLODE
Someone on Reddit pointed this out. McCoy was commenting on speed of cell replication in Khan's blood as he injected the tribble. Could that be the source of the tribble spawn rate?
As they multiplied just fine in the prime universe without being injected with magical fantasy blood, I'd say no.
How do you know they were never injected with magical fantasy blood?
You're right. It's very likely that in TOS someone swung by Ceti Alpha V to grab some of Khan's blood knowing it was magical and made animals spontaneously reproduce at an alarming rate, then injected it into a tribble so they could start selling it at local space stations.
edit: And I just remembered that Enterprise showed a tribble, and mentioned their crazy reproductive rate.
-
So I saw the movie last night and it didn't really do it for me, which is a shame since I really loved the first Abrams film.
I really liked the first act and the overall set up, but somewhere half way through the second act when Robocop showed up with his super secret death ship and his uninspired crew uniforms, I lost interest. I was like "oh I guess Khan will get that advanced ship somehow and they will fight or something" and when that scenario played out I was like meh.
-
What I hate is walking out of a film you loved and hearing a group of teens already tearing the film to shreds - but with gripes that were adressed IN THE FILM.
:facepalm:
What about if they were walking out of the film talking about one of the many legitimate flaws and plotholes in the film that weren't addressed? Would that still be a problem?
Is it a problem if I enjoyed the film more than you think I should have ?
-
MIND ASPLODE
Someone on Reddit pointed this out. McCoy was commenting on speed of cell replication in Khan's blood as he injected the tribble. Could that be the source of the tribble spawn rate?
McCoy actually said the cells regenerate like nothing else - not reproduce. I.e. they heal at an alarming rate. Not replicate.
-
What I hate is walking out of a film you loved and hearing a group of teens already tearing the film to shreds - but with gripes that were adressed IN THE FILM.
:facepalm:
What about if they were walking out of the film talking about one of the many legitimate flaws and plotholes in the film that weren't addressed? Would that still be a problem?
Is it a problem if I enjoyed the film more than you think I should have ?
I have no opinion on how much you "should" have liked it.
-
I called it right with villain in the Star Trek thread.
https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/index.php?topic=19285.msg991494#msg991494
It actually pisses me off. The movie is fine I bet, like Star Trek. I just grow tired of someone at the helm ignoring all the other canon for a narrow focus on one movie because that was his favorite growing up. There are 10 other films, some bad ones, on top of at least 560 episodes.
I just don't buy fully into the JJ Abrams hype I guess, and I'm a grouch that is stuck in their fondness of past stories.
-
So I saw the movie last night and it didn't really do it for me, which is a shame since I really loved the first Abrams film.
I really liked the first act and the overall set up, but somewhere half way through the second act when Robocop showed up with his super secret death ship and his uninspired crew uniforms, I lost interest. I was like "oh I guess Khan will get that advanced ship somehow and they will fight or something" and when that scenario played out I was like meh.
A lot of the stuff was soooo predictable. When I saw Bones injecting the Tribble with Khan's blood, I immediately thought " setup for later revival of somebody". When Kirk was supposedly dying all I waited for was for Bones to enter the scene. Which he invariably did.
-
I don't know if Tick wants the story spilled out in detail before going.
Well it says Spoilers in the title and if he doesn't wanna know what happens - he wouldn't be reading a thread about it :P
Yeah, but there's a modest difference between spoilers and a plot outline. One is SNAPE KILLS DUMBLEDORE.
Your post is a plot outline, lol.
-
It seems to me that the majority of the people who are being fairly critical of/complaining about the movie are the people who loved the original movies and the series. These series of movies are a 'reboot,' so the new movies are not going to pan out the way they did in the original series, so you really shouldn't expect these new movies to do that. As someone who didn't see any of the original movies or the original series, I felt like they did a very good job introducing everything. Most people should know that if you've seen the original movies/series, most of what happens has already been spoiled for you. There are a few exceptions, but the new movies are based on the original Star Trek stories, and creating a completely new way of how events happened would have completely pissed off the Trekkies, rather than slightly pissing them off.
-
As I said in my mini-review I actually thought fans of the original movies and series would be very happy with this movie. I guess that was a misscalculation.
I have never seen any old Star Trek movies or a single TV episode and I was extremely pleased with this movie.
-
I am a fan of the original series and the movies. I love the new movies.
-
I am a fan of the original series and the movies. I love the new movies.
-
Same here. I loved the reboot, I just don't think the new one is a particularly good one.
-
It seems to me that the majority of the people who are being fairly critical of/complaining about the movie are the people who loved the original movies and the series. These series of movies are a 'reboot,' so the new movies are not going to pan out the way they did in the original series, so you really shouldn't expect these new movies to do that. As someone who didn't see any of the original movies or the original series, I felt like they did a very good job introducing everything. Most people should know that if you've seen the original movies/series, most of what happens has already been spoiled for you. There are a few exceptions, but the new movies are based on the original Star Trek stories, and creating a completely new way of how events happened would have completely pissed off the Trekkies, rather than slightly pissing them off.
The funny thing is, the majority of my issues with both movies are not because they deviate from Trek (although I certainly do have my issues there too), but mostly because they're not internally consistent, intelligent scifi movies, and in the case of Into Darkness, lacks originality considering the whole point of the reboot was to start fresh (which I guess relates back to the fact I'm a Trek/scifi fan).
I had never seen an episode of TOS when I saw the first movie, and had only just started to get into Trek at all, but still numerous found problems with it. There are many plotholes, and random things thrown in because they thought they looked cool, without regard for obeying the laws of physics, or following a sense of logic.
They're both excellent action movies, and on that level I enjoyed both a lot, and I rank them highly on the list of Trek movies (Trek has never worked all that well in movie form imo). But the issues with the movies extend well beyond merely "the ship isn't supposed to have the aztec pattern until the refit after the 5 year mission! Canon violation!"
-
Really, REALLY loved it. I just hate when there are more than a few 'lol-wat?' moments. A couple I can handle, but when there are more than a handful, it bugs me.
Wouldn't a crack in Kirk's visor completely cause the suit to implode?
They were 237,000 miles from Earth when Marus attacked them... A), they didn't think to call Earth for help, but "new Vulcan"?
Does Earth's gravity really extend 237,000 miles? Let's say it does for a second... then when the ship starts tumbling and spinning, wouldn't it go into an all-out, out-of-control free fall? Not sure how it flips/spins... levels off ... flips a bit more... levels off... and so on.
Falling that fast, thrusters aren't going to stop the ship in a matter of seconds without disintegrating it.
Boy, they sure disarmed those 72 photon torpedo's, pulled out the cryo tubes, and re-armed them pretty darn quick.
Since when do hand held communicators have a range or Earth-to-Kronos for Kirk to ping Scotty?
And the other things already mentioned, and I'm sure there are more.
Great movie, but as Blob points out, they ignore too much about the ST lore, and basic physics.
Oh, and Quinto was downright amazing - I liked his performance better than Cumberbatch's. But, that scream was bad... just bad (and unnecessary). Khan marooned Kirk; they had history; Kirk was on the communicator directly with him. Spock just yelled it for shits and giggles.
-
[***SPOILER***]
My nephew just came back from seeing this movie yesterday and his comments were:
"Total ripoff of The Wrath of Khan"
"Decent movie visually but hamstrung by a ridiculous script"
-
Really, REALLY loved it. I just hate when there are more than a few 'lol-wat?' moments. A couple I can handle, but when there are more than a handful, it bugs me.
Wouldn't a crack in Kirk's visor completely cause the suit to implode?
They were 237,000 miles from Earth when Marus attacked them... A), they didn't think to call Earth for help, but "new Vulcan"?
Does Earth's gravity really extend 237,000 miles? Let's say it does for a second... then when the ship starts tumbling and spinning, wouldn't it go into an all-out, out-of-control free fall? Not sure how it flips/spins... levels off ... flips a bit more... levels off... and so on.
Falling that fast, thrusters aren't going to stop the ship in a matter of seconds without disintegrating it.
Boy, they sure disarmed those 72 photon torpedo's, pulled out the cryo tubes, and re-armed them pretty darn quick.
Since when do hand held communicators have a range or Earth-to-Kronos for Kirk to ping Scotty?
And the other things already mentioned, and I'm sure there are more.
Great movie, but as Blob points out, they ignore too much about the ST lore, and basic physics.
Oh, and Quinto was downright amazing - I liked his performance better than Cumberbatch's. But, that scream was bad... just bad (and unnecessary). Khan marooned Kirk; they had history; Kirk was on the communicator directly with him. Spock just yelled it for shits and giggles.
Agreed on most of this. Quinto has proved that he was very well cast for filling some mighty big shoes. Nimoy will always be best, but Quinto gets my seal of approval.
The only point I'll dispute from your post is the communicator one. I figure they tie into the communication system like a cell phone. Close range they could probably communicate directly, but I'd say they'd be capable of tying into the Enterprise's long range communication system so they could potentially contact anywhere.
In TOS they didn't usually contact anyone that long distance in realtime though. There were several times where it took days to get a response from Starfleet due to the speed of the signal back to Earth.
I liked seeing the communicators get good use in this movie. They didn't just feel like cheap walkie-talkies.
-
^ On the communicator... theoretically yes. But again, it ignores all the times in the TV series' where they were "out of communicator range".
One last :wtf:... why does one stun gun shot momentarily take out Cumberbatch on the bridge of the Vengeance, but four shots from Uhura and he's still coming at her? Guess she has some girly phaser?
-
I can get by the LOL Wuts with how good the movie is.
It's funny how Blob pointed out that Star Trek is much better suited for TV and I agree. But this formula is just perfect for a 2+ hour film. Like 2 6 and 8 in the series. It's the action films that seem most benefit playing in the theaters so I fully endorse the way the new franchise is making these last 2 films.
I would love to see a TV series again and I hope with this success they can springboard to a new series.
-
^ On the communicator... theoretically yes. But again, it ignores all the times in the TV series' where they were "out of communicator range".
Fair point, although I'm willing to excuse that one and put it down to the modernization of the TOS era. To put it into perspective, it's far from the worst offense in the reboot franchise. :lol
It's funny how Blob pointed out that Star Trek is much better suited for TV and I agree. But this formula is just perfect for a 2+ hour film. Like 2 6 and 8 in the series. It's the action films that seem most benefit playing in the theaters so I fully endorse the way the new franchise is making these last 2 films.
I would love to see a TV series again and I hope with this success they can springboard to a new series.
I agree you can't just stick an episode on the big screen and call it a movie (and that's certainly a big criticism of some of the movies). In a general sense, this movie succeeded at what Trek needs to be to work on the big screen, and struck a good balance for the most part. They just don't have a strong enough sense of continuity and accuracy for me to love them as much as I could have, but I really like them nonetheless for what they are. They are very good action movies.
-
^ On the communicator... theoretically yes. But again, it ignores all the times in the TV series' where they were "out of communicator range".
Fair point, although I'm willing to excuse that one and put it down to the modernization of the TOS era. To put it into perspective, it's far from the worst offense in the reboot franchise. :lol
tru dat
-
I absolutely LOVED the movie...but to be fair, it did convince me of one criticism from many old school ST fans....
It's a fantastic action-adventure film, but the pseudo realistic science and intelligence that separated ST from SW is gone. That is the spirit that separated ST fans from SW fans. Trekkies hold on to a hope that the world will be very similar to the Trek universe in several hundred years, and the high-brow thought and theoretical science is part of making that dream more realistic. Whereas SW fans are a bit more about the mystical and not necessarily as concerned about potential realism.
On that level, JJ has proven to me that he is going to be even better suited for Star Wars than Star Trek....and convinced me that Episode 7 is going to ROCK! :metal
-
...hard science is a part of Star Trek?
:rollin
-
...hard science is a part of Star Trek?
:rollin
Nobody said anything about hard science. jammin said pseudo realistic science / theoretical science, and was speaking relative to Star Wars, which had about zero science content, and Trek did include science concepts that are being worked on today.
It was of course far from scientifically accurate, but you could tell they were at least trying, and it's been cited as an inspiration by many scientists, and has been closely tied to NASA on many occasions because of it.
The new movie doesn't seem to have an understanding of basic gravity and air pressure, or even the concept of distance. Most Trek fans I've seen will be the first to admit that Trek is far from hard scifi, so it shouldn't be all that difficult a standard to live up to, but the new movies don't even come close in that regard.
-
Thoughts after seeing it last night,
-The casting and acting was great, with the standout being Zachary Quinto.
-This movie was genuinely funny. All the crew interaction was fantastic.
-I ought to go back and watch the Wrath of Khan.
-I love what JJ Abrams has done with these last two movies, and I'm excited to see what he has in store for Star Wars episode VII.
-
I actually rewatched Space Seed and TWOK today. :tup
-
I haven't seen any of them :|, which is the best to start with?
-
I haven't seen any of them :|, which is the best to start with?
Space Seed is the TOS episode where Khan is introduced, then The Wrath of Khan movie is a sequel to that, so if you plan to watch both, you should definitely watch Space Seed first. It explains the backstory behind Khan and crew that is very skimmed over in Into Darkness, and Spock's line at the end of Space Seed makes for a good segue into the movie too.
-
^ On the communicator... theoretically yes. But again, it ignores all the times in the TV series' where they were "out of communicator range".
Damon Lindelof said they cut a scene where Kirk asked Uhura to get Scotty using the ship's communications but patch it to his communicator - so he's actually talking to Scotty via the Enterprise. He said the scene was cut out as they wanted a hard cut to Scotty in a bar on Earth for the humour in it instead.
-
So I've seen it three times now. Once with a group of friends opening night, then with my mom, then with my best friend.
-
I saw it at midnight in 3D once then at 21:00 the same day in 3D IMAX then again a week later in 2D.
:zydar:
-
Ok this is pretty cool:
https://www.ign.com/videos/2013/05/16/death-star-destroys-enterprise-special-edition
-
Yeah, just saw that too. Love the image of the Death Star floating in the background.
"Move along" :lol
-
Haha yea! The Enterprise explosion was top notch! :lol :rollin
-
Won't play for me.
I get the ad at the start then nothing.
-
...
Now it works.
Really great work.
Love the shots of Enterprise in the city
-
People are already declaring this film a flop after it "only" made $165m in it's opening weekend.
I'd say thats amazing considering it was up against Iron Man 3.
-
People are already declaring this film a flop after it "only" made $165m in it's opening weekend.
I'd say thats amazing considering it was up against Iron Man 3.
Not a flop, but disappointed numbers. It made 85 million domestic, 165 million total. Considering the budget was 190 million, that's nowhere near the numbers they want.
-
ST 09 was out for 6 months. I'm sure Into Darkness will be a big hit after all is said and done.
-
Considering the budget was 190 million
One-hundred and ninety million United States dollars. $190,000,000. What the fuck.
Maybe if they laid off the CGI effects, they could make two movies with that money.
-
ST 09 was out for 6 months. I'm sure Into Darkness will be a big hit after all is said and done.
Problem, like you mentioned, is that it was up against Iron Man 3, which has raked in over a billion at this point.
-
Considering the budget was 190 million
One-hundred and ninety million United States dollars. $190,000,000. What the fuck.
Maybe if they laid off the CGI effects, they could make two movies with that money.
Are CGI budgets still ridiculously high these days? I figure a huge chunk of that is paying for a lot of lead actors. Abrams and the cast have commented on how he likes to build sets wherever possible.
-
Different question, one part I didn't get in the movie: Was Qo'nos depicted as a planet that has a small planet crashing into it?
Or did i just see this wrong?
-
I saw a large planet with a smaller planet that looked "stuck" to it. There were chunks of the smaller planet broken off and floating in space. Don't know my Trek lore well enough to know if it was Qo'nos.
-
Considering the budget was 190 million
One-hundred and ninety million United States dollars. $190,000,000. What the fuck.
Maybe if they laid off the CGI effects, they could make two movies with that money.
That's pretty standard these days. Plus Paramount promoted the absolute shit out the the film too.
-
Saw it last night, LOVED it. I think the plot/story could've tightened up a bit but other than that was super entertained by it. I think the fact that I have barely seen any other star trek movies and episodes makes me enjoy it more.
-
Does Earth's gravity really extend 237,000 miles? Let's say it does for a second... then when the ship starts tumbling and spinning, wouldn't it go into an all-out, out-of-control free fall? Not sure how it flips/spins... levels off ... flips a bit more... levels off... and so on.
Falling that fast, thrusters aren't going to stop the ship in a matter of seconds without disintegrating it.
It extends much further than that. Technically, Earth;'s gravity has no distance, it just plays into the universe's system anywhere... but that's not too important, other than to say Earth's well is not spherical, it's modified by all other bodies. However, that distance is reasonable for Earth to be the primary pull.. The break even point between the Sun and Earth is a "little" shy of a million miles, which side you are on of that decides which body you would positively accelerate towards.
I'm going to ignore advanced gravity equations, but with sea level gravity and an object with no orbital velocity or relative speed to Earth, we'd be talking hours to 'fall' to Earth with an eventual speed of about a hundred thousand miles per hour. ...over two hours at that speed tot he moon. Considering what Star Trek poses as warp and impulse, I don't think stopping from that speed in a few seconds would damage the ship.
-
*more information on gravity than I thought I'd ever know*
Considering what Star Trek poses as warp and impulse, I don't think stopping from that speed in a few seconds would damage the ship.
Normally, I'd agree with you... but with all the damage to the ship, and breaches in the hull, I'd question the "structural integrity" as was so often referred to in Star Trek lore.
-
Enterprise can go from Warp speed to impulse in seconds due to the inertia dampeners.
Impulse seems to be one of those speeds that is never given a figure. It seems to be one of those As-Fast-As-The-Script-Requires speeds.
I always wondered why, in the series why Enterprise would be racing at warp to get somewhere and then drop to impulse when they were still light years away instead of getting the entire distance in Warp.
Furthermore - one thing that never made sense to me was - Warp 9 apparently wears out the engines - but
They're in Space !! Why can't they have a sudden burst to get to warp 9 then shut off the engines ?
You don't need to be constantly pushing the engines at warp 9 for the entire journey.
-
I believe the idea is that the wearing-out comes from maintaining the warp bubble. If the bubble collapses you drop out of warp, and thus back to sub-light speed (where yes, inertia would continue your speed, but it's still only sub-light).
-
Enterprise can go from Warp speed to impulse in seconds due to the inertia dampeners.
Impulse seems to be one of those speeds that is never given a figure. It seems to be one of those As-Fast-As-The-Script-Requires speeds.
I always wondered why, in the series why Enterprise would be racing at warp to get somewhere and then drop to impulse when they were still light years away instead of getting the entire distance in Warp.
Furthermore - one thing that never made sense to me was - Warp 9 apparently wears out the engines - but
They're in Space !! Why can't they have a sudden burst to get to warp 9 then shut off the engines ?
You don't need to be constantly pushing the engines at warp 9 for the entire journey.
Since warp speed exceeds the speed of light, it doesn't work on just momentum like a typical body in space. It needs to maintain the warp field to travel by that method. I don't see any reason they couldn't do that when travelling on impulse power though. (Ninja'd by rumby)
As for the situation in the movie, the ship was shot to hell, and they were within the atmosphere of a planet, not in the empty vacuum of space with an intact ship. Not really comparable to slowing down under normal circumstances. The ship likely would have been ripped apart, I would think.
-
A very questionable comparison of speeds of different series' spaceships:
https://mobile.slate.com/articles/arts/map_of_the_week/2013/05/star_trek_enterprise_vs_star_wars_millennium_falcon_which_ship_is_fastest.html
-
INB4 Millenium Falcon faster than Enterprise OLL..
How is the Planet Express ship faster than Enterprise ? :lol:
-
I'd say I liked it just as much as the last one. I'm not so sure I enjoyed the "homage" to the WOK ending and especially Quinto doing "KHAAN", although Quinto really stepped up his game as Spock. Cumberbatch was the awesome here!
-
I actually liked the Khaaaaaan!!
Spock had a lot of emotion boiling up throughout the film.
I'll have to wait for the DVD to see how it holds up over time.
I definitely don't think it'll hold up to repeated viewings as well as ST09 or some of the classics but I think it's definitely better than
most sequels. Iron Man 2 for example.
-
God yes
-
I loved Iron Man but when I watched the second one I was like :( the hell is this ? It's just set pieces and barely any story.
The most I could work out of the plot was - the US govt wanted the Iron Man suits and Sam Rockwell was conspiring with the villain ( who is in it for like 5 mins - beats Iron Man once and gets defeated almost immediately the second time ).
I just didn't enjoy it at all. It definitely suffered from the sequel syndrome of "MOAR IS BETTA".
The thread of Tony Starks friend putting on a suit and fighting with him didn't lead anywhere except to do that one move against the villain at the end.
Eh. :P
Back to Star Trek Into Darkness ! ;D
-
I'm mixed on this one. Things happened way too fast, never really got a chance to breathe. It was like the whole movie was from one crisis to another, and before you knew it, the movie was over.
-
As much as I loved it - I'm hoping that overall it's the least of the trilogy.
Now they've done their "dark second instalment" - they can bring back the fun and adventure for the third one.
And with any luck it will be out in 2016 for the 50th anniversary of Trek.
-
I can do without the "fun and andventure" if it's at the cost of a more dark tone. Usually with me it's the darker the better no matter which movie.
-
I for one am sick of the "darker is more mature" mentality. Enough deconstruction; I want to see someone successfully handle reconstruction.
-
Just got home from seeing it, and I loved it. I also find it nearly impossible to compare it to the 2009 movie----apples and oranges. I really loved the nods to the original series and the reworking of the plot. Lastly, the performances across the board were stellar. 9/10. Movie of the summer so far.
-
I for one am sick of the "darker is more mature" mentality. Enough deconstruction; I want to see someone successfully handle reconstruction.
This. Just as in music, it is a lot easier to write a sad song than a happy song.
-
Just got back from my first viewing at IMAX. Genuinely excellent movie in its entirety! Got a chill when the Klingon took his helmet off. Actually, that entire scene involving Kronos was awesome. I'm pumped for the next one.
-
I for one am sick of the "darker is more mature" mentality. Enough deconstruction; I want to see someone successfully handle reconstruction.
This. Just as in music, it is a lot easier to write a sad song than a happy song.
Which is probably why every modern pop song I hear seems to be some lazy minor key song with a vocal melody that just sticks with the minor third and the root note. GAH.
And I'm sick of the dark fad in movies right now. I hated TDK, and I avoid any movie that looks like it wants to be TDK (which is apparently every single comic book movie made since). I like fun!
-
Even though I agree it has become something of a tired fad in movies, I'd still take a dark movie over a "fun" (in lack of better word) every day of the week. But that doesn't mean I like movies where everything is depressing, like Melancholia. A dark movie still needs some light parts to balance it.
But I'd much rather have the overall dark themed movies of today than go back to movie goofyness that the later parts of the 1900-hundreds had.
-
I don't like the dark movie fad, because movies just blend together into sameyness to me these days. It's just becoming uninspired and cliche to the point where I haven't been interested in Hollywood movies for probably a decade now, aside from the occasional franchise I'm already a fan of, like Trek, which I'll go to see regardless of whether they cast a British guy to play Khan, or cast Will Smith to play the Gorn. And the spirit of TOS was mostly quite light and fun.
All movies I've watched recently have been either older movies, or foreign movies, and they're so much more enjoyable and unpredictable to me. But to each his own.
-
I for one am sick of the "darker is more mature" mentality. Enough deconstruction; I want to see someone successfully handle reconstruction.
This. Just as in music, it is a lot easier to write a sad song than a happy song.
Which is probably why every modern pop song I hear seems to be some lazy minor key song with a vocal melody that just sticks with the minor third and the root note. GAH.
And I'm sick of the dark fad in movies right now. I hated TDK, and I avoid any movie that looks like it wants to be TDK (which is apparently every single comic book movie made since). I like fun!
And then Lady Gaga is hailed as a genius when she puts in a diminished fifth or minor second :lol
-
I don't like the dark movie fad, because movies just blend together into sameyness to me these days. It's just becoming uninspired and cliche to the point where I haven't been interested in Hollywood movies for probably a decade now, aside from the occasional franchise I'm already a fan of, like Trek, which I'll go to see regardless of whether they cast a British guy to play Khan, or cast Will Smith to play the Gorn. And the spirit of TOS was mostly quite light and fun.
All movies I've watched recently have been either older movies, or foreign movies, and they're so much more enjoyable and unpredictable to me. But to each his own.
Yeah - you know going into a Star Trek movie that it will *at least* be a fun ride and the darkness will be offset with a lot of humour and there will normally be a positive denouement - even if you have to go through a lot of negatives to get there.
Hell- for all of it's flaws - even The Final Frontier had a plethora of laugh-out-loud moments that make it worthwhile.
-
Additional - there is a furore on the interent now that showing Alice Eve in her underwear is sexist.
Quite forgetting that :
a.) Kirk was shown with his shirt off earlier in the movie.
b.) Alice Eve was playing a science officer AND weapons expert. NOT " Hair and Pony expert. "
-
I don't like the dark movie fad, because movies just blend together into sameyness to me these days. It's just becoming uninspired and cliche to the point where I haven't been interested in Hollywood movies for probably a decade now, aside from the occasional franchise I'm already a fan of, like Trek, which I'll go to see regardless of whether they cast a British guy to play Khan, or cast Will Smith to play the Gorn. And the spirit of TOS was mostly quite light and fun.
All movies I've watched recently have been either older movies, or foreign movies, and they're so much more enjoyable and unpredictable to me. But to each his own.
Yeah - you know going into a Star Trek movie that it will *at least* be a fun ride and the darkness will be offset with a lot of humour and there will normally be a positive denouement - even if you have to go through a lot of negatives to get there.
Hell- for all of it's flaws - even The Final Frontier had a plethora of laugh-out-loud moments that make it worthwhile.
The Final Frontier is nothing but laugh out loud moments. :lol
Alice Eve's underwear scene was an extremely blatant excuse to show a hot chick half naked, but I don't think I'd say it was sexist. I may be slightly biased by the fact I enjoyed it though. :lol
-
I just took it as a way of showing that Kirk still hadn't grown out of his womanising ways. Or just a brief [ no pun intended ] comedy moment.
It lasts like 2 seconds whereas Michael Bay's Transformers movies are nothing but leery posterior shots .
-
I just took it as a way of showing that Kirk still hadn't grown out of his womanising ways. Or just a brief [ no pun intended ] comedy moment.
It lasts like 2 seconds whereas Michael Bay's Transformers movies are nothing but leery posterior shots .
Do you really have to dump shit on Transformers/Michael Bay every single post just because you can? If you have to compare a movie to Transformers to make your point, you're doing a bad job anyway. :lol
And that scene was there to show a girl half naked. Nothing more, nothing less. Heck, it was even more blatant than anything in Transformers, and 2 and 3 both started with close-up ass shots.
-
I really wanna go see STID again but I'm not sure my wallet will allow it :lol
I might see If I can take some stuff to the 2nd hand shop to get enough £ for a ticket ;D
-
Had no problem with that scene. Not just because "oh hell yeah bewbs n' stuff". Even though I agree with Blob about it being there to show some female undies it didn't upset me or anything, it actually does fit Kirk's character to look back. That she had to change just behind Kirk in the first place though is.. yeah.
-
I just took it as a way of showing that Kirk still hadn't grown out of his womanising ways. Or just a brief [ no pun intended ] comedy moment.
It lasts like 2 seconds whereas Michael Bay's Transformers movies are nothing but leery posterior shots .
Do you really have to dump shit on Transformers/Michael Bay every single post just because you can? If you have to compare a movie to Transformers to make your point, you're doing a bad job anyway. :lol
Lay off, he likes to go after Iron Man 2, as well.
-
The movie was great...until the last 5 minutes of the film. So much build up, and it just...ended....there was no pay off. The best way I can describe is going on a roller coaster, experiencing the flips, barrel rolls, zips, and all the fun entities of a coaster, and then you get to that lift where the big drop is...you keep going up and about drop...and then you stop.
That being said, I can overlook it with all the other good things about the movie, but that ending bugs the hell out of me.
-
Yes, a more monumental ending would have boosted this movie even further for sure.
-
So, according to imdb this was one of the other guys in the running to play Khan before they went with pale British man. I would have seriously raised my rating of this movie by at least a full point if this guy was Khan.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=_v9H-Rk0s4o#t=14s
But then JJ couldn't have chuckled to himself that he cleverly fooled everyone by creating the most vague and generic bad guy he could and calling him Khan, the most iconic and recognizable bad guy in Trek history...
-
wait wait wait.
People are complaining about a disregard for basic physics in a Star Trek movie? Like, really?
-
Does the Enterprise not have radiation suits on board, in the crazy event that maybe the warp core gets damaged in a battle?
-
wait wait wait.
People are complaining about a disregard for basic physics in a Star Trek movie? Like, really?
I'm the guy that laughed at the notion of science in Star Trek in the other thread. I got your back here. :rollin
-
Star Trek has better science than a lot of sci fi that's for sure but it's still science fiction. :)
-
But I'd much rather have the overall dark themed movies of today than go back to movie goofyness that the later parts of the 1900-hundreds had.
I wouldn't mind a return of the innocent optimism of the Golden Age Hollywood movies. That's what TOS was all about.
-
Also, armed forces government (Federation) having it's women where short skirts, skin tight suits?! Sign me up.
-
The Federation was not supposed to be military I think. Only Starfleet. But, that delineation was always very wishy-washy. Star Trek always felt like this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_junta).
-
i absolutely loved this movie, i was thoroughly entertained.
also karl urban is bones. the casting in general is great
-
i absolutely loved this movie, i was thoroughly entertained.
also karl urban is bones. the casting in general is great
Yeah Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto and Karl Urban are all pretty much perfect in their roles.
Greenwood was really good as Pike as well.
I love when Pine drops in a subtle Shatner-ism and you go " That IS Kirk. ".
-
I'm mixed on this one. Things happened way too fast, never really got a chance to breathe. It was like the whole movie was from one crisis to another, and before you knew it, the movie was over.
Pretty much how I felt. Not to beat a dead horse, but where is the sense of awe, the spirit of exploration of the unknown, the wonder of discovery? That is sorely missing in this reboot and the suits are just missing the point, opting instead for blowing things up as often as possible and having the most brutal fistfights without so much as a cracked knuckle ::).
-
Well they did end talking about a 5 year mission but lets be serious here. The day to day operations is better as a story arc with a TV series. Movies are better suited for action and condensed storylines.
-
Imagine a 40 minute scene where they're warping to Kronos and Kirk is just walking around the Enterprise examining stuff.
-
Imagine a 40 minute scene where they're warping to Kronos and Kirk is just walking around the Enterprise examining stuff.
It could work with great actors and a great plot. I reference the middle section of The Avengers.
-
The GF and I went to see this movie yesterday and it was sold out. :( Either Memorial Day is a bad day to go to the movies or this movie is still doing very well after being out for over a week...or both. Better luck next time I guess.
-
Yeah it's been out for about 2 weeks and has made $260m so far.
I don't care if it's not HUGE - I just want it to be a hit. $400m or more please :)
-
Imagine a 40 minute scene where they're warping to Kronos and Kirk is just walking around the Enterprise examining stuff.
It could work with great actors and a great plot. I reference the middle section of The Avengers.
Avengers? Great actors? Yeah some of them, sure. Great plot? Not so much.
-
Imagine a 40 minute scene where they're warping to Kronos and Kirk is just walking around the Enterprise examining stuff.
It could work with great actors and a great plot. I reference the middle section of The Avengers.
I disagree about The Avengers....
But what I *would* reference is Jaws. That section where they are all getting drunk on the boat and the old sailor tells the story about delivering the bomb....one of the best scenes in the ENTIRE movie. And I heard a rumor that it was added at the last minute to make up for the fact that the shark was broken SO OFTEN that they had to pad out the film with something else. Without that scene, it's just another boring Jaws movie.
-
Imagine a 40 minute scene where they're warping to Kronos and Kirk is just walking around the Enterprise examining stuff.
It could work with great actors and a great plot. I reference the middle section of The Avengers.
Avengers? Great actors? Yeah some of them, sure. Great plot? Not so much.
Regardless of your mysteriously low regard for Avengers, any movie can succeed with intriguing subject matter, dialogue and slow pacing if acted and directed well - and this CAN be successful in the sci-fi genre. Witness the first "Alien" movie with its glacial pace as just one example. But I suppose it's the dumbing-down of everything that is the cause - "The Wrath of Khan" could never be made today. "So you're saying the whole movie is a cat-and-mouse game between the protagonist and the antagonist, and they never actually meet and engage in an awesome fist fight? Next, please."
-
Imagine if JJ made Star Trek The Motion Picture as his 3rd film. :p
Just relentlessly slow paced and thoughtful with a clever story about the Voyager probe being adopted by a machine race who soup it up to God levels then send it back to Earth to complete it's programming.
I need to see TMP again. I really like it despite the pace.
-
Imagine if JJ made Star Trek The Motion Picture as his 3rd film. :p
Just relentlessly slow paced and thoughtful with a clever story about the Voyager probe being adopted by a machine race who soup it up to God levels then send it back to Earth to complete it's programming.
I need to see TMP again. I really like it despite the pace.
;D Well, I think there's a nice middle ground somewhere. For one thing, the quick camera-cuts and 1-second shots were not nearly as bad as I expected them to be in STID; so I think in that sense JJ is resisting the current action mentality. A totally original story with that sense of wonderment and discovery would be a nice 3rd entry.
-
Well they did end talking about a 5 year mission but lets be serious here. The day to day operations is better as a story arc with a TV series. Movies are better suited for action and condensed storylines.
I'm pumped about the 5 year mission. I expect them to be closer to being the well-oiled machine that they are in TOS by the time the next movie comes out.
Plus, unexplored space gives them the opportunity to run into some really messed up shit.
-
Well they did end talking about a 5 year mission but lets be serious here. The day to day operations is better as a story arc with a TV series. Movies are better suited for action and condensed storylines.
I'm pumped about the 5 year mission. I expect them to be closer to being the well-oiled machine that they are in TOS by the time the next movie comes out.
Plus, unexplored space gives them the opportunity to run into some really messed up shit.
This. I want something like the new Chris Nolan film is supposed to be. Black Holes . Messed up physics etc.
My theory is they should call the film
" Where No One Has Gone Before " - stylized in the Star Trek font.
1.) It ties up with the first episode proper of Star Trek
2.) And it's the 50th anniversary of Trek and it's basically the show's catchphrase.
You don't have to do Gary Mitchell again but you could have an energy field in deep space that just fucks everything up.
If the 3rd film is as enjoyable as the previous two then it will be easily be the best run of Trek films ever.
-
Not even close. II through IV were much better, and I also prefer VI through VIII.
Vader: NNnoooooooooooooo!
Spock: KKHhaaaaannnnnnnn!
I winced at both. Also, when Quinto is acting emotional in every scene, how is his "big emotional scene" supposed to have an impact?
https://www.agonybooth.com/movies/Star_Trek_Into_Darkness_2013.aspx
-
VI-VIII is the best overall run of three, in my opinion. Easily.
-
If Khan, Voyage and Country were all connected - that would be an amazing arc.
I think my favourite three film run is probably Country - Generations - Contact.
-
Yep, also gotta go with II-III-IV.
Even though III was a weaker movie (being one of the "odd" movies :biggrin: ), the overall arc of maintaining continuity and having consequences across movies, instead of just doing whatever they feel like and having everything perfect again the very next scene, made it a rewarding movie trio.
-
Star Trek ( 2009 ) Made 385m in 5 months.
So far Star Trek Into Darkness has made almost 330m in just over 2 weeks !
Doing well ! :)
-
Best movie of the franchise... thanks to Abrams, the writers, and cast for reviving it.
-
I wouldn't go that far. I do love it but I don't think it's as good as the previous movie let alone Khan or Country.
Even watching it for the first time in the cinema I didn't get *quite* as fulfilled as Star Trek ( 2009 ).
I will have to watch it on DVD to see how I feel about it again :)
-
I would :) First off, for me, is the older movies featuring TOS cast were not as fresh as the last 2 movies. Now mind you, for perspective, I was watching TOS when it was about 5 years old, so I saw every ST movie new, in the theaters. When the original movies came out, they were awesome, and still are fun to watch. Never though, did they excite and entertain me as much as the last 2 movies have. Are the original movies classics? Sure. Are they superior? To me, not really. Some of the things I like about the last two movies... The sheer grittiness, which has always been lacking to me in both TV series and old movies. Now, we have a look at a future that comes across as less cleaner and antiseptic . For example, the engine room, specifically the warp core in this new movie. Much more detailed and realistic looking. I also thought they did a great job expanding on the Cities of the 23rd century. London and Frisco were well detailed and portrayed. As far as the battle and action sequences, sure you have to attribute some of it to advances in CGI and special effects since the last movies were made. That being said, the battle sequences just kick ass! Which can't be said for some other movies recently, +1 to Abrams.
As far as the "Cliche" moments with Spock, the tribbles, the Mudd and Gorn references, Abrams and the writers seem to make them work. Especially with the alternate reality aspect being factored in. Those scenes didn't elicit a facepalm from me...LOL. So in that respect, they work well enough.
-
:tup ;) :)
Caved and am going again tonight. Then i'll wait for the DVD .
:P
-
One thing I really like about the last two Star Trek films is they don't have "cool" camera angles or people walking towards the camera in slow motion pouting or bullet time or people standing legs apart firing a gun in each hand wearing sunglasses etc etc etc.
Which has ben the MO for almost every action film since Matrix came out.
-
4th time seeing it in the cinema this week.
It doesn't really depreciate the more times you see it.
I've pretty much enjoyed it the same amount each time.
Whilst it didn't give me the same feeling of Joy as the previous one and it didn't have the same level of emotion as Kirk's Birth scene -
- it's still a fantastic ride and deserves to be a big success.
-
I love when Pine drops in a subtle Shatner-ism and you go " That IS Kirk. ".
There is one small moment in the movie that made me have this exact reaction.
Spock says something along the lines of "I would be happy to assist you with etc." and Kirk says. "You. Happy?" Shatner had that line either in an earlier movie or in the TOS, and the delivery was nearly identical. Gave me chills.
-
Yeah I can picture it but have no idea where it's from.
Also - Karl Urban IS Bones and Zach Quinto IS Spock.
I literally cannot imagine anyone else playing the big three apart from them.
John Cho is pretty good too and Anton Yelchin has his moments. Simon Pegg is Simon Pegg as SImon Pegg. That's what you get.
And Uhura is the female crew member :lol
-
I really didn't feel Karl Urban as Bones in this one as much as the last one. That's not to say he was in any way bad, I just didn't feel he *was* Bones, as much as I bought Quinto as Spock, or Pine as Kirk. He was still good though. I felt Scotty excelled more as a character in this one, with Bones maybe next behind that.
That's not a complaint, just a comparison! :)
-
I think we just didn't see enough of Bones being a doctor for the role to click as quickly.
-
Simon was better in this than the previous film but he's still the worst character.
In the TOS movies he was one of my favourite characters.
Plus Simon is receding a lot more than Jimmy was in 1966 :P
Did the budget not stretch to toupees ?
-
https://www.startrek.com/article/star-treks-cybernetically-augmented-science-officer-joseph-gatt-part-1
So, it turns out that freaky dude on the bridge is an augmented human, and not an android. I am thrilled to hear that, because the idea of just casually throwing in an android long before the appearance of Data, who was supposed to be unique and special, kind of pissed me off. Like a lot in those movies though, it was just glossed over and not explained at all.
-
love this interview on youtube "Simon Pegg: The truth about Benedict Cumberbatch"
https://youtu.be/20v1OxUXcQY?t=2m57s
(ignore the interviewer)
-
Just bumping to add that the film is currently on $412m after a mere 5 weeks.
;D Happy Kotowboy Is Happy.
I can see it making north of $450m by the end.
-
Finally saw it. It as good (borderline great)... I have a love hate thing for following the Khan story (and I find some of the blatant throwbacks kinda annoying..)
The thing that pisses me off though... new Klingons...
-
I've been watching a lot of TNG on NetFlix recently and I have to say that Cumberbatch's Khan really reminds me of Lore.
I don't mean that in a bad way - Cumberbatch is amazing in it but there are certain moments.
-
Finally saw it. It as good (borderline great)... I have a love hate thing for following the Khan story (and I find some of the blatant throwbacks kinda annoying..)
The thing that pisses me off though... new Klingons...
Wow, really? I thought they were *completely...bad...ass*! My wife and I (she's a 1st Gen trekkie, I'm 2nd) both thought they were really great, and we're hoping that the 3rd movie will feature the new Klingons as the main bad guys. Maybe even bring back the character of KANG....
[the mask] SOMEBODY STOP ME!!! [/the mask]
-
I didn't mind the Klingons. Chang in STVI was nothing like other Klingons so I think JJ is also allowed some leeway.
A Klingon war movie could be cool for Trek 3 - but what I really want is a wormhole / messed up physics movie like the TNG epiosde
" Where Silence Has Lease. "
-
I loved both Abrams films. :hefdaddy
Of the earlier films, only Wrath of Khan & Insurrection stand out as ones I could describe to anyone. But I liked them both.
Confession: I am not a Trekkie by any extent of any imagination. :blush Didn't follow any of any of the TV series. I do, however, like a good sci-fi story. To me, a good film will not depend upon my knowing all the backstory first, although I know it helps. ;) I also don't have anyone to explain things to me (on my own, here).
The new Trek films were like that to me. They feel fresh and new.
-
Finally saw it. It as good (borderline great)... I have a love hate thing for following the Khan story (and I find some of the blatant throwbacks kinda annoying..)
The thing that pisses me off though... new Klingons...
The JJ Klingons are terrible. It's like JJ wants every race to be generic bald goblins. A race can look cool without being some bald pierced bikey gang.
Hopefully they're not used in the next movie, because I'm hoping they can at least make it 1/3 with a half decent bad guy.
-
Finally saw it. It as good (borderline great)... I have a love hate thing for following the Khan story (and I find some of the blatant throwbacks kinda annoying..)
The thing that pisses me off though... new Klingons...
The JJ Klingons are terrible. It's like JJ wants every race to be generic bald goblins. A race can look cool without being some bald pierced bikey gang.
Hopefully they're not used in the next movie, because I'm hoping they can at least make it 1/3 with a half decent bad guy.
THANK YOU
-
Saw this last week and was blown away, even better than the first.
Not being a big trekkie at all I do plan to go back and watch The Wrath of Khan sometime soon.
-
OK, wife and I made a trip to the theater to see this film.
Our collective reaction was somewhere between "meh" and "OK"
I thought the first one was better.
I won't go back to the theater for any subsequent films. I don't see the point in spending the money.
-
i'll let JJ know you didn't like it and to stop all future films.
-
i'll let JJ know you didn't like it and to stop all future films.
I do believe he meant going to the movie theatre in general... for any movie.
-
OK, wife and I made a trip to the theater to see this film.
Our collective reaction was somewhere between "meh" and "OK"
I thought the first one was better.
I won't go back to the theater for any subsequent films. I don't see the point in spending the money.
Side opinion: I tell ya, for as few movies as I EVER want to see, some of them deserve the "Big Screen" treatment, IMO. Namely, your space/sci-fi/blowing up films. :metal Or epic scenery types like Lord of the Rings and such. Some are just a bit better as a more immersive experience. :)
If I spend $50 a year on theater tix, that's saying a lot. Otherwise DVD for me!
-
:iagree:
I don't think I'd ever go see a drama or comedy in the theatre. Sci-fi and Fantasy for sure. Action... possibly. And some are only worthy of the $5 Tuesday treatment.
-
Yeah, unless it's something I'm really looking forward to (Super Troopers 2 if it ever happens) or I'm kinda dragged to it I only go to theaters for action/sci-fi/whatever films that the big screen really enhances.
-
On occasion I've found it enjoyable watching dialogue driven movies in the theater. Often I only like to see big budget action movies on the big screen and reserve the comedies/dramas for home viewing.
-
Up to $412 Million so far. Good, good, good.
-
Up to $412 Million so far. Good, good, good.
And it has yet to even open in 5 or 6 territories. :)
I predict big things :)
It is outperforming the 2009 movie in every territory ! It made in 5 weeks what Star Trek 2009 made in 5 months...
-
i'll let JJ know you didn't like it and to stop all future films.
I do believe he meant going to the movie theatre in general... for any movie.
:angry: I did not like A Dramatic Turn Of Events. I will therefore no longer be listening to any CD by any band from now on.
Shame on you music, Thought you had my back ! Shame on you !
And as for only going to cinema to see stuff blow up / outer space stuff etc. That's where films like Prometheus and Into Darkness are BEST experienced. The scene of vengeance crashing in San Fran would be totally lost on a TV screen. on a massive cinema screen it looks awesome.
I don't go to the cinema to see Driving Mis Daisy - that gains nothing from being on a massive screen.
-
Yep!
Sadly, I missed "Prometheus" in the theater. :( It's in the Netflix queue, though.
And I have a big TV with a massive sound system. :metal It'll have to do. ;)
-
:iagree:
I don't think I'd ever go see a drama or comedy in the theatre. Sci-fi and Fantasy for sure. Action... possibly. And some are only worthy of the $5 Tuesday treatment.
It really depends on the drama or comedy. I mean, ya...if it's something like "Hot Tub Time Machine" then ya...you wait until the TBS premier.
But I've actually REALLY enjoyed going to some of the independent comedies and dramas I've been seeing in smaller theaters lately.
I saw The Sapphires I saw at a little hole in the wall theater. I'm 43 years old, and I was the youngest person in the entire crowd. It was a really cool theater with a bunch of chandeliers that retract into the ceiling when the movie starts.
I saw Quartet at a smaller old school "multiplex" (I think they had 4 screens). Again, my wife and I were the youngest people there. Both of these shows were sold out and not a seat left in the house....but with no one younger than 40 in the audience, you would not BELIEVE how well behaved everyone was.
And then I saw Starbuck (a French Canadian comedy, and seriously one of the funniest movies I've ever seen) at a downtown Seattle multiplex, and there were only about a dozen or so very well behaved people there.
This has all been in the last 3 or 4 months, and they were some of the best movie going experiences I've ever had.
-
That's why I only go to the 21+ theaters! :tup
-
i'll let JJ know you didn't like it and to stop all future films.
I do believe he meant going to the movie theatre in general... for any movie.
:angry: I did not like A Dramatic Turn Of Events. I will therefore no longer be listening to any CD by any band from now on.
Shame on you music, Thought you had my back ! Shame on you !
And as for only going to cinema to see stuff blow up / outer space stuff etc. That's where films like Prometheus and Into Darkness are BEST experienced. The scene of vengeance crashing in San Fran would be totally lost on a TV screen. on a massive cinema screen it looks awesome.
I think I would say, so? You seem to take offense to someone not going to the theater or not valuing it. I typically consider a trip to the movie theater a waste of money unless it's with someone else or is some special occasion. I haven't been to a movie theater in over three years, and only maybe 3 in the five or six year preceding that. I don't miss it at all, and the last one I went to was a major disappointment. After that my I've had next to zero desire to put my money down, again. I've thought about seeing Into Darkness, but after sitting on it for a day or two I just no longer wanted fork the money over. I'll watch eventually, but not until I can stream it free as part of a subscription service I already have.
Your responses come off as though you think siskosearwax threw off movie theaters out of the blue because of this movie, instead of maybe just making a rare visit. I don't know what his situation is, but the only thing coming off as unreasonable in all of this is you. He apparently doesn't agree with you about the movie or the value of movie theaters. So what? Why harass his comments?
-
Yeah, Kowtowboy, you know, it's almost like you're offended that some people didn't enjoy the film.
It just didn't really do much for me. I didn't get up and walk out our anything. I just wan't all that impressed with it, generally speaking.
-
Yeah, Kowtowboy, you know, it's almost like you're offended that some people didn't enjoy the film.
Been thinking this for days now.
-
I think I would say, so? You seem to take offense to someone not going to the theater or not valuing it. I typically consider a trip to the movie theater a waste of money unless it's with someone else or is some special occasion.
Just commenting on this bit. I don't have anyone to go to the theater with. :( However, I consider it a treat to myself to go see a first-run flick every now and again. God knows I sit at home watching the telly on my own quite enough. :-\
It's getting myself out of the house -- a date with myself. Plus my theater serves full-on dinner, drinks, etc. It's an escape. :)
Now -- back to bickering! :D
-
Just to be clear, I don't have any problem with people who do not consider a waste of money. We each have our things, that's all. :)
-
Yeah, Kowtowboy, you know, it's almost like you're offended that some people didn't enjoy the film.
Been thinking this for days now.
Only if they have inane reasons for not liking it or whatever.
Oh I didn't like it - i'm never going to a cinema ever again ! :lol
I go to the cinema as often as I can afford it.
-
You're skewing comments to laugh at people. Classy. When faced with an unreasonable interpretation of a post, maybe you should try to understand what was being said better, instead of being a dick.
-
Calls someone a dick.
Is A dick. :neverusethis:
-
How is saying " I didn't enjoy this film - i'm never going to the cinema again - i won't waste the money "
any different from saying
" i didn't like X band's new album - i'm never spending money on music again. "
-
It's more like
I bought the super deluxe version of ADTOE on the day it came out and I really didn't like it... So next album cycle I'm just going to pick up the standard edition in a month or so when I have the extra cash / I am never going to pre order / buy an album on release day again.
-
It's more like
I bought the super deluxe version of ADTOE on the day it came out and I really didn't like it... So next album cycle I'm just going to pick up the standard edition in a month or so when I have the extra cash / I am never going to pre order / buy an album on release day again.
Yep, pretty much nailed it. I stopped going to the theater to see movies quite a few years ago. Made a few exceptions in the last couple of years thinking maybe I was missing out on something, but after seeing "The Dark Knight" and now "Star Trek: Into Darkness" and not being overly thrilled with them, I simply expressed my opinion about the movie and commented that I thought I'd probably just save my money next time and go back to viewing them in the comfort of my home theater.
Quite humorous, though, that anyone is getting bent out of shape over whether or not I go to the theater to view movies :lol
-
It's more like
I bought the super deluxe version of ADTOE on the day it came out and I really didn't like it... So next album cycle I'm just going to pick up the standard edition in a month or so when I have the extra cash / I am never going to pre order / buy an album on release day again.
Yep, pretty much nailed it. I stopped going to the theater to see movies quite a few years ago. Made a few exceptions in the last couple of years thinking maybe I was missing out on something, but after seeing "The Dark Knight" and now "Star Trek: Into Darkness" and not being overly thrilled with them, I simply expressed my opinion about the movie and commented that I thought I'd probably just save my money next time and go back to viewing them in the comfort of my home theater.
Quite humorous, though, that anyone is getting bent out of shape over whether or not I go to the theater to view movies :lol
Besides, some of us have home theaters that can put the local Cinema to shame!
-
JJ ABRAMS IS IN HIS MANSION IN TEARS BECAUSE YOU WILL NOT SEE STAR TREK 3.
:'( Y U DO DIS TO TEH ABRAMSSSSSSSSSSSSSS?? OMG IDEK
-
It's more like
I bought the super deluxe version of ADTOE on the day it came out and I really didn't like it... So next album cycle I'm just going to pick up the standard edition in a month or so when I have the extra cash / I am never going to pre order / buy an album on release day again.
Yep, pretty much nailed it. I stopped going to the theater to see movies quite a few years ago. Made a few exceptions in the last couple of years thinking maybe I was missing out on something, but after seeing "The Dark Knight" and now "Star Trek: Into Darkness" and not being overly thrilled with them, I simply expressed my opinion about the movie and commented that I thought I'd probably just save my money next time and go back to viewing them in the comfort of my home theater.
Quite humorous, though, that anyone is getting bent out of shape over whether or not I go to the theater to view movies :lol
Besides, some of us have home theaters that can put the local Cinema to shame!
I saw Hangover III in a little 4 screen 5 dollar theater... the screens were so small that we woulda had the same affect watching it at Panda's dad's house. His system is sweeeeet
-
The JJ Klingons are terrible. It's like JJ wants every race to be generic bald goblins. A race can look cool without being some bald pierced bikey gang.
Hopefully they're not used in the next movie, because I'm hoping they can at least make it 1/3 with a half decent bad guy.
This, totally.
I just don't understand how you can tap into one of the richest species (culture-wise) of Star Trek, and then decide to just fuck with everything that had been established up to that point and just reinvent them.
Like, what the fuck is this?
(https://wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net/80450F/screencrush.com/files/2013/05/klingon.jpg)
(https://www.treknews.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/star-trek-2009-klingons.jpg)
(https://www.joblo.com/newsimages1/star-trek-into-darkness-klingons.jpg)
-
I'm not seeing what's wrong, they look like Klingons to me. The top guy looks like Worf and General Chang had a baby.
-
Chang was already the least Klingon-looking Klingon in ST. JJ Abrams crossed Chang with a shower curtain hanger and arrived at whatever that is.
And those gimp masks? What's up with those?
-
Why do the masks matter?
-
Yeah I see no problem with the Klingons. Of course I haven't seen anything Star Trek but the JJ's movies.
-
Why do the masks matter?
Because it's just yet another thing that's un-Klingon. I can't think of a single occasion in any Star Trek where a Klingon ever covered his face. And for a race that is obsessed with personal honor in battle, hiding your face would be the last thing they'd do.
The thing is, had the plot not pointed out that they were supposedly Klingons, I don't think anyone would have identified them as such. And when you're at the point where the key alien race has become unrecognizable, you've done a bad job asa director.
-
benefits of having no Star Trek background :tup :angel:
-
And that attempted split between trying to please you and me is part of the problem I think. Paramount wants to make money with Star Trek, thus they need to make any new movie in line with the run-of-the-mill summer blockbuster. Obviously that's the reason Abrams even got the deal to begin with.
I just with someone in Paramount had the vision to say "let's just make a medium-budget ST movie for Trekkies". I am sure they'd get good actors still, even they aren't raking in the big bucks.
-
The Klingons in TOS look nothing like we know them today.
And this is a TOS movie.
-
The Klingons looked like they did in TOS because they had no budget. After TOS they fleshed out the Klingons more than any other culture in terms of attributes. Abrams simply decided they doesn't apply to him.
-
The scene took place in an uninhabited and brutal part of the Klingon homeworld, and as such I think the masks can easily be passed off as something used to deal with part of that habitat.
-
The scene took place in an uninhabited and brutal part of the Klingon homeworld, and as such I think the masks can easily be passed off as something used to deal with part of that habitat.
I believe a deleted scene from Star Trek 2009 shows Klingons on Rura Penthe also wearing the masks, so it's just a feature of the new Klingons. I think JJ just thought masks were kind of cool, just like he apparently thinks bald bad guys with tattoos and piercings are cool.
The Klingons in TOS look nothing like we know them today.
And this is a TOS movie.
And yet the Klingons weren't based on the Klingons in TOS either. TOS was a product of its time, so they had limitations of technology and budget to work with. With that in mind, you have to accept certain things based on intent, rather than execution, especially if you want to adapt them to a big budget movie in 2013.
You accept that in the Trek universe, a Gorn didn't look like a guy in a rubber mask, and the Enterprise didn't look like a wooden set painted to sell colour televisions. And Klingons weren't supposed to look like middle aged men in black face makeup with fluff glued to their faces.
They're also not supposed to look like brown versions of the Romulans in the last movie, who in turn were not supposed to look like Nosferatu. The Klingons in Trek were one of the most iconic and recognizable races in the 47 year history of the franchise, and I actually had high hopes there was no way to mess that up. JJ loves to prove us wrong though.
-
Well...as a 35+ year Trekkie, I thought they were completely awesome, and I want more of the same please. :xbones
-
I always assumed they had the masks so that that there could be a "reveal" when one took it off.
I just with someone in Paramount had the vision to say "let's just make a medium-budget ST movie for Trekkies". I am sure they'd get good actors still, even they aren't raking in the big bucks.
I and a lot of other people would hate that. Only making a movie for trekkies would re-alienate 90% of the audience gained by the new movies.
-
JJ even said that Into Darkness was a film for everyone and not just trekkies.
And that doesn't bother me.
*shrug*
-
I always assumed they had the masks so that that there could be a "reveal" when one took it off.
I just with someone in Paramount had the vision to say "let's just make a medium-budget ST movie for Trekkies". I am sure they'd get good actors still, even they aren't raking in the big bucks.
I and a lot of other people would hate that. Only making a movie for trekkies would re-alienate 90% of the audience gained by the new movies.
Indeed. A "medium-budget ST movie for Trekkies" had zero chance of being made, because they already made quite a few of those, and they were getting less and less lucrative with each passing year. I seem to recall that Star Trek (2009) made more money in it's opening weekend than Nemesis made in it's entire run.
-
Into Darkness definitely did.
-
:eek
I watched nemesis again recently and meh... I still really like it.
I can understand why others dislike it but I prefer it to Insurrection.
It had some good ideas - it just needed a good director.
-
I always assumed they had the masks so that that there could be a "reveal" when one took it off.
I just with someone in Paramount had the vision to say "let's just make a medium-budget ST movie for Trekkies". I am sure they'd get good actors still, even they aren't raking in the big bucks.
I and a lot of other people would hate that. Only making a movie for trekkies would re-alienate 90% of the audience gained by the new movies.
How dare they make a Trek movie for Trekkies! They should continue making Trek movies for the people who don't like Trek at all. Because movies should be all about satisfying the lowest common denominator just for money.
If only JJ was an actual fan, he could have tried to do both more successfully, instead of seemingly intentionally doing the opposite just because he can.
Indeed. A "medium-budget ST movie for Trekkies" had zero chance of being made, because they already made quite a few of those, and they were getting less and less lucrative with each passing year. I seem to recall that Star Trek (2009) made more money in it's opening weekend than Nemesis made in it's entire run.
That's because Nemesis was shit, even to the most diehard Trek fans. :lol It got beaten for #1 spot at the box office by a J-Lo movie! It barely even broke even, if at all. That's probably why no more were ever made.
But they have proven before that you could make a Trek movie on a lower budget that was financially successful, and satisfied the fans. But if we're arguing the merit of a movie based on money, then the point of Star Trek is lost entirely anyway. :tup
I can accept a dumbed down movie to appeal to a broader demographic if it helps the franchise survive, because Trek has rarely worked great in movie form anyway, but when they finally bring Trek back to TV, I want a real scifi series in the true spirit of Trek, so I don't want JJ anywhere near it. I think that's already been shot down at this point though.
Hopefully JJ will be occupied with Star Wars from here on. What he did with Star Trek will be perfect for Star Wars (and I don't mean that at all negatively). He can clearly nail the light action/adventure aspect, that was pretty lacking in the prequels, and made the originals so great. And I have high hopes for his involvement with Ep VII.
-
Hopefully JJ will be occupied with Star Wars from here on. What he did with Star Trek will be perfect for Star Wars (and I don't mean that at all negatively). He can clearly nail the light action/adventure aspect, that was pretty lacking in the prequels, and made the originals so great. And I have high hopes for his involvement with Ep VII.
That's funny, because I believe he already said he was not going to do Star Wars the same way he has done Star Trek.
-
Hopefully JJ will be occupied with Star Wars from here on. What he did with Star Trek will be perfect for Star Wars (and I don't mean that at all negatively). He can clearly nail the light action/adventure aspect, that was pretty lacking in the prequels, and made the originals so great. And I have high hopes for his involvement with Ep VII.
That's funny, because I believe he already said he was not going to do Star Wars the same way he has done Star Trek.
The thing with Star Wars is that there are several things that have to be done the Star Wars way to remain consistent to the tone of that universe, so you couldn't do it the same way he did Trek. They're different animals entirely. Star Trek was never as unified and cohesive in style as Star Wars in that way. So I don't think that will refer to the aspects I'm expecting he'll carry over. Because it seemed clear to me he was trying to make Star Trek more of a Star Wars movie.
-
I'll be the first one to hold my hands up and agree that box-office gross does not equate to quality but
Star Trek Into Darkness is on $430m worldwide at the moment
making it the biggest Trek film of all time.
:)
https://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=startrek12.htm - For those of us who are into facts and figures.
-
The movie is making far less money than I thought it would. Not because I liked it but because it's a pretty big and well marketed movie, also it's a sequel to the pretty much loved 2009 movie. And it has a 8.2/10 score on IMDb and is at #191 on the top 250 movies of all time. People who has seen it seems to generally like it but I guess less people care about Star Trek than I thought.
-
The movie is making far less money than I thought it would. Not because I liked it but because it's a pretty big and well marketed movie, also it's a sequel to the pretty much loved 2009 movie. And it has a 8.2/10 score on IMDb and is at #191 on the top 250 movies of all time. People who has seen it seems to generally like it but I guess less people care about Star Trek than I thought.
I have seen every Star Trek film and have been a huge fan of Star Trek pretty much since it came into existence. I thought the first JJ Abram's reboot movie was excellent, but I found "Into Darkness" to be pretty average. Not a bad movie, per se....just....I don't know....I suppose I would have preferred that they not borrow so heavily from the Khan story and do something more original.
As far as Star Wars goes, I'm interested in JJ Abram's take on it because I don't think it's possible to butcher the franchise any more than the prequels already have. In other words, it can only get better from here.
-
The movie is making far less money than I thought it would. Not because I liked it but because it's a pretty big and well marketed movie, also it's a sequel to the pretty much loved 2009 movie. And it has a 8.2/10 score on IMDb and is at #191 on the top 250 movies of all time. People who has seen it seems to generally like it but I guess less people care about Star Trek than I thought.
It may be a slow burner. I don't think it's even opened in some countries yet.
-
I'll be the first one to hold my hands up and agree that box-office gross does not equate to quality but...
Star Trek Into Darkness also agrees that box office gross doesn't equate to quality. :P
-
Well done.
-
So, anyway, since this came out on Comcast's On Demand service a few days ago, the wife and I decided to see it again on our new 70" LED/LCD television. I have to admit the film was much better the second time around. Still doesn't quite live up to the first JJ film, but I quite enjoyed it. Of course, seeing it in my own home theater, lounging on the chaise with my wife and the dogs was definitely a plus ;)
-
I am surprised you liked the 2009 Trek as much as you did. I admit I was exhausted when I saw it, but don't have any desire to give it a second look to see if I was just having an off day.
If only JJ was an actual fan, he could have tried to do both more successfully, instead of seemingly intentionally doing the opposite just because he can.
You don't have to be a fan of a franchise to make a quality movie. Nick Meyer basically knew nothing about Star Trek going in to ST2, but once he started working with it, he got what Star Trek was about, and was able to make a quality movie that Trekkers and even non-Trekkers seem to enjoy.
-
I am surprised you liked the 2009 Trek as much as you did. I admit I was exhausted when I saw it, but don't have any desire to give it a second look to see if I was just having an off day.
I caught it pretty recently on cable (HBO I think) and really enjoyed it. And then my wife told me (right after we got the new 70" installed) that "Into Darkness" was available On Demand and I thought that would be a good inaugural flick for the new TV. So, it was kinda cool to see both films pretty much back-to-back like that.
-
My wife rented this from Redbox, so I accidentally saw the first half. The thing that stuck out to me the most is how poor Quinto's acting is compared to Nimoy, it's almost laughably bad. The choice of actor to portray Scotty was also poor IMO. Had to leave the room. (saw it once in the theater and have no desire to ever again watch this butchery of one of TOS' greatest moments)
-
Funny that pretty much everyone has been praising Quinto as Spock.
I dislike Pegg anyway so he doesn't get my vote. I'd have chosen Chris Doohan. He's in the bloody film anyway...Just cast him as Scotty.
-
My wife rented this from Redbox, so I accidentally saw the first half. The thing that stuck out to me the most is how poor Quinto's acting is compared to Nimoy, it's almost laughably bad. The choice of actor to portray Scotty was also poor IMO. Had to leave the room. (saw it once in the theater and have no desire to ever again watch this butchery of one of TOS' greatest moments)
I don't think I've ever read a positive post from you. Movies, Sports, life, how to drink milk, the weather. It's all bad.
-
Just watched this again on DVD.
Still love it.
:dunno:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BUYa25-IIAA7pNX.jpg)
Edit : :lol only Just Realised that both films are 12. Thought (2009) was PG. The More Ya Know y'know ?
-
If only JJ was an actual fan, he could have tried to do both more successfully, instead of seemingly intentionally doing the opposite just because he can.
You don't have to be a fan of a franchise to make a quality movie. Nick Meyer basically knew nothing about Star Trek going in to ST2, but once he started working with it, he got what Star Trek was about, and was able to make a quality movie that Trekkers and even non-Trekkers seem to enjoy.
True, I just wish he actually displayed some respect for the franchise, instead of seemingly doing things intentionally to spite that.
Funny that pretty much everyone has been praising Quinto as Spock.
Nothing funny about it. He was perfectly cast. Any issues I have there is with the writing for him, but not his performance. He's not as good as Nimoy of course, but he does a great job of capturing the subtlety of Spock's delivery without being in any danger of parody like some of the other characters.
-
i love karl urban's impression of bones. i thought he did a very good job as well.
-
Nothing funny about it. He was perfectly cast. Any issues I have there is with the writing for him, but not his performance. He's not as good as Nimoy of course, but he does a great job of capturing the subtlety of Spock's delivery without being in any danger of parody like some of the other characters.
It was a reply to the post above. Should have been more like Funny that...People have been praising him ( etc ) .
i love karl urban's impression of bones. i thought he did a very good job as well.
I think the big 3 are all perfect. Then Sulu. Scotty is my least favourite as Pegg plays him nothing like Doohan at all.
He's basically just Pegg being Peeg with a slightly scots accent.
-
Finally caught this, enjoyed it thoroughly. I so wish they had saved the "needs of the many" line for when Kirk was in the warp core.
-
I think then it would have ben too much of the original scene in one place and only fans of Wrath Of Khan would have appreciated it.
I liked how they just had " you'll flood the whole compartment " " Better get down here, better hurry " & " Out of danger " .
Just subtle references to WOK but not the entire scene verbatim.
I like the extras on the DVD too. There's one just about the USS Vengeance - which pleased me greatly ;D
-
What deleted scenes are there on this one (I assume there are some, as most new movies include them)?
I'm just wondering if they cut all of the stuff that holds the story together like last time. They cut some good stuff from ST11!
-
I liked Karl Urban in the first reboot, but in the second his spiel got kinda one-dimensional. I mean, realistically, as one-dimensional as the original McCoy, but I don't think they needed to emulate that too.
-
What deleted scenes are there on this one (I assume there are some, as most new movies include them)?
I'm just wondering if they cut all of the stuff that holds the story together like last time. They cut some good stuff from ST11!
There are none on my DVD & none on the Blu Ray.
-
I had no problem with any of the casting. I didn't like some of the characterizations but that is a different issue.
-
I've been watching a lot of "making of" the first couple of films and it's actually funny that people had similar complaints of the first two films that people have had of JJ's Trek.
The Enterprise revealed in 1979 was " nothing like the TV show " √
They changed too much ( Bennett & Meyer ) √
The director knows nothing about Star Trek √
Etc. I love Into Darkness more and more every time I watch it and can easily put it on and be entertained for 2 hours.
The biggest thing that bugs me about STID is Kronos. It looked too much like a set and I couldn't really tell if it was supposed to be inside or outside.
That whole sequence looked a bit cheap to me :dunno:
I *loved* the whole warp trail instantly. I thought it was really beautiful and was a lot better than the TNG thing of seeing a flash of light in the distance.
The warp trail was like " That's where the ship just went to - way off in the distance and it took less than a second ".
To me it's like an updated 2013 version of the kaleidoscope warp trail in the first two movies.
I think this film will be remembered a lot more fondly in the future after all is said and done. Apparently - another poll was done at a more recent convention -
- and instead of coming 12th - it came a much more respectable 6th out of 12 movies. It's top 5 for me easily and I cannot wait for the next one.
-
I think Into Darkness will only go down in future for being a hugely derivative and unoriginal/uninspired Trek movie. It will not age well at all. Trek 2009 will fare a lot better though. Solid movie.
I don't have a problem with the director knowing nothing about Star Trek, I'd just rather a director who wasn't so obviously wishing he was doing Star Wars instead.
-
And speaking of Kronos, why would the Klingons look completely different in this one? New timeline, fine. That doesn't alter appearances, though. I don't mind the helmets, although it seemed a bit odd, but the different faces made no sense.
-
BUT THEY LOOKED DIFFERENT IN THE MOTION PICTURE COMPARED TO THE ORIGINAL SERIES TOO SO THEREFORE THAT ARGUMENT IS INVALID.
Just getting in before that one pops up. :lol
JJ must have a thing for generic goblins because the Romulans and Klingons all just look like Nosferatu now. Great idea! Let's take two of the most distinctive and iconic long standing Trek races, and make them look indistinguishable and unidentifiable!
-
The way he showed the Klingons really annoyed me. Looked more like some body-modding conference than Klingons.