I've grown accustomed to the idea that if I haven't seen something inside 2-3 weeks after release, I'll know at least most of the major plot points and characters just by browsing this forum, regardless of if it's a specific thread or not.

FOGEY FIGHT

I really need to see that shootout between the crew, the Klingons and Khan again. In the theater I had no fucking idea who was shooting at who, who hit what, or where anyone was positioned. I don't recall the shootout aboard Nero's ship in Star Trek '09 being nearly as chaotic or logistically incomprehensible.

Last edited by Ewing (2014-01-25 07:15:28)

Not many directors are good with action direction these days - Michael Bay is pretty bad at it (or is now) and Peter Jackson isn't terribly good either (either in the LOTR or Hobbit).

The best I've seen recently is The Raid.

I'm not sure if I entirely buy that because the opening scene of LOST's pilot is some of the best action ever shot for television. I didn't notice it nearly as much in the first film as I did in STID. Maybe he's just gotten progressively worse with more freedom?

Gareth Evans will save us all.

I'm wondering if that might be more of an editing issue than anything else. I mean, that stuff may have been there at the start but could have later been chopped up within an inch of its life.

I'd have to agree, regarding LOST and I'd say Mission: Impossible III has some well constructed and choreographed action, too.

Ditto on that as well. I think that's because he understands you shoot fight scenes (or any action, really) the same way you would shoot a dance sequence: Wide, so you get full body shots of the performers as well as clear understanding of their geography in relation to the space they're in, because the setting is also a character and plays an equally important part in the story you're telling. It's also preferred to let these things play out in very few cuts. None, if possible so you don't break the flow of the piece.

If your camera is in too tight the whole time (and too quickly for any given shot), the whole thing is just one random, disjointed appendage connecting with (or not) one other random, disjointed appendage after another and there is zero context so you can't even give a shit the few times you actually can tell who or what you're looking at. The best (and almost always only) time to use close-ups is on an actor's face (to connect with them, intimately and read their subtle emotions) and on insert shots (to catch important plot points, sometimes also involving geography). Just as in straight Drama, if you don't have the WHY, the rest of it (WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WHERE) will only mean so much, sometimes meaning absolutely nothing.

Hopefully, it'll be more than just one guy. Strength in numbers and all that.

Last edited by johnpavlich (2014-01-26 03:54:13)

I'm honestly curious, what development of any kind do you see? Because as far as I could see not a thing changed in any of the characters.

One of my favorite character dynamics is Kirk. One aspect of the ST IT is the fact that it does not fulfill audience expectations. When 09 ended it was expected that Kirk would step right in to the TOS era as the captain of the Enterprise. But, as was noted, there is no way for Pine Kirk to be exactly like Shatner Kirk because of the loss of his father.

When ID starts, Kirk is kind of expected to be jumping right in, but instead, he is still shown to be immature and arrogant in regards to command. He is book smart but lacks any sort of experience that allows him to admit to mistakes. Admiral Pike calls him out on that. But, he doesn't recognize it. Shatner's Kirk is flawed but he can recognize it. Pine's Kirk doesn't recognize that. And that is part of his arc that fascinates me. He has to be humbled in order to be a better leader. Khan and Marcus are reflections of what he could become if he follows their way and Pike is the father figure he needs to become better.

It is odd, but it reflects a bid of Roddenberry's point of view towards humanity that humanity will rise above the petty differences and become more "evolved," to use his term. There is a reflection of TOS in that not every one in the Federation is satisfied with the type of society produced, there is an aspect of Kirk not fulfilling his full potential in 09 and that arc is continuing in ID.

That is for me, though. I am all about characters moments in movies and Into Darkness really rings true for me.

Last edited by fireproof78 (2014-01-27 01:17:52)

Yeah but they forget that and make the character do it again in the sequel. He oses command of the Enterprise. For ten whole minutes. Making the conflict pointless.

Around these parts we call that "bringing your own concrete."

A warning label styled like a road sign that goes on movies: "WARNING: B Y O C"

Judging by what is said in the episode itself, it's not just you.