Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
Good. Get all the shit out if it before I see it.
I write stories! With words!
http://www.asstr.org/~Invid_Fan/
http://www.asstr.org/~Invid_Fan/
You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Friends In Your Discord!
Miss having friends in your forum? We've migrated over to discord! Many of the threads that started here years ago continue on in a new setting. Come join us!
Star Trek Into Darkness (Page 7 of 15)
Posts: 151 to 175 of 360
- Jimmy B
- Great Scot!
- Offline
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
Owen Ward wrote:
Just got back from a midnight screening and loved the shit out of it.
I'm seeing it tomorrow (Friday). I think this will split people, I feel another Iron Man 3 type thread coming our way.
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
Jimmy B wrote:
Owen Ward wrote:Just got back from a midnight screening and loved the shit out of it.
I'm seeing it tomorrow (Friday). I think this will split people, I feel another Iron Man 3 type thread coming our way.
As if Trek 09 were not bad enough...
I can't wait a week!
God loves you!
- Faldor
- Member
- Offline
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
I loved the first hour til he said his name
- bullet3
- I Know Regular Expressions
- Offline
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
No spoilers yet, but is the ending as terrible as some people are suggesting, or has that been blown out of proportion?
- Faldor
- Member
- Offline
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
Yes it is
- fcw
- Member
- Offline
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
Saw the 3D version today with my wife. I thought it was a worthy successor to the previous one, although she thinks the '09 film still has the edge. We both gave it 8 out of 10, and will both probably go back and see it again (probably in IMAX this time, why not?). The 3D version was fine, not annoying, but I can only imagine that the conversion team have a special place in Hell for directors who like lens flares.
We saw it at a lunchtime screening in our local cinema, so there were perhaps fewer than 20 people in the audience. (Whereas, if we'd gone into London to see it, we'd have been sitting at the edge of the cinema, because all the big screens there are mostly sold out already.)
Oh, and as far as the ending goes, I'm fine with it. They set it up in the movie to the extent that I could see it coming, and it could be regarded as
a distorted echo of the Prime universe
- Faldor
- Member
- Offline
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
my main problem with the film is the depiction of...
SPOILER
Kahn. What made him memorable in the second movie was his personal history with Kirk and that doesn't exist here. In Space Seed he was just another villain of the week but Kirk having stranded him on a planet that became inhospitable leading to the death of his wife and followers gives him a reason to want revenge.
Here we're presented with a character who, off screen was defrosted from suspended animation after 300 years and used by Admiral Marcus whilst his people are held hostage in stasis tubes. No reference is given to the eugenics wars and very little is said about his background other than that he is a genetic superman.
He shares very little with Ricardo Montalban character which begs the question why bother using him at all. You can't just put a character like Kahn in a new story without loosing who he was. If your familiar with the original films the character doesn't make sense and if your a new comer it's just a random character we are told is the worst enemy the Enterprise will ever face.
There were a series of comics where old episodes were retold with the new Enterprise which was fun for a few issues but soon lost its novelty and I certainly don't enjoy the films doing it with scenes from other movies, line for line with characters swapped around and whilst some may argue that Wrath of Kahn is cheapened by The Search For Spock it's nothing compared to solving everything in the last 10 minutes with a magic tribble.
The film has some issues in the second hour that go beyond this but for me the film would be significantly improved if instead of Kahn Cumberbatch's character was called oh I don't know... Steve.
- Trey
- A Grizzled Old Dick With Stories To Tell
- Offline
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
SPOILER 
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
One more week...
...
One more week...
...
One more week...
But, regardless, I will probably still think Trek 09 was better fair than this.
God loves you!
- Faldor
- Member
- Offline
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
fireproof78 wrote:
But, regardless, I will probably still think Trek 09 was better fair than this.
I loved the shit out of JJ's first Trek
- fcw
- Member
- Offline
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
And, of course, in the finest Star Trek tradition, I'm sure the
SPOILER
will be forgotten about in subsequent movies, even though it would be an outstanding component of any doctor's medical bag.magic rejuvenation serum that Bones makes from Khan's blood to bring Kirk back to life
Unless, of course, they decide that the next movie should be a remake of
SPOILER
. I can almost hear the overacting from here.
Turnabout Intruder, with Khan and Kirk swapping katras via Bones's accidental blood magic
- Faldor
- Member
- Offline
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
fcw wrote:
SPOILER. I can almost hear the overacting from here.
Unless, of course, they decide that the next movie should be a remake of [spoiler]Turnabout Intruder, with Khan and Kirk swapping katras via Bones's accidental blood magic
If that were the case
SPOILER
wouldn't Kahn get put in the tribble...?
- fcw
- Member
- Offline
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
Faldor wrote:
fcw wrote:SPOILER. I can almost hear the overacting from here.
Unless, of course, they decide that the next movie should be a remake of [spoiler]Turnabout Intruder, with Khan and Kirk swapping katras via Bones's accidental blood magicIf that were the case
SPOILERwouldn't Kahn get put in the tribble...?
Ooh, then
SPOILER
, and tribbles could become the ultimate weapon against Klingons
SPOILER
could be remade as an all-out war movie, The Trouble with Tribbles
SPOILER
if you will.Gremlins In Space
And considering that
SPOILER
, maybe we're looking at possibilities like Khan's blood brings the dead back to life
SPOILER
or The Purring Dead
SPOILER
.
World War TribbleZ
- redxavier
- Member
- Offline
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
The thread certainly looks interesting. 
I've not seen the film, but does it suffer from the same sorts of problems as the previous one, or is this a new crop of problems?
Imagination will often carry us to worlds that never were. But without it we go nowhere. - Carl Sagan
- Jimmy B
- Great Scot!
- Offline
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
Trey wrote:
SPOILER
SPOILER 
+3
- redxavier
- Member
- Offline
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
Just got back and loved it. Miles, miles better than the previous. Whilst it does have a couple of 'huh?' moments and it doesn't start as strongly, it has a great twisty-turney entertaining story and hits a lot of good notes (Enterprise dropping through clouds, oh my!).
It's still a lot more whizz bang than I'd like my Trek to be and was possibly more Star Wars than before, and but then I like the Motion Picture. I wish the next movie had that same kind of wonder, at the universe and discovery in general.
Imagination will often carry us to worlds that never were. But without it we go nowhere. - Carl Sagan
- drewjmore
- Beleaguer
- Offline
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
3D IMAX too nite!
(UTC-06:00) Central Time (US & Canada)
- Doctor Submarine
- Normal Person
- Offline
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
Me too! I'm pretty pumped.
"The Doctor is Submarining through our brains." --Teague
- Doctor Submarine
- Normal Person
- Offline
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
Yup, it was great. Ending didn't bother me one bit.
Bones says he made a serum out of Khan's blood, which has rejuvenative properties. Not any less realistic than anything else in the film. And it was worth it to get that role-reversed scene from Wrath of Khan. I was pleasantly surprised at how well they handled that, dialogue-wise. It took the idea of something from the original series and presented it in an original context. The introduction of the Klingons, for example, was really cool for fans of the original series, but it was included in this film in a way that felt honest and not pandering.
I'm a little concerned with the handling of the villain, however.
Right off the bat, I loved the twist with Admiral Marcus. It was pretty easy to figure out that he was hiding something, but for a while the film had me genuinely wondering if Abrams had completely fooled us all, and Khan was never the villain. I might have liked that better, to be honest, but Cumberbatch is so much fun to watch when he's being overtly villainous that I was okay with it. I wonder, though, if they gave the general public too much credit in knowing who Khan is. I think that to most people, Khan is just a word that William Shatner shouted one time. Who he actually is, and what his motivations are, aren't ingrained in popular culture. So his history is very quickly explained, and it's easy to miss the explanation of why he's super-human. I knew who he was, and so did all of you guys, but will people who aren't versed in Trek lore get it? I'm skeptical. But I saw a special fan screening, so I wasn't able to get that perspective. I guess we'll all find out in the coming days.
That being said, I loved that the film kind of served as an apology for die-hard Trekkies who felt that the '09 film wasn't true to the spirit of the original series.
They make a lot of hay about how Starfleet is supposed to be about exploration, and Marcus' evil plan is to use Starfleet to instigate a war, and turn it into a military organization. A lot of people complained that the '09 film had too much action, and that it missed the point of the original series. Well, Abrams and Co. apparently agree, and the crew of the Enterprise is fighting to preserve Starfleet's original dedication to exploration. Yes, the film has plenty of action, but it's all in the name of preserving that original intent.
So yeah. Pretty great. Much better than its predecessor, in my opinion. Still imperfect, but it's not intending to present any grand philosophical ideas or deep thematic truths. It's just trying to be a fun space adventure. And it definitely succeeds at that.
"The Doctor is Submarining through our brains." --Teague
- drewjmore
- Beleaguer
- Offline
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
Post-converted 3D? What is this, 2009?
(UTC-06:00) Central Time (US & Canada)
- fcw
- Member
- Offline
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
drewjmore wrote:
Post-converted 3D? What is this, 2009?
We may have the technology to shoot natively in 3D, but researchers are still working on the surprisingly complex problem of shining a light into two lenses at the same time to create JJ flares with convincing depth.
Maybe by the next generation, we'll have something.
- Teague
- Administrator
- Offline
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
Spoilers:
Right now isn't a particularly good time for me to be wondering if JJ Abrams is retarded.
Teague Chrystie
I have a tendency to fix your typos.
I have a tendency to fix your typos.
- Faldor
- Member
- Offline
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
Might you be moving to London...?
- redxavier
- Member
- Offline
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
Oh yeah, I was totally, completely and utterly wrong about who Benedict Cumberbitches was playing. It was months ago and maybe no-one remembers my faux confidence, but that was a bad call.
Imagination will often carry us to worlds that never were. But without it we go nowhere. - Carl Sagan
Posts: 151 to 175 of 360
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
Currently installed 9 official extensions. Copyright © 2003–2009 PunBB.