• From: State of Idaho
  • Registered: 2010-12-08
  • Posts: 2,367
  • User Karma: 289

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Warning: rant ahead.
I'm writing this because you, friends in my head, will probably be the few to actually understand this. If not, you'll at least tell me I'm full of it. Either way, I think I'll feel better.

First of all, I am so frustrated by Star Trek: Into Darkness discussion. No because of spoilers-that doesn't bother me. Not even that it might be a bad movie because I haven't seen it and will reserve judgement until I (FINALLY!) see it. But, it seems that the discussion on the movie can't go five sentences without hate speech of some kind (on the Internet? Surely I jest). Not on this forum-this forum is, well...moving on...

I keep seeing something that makes me hem and haw on seeing the movie, to the point that I want to throw up my hands and say "Screw it! Why bother?" That feeling comes and goes and I really don't know what to do with it.

I want to go see it, but the discussion is wearing me out. I kind of want to see Fast 6 or GI Joe Retaliation just to have some fun...

Am I crazy?

God loves you!

Thumbs up Thumbs down

  • From: Scotland
  • Registered: 2010-01-19
  • Posts: 2,430
  • User Karma: 264

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Not many people here are actually saying it is a bad movie, though. It is fun, it is just that there are some points that certain people have problems with. You should go and see it if you want to, those points may not bother you smile

Thumbs up +2 Thumbs down

  • Registered: 2010-12-27
  • Posts: 309
  • User Karma: 50

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Jimmy: yuppity yup yup

:)

Protection and power are overrated. I think you are very wise to choose happiness and love. -Uncle Iroh

Thumbs up +1 Thumbs down

  • From: State of Idaho
  • Registered: 2010-12-08
  • Posts: 2,367
  • User Karma: 289

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Jimmy B wrote:

Not many people here are actually saying it is a bad movie, though. It is fun, it is just that there are some points that certain people have problems with. You should go and see it if you want to, those points may not bother you smile

Yeah, I needed that. Its not this forum is another one I have gotten in to, and really should take a break from because it can get so negative. At least here, its fun, with some serious discussion. There, it is borderline hatred (and I don't use that word lightly) towards Abrams and his Trek.

Anyway, thanks for letting me vent smile

God loves you!

Thumbs up Thumbs down

  • From: Van Dieman's Land
  • Registered: 2011-06-02
  • Posts: 1,358
  • User Karma: 233

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

That's a interesting point - does Star Trek Into Darkness simply pass as a 'big dumb fun' movie, in the way that ID4, or Transformers or Pirates or Dredd or Fast & Furious franchise, etc does? Mileage may vary - different people will have different thresholds about what constitutes 'big dumb fun'. Personally, I wouldn't give it a pass on that lower threshold criteria but I understand plenty of people do.

not long to go now...

Thumbs up Thumbs down

  • From: Kent, England
  • Registered: 2010-02-09
  • Posts: 1,327
  • User Karma: 146

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

I've been mostly okay with this second Abrams trek because I consider it to be the big dumb fun movie that I didn't know the first one was (not to say that Nemesis wasn't stupid). This time, I knew what I was going in for and enjoyed myself a lot more than when I watched Trek09.

As long as one doesn't go in expecting the usual cerebral quality of Star Trek, it's great fun. It's not Prometheus.

Imagination will often carry us to worlds that never were. But without it we go nowhere. - Carl Sagan

Thumbs up Thumbs down

307 Reply by Dave

  • Dave
  • Dave
  • Australian Correspondent
  • Offline
  • From: Melbourne, Australia
  • Registered: 2009-12-01
  • Posts: 1,594
  • User Karma: 341

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Given how much folks seem to like IM3, the distaste for this film leaves me a little baffled.

Anyway, it's only a film. None of this is worth a fight over.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

  • From: Van Dieman's Land
  • Registered: 2011-06-02
  • Posts: 1,358
  • User Karma: 233

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Dave wrote:

Given how much folks seem to like IM3, the distaste for this film leaves me a little baffled.

Anyway, it's only a film. None of this is worth a fight over.

They're much the same movie - it's only RDJ's charisma that gives IM3 half-a-point over STID (4.5 v 4/10).

not long to go now...

Thumbs up Thumbs down

  • From: Kent, England
  • Registered: 2010-02-09
  • Posts: 1,327
  • User Karma: 146

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

4/10, that's... a bit harsh surely?

Imagination will often carry us to worlds that never were. But without it we go nowhere. - Carl Sagan

Thumbs up Thumbs down

  • From: State of Idaho
  • Registered: 2010-12-08
  • Posts: 2,367
  • User Karma: 289

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Dave wrote:

Given how much folks seem to like IM3, the distaste for this film leaves me a little baffled.

Anyway, it's only a film. None of this is worth a fight over.

You clearly haven't me some Star Trek fans-no one here. Just people I've talked with... roll

God loves you!

Thumbs up Thumbs down

  • From: Scotland
  • Registered: 2010-01-19
  • Posts: 2,430
  • User Karma: 264

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

What would have made the film better-

SPOILER Show
http://i.imgur.com/jaoa5pX.gif

Thumbs up Thumbs down

312 Reply by Snail

  • Snail
  • Snail
  • Just Another Movie Enthusiast
  • Offline
  • From: Maryland
  • Registered: 2011-10-20
  • Posts: 554
  • User Karma: 114

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Jimmy B wrote:

What would have made the film better-

SPOILER Show
http://i.imgur.com/jaoa5pX.gif

I love it!  big_smile

"Life is about movies; anything else is a bonus!"- Me   cool

Snail's Website

Thumbs up Thumbs down

  • From: State of Idaho
  • Registered: 2010-12-08
  • Posts: 2,367
  • User Karma: 289

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

redxavier wrote:

I've been mostly okay with this second Abrams trek because I consider it to be the big dumb fun movie that I didn't know the first one was (not to say that Nemesis wasn't stupid). This time, I knew what I was going in for and enjoyed myself a lot more than when I watched Trek09.

As long as one doesn't go in expecting the usual cerebral quality of Star Trek, it's great fun. It's not Prometheus.

Alright, finally saw it.
I did my best to judge it from the film and the film alone and it was...ok. I get that people are frustrated by rehashes, but we on this forum know that Hollywood has a tough time with original thought. It really does. But, the film holds its own, however, it definitely suffered from being Lindelof'ed as well as poor marketing.

So, did I have fun with it? Yes I did. I cried, twice (don't judge me wink ), rolled eyes a little bit at some points and generally found the movie well done.

Is it perfect? Um, no. I still think Trek 09 was better. But, I like the theme in it, I like the fact that things are not perfect in the Federation, and the performances are still excellent.

God loves you!

Thumbs up Thumbs down

  • From: State of Idaho
  • Registered: 2010-12-08
  • Posts: 2,367
  • User Karma: 289

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Another i09 article regarding the future of Trek:
http://io9.com/whats-the-future-of-star … -510291083

God loves you!

Thumbs up Thumbs down

  • From: Kent, England
  • Registered: 2010-02-09
  • Posts: 1,327
  • User Karma: 146

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Good article, and I agree with the writer's thoughts on why it wasn't so successful, they managed to dilute the Star Trek brand to such an extent that Star Trek Into Darkness isn't really distinguishable from any other 'evil terrrorist blows up stuff on Earth' movie (with a few fan service moments grafted on).

And this is the part where I lament that we had yet another Khan or analogous antagonist, and that Cumberbatch wasn't playing Gary Mitchell.

Imagination will often carry us to worlds that never were. But without it we go nowhere. - Carl Sagan

Thumbs up Thumbs down

  • From: State of Idaho
  • Registered: 2010-12-08
  • Posts: 2,367
  • User Karma: 289

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

redxavier wrote:

Good article, and I agree with the writer's thoughts on why it wasn't so successful, they managed to dilute the Star Trek brand to such an extent that Star Trek Into Darkness isn't really distinguishable from any other 'evil terrrorist blows up stuff on Earth' movie (with a few fan service moments grafted on).

And this is the part where I lament that we had yet another Khan or analogous antagonist, and that Cumberbatch wasn't playing Gary Mitchell.

Well, I would distinguish it because terrorism isn't the central point so much as the tool. The underlying attitude that is presented is ends justify the means in winning a war. And how that attitude conflicts with the Federation ideal. I think that message was done well, IMHO.

But, I agree that Gary Mitchell would have been a better choice and that the writers end up doing too much fan service  hmm

Also, a curious question for you all

  Show
Is Cumberbatch as Khan an example of whitewashing? Consider this article: http://www.r … ss/

God loves you!

Thumbs up Thumbs down

317 Reply by BBQ

  • BBQ
  • BBQ
  • Member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2010-10-03
  • Posts: 137
  • User Karma: 19

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

I think, in the next Trek film, the villain should be The Borg.

*runs and hides*

Thumbs up Thumbs down

  • From: Red Deer, AB
  • Registered: 2009-11-23
  • Posts: 4,044
  • User Karma: 664

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Make it R rated and you've got me on board.

if you're gonna do the Borg, it needs to be fucking terrifying and body horror to the max.

Plus, I would love to that version of the Borg.

ZangrethorDigital.ca

BigDamnArtist's Website

Thumbs up Thumbs down

  • From: Poland
  • Registered: 2012-11-01
  • Posts: 592
  • User Karma: 121

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

BBQ wrote:

I think, in the next Trek film, the villain should be The Borg.

Come to think of it, First Contact already feels a little like a J.J. Abrams Star Trek movie (it's action-oriented and the plot holes remind me of Damion Lindelof's writing).

I just imagined Tilda Swinton as the new Borg Queen... Smoking hot.

So honor the valiant who die 'neath your sword
But pity the warrior who slays all his foes...

Thumbs up Thumbs down

  • From: Red Deer, AB
  • Registered: 2009-11-23
  • Posts: 4,044
  • User Karma: 664

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Marty J wrote:

I just imagined Tilda Swinton as the new Borg Queen... Smoking hot.

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b367/tisoy47/Forum%20goofing/ill-be-in-my-bunk_thumb2.jpg

ZangrethorDigital.ca

BigDamnArtist's Website

Thumbs up Thumbs down

  • From: Farmington, CT
  • Registered: 2010-05-08
  • Posts: 2,451
  • User Karma: 317

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

I'm calling it now: Matt Reeves (Cloverfield, Let Me In) will direct Star Trek 3. He's already got a relationship with Abrams producing his stuff, and he's got geek cred from previous projects. If his Rise of the Planet of the Apes sequel is good, I think that the franchise is in the bag for him.

"The Doctor is Submarining through our brains." --Teague

Thumbs up Thumbs down

  • From: Kent, England
  • Registered: 2010-02-09
  • Posts: 1,327
  • User Karma: 146

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

I'd worry that someone like that would essentially become a puppet for a Paramount committee.

Just thinking about it, I'd like to see an Enterprise era movie. You know, a film about mankind meeting new aliens, fumbling about in new places, seeing spacial anomalies that baffle them, and doing stuff an exploration ship would do using new technology that they don't really know how to use and which half the time isn't working properly.

And I like to see a crew that's actually developing their relationships on screen.

Imagination will often carry us to worlds that never were. But without it we go nowhere. - Carl Sagan

Thumbs up Thumbs down

  • From: Bristol. Again.
  • Registered: 2010-06-17
  • Posts: 1,202
  • User Karma: 343

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

An Enterprise era movie set during the Romulan War with a new crew nearly happened before JJ was brought onboard. Link

Extended Edition - 146 - The Rise Of Skywalker
VFX Reel | Twitter | IMDB | Blog

Faldor's Website

Thumbs up Thumbs down

  • From: Poland
  • Registered: 2012-11-01
  • Posts: 592
  • User Karma: 121

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Orci & Kurtzman actually consider bringing back Q and the Borg (see here).

If the Q Continuum exists outside of all the physical universes (that was always the implication), Q would be the same character that we know from TNG/DS9/VOY (John de Lancie). But if they're going to recast him, I'm rooting for Robert Downey, Jr.

So honor the valiant who die 'neath your sword
But pity the warrior who slays all his foes...

Thumbs up Thumbs down

  • From: State of Idaho
  • Registered: 2010-12-08
  • Posts: 2,367
  • User Karma: 289

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

BBQ wrote:

I think, in the next Trek film, the villain should be The Borg.

*runs and hides*

Yeah, you better run *looks for the nearest phaser* wink

redxavier wrote:

I'd worry that someone like that would essentially become a puppet for a Paramount committee.

Just thinking about it, I'd like to see an Enterprise era movie. You know, a film about mankind meeting new aliens, fumbling about in new places, seeing spacial anomalies that baffle them, and doing stuff an exploration ship would do using new technology that they don't really know how to use and which half the time isn't working properly.

And I like to see a crew that's actually developing their relationships on screen.

Curiosity strikes me: do you think that the Abrams Enterprise crew is actually developing on screen?

Besides, I'm hoping the hint at the 5 year mission will allow for an actual exploration movie next time around. Either that, or war with the Klingons.

Marty J wrote:

Orci & Kurtzman actually consider bringing back Q and the Borg (see here).

If the Q Continuum exists outside of all the physical universes (that was always the implication), Q would be the same character that we know from TNG/DS9/VOY (John de Lancie). But if they're going to recast him, I'm rooting for Robert Downey, Jr.

Actually, you could redo Trelane from "Squire of Gothos" who fans have speculated was actually a Q. He was actually a little more sinister so it could be taken a little bit further than Q ever was.

Faldor wrote:

An Enterprise era movie set during the Romulan War with a new crew nearly happened before JJ was brought onboard. Link

The fact that movie was ALMOST made makes me want to cry...

God loves you!

Thumbs up Thumbs down