RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,666
Posts: 5,429,223
Members: 24,817
Currently online: 420
Newest member: 118_Larson


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies XI+

Star Trek Movies XI+ Discuss J.J. Abrams' rebooted Star Trek here.

View Poll Results: Grade the movie...
A+ 144 19.30%
A 161 21.58%
A- 101 13.54%
B+ 82 10.99%
B 58 7.77%
B- 27 3.62%
C+ 40 5.36%
C 38 5.09%
C- 25 3.35%
D+ 11 1.47%
D 13 1.74%
D- 10 1.34%
F 36 4.83%
Voters: 746. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old April 24 2013, 01:26 PM   #166
Therin of Andor
Admiral
 
Therin of Andor's Avatar
 
Location: New Therin Park, Andor (via Australia)
View Therin of Andor's Twitter Profile
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

CTarnak wrote: View Post
Kronos (rather than Qo'nos)
The ship in ST VI was "Kronos One", IIRC.

Uhura can speak Klingon fluently when she can't in ST6 (I know, new timeline, whatevs)
Exactly.

There's some kind of robot/android dude on the bridge with no explanation (he's pretty cool though)
Why does it need explanation?

The Klingons have odd external bones or metal in their ridges. For no apparent reason.
Piercings.

ENT's Orion males had piercings, too. No explanation. No explanation needed.

ST III's Klingons had hair decorations. So did VOY's Kazons. No explanation. No explanation needed.
__________________
Thiptho lapth! Ian (Entire post is personal opinion)
The Andor Files @ http://andorfiles.blogspot.com/
http://therinofandor.blogspot.com/
Therin of Andor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 24 2013, 01:28 PM   #167
marksound
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Planet Carcazed
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

I'm always amazed at how narrow-minded some Trekkies can be while claiming "enlightenment."

Amazed? I meant amused.
marksound is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 24 2013, 01:49 PM   #168
Sky
Captain
 
Sky  's Avatar
 
Location: Tokyo
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Who was claiming enlightenment?

Anyhow, it's kind of sad that when someone has a critical comment, people start sniping at the commenter right away.
__________________
there is no other wisdom
and no other hope for us
but that we grow wise.
Sky   is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 24 2013, 02:00 PM   #169
CTarnak
Ensign
 
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

I liked it overall, mostly! I just thought some of those things were unecessary affectations. It's making it different for the sake of making it different. It's no big deal, just wasn't to my personal taste.

The android guy was cool, design wise, but it's kind of a big deal to have an android Starfleet officer this early in the timeline (if he was an android). So I guess I just think "Is this a point of significance for Starfleet? Or are the writers just putting a robot in because it might look cool?". Probably wasn't fair to list this as a criticism, more a point of interest.

Good point about Kronos One, I forgot about that. I still like the Klingon spelling.
CTarnak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 24 2013, 02:08 PM   #170
DarthTom
Fleet Admiral
 
DarthTom's Avatar
 
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Who is the 'android guy,' everyone keeps referencing?
DarthTom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 24 2013, 02:12 PM   #171
CTarnak
Ensign
 
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

There's this guy standing camera left of the Captain's chair on the Enterprise, with blue eyes, and almost like a port on the back of his head, with a modulated robot-like voice. He could just be an alien, but he was more robot-like than Data. He has one line and about 15 seconds of screen time, but he was pretty striking.
CTarnak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 24 2013, 02:19 PM   #172
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Sky wrote: View Post
Who was claiming enlightenment?

Anyhow, it's kind of sad that when someone has a critical comment, people start sniping at the commenter right away.
It's because what many fans think is worthwhile criticism is worse than "kind of sad."
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 24 2013, 02:19 PM   #173
Art Vandelay
Captain
 
Art Vandelay's Avatar
 
Location: New Vertiform City
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Therin of Andor wrote: View Post
[...] Funnily enough, when the next incarnation of Trek comes along, people tend to find the second-to-last one more tolerable. You don't see as much hatred for ST:TMP or "Enterprise" these days.
Thing is, I liked every incarnation of Trek up until Trek 09. Some more (TNG, ENT, DS9), some less (VOY). (Although I tend to try and forget Nemesis exists.) There is no series/film that I used to denigrate and then grew softer towards as new things came along. Indeed, my deep affection for ST:TMP was love at first sight.

The thing with Trek pre-2008 is that it didn't need to be wall-to-wall action. It didn't have to be marketed as the next Dark Knight. 90% of the promotional artwork for Into Darkness had me going: "This is supposed to be Trek? Why are the characters armed to the teeth with huge ego-shooter guns?" I guess that's a sign of the times.

When in the past they did bad science (Genesis or Threshold), Braga at least had the decency to hang his head in shame. Nowadays, we have Spock proclaiming that supernovas can destroy whole galaxies. We have transporters that only require a quick firmware update to achieve limitless range. And no idea of what rank means, either. Kirk is insubordinate, commandeers the ship, gets to be captain on a technicality? Bah - he destroyed that evil Romulan, so let's have this heroic Cadet skip the ranks of Ensign, Lieutenant j.g., Lieutenant, Lieutenant Commander and Commander altogether and make him Captain. And while we're at it, let's not give him some science vessel, let him have the flagship of the Federation. That's not Trek, that's "Marvel's Kirk & Spock".

When you get a sandbox like the Trekverse to play in, stick to the rules. Bend them if you must, us fans are willing to look the other way in case of minor or mid-sized infractions. It's this careless, indifferent "anything goes, who gives a f**k" attitude the writers seem to have that drives me up the wall and makes me yearn for the Trek "of old".

I guess I wouldn't be so bitter if we had a "proper" TV series doing what Trek is best at (character-heavy plays), and the action films were special events. Now all we have is this monster movie franchise, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Wrong thread, I suppose. But boy did it feel good to vent. I miss Star Trek so very much.
Art Vandelay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 24 2013, 02:20 PM   #174
Therin of Andor
Admiral
 
Therin of Andor's Avatar
 
Location: New Therin Park, Andor (via Australia)
View Therin of Andor's Twitter Profile
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

DarthTom wrote: View Post
Who is the 'android guy,' everyone keeps referencing?
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1395532/ (click for pic of actor)

Joseph Gatt plays a character named for him, "Gatt2000". He has pale eyes, a mechanical voice, and a circular "hole" in the back of his skull.
__________________
Thiptho lapth! Ian (Entire post is personal opinion)
The Andor Files @ http://andorfiles.blogspot.com/
http://therinofandor.blogspot.com/
Therin of Andor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 24 2013, 03:10 PM   #175
KirkusOveractus
Captain
 
KirkusOveractus's Avatar
 
Location: Ambler, PA
Send a message via AIM to KirkusOveractus
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Art Vandelay wrote: View Post
When you get a sandbox like the Trekverse to play in, stick to the rules. Bend them if you must, us fans are willing to look the other way in case of minor or mid-sized infractions. It's this careless, indifferent "anything goes, who gives a f**k" attitude the writers seem to have that drives me up the wall and makes me yearn for the Trek "of old".

I guess I wouldn't be so bitter if we had a "proper" TV series doing what Trek is best at (character-heavy plays), and the action films were special events. Now all we have is this monster movie franchise, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Wrong thread, I suppose. But boy did it feel good to vent. I miss Star Trek so very much.
A couple things here:

1. The wonderful thing about universes based in science fiction is that there are no rules. People who complained about the 2009 movie being about Kirk and Spock and not "moving forward and further into the future of Trek" (which is a gross misunderstanding of Star Trek, IMO) now want the "old Star Trek" back. Which ties into my second point:

2. Star Trek had more than its share of the character-heavy, dialogue ridden stories with the crew sitting in a room to talk. It stopped being successful. And if you have any company with major money being spent, it wants a return. No return, no more product like it. Star Trek had to change, like it or lump it. And those who refuse to accept change are also ignoring another fundamental point of Star Trek, again, IMO.
KirkusOveractus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 24 2013, 03:22 PM   #176
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Art Vandelay wrote: View Post
The thing with Trek pre-2008 is that it didn't need to be wall-to-wall action. It didn't have to be marketed as the next Dark Knight.
And ultimately it didn't "need" to continue, because it failed.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 24 2013, 03:23 PM   #177
Art Vandelay
Captain
 
Art Vandelay's Avatar
 
Location: New Vertiform City
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

KirkusOveractus wrote: View Post
A couple things here:

1. The wonderful thing about universes based in science fiction is that there are no rules. People who complained about the 2009 movie being about Kirk and Spock and not "moving forward and further into the future of Trek" (which is a gross misunderstanding of Star Trek, IMO) now want the "old Star Trek" back. Which ties into my second point:

2. Star Trek had more than its share of the character-heavy, dialogue ridden stories with the crew sitting in a room to talk. It stopped being successful. And if you have any company with major money being spent, it wants a return. No return, no more product like it. Star Trek had to change, like it or lump it. And those who refuse to accept change are also ignoring another fundamental point of Star Trek, again, IMO.
1. I have no problem with Trek going into its own past. I liked Enterprise from the get-go. (They truly couldn't have skipped even further ahead. The problem with going beyond the 24th century is - what advances can you make that aren't ludicrous, like Warp 15 or what have you.)

2. Change can be good. DS9 was radically different, and yet it is my favourite series. However, if all you do to Trek is make it dumber and louder so it appeals to blockbuster audiences, you're not really changing it. You're equalising, aiming at the lowest common denominator. It might be massively successful, but to all those flocking into theatres it's really just the flavour of the week before Iron Man 3 or what have you comes along. I postulate that Trek can change, make money and be good storytelling at the same time. (Which it isn't in its current state.)
Art Vandelay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 24 2013, 03:29 PM   #178
section9
Commander
 
section9's Avatar
 
Location: Sunrise, Florida
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Art Vandelay wrote: View Post
KirkusOveractus wrote: View Post
A couple things here:

1. The wonderful thing about universes based in science fiction is that there are no rules. People who complained about the 2009 movie being about Kirk and Spock and not "moving forward and further into the future of Trek" (which is a gross misunderstanding of Star Trek, IMO) now want the "old Star Trek" back. Which ties into my second point:

2. Star Trek had more than its share of the character-heavy, dialogue ridden stories with the crew sitting in a room to talk. It stopped being successful. And if you have any company with major money being spent, it wants a return. No return, no more product like it. Star Trek had to change, like it or lump it. And those who refuse to accept change are also ignoring another fundamental point of Star Trek, again, IMO.
1. I have no problem with Trek going into its own past. I liked Enterprise from the get-go. (They truly couldn't have skipped even further ahead. The problem with going beyond the 24th century is - what advances can you make that aren't ludicrous, like Warp 15 or what have you.)

2. Change can be good. DS9 was radically different, and yet it is my favourite series. However, if all you do to Trek is make it dumber and louder so it appeals to blockbuster audiences, you're not really changing it. You're equalising, aiming at the lowest common denominator. It might be massively successful, but to all those flocking into theatres it's really just the flavour of the week before Iron Man 3 or what have you comes along. I postulate that Trek can change, make money and be good storytelling at the same time. (Which it isn't in its current state.)
Plus, DS9 had something no other part of the franchise had:

Senator Vreenak.

'Nuff said.
__________________
"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it!" - Winston S. Churchill
section9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 24 2013, 03:29 PM   #179
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Art Vandelay wrote: View Post
I postulate that Trek can change, make money and be good storytelling at the same time.
I postulate that I can grow wings and fly to Mars.

I was just over at IMDB - the furor over Cumberbatch playing Khan is becoming preposterous enough that I think the Onion can get a video out of it now.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 24 2013, 03:33 PM   #180
KirkusOveractus
Captain
 
KirkusOveractus's Avatar
 
Location: Ambler, PA
Send a message via AIM to KirkusOveractus
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Art: BTW, are you in importing or exporting?

Anyway, I understand your points completely. The problem is that although those things you mentioned can work and do well, Star Trek had a reputation for trying to do all those things but stumble and fall at trying. At this stage, if they tried that formula (which in Trek's case was overused) and failed, we would not have seen any new Star Trek again for probably a long, long, long time.

At this stage, they did what worked, and it did that in spades. People I know saw the 2009 movie and loved it, and are now borrowing my DVDs of TOS. The best thing is happening in that they are digging the series immensely, and they definitely would not have touched it before seeing the movie.

The main thing, to me, is that Trek had tried for the route of moneymaker and good storyteller in a movie, but it didn't work as much as hoped for the general public (which, like it or not, is how a movie succeeds).
KirkusOveractus is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
benedict cumberbatch, grading & discussion, jj abrams

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:37 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.