RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,887
Posts: 5,386,583
Members: 24,713
Currently online: 557
Newest member: colton123412345

TrekToday headlines

Gold Key Archives Volume 2
By: T'Bonz on Aug 19

Takei Documentary Wins Award
By: T'Bonz on Aug 19

Cumberbatch To Voice Khan
By: T'Bonz on Aug 19

Shaun And Ed On Phineas and Ferb
By: T'Bonz on Aug 18

New Ships Coming From Official Starships Collection
By: T'Bonz on Aug 18

Trek Stars Take On Ice Bucket Challenge
By: T'Bonz on Aug 18

Retro Review: Profit and Lace
By: Michelle on Aug 16

Eve Engaged
By: T'Bonz on Aug 15

Shatner’s Get A Life DVD Debuts
By: T'Bonz on Aug 14

TV Alert: Takei Oprah Appearance
By: T'Bonz on Aug 14


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 19.38%
A 161 21.67%
A- 100 13.46%
B+ 82 11.04%
B 58 7.81%
B- 27 3.63%
C+ 40 5.38%
C 38 5.11%
C- 24 3.23%
D+ 11 1.48%
D 13 1.75%
D- 10 1.35%
F 35 4.71%
Voters: 743. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old April 26 2013, 08:58 PM   #496
Franklin
Rear Admiral
 
Location: In the bleachers
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

ConRefit79 wrote: View Post
Franklin wrote: View Post
SalvorHardin wrote: View Post

Most, if not all, of this bad buzz is from people who haven't even seen the movie yet. Reviews from those who have seen it and who write articles people might actually read, are for the most part positive.
I think it will be fine in the end. We'll see.
The following review by Matthew Leyland in "Total Film" just went up on Rotten Tomatoes. It's a rave without gushing and with some minimal criticisms.

The bad buzz some sense going around forums could be a case of nerves fueled by those who see the movie as contrary to the "vision thing" or those jumping to half-formed conclusions based on what we know so far.

Deep breaths, folks. Deep breaths. Still a long way to go.

Here's the review by Matthew Leyland (oh, it's spoiler free, by the way):

http://www.totalfilm.com/reviews/cin...-into-darkness
Don't put too much stock in the critics' reviews. There have been many films they've gushed over, which ordinary movie goers thought were terrible.
To be sure. And we also have a small number of reviews, so far (that have been quite positive). Still, it's better than the reviews correlating with any negative buzz (which has to be based on only one the real spoiler-ladened synopsis that we know of, so far -- the one linked to in this thread).

I will say that a consensus of critics' reviews is something to take stock in, though. Especially for those who may be curious.

What I think most people are hung up on is the whole "magic blood" thing. The other thing could be those hung up on Khan being a lily-white Englishman. More's the pity for them if they let that spoil the movie for them.
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. -- Mark Twain
Franklin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 26 2013, 09:20 PM   #497
Flake
Commodore
 
Location: Manchester, UK
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Magic blood and what is done with it is definitely the main issue I think people are having and Khan coming in second because Hollywood has whitewashed a character again and because its not original. We have no idea how the magic blood scenes are handled in the movie and therefore we cannot comment. We can only think it sounds stupid on paper and remind ourselves that stranger things have happened in Star Trek. Someone who is not as familiar with Star Trek may have a harder time 'coming to terms' with it.


Last edited by Flake; April 26 2013 at 09:32 PM.
Flake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 26 2013, 09:29 PM   #498
Flake
Commodore
 
Location: Manchester, UK
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

how do i post spoilers here inside the button

all these years and I dont know..
Flake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 26 2013, 09:30 PM   #499
Phily B
Fleet Captain
 
Phily B's Avatar
 
Location: United Kingdom
View Phily B's Twitter Profile
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

how much product placement was there?
Phily B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 26 2013, 09:31 PM   #500
Flake
Commodore
 
Location: Manchester, UK
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Flake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 26 2013, 09:33 PM   #501
Kruezerman
Fleet Captain
 
Kruezerman's Avatar
 
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Phily B wrote: View Post
how much product placement was there?
All of it.


__________________
*Tim Duncan fills glass with milk*
"Hm, you know what..."
*adds squirt of chocolate syrup*
"Tonight's a special night."
Kruezerman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 26 2013, 09:35 PM   #502
ConRefit79
Captain
 
ConRefit79's Avatar
 
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

For me, the issue is it's Kahn. He has already been done very well. ST2 is the top Trek movie for me. Nothing has come close. It was was an insult when they tried to copy it in Nemesis. This sounds far worse. And why, to get Spock's reaction. Didn't Spock get more than his fair share of grief portrayal in ST09?

I really was hoping it was someone original or maybe Gary Mitchell. There was nothing stopping them with inventing a new augment. He could have been from the Eugenics wars or another illegal Section 31 experiment. Instead they decided to do their own take on Kahn.
ConRefit79 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 26 2013, 09:38 PM   #503
GMDreia
Commander
 
GMDreia's Avatar
 
Location: SF Bay Area
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

I am well and thoroughly spoilered with this film - i haven't seen it yet - and here is my feeling about Khan...

First of all, I was hugely making a case for Cumberbatch playing practically anyone but Khan. I hated the idea of bringing Khan back and the idea of a white, British Khan even more.

Now I am intrigued and excited and feel that the writers may be doing for this character what Nolan did with the Joker in "The Dark Knight" - a thorough deconstruction, and written as Khan would be written *now* (and it would also not be cool presently to show an Indian or Middle Eastern guy as a terrorist type; going with the original casting choices or a white guy may be safer... but in the end, NOBODY here is going to be pleased). Something that to me had always been scrimped on in TOS, was that we never before really saw that much of Khan's "superiority". Also, there were aspects of that characterization and that story that suffered from being "15 minutes in the future" so that now they're horribly dated. And people prefer more complex and nuanced villains now.

If you consider JJ's "Star Trek" to be adding to an existing body of work based upon a mythology rather than attempting to be a direct remake of TOS or the films, and consider this new body of work to be updating based upon current sensibilities, it makes sense.

Comics and the like have a long history of reinterpretations and multiverses - I kind of think of JJ-Trek as the Trek version of Marvel's "Ultimate" universe.

Plus, Khan was definitely out there and they may have needed to get him out of the way to move on and tell new stories.
__________________
I am the user formerly known as Fascinoma
GMDreia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 26 2013, 09:44 PM   #504
Franklin
Rear Admiral
 
Location: In the bleachers
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

I guess some people will avoid "The Lone Ranger" because Johnny Depp plays Tonto.

As I've said about the blood, personally, I think restorative blood is far more plausible (requires less suspension of disbelief) as a science fiction device than the old Trek standards of a transporter and warp drive. It's certainly easier to believe than red matter. But, different strokes for different folks. Pluralism is grand.

Still, let's not forget, "Doctor gave me a pill and I've grown a new kidney! Doctor gave me a pill and I've grown a new kidney!" in TVH. Granted it was comic relief, but general audiences didn't seem to have trouble coming to terms with McCoy just happening to have a pill in his little black bag that could create a new organ. Must be a pretty common pill, too, if he always has it on hand.
Further, in TVH, McCoy's medical device essentially sat on Chekov's head and used some sort of "beams" or whatever to save the dying Chekov, making him nearly 100 percent in seconds. I doubt too many in the audience responded, "Yeah. Right."
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. -- Mark Twain
Franklin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 26 2013, 09:47 PM   #505
GMDreia
Commander
 
GMDreia's Avatar
 
Location: SF Bay Area
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Hm. Maybe this film will give us a better sense of why the Federation banned genetic engineering. I never really got that sense from Space Seed and WOK. The augments were stronger and hardier, sure, but they didn't REALLY seem that dangerous... they seemed like humans with Klingon or Vulcan constitution. I'm loving the idea of augments being much more genuinely scary.
__________________
I am the user formerly known as Fascinoma
GMDreia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 26 2013, 09:48 PM   #506
ConRefit79
Captain
 
ConRefit79's Avatar
 
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Believe, me I understand this is an alternate reality. And maybe they would need to address Kahn eventually. I was just hoping for someone new. Not someone else's take on a character who has already been done very well. At least not for is second film. Hollywood seems to have an imagination problem. Or maybe I've been around so long, nothing seems original now.
ConRefit79 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 26 2013, 09:50 PM   #507
Franklin
Rear Admiral
 
Location: In the bleachers
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Kruezerman wrote: View Post
Phily B wrote: View Post
how much product placement was there?
All of it.


If that were true, the Enterprise should've had a racing stripe.

Actual product placement that's been shown over at Trekmovie.com. It's:
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. -- Mark Twain
Franklin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 26 2013, 09:52 PM   #508
Flake
Commodore
 
Location: Manchester, UK
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Franklin wrote: View Post
I guess some people will avoid "The Lone Ranger" because Johnny Depp plays Tonto.

As I've said about the blood, personally, I think restorative blood is far more plausible (requires less suspension of disbelief) as a science fiction device than the old Trek standards of a transporter and warp drive. It's certainly easier to believe than red matter. But, different strokes for different folks. Pluralism is grand.

Still, let's not forget, "Doctor gave me a pill and I've grown a new kidney! Doctor gave me a pill and I've grown a new kidney!" in TVH. Granted it was comic relief, but general audiences didn't seem to have trouble coming to terms with McCoy just happening to have a pill in his little black bag that could create a new organ. Must be a pretty common pill, too, if he always has it on hand.
Further, in TVH, McCoy's medical device essentially sat on Chekov's head and used some sort of "beams" or whatever to save the dying Chekov, making him nearly 100 percent in seconds. I doubt too many in the audience responded, "Yeah. Right."
Exactly. When we dig into Trek there are things far more unbelievable than what occurs in STiD.

As for the new Kidney pill its a shame the starship Voyager did not take a supply of these pills with them into the Delta Quadrant because then poor Neelix would have two lungs instead of one!
Flake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 26 2013, 09:55 PM   #509
yenny
Captain
 
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Flake wrote: View Post
how do i post spoilers here inside the button

all these years and I dont know..
When you want to post spoilers? All you have to do, is to click the yellow face tag above the smile and type into the box. You might have to try it more then once, until you get a hang of it, coz sometime it don't work.
yenny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 26 2013, 10:03 PM   #510
Flake
Commodore
 
Location: Manchester, UK
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

yenny wrote: View Post
Flake wrote: View Post
how do i post spoilers here inside the button

all these years and I dont know..
When you want to post spoilers? All you have to do, is to click the yellow face tag above the smile and type into the box. You might have to try it more then once, until you get a hang of it, coz sometime it don't work.
Yeah I figured it out about 30 seconds after I posted the question.
Flake 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 06:58 AM.

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