RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,261
Posts: 5,349,395
Members: 24,614
Currently online: 564
Newest member: robyn

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: His Way
By: Michelle on Jul 26

MicroWarriors Releases Next Week
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25

Ships Of The Line Design Contest
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25

Next Weekend: Shore Leave 36!
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25

True Trek History To Be Penned
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25

Insight Editions Announces Three Trek Books For 2015
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24

To Be Takei Review by Spencer Blohm
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24

Mulgrew: Playing Red
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24

Hallmark 2015 Trek Ornaments
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24

Funko Mini Spock
By: T'Bonz on Jul 23


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+ 143 19.32%
A 160 21.62%
A- 99 13.38%
B+ 82 11.08%
B 58 7.84%
B- 27 3.65%
C+ 40 5.41%
C 38 5.14%
C- 24 3.24%
D+ 11 1.49%
D 13 1.76%
D- 10 1.35%
F 35 4.73%
Voters: 740. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old May 3 2013, 03:44 AM   #946
ConRefit79
Captain
 
ConRefit79's Avatar
 
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Considering what happens early in the film, why does Starfleet send Kirk and the Enterprise after Harrison.
ConRefit79 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 3 2013, 04:17 AM   #947
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

throwback wrote: View Post
I think the ability to write and direct a story that melds the diplomacy/exploration with the action is beyond the capabilities of most triple AAA film writers and directors.
No.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 3 2013, 04:22 AM   #948
euges116
Ensign
 
STID: 93% at RT [moved to G&D thread]

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star...into_darkness/

13 fresh, 1 rotten. From what I know with other movies, the rating tends to only change just slightly after the movie comes out. Looking forward to STID!!!
euges116 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 3 2013, 04:26 AM   #949
OneBuckFilms
Fleet Captain
 
OneBuckFilms's Avatar
 
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Mach5 wrote: View Post
OneBuckFilms wrote: View Post
Mach5 wrote: View Post
More than that. Quite a bit more, actually.

I see mostly stubble, baldcap, eyebrows, ears and tatoos (stubble, tattoos and bald are not unusual, just distinctive and previously unseen).

Maybe a slight greenish tinge to the makeup under normal lighting (I might be misremembering a normal shot), which fits the Vulcan shared ancestry (Green blood, based on Copper rather than Iron).
Seriously, you see NOTHING strange about the guy's eyes and nose bridge?
Well, yeah, but it's not as distinctive as the TNG makeup.
OneBuckFilms is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 3 2013, 04:40 AM   #950
Enterprise is Great
Rear Admiral
 
Enterprise is Great's Avatar
 
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Variety has posted a very positive, glowing review of STiD.
__________________
JJverse Star Trek...ROCKED on May 17, 2013 and beyond!
Enterprise is Great is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 3 2013, 04:42 AM   #951
Kruezerman
Fleet Captain
 
Kruezerman's Avatar
 
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Re: STID: 93% rating at Rotten Tomatoes.

Sweet!

But there will be a helluva lot more reviews coming out in the next couple weeks!
__________________
*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 May 3 2013, 04:46 AM   #952
donners22
Commodore
 
donners22's Avatar
 
Location: Victoria, Australia
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

RAMA wrote: View Post
Only Star Trek fans out of any genre fandom would look at a huge epic film coming up and complain. How much we take the franchise for granted these days, even after it almost disappeared for a third time not long ago. You can pick it apart, but it mainly matters if it's good entertainment, which ultimately ST in all it's incarnations is.

As for the negative reviews. They may well not have liked it, which is fine, but it smacks of the old popularity backlash...sometimes something is just too popular for the media to take, then they set upon it like wolves. It would have been almost unprecedented for the two JJ Trek films to have 95% approval at RT. There are already many glowing reviews.

RAMA
I don't necessarily equate 'huge' and 'epic' with 'good entertainment'. All that means is that it had a big budget. There's plenty of mindless blockbusters to satiate that market.

Nor do I feel that we should be grateful simply to have any Star Trek available. I have almost every episode on DVD; they don't go away just because it isn't being made any more. We're not compelled to like something with the Star Trek label just because it's all that is being made these days.

I'd rather have no Star Trek than a bad Star Trek film, regardless of how big its budget is. Whether it is bad or not, of course, is in the eye of the beholder.
__________________
Kim: I'm detecting some weird technobabble.
Janeway: A possibly dangerous anomaly that we know nothing about?
Kim: Yeah. I suppose we should steer clear.
Janeway: Ha! Good one, Ensign. Take us in, Mr. Paris.

http://www.fiveminute.net/voyager
donners22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 3 2013, 04:57 AM   #953
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

donners22 wrote: View Post
I'd rather have no Star Trek than a bad Star Trek film, regardless of how big its budget is.
A bad Star Trek film would be a box office failure; we've had examples of that.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 3 2013, 05:03 AM   #954
M'Sharak
Definitely Herbert. Maybe.
 
M'Sharak's Avatar
 
Location: Terra Inlandia
Re: STID: 93% rating at Rotten Tomatoes.

euges116 wrote: View Post
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star...into_darkness/

13 fresh, 1 rotten. From what I know with other movies, the rating tends to only change just slightly after the movie comes out. Looking forward to STID!!!
Per the Announcement at the top of the forum, all reviews and links to reviews should be posted in the pinned Grading & Discussion thread. Moving there now...
__________________
Dinosaurs are just really, really big chickens.
M'Sharak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 3 2013, 05:15 AM   #955
gornsky
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Location: Sydney, Australia
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

indranee wrote: View Post
My Name Is Legion wrote: View Post
Here's McWeeny at Hitfix, who gives it a B+:

If you consider "Star Trek Into Darkness" to be part 13 of a larger franchise, you may walk away frustrated and tied in knots if the reactions I saw after a screening were any indication. Conversely, if this is part 2 of a new franchise in your mind, chances are you're going to have a great time with the continuation of what JJ Abrams and his collaborators began in 2009's "Star Trek." I find myself somewhere in the middle of those two camps, ultimately coming down on the side of the film as a pretty relentless piece of summer entertainment, anchored by what I consider one of the most exciting movie star performances in recent memory.

I feel badly for the hardcore "Star Trek" fans who don't like this new version, because I know what it's been like for them in the years where there were no new "Trek" movies in the works, and I know what it's been like for them loving something that was always considered somewhat left of center, always in danger of going away forever. While "Trek" has managed to survive for nearly 50 years at this point, there have definitely been lean times where Paramount didn't see much upside in continuing to throw money at something that just couldn't cross over to be a full-fledged mainstream sensation.

They've had their moments, of course. "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan" was a minor miracle, a huge rebound from the debacle that was "Star Trek: The Motion Picture." Lean and fun and wildly affectionate, "WOK" became the thing that they chased from that point on. It was interesting seeing how widely loved the series was when "The Voyage Home" was released, just as I was impressed seeing how completely everyone turned on "The Final Frontier" just a few years later. Even the biggest of the "Next Generation" movies still felt like they were nerd events, not mainstream events, and when Paramount first started talking about a reboot, it seemed like a business decision with very little creative upside available.

I would argue that the 2009 film proved that supposition wrong, and in fairly spectacular fashion. What Abrams did, and what he does in everything he makes to some degree, is he reclaimed the basic archetypical dynamic that defines "Star Trek," and he used it in a way that resonated loudly with audiences.

This part is great:
"Star Trek Into Darkness" begins with Kirk chafing at the role that he's expected to play, and Chris Pine once again owns the character of Kirk completely from the opening scene to the finish. It is downright miraculous that he ended up with the role, because what he does with it is not something I can imagine any of the other likely candidates for the part even trying to do. Pine is an original, and he plays this combination of arrogance and anger and comedy in such a way that it's all sort of jumbled up together. He's not doing Shatner at all. He's playing Kirk.
He pretty much read my mind re Pine's take on Kirk. I'm just glad he's getting this sort of review when most reviews are full of nerdgasm about Cumberbatch's character. And also because Pine was always at pains to reveal that he wanted to play KIRK, not Shatner playing Kirk. I have no complaints about his portrayal. He was the heart of ST2009 and I'm pretty sure he's the heart of this one, as well.

Only about 50 years later will most detractors of his Kirk realize what we got in bagging him for the role. I'm saying that because I grew up with people ragging on the Shatman. And look where he's today.

Good stuff.
I loved the Netfix review. It perfectly encapsulates everything I felt about the movie, particularly Pine's performance, the Kirk/Pike scenes, the Kirk/Spock scenes. After being a little cool on the 2009 reboot Kirk, I was amazed how incredibly fond I was of him by the end of this movie, and that's despite him still being an immature jerk at the beginning. I attribute this to Pine's performance. As the reviewer said, Pine's Kirk is somehow simultaneously cocky yet self-effacing, focused yet irreverent, independent yet needy. He's not the Kirk of Wrath of Khan, who has friends and experience to back him up. In fact his crew challenge him just as much as the circumstances. I like how this movie tears James T apart, shuts down every option and sifts through his soul to see what he's got left.

This film didn't give me the same intellectual orgasm I had with say... Arcadia. It has its problems and some dramatic devices just get in its way. But it's more earnest and familiar and Trek-like than I ever expected it to be. That was a pleasant surprise.
gornsky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 3 2013, 05:15 AM   #956
gornsky
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Location: Sydney, Australia
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Sorry, that's HITfix.
gornsky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 3 2013, 05:32 AM   #957
RAMA
Vice Admiral
 
RAMA's Avatar
 
Location: NJ, USA
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

It's all about context... The franchise was nearly extinct, the studio gave it another try and put resources behind it, not only was it a financial success, it was nominated for 50 awards. considering it's success, yes we should be grateful for a franchise were fans of at this level.

donners22 wrote: View Post
RAMA wrote: View Post
Only Star Trek fans out of any genre fandom would look at a huge epic film coming up and complain. How much we take the franchise for granted these days, even after it almost disappeared for a third time not long ago. You can pick it apart, but it mainly matters if it's good entertainment, which ultimately ST in all it's incarnations is.

As for the negative reviews. They may well not have liked it, which is fine, but it smacks of the old popularity backlash...sometimes something is just too popular for the media to take, then they set upon it like wolves. It would have been almost unprecedented for the two JJ Trek films to have 95% approval at RT. There are already many glowing reviews.

RAMA
I don't necessarily equate 'huge' and 'epic' with 'good entertainment'. All that means is that it had a big budget. There's plenty of mindless blockbusters to satiate that market.

Nor do I feel that we should be grateful simply to have any Star Trek available. I have almost every episode on DVD; they don't go away just because it isn't being made any more. We're not compelled to like something with the Star Trek label just because it's all that is being made these days.

I'd rather have no Star Trek than a bad Star Trek film, regardless of how big its budget is. Whether it is bad or not, of course, is in the eye of the beholder.
__________________
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Carl Sagan
RAMA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 3 2013, 05:52 AM   #958
donners22
Commodore
 
donners22's Avatar
 
Location: Victoria, Australia
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

My Name Is Legion wrote: View Post
donners22 wrote: View Post
I'd rather have no Star Trek than a bad Star Trek film, regardless of how big its budget is.
A bad Star Trek film would be a box office failure; we've had examples of that.
By that logic, Blade Runner is a bad film and Transformers is a good one. I know which I'd rather watch.

Obviously films are made to make a profit. In that sense, the last film was an unquestioned success. This one will probably be too.

However, I do not feel compelled to like it because it is a commercial success, nor simply because it carries the Star Trek label - particularly when you have people involved with the film saying publicly that they strove to make a film which was nothing like Star Trek!

I went in hugely excited for the last film and came away disappointed; I will not make the same mistake this time.
__________________
Kim: I'm detecting some weird technobabble.
Janeway: A possibly dangerous anomaly that we know nothing about?
Kim: Yeah. I suppose we should steer clear.
Janeway: Ha! Good one, Ensign. Take us in, Mr. Paris.

http://www.fiveminute.net/voyager
donners22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 3 2013, 06:05 AM   #959
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
trevanian's Avatar
 
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

throwback wrote: View Post
There isn't diplomacy and exploration. What there is - is blowing stuff up. I think the ability to write and direct a story that melds the diplomacy/exploration with the action is beyond the capabilities of most triple AAA film writers and directors.
Whether it is beyond the abilities or not isn't even the issue -- it is beyond the INCLINATION of anybody who chooses to get involved. If it weren't, then somebody would realize you could do a smaller budget film that didn't need to do 600 mil for breakeven and it could still be immensely profitable without being stifled with the need to be a studio tentpole.

But everybody thinks that an effective TREK movie has to have everything very big (yeah, that worked for Emmerich's GODZILLA didn't it?) And for right now I'm NOT talking about box office, because that is not the measure of success we should be addressing, although some seem to think that is the be-all/end-all, and maybe they should be discussing this on the wallstreetbbs.com boards ...

Several years back we discussed here how TNG's THE CHASE could have been a terrific feature film, and before that how you could do a variation of BALANCE OF TERROR for a restart TOS feature (and no, I don't consider the Abrams pic to be that by a long shot.)

You could do a riff on an ep like RETURN TO TOMORROW and have a movie that could be quite successful. You play up the horror element of the possessed officers and the responses of the crew to deliver the requisite 'chill' but you also have an interesting situation that puts it squarely in the 'do we choose to boldly go' corner -- you honor the notion of the show AND deliver the gut-twister ... and you up the action quotient with some of these meta-gods in android bodies doing whatever meta-gods in android bodies do, but keep the emotional hook on the fates of those Ecrew stuck in the meta-gods' balls (sounds awful but if you've seen the show ... )

Point of all this being that nobody is looking to deliver a SERENITY-level effort (a really good 2 hr movie that isn't looking to tick off boxes to guarantee an absurdly high return), and yet that is presumably what you and I would be wanting to see. You don't need to spend TRANSFORMERS dollars to get a good movie, but as long as audiences pony up for that crap, I guess more and more folks are going to try to play that game. But it is like having a lineup of 9 hitters who are ALL swinging for the fences ... you're getting a shitload of strikeouts along the way.

And everybody -- except the mob that accepts all bright noises and loud lights as entertainment -- is losing at least something as a result. The shows needing 2000 VFX shots are bankrupting the VFX houses left right and center, because they're having to deliver more and more, and since they're having to do this in much less time, the final product is also suffering a lot of the time for it. The backlash effect on this is already happening, because skilled artists who don't want to uproot their families every four months to go to Singapore or Bangladesh to whatever is the newest cheap VFX company are located are now getting out ... they're going with domestic computer game companies that are relatively stable by comparison, where if they have 80 hour weeks they may actually get paid for all of that time. Ultimately we will have less brilliant artists in the field and loads and loads of craftsmen working at various levels of competence -- and in terms of effects, that doesn't promise anything SPECIAL. So again, the audience will lose, and the studio will compensate with an even greater volume of eye candy and noise, because the mindset of bigger-is-better seems to be default thinking now, not just a conservative-amurrican dream.

Kinda makes me think the next CHILDREN OF MEN we get is going to be made by people working on their own with their own money and distributing themselves via one of the emerging models for small features ... cuz the studios can't seem to consider genre films as anything other than tentpole franchises.

It's weird, but Paramount's cheapness in the 80s with the TREK movies actually makes a LITTLE more sense now, because they were guaranteeing themselves a profit and at the same time not having to UTTERLY subvert the notion of TREK in doing so. I think it was shortsighted for them to go as extremeo-cheap as they did, but when you look at what you get when you throw a ton of money at TREK -- TMP, for all its virtues and good intentions, still a mess fascinating at times but a mess, and Abrams09, which I've come to think of as a a vat, probably because of the moronic brewery and because I want to drown myself to avoid seeing any more of those unmotivated fuckin' lens flares -- extreme funding doesn't seem to create a better product, just the need for more extreme marketing (sort of like superior ability breeding superior ambition, rather than the former breeding a superior endproduct.)
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 3 2013, 06:07 AM   #960
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
trevanian's Avatar
 
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

donners22 wrote: View Post
My Name Is Legion wrote: View Post
donners22 wrote: View Post
I'd rather have no Star Trek than a bad Star Trek film, regardless of how big its budget is.
A bad Star Trek film would be a box office failure; we've had examples of that.
By that logic, Blade Runner is a bad film and Transformers is a good one. I know which I'd rather watch.
You shouldn't have even needed to say that. But I'm glad you did. (and not just because it would have saved me 15 minutes of typing either -- thank you.)
trevanian 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 07:37 AM.

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