RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,398
Posts: 5,505,688
Members: 25,127
Currently online: 542
Newest member: OneOfFour

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: The Emperor’s New Cloak
By: Michelle on Dec 20

Star Trek Opera
By: T'Bonz on Dec 19

New Abrams Project
By: T'Bonz on Dec 18

IDW Publishing March 2015 Comics
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17

Paramount Star Trek 3 Expectations
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17

Star Trek #39 Sneak Peek
By: T'Bonz on Dec 16

Star Trek 3 Potential Director Shortlist
By: T'Bonz on Dec 16

Official Starships Collection Update
By: T'Bonz on Dec 15

Retro Review: Prodigal Daughter
By: Michelle on Dec 13

Sindicate Lager To Debut In The US Next Week
By: T'Bonz on Dec 12


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 19.20%
A 161 21.47%
A- 101 13.47%
B+ 83 11.07%
B 59 7.87%
B- 27 3.60%
C+ 40 5.33%
C 38 5.07%
C- 25 3.33%
D+ 11 1.47%
D 13 1.73%
D- 10 1.33%
F 38 5.07%
Voters: 750. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old May 15 2013, 08:45 PM   #2041
dulcimer47
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

My "Star Trek: Transformers" comment is actually completely accurate, as both are action/explosion/CGI-focused messes written by Orci and Kurtzman.

I'd rather see Patrick Stewart play a flute or read every part in the script by himself than these last two movies.

J.J. is the director, that's true, so I should have said, "J.J.'s writing team."

I'll absolutely compare 7 years of episodes to 2 films because those 2 films are what has replaced the legacy of Star Trek on TV for the time being, at least.

Kirk chopping wood was hardly even integral to the story, let alone the resolution of the story, as the magic Khan blood is. It's terrible writing and there's no way around that.

Of course Star Trek isn't real, that was obviously not my meaning. However, sticking a "Star Trek" label on something doesn't make it Star Trek, which is my main point here. If you put a Star Trek label on Fast and the Furious 6, does that make it Star Trek? Of course not, which is basically what has happened to this franchise.
dulcimer47 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15 2013, 08:45 PM   #2042
Franklin
Rear Admiral
 
Location: In the bleachers
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

BillJ wrote: View Post
While I haven't seen Into Darkness yet, I pulled this nugget from the Writer's Guide of TOS:



Sounds like Abrams understands Trek just fine.
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. -- Mark Twain
Franklin is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 15 2013, 08:45 PM   #2043
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

dulcimer47 wrote: View Post
My "Star Trek: Transformers" comment is actually completely accurate, as both are action/explosion/CGI-focused messes written by Orci and Kurtzman.
No.

Completely accurate would be simply to say "both movies were written by Orci and Kurtzman and others." The rest is no more than your personal opinion, for which no evaluation of "accuracy" can be vouchsafed.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15 2013, 08:47 PM   #2044
RAMA
Vice Admiral
 
RAMA's Avatar
 
Location: NJ, USA
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

So a big jump to 114 reviews on RT now. 99 of them positive!

RAMA
__________________
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 15 2013, 08:48 PM   #2045
Enterprise is Great
Rear Admiral
 
Enterprise is Great's Avatar
 
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Entertainment Weekly gives it an A

BTW, there were 2 episodes of Enterprise that were almost remakes of voyager episodes. ENT's Terra Nova and VOY's Friendship One are basically the same episode and ENT's Doctor's Orders and VOY's One are as well. Trek rehashes, remakes and recycles all the time.
__________________
JJverse Star Trek...ROCKED on May 17, 2013 and beyond!
Enterprise is Great is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15 2013, 08:48 PM   #2046
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

dulcimer47 wrote: View Post
My "Star Trek: Transformers" comment is actually completely accurate, as both are action/explosion/CGI-focused messes written by Orci and Kurtzman.

I'd rather see Patrick Stewart play a flute or read every part in the script by himself than these last two movies.

J.J. is the director, that's true, so I should have said, "J.J.'s writing team."

I'll absolutely compare 7 years of episodes to 2 films because those 2 films are what has replaced the legacy of Star Trek on TV for the time being, at least.

Kirk chopping wood was hardly even integral to the story, let alone the resolution of the story, as the magic Khan blood is. It's terrible writing and there's no way around that.

Of course Star Trek isn't real, that was obviously not my meaning. However, sticking a "Star Trek" label on something doesn't make it Star Trek, which is my main point here. If you put a Star Trek label on Fast and the Furious 6, does that make it Star Trek? Of course not, which is basically what has happened to this franchise.
You seem to completely miss that there is a hell of a difference between television and film.

And if you want to watch Picard wax philosophical or play a flute, there's 178 episodes of TNG and four movies.
__________________
"...the most elementary and valuable statement in science, the beginning of wisdom, is I do not know." - Lt. Commander Data, "Where Silence Has Lease"
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15 2013, 08:51 PM   #2047
dulcimer47
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Carcazoid wrote: View Post
dulcimer47 wrote: View Post
Star Trek never rehashed their own stories before now (actually even '09 isn't a rehash, but STID clearly is).
Yeah ... no.

TMP was blatant in its 'rehashing' of "The Changeling." "The Naked Now" ripped off "The Naked Time." The one with Pulaski's rapid aging is too reminiscent of "The Deadly Years" to be a coincidence. And so on, and so on ...

It's been said that there are only so many stories to be told. Eventually any franchise is bound to revisit one of its own.
I'll give you "The Naked Time/The Naked Now", that was pretty bad, but there is a lot in TMP that is nowhere to be found in "The Changeling" - Spock's seeking Kolinahr, Kirk's dealing with his age and the change in the Enterprise (much better explored in TWOK, but started here).

Pulaski's rapid aging was caused by experimentation with genetic manipulation, whereas "The Deadly Years" was an alien virus, if I remember correctly. Just because both stories resulted in rapid aging doesn't make it a rehash.
dulcimer47 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15 2013, 08:54 PM   #2048
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

dulcimer47 wrote: View Post

Pulaski's rapid aging was caused by experimentation with genetic manipulation, whereas "The Deadly Years" was an alien virus, if I remember correctly. Just because both stories resulted in rapid aging doesn't make it a rehash.
Episodes that cover similar ground are, essentially, rehashes.
__________________
"...the most elementary and valuable statement in science, the beginning of wisdom, is I do not know." - Lt. Commander Data, "Where Silence Has Lease"
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15 2013, 08:56 PM   #2049
dulcimer47
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Admiral Buzzkill wrote: View Post
You guys don't understand - it's not a "rehash" if they do the same thing over and over as long as they change the names of the characters and the shapes of the bumps on their foreheads.
I agree that changing the forehead bumps as if that was a substitute for lack of good writing is bad, and what killed the franchise on TV, but you cannot tell me that STID isn't another (in my opinion even worse) form of the same problem.

To resort to almost verbatim repeating of scenes from TWOK? That's something that was never resorted to before, and that is undeniable.
dulcimer47 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15 2013, 08:56 PM   #2050
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

dulcimer47 wrote: View Post
Just because both stories resulted in rapid aging doesn't make it a rehash.
You're wrong. Just because the writers change the details doesn't make a story anything other than a "rehash."


I can happily watch Star Trek for the rest of my life while never seeing Picard play a flute again. Or seeing Picard again, for that matter. Not that I dislike him. Love a lot of TNG.

dulcimer47 wrote: View Post
To resort to almost verbatim repeating of scenes from TWOK? That's something that was never resorted to before, and that is undeniable.
They didn't "resort" to anything; there's a point to it.

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean there's anything wrong with it. The opinions of the people who love the movie are at least as sophisticated, accurate, and cognizant of what Star Trek "is" as your own.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15 2013, 08:56 PM   #2051
ConRefit79
Captain
 
ConRefit79's Avatar
 
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Franklin wrote: View Post
I think the A.O. Scott review in The New York Times is the first I've read good or bad that takes be aback. He's a very respected reviewer, but one wonders if even this review is bad just because it's not the kind of movie he wanted to see. I think he's too professional to do that, but there are elements of it in the review, especially his dislike of the militarization of Starfleet and that he wishes the movie had the "wit and sincerity" of the old series (again romaticizing the past).
His "rotten" reviews at Rotten Tomatoes start at 2.5 of 5 stars. He thinks STID is that bad? Anyway, this one surprised me kind of like the Roger Ebert review of ST09 did.

Link:

http://movies.nytimes.com/2013/05/16...anted=all&_r=1&
"It’s uninspired hackwork, and the frequent appearance of blue lens flares does not make this movie any more of a personal statement. " I thought they were significantly reduced. Were they in 98% of the shots for ST:09?

" “Star Trek Into Darkness” does not quite stand by itself as a satisfying movie, but then again it doesn’t need to. It is the leg of a journey that has, remarkably, lasted for nearly half a century. I hope we never tire of Kirk, Spock and the others. I also hope that they stick around long enough to find a new civilization, since the one we have now does not fully appreciate their gifts."
ConRefit79 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15 2013, 08:59 PM   #2052
dulcimer47
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

BillJ wrote: View Post
dulcimer47 wrote: View Post

Pulaski's rapid aging was caused by experimentation with genetic manipulation, whereas "The Deadly Years" was an alien virus, if I remember correctly. Just because both stories resulted in rapid aging doesn't make it a rehash.
Episodes that cover similar ground are, essentially, rehashes.
I disagree, but that's fine.
dulcimer47 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15 2013, 09:01 PM   #2053
dulcimer47
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Admiral Buzzkill wrote: View Post
dulcimer47 wrote: View Post
Just because both stories resulted in rapid aging doesn't make it a rehash.
You're wrong. Just because the writers change the details doesn't make a story anything other than a "rehash."


I can happily watch Star Trek for the rest of my life while never seeing Picard play a flute again. Or seeing Picard again, for that matter. Not that I dislike him. Love a lot of TNG.

dulcimer47 wrote: View Post
To resort to almost verbatim repeating of scenes from TWOK? That's something that was never resorted to before, and that is undeniable.
They didn't "resort" to anything; there's a point to it.

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean there's anything wrong with it. The opinions of the people who love the movie are at least as sophisticated, accurate, and cognizant of what Star Trek "is" as your own.
I never said they weren't, but clearly I'm not the only one with this opinion.
dulcimer47 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15 2013, 09:18 PM   #2054
M'Sharak
Definitely Herbert. Maybe.
 
M'Sharak's Avatar
 
Location: Terra Inlandia
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Devon wrote: View Post
dulcimer47 wrote: View Post
Once again, if our barometer for success is going to be box office results and "mainstream critics", then J.J.'s "Star Trek: Transformers" will always be out ahead.
Swing and a miss with the insult.
As insults go, it's weak, it's old and it's worn out, and not worthy of a response at all. Speaking of which, I'm pretty sure I've asked you more than a few times before to knock off this kind of comeback. Just stop it, OK?
__________________
The trouble ain't that there is too many fools, but
that the lightning ain't distributed right.
— Mark Twain
M'Sharak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15 2013, 09:28 PM   #2055
The Festivus Awakens
Airing Grievouses
 
The Festivus Awakens's Avatar
 
Location: Performing Festivus Miracles
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

xortex wrote: View Post
Trek in to Darkness has been panned by both the NY Post and Daily News as being DUMB..!!
To be fair, those rags calling something dumb is a bit like being called a cheater by Lance Armstrong and Barry Bonds.
__________________
Locutus of Bored
The Festivus Awakens 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 05:44 PM.

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