RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,543
Posts: 5,513,288
Members: 25,143
Currently online: 546
Newest member: JackieM

TrekToday headlines

Two New Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Dec 26

Captain Kirk’s Boldest Missions
By: T'Bonz on Dec 25

Trek Paper Clips
By: T'Bonz on Dec 24

Sargent Passes
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

QMx Trek Insignia Badges
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

And The New Director Of Star Trek 3 Is…
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

TV Alert: Pine On Tonight Show
By: T'Bonz on Dec 22

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


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 18 2013, 07:36 PM   #2896
Xaios
Lieutenant Commander
 
Xaios's Avatar
 
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Mr. Laser Beam wrote: View Post
Xaios wrote: View Post
DigificWriter wrote: View Post

Both STI and STiD feature a rogue Starfleet Admiral with connections to Section 31 as an antagonist, although, in STI, the connection isn't actually made apparent the way it is in STiD.
Uh, Dougherty isn't rogue in STI. He's acting on orders from the Federation Council.
So he says. I see no reason to believe him.

Besides, the thing with the Ba'ku is exactly the sort of operation Section 31 would pull. The real Federation would never stoop that low. It's above that sort of thing.
If S31 was really in on it then why would Picard have known ANYTHING about the operation, even if he thought they were only observing the Ba'ku in the same style as they were observing the Mintakans? Why would Data have been involved in the first place? Where did S31 get a prototype holoship with a cloaking device? After all S31 in the Prime Universe seems more like simply a handful of operatives, instead of the more Obsidian Order-esque organization that it became in the JJ-verse. Why would Dougherty have any kind of moral compunctions about killing the Ba'ku altogether? After all, S31 mandate is to place Federation interests above all others, and in the movie he was able to back up his position with the Prime Directive, something I sincerely doubt S31 would give a damn about.

And yes, real Federation officers would stoop that low. After all, regular officers were involved in the assassination of Gorkon in TUC. Are we going to start saying that every Starfleet officer in TUC that was involved in that conspiracy was also a member of S31? Valeris, after all, states that she is "saving Starfleet."
Xaios is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 18 2013, 07:44 PM   #2897
Lord Prancer The 5th
Rear Admiral
 
Lord Prancer The 5th's Avatar
 
Location: Mach5 doesn't like sand. It's coarse and irritating, and it gets everywhere.
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

DarthPipes wrote: View Post
The one thing I didn't care for in this movie was the blatant left-wing politics when it came to killing Khan..
So believing in due process is a left wing thing now?

Jesus fuck, this world...
__________________
"Religion is something left over from the infancy of our intelligence, it will fade away as we adopt reason and science as our guidelines."
― Bertrand Russell
Lord Prancer The 5th is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 18 2013, 07:45 PM   #2898
Lapis Exilis
Rear Admiral
 
Lapis Exilis's Avatar
 
Location: Underground
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

davejames wrote: View Post
I'm certainly not arguing Nemesis is a good Trek movie or better than TWOK, but we at least got to see Picard having a philosophical discussion with somebody, we got some character moments that didn't involve running around and fighting bad guys, and these still felt very much like the same evolved TNG characters we knew and loved.
My sister and I (both lifelong Trekkies) were talking about it this morning - what the nuTrek movies lack is anything cerebral. What has distinguished Trek from other space opera has always been its willingness to engage with ideas, whether it be social or philosophical. It doesn't always do it - many of the greatest episodes have been character based, but they always alternate with strong SF concepts.

This is why Trek works better and has a stronger specific identity as a tv series than as movies. All stories, to really work, have to make you care about characters - so doing that doesn't create a specific identity, and the movies have tended to revolve much more around character moments than concepts - as STiD did. People can talk about vengeance as a theme, but that's not the strongest thematic of the movie at all, in fact it is entirely subordinate to the real theme which is - what would you do for your family? From the man who blows up Section 31 for his daughter's life, to Khan going on a rampage of vengeance because he thinks his crew - who he explictly names his family - was killed by Marcus, to Carol thinking her very presence will save the Enterprise from her father, to Kirk embracing the crew as his family - it's all about what will you sacrifice to protect those you love.

This was a fun movie. It had some really good character stuff in it. It had a consistent theme to pull it together, but it lacks an essential element of the best Trek which is an idea at its center. You can't fault it too much for that though, because very few of the movies have managed to do that - really only TMP had a philosophical concept which drove the story action. A couple of other movies - ironically usually the worst ones, managed to shoehorn in some sort of universal philosophical moment, like Kirk's "I need my pain!" in TFF, but I'm not sure any other than TMP have done what episodes like Measure of Man, A Taste of Armageddon, or Children of Time did - told a good story that left you ruminating on something fairly deep - what is the nature of a being's soul and how do you prove they have one? The best way humanity can temper its own savagery for the sake of civilization is to look that savagery in the face. If you discovered that an accident of time had created your own great-great-great-grandchildren and only you or they could go on living now - what would you do?

I doubt we'll ever get that out of any Trek movies, which are by definition action pictures, and ideas like these can rarely by married to action stories.

flemm wrote: View Post
Ryan8bit wrote: View Post
Lastly, I thought Cumberbatch was really a great actor, but he didn't really remind me of Khan. I absolutely loved his deviousness, his cold calculation, and his general badass qualities, but he seemed more like a robot for the majority of the time. It felt like he was lacking a certain charisma or something. Like when Kirk told Scotty to shoot Khan on the bridge of the Vengeance, I think we were supposed to feel conflicted about it, but I wasn't really.
That was similar to my impression. He's very menacing, but... I didn't get that much out of it otherwise.
I think that's because, within the context of the movie - you don't get to know him at all. I mean, we all know who Khan is and what he did in the past, but that doesn't feel like this character's history, and no one tells you what his history is. You know he's genetically engineered to be superior, that he and his people were condemned as criminals for something involving being bad to regular people - but that's kind of it. I think the lack of backstory for Khan in this movie really undercuts him, no matter how good the performance is.
__________________
Don't try to win over the haters; you're not the jackass whisperer. - Scott Straten
Lapis Exilis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 18 2013, 07:49 PM   #2899
GMDreia
Commander
 
GMDreia's Avatar
 
Location: SF Bay Area
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Ryan8bit wrote: View Post

Lastly, I thought Cumberbatch was really a great actor, but he didn't really remind me of Khan. I absolutely loved his deviousness, his cold calculation, and his general badass qualities, but he seemed more like a robot for the majority of the time. It felt like he was lacking a certain charisma or something. Like when Kirk told Scotty to shoot Khan on the bridge of the Vengeance, I think we were supposed to feel conflicted about it, but I wasn't really.
It's hard to talk about this - because many people are either super critical and dismissive of Cumberbatch's casting, or they're "omg I love the film".

I really loved the film, and to me, it ranked up there as one of the best Trek films, but there were certain ways it could've been better. I see a lot of the younger, newer Trekkers having less of a problem.

I have very mixed feelings about Cumberbatch-Khan.

I can appreciate Cumberbatch's portrayal on its own merits, just based on the acting. To me, he was GENUINELY TERRIFYING and he *was* someone I bought as the product of advanced genetic engineering. He was almost inhuman. To me, he IS how Khan would've been written *if he had been written today* as an original character. They took the same backstory but rebuilt him from the ground up, in a way that's more believable today. I can really believe that genetic engineering would be outlawed if it would produce people like him.

This is practically Trek sacrilege, but as a gen X trekker, I always found Khan Prime to be a bit dated, and I never really found him quite as menacing as he seemed to be portrayed to be. He was stronger than the average human, and we're INFORMED that he's smarter. He's an intriguing character because of Montalban's portrayal.

This guy was actually shown to be superior in practically every way except in compassion for anyone but his own crew, and it's probable that someone who was engineered to be superior like that, would just see normal human beings as less evolved.

I really did enjoy Cumberbatch-Khan, but at the same time, he's much more of an inhuman thug than Montalban-Khan was; the latter had an aura of cultured man, enlightened despot, that isn't in Nu-Khan's portrayal.

Neither one is right, or wrong. They're just two different characters.

However, leaving aside politics/social justice issues, the fact that he wasn't at all believably Indian was really distracting and took me out if the film sometimes. Every other character was at least *approximately* recast to look *a little* similar to the original character, except for him.

I was either forced to suspend disbelief about the character being Indian, or forced to suspend disbelief about him not really being Khan. This was incredibly distracting.

The actor at least looking like the original Khan would've been enough of a link to the original character for me. He needed to either LOOK like Khan Prime, or ACT like Khan Prime. Otherwise, he's just an original character with the same name and a similar backstory.

So yes, mixed feelings. I definitely bought him as a genetically engineered superman and in some ways the story was even tighter than "Space Seed". But was he Khan, beyond us being told he was? I don't know.

I know that some of us will be headcanoning like crazy that he's really one of Khan's lackeys (such as Joaquin) acting to protect the real Khan and the rest of them. And in a way, this was more how he behaved.

This probably isn't a problem for younger Trekkers who are not familiar with Trek lore as much; I know a few who came on board because of JJ Abrams' Trek reboot and are only now getting into the universe. They seem happy to see one of their favorite actors (Cumberbatch) excellently portray a really menacing and morally ambiguous villain, and don't have the baggage of previous Trek clouding their judgments.

I still tremendously enjoyed the film. I consider it a successful film, I liked it more than ST (2009) and I liked it considerably more than ANY of the TNG films.

As for the "summer blockbuster" aspect, films these days are different, they must work on multiple levels. People aren't as patient as they used to be. We're an accelerated culture. I'm no different. I need a reason to sit through a film and not be checking Facebook while I'm watching it. The film didnt lack any of the moral questioning or philosophy or exploration, for being as fast paced as it was. It will hold up on multiple watches because it worked on multiple levels.
__________________
I am the user formerly known as Fascinoma
GMDreia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 18 2013, 07:54 PM   #2900
flemm
Fleet Captain
 
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Lapis Exilis wrote: View Post
I think that's because, within the context of the movie - you don't get to know him at all. I mean, we all know who Khan is and what he did in the past, but that doesn't feel like this character's history, and no one tells you what his history is.
I agree. The film seems to basically be assuming that I know Khan's back story. It so happens that I do, but it still doesn't feel very connected to this character.

I liked the element of his tenderness toward his own crew, and it still basically works because of the "menacing" part, but there is a lot of "tell" regarding Khan's story in the film.
flemm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 18 2013, 08:02 PM   #2901
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Lapis Exilis wrote: View Post
I think the lack of backstory for Khan in this movie really undercuts him, no matter how good the performance is.
There was no more backstory in The Wrath of Khan than there was here.
__________________
"...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 18 2013, 08:09 PM   #2902
Santa Claus
Believe
 
Santa Claus's Avatar
 
Location: J. Allen's Rooftop
Send a message via ICQ to Santa Claus Send a message via AIM to Santa Claus Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Santa Claus Send a message via Yahoo to Santa Claus
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

BillJ wrote: View Post
Lapis Exilis wrote: View Post
I think the lack of backstory for Khan in this movie really undercuts him, no matter how good the performance is.
There was no more backstory in The Wrath of Khan than there was here.
Agreed. "Space Seed" wasn't referenced. It was assumed that people knew who Khan was.
__________________
---------
"I believe... I believe... It's silly, but I believe." - Susan Walker
---------
❄ A Joyful Holiday Season to You All! ❄

Santa Claus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 18 2013, 08:12 PM   #2903
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

J. Allen wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post
Lapis Exilis wrote: View Post
I think the lack of backstory for Khan in this movie really undercuts him, no matter how good the performance is.
There was no more backstory in The Wrath of Khan than there was here.
Agreed. "Space Seed" wasn't referenced. It was assumed that people knew who Khan was.
Well, the events were. But there was no need for referencing Space Seed here because it never happened.
__________________
"...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 18 2013, 08:12 PM   #2904
ManaByte
Lieutenant Commander
 
ManaByte's Avatar
 
Location: Southern California
View ManaByte's Twitter Profile
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

J. Allen wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post
Lapis Exilis wrote: View Post
I think the lack of backstory for Khan in this movie really undercuts him, no matter how good the performance is.
There was no more backstory in The Wrath of Khan than there was here.
Agreed. "Space Seed" wasn't referenced. It was assumed that people knew who Khan was.
Khan recaps "Space Seed" to Checkov and Tyrell...
ManaByte is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 18 2013, 08:13 PM   #2905
GMDreia
Commander
 
GMDreia's Avatar
 
Location: SF Bay Area
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

I'm probably the lone stranger, but I actually disagree. STID worked better (to me) if you DIDN'T know who Khan is and I am probably alone in this, but feel TWOK definitely works better if you saw Space Seed. Otherwise, the brief recap to Chekov and Tyrell is kind of throwaway and all you're left with is seeing this crazy guy hunting Kirk and you don't really know why.

A film shouldn't depend upon one throwaway line to work.

But I realize it's practically sacrilege to at all nitpick TWOK or Space Seed.
__________________
I am the user formerly known as Fascinoma
GMDreia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 18 2013, 08:18 PM   #2906
CaptainDonovin
Fleet Captain
 
CaptainDonovin's Avatar
 
Location: Labrador City. woof
View CaptainDonovin's Twitter Profile
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Franklin wrote: View Post
Saw it with the family last night in IMAX 3D. During the warp core scene, the guy sitting next to me started to chuckle. I poked him in the ribs, causing him to spill his 48 oz. drink onto the woman in the row ahead of him. She screamed and sent popcorn flying for six feet around her, then stood up, turned around, and slapped the guy in the face. Now he's mad. He turns on me. My youngest daughter on the other side of me yells, "Leave my dad alone!" and bites him on the arm. It got weird after that.

OK.

Actually --

THERE MAY BE MORE DETAIL ABOUT THE ENDING BELOW (SPOILERS) THAN SOME OF YOU WHO HAVEN'T SEEN THE MOVIE YET WOULD WANT, EVEN IF YOU'RE ALREADY MUCKING ABOUT IN A THREAD WITH SPOILERS.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

This is now my favorite "Star Trek" movie. Number one, ba-by! My wife, not a Trek fan, called it, "very good" more than once. That's a lot like a Red Sox fan saying, "I'm glad the Yankees are playing well, this year." My two daughters, who felt dragged there, were laughing at the laugh lines, and enjoyed the spectacle. My ten year-old told me she liked it before I could even ask. Scotty stole the show for her. Abrams may not have created three new fans, but I won't be "dragging" anyone to the next Trek movie.

I won't repeat views already posted by those who've seen it, but I will say this about two of the more controversial, or at least contentious things about the ending:

-- I think Kirk's death scene was BETTER than Spock's in TWOK. It conveyed real emotion by both characters. Real fear. A real sense of helplessness. Real anger and pain. Spock's death scene seems emotionally flat compared to it. Did it borrow from that scene? Yes. Was it "borrowing" to the point of plagiarism? No. There were maybe two or three verbatum lines from TWOK, and that was it. Spock knows what Kirk is going through because of his mind meld with Pike, and it angers him beyond belief that he can't comfort his friend at this moment. He channels that anger back to Khan. The theather was silent during the scene. No snorts. No giggles. No sounds of facepalming.

-- The way that Kirk was brought back to life was perfectly plausible. It was not magic as I expected from what I heard on these boards. It wasn't just a shot of Khan's blood and he's up and about. It was a long and involved medical process of restoring his life then restoring his body and mind. (The way Walt Disney wanted it to happen to him, some day -- in other words, there are people who think such things are possible.) The process took two months before Kirk even regained consciousness. And just so no one takes the entire thing too seriously, McCoy's questions to him when Kirk wakes up are priceless.

The ending was great. Pine finally gets to deliver the monolog. The other thing was the ending was thematically appropriate. Mercy was shown to Khan. Starfleet's response to these horrible events was not the militarization of Starfleet (which was perhaps even justifiable with cause, now), but instead, the Enterprise is restored and begins the first five year mission of deep space exploration. Despite the terror, despite the danger, despite the years of rebuilding and healing that will still have to be done, the ideal and pursuit of exploration goes on as Starfleet's primary mission. That's not optimistic? That's not "Star Trek"?

Damn fine movie. Damn fine.
Saw it twice & will see it more. There was one guy in the theater (second time I saw it) who fell asleep & left & one who left after the KHAAAN! scene but they were both a bit odd anyway.

I gotta say that I'm not surprised by the reactions of a lot of the fanboys who are upset over someone daring to touch Khan. I was hoping that this would be an origional idea & villian & in a way it was. Khan was discovered by someone other than Kirk &the mastermind behind this, Admiral Marcus, was going to try & use the supermen against the Klingons & other enemies. Kahn was of course using Marcus for his own gains. Same character, different story.

I liked the fact we finally got to see a different city in Trek. Sure we saw New Orleans in DS9, but not much more than the area around Sisko's. Also liked seeing the way people got around, finally the hover cars we were promised in the 50's! Liked the trolly in San Francisco too, sems anti-grav technology has been mastered as well as AI tech. The guy on the bridge of the E (Gaitt 5000 I think) & the two near the end w/ McCoy that looked like medical versions of the robocop that chased after the young Kirk in ST09 were nice additions to the Trek universe. I wonder if the budget was there would robots have appeared in past Trek shows/movies.

Also liked the models of the NX Delta & NX-01.
__________________
Long live DS9!
CaptainDonovin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 18 2013, 08:23 PM   #2907
Chu'lak
Lieutenant
 
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

I have the greatest wife in the world. When carol says the frozen man is 300 years old, she turns to me and says "oh no is it gonna be Abraham Lincoln ?"
Chu'lak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 18 2013, 08:25 PM   #2908
Santa Claus
Believe
 
Santa Claus's Avatar
 
Location: J. Allen's Rooftop
Send a message via ICQ to Santa Claus Send a message via AIM to Santa Claus Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Santa Claus Send a message via Yahoo to Santa Claus
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

ManaByte wrote: View Post
J. Allen wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post

There was no more backstory in The Wrath of Khan than there was here.
Agreed. "Space Seed" wasn't referenced. It was assumed that people knew who Khan was.
Khan recaps "Space Seed" to Checkov and Tyrell...
It's a very barebones recap, much like STiD, where it's just enough to establish that Khan is a bad guy, but not enough to really explain the deeper detail as to why.
__________________
---------
"I believe... I believe... It's silly, but I believe." - Susan Walker
---------
❄ A Joyful Holiday Season to You All! ❄

Santa Claus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 18 2013, 08:26 PM   #2909
Lapis Exilis
Rear Admiral
 
Lapis Exilis's Avatar
 
Location: Underground
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

BillJ wrote: View Post
Lapis Exilis wrote: View Post
I think the lack of backstory for Khan in this movie really undercuts him, no matter how good the performance is.
There was no more backstory in The Wrath of Khan than there was here.
I'm not sure that's true - we know Khan in TWOK was marooned on a planet by Kirk, and that he considers himself a superior being to Kirk - so we know he was humiliated by his imprisonment. We know that this humiliation was compounded once the planet became a wasteland where he and his people had to struggle to survive for decades because no one bothered to check on him. When he tells that story, you cannot help but imagine him, day after day, year after year, ruminating on his humiliation, the injustice of it all, especially to a being born to rule. We know his beloved wife was killed and he considers Kirk personally responsible. Also, having the same actor reprising the role means that if you know Space Seed you can believe that it is that character's history, so the possibility is there to bring that knowledge to the movie.

This Khan wasn't the Khan I knew. I don't know if he was involved in the Eugenics War, no Eugenics war was mentioned. I don't know why he was outlawed, put in cryogenic sleep and launched into space. I don't really know how he feels about regular people other than that he considers himself superior to them - but that seems a rather objective assesment on his part. That is, it doesn't have any emotional color. He never mentions despising regular humans, wanting to destroy or rule them, in fact he never mentions wanting anything except to be with his people - so he seems a ... smaller character. Cumberbatch's choice to play him so cold also means he's a bit of a cypher. I don't know how he feels about anything except that he loves his people and will do anything to save them, which is a fairly generic motivation. Montalban's Khan had very specific motivations, even if all you know is what you learn in the movie itself.

Don't get me wrong. I thought the villain was quite good, but I didn't know anything about him except that he was a badass who was mad at our heroes.
__________________
Don't try to win over the haters; you're not the jackass whisperer. - Scott Straten
Lapis Exilis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 18 2013, 08:28 PM   #2910
ConRefit79
Captain
 
ConRefit79's Avatar
 
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Didn't want to see it, but a friend insisted on going.

For a completely forgettable summer popcorn flick and blockbuster film, I rate it a B+. Would be better if this wasn't a seriously perverted Star Trek film.

For a Star Trek film a D. Only cause there is a little bit of Trek in there.

But in all honesty, this feels like Star Wars 1 - 3.


I liked most of first part of the film. Especially Pike's speech. But none of the principle characters come off as taking the job serious. It's like watching a bunch of kids trying to command a boomer. This is due to a combination of the writers and directors tastes.

Khan's motivation is believable. And he does come off as an augment. But he seems more pissed than cunning.


Marcus' motivations seem plausible considering the last film. But the actor should have been someone else. He basically cloned his Paxton performance.

I still do not like JJ Prise inside and out. It's ridiculously too big. The engine sets look too big to fit inside. And he is seriously channeling too much Star Wars, which is his first love. I feel like we're in Leia's blockade runner.
The ship is supposed to make sense and very little makes sense. Hell the inside of this "Warp Core" looks bigger than the outside. When did the Feds develop Time Lord technology?

All and all I think these guys sat down said lets use these characters. Then we want these FX and action scenes. Now lets wedge a story in here somehow to make it believable. But it's not, so they move it too fast for you to even question it.


I for one am glad JJ is going on to Star Wars. He'll fit right in. But I seriously doubt I will want to see the next "Star Trek" film.

RIP Star Trek. Long live Trek Wars.
ConRefit79 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 11:11 AM.

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