RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,555
Posts: 5,401,613
Members: 24,861
Currently online: 554
Newest member: bunty2

TrekToday headlines

Mystery Mini Vinyl Figure Display Box
By: T'Bonz on Sep 29

The Red Shirt Diaries Episode Five
By: T'Bonz on Sep 29

Shatner In Trek 3? Well Maybe
By: T'Bonz on Sep 28

Retro Review: Shadows and Symbols
By: Michelle on Sep 27

Meyer: Revitalizing Star Trek
By: T'Bonz on Sep 26

Trek Costumes To Be Auctioned
By: T'Bonz on Sep 25

Hulu Snaps up Abrams-Produced Drama
By: T'Bonz on Sep 25

Abrams To Receive Award
By: T'Bonz on Sep 24

Trek 3 Casting Rumor Reactions
By: T'Bonz on Sep 24

Trek Comics Sneak Peek
By: T'Bonz on Sep 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.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old May 30 2014, 01:39 PM   #46
foxhot
Fleet Captain
 
foxhot's Avatar
 
Location: BizarroStormy
Re: One Year Later: Star Trek Into Darkness

BillJ wrote: View Post
Dennis wrote: View Post
Abrams's Klingons are alien and intimidating, something that the oldTrek version never really managed.
The only Klingon that I honestly thought was intimidating in seven-hundred plus hours of Trek prior to Into Darkness was Kang from "Day of the Dove".
Absolutely so. Ansara was even intimidating while playing stock characters on LOST IN SPACE ad other projects. Nobody decks Kirky like Kang.
__________________
Could I interest you in a soothing spoken-word 32-CD set read by Steve Railsback?
foxhot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30 2014, 02:01 PM   #47
The Colonel
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Location: Virginia, USA
Re: One Year Later: Star Trek Into Darkness

Its hard to argue with the criticisms in the article. I thought Into Darkness was entertaining and had some good moments. Not the best Star Trek film or the worst. It was all over the place with its 9-11 conspiracy angle and shoehorning Khan into the plot while trying to rip off ST:II. Khan was wasted since he had no prior history with Kirk and company. He could have just remained John Harrison throughout the film and very little would have changed.

Overall it was a well executed big budget Hollywood action movie with Star Trek sort of pasted on top of it. It fell into a lot of cliché action movie writing where there is ostensibly a lot going on, but in reality there isn't much of a plot. To be fair the TNG films really started the cliché action movie trend, they just had older actors and a smaller budget. Nemesis also tried really hard to be The Wrath of Khan and failed even harder.

Oh and the Spock/Uhura romance is just painful to watch, especially when they decide to have their argument in the shuttle on the way the Qonos.
__________________
"Kids are great Apu, you can teach them to hate all the things you hate and they practically raise themselves, you know with the internet these days."
-Homer Simpson
The Colonel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30 2014, 03:08 PM   #48
doubleohfive
Fleet Admiral
 
Location: Hollywood, CA
Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to doubleohfive
Re: One Year Later: Star Trek Into Darkness

Shikarnov wrote: View Post
And who doesn't like a good popcorn flick from time to time?
A very vocal but exceedingly small percentage of fandom.
doubleohfive is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30 2014, 03:42 PM   #49
Shikarnov
Rear Admiral
 
Shikarnov's Avatar
 
Location: Texas (Connecticut & Ivanovo in years past)
Re: One Year Later: Star Trek Into Darkness

doubleohfive wrote: View Post
Shikarnov wrote: View Post
And who doesn't like a good popcorn flick from time to time?
A very vocal but exceedingly small percentage of fandom.
The problem with such people -- of which I consider myself to be a part -- is that their efforts aren't productive.

Upthread, Dennis posted an article from Forbes which, amongst other things, says this:

But Paramount (a division of Viacom, Inc.) knows that most of those ”Trekkies” will still show up for Star Trek 3 in summer 2016 no matter how much they disagree with the choice of Roberto Orci as director.
This is the key. The fans keep showing up. They keep buying memorabilia. They keep downloading comics, building models, collecting figures. They buy the DVD and the BluRay and the Special Editions to keep their "collections" intact.

We're like a union that never strikes: useless. And so the complaints are just incessant whining.

I really think, though, if Paramount saw all that residual income dry up overnight -- if all the millions of dollars that get spent after an initial box office run just disappeared -- they'd rethink the strategy and at the least hire writers who were a little less lazy and would take a minute or two to Google a ******* map.

C'est la vie.
__________________
"It is logically impossible for people to know God exists without any proven evidence. It is, however logically plausible to believe something does not exist if there is no evidence of it."
Shikarnov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30 2014, 04:09 PM   #50
iguana_tonante
Admiral
 
iguana_tonante's Avatar
 
Location: Italy, EU
Re: One Year Later: Star Trek Into Darkness

MakeshiftPython wrote: View Post
My point is that often when someone brings up tomatometer or box office in almost any thread here, it's usually done as a way of ending the discussion over something like whether the script is actually any good or not, or at least comes off as such
I don't think I agree. Tomatometers, critical and popular acclaims, and box office results are brought up when people argue that "people hated the movie" or some other nonsense. It has nothing to do with the quality (or lack thereof) of the scrip, but to dispel the argument put forth by some critics that the movie is universally panned as the "worst movie evah".
__________________
Scientist. Gentleman. Teacher. Fighter. Lover. Father.
iguana_tonante is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30 2014, 04:27 PM   #51
Jeyl
Commodore
 
Jeyl's Avatar
 
Location: Asheville, NC
Re: One Year Later: Star Trek Into Darkness

A year later. I've seen the film a couple of times and this is all I've got.

- The film still comes off more like a giant reset switch since it covers the same exact ground that the last movie did. Kirk and Spock bicker over their differences, Kirk gets in trouble with Starfleet, Kirk is given command of the Enterprise through special circumstances, Kirk space jumps out of one ship and onto another, both feature one of the main leads preparing to sacrifice themselves to save the day but are rescued at the end and we're left with the promise that we will be going out into deep space to do some exploring. When 3 comes out, I'd be curious to know what the film carries over from STID, because if it doesn't, STID can be seen as a completely skippable movie since nothing really happens that changes anything.

- The idea of using Khan wasn't the problem. It was his execution. I'm not saying Khan is a misunderstood good guy, but he sure wasn't Hitler. And even with what they've got, there is nothing about Khan that makes him come off as "superior" to our main characters since all of his plans are based on assumptions that are wrong and cannot figure out that the bombs he wants back could potentially be used against him.

- The action may be fun, but where's the action that Star Trek used to be really good at? You have this so-called "Federation Flagship" that's supposed to be one of a kind and super tough, but nothing is really done with her. When we have a potential space battle scene, the Enterprise has a glass jaw so big that after being shot at for 10 seconds she is completely out of the fight. She never fires a single phaser or torpedo. The Klingon chase on Kronos felt more like the Millennium Falcon being chased by Tie Fighters complete with narrow regions that only the hero ship can fit through.

- The Vengeance crashing into San Francisco was gratuitous and overall pointless. Thousands upon thousands of innocent men women and children probably died thanks to Khan and nothing about this disaster affects anyone. The fact that no one on the Enterprise even brought up the idea of stopping the Vengeance from crashing into the city is mind boggling. Sure, the Enterprise would probably be too damaged to do anything, but showing no concern at all isn't a good way to convey that they can't do anything.

Sulu: Whoa! He just jumped 30 meters.
Me: HE CRASHED A SHIP INTO A POPULATED CITY!

- The writers once again assume that if you give a character a skill set, that automatically makes them super important to the story! But like the last movie, they never put their said skills to use when the character has their moment. Carol Marcus is established as being a weapons expert so it made sense that she would assist in opening a Torpedo in order to reveal it's contents. But how she disarms the torpedo isn't exactly the kind of stuff you would need an engineer for. Just as having someone who can speak Romulan winds up being pointless since the Romulans that can speak perfect english, the method of disarming an advanced and dangerous torpedo is basically just ripping stuff out of it. This is the kind of situation I would expect a person who is NOT a weapons expert would do. If she is completely clueless about what to do, why bother making her a weapons expert in the first place? This could have been any character. And speaking of...

- Uhura reduced to "Action Girl" status. Like Alice in the Resident Evil movies, being able to kick butt is not an interesting character trait. While I loved the idea of Uhura trying to negotiate with the Klingons by speaking to them in their native language, I knew from the very beginning it was going to be pointless because IT'S AN ACTION MOVIE. Shooting will always trump talking, and what a trump attempt this was because now she has to be rescued before she's chocked and gutted. But that's ok. We're supposed to think Uhura is still cool because she can fight Klingons with knifes and guns..... and when the crew learns that they can transport onto the platform where Spock and Khan are fighting on, Uhura is the one they send. Not a security officer, not more than one person, just her with a gun. This is not a good use of a character when any character in the whole movie could have filled this role. The only character that would make more sense then Uhura would be Carol Marcus since fighting Khan would give her a little payback towards Khan for murdering her father and helping Spock who was a little rude to her earlier on in the film.
Jeyl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30 2014, 05:48 PM   #52
foxhot
Fleet Captain
 
foxhot's Avatar
 
Location: BizarroStormy
Re: One Year Later: Star Trek Into Darkness

Jeyl wrote: View Post





- The Vengeance crashing into San Francisco was gratuitous and overall pointless. Thousands upon thousands of innocent men women and children probably died thanks to Khan and nothing about this disaster affects anyone. The fact that no one on the Enterprise even brought up the idea of stopping the Vengeance from crashing into the city is mind boggling. Sure, the Enterprise would probably be too damaged to do anything, but showing no concern at all isn't a good way to convey that they can't do anything.


Just about every PG-13 action film each summer has it both ways by IMPLYING mass carnage without showing the blood or the bodies, except for the key speaking characters. This way they can leave the ridiculous possibility thousands DIDN'T die, as all you witness is the buildings or ships getting destroyed. So once again the dialogue leaves out what Sulu could certainly have said but did not.
__________________
Could I interest you in a soothing spoken-word 32-CD set read by Steve Railsback?
foxhot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30 2014, 09:00 PM   #53
Noname Given
Vice Admiral
 
Location: None Given
Re: One Year Later: Star Trek Into Darkness

LOKAI of CHERON wrote: View Post
I can't remember precisely, but I saw STID seven, maybe eight times in theatres - and many times on Blu-ray since last September. I was quite honestly exhilarated on my "virgin viewing" - and walked out of my local multiplex on a genuine high.

I really didn't expect that - as a fairly jaded, and sometimes apathetic, middle-aged bloke in my mid forties, to feel that way was refreshing and, well, surprising. My childhood heroes had been brought back to life in a thrilling, exciting and enormously entertaining movie. STAR TREK - back on the silver screen.

I fucking loved it last May, and I still fucking love it now!
Saw it twice in the theatre (Once in 3D with friends, and again in 'normal' because 3D never has really worked for me and makes the film look more darkly lit); and picked up the Blu-Ray the day it was released...

But as a now 51 year old TOS fan replace 'mid-forties' with 'early-fifties' and the quote above works as my impression of STiD too.
Noname Given is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30 2014, 09:19 PM   #54
Smellmet
Commander
 
Smellmet's Avatar
 
Location: Goole
Re: One Year Later: Star Trek Into Darkness

I made a point of watching it in 2D. Films that are converted to 3D post production look shite. It was the most pumped Ive felt upon leaving the theatre since T2. I loved seeing Star Trek getting the big budget treatment it so deserves. The scene where scotty and kirk were running up the walls of the of the enterprise as it was spinning out of control were simply excellent, dramatic Trek turned up to 11. I loved it. And I'm a massive TMP fan...
Smellmet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30 2014, 09:28 PM   #55
LOKAI of CHERON
Commodore
 
LOKAI of CHERON's Avatar
 
Location: Post-apocalyptic ruins of my once mighty Homeworld.
Re: One Year Later: Star Trek Into Darkness

Noname Given wrote: View Post
Saw it twice in the theatre (Once in 3D with friends, and again in 'normal' because 3D never has really worked for me and makes the film look more darkly lit)
Smellmet wrote: View Post
I made a point of watching it in 2D. Films that are converted to 3D post production look shite.
Yep, chalk me up as another punter distinctly unenthused by 3D. Home Cinema is one of my major hobbies and a passion too. For me, 3D adds nothing save distraction to most movies.

4K is a development I'm looking to adopt should native content become readily available though - I've watched jaw dropping demonstrations at a CE show.
__________________
YOU MONOTONE HUMANS ARE ALL ALIKE... FIRST YOU CONDEMN, THEN ATTACK.
LOKAI of CHERON is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30 2014, 09:28 PM   #56
doubleohfive
Fleet Admiral
 
Location: Hollywood, CA
Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to doubleohfive
Re: One Year Later: Star Trek Into Darkness

Shikarnov wrote: View Post
doubleohfive wrote: View Post
Shikarnov wrote: View Post
And who doesn't like a good popcorn flick from time to time?
A very vocal but exceedingly small percentage of fandom.
The problem with such people -- of which I consider myself to be a part -- is that their efforts aren't productive.

Upthread, Dennis posted an article from Forbes which, amongst other things, says this:

But Paramount (a division of Viacom, Inc.) knows that most of those ”Trekkies” will still show up for Star Trek 3 in summer 2016 no matter how much they disagree with the choice of Roberto Orci as director.
This is the key. The fans keep showing up. They keep buying memorabilia. They keep downloading comics, building models, collecting figures. They buy the DVD and the BluRay and the Special Editions to keep their "collections" intact.

We're like a union that never strikes: useless. And so the complaints are just incessant whining.

I really think, though, if Paramount saw all that residual income dry up overnight -- if all the millions of dollars that get spent after an initial box office run just disappeared -- they'd rethink the strategy and at the least hire writers who were a little less lazy and would take a minute or two to Google a ******* map.

C'est la vie.
I'm aware of the Forbes article; it was my Facebook page Dennis shared it from.

2) You're right that it's money driving things. Perfect example - the outrage over Paramount's spreading all the various extras for Star Trek Into Darkness over different editions of the DVD, Blu-Ray, and iTunes releases. Some people here were quite annoyed. And yet just about everyone went and bought the damn thing, once again lining Paramount's pockets.

But as I said then, they don't have anyone to blame but themselves.
doubleohfive is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30 2014, 11:05 PM   #57
thumbtack
Commodore
 
Location: Ankh-Morpork
Re: One Year Later: Star Trek Into Darkness

Noname Given wrote: View Post

STiD: Critics: 87% / General Audiance: 90%
source:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star...into_darkness/

Just saying...
Good to see!!!


MakeshiftPython wrote: View Post
YEA!!! BOX OFFICE GROSSING!!! FRESH TOMATOMETER!!!

Agreed!!!


.
__________________
"What went wrong!? All my sockpuppets loved this movie!" - Kevin Smith
thumbtack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 31 2014, 01:53 AM   #58
Ovation
Vice Admiral
 
Location: La Belle Province or The Green Mountain State (depends on the day of the week)
Re: One Year Later: Star Trek Into Darkness

One year later and it's still just as much fun to watch (which, incidentally, is A LOT) as it was the first time around. Looking forward to the next instalment.
Ovation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 31 2014, 03:27 AM   #59
Shaka Zulu
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Bulawayo Military Krral
Re: One Year Later: Star Trek Into Darkness

BillJ wrote: View Post
doubleohfive wrote: View Post
Dennis wrote: View Post
The casual moviegoers that propelled Star Trek Into Darkness to $467 million worldwide thought it was an entertaining science-fiction adventure with a fun cast and strong special effects. They didn’t care about the whole “Is Benedict Cumberbatch playing Khan?” controversy or the hamfisted callbacks to Wrath of Khan or the 9/11-truther undertones. It was the hardcore Star Trek fans who took to the Internet to proclaim the film to be the “worst Star Trek film ever.” But Paramount (a division of Viacom, Inc.) knows that most of those ”Trekkies” will still show up for Star Trek 3 in summer 2016 no matter how much they disagree with the choice of Roberto Orci as director.
Nailed it.
One more time...THIS.
Shaka Zulu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 31 2014, 04:42 AM   #60
Ancient Mariner
Rear Admiral
 
Ancient Mariner's Avatar
 
Location: Sailing for adventure on the Big Blue Wet Thing™
View Ancient Mariner's Twitter Profile
Re: One Year Later: Star Trek Into Darkness

I rewatched the film earlier this evening. Lots of fun, I really enjoy the character work with Kirk and Spock ... and the story is still fascinating to watch unfold.
__________________
Ancient Mariner is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

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 12:10 PM.

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