RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,589
Posts: 5,515,449
Members: 25,159
Currently online: 610
Newest member: Horizons96

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 19 2013, 05:17 AM   #3046
HaventGotALife
Fleet Captain
 
HaventGotALife's Avatar
 
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

flemm wrote: View Post
Lapis Exilis wrote: View Post
Indeed - and as you say even TOS wasn't doing anything truly radical, only radical for prime time network tv.

Well, being "radical" and "being intelligent" aren't really the same thing. Popular entertainment is generally not the place to go, obviously, to really be challenged intellectually (unless you are talking about understanding how it functions from an analytical point of view, which is as challenging as understanding any complex social phenomenon).

I think, a lot of the time, when fans talk about Star Trek being "intelligent," what they are really saying is: it is a fictional universe that tends to capture the imagination of some intelligent people, or, alternately, "it appeals to their intellect." It's nerd fantasy fulfillment, in a lot of ways, and I don't mean that in a pejorative way, or at least not only.

Part of that is the "exploration" aspect, I think. Conceptually, it's a franchise that's built around the discovery of new worlds, civilizations, etc., for example, rather than just beating the bad guy, or whatever. That's appealing to the intellect, even if, concretely, what you end up "exploring" isn't really all that compelling at the end of the day, or new, or radical. Sometimes it is comically *not* new or interesting, but the *idea* of exploring "the final frontier" is still really compelling *as an idea*.

Often watching old TOS episodes cracks me up because the "alien" planet is about the most non-alien looking place imaginable. But the idea is still fun.

Also, a lot of times "intelligent" in this type of blockbuster really means something like "not egregiously or insultingly stupid," which is certainly a positive. I do my serious thinking during the day at work, but that doesn't mean I want my entertainment to take a crap in my brain, so to speak. At least not always.

Anyway, this movie was fine from that point of view, as far as I'm concerned.

I wouldn't mind a future movie focusing a bit more on the exploration angle, though I recognize that structure probably fits the tv format better.
Co-sign. There's a lot of wisdom to what you just wrote. Thanks, you put it in better terms than I ever could.
__________________
"Cogley was old-fashioned, preferring paper books to computers. He had an extensive collection of books, he claimed never to use the computer in his office."
HaventGotALife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 19 2013, 05:24 AM   #3047
M'Sharak
Definitely Herbert. Maybe.
 
M'Sharak's Avatar
 
Location: Terra Inlandia
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

HaventGotALife wrote: View Post
Admiral Buzzkill wrote: View Post
HaventGotALife wrote: View Post
I just don't think it was done well.
It was done a hell of a lot better than painting two guys half-white and half-black, that much is certain.

The guys making these movies now sure don't have anything to fear from comparison to most of oldTrek.
I don't think "Let that be your last Battlefield" was childish, if you are suggesting that. Because it is supposed to show the absurdity of the argument, by doing something simple. If you think it's dated in terms of make-up, it was a shoestring budget and 45 years ago.
I really can't say that I see where Buzzkill was suggesting that LTBYLB was childish—that would seem to be your own inference—but can we please dispense with the "shoestring budget" canard? For its first two seasons, "Star Trek" was one of the most expensive series at that time being produced, and the cutbacks of the third season still brought them nowhere near "shoestring budget" territory.
__________________
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 19 2013, 05:32 AM   #3048
mattman8907
Lieutenant Commander
 
mattman8907's Avatar
 
Location: California
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

was it my imagination or during Urban's speech on the planetoid, I could've sword i heard DeForest Kelley's voice emulating through Karl Urban? it was during "his little pregnant gorn" spiel.
mattman8907 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 19 2013, 05:34 AM   #3049
flemm
Fleet Captain
 
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Lapis Exilis wrote: View Post
I want to be clear here - I keep bringing up TMP because I think it's the only movie which managed to do what some of the best Trek episodes did, even though it had strytelling problems. Even TWOK was a personal story, not one with anything cerebral in it.
One other point on this topic: I guess I'm not sure what people mean, exactly, when they talk about something being "cerebral."

I mean, is Don Quixote cerebral? Is Hamlet? I choose these examples because they are stories that have been massively influential, shaped our view of what it means to be an individual, and challenged people intellectually for centuries. But I'm not sure if I'd call them "cerebral," or at least not mainly.

I don't think it works like that. Engaging with a story intellectually has a lot to do with the intellect doing the engaging.

I mean, there are tv commercials that are worth engaging intellectually. Doesn't make them "cerebral," in and of themselves.

Just throwing that out there.
flemm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 19 2013, 05:36 AM   #3050
gomtuu20
Commander
 
gomtuu20's Avatar
 
Location: Beyond Antares
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

I wasn't a fan of 2009 Trek. While I still hate the lens flairs and the shaky camera work that looks like a drunk cameraman with Parkinsons put the camera in a paint shaker, tied it to a rope, and swing it around his head during an earthquake, I thought this one was much better than the last one. Reviving Kirk with Khan's blood was ridiculous, but overall this is a good installment. I enjoyed it very much. I give it an A-.
gomtuu20 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 19 2013, 05:36 AM   #3051
teacake
Fleet Admiral
 
teacake's Avatar
 
Location: Google's ass cave full of the lush, lush asses they have stolen.
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

I associate cerebral with colder sci fi, like Space 2001.
__________________

"Damnit Spock. God damnit!" Kirk ST:V
■ ■ ■
Janeway does Melbourne
teacake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 19 2013, 05:38 AM   #3052
HaventGotALife
Fleet Captain
 
HaventGotALife's Avatar
 
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

M'Sharak wrote: View Post
HaventGotALife wrote: View Post
Admiral Buzzkill wrote: View Post

It was done a hell of a lot better than painting two guys half-white and half-black, that much is certain.

The guys making these movies now sure don't have anything to fear from comparison to most of oldTrek.
I don't think "Let that be your last Battlefield" was childish, if you are suggesting that. Because it is supposed to show the absurdity of the argument, by doing something simple. If you think it's dated in terms of make-up, it was a shoestring budget and 45 years ago.
I really can't say that I see where Buzzkill was suggesting that LTBYLB was childish—that would seem to be your own inference—but can we please dispense with the "shoestring budget" canard? For its first two seasons, "Star Trek" was one of the most expensive series at that time being produced, and the cutbacks of the third season still brought them nowhere near "shoestring budget" territory.
Source? I have about 10 that say that Star Trek had a restricted budget and was losing money to the point that Paramount tried to sell it to Gene Roddenberry, but it was too expensive for Roddenberry to purchase (about 150,000 dollars). It wasn't a wanted property, despite it having ratings that would make it the number one television show on television today.
__________________
"Cogley was old-fashioned, preferring paper books to computers. He had an extensive collection of books, he claimed never to use the computer in his office."
HaventGotALife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 19 2013, 05:41 AM   #3053
Cookies and Cake
Admiral
 
Location: North America
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

teacake wrote: View Post
I associate cerebral with colder sci fi, like Space 2001.
I assume you're talking about 2001: A Space Odyssey, and not Space: 1999.
__________________
CorporalCaptain
Cookies and Cake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 19 2013, 05:48 AM   #3054
teacake
Fleet Admiral
 
teacake's Avatar
 
Location: Google's ass cave full of the lush, lush asses they have stolen.
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
teacake wrote: View Post
I associate cerebral with colder sci fi, like Space 2001.
I assume you're talking about 2001: A Space Odyssey, and not Space: 1999.
My god I'm so stupid. Yes
__________________

"Damnit Spock. God damnit!" Kirk ST:V
■ ■ ■
Janeway does Melbourne
teacake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 19 2013, 05:56 AM   #3055
Santa Claus
Digitally Assisted
 
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]

HaventGotALife wrote: View Post
M'Sharak wrote: View Post
HaventGotALife wrote: View Post

I don't think "Let that be your last Battlefield" was childish, if you are suggesting that. Because it is supposed to show the absurdity of the argument, by doing something simple. If you think it's dated in terms of make-up, it was a shoestring budget and 45 years ago.
I really can't say that I see where Buzzkill was suggesting that LTBYLB was childish—that would seem to be your own inference—but can we please dispense with the "shoestring budget" canard? For its first two seasons, "Star Trek" was one of the most expensive series at that time being produced, and the cutbacks of the third season still brought them nowhere near "shoestring budget" territory.
Source? I have about 10 that say that Star Trek had a restricted budget and was losing money to the point that Paramount tried to sell it to Gene Roddenberry, but it was too expensive for Roddenberry to purchase (about 150,000 dollars). It wasn't a wanted property, despite it having ratings that would make it the number one television show on television today.
According to Memory Alpha:

TOS Season 1 had a $190,635 budget per episode.
TOS Season 2 had a $185,000 budget per episode (some episodes ran even higher. "City" ran over 250k).
TOS Season 3 had a $180,000 budget per episode, which was the lowest budget during TOS' run.

If we adjust those 1967-1968-1969 figures for today, that means:

Each S1 episode had a 1.37 million dollar budget.
Each S2 episode had a 1.28 million dollar budget.
Each S3 episode had a 1.14 million dollar budget.

That's an expensive pair of shoestrings.
__________________

❄ A Joyful Holiday Season to You All! ❄

Santa Claus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 19 2013, 05:59 AM   #3056
gomtuu20
Commander
 
gomtuu20's Avatar
 
Location: Beyond Antares
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Into Darkness has given me high hopes for the next installment.

So much of what I loved about the original series was the exploration. Experiencing new worlds and cultures while learning things about our own. Learning things about what it means to be a human. And doing it with the best crew.

For some bizarre reason, the original cast movies thought the appeal was always having an inexperienced crew and a.
"not-quite-complete" Enterprise. I had high hopes at the end of 4 when they walked on the bridge of the new Enterprise. But then they let Shatner direct.

The Next Gen movies could not do anything but fight villains. This became stale.

Would't it be nice if the drama in the next movie were to come from encountering a strange, new world rather than just fighting another villain?
gomtuu20 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 19 2013, 06:05 AM   #3057
teacake
Fleet Admiral
 
teacake's Avatar
 
Location: Google's ass cave full of the lush, lush asses they have stolen.
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

gomtuu20 wrote: View Post
Would't it be nice if the drama in the next movie were to come from encountering a strange, new world rather than just fighting another villain?
That would be lovely. Aint gonna happen.
__________________

"Damnit Spock. God damnit!" Kirk ST:V
■ ■ ■
Janeway does Melbourne
teacake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 19 2013, 06:08 AM   #3058
Similitude
Rear Admiral
 
Similitude's Avatar
 
Location: Doctor!
Send a message via AIM to Similitude
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Absolutely loved, seen 2x already!
Similitude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 19 2013, 06:10 AM   #3059
teacake
Fleet Admiral
 
teacake's Avatar
 
Location: Google's ass cave full of the lush, lush asses they have stolen.
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

The poll just hit 100 A+'s!

(I gave it an A)
__________________

"Damnit Spock. God damnit!" Kirk ST:V
■ ■ ■
Janeway does Melbourne
teacake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 19 2013, 06:18 AM   #3060
throwback
Captain
 
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

For those wanted an example of what I am talking about, here are two:

http://http://www.swiftfilm.com/para...into-darkness/

http://www.inquisitr.com/659009/star...rong-overseas/

While writing this, I was thinking about something that occurred to me while watching this film. The hero characters are told three different accounts about one man - one from the man himself, one from the man who hired him, and one from someone who was his enemy in another universe. Yet, at no point in the film, do the hero characters go to a computer and do historical research. They push for the witnesses to prove what they are saying. Constantly, in the Classic Trek, the characters would be shown doing research. I would have liked to seen this research in the new film.
throwback 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 04:07 PM.

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