RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,515
Posts: 5,511,805
Members: 25,137
Currently online: 573
Newest member: VonDingle

TrekToday headlines

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

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


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.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old September 20 2013, 05:10 AM   #1
Captain Nebula
Lieutenant Commander
 
Finally saw Star Trek: Into Darkness

What the #^@% was everyone complaining about?

That was a fun movie.

Much better than Nemesis or Insurrection. Definitely not the worst Star Trek movie.

And people complained about Alive Eve in here undies for a second and a half? Really?

Everybody's a critic, I guess.

But I see why Simon Pegg told everyone who didn't like it to F Off.
__________________
In space, no one can hear you Die Hard.
Captain Nebula is offline  
Old September 20 2013, 10:34 AM   #2
Bry_Sinclair
Commodore
 
Bry_Sinclair's Avatar
 
Location: Tactical withdrawl along the Klingon border
Re: Finally saw Star Trek: Into Darkness

Captain Nebula wrote: View Post
Definitely not the worst Star Trek movie.
That's probably because they took the script for one of the most liked Trek film, youthinised the characters, stripped one to her skivvies, added supertransporters and lense flares, then repackaged it as a new film.
__________________
Avatar: Captain Naya, U.S.S. Renown NCC-1415 [Star Trek: Four Years War]
Manip by: JM1776 (STPMA.net)
Bry_Sinclair is offline  
Old September 20 2013, 10:36 AM   #3
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: Finally saw Star Trek: Into Darkness

Bry_Sinclair wrote: View Post
Captain Nebula wrote: View Post
Definitely not the worst Star Trek movie.
That's probably because they took the script for one of the most liked Trek film, youthinised the characters, stripped one to her skivvies, added supertransporters and lense flares, then repackaged it as a new film.
Nah, that's not it.
__________________
---------
"I believe... I believe... It's silly, but I believe." - Susan Walker
---------
❄ A Joyful Holiday Season to You All! ❄

Santa Claus is offline  
Old September 20 2013, 11:39 AM   #4
Tosk
Rear Admiral
 
Tosk's Avatar
 
Location: On the run.
Re: Finally saw Star Trek: Into Darkness

This deserves a new thread?

Captain Nebula wrote: View Post
Everybody's a critic, I guess.
Including you.
Tosk is offline  
Old September 20 2013, 11:41 AM   #5
F. King Daniel
Admiral
 
F. King Daniel's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: Finally saw Star Trek: Into Darkness

Bry_Sinclair wrote: View Post
Captain Nebula wrote: View Post
Definitely not the worst Star Trek movie.
That's probably because they took the script for one of the most liked Trek film, youthinised the characters, stripped one to her skivvies, added supertransporters and lense flares, then repackaged it as a new film.
One scene, arrived through via different means, does not equal a whole script. I actually couldn't see how they could have told a Khan story any less like Space Seed or Wrath of Khan, while keeping their alternate reality premise intact.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
F. King Daniel is offline  
Old September 20 2013, 12:57 PM   #6
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Finally saw Star Trek: Into Darkness

Bry_Sinclair wrote: View Post
Captain Nebula wrote: View Post
Definitely not the worst Star Trek movie.
That's probably because they took the script for one of the most liked Trek film, youthinised the characters, stripped one to her skivvies, added supertransporters and lense flares, then repackaged it as a new film.
We'll pretend for a moment that you're absolutely 100% right (which you aren't as anyone who doesn't have an ax to grind knows).

You and others seem to leave out one key point: those elements came from a movie made thirty-plus years ago. The audience that Into Darkness was aimed at wasn't even alive. They aren't all Trek obsessed and seen The Wrath of Khan fifty times and can quote it line-by-line.
__________________
"...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  
Old September 20 2013, 02:16 PM   #7
Set Harth
Rear Admiral
 
Set Harth's Avatar
 
Location: Distant Thunder
Re: Finally saw Star Trek: Into Darkness

That's probably because they took the script for one of the most liked Trek film
They also ripped off TSFS and TUC, let's not forget.
__________________
Do you know what this is? What this means?
Set Harth is offline  
Old September 20 2013, 02:30 PM   #8
Opus
Commodore
 
Opus's Avatar
 
Location: Bloom County
Re: Finally saw Star Trek: Into Darkness

Wait! STiD was a remake?

That means 'The Dark Knight' was a remake of 1989's 'Batman' because it had The Joker in it!

Damn you, Hollywood!
__________________
Now that I've seen it, and have also had time to mellow, to really think about it, I now find it absolutely, unbearably repulsive in every way except for some of the acting. - about The Wrath of Khan. Interstat, Issue 62: 1982
Opus is offline  
Old September 20 2013, 02:58 PM   #9
ComicGuy89
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: Finally saw Star Trek: Into Darkness

Opus wrote: View Post
Wait! STiD was a remake?

That means 'The Dark Knight' was a remake of 1989's 'Batman' because it had The Joker in it!

Damn you, Hollywood!
Not only did it have the Joker, it had a climatic battle at a high, elevated place that Batman has to fight his way to, right after the Joker conducts some social experiment. Also, the Joker's defeat involves a grappling hook and hanging over a ledge.
ComicGuy89 is offline  
Old September 20 2013, 03:07 PM   #10
Franklin
Rear Admiral
 
Location: In the bleachers
Re: Finally saw Star Trek: Into Darkness

Of course STID was a remake of TWOK. It's so obvious! Do I have to point it out detail for detail? OK, then:

-- TWOK: Kirk is 50-something, lamenting old age and questioning his confidence. STID: Kirk is 20-something and too cock-sure of himself.
-- TWOK: Spock has no real character issues. STID: Spock is full of issues.
-- TWOK: No Spock-Uhura relationship. STID: Spock-Uhura relationship.
-- TWOK: Khan is stranded on a hostile planet with the rest of his people. STID: Khan is essentially forced labor on Earth for Section 31 in order to keep his people alive.
-- TWOK: Carol Marcus is a molecular biologist. STID: Carol Marcus is a physicist and weapons specialist.
-- TWOK: Khan is obsessed with revenge against Kirk at any cost. STID: Khan is obsessed with freeing his people at any cost.
-- TWOK: Saavik is a major character. STID: No Saavik.
-- TWOK: Genesis device. STID: No Genesis device.
-- TWOK: Spock faces a no-win situation. STID: Kirk faces a no-win situation.
-- TWOK: No Admiral Marcus. STID: Admiral Marcus drives most of the conflict.
-- TWOK: Chekov has moved on in his career and is first officer on another ship. STID: Chekov becomes chief engineer on board the Enterprise.
-- TWOK: Kirk has a son. STID: Kirk has no son.
-- TWOK: No Pike. STID: Pike.
-- TWOK: Khan and Kirk never meet. STID: Khan and Kirk not only meet, they work together.
-- TWOK: Was about obsession (Khan with revenge), age, on-going friendship, death. STID: Was about maturing, growing friendship, obsession (Marcus with war), death.

There's probably more, but I think that's enough to convince anyone that STID was unoriginal and a complete rip-off of TWOK.
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. -- Mark Twain
Franklin is online now  
Old September 20 2013, 03:16 PM   #11
Ln X
Fleet Captain
 
Ln X's Avatar
 
Location: The great gig in the sky
Re: Finally saw Star Trek: Into Darkness

BillJ wrote: View Post
Bry_Sinclair wrote: View Post
Captain Nebula wrote: View Post
Definitely not the worst Star Trek movie.
That's probably because they took the script for one of the most liked Trek film, youthinised the characters, stripped one to her skivvies, added supertransporters and lense flares, then repackaged it as a new film.
We'll pretend for a moment that you're absolutely 100% right (which you aren't as anyone who doesn't have an ax to grind knows).

You and others seem to leave out one key point: those elements came from a movie made thirty-plus years ago. The audience that Into Darkness was aimed at wasn't even alive. They aren't all Trek obsessed and seen The Wrath of Khan fifty times and can quote it line-by-line.
Let's be fair here. Some Trekkies have an axe to grind against STID for whatever reason, and some Trekkies have an axe to grind against those Trekkies who did not enjoy STID. I take it from your tone that you exist in the latter group?

Now STID did take some portions of TWOK and rearrange them, and the final product did not add to up to much in the eyes of some Trekkies and fans. So I can understand Bry_Sinclair's issues with STID.



Opus wrote: View Post
Wait! STiD was a remake?

That means 'The Dark Knight' was a remake of 1989's 'Batman' because it had The Joker in it!

Damn you, Hollywood!
I like remakes if they're good and the DK totally nailed it primarily because of the Joker. The DK is a little messy with the plot and two scenes are really laughable (Harvey disarming a witness with a gun in court, and the people in those boats deliberating over whether to activate the detonator) but you overlooked that because of the Joker. He was a character you just wanted to see MOAR of!

But without the Joker the Dark Knight would have been a pretty average movie, so the line between average and greatness is very thin indeed.
__________________
Star Trek: The Approaching Shadow...

Caption contest: DS9
Ln X is offline  
Old September 20 2013, 04:06 PM   #12
Hober Mallow
Commodore
 
Location: The planet Terminus, site of the Encyclopedia Foundation on the periphery of the galaxy
Re: Finally saw Star Trek: Into Darkness

Ln X wrote: View Post
Let's be fair here. Some Trekkies have an axe to grind against STID for whatever reason, and some Trekkies have an axe to grind against those Trekkies who did not enjoy STID.
QFT.
__________________
"Beep... beep!" --Captain Pike
Hober Mallow is offline  
Old September 20 2013, 04:33 PM   #13
Bry_Sinclair
Commodore
 
Bry_Sinclair's Avatar
 
Location: Tactical withdrawl along the Klingon border
Re: Finally saw Star Trek: Into Darkness

I'm trying to keep an open mind about NuTrek (in fact, I really want to like it), so I purposefully never read up plot points on the film before I go and see it, so I was still wondering if Cumberbatch was Khan/Mitchell/someone else.

When the film started and he was Harrison, a man with a mystery, great resources and a superb intellect, I quite liked it (the first few minutes on the planet/under water not withstanding). But when he states that he was Khan, I honestly groaned in despair in the cinema (got a few odd looks from those near me). I found that the quality of the film went downhill from that point.

With NuTrek, some of the things to do well they do very well, but then there are just lots of other things that bug me about it--don't get me wrong other Trek series and films also have annoying elements--as they're trying to make it essentially a reboot of the franchise, but they're just rehashing lots of things previously done, rather than having a fresh start and doing something really interesting.

I'm still debating whether or not to get the DVD.
__________________
Avatar: Captain Naya, U.S.S. Renown NCC-1415 [Star Trek: Four Years War]
Manip by: JM1776 (STPMA.net)
Bry_Sinclair is offline  
Old September 20 2013, 05:49 PM   #14
M'Sharak
Definitely Herbert. Maybe.
 
M'Sharak's Avatar
 
Location: Terra Inlandia
Re: Finally saw Star Trek: Into Darkness

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
Bry_Sinclair wrote: View Post
Captain Nebula wrote: View Post
...
That's probably because they took the script for one of the most liked Trek film, youthinised the characters, stripped one to her skivvies, added supertransporters and lense flares, then repackaged it as a new film.
One scene, arrived through via different means, does not equal a whole script. I actually couldn't see how they could have told a Khan story any less like Space Seed or Wrath of Khan, while keeping their alternate reality premise intact.
BillJ wrote: View Post
Bry_Sinclair wrote: View Post
Captain Nebula wrote: View Post
...
That's probably because they took the script for one of the most liked Trek film, youthinised the characters, stripped one to her skivvies, added supertransporters and lense flares, then repackaged it as a new film.
We'll pretend for a moment that you're absolutely 100% right (which you aren't as anyone who doesn't have an ax to grind knows).

<snip>
Since the post is obvious ax-grinding and nothing else, why acknowledge it at all? Responding in kind tends to lead to something like this...

Ln X wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post
Bry_Sinclair wrote: View Post
...
We'll pretend for a moment that you're absolutely 100% right (which you aren't as anyone who doesn't have an ax to grind knows).

....
Let's be fair here. Some Trekkies have an axe to grind against STID for whatever reason, and some Trekkies have an axe to grind against those Trekkies who did not enjoy STID. I take it from your tone that you exist in the latter group?

[...]
Which then leads to something like this...

Hober Mallow wrote: View Post
Ln X wrote: View Post
Let's be fair here. Some Trekkies have an axe to grind against STID for whatever reason, and some Trekkies have an axe to grind against those Trekkies who did not enjoy STID.
QFT.
And from there it almost certainly devolves into back-and-forth sniping.

Don't bother responding to posts which do no more than harp on the same complaint already made dozens of times before—the discussion gains nothing from it—and especially don't make it about other fans.

Tosk wrote: View Post
This deserves a new thread?

Captain Nebula wrote: View Post
Everybody's a critic, I guess.
Including you.
The opening post could as easily have gone in the pinned Grading & Discussion thread but, judging by the way things have gone down the tubes so quickly, it's probably just as well it didn't. Thread closed.
__________________
The trouble ain't that there is too many fools, but
that the lightning ain't distributed right.
— Mark Twain
M'Sharak is offline  
Closed Thread

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 09:26 PM.

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