RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,345
Posts: 5,353,874
Members: 24,620
Currently online: 571
Newest member: StarTrekSteve

TrekToday headlines

Sci-Fried To Release New Album
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28

Star Trek/Planet of the Apes Crossover
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28

Star Trek into Darkness Soundtrack
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28

Horse 1, Shatner 0
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28

Drexler TV Alert
By: T'Bonz on Jul 26

Retro Review: His Way
By: Michelle on Jul 26

MicroWarriors Releases Next Week
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25

Ships Of The Line Design Contest
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25

Next Weekend: Shore Leave 36!
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25

True Trek History To Be Penned
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25


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, 02:39 AM   #31
Dennis
The Man
 
Dennis's Avatar
 
Location: Leading a charmed life
Re: One Year Later: Star Trek Into Darkness

Abrams's Klingons are alien and intimidating, something that the oldTrek version never really managed.
__________________
Yes, I'm an American. Yes, we're crazy. Tell a friend.

Twenty consecutive quarters of profitability for Ford.
Dennis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30 2014, 02:44 AM   #32
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: In the 23rd Century...
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: One Year Later: Star Trek Into Darkness

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". I liked Kruge and Worf and Chang, but they just weren't intimidating in the least.
__________________
"I had no idea you were so... formidable. " - Anan 7 to James T. Kirk, A Taste of Armageddon
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30 2014, 02:53 AM   #33
Franklin
Rear Admiral
 
Location: In the bleachers
Re: One Year Later: Star Trek Into Darkness

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

I think these discussions would be infinitely more interesting if we didn't have to have so many posters bring up box office receipts, tomatometers, the fan polls that ranked STID as the worst ever (it isn't, as bad as it tried to be ), ect. It gets so utterly boring when that's all fans of this film bring to the table. Fresh tomatometers and huge box office results aren't gonna convince me that ATTACK OF THE CLONES isn't a bad film.
Um, even by Rotten Tomatoes site standards, AoTC DOES come across as a bad film:

Attack of the Clones: Critics: 67% / General Audience: 60%
source:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star...the_clones_3d/

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

Just saying...
The results say "fresh". My main point is that bringing up box office results and tomatometers are becoming such a cliche in these forums, even you resort to it by measuring CLONES and STID, missing the point I was trying to make!
Any movie above 60% on Rotten Tomatoes is fresh, so Clones made it with only 7% to spare. That said, both 67% and 87% would be passing grades on an exam, but I'd take the 87%. (By the way, "Days of Thunder" was 39% on RT.)

It's no big deal if someone didn't like STID. Really. Though I guess they would think the discussion would be far more interesting if RT and the box office and other positive things that show the movie was popular weren't brought up, because they remind those who didn't like it (not that there's anything wrong with that) that they are in a minority. A rather small one, too (not that there's anything wrong with that).

STID is my favorite of all the Trek movies. Watched it with my daughter a couple of nights ago. There are some eyebrow raising moments in it, but all the weaknesses any movie contains will be apparent on the eighth or tenth viewing. (Look for the pterodactlys flying around in the background of the beach scene in "Citizen Kane".)
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. -- Mark Twain
Franklin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30 2014, 02:57 AM   #34
Dennis
The Man
 
Dennis's Avatar
 
Location: Leading a charmed life
Re: One Year Later: Star Trek Into Darkness

Franklin wrote: View Post
It's no big deal if someone didn't like STID. Really.
Of course not.

It's awfully silly of people to try to prove there's something wrong with it because they didn't like it, though.
__________________
Yes, I'm an American. Yes, we're crazy. Tell a friend.

Twenty consecutive quarters of profitability for Ford.
Dennis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30 2014, 03:11 AM   #35
Harvey
Admiral
 
Harvey's Avatar
 
Re: One Year Later: Star Trek Into Darkness

I like The Dissolve, but the writers there (especially the guy who wrote this piece) have had a bone to pick with the movie since the site launched, so positioning this as a revised take one year later strikes me as more than a tad disingenuous. They weren't crazy about the movie when it came out and still aren't. That's really all there is beyond the same collection of negative posts about the movie from online (which always have hyperbolic titles to generate the most page views)
__________________
"This begs explanation." - de Forest Research on Star Trek

My blog: Star Trek Fact Check.
Harvey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30 2014, 03:17 AM   #36
Dennis
The Man
 
Dennis's Avatar
 
Location: Leading a charmed life
Re: One Year Later: Star Trek Into Darkness

Bingo.
__________________
Yes, I'm an American. Yes, we're crazy. Tell a friend.

Twenty consecutive quarters of profitability for Ford.
Dennis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30 2014, 04:05 AM   #37
Balrog
Commodore
 
Balrog's Avatar
 
Location: Balrog
Re: One Year Later: Star Trek Into Darkness

Some people love to hate. No biggie...
__________________
Anybody got some peppermint?
Balrog was Lloyd Dobler
Balrog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30 2014, 04:20 AM   #38
MakeshiftPython
Captain
 
MakeshiftPython's Avatar
 
Location: Ladies love Riker's beard.
Re: One Year Later: Star Trek Into Darkness

Franklin wrote: View Post
Any movie above 60% on Rotten Tomatoes is fresh, so Clones made it with only 7% to spare. That said, both 67% and 87% would be passing grades on an exam, but I'd take the 87%. (By the way, "Days of Thunder" was 39% on RT.)
You're falling victim to it too by bringing DAYS OF THUNDER now. What was the point of that? To prove that critics like STID more? I know that Tony Scott flick is a terrible movie, I watch it because it's unintentionally hilariously bad ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMhmoyKdziU ). Same with TOP GUN, especially. Heck, I think 67% is extremely generous for CLONES.

It's no big deal if someone didn't like STID. Really. Though I guess they would think the discussion would be far more interesting if RT and the box office and other positive things that show the movie was popular weren't brought up, because they remind those who didn't like it (not that there's anything wrong with that) that they are in a minority. A rather small one, too (not that there's anything wrong with that).
I don't think there needs to be any reminding that it's popular and those who are critical of it are in the minority. Everyone is well aware of that (well, almost). What makes it annoying is that it shifts the discussion away from the film and onto the "people like it" topic. It's what BigJake calls a diversion. It feels like a cheat. How much more interesting would a discussion of the film be if you were to just talk about the film itself and its own merits without factoring how popular it is? If you want to talk about it's popularity, I'm sure there's a thread about it. Like... This one! Strange as that sounds. But I'm sure there are plenty of ways to talk about what makes it good or bad and how both can be perfectly valid.

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 (especially with a smarmy smilie face just to rub it in). Is it totally off base to say that a film can have a bad script actually come out good in spite of that said script? Orci and Kurtzman's other films get heavily criticized and of all the films only the three films (that were directed by Abrams) have a "fresh" rating. What is it that makes these three films stand out from all the other ones they're credited to? I always point to Abrams and the cast. The high marks I will give the films is that Abrams brings energy into his flicks (contrasting the utter bore that is NEMESIS) and that he brings a cast together that has great chemistry. I can believe that people enjoy these films mainly because of those aspects and I can't blame them. I like them too, I just think the scripts are very underwhelming, but not everybody is critical over things like insane plot contrivances, because in the end they're swept by Abrams' direction and the camaraderie of the cast.

Or you could just dismiss my entire post with snark, smilie faces, box office results and tomatometers. Do it. DO IT!

MakeshiftPython is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30 2014, 06:13 AM   #39
YARN
Fleet Captain
 
Re: One Year Later: Star Trek Into Darkness

MakeshiftPython wrote: View Post
Franklin wrote: View Post
Any movie above 60% on Rotten Tomatoes is fresh, so Clones made it with only 7% to spare. That said, both 67% and 87% would be passing grades on an exam, but I'd take the 87%. (By the way, "Days of Thunder" was 39% on RT.)
You're falling victim to it too by bringing DAYS OF THUNDER now. What was the point of that? To prove that critics like STID more? I know that Tony Scott flick is a terrible movie, I watch it because it's unintentionally hilariously bad ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMhmoyKdziU ). Same with TOP GUN, especially. Heck, I think 67% is extremely generous for CLONES.

It's no big deal if someone didn't like STID. Really. Though I guess they would think the discussion would be far more interesting if RT and the box office and other positive things that show the movie was popular weren't brought up, because they remind those who didn't like it (not that there's anything wrong with that) that they are in a minority. A rather small one, too (not that there's anything wrong with that).
I don't think there needs to be any reminding that it's popular and those who are critical of it are in the minority. Everyone is well aware of that (well, almost). What makes it annoying is that it shifts the discussion away from the film and onto the "people like it" topic. It's what BigJake calls a diversion. It feels like a cheat. How much more interesting would a discussion of the film be if you were to just talk about the film itself and its own merits without factoring how popular it is? If you want to talk about it's popularity, I'm sure there's a thread about it. Like... This one! Strange as that sounds. But I'm sure there are plenty of ways to talk about what makes it good or bad and how both can be perfectly valid.

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 (especially with a smarmy smilie face just to rub it in). Is it totally off base to say that a film can have a bad script actually come out good in spite of that said script? Orci and Kurtzman's other films get heavily criticized and of all the films only the three films (that were directed by Abrams) have a "fresh" rating. What is it that makes these three films stand out from all the other ones they're credited to? I always point to Abrams and the cast. The high marks I will give the films is that Abrams brings energy into his flicks (contrasting the utter bore that is NEMESIS) and that he brings a cast together that has great chemistry. I can believe that people enjoy these films mainly because of those aspects and I can't blame them. I like them too, I just think the scripts are very underwhelming, but not everybody is critical over things like insane plot contrivances, because in the end they're swept by Abrams' direction and the camaraderie of the cast.

Or you could just dismiss my entire post with snark, smilie faces, box office results and tomatometers. Do it. DO IT!

Aggregates of critical scores and audience evaluations are not absolute proof of anything, but they do form a presumption in favor of the hypothesis of quality (when favored) or the lack thereof (when a film is roundly rejected). I have no special love for STiD, but I must acknowledge that critical and audience approval puts more pressure on my side of the argument.

Box Office returns are a much weaker measure (for reasons I've discussed elsewhere) and offer a much more tenuous variety of presumption, but still offer evidence to consider.

Last edited by YARN; May 30 2014 at 06:52 AM.
YARN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30 2014, 06:24 AM   #40
Nerys Myk
Fleet Admiral
 
Nerys Myk's Avatar
 
Location: House of Kang, now with ridges
Re: One Year Later: Star Trek Into Darkness

I sometimes get the impression, that the people who hate the film, have seen it more often than the people who liked it.
__________________
The boring one, the one with Khan, the one where Spock returns, the one with whales, the dumb one, the last one, the one with Kirk, the one with the Borg, the stupid one, the bad one, the new one, the other one with Khan.
Nerys Myk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30 2014, 07:08 AM   #41
MakeshiftPython
Captain
 
MakeshiftPython's Avatar
 
Location: Ladies love Riker's beard.
Re: One Year Later: Star Trek Into Darkness

Don't take it as an impression, they do exist. They're called masochists. Or fans of NEMISIS.

Buh-dum-boom!


MakeshiftPython is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30 2014, 09:01 AM   #42
Smellmet
Commander
 
Smellmet's Avatar
 
Location: Goole
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!
Perfectly sums up my theatre experience of the movie as a 40 year old fan myself.

I think it is a fantastically entertaining movie and almost the complete blockbuster.
Smellmet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30 2014, 10:59 AM   #43
martok2112
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: One Year Later: Star Trek Into Darkness

MakeshiftPython wrote: View Post
Don't take it as an impression, they do exist. They're called masochists. Or fans of NEMISIS.

Buh-dum-boom!



Prepare to shoot me, but Nemesis is my favorite of the TNG films....

why?

1. Despite its storytelling and technical flaws, it actually looks and feels like a big screen movie, whereas Generations, First Contact, and Insurrection looked like overblown two hour episodes.

B. The space battle took up practically the entire last half of the film, and it wasn't two effects shots and a bunch of "crew getting thrown around" shots. It was a knock down, drag out space battle!

Third. The collision between the Big E and the Scimitar....priceless, if implausible!

martok2112 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30 2014, 12:53 PM   #44
Ancient Mariner
Rear Admiral
 
Ancient Mariner's Avatar
 
Location: A ship of Samuel Walters' imagination.
View Ancient Mariner's Twitter Profile
Re: One Year Later: Star Trek Into Darkness

NEM always came across as really bad fan fiction to me.

In any case, Into Darkness was and is a thoroughly enjoyable, entertaining film. It's not perfect, but it was good enough to transcend its sci-fi genre and find a more general, casual, movie going audience.
__________________
I'm starting to worry about this voyage ...
Ancient Mariner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30 2014, 01:08 PM   #45
Shikarnov
Rear Admiral
 
Shikarnov's Avatar
 
Location: Texas (Connecticut & Ivanovo in years past)
Re: One Year Later: Star Trek Into Darkness

My feelings about STID, just like they did with ST09, changed over time -- which is to say my first viewings of both left an awful taste in my mouth, but subsequent viewings allowed me to pick up on details I appreciated.

These details were usually related to the great work of the art, costuming, and VFX folks -- who clearly care very much about what they're doing -- and allowed me to focus less on the details I didn't appreciate, like the poor writing.

Also, I think time let me see the movies for what they are: 21st Century popcorn flicks that make a ton of money in the short term. And who doesn't like a good popcorn flick from time to time?
__________________
"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
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 04:52 AM.

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