STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies XI+' started by Agent Richard07, Apr 18, 2013.

?

Grade the movie...

  1. A+

    18.7%
  2. A

    20.7%
  3. A-

    13.1%
  4. B+

    11.1%
  5. B

    8.0%
  6. B-

    4.2%
  7. C+

    5.4%
  8. C

    5.1%
  9. C-

    3.5%
  10. D+

    1.5%
  11. D

    1.6%
  12. D-

    1.3%
  13. F

    5.7%
  1. ConRefit79

    ConRefit79 Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2008
    I didn't care for Batman before the Nolan versions. I thought Batman89 had its moments but was over hyped.

    But in my book ST:TWOK is the best Star Trek movie ever made.
     
  2. King Daniel Beyond

    King Daniel Beyond Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2008
    Location:
    #istandwithcbs
    Which will look cool when the saucer separates in the next movie.

    They're clearly happy with their Enterprise design. I am too:)
     
  3. xortex

    xortex Commodore

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2006
    Location:
    Staten Island, NY
    I guess all you higher purposed plumbers know that Trek in to Darkness has been panned by both the NY Post and Daily News as being DUMB..!!
     
  4. ConRefit79

    ConRefit79 Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2008
  5. Phily B

    Phily B Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2001
    Location:
    United Kingdom
  6. Xaios

    Xaios Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2012
    And it's been praised by several other reviewers for being smart. If you want, I can cherry pick those reviews for you as well, in the same manner as you've done.
     
  7. Gojira

    Gojira Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2008
    Location:
    Stompin' on Tokyo
    So what? Movies are a subjective experience. I have enjoyed many movies the critics have panned.
     
  8. Franklin

    Franklin Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2006
    Location:
    In the bleachers.
    And these are particularly important negative reviews because -- ?

    There's a saying The Washington Post uses here to sell newspapers (their critic loved STID, by the way): If you don't get it, you don't get it. These reviews don't get it. STID is no different than the intelligently done but still sometimes campy TOS. The story is as deep as almost any TOS episode and prior movies. Marc Cushman is quoted as saying, "It's lost a lot of its reality." Reality? Huh? Explanation, please.

    The NY Post review says that "surplus action and lack of creative commentary" is the biggest sticking point to purists. Not this purist. There are valid negative reviews out there, but any like NY Post's that hold Abrams's movies to a standard that is mythical to being with, well they just don't get it. Besides, who the hell walks out of a summer movie saying, "I wish there would've been less action and more sitting around conference tables discussing issues"?
     
  9. ConRefit79

    ConRefit79 Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2008
    Someone referenced some reviews but did not include links. I searched for the reviews and posted some links.
     
  10. Phily B

    Phily B Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2001
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    A lot of reviews come down to the same complaints about it "not being Star Trek" which is absurd, none of the movies have truly been Star Trek if we compare to television.
     
  11. Jeyl

    Jeyl Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Location:
    Asheville, NC
    I don't think they're upset that this movie is hardly Star Trek as much as they are upset that this is the only Star Trek we'll ever be getting. Star Trek was really at it's best when it was on television. We got, what? 22-26 stories a year, instead of one story every three to four years? I think a Star Trek series would leave plenty of room for variety instead of non-stop action rehashes of previous Star Trek stories.
     
  12. Franklin

    Franklin Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2006
    Location:
    In the bleachers.
    Understood. But I thought it was best to quote you with your links since they should've been in the original post. I'm not attacking either messenger, either. There are valid criticisms of this movie. I just don't think comparing Abrams's take on Trek to a version looked at through rose-colored glasses is a valid way to criticize it. :)
     
  13. Chu'lak

    Chu'lak Lieutenant

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2013
    I keep reading a lot about how the new franchise doesn't "live up to Roddenberry's standard." Face it, Trek got good when Gene died. DS9 would never have aired had he lived and had any control.

    For the courts review I submit exhibit A: Gene Roddenberry's writing credits:

    The Cage
    Mudd's Women
    Charlie X
    The Menagerie, Part I
    The Menagerie, Part II
    The Return of the Archons
    Bread and Circuses
    A Private Little War
    The Omega Glory
    Assignment: Earth
    The Savage Curtain
    Turnabout Intruder
    Star Trek: The Motion Picture
    TNG:
    Encounter at Farpoint
    Hide and Q
    Datalore


    I rest my case.
     
  14. Phily B

    Phily B Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2001
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    I don't really disagree that I'd prefer a television show to movies, but that's a separate issue - CBS are sitting on the rights to the TV show and blocking; not JJ Abrams, Orci, Kurtzman etc

    It doesn't make these movies bad in anyway because it's not the television show, I'd much rather watch BOBW than FC but FC is still my favourite movie.
     
  15. BillJ

    BillJ Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    Per Ardua
    I like all of those to varying degrees. I also like Star Trek 2009. So what's your point?
     
  16. ConRefit79

    ConRefit79 Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2008
    Most of those episodes are very good.
     
  17. Flake

    Flake Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2001
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    I thought CBS and Paramount had some form of gentlemans agreement that whilst Trek movies were being made there would be no TV show.

    It makes sense for CBS to stay 'friendly' with Paramount because in the future maybe a TV show will use the sets and props built for the movies?
     
  18. Franklin

    Franklin Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2006
    Location:
    In the bleachers.
    "Star Trek" and TV is an idea that sounds as natural as peanut butter and jelly. The problem is the success of the movies isn't necessarily a guarantee of the success of a TV show. And what form would the show take? Would yet another Kirk and Spock occupy the small screen? Or does the success of Abrams's Trek movies mean the world is ready for another version of TNG on TV? Unlikely. There are 28 seasons of Trek TV out there. There may be a few new stories to tell, but are there seven more seasons of them left to tell?

    Also, I don't know a lot about investment and profit in the entertainment industry (nothing, really), but Paramount is probably very happy with its profit margin for ST09 and looking forward to even greater profits from STID. I'd think it would take a lot longer (if ever) to get that kind of return on investment from TV. Besides, network TV is dying as a medium. It's a slow death, but it's dying. Maybe a new Trek series could be the first to go straight to Podcast.
     
  19. ConRefit79

    ConRefit79 Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2008
    Would it really matter if they didn't? There is no way to get a budget on a TV show to move nuTrek to TV.
     
  20. Flake

    Flake Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2001
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    Sets and props cost lots of $$ and would make a TV pilot or mini-series hugely expensive. CBS would have all the sets etc ready made and so the huge expense has already been taken care of. It would make it much cheaper and therefore feasible on a TV budget.

    EDIT: So Paramount will have spent the bulk of the money that would've been spent on a TV Show on the movie and all that comes available for use in a TV show.

    EDIT2: Paramount are considering starting up a TV division so maybe they can make a future show and sell it to CBS?