Note to all: Karl's nostril closeup in IMAX is an Urban environment. 
STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]
- Thread starter Agent Richard07
- Start date
LOL. Syfy is showing Generations now, then Insurrection, then Nemesis.
I am just sitting here, shaking my head at Syfy. Some programmer in there must, MUST have a seriously twisted sense of humor. If ever there were a bigger chasm between what was needed and what we got during those TNG-era-movie years... this was pretty much it.
Sorry, but I have to disagree here. The four TNG films WERE as much TNG as the series, and I could not think of better or other adventures for Picard's crew. Why the bashing... it is so 90ies. Move on already.
Yeah, no worries. I have
Sorry, TNG, with but a few exceptions, hasn't aged well for me. I'll just let it rest at that.
LOL. Syfy is showing Generations now, then Insurrection, then Nemesis.
I am just sitting here, shaking my head at Syfy. Some programmer in there must, MUST have a seriously twisted sense of humor. If ever there were a bigger chasm between what was needed and what we got during those TNG-era-movie years... this was pretty much it.
Sorry, but I have to disagree here. The four TNG films WERE as much TNG as the series, and I could not think of better or other adventures for Picard's crew. Why the bashing... it is so 90ies. Move on already.
TNG movies were glorified TV episodes. They did nothing and looked no better than what people could watch on DS9 and VOY for free on TV. Most times, the TV shows were better.
I thought the film was fantastic, better than the 2009 film which was a tough one to follow. I felt the standard of writing and acting was high I wish more films could handle the characters this well. It wasn't just a revenge story as feared, I liked the moral implication. It examined what Star Fleet was about a lot better than Star Trek Insurrection did.
The only disapointment was that there was no scene of Kirk sat in the captains chair with tribbles on his head and tribbles covering the bridge.
The only disapointment was that there was no scene of Kirk sat in the captains chair with tribbles on his head and tribbles covering the bridge.
I thought the tribble scene would show an extra two tribbles instead of the tribble just reviving
trevanian
Rear Admiral
Impressive that you're capable of anticipating all possible future outcomes from there, you probably need to change your posting location to Mt Olympus.
It was fun, an enjoyable couple of hours, and when it was doing its own thing, it was fairly good at it. The characters were well-realised and often funny, I loved Spock in almost every scene. The film showed great promise when, at the start, Kirk is being chewed out for being a reckless dick, basically vindicating all the criticisms of his actions in the first film. A great start, then. It also felt a lot more StarTrekky, with references and sequences straight out of the TV series(eses). Cumberbatch is also a real pleasure to watch throughout.
Basically, if you liked the first one, you'll like this. Better in some ways, worse in others.
My problem with it is, at the end of the last one, it was left open for "bold new adventures", so I expected NEW adventures. I didn't expect:
What do I want from the next one, then? Cut the budget, cut the scope. Get some different bloody writers, and get the Enterprise OUT THERE, doing NEW things, with NEW characters!
There was more than a hint of Lindelof's Plot Logic in this one. A sense of "wouldn't it be cool if this happened" rather than things making sense. The first film got away with cosmic coincidences in my opinion, because it seemed appropriate. Some of the logic in this one was screwy, though. Character motivations were fuzzy, particularly Cumberbatch and Robocop, with who wanted what and why. It felt like rewrites had been done at the last minutes, without tidying up the loose ends. Perhaps they had, I'm sure it's pretty common.
In short, then, I had a fun time watching it and it definitely has its moments of excellence. The characters have settled in, the humour was well-judged, the dialogue snappy and witty. But the unoriginality running through it means it will not be remembered as anything other than a throwaway piece of tribble fluff. Disappointing.
Basically, if you liked the first one, you'll like this. Better in some ways, worse in others.
My problem with it is, at the end of the last one, it was left open for "bold new adventures", so I expected NEW adventures. I didn't expect:
a remake of Wrath of Khan. Whole snippets of dialogue and even scenes lifted from previous films. The little references were fine (I geeked out when I saw the line-up of ships and the Section 31 reference) but this film is so devoid of any originality, and so teasing and secretive about it (re: trailers, etc.), that it borders on parody. *That* scene, and the point where Spock yells "Khan!", I figuratively palmed my face into orbit.
Is THIS what a Star Trek film has become now? If so, stop the Enterprise, I want to get off.
I hear people saying that the ending leaves it open (again) for new adventures, but does it? Surely the previous film left it open for new adventures, and look what they did with it? Going by past form of aping the popular, I half expect the next one to feature either whales or the Borg. Into Darkness has completely lost my confidence in Abrams and co making an exciting, new and original film.
I can still barely believe that Khan is even in this. I refused to believe they would stoop to that level right up until just before I saw it (I had it spoiled for me a few days early ) but obviously I misjudged the ineptitude of the writers, or perhaps misjudged the influence of money.
Is THIS what a Star Trek film has become now? If so, stop the Enterprise, I want to get off.
I hear people saying that the ending leaves it open (again) for new adventures, but does it? Surely the previous film left it open for new adventures, and look what they did with it? Going by past form of aping the popular, I half expect the next one to feature either whales or the Borg. Into Darkness has completely lost my confidence in Abrams and co making an exciting, new and original film.
I can still barely believe that Khan is even in this. I refused to believe they would stoop to that level right up until just before I saw it (I had it spoiled for me a few days early
) but obviously I misjudged the ineptitude of the writers, or perhaps misjudged the influence of money.What do I want from the next one, then? Cut the budget, cut the scope. Get some different bloody writers, and get the Enterprise OUT THERE, doing NEW things, with NEW characters!
There was more than a hint of Lindelof's Plot Logic in this one. A sense of "wouldn't it be cool if this happened" rather than things making sense. The first film got away with cosmic coincidences in my opinion, because it seemed appropriate. Some of the logic in this one was screwy, though. Character motivations were fuzzy, particularly Cumberbatch and Robocop, with who wanted what and why. It felt like rewrites had been done at the last minutes, without tidying up the loose ends. Perhaps they had, I'm sure it's pretty common.
In short, then, I had a fun time watching it and it definitely has its moments of excellence. The characters have settled in, the humour was well-judged, the dialogue snappy and witty. But the unoriginality running through it means it will not be remembered as anything other than a throwaway piece of tribble fluff. Disappointing.
I don't play well with fans of JarJar Abrams, so no. This place is all yours. Buckle up! Woo hoo! Punch it, dude!
http://treknexus.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/jar-jar-abrams.jpg
[Converted to link. Please be sure that any embedded images you post are hosted on your own web space or image-hosting account. - M']
Last edited by a moderator:
^ Oh dear Christ.
Call it a hunch babe.
If they rated it an 'F' before it was ever released in their respective areas, what makes you think they're going to give it a fair review?
Yep.
Apparently the ability to apply basic logic to a situation after long observation is held equivalent in some quarters to claiming psychic powers. That explains a great deal.
Casting Benedict Cumberbatch as Khan Singh made about as much sense as casting Jessica Alba as a blue-eyed blonde in the Fantastic Four movies - couldn't Cumberbatch simply have played another genetically-engineered superman from Khan's crew? If they wanted to give a nod to Space Seed/Wrath of Khan, then when they were putting all the cryo-pods into storage, why not show one of them being wheeled past, giving a quick glimpse of Ricardo Montalban's face superimposed in the viewing window?
I liked Alba in Fantastic Four, and have yet to see a rationalization for why her casting was a mistake that wasn't essentially racist.
At least objections to Daniel Craig as Bond were only shortsighted and moronic.
Seeing this in IMAX 3D on Wednesday night, and then again Friday.
At least objections to Daniel Craig as Bond were only shortsighted and moronic.
Seeing this in IMAX 3D on Wednesday night, and then again Friday.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
correct me if I'm wrong (yeah, I know that phrase is totally unnecessary on this subforum whether I'm posting facts or observations, but it is part of this sentence, so deal with it), but there are places that get advance screenings. I remember reading that Texas was supposed to get one, but I don't know if it took place or not.
Honestly now: Do ANY of you folks actually KNOW these other posters' locations to be as advertised, or for that matter that they have absolutely not had opportunity to see the film, either in theaters or via bootleg? I'd figure the burden of proof would be the other way round at this point, unless certain posters here have access to trekbbs member info that isn't generally available (that couldn't be, though - ethically, it would be a 'violation,' as Troi might say.)
Then again, if the posters in question are sufficiently dicklike to cast an official negative vote in a poll based on having seen the film without themselves having seen it, they deserve your wrath (note I am making a distinction between that and just bitching about something based on clips and a synopsis and similar input ... in other words, you won't see my vote/ranking here till I've seen the movie, or at least 60% of it -- and if it is the latter, I'll qualify my remarks by making that clear up front.)
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Poll
