STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]
- Thread starter Agent Richard07
- Start date
Entertainment Weekly gives it an A
BTW, there were 2 episodes of Enterprise that were almost remakes of voyager episodes. ENT's Terra Nova and VOY's Friendship One are basically the same episode and ENT's Doctor's Orders and VOY's One are as well. Trek rehashes, remakes and recycles all the time.
BTW, there were 2 episodes of Enterprise that were almost remakes of voyager episodes. ENT's Terra Nova and VOY's Friendship One are basically the same episode and ENT's Doctor's Orders and VOY's One are as well. Trek rehashes, remakes and recycles all the time.
You seem to completely miss that there is a hell of a difference between television and film.
And if you want to watch Picard wax philosophical or play a flute, there's 178 episodes of TNG and four movies.
I'll give you "The Naked Time/The Naked Now", that was pretty bad, but there is a lot in TMP that is nowhere to be found in "The Changeling" - Spock's seeking Kolinahr, Kirk's dealing with his age and the change in the Enterprise (much better explored in TWOK, but started here).
Pulaski's rapid aging was caused by experimentation with genetic manipulation, whereas "The Deadly Years" was an alien virus, if I remember correctly. Just because both stories resulted in rapid aging doesn't make it a rehash.
Episodes that cover similar ground are, essentially, rehashes.
You guys don't understand - it's not a "rehash" if they do the same thing over and over as long as they change the names of the characters and the shapes of the bumps on their foreheads.
I agree that changing the forehead bumps as if that was a substitute for lack of good writing is bad, and what killed the franchise on TV, but you cannot tell me that STID isn't another (in my opinion even worse) form of the same problem.
To resort to almost verbatim repeating of scenes from TWOK? That's something that was never resorted to before, and that is undeniable.
You're wrong. Just because the writers change the details doesn't make a story anything other than a "rehash."
I can happily watch Star Trek for the rest of my life while never seeing Picard play a flute again. Or seeing Picard again, for that matter. Not that I dislike him. Love a lot of TNG.
They didn't "resort" to anything; there's a point to it.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean there's anything wrong with it. The opinions of the people who love the movie are at least as sophisticated, accurate, and cognizant of what Star Trek "is" as your own.
"It’s uninspired hackwork, and the frequent appearance of blue lens flares does not make this movie any more of a personal statement. "
I thought they were significantly reduced. Were they in 98% of the shots for ST:09?" “Star Trek Into Darkness” does not quite stand by itself as a satisfying movie, but then again it doesn’t need to. It is the leg of a journey that has, remarkably, lasted for nearly half a century. I hope we never tire of Kirk, Spock and the others. I also hope that they stick around long enough to find a new civilization, since the one we have now does not fully appreciate their gifts."
I disagree, but that's fine.
I never said they weren't, but clearly I'm not the only one with this opinion.
As insults go, it's weak, it's old and it's worn out, and not worthy of a response at all. Speaking of which, I'm pretty sure I've asked you more than a few times before to knock off this kind of comeback. Just stop it, OK?
To be fair, those rags calling something dumb is a bit like being called a cheater by Lance Armstrong and Barry Bonds.
It was probably worse because there were way more plotholes in that.
"It’s uninspired hackwork, and the frequent appearance of blue lens flares does not make this movie any more of a personal statement. "
" “Star Trek Into Darkness” does not quite stand by itself as a satisfying movie, but then again it doesn’t need to. It is the leg of a journey that has, remarkably, lasted for nearly half a century. I hope we never tire of Kirk, Spock and the others. I also hope that they stick around long enough to find a new civilization, since the one we have now does not fully appreciate their gifts."
Yeah. His first remark is a little harsh. His second remark is problematic and seems to be aimed at the writers. Although I have nothing against the writers, it does seem the writing and story get the bulk of the negative remarks, even in the good reviews. So, there's at least a feeling by more than a few that the writing is the movie's weakest link, relatively speaking.
I won't comment on that until I see it on Friday. But all along, my only fear has been that it's a story that's all over the place and it falls apart on itself. Some seem to think it is (even in good reviews). To be fair, it is as good a premise for a story as any previous Trek movie has had, and I had no problem with the writing in ST09. I doubt I'll walk out and ask for a refund.
Plot holes large enough to swallow up JJPrise.
It was way worse back in 09.
There were a few other posters around, that are no longer among us and who were really "fun", vocal and hardcore in their dislike.
Do they really issue refunds?
So what?
If you think that counting heads/opinions matters, I'll have to note that you're part of a small minority.
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Poll
