Well yeah, of course it would be because they're not in their fifties and sixties, yet.
Could you imagine Doohan's Scotty running through the Vengeance? 
Going tommorow night. IMAX 3D. Can't wait.
STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]
- Thread starter Agent Richard07
- Start date
Well yeah, of course it would be because they're not in their fifties and sixties, yet.
Could you imagine Doohan's Scotty running through the Vengeance? Going tommorow night. IMAX 3D. Can't wait.
You haven't seen the movie. Most folks here have. So given that you have no idea what the movie is like...what are you laughing at?
I'm laughing at the quote. Which is from a comment someone made on the Wired review. I thought it was funny.
Why? There's nothing even a little clever about it, other than on a sort of pre-adolescent school lunch room "cut-down" level.
OK, my head's starting to hurt here. You start out saying it's horseshit, then you say you love it.
I guess I'm not sure what the ADD thing is really referring to (it's one of those derogatory comments that gets thrown around all the time, by the way, in this context).
Admittedly, for a while there, very choppy editing and incoherent action sequences were the norm in these blockbusters, and, as I recall, Trek '09 did suffer from that a bit. I can be annoyed by that, but I never had that type of reaction here.
If anything, the film seemed to take a bit of a cue from the Avengers and go for a much less choppy, more choreographed style for some of the action. For example: Khan and Kirk "space-sledding" or being catapulted or whatever between the two starships. That was a beautiful sequence.
I hope that approach is becoming more the trendy thing to do.
There's plenty of action, but I never felt like it was out of hand or cluttered from that point of view.
My thinking is that the Wired review is drawing from a prejudice against Trek 09 and it's filming style mainly. This movie had less flares and was definitely less choppy.
Whatever. You go right on defending this film.
Well, the Lens flare comment and Star Trek Into Decadence was the main thing that got me.
I'm praising it - success is its own defense.
Of course, having seen it I'm in a position to have an informed opinion.
Of course, having seen it I'm in a position to have an informed opinion.
I know the whole story. Its all over this thread. I don't have to go see it to know I don't like the story.I'm praising it - success is its own defense.
Of course, having seen it I'm in a position to have an informed opinion.
With respect, and despite of what you've read - I find it almost inconceivable you'd make a call on a movie you haven't actually seen.I know the whole story. Its all over this thread. I don't have to go see it to know I don't like the story.I'm praising it - success is its own defense.
Of course, having seen it I'm in a position to have an informed opinion.
The Lens flares were toned down quite a bit, nowhere near as glaring.
Regarding the "Decadence" part... I guess I could see that, but not really moreso than entertainment of this sort generally is.
In point of fact, the "Into Darkness" part of the title doesn't really correspond to much of anything in the movie. I guess that is just the fashionable "sequel vibe" or whatever, since the Dark Knight. But there's little to no actual Darkness.
Which is fine, in passing. I like the bright, colorful palette of the film overall.
Absolutely agree there was no reason to make Harrison Khan. Make him one of Section 31's operatives pissed at being hosed by Marcus for some reason, but then they'd have to write a real ending to the movie. Same reason they did not have to use an Alt-timeline in the first film. Use Spock as a framing Device, telling the story of their first meeting, Had they done that this Khan story would have never happened
Yeah but if the success of these films, leads to Trek on TV like this series of films, I'll stick with what I already have its enough
I'd hope that his was the more serious post (TUC was a disappointment, IMO) and that the "is EVERYONE ON DRUGS?!" post was the merely sarcastic one, given with tongue firmly in cheek.This is one of those sarcastic posts right?
OK, now I think that I'M the one trapped in an alternate universe! What kind of topsy turvy world has STID>ST:TUC????
I'm just going to leave now.
EDIT: People are creaming their pants over this movie for the same reasons that people heaved dung at Nemesis... this whole thing really has me baffled. I'm questioning my own sanity right now... am I even awake?
A movie is not a story, and a story is not a plot. This narrowness and misunderstanding is, in fact, where a lot of fan critics fail.
You may not need to see a film in order to decide to dislike it, but you do have to see it for your criticism of it to have any validity worthy of addressing as such.
Respecting the right of people to hold any opinion they please is not the same as the content of the opinion itself being worthy of respect.
Pass.
STAR TREK IS: Space opera, action and adventure, playing fast and loose with real science to make it fit whatever serves the plot. Character chemistry, interaction, making the story play well onscreen. Characters are the focus. It's fun, memorable (or not), and fun. Talky, unless budget allows a good shoot em up. Total make believe, escapism.
STAR TREK IS NOT: The history of the future, a plan for the course of humanity through the next few hundred years, a serious study of what can be accomplished if we are only intelligent enough to pursue it. Not a theology, not a religion.
People get way too serious about this stuff. Star Trek was very nearly dead more than once in the last 45 years. We've had more chances than a lot of fans get with their favorites.
Sit back and enjoy the ride.
STAR TREK IS NOT: The history of the future, a plan for the course of humanity through the next few hundred years, a serious study of what can be accomplished if we are only intelligent enough to pursue it. Not a theology, not a religion.
People get way too serious about this stuff. Star Trek was very nearly dead more than once in the last 45 years. We've had more chances than a lot of fans get with their favorites.
Sit back and enjoy the ride.
I know the whole story. Its all over this thread. I don't have to go see it to know I don't like the story.I'm praising it - success is its own defense.
Of course, having seen it I'm in a position to have an informed opinion.
I read what was here also and still saw the movie. I loved it. In fact, it was better than most were describing it.
Unfortunately, any comment or criticism you would try to say about this movie and not being one who's seen it gives you no credibility whatsoever.
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Poll
