Given the colossal wit and humor necessary to come up with such a groundbreaking insult, I suspect that we're dealing with the some of the finest middle school newspaper critics in the business.
STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]
- Thread starter RAMA
- Start date
Given the colossal wit and humor necessary to come up with such a groundbreaking insult, I suspect that we're dealing with the some of the finest middle school newspaper critics in the business.
It's not Star Trek when it's slow and intellectual and it's not Star Trek when it's fast and action-packed. You can't win with these guys.
Everyone has their personal tastes. Hell, I love The Omega Glory and The Royale.
I kinda liked "Threshold".
The Undiscovered Country was pretty close to being perfect IMHO.
The only thing I can say to that is that anyone who claims to have been a fan of TOS and says that J.J. "Michael Bay" Abrams' films "feel like TOS" are lying, and they either have not seen TOS or they have not seen Abrams' films (or they have not seen either).
So you're calling people liars because they don't have the same opinions on entertainment as you do? Abrams made Star Trek fun for the first time since the early-90's for this fan whose been around since 1975.
*I own Star Trek on Blu-ray and DVD, I own all ten prime timeline films on Blu-ray and DVD, I own Star Trek 2009 on Blu-ray and saw it at the theater four times and I already have Star Trek Into Darkness on Blu-ray pre-order and have been to the theater three times to see it with various members of the family who have all loved it.
Hogwash.
Hell, I just watched the Star Trek Continues fan-film "Pilgrim of Eternity" just a couple of hours ago (I'm sick, I know).
Targwash!
I've been a Trek fan since 1966.
I've seen every TOS episode many, many times.
I've seen Abrams's Trek films multiple times.
STID in particular captures a good deal about TOS that previous TOS-based movies never did.
I'm not lying.
Therefore, your statement is flat-out 100% wrong. That's not an opinion. It's a fact.
Same here. ( Full disclosure, I've only seen STID once)
^^^
You just summed up my feeling about TNG back in 1987. 'Star Trek' was/is the 23rd century for more than 20 years prior to TNG - and IMO - aside from First Contact; all the TNG feature films were borderline unwatchable and came across as horribly expensive, but bad, two hour episodes. YMMV.
Worse than Nemesis? Just goes to show how relative this all is. Even though I found STiD to be a disappointment, I would never be so cruel as to condemn it below Nemeshite.
The stellar RT rating left no doubt in my mind I was going to enjoy the film. I posted here immediately afterwards, dazed and confused. I thought perhaps the stresses of the day had impeded my experience, so held off on a more conclusive judgement until a second viewing. Regrettably, the second viewing was definitive.
So yes, I like to get some digs in after such a letdown. However, I'm not suggesting anyone else *not* enjoy the film.
I've seen TOS movies and episodes continuously since I was around 12. I'm 45 now.
I have to say that this is the first time I've seen these crewmembers this young. Not to mention, a totally new timeline, backstories (especially Kirk and Spock,) and completely different set of circumstances for Starfleet...
The crew is 6 years younger at the start of their first deep space mission than the crew in the original timeline. So naturally, things are going to "feel" different.
Change is good!
For myself, I think I am more forgiving of a film like F6 for being a big action flick than I am of any Star Trek film. I think it is because that it wasn't the action that drew me into the franchise - it was the philosophy. And, for me, it is the philosophy that is lacking in these new films.
JJ Abrams is on record saying that he felt that Star Trek was too philosophical for him. He has created a couple of films that adheres closer to what he is comfortable with.
I know that people will say this film was about drone strikes in a foreign land, but I feel that message was just as soon swept under the rug as it was announced. In F6, from the beginning, this film was about family and the lengths that the lead character played by Vin Diesel went to restoring his fractured family. We start the film with a birth and end the film with a meal shared by family and friends. (I know about the end credits scene, but that is more akin to an epilogue, than the main body of the film.)
Now, if Star Trek had kept its message from beginning to end, I think some of us would be less harsh. Instead, the film fractures into an A Plot (the crazy Admiral attempting to start a war) and a B Plot (Khan attempting to get his crew from that same Admiral with the third act a copy-and-paste with modifiers of TWOK's last act). Why couldn't the film have a simple plot about a Section 31 agent, for he feels that the Admiral is violating the principles that the agent believed that the agency represented when he or she signed up, turning against the Admiral, and needing the protection of Kirk's crew from the Admiral? Kill the Khan plot. Make a Star Trek thriller. (I am thinking of what has recently happened with the NSA revelations.)
The comics set up threads that could have been explored in this film. Sulu was considered a candidate for S31, and Kirk stumbled into a plot hatched by S31, and Pike was warned to keep his protege on a tight leash. Sulu could have used this history to infiltrate S31 to get the truth. And Kirk could have stumbled unto a top secret mission, which would start the film off.
I know this is hindsight; however, I feel the film had potential if it had focused on its message and created a new believable villain. Khan, I feel, is a niche villain who doesn't have the broad appeal of other named villains.
JJ Abrams is on record saying that he felt that Star Trek was too philosophical for him. He has created a couple of films that adheres closer to what he is comfortable with.
I know that people will say this film was about drone strikes in a foreign land, but I feel that message was just as soon swept under the rug as it was announced. In F6, from the beginning, this film was about family and the lengths that the lead character played by Vin Diesel went to restoring his fractured family. We start the film with a birth and end the film with a meal shared by family and friends. (I know about the end credits scene, but that is more akin to an epilogue, than the main body of the film.)
Now, if Star Trek had kept its message from beginning to end, I think some of us would be less harsh. Instead, the film fractures into an A Plot (the crazy Admiral attempting to start a war) and a B Plot (Khan attempting to get his crew from that same Admiral with the third act a copy-and-paste with modifiers of TWOK's last act). Why couldn't the film have a simple plot about a Section 31 agent, for he feels that the Admiral is violating the principles that the agent believed that the agency represented when he or she signed up, turning against the Admiral, and needing the protection of Kirk's crew from the Admiral? Kill the Khan plot. Make a Star Trek thriller. (I am thinking of what has recently happened with the NSA revelations.)
The comics set up threads that could have been explored in this film. Sulu was considered a candidate for S31, and Kirk stumbled into a plot hatched by S31, and Pike was warned to keep his protege on a tight leash. Sulu could have used this history to infiltrate S31 to get the truth. And Kirk could have stumbled unto a top secret mission, which would start the film off.
I know this is hindsight; however, I feel the film had potential if it had focused on its message and created a new believable villain. Khan, I feel, is a niche villain who doesn't have the broad appeal of other named villains.
Last edited: