STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

[Noname Given]

Why not? Standards change, as we're talking taste here.

Again, simple fairness. You can't bust JJ Abrams nuts over some of the sillier things he's done with the reboots and let Gene Roddenberry, Berman, Braga, all have a pass for equally silly/same things.

Of course you can. Since when is taste fair? If you don't like the overall film, of course you find flaws in it. Sole nitpicks are never the reason people don't like a film, they are only symptoms picked as examples in discussions.


Discussions here usually go this way:

Person 1: I fucking loved it.
Person 2: Yeah, it was great.
Person 3: I want babies with it.
Person 4: Meh, I didn't like it.
Person 1: Why?
Person 2: Why?!
Person 3: WHY?!?!
Person 4: Yeah, you know, because of this and that and those and these.
And the shitstorm begins where Person 4 has to defend his opinion down to the tiniest detail against those other people. And eventually Person 4 gets bullied into argument corners and then labelled as butthurt or extremely nerdy, who "can't enjoy something for what it is", or who is on a hate quest against the director/cast/writer.

It also goes the other way round when the majority dislikes a film and someone comes in saying he liked it.

No it's usually:


Person 4: I hated it because to me, it 'Not Trek'. (Usually followed by - Now <insert earlier Star Trek film that Person 4 loved here> was Star Trek at it's best...

Person 1: But <insert earlier Star Trek film that Person 4 loved here> did exactly what you're nitpicking STID for; so why is <insert earlier Star Trek film that Person 4 loved here> Trek and STID 'Not Trek'?...
....

And then the discussion continues...

 

[SeerSGB]

It's New Coke versus Coke Classic is what it is. Tastes about the same, but you'll never get some people to admit to it.

 

[Hober Mallow]

It's New Coke versus Coke Classic is what it is. Tastes about the same, but you'll never get some people to admit to it.

New Coke tasted nothing like Coke classic. New Coke tasted like Pepsi.

 

[Opus]

You know what I hate?

Of course you don't, because I don't waste my time complaining days, weeks, months and years at a time about things I don't like, including specific incarnations of Trek!

And I hated New Coke!

 

[suarezguy]

How is occasionally (hardly continuously) talking about what you disliked about something weeks or months (years is probably excessive) after you watched it more of a waste than praising aspects weeks, month or years afterwards?

 

[Saul]

I found it to be a very entertaining movie. Predictable though. I think as a sequel the 2009 film which I was disappointed by they did a good job and they chucked in a lot of stuff I can Trekgeek out over. But that Vengeance ship looks crap and that's mostly because of it's humongous size.

 

[RAMA]

I found it to be a very entertaining movie. Predictable though. I think as a sequel the 2009 film which I was disappointed by they did a good job and they chucked in a lot of stuff I can Trekgeek out over. But that Vengeance ship looks crap and that's mostly because of it's humongous size.

What a silly statement. It was designed to to exactly what is states in the movie, to be overpowered and fight threats like Nero and Klingons. Its over-armored, brutish and less aesthetically pleasing than other UFP ships but it has it's own charm. It's a challenge coming up with something similar but different.

 

[AUbricklogic]

I still like them as entertainment pieces but when I watch the 2009 and STID movies, I feel exactly like Guinan did in "Yesterday's Enterprise" when everything went all dark and military.

 

[CorporalClegg]

I still like them as entertainment pieces but when I watch the 2009 and STID movies, I feel exactly like Guinan did in "Yesterday's Enterprise" when everything went all dark and military.

You mean like this?

 

[mlk]

I saw this movie today, I like to think I have an open mind and I really think it's a good movie, it's definately Star Trek.

So why do I have this 'feeling' that I simply don't really care.. Why don't I care when Kirk 'dies' ?

I think the simple answer is the fact that we don't really know these characters.. Sure they are 'kirk' and 'spock' but in reality they aren't the Spock and Kirk we grew up with, and the problem the reboot have is that it doesn't have a tv-show in its back where we have come to learn, to know and to care about these people. Without that tv-show it's simply not as dramatic as it could be.

I gave the movie a A- but Star Trek's backbone is the TV-show I realize that now.

 

[SeerSGB]

Into Darkness is Rotten Tomatoes #7 Summer Movie Of 2013

Critics Consensus: Visually spectacular and suitably action packed, Star Trek Into Darkness is a rock-solid installment in the venerable sci-fi franchise, even if it's not as fresh as its predecessor.

Not bad, not bad at all. A little surprised, thought it;d be a little lower down

 

[BillJ]

I'm still surprised Into Darkness didn't do better at the box office. The only films that ranked higher on that list were independent, non-action films.

 

[Shazam!]

I found it to be a very entertaining movie. Predictable though. I think as a sequel the 2009 film which I was disappointed by they did a good job and they chucked in a lot of stuff I can Trekgeek out over. But that Vengeance ship looks crap and that's mostly because of it's humongous size.

What a silly statement. It was designed to to exactly what is states in the movie, to be overpowered and fight threats like Nero and Klingons. Its over-armored, brutish and less aesthetically pleasing than other UFP ships but it has it's own charm. It's a challenge coming up with something similar but different.

I like how all the praise Saul gave the movie is ignored whereas a subjctive opinion on the look of a spaceship is merciless jumped on and torn to shreds.

Kinda lends credence to this...

And the shitstorm begins where Person 4 has to defend his opinion down to the tiniest detail against those other people.

 

[M'Sharak]

I found it to be a very entertaining movie. Predictable though. I think as a sequel the 2009 film which I was disappointed by they did a good job and they chucked in a lot of stuff I can Trekgeek out over. But that Vengeance ship looks crap and that's mostly because of it's humongous size.

What a silly statement. It was designed to to exactly what is states in the movie, to be overpowered and fight threats like Nero and Klingons. Its over-armored, brutish and less aesthetically pleasing than other UFP ships but it has it's own charm. It's a challenge coming up with something similar but different.

I like how all the praise Saul gave the movie is ignored whereas a subjctive opinion on the look of a spaceship is merciless jumped on and torn to shreds.

Kinda lends credence to this...

And the shitstorm begins where Person 4 has to defend his opinion down to the tiniest detail against those other people.

Nope.

It might, if Saul was in any way obligated to defend his opinion, or if one more drive-by dose of the Same Old Smug™ from RAMA was in any way equivalent to being "merciless jumped on and torn to shreds" by "those other people".

But he's not, it's not, and you've got naught but more of the Same Old Drive-by Shazam™. You may sit down now, and thank you for your contribution.

(And if, in the future, you have any actual problems to report, please do so by making use of the Notify Moderator button [

] on the pertinent post. - M')

 

[CorporalClegg]

I'm still surprised Into Darkness didn't do better at the box office. The only films that ranked higher on that list were independent, non-action films.

I'm pretty sure it all comes down to the marketing and the release schedule.

Funny thing, I've noticed over the last few days that a couple of websites Amazon and Best Buy I think, have "Khan" right in the item description for the DVD/Bluray I wonder if Paramount has realized its mistake?

 

[F. King Daniel]

^They do name Khan on the back of the DVD box. No mention of "John Harrison"

 

[Shazam!]

I'm still surprised Into Darkness didn't do better at the box office. The only films that ranked higher on that list were independent, non-action films.

I'm pretty sure it all comes down to the marketing and the release schedule.

I highly doubt it ALL came down to marketing and release schedule.

 

[judgeroy]

LOL. I read a very interesting article in Forbes today that talked about "entitled" fans and how the scream and squall about their favorite series/franchise and take to the internet and raise a huge fuss over every detail and how that has negatively effected shows/films. IMHO, this is a big part of why STID didn't do as well as it could have in the US market. Look, fanbois took to every forum in 2009 to wail about how bad the direction JJ and Co were taking the franchise and they kept it up for 3 years, berating any and all news of STID and then when the movie came out, they stepped it up even more. I would bet that many, many people who were interested in watching the movie were put off by all this negativity from the "entitled" fans. In essence all their ranting negated good word of mouth, which is what pulled the 2009 movie up so much. Another good example of this was Man of Steel.

 

[M'Sharak]

LOL. I read a very interesting article in Forbes today that talked about "entitled" fans and <snip>

Would that have been this article?

 

[Opus]

From the Forbes article:

The same film fans who often decry the lack of originality in Hollywood are often the same to crave more variations on that franchise they loved in the 1980′s.

This is the most maddening part in regards to the new Trek universe arguments. The people who hate it can't stand the fact that it's not enough like Star Trek, too much like TOSl, not borrowing enough from the original, borrowing too much, not introducing new characters, not using old characters...

And the merry-go-round goes round and round...