Look closer, they did have assistance - unless humans have found a way to shoot bubbles from their feet in the 23rd century.
(and it was Kirk and McCoy, not Spock!)
(and it was Kirk and McCoy, not Spock!)
STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]
- Thread starter Agent Richard07
- Start date
Ah forgot about that.
Thanks... it was easy to get them mixed up
.Still am not a fan of the movie though.
Eh, maybe not so odd....
What I said about it on another forum...
...
Star Trek and rap music = wth? moment to me, imo. Current or not, it just seems rather odd
...
It's his opinion, and this is the place for him to have posted it. Now that he's watched the movie at last, it's reassuring to know that kirk555555's review is consistent with the grade he voted in the poll many months ago.
I will give you the Khan scream and rip off scene of Kirk's death as been far from great but saying Pine, Saldana and Zachary are horrible actors is not criticism. It is not even bad criticism. it is hate speech.
If there is anything both JJ Trek's film has been praised for is how the acting is always excellent and how the ensemble cast are all brilliant and work together well.
You are so talking out of spite and hate.
No one is obligated to agree with everything or anything expressed therein. However, it's also best to confine criticism of any poster's review to its content and to leave any criticism of the reviewer unspoken.
Um right, so he voted months ago and just saw it? Yeah that's a valid criticism. More like spouting verbatim what the minority criticisms are of the movie amongst trek fans.
It's true I haven't read much of this thread, so, there may be a lot in this thread, but, of the criticisms I see common throughout the rest of the board, I've gotta say that he has come up with a new criticism, in saying Quinto, Pine and Saldana all were horrible actors. I haven't seen that criticism (And I personally don't agree with it, but, as far as I've seen, it is an original criticism)It's his opinion, and this is the place for him to have posted it. Now that he's watched the movie at last, it's reassuring to know that kirk555555's review is consistent with the grade he voted in the poll many months ago.I will give you the Khan scream and rip off scene of Kirk's death as been far from great but saying Pine, Saldana and Zachary are horrible actors is not criticism. It is not even bad criticism. it is hate speech.
If there is anything both JJ Trek's film has been praised for is how the acting is always excellent and how the ensemble cast are all brilliant and work together well.
You are so talking out of spite and hate.
No one is obligated to agree with everything or anything expressed therein. However, it's also best to confine criticism of any poster's review to its content and to leave any criticism of the reviewer unspoken.
Um right, so he voted months ago and just saw it? Yeah that's a valid criticism. More like spouting verbatim what the minority criticisms are of the movie amongst trek fans.
It's his opinion, and this is the place for him to have posted it. Now that he's watched the movie at last, it's reassuring to know that kirk555555's review is consistent with the grade he voted in the poll many months ago.I will give you the Khan scream and rip off scene of Kirk's death as been far from great but saying Pine, Saldana and Zachary are horrible actors is not criticism. It is not even bad criticism. it is hate speech.
If there is anything both JJ Trek's film has been praised for is how the acting is always excellent and how the ensemble cast are all brilliant and work together well.
You are so talking out of spite and hate.
No one is obligated to agree with everything or anything expressed therein. However, it's also best to confine criticism of any poster's review to its content and to leave any criticism of the reviewer unspoken.
Um right, so he voted months ago and just saw it? Yeah that's a valid criticism. More like spouting verbatim what the minority criticisms are of the movie amongst trek fans.
RAMA, you've been here more than long enough to know that critique of a mod advisory is properly conducted via PM or the "Notify Moderator" function, not in open thread. That you disregard that to lay on an example of the very thing I was in that post cautioning against—seven weeks after the fact, no less—well, that will earn you a warning. Comments to PM, please.
Say what you will about it, seems people liked it: Into Darkness CNN #2 Favorite Readers' Pick Of 2013 Hunger. Games was the only movie that beat it out.
The movie was a solid C. What saved it from a D was the awesome special FX, but sorry, one main criteria I have for a Trek movie is re-watch-ability for me. This is as re-watchable as Nemesis or Insurrection, as in it has none.
Points I liked:
1. Cumberbach's acting
2. I did like seeing Peter Weller
3. The USS Vengeance
4.Enterprise rising out of the ocean
5.Pleased to see that the Klingons weren't SO different in appearance from the Prime universe, yet different look for a new feel.
Things I disliked:
1.Gawd, why reboot a series than rip off TWOK in the process, under the guise of being a "homage." Spock screaming Khan, especially. Talk about COMPLETELY missing the boat on going in a new direction! Wasn't that the whole point of bringing in Abrams to "revitalize" the franchise? They could have hired B&B do this movie.
2. Klingons need to lose the Spartan helms and the trench coats. They look kinda ridiculous.
3. JJ Abrams' interpretations of villain aliens need to use rogain!
4. Khan! I mean, WHY? before the lame reveal, John Harrison worked just fine as a villain in his own right.
5. Uhura nagging Spock all the time
6. I love all the fanboys who rave how STID is soo "innovative" but how many corrupt admirals are we going to see in star fleet? TUC and Insurrection covered that, already.
7. Magic blood!
8. Tribbles!
9. The fact that Star Trek 2009 is far superior. This one should have been better.
Points I liked:
1. Cumberbach's acting
2. I did like seeing Peter Weller
3. The USS Vengeance
4.Enterprise rising out of the ocean
5.Pleased to see that the Klingons weren't SO different in appearance from the Prime universe, yet different look for a new feel.
Things I disliked:
1.Gawd, why reboot a series than rip off TWOK in the process, under the guise of being a "homage." Spock screaming Khan, especially. Talk about COMPLETELY missing the boat on going in a new direction! Wasn't that the whole point of bringing in Abrams to "revitalize" the franchise? They could have hired B&B do this movie.
2. Klingons need to lose the Spartan helms and the trench coats. They look kinda ridiculous.
3. JJ Abrams' interpretations of villain aliens need to use rogain!
4. Khan! I mean, WHY? before the lame reveal, John Harrison worked just fine as a villain in his own right.
5. Uhura nagging Spock all the time
6. I love all the fanboys who rave how STID is soo "innovative" but how many corrupt admirals are we going to see in star fleet? TUC and Insurrection covered that, already.
7. Magic blood!
8. Tribbles!
9. The fact that Star Trek 2009 is far superior. This one should have been better.
"Innovative"? I don't recall much raving about that going on.
Here's a suggestion: Why not stick to discussing the movie and/or comments which have been made here, and just leave out backhanded swipes at any fan groups for things they haven't actually said?
EVERYONE HATES STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS!!! EVERYONE!!!
How dare you bring in evidence that suggests otherwise!
*goes to dark place to sob because of your obvious attempts at cruelty*
How could you not like tribbles? My 5 year old says thats the best thing about Star Trek.
You're not a Klingon, are you?
A tribble saved the life of Captain Kirk. Somewhere, David Gerrold wept with joy.
Do you know this for a fact that no one anywhere raved about how innovated STID was? Are you a fan boy? Do you speak for all fan boys everywhere? No? Then here's a suggestion: Settle down, Beavis, lighten up, and quit looking to be offended at a figure of speech expressing an opinion about a movie (that IS what we are all doing here, after all), that wasn't even directed at you.
I rest my case
I'm a moderator in this forum. As such, I'm reasonably familiar with what's been said here and with what hasn't, and I was offering you some friendly advice.
Just doing my job, Butthead, so settle down and lighten up, yourself.
As a general rule, speaking to the topic or to the content of posts made by others is the way to go; taking potshots at the people making those comments or at "fanboys" who are supposed to have said a thing some vague somewhere, not so much. In short: post, not poster. Master that, and you might go far.
so when kirk makes his speech at the end of the movie, he said "nearly a year" had passed since all of the events prior to the epilogue happened, so does that mean it is now 2260? or is it still 2259?
I think what's good about this movie is that, should they ever do a sequel to the Khan story in the future, say when Kirk is getting up in age and Khan steals a ship to take revenge on Kirk and Spock, we know for a 100% definitive fact that Chekov was in Engineering the entire time Khan was aboard the Enterprise, should Khan try to remember any faces in the future.
It's probably 2260.
I'd guess 2260, since the movie starts on 2259.55.
It's interesting to note that according to the Best Buy ID extras the one-year gap was added in post production, merely by adding a pause to Kirk's speech. The After Darkness comics (which were probably written after seeing an early cut of the movie) ignore the gap altogether.
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRlSUPDytYg[/yt]
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Poll
