Home of one of the best lines ever to be retconned![]()
which line..?
Home of one of the best lines ever to be retconned![]()
That Scotty expects Kirk on the Enterprise to be rescuing him.which line..?
In fairness, someone made a collage showing that all the big movie posters for the past couple of years were pretty much identical.I'll also never forgive the Paramount marketing team for this. I'm not saying they sold out; for all we know it could've been the same artist contracted to do all of these. But I still rolled my eyes.
![]()
I'll also never forgive the Paramount marketing team for this. I'm not saying they sold out; for all we know it could've been the same artist contracted to do all of these. But I still rolled my eyes.
![]()
If we can have whole episodes of TNG and DS9 set on Earth, I can handle this.You're right on that. STiD was full of so many images of decaying buildings, skyscrapers toppling over, and other urban destruction porn that I was thinking, "Wait, isn't this a Star Trek movie?"
I am not arguing that is how you felt for you. I just disagree that that is how it felt to me, largely because I have seen Abrams' MI and ID did not feel that way to me.Sure, Star Trek can be lots of things, there's nothing wrong with that.
But it doesn't change that Into Darkness felt like, to me, an unused Mission: Impossible script.
To each their own. I agree on the 4 years for their development as that was way too long, but, I enjoyed the story and themes. Highly relevant, and, as I said upthread, Kirk's development is among the best Trek.I was just hoping that the XI sequel would take advantage of their expanded budget to show them dealing with crazy aliens and alien landscapes - basically the Nibiru scene but expanded into a 2 1/2 hour long movie (with a villain, if necessary) and you could still have the "Kirk probably isn't cut out for command" theme going on.
Instead we got a 9/11 parallel with terrorists, exploding buildings, and special ops; and Khan, because why not. Considering it took 4(!) years to come out, it was baffling and underwhelming.
That Scotty expects Kirk on the Enterprise to be rescuing him.
He didn't have that much to do with MI, as far as I know. That's more Tom Cruise's brainchild. Correct me if I'm wrong, though.I am not arguing that is how you felt for you. I just disagree that that is how it felt to me, largely because I have seen Abrams' MI and ID did not feel that way to me.
I know Abrams was a part of MI: 3 (question mark?) and I recall seeing it in the theater. And, to my eye at least, that plot made a whole lot less sense than ST ID ever did. I at least followed the whole movie from end to end, which is more than I can say for any of my MI viewings (fair warning-haven't seen the last two).He didn't have that much to do with MI, as far as I know. That's more Tom Cruise's brainchild. Correct me if I'm wrong, though.
That being said, I loved the last M:I. I thought it was rad.
...really showing my age, there, aren't I?![]()
He directed part three. Was his first time, I think. But the main producer was Tom Cruise. The last two are pretty good, btw. I just think people often overestimate JJ's involvement in some things, such as LOST, which he had practically zero to do with beyond the pilot.I know Abrams was a part of MI: 3 (question mark?) and I recall seeing it in the theater. And, to my eye at least, that plot made a whole lot less sense than ST ID ever did. I at least followed the whole movie from end to end, which is more than I can say for any of my MI viewings (fair warning-haven't seen the last two).
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.