Re: If Star Trek Beyond Is The Last Film Should They Start NuTNG or Re
I own and play both! It is just a great time to be alive. Thinking about buying an Atari 5200 sometime this Summer, haven't played Dreadnaught Factor in forever!
You can actually play Atari 2600 games? :P I, who's two favorite games are on the Super NES, cannot even go that primitive. Pac-Man on there....
First of all, ID is a dumb film. Well, that's fine that others treat it as such. For me, it is a highly enjoyable, psychological romp through the consequences of both Kirk's choices, Spock's choices, and the overall consequences of Nero's attack.
Dumb films can be fun, Into Darkness just isn't fun. It could just be context, I guess I just expect more from Star Trek. Then again, even as an action film, it kinda sucks IMO. Want a good dumb action film? Watch Commando or The Last Stand.
Is it for everyone? Certainly not, but I do not buy in to the idea that ID is a "dumb action film" and really wish that phrase could be stricken from common vernacular
Didn't you just say it's a dumb film? Well, it won't be stricken from the vernacular because it is dumb.
Second, "magic blood." I can't fault the writers for this, since as
BillJ pointed out, Space Seed establishes Khan's regenerative abilities. In addition, modern medical science has various uses for human blood, and the term
"blood doping" is used in reference to athletes who use pharmaceutical and blood transfusion to boost oxygen capacity.
Platelet therapy is also used in wound healing, among other uses.
Finally, how many times has Trek made amazing circumstances or scientific discoveries, only to never acknowledged them again? How about the episode where the transporter is used to cure Pulaski's premature, advanced aging, due to genetically engineered humans? Or even McCoy's cure for aging in "The Deadly Years?"
I don't know why we're trying to say this is scientific. It's as unrealistic as warp drive, if not more so. But it makes even less sense, because A. why would humanity abandon the cure for death, and B. this:
That whole super-soldier blood thing
Kirk dies in this film. Well, for a bit. Fortunately for Kirk it turns out Khan's super-engineered blood seemingly cures the body of, well, everything. Kirk's luck doubles when Bones accidentally discovers the potential power of Khan's blood after injecting it into a dead tribble and... wait, why is Bones injecting blood into dead things? Anyway, long story short: Khan has magic blood and they use it to revive Kirk after a very convenient series of last-second events.
The problem with this isn't the fact that they've now effectively cured death for every living thing with veins, but how this development was tied into the plot. By this point in the film we know that The Enterprise is carrying a payload of 72 missiles containing Khan's super friends. Bones could have used blood from any of these, but instead we're treated to a foot chase across future LA. It's only when we realise that Bones would actually have had to remove one of the frozen soldiers to freeze Kirk's body that the whole injecting-blood-into-dead-things makes sense (I don't think he's too bright).
And whilst we're on the point, the foot chase itself is just an excuse to get Uhura and Spock together so they can realise they love each other by beating on a man who only wanted to get some revenge on the people who betrayed him. They do this by beaming Uhura - the ship translator - down into the melee, rather than five security officers. But if they can do that, surely there's no reason why they couldn't beam Khan straight into the brig? In fact Khan does precisely this not long before. But then I guess we'd never have got to see Spock do a Hulk-out, and punching things is so cool.
http://www.theshiznit.co.uk/feature/the-5-million-dumbest-things-about-star-trek-into-darkness.php
and the tone is certainly a marked change from TMP. I appreciate the visuals, but the story beats are hit and miss for me.
Isn't Star Trek 1 often called the "motionless picture"? I've never finished it, and have only seen a the whole thing via Nostalgia Critic.
Ha! Somone uses gaming as an analogy for going backwards and making things too simple, and they're using
playstation as the 'better' option?
*puts on snob glasses*
Pffft, console gamers...
The Playstation line up is probably the greatest lineup of any console, and I'm a Nintendophile.
Never been a problem in my eyes, America and therefor Los Angeles either wasn't involved in the war at all or it was yet another far away battlefield for American troops.
I like Federation: First 150 Year's cop out, that we're in some different timeline, thus the Eugenics Wars never occurred.
Unfortunately for you, board rules state you're not allowed to comment on other posters. Posts, not posters. Which is why with the benefit of a little thought, I am just going to back away and leave that whole issue be. It's not worth what could happen if I continue egging that discussion on.
I don't even know what are you talking about?
-Rolling Stone pegging it as 'witty'
-WSJ claiming it has a 'lippy regard for cultural legacy',
-Entertainment Weekly 'everything you'd want in Star Trek movie',
-LA Times has it 'satisfying all basic Trekkie cravings',
-USA Today 'Thrilling spectacle with noteworthy moments of intimacy',
-Chicago Tribune "The human element, and the Vulcan element, to say nothing of various other species, are present, accounted for and taken seriously enough to matter",
-Slant 'densely plotted, but the clarity of direction keeps the drama',
-New York Magazine/Vulture "Abrams has a gift for making us feel as if Star Trek Into Darkness vaulted from our own Trek-ish daydreams."
-Times 'alternates between silly and Shakespearean.' Keep in mind this is just the ones I can see on first glance (there's more below the scroll), and it's just the ones who mention the actual plot and writing in the couple or so lines on Rotten Tomatoes page (most of the tiny summaries don't go into detail at all, and just say 'Tis good, go see it.') Yes there are some calling it dumb, but it's hardly 'most' critics. What I find funny is that you're summation ('fun but dumb') pretty much covers all the negative reviews, not the overwhelmingly positive majority. I suppose you could claim that's the majority if you skip all the ones that contradict your assertion, but that would be silly. Oh, and even they tend to sing Abrams praises for his direction.
You're really going to make me read through Rotten Tomatoes? Okay...
"The 9/11-style attack on London at the film's beginning is followed by backstory upon cover story and bright rhetoric soars and false flags are planted. They darkly wave. Political opportunity is not wasted on ready opportunists."
"In terms of sheer spectacle, there's no denying that it delivers. For all the build-up, hype, and hope leading up to the film, it's just a shame there isn't a whole lot more."
"The effects are exhilarating, even in these jaded post-3D days, and there are enough action set-pieces, humour and character development to distract from a plot that isn't exactly sci-fi's final frontier."
"It's generally a lot of fun, but it's exhausting, and the busyness only somewhat disguises the fact that the story doesn't entirely make sense."
"...a terminally perfunctory followup that just barely gets the job done.."
And this is just on the first page. Need I go on? My point being that even positive reception says its stupid.
I also didn't give TWOK a 10. It's an 8/10 film that got an extra point from me for pure enjoyment. For me 10/10 is near flawless, which TWOK is most definitely not.
Ok?
Orci and Kurtzmen only did two of the Transformers movies - the first of which was actually pretty well received. Theyre also producers on Transformers Prime, which was very well received by fans and critics. So your point was? Shall we play the game of combing through the filmography of every other major Trek writer? Coz the latest batch aren't the ones who are going to come out looking the worst off - they never wrote 'Endgame' or 'These Are the Voyages...'
The Transformers films are well regarded as some of the most retarded shlock to come out of Hollywood, so I'm not sure where you're going with this. When it comes to pure dumb in Trek, I'd say the Abrams films are on top. Not the worst though, film or otherwise. But certainly the most brainless.
I also have a question. If the critics opinions don't matter to you, why on earth are you trying to push that they actually agree with you?
People said critics disagree with me, as if that's some argument, so I'm simply showing otherwise.
The trouble is it's a clash of cultures basically. There's two groups of people who enjoy the larger Trek but in differing ways, you can see the clash clearly in arguments such as this. Recently a simple editorial cartoon put it perfectly.
It's the difference between 'fans' and 'fanboys'. Those who can acknowledge the flaws without brow-beating others into submission are 'fans', those who cannot accept the flaws and will argue till their dying breath are 'fanboys'.
Well to be a fanboy you'd have to defend the franchise and basically anything in it. I think a lot of "old" Trek is garbage too, most of it actually. TNG and DS9 are great series, but everything else is hit or miss, or just plain crappy. So I'd say defending substandard films is more fanboyish :P
So I think "Space Seed" gives them wiggle room.
So refusing to die = magic blood? I didn't know that's what they were going for in the '60s. I figured it was just an off-handed comment on his resilience. If the argument is Trek is full of nonscientific silly fluff, yeah that's true, but some things are just too much of a stretch even in this context. At least IMO.
You mean technology that got lost after a devastating war where, as Spock points out, whole populations were being bombed out of existence?
I thought genetic engineering was established as being banned in the Trek universe, not that any knowledge on it was lost, which I guess would be a better argument why not, but they act like it's something they've never heard of. Also, does the Abrams films even follow this storyline, they never even explain anything about where Khan is from or anything about the "Eugenics Wars". None of this makes it any less silly or fill in the massive plotholes.
Ban or not, I don't see any human society giving up a cure for death.
Why is it too much of a stretch for fiction when, in the real world, we're beginning to use blood and other components of the human anatomy to help with disease? Why is it too much of a stretch when, in the real world, we are able to bring people back from being clinically dead?
Because a magic cure for death is silly, what else can I say? I'm not sure why I have to explain this. I didn't make up the "magic blood" name for this anyway XD
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=into+darkness+magic+blood
It was fun to watch. It amazes me how joyless some people's lives actually are.
I'm watching Space Battleship Yamato 2199 right now, you'd likely have a stroke based on your reactions to the Abrams films. But it is flat fucking fun to watch.
Looked it up, it's some anime, and I'm not into anime, mostly because it's cheesy and for kids. I guess TOS kind of reminds me of an anime with a lot of its silliness, but it's a million times more intelligent though than Japanese cartoons.
Why should The Wrath of Khan (a movie I love) be given a '10' when it has as many brainless gaffes as Star Trek Into Darkness?
Just an opinion. But it does? If you nitpick any film, you'll find stupid and silly things, but to me, that's just a stupid practice. To me, it's as flawless as a Trek film can get, and most Trek films are just blegh.
