that was epic.
Paramount/JJ trying another Trek movie (that will probably never get made).
- Thread starter StCoop
- Start date
Into Darkness was The Last Jedi before The Last Jedi. It's the marmite of Trek, you either love it or hate it.
Personally I'm bewildered anyone can say it's a "dumb action movie" when it had the balls to flatly condemn drone warfare during the Bush administrations drone strike campaigns. But sadly, Trekkies only care about continuity minutiae and don't notice when important points are made. And when they do notice it's "too woke"
It’s hardly a “woke” film, with the bidimensional female characters and the bikini carol marcus.
Into Darkness was The Last Jedi before The Last Jedi. It's the marmite of Trek, you either love it or hate it.
Personally I'm bewildered anyone can say it's a "dumb action movie" when it had the balls to flatly condemn drone warfare during the Bush administrations drone strike campaigns. But sadly, Trekkies only care about continuity minutiae and don't notice when important points are made. And when they do notice it's "too woke"
For me a 2 minute scene doesn't make up for a horrible retread of a movie.
How was it a retread? It's got Khan, Carol and an engine room scene but everything is different. Motivations, the themes of the film. Calling it a retread makes me wonder if you've seen Wrath of Khan.
Only a few dozen times. As opposed to the once I sat through Into Darkness.
Then you should probably watch Into Darkness again, your memory is playing tricks
Speaking of continuity minutiae, it came out during Obama's second term.
I'm British
I believe Obama was continuing what Bush began?
Yup. Character arcs and development are secondary to minutia.
I remember there was a hail storm or criticism for that Carol Marcus underwear scene, as if some didn't see the entirety of the feature because those kinds of moments were spread out through the sequel and it was sprinkled as well in the 1st movie leading with Zoe Saldana. Almost felt as if some saw the trailer and the TV spots of the movie and went on blast.
Because Star Trek has never ever used titillating costumes on its female characters before ...I remember there was a hail storm or criticism for that Carol Marcus underwear scene, as if some didn't see the entirety of the feature because those kinds of moments were spread out through the sequel and it was sprinkled as well in the 1st movie leading with Zoe Saldana. Almost felt as if some saw the trailer and the TV spots of the movie and went on blast.
But it landed well when Zoe Saldana had a similar, much longer sequence???
And it's got the Spock Yell. Which I never understood all the hate for. Khan's name being yelled is a fixed point in time, someone does it in every Universe.
Fair enough, I guess...I didn't know offhand where Blair ended and Johnson began, or who was in-between.I'm British
1) those were different times. Things considered OK back then wouldn’t fly today.
2) it was really gratuitous and out of place. I have far less issue with the Orion/uhura scene in the first movie, as it was in their quarters and in a certain context, but carol renaining in underwear out of the blue in that shuttle made zero sense.
Those scenes were stupid. In general I ignore them
I don't mind them because Star Trek did this back in the sixties, episodes such as "Shore Leave", "Wolf in the Fold" or even "Mirror, Mirror" and these elements are part of the franchise. Seems men were more offended by those JJTrek comedic sequences than women. The criticism of Alice Eve underwear scene reminded me of my ex-boyfriend and I were watching "Robocop" there was a scene where Murphy was simply walking in the Police locker room where fellow officers were getting ready for duty. The EX went all crazy about seeing women were in the same locker room undressing and putting on their uniforms as men were beside them doing the same thing. I didn't even noticed it until he drew so much attention to it and claimed he was appalled; I thought the scene passed by fluently and didn't draw anything to go nuts about I mean, Princess Leia was in a slave outfit and it wasn't really necessary for the character to be seen that way but that was the artists' intent and I have no problem with that. There are tons of times I saw men 
take off their clothes for scenes and they had zero motivation but it was there to relieve the tension of a scene and I didn't make a fuss about it. Meh... oh well, now every scene that shows a woman's skin has to make sense.
Can't present art anymore without being offensive, with this kind of bullsh*t every movie will be as sterile as Disney/Marvel product. Very safe, and pedestrian flicks where the only soul the movies have are the trends the studios desperately chases after. Probably why I enjoy tv shows more than movies because the auteurs can't create art anymore just what's safe and clean. Star Trek was never safe... it boldly go. Now I can understand why we got the crap called Star Trek Beyond, it was as lame as a religious film, formulaic and corny.
take off their clothes for scenes and they had zero motivation but it was there to relieve the tension of a scene and I didn't make a fuss about it. Meh... oh well, now every scene that shows a woman's skin has to make sense.Can't present art anymore without being offensive, with this kind of bullsh*t every movie will be as sterile as Disney/Marvel product. Very safe, and pedestrian flicks where the only soul the movies have are the trends the studios desperately chases after. Probably why I enjoy tv shows more than movies because the auteurs can't create art anymore just what's safe and clean. Star Trek was never safe... it boldly go. Now I can understand why we got the crap called Star Trek Beyond, it was as lame as a religious film, formulaic and corny.
Perhaps they were more bothered with Jim being a perv unable to resist looking. Carol was just getting into her flight suit before taking the shuttle down to open a torpedo.
Similar threads
