The spoilers aren't going down very well across the other forums I frequent. I know forums online are not an accurate barometer of all the audience of a movie but over the next few weeks the bad buzz from these spoilers are going to gradually filter around the internet and even those who do not read the spoilers will get that bad buzz. If the reviews end up mixed or bad this movie will not get to $200 million in NA imho. If the reviews are good then theres nothing to worry about. I know there are a handful of positive reviews out there at the moment but there is a long way to go yet before we see what the consensus is amongst the critics.
STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]
- Thread starter Agent Richard07
- Start date
Most, if not all, of this bad buzz is from people who haven't even seen the movie yet. Reviews from those who have seen it and who write articles people might actually read, are for the most part positive.
I think it will be fine in the end. We'll see.
Actually, that is my favourite Bond film, storywise and only the fact that Lazenby, rather than Connery, is Bond in that film prevents it from being my favourite Bond film period. It is far from being the worst film in the series (I think Moonraker and View to a Kill duke it out for that dubious honour--and You Only Live Twice is a disappointment if I put on my 'critical viewing' cap). On Her Majesty's Secret Service hews more closely to its source novel than most of the other films (if not all) and is definitely in my top five Bond movies of all time. Sorry.
On her majesty is the second best Bond film and my personal favorite
Lazenby is by far the second best Bond and could very well have been the greatest had he stayed with the Franchise and had the films not decided to go campy (which they may have not done had he stayed and Diamonds became the revenge flick it was supposed to be)
Lazenby is by far the second best Bond and could very well have been the greatest had he stayed with the Franchise and had the films not decided to go campy (which they may have not done had he stayed and Diamonds became the revenge flick it was supposed to be)
Count me in as another one who likes OHMSS & Lazenby 
It's actually explicitly clear that he did not, and if you'd reread carefully you'd see that. If he "accused" DalekJim of anything it's that he would not tell the truth.
Digging in on this only compounds the silliness of the misunderstanding.
On Her Majesty's Secret Service is a great Bond movie, BTW.
The following review by Matthew Leyland in "Total Film" just went up on Rotten Tomatoes. It's a rave without gushing and with some minimal criticisms.
The bad buzz some sense going around forums could be a case of nerves fueled by those who see the movie as contrary to the "vision thing" or those jumping to half-formed conclusions based on what we know so far.
Deep breaths, folks. Deep breaths. Still a long way to go.
Here's the review by Matthew Leyland (oh, it's spoiler free, by the way):
http://www.totalfilm.com/reviews/cinema/star-trek-into-darkness
The following review by Matthew Leyland in "Total Film" just went up on Rotten Tomatoes. It's a rave without gushing and with some minimal criticisms.
The bad buzz some sense going around forums could be a case of nerves fueled by those who see the movie as contrary to the "vision thing" or those jumping to half-formed conclusions based on what we know so far.
Deep breaths, folks. Deep breaths. Still a long way to go.
Here's the review by Matthew Leyland (oh, it's spoiler free, by the way):
http://www.totalfilm.com/reviews/cinema/star-trek-into-darkness
Don't put too much stock in the critics' reviews. There have been many films they've gushed over, which ordinary movie goers thought were terrible.
All I know is that I'll fall out of my chair if a Star Trek movie is offered as an example...
First Contact is a profound and moving examination of the human condition. It presents us with a deeply affecting philosophical treatise on what it truly means to be very angry at space zombies.
It also thoughtfully and deftly tackles the daring topic of gun control. As Picard and his machine gun begin to mow down everything in the room, I was left thinking-
-oh, who am I kidding?
.
The following review by Matthew Leyland in "Total Film" just went up on Rotten Tomatoes. It's a rave without gushing and with some minimal criticisms.
The bad buzz some sense going around forums could be a case of nerves fueled by those who see the movie as contrary to the "vision thing" or those jumping to half-formed conclusions based on what we know so far.
Deep breaths, folks. Deep breaths. Still a long way to go.
Here's the review by Matthew Leyland (oh, it's spoiler free, by the way):
http://www.totalfilm.com/reviews/cinema/star-trek-into-darkness
Don't put too much stock in the critics' reviews. There have been many films they've gushed over, which ordinary movie goers thought were terrible.
True, but it's definitely better to get good reviews before your big premiere than to get bad ones.
What happens after that remains to be seen.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
Crikey I need to watch OHMSS then because all these years I've skipped it!
When it comes to Bond movies though I actually like the Moore ones
OHMSS has some spectacular action, fine location work and a great John Barry score but those aspects and the folks back at HQ are about all it has in common with the Moore pictures, so be warned. If you could cut most of the stupidity out of FOR YOUR EYES ONLY, that'd be the only Moore it might even slightly resemble.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
All I know is that I'll fall out of my chair if a Star Trek movie is offered as an example...
First Contact is a profound and moving examination of the human condition. It presents us with a deeply affecting philosophical treatise on what it truly means to be very angry at space zombies.
It also thoughtfully and deftly tackles the daring topic of gun control. As Picard and his machine gun begin to mow down everything in the room, I was left thinking-
-oh, who am I kidding?
.
man, don't stop! When I was reading that, i was imagining Seth Rogan saying this to Paul Rudd, and damn it was funny!
The following review by Matthew Leyland in "Total Film" just went up on Rotten Tomatoes. It's a rave without gushing and with some minimal criticisms.
The bad buzz some sense going around forums could be a case of nerves fueled by those who see the movie as contrary to the "vision thing" or those jumping to half-formed conclusions based on what we know so far.
Deep breaths, folks. Deep breaths. Still a long way to go.
Here's the review by Matthew Leyland (oh, it's spoiler free, by the way):
http://www.totalfilm.com/reviews/cinema/star-trek-into-darkness
Don't put too much stock in the critics' reviews. There have been many films they've gushed over, which ordinary movie goers thought were terrible.
To be sure. And we also have a small number of reviews, so far (that have been quite positive). Still, it's better than the reviews correlating with any negative buzz (which has to be based on only one the real spoiler-ladened synopsis that we know of, so far -- the one linked to in this thread).
I will say that a consensus of critics' reviews is something to take stock in, though. Especially for those who may be curious.
What I think most people are hung up on is the whole "magic blood" thing. The other thing could be those hung up on Khan being a lily-white Englishman. More's the pity for them if they let that spoil the movie for them.
Magic blood and what is done with it is definitely the main issue I think people are having and Khan coming in second because Hollywood has whitewashed a character again and because its not original. We have no idea how the magic blood scenes are handled in the movie and therefore we cannot comment. We can only think it sounds stupid on paper and remind ourselves that stranger things have happened in Star Trek. Someone who is not as familiar with Star Trek may have a harder time 'coming to terms' with it.
On that subject of magic blood, this happened in a Voyager episode where Neelix was brought back from an away mission dead and Seven of Nine injected nanoprobes to revive him. Nanoprobes are basically her borg blood. I know its just a throwaway episode but I had no issue with that, it was just a normal Trek thing Maybe there are other times in Trek this plot device is used and I have forgot about it.
Maybe there are other times in Trek this plot device is used and I have forgot about it.
Last edited:
I don't want to know exactly how this pans out, I am looking forward to seeing it for myself but ideally I would imagine Kirk is pronounced clinically dead and due to the effects of what has killed him it seems clear to McCoy or Spock etc that they will be unable to revive him. In the critical window of several minutes after Kirk has died perhaps someone is able to snap out of their grief for a moment and remember Khans blood and its ability to regenerate cells in the body and it *might* revive him but they do not know for sure and that is when they administer it.
The only other way is if Kirk is immediately placed into some form of stasis or even a cyrogenic chamber until they can apprehend Khan and get some of his blood knowing that it may revive Kirk but I think the first version plays out better in my head.
The only other way is if Kirk is immediately placed into some form of stasis or even a cyrogenic chamber until they can apprehend Khan and get some of his blood knowing that it may revive Kirk but I think the first version plays out better in my head.
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Poll
