Doctor Who? Really?
At least Doctor Who stayed as a television series and the character of the Doctor is the same character from the show's beginnings in 1963. No one is afraid of Doctor Who having a huge amount of history.
STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]
- Thread starter Agent Richard07
- Start date
At least Doctor Who stayed as a television series and the character of the Doctor is the same character from the show's beginnings in 1963. No one is afraid of Doctor Who having a huge amount of history.
Modern Doctor Who wasn't rebooted and is proud of its heritage and format. Don't even compare it to this hackish crap.
I'm glad the spoilers have put me off seeing it? Means I've saved a chunk of money and time.
A Wrath of Khan blockbuster pastiche set on Earth and featuring magic blood? The same basic format as the last 2 movies? How retarded do they think the audience is exactly?
Pass.
Wish I hadn't read the spoilers - has put me right off seeing it
I'm glad the spoilers have put me off seeing it? Means I've saved a chunk of money and time.
A Wrath of Khan blockbuster pastiche set on Earth and featuring magic blood? The same basic format as the last 2 movies? How retarded do they think the audience is exactly?
Pass.
I didn't make the comparison; Doctor Who, which I like, is an itty-bitty thing next to Trek and pretty much irrelevant. Your opinion on nuWho is only that and a lot of oldWho fans disagree with you - more than enough to make it comparable in that respect to oldTrek and nuTrek.
It's unsurprising that the few folks who have been determined to dislike this movie from day one dislike what they're hearing now. So what? The movie will be a success and most long-time Star Trek fans will enjoy it, just as we did Abrams's 2009 movie.
The problem is - I know I will still end up seeing it! And then I'll be doubly annoyed with myself afterwards because I knew what I was letting myself in for
It's unsurprising that the few folks who have been determined to dislike this movie from day one dislike what they're hearing now. So what?
No different to the guy who has bent over backwards to blindly support any and every decision made by the Abrams regime? the guy who paraded round the forum with an avatar of JJ Abrams' face?
We like thinking. Deal with it.
The problem is - I know I will still end up seeing it! And then I'll be doubly annoyed with myself afterwards because I knew what I was letting myself in for
I can't justify handing over my money. I'm broke enough as it is and the idea of my money going towards feeding Abrams' slimey face makes me feel physically ill. I assumed these spoilers were a joke when they first came out but they've now been confirmed by several sources.
Star Trek on film is fucking dead to me now. I'll be staying out of this section and focusing on Trek literature to take my minds off this jizz-covered shit. Anti-intellectualism is dangerous and entirely uncool.
Post proof or retract.
It's good news, if true, that folks who made up their minds to hate this movie are "going to save their money" - why should folks who go to the movies to enjoy themselves have to put up with folks who'd show up determined to hate the film?
Because the main thing that matters and determines if a film is good or bad - as you yourself have bleated on this forum so very very many times - is the box office?
Is there possibly a discussion forum somewhere where people could actually discuss the film? Critically or non-critically, but without this juvenile bull* that keeps being popping up here.
This. +1.
I walked into theatre in 2009, and boy was I pumped! Every trailer, every announcement seemed to be just perfect. I was expecting to love this movie to death. It didn't occur for my one moment that I might not love it.
Cue to two hours later.
The design was great. So were the actors. Top-notch effects.
However, I still felt empty, because the writing was unbelievably, carelessly dumb. Broke the movie's back.
Does this mean you're finally shutting the hell up?
Modern Doctor Who wasn't rebooted and is proud of its heritage and format. Don't even compare it to this hackish crap.
Wish I hadn't read the spoilers - has put me right off seeing it
I'm glad the spoilers have put me off seeing it? Means I've saved a chunk of money and time.
A Wrath of Khan blockbuster pastiche set on Earth and featuring magic blood? The same basic format as the last 2 movies? How retarded do they think the audience is exactly?
Pass.
Congratulations. In one post you stretched to both ends of your vocabularly by using "pastiche" and "retarded" just words apart.
The audience will be "retarded" (God, I hate that word) to the tune of $400 or $500 million, minus your $10 or $12.
How much more stupid is "magic blood" than having to believe in TMP that a race of super intelligent machines would be able to enhance a space probe like they did, but still not be smart enough clean it off enough and know that it's called Voyager and not V-ger? When Kirk earnestly cleared that grime away for the big reveal, I actually chuckled in the theater. Probably not the reaction they intended.
So what's this magic blood called?
Red Matter 2: The Sequel.
Genesis Cola?
Anyway, Hollwood rule #1456. Regardless of a character's ethnicity or geographic origin, a villain will always be British.
Red Matter 2: The Sequel.
Genesis Cola?
Anyway, Hollwood rule #1456. Regardless of a character's ethnicity or geographic origin, a villain will always be British.
I don't understand how you folks can say this and at the same time like [ ? ] Nemesis, Insurrection, Generations or the The Final Frontier which were all terrible films, poorly written and conceived. Shit, they weren't even entertaining.
I'm curious - what was the last well written Trek film in your opinion because it hopefully wasn't any of those?
"Successful or unsuccessful." You can call anything you like "good" or "bad."
There aren't enough determined complainers to matter, as has already been demonstrated. The number of fans who are angry enough to stay away is miniscule, a drop in the bucket.
And most of them amble in to complain a week or two after the premiere, insisting that they somehow "saw the movie for free so Abrams and Paramount don't get any of my money," which is pretty much bullshit. So, again, who cares?
I've a feeling a lot of these disgruntled fans grew up primarily with TNG.
I think the blame for the fanwanky spoliers lies squarely with the scriptwriters. I realize Abrams could have said 'Hang on a minute, I'm not doing this' but I think he concentrated on directing and trusted his friends (Orci/Kurtzman/Lindelof) judgement. It is Abrams raw talent that prevented ST09 being shit (and actually turned out very good/enjoyable!) and I presume the same will apply again with STID so for that reason I can't wait to see it warts and all.
If someone had spoiled ST09 in a similar way to what we have seen here the backlash would have been almost as 'bad' as we are seeing now. Crazed Romulan miner from the future goes back in time through a black hole created by 24th century Spock as part of his efforts to thwart a galactic supernova with red matter and the whole transwarp beaming malarky... yet it was a fantastic movie inspite of all that crap K&O came up with.
If the same scriptwriters are in for the next movie but a new director comes in... :/
Re: Doctor Who - I too thought fans of 63-89 Doctor Who hated the 05- one !
If someone had spoiled ST09 in a similar way to what we have seen here the backlash would have been almost as 'bad' as we are seeing now. Crazed Romulan miner from the future goes back in time through a black hole created by 24th century Spock as part of his efforts to thwart a galactic supernova with red matter and the whole transwarp beaming malarky... yet it was a fantastic movie inspite of all that crap K&O came up with.
If the same scriptwriters are in for the next movie but a new director comes in... :/
Re: Doctor Who - I too thought fans of 63-89 Doctor Who hated the 05- one !
Some oldWho fans do. They'd take issue just as fervently with the notion that nuWho is "the right way to revive a franchise" as a few trekkies do with the Abrams version of Trek.
Some folks just want mom's macaroni and cheese.
Be honest - are you genuinely not a little tired that the Star Trek films keeps borrowing so heavily from Wrath of Khan? I quite liked the first JJ Abrams film, and I expect I'll enjoy large parts of this new one - but I'm sick to death of everything being a rehash. I know there aren't many original ideas left in Hollywood but Star Trek film writers don't seem to even try these days
That's like saying that the James Bond films "keep borrowing so heavily from Goldfinger."
Every two or three years since 1979 I go to the movies and have a pretty good time watching a Star Trek movie; the Abrams version is by far the most enjoyable since the mid-1980s.
Every two or three years since 1979 I go to the movies and have a pretty good time watching a Star Trek movie; the Abrams version is by far the most enjoyable since the mid-1980s.
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Poll
