And nothing that hasn't been pointed out around here a million and one times.
STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]
- Thread starter Agent Richard07
- Start date
Thanks M'Sharak, I'm still learning on this board. Even though I've been reading it for a long time, I've really not posted much till lately. Frankly, this is about the only one I frequent due to the fact that it is the most tame (believe it or not). Shoot even The Neutral Zone is tamer than many of the other forums I visit! LOL>
That's okay. It's just a time-saver to provide a link to the article; that way, people are able to go right to it from the post in which it's being referenced.
A lot of people praised the first film and anticipated the next, including news about it, during that time period as well.
People interested in the new film could have avoided the predominantly negative threads, let alone forums; if they liked the first film they'd be unlikely to listen to the views of those who openly didn't.
Not having seen it yet, still puzzled by how similar the visuals and posters have been to Superman Returns.
I gave STID an A-
I enjoyed it more after the second viewing, finally coming to terms with some things and accepting them, once I did that, I realized just how fun of a ride this movie is. One thing I would have preferred is just keeping the character John Harrison as is, and not even bothering with Khan, although, I did appreciate the homage to TWOK, especially the reverse engine room scene with Kirk/Spock.
While I enjoyed Cumberbatch's performance, I equally enjoyed Peter Weller - both as an actor and his character, Admiral Marcus. I sometimes account him as the real villain here.
There were flaws and things I could nitpick all day, especially coming from a long time fan as myself. But all-in-all, I found this to be highly entertaining, with a wonderful and engaging story - and the effects blew me away, though I would have liked more of a dogfight between the Vengeance and Enterprise.
I enjoyed it more after the second viewing, finally coming to terms with some things and accepting them, once I did that, I realized just how fun of a ride this movie is. One thing I would have preferred is just keeping the character John Harrison as is, and not even bothering with Khan, although, I did appreciate the homage to TWOK, especially the reverse engine room scene with Kirk/Spock.
While I enjoyed Cumberbatch's performance, I equally enjoyed Peter Weller - both as an actor and his character, Admiral Marcus. I sometimes account him as the real villain here.
There were flaws and things I could nitpick all day, especially coming from a long time fan as myself. But all-in-all, I found this to be highly entertaining, with a wonderful and engaging story - and the effects blew me away, though I would have liked more of a dogfight between the Vengeance and Enterprise.
The UPS guy just dropped it off at the house today and we finally watched it. My 11-yo daughter who doesn't like the 2009 film, but does like TOS called it the "best movie ever," which is hyperbole, but does mean she liked it.
While I loved the intensity, I thought the movie was good but not great. Part of the issue was that while it was clearly a new spin on Khan to fit the new timeline, there were still too many things that I'd seen before, which is more on me than the movie itself.
I'm not particularly fond of the new Starship/Star Travel paradigm. It reminds me too much of Star Wars, both in the open spaces within the ships and the fact that interstellar travel seems to happen in real time on screen. I just don't see the logic of following naval traditions and design philosophies when the average interstellar voyage seems to take less time than most people spend walking to their car in a mall parking lot.
As a movie, it was fun, worth the money I spent, and I'll watch it again.
While I loved the intensity, I thought the movie was good but not great. Part of the issue was that while it was clearly a new spin on Khan to fit the new timeline, there were still too many things that I'd seen before, which is more on me than the movie itself.
I'm not particularly fond of the new Starship/Star Travel paradigm. It reminds me too much of Star Wars, both in the open spaces within the ships and the fact that interstellar travel seems to happen in real time on screen. I just don't see the logic of following naval traditions and design philosophies when the average interstellar voyage seems to take less time than most people spend walking to their car in a mall parking lot.
As a movie, it was fun, worth the money I spent, and I'll watch it again.
I don't think STiD really suffered from any of that... it pretty much matched the first of the nuTrek and seems to be well liked. And MoS really dserved the bad word of mouth... it was just a terrible film, let alone and even worse Superman film.
As for STiD... it was so good I find myself actually being more kind to ST09 in the rewatch I am having. That's how good STiD is.
But how do members of the general public become aware of negative fan rants on a Trek BBS? Only when the media do a shock expose article about it.
Avid fans of Trek - like me - wouldn't allow bad-mouthing of a Trek movie put them off. (Otherwise I'd have never gone to see ST V.) But yes, negative ranting can do damage to the franchise as a whole. One the one hand fans will process Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations, while simultaneously perceiving that the public has a negative stereotypical image of Trekkies, yet in the next breath they are engaging in a ridiculous rant (which, to me, never ends up holding any water) simply because Trek took an unexpected turn in its storytelling, at odds with "what they should have done".
Is it time to laugh at "The Onion" video again?
http://www.theonion.com/video/trekkies-bash-new-star-trek-film-as-fun-watchable,14333/
If you're disgusted watching a movie that isn't a snuff film, I tend to think you're doing it wrong.
A
Amaris
Guest
What do you define as being a Trek film, though? It's based on the Star Trek mythos, using Star Trek characters, locations, and properties; it contains thematic elements that can be found in most Star Trek films and various series, and it is being funded by the company that authorizes the use of previously mentioned properties. On top of that, it is called "Star Trek."
Saying it's not a Star Trek film is completely subjective.
Agreed.
Besides STID could have redeemed itself with a decent ending but... Man! The ending had me saying Dr. Evil's 'right' it was that mental.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37OWL7AzvHo
Doesn't that go without saying?
I thought the film had excellent production design, action, effects, scoring, acting, etc. ...also subjective.
Are "In the Pale Moonlight", "Rascals", "Tuvix", "The Trouble With Tribbles" or "The Expanse" real Star Trek? Perhaps someone could make a list.
I might have agreed if you had said Move Along Home. But now it's war!!!
I tend to think that if we classify something as a "good movie" but a "bad Trek movie" we're missing the point. Why does a Trek movie need to be anything more than a "good movie"?
Star Trek: Nemesis wasn't a "bad Trek movie", it was just a bad movie.
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Poll
