Escape to the Movies: Star Trek: Into Darkness

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT
 

Strife2GFAQs:
Ugh...they had to pull that fanservice card, huh? No thanks.

Haha, yeah, that was hilarious. The trailer had to include the two seconds of fanservice from the film (which was the entire duration of the actual scene in the film) to get people to watch it. Obviously the producers and marketing department were aware the film was not good enough to sell on its own merits.

Calibanbutcher:
I wouldn't call this a movie "good" either...

This movie is GREAT and I wholeheartedly recommend you go see it now, screw whatever bob says and go watch it.

Why? Because it's fun without being stupid.

It's better than Iron Man 3 in every single way, the action is better, the cinematography is nicer, the climax is better the "twist" is better and if it wasn't for RDJ, this movie would blow Iron Man 3 so far out of the water that Greenpeace would have to bring a semi-truck to get it back in. THis is of course my opinion, so feel free to scream at your screen now about how I am wrong etc.

It's better than Wrath of Khan, it's damn well better than every Star Trek movie that came before it (in MY OPINION, bear in mind, I am not a Star Trek fan, nor did I never watch an episode of the Star Trek series).

Hell, I liked it better than most of the Marvel movies that came before it, including The Avengers (yeah yeah, I said Jehova, get your beards ready now). (I never read Marvel/DC comics either).

This movie was everything I wanted it to be.
A fun science-fiction action-romp with a likeable cast, great cinematography, a great score, good performances all-around, some throwbacks to the "original" even complete and utter dolts like me can understand and a good plot. Of course, this is far from being on-par with science-fiction classics, such as Moon and "2001", but then again this movie doesn't try to go that route.

(Also, why did Bob need to "critique" this movie and feels that revealing the "twist" is something he has to do, when in his Iron Man 3 review, he tiptoed around it, telling us how great the twist was, when, in all honesty, the "Iron Man Twist" is just as bad, if not worse than this movie's "twist".)

I'm on the other side of the fence. I think Bob gave this movie far more credit than I would have. I haven't seen Iron man 3 yet but for that movie to be worse than this one, Iron man would have to be a blank screen with a picture of a robot, drawn by a five year old, affixed to it by duct tape.

To give credit where it's due, the score was very good. I also thought the banter was fun and believable. Anytime the movie pushed the actors beyond "witty" though... The scene between Pine and Cumberbatch, the one shown partially in the trailers, is painful. Which is especially terrible because we all know Cumberbatch is a capable actor.

The plot is a mangled mess, with holes large enough for a semi to drive through. Even the action was lacking. Why did Khan pick Spock up and throw him onto the moving vehicle? He could have just kicked him off. Why did he watch him climb up the next time. In fact, why was Khan not shot by the Klingons? He was standing still, on top of what looked like a packing crate. The light effect they used for a lot of these shots was also really annoying. Not sure what it's actually called, but you know when it's really bright and the sun makes those beams of colored spots, why were those in most of the action shots?

The worst thing about this whole affair is that it is boring and predictable. About 15 minutes in, a little girl is saved. The method employed to do so saps any anticipation out of the rest of the film. Even Kirk's last hurrah is meaningless since we know he's in no actual danger.

Over all it was awful. Not trolls 2 awful, so congrats to it I guess.

Oh wait! Where's the diplomacy? It's a Star Trek movie, it is suppose to be in there. Kind of like Batman not showing up to a Batman movie.

(Notices the mention to "The Hangover part 3" at the end of the video)
In Other News: There are trailers for "Anchor-man 2" floating around... HAVE FUN~

Well this came off as very unprofessional. You're supposed to be a movie reviewer Bob, not a movie complainer. I want to see a review that tells me whether or not to see a film based on the coherence of the story, quality of the action / direction and the effort of the actors etc. I DON'T want to see a review that vilifies a film just because the director played loose with the source material. Look at how loose Iron Man 3 was, yet that warranted a review AND a Big Picture episode to tell us how you loved that twist.

We all know that Bob is a fanboy, but its gone beyond the point of being a little bit biased to just being:

"Don't go see this film! The asshole director changed a thing that I hold sacred! I don't care if you've never ever seen ANY Star Trek, it will ruin EVERYTHING for you!"

And letting that fanboyism into your reviews is like I said, very unprofessional. I'll be going elsewhere for my movie reviews from now on, although I expect this video will still get views if only from people want to listen to Bob jumping around the monkey cage.

Oh and just in case it wasn't clear, I enjoyed Into Darkness, rather a lot, particularly the radiation airlock sequence, very clever.

Raesvelg:

Thyunda:

They did it because things look different from their perspective. Obviously.

The problem with writing super-intelligent characters is that they're not written by super-intelligent authors.

Having character perspectives is great, don't get me wrong. Khan flips out and attacks the Enterprise after the torpedoes blow because he assumes that his people were still inside, since that's what he would have done, given that he is just a wee bit of a spiteful bastard and not particularly concerned with the lives of his enemies. That's his perspective, and it's fitting that he makes that particular oversight.

But basic reasoning shouldn't be subject to perspective, particularly when you're dealing with someone who is supposed to be intelligent enough on his own to create new technologies decades in advance of the existing ones, and to do so in a scant few years starting from three centuries behind. It's not a question of perspective when characters make obvious mistakes that they should not have made in character.

It's just lazy writing. Obviously.

Technological superiority doesn't mean a superior understanding of people and how to deal with them. Otherwise you'd see a million less 'friendzone' threads on here. Imagine if the same brain that lets you put together a computer also lets you fully understand the desired sex.

And I don't see Khan's girlfriend anywhere nearby.

Thyunda:

It's just lazy writing. Obviously.

Technological superiority doesn't mean a superior understanding of people and how to deal with them. Otherwise you'd see a million less 'friendzone' threads on here. Imagine if the same brain that lets you put together a computer also lets you fully understand the desired sex.

And I don't see Khan's girlfriend anywhere nearby.[/quote]Anymore, he seduced a woman back in the original series.

Just came back from a viewing.

I really, REALLY am starting to dislike MovieBob (god his Twitter account is full of pretentious rants which I can't help but read anyway) but I agreed on him in EVERY WAY.

This movie was pure competent. Average, run of the mill stock standard sci-fi action that was well directed but suffered from a lack of, well, soul.

The script was also all kinds of terrible. Jesus Christ, Lindelof CANNOT write to save his fucking life. I have lost all hope for World War Z.

I really DO fear for Star Wars VII. Abrams is a GOOD director, don't get me wrong. But he just lacks passion. Star Trek Into Darkness just felt so...robotic.

Oh and PS: that twist was so fucking useless. Added nothing to the film.

Thyunda:

Technological superiority doesn't mean a superior understanding of people and how to deal with them. Otherwise you'd see a million less 'friendzone' threads on here. Imagine if the same brain that lets you put together a computer also lets you fully understand the desired sex.

And I don't see Khan's girlfriend anywhere nearby.

Khan's an interpersonal and political genius too. He really is better at "everything". Still has weaknesses, of course, but it remains a plot hole.

As for girlfriends... in TOS, Khan seduces one of the Enterprise crew so thoroughly in a scant handful of hours that she follows him into permanent exile at the end of the episode. So yeah. Khan's got game.

Even leaving out material from TOS, however, it's pretty clear that Khan knew he'd be betrayed by Kirk, whom he'd only known for a few minutes. Yet for some reason he can't discern the motivations of the Admiral that he's known for years.

Lazy writing.

Raesvelg:

Thyunda:

Technological superiority doesn't mean a superior understanding of people and how to deal with them. Otherwise you'd see a million less 'friendzone' threads on here. Imagine if the same brain that lets you put together a computer also lets you fully understand the desired sex.

And I don't see Khan's girlfriend anywhere nearby.

Khan's an interpersonal and political genius too. He really is better at "everything". Still has weaknesses, of course, but it remains a plot hole.

As for girlfriends... in TOS, Khan seduces one of the Enterprise crew so thoroughly in a scant handful of hours that she follows him into permanent exile at the end of the episode. So yeah. Khan's got game.

Even leaving out material from TOS, however, it's pretty clear that Khan knew he'd be betrayed by Kirk, whom he'd only known for a few minutes. Yet for some reason he can't discern the motivations of the Admiral that he's known for years.

Lazy writing.

Wait I forgot, how did we conclude that he didn't discern the motivations of the Admiral?

Thyunda:

Wait I forgot, how did we conclude that he didn't discern the motivations of the Admiral?

The part where he hid on Kronos. We've been over this.

If he understood that the Admiral wanted a war with the Klingons, then hiding out on Kronos is stupid.

If he didn't understand that the Admiral wanted a war with the Klingons, then Khan is stupid.

Since we can be fairly certain that Khan is not stupid, we must assume that the writers are stupid. As evidenced by the fact that the instant he's confronted with the situation, Khan has either worked it all out in advance, or he worked it out in ten seconds in the middle of a firefight.

It's a plot hole. Just accept it and move on with your life, it needn't interfere with your enjoyment of the film.

No character development? Is Bob just so Anti-JJ Abrams that he refuses to see whats in front of him?

There is more character development in this one film that all 3 seasons of TOS. Yeah it does not top the Character development the 2nd 3rd and 4th Star Trek Films had, but that is 3 movies telling a bigger story than each film's smaller adventure can hope to carry.

And Bob get off your High Horse.

Ok, now that I saw it and know the spoilers, I will say this:
It was good. It was not as bad as you made it sound. I was prepared to have a long rant ready, but I realized that what I said before was spot-on. You don't like Abrams. You hate Abrams and the new Star Trek for doing stuff that your nostalgia tells you the old one didn't. You think all of the stuff is retread, tired, and worn out, and went in knowing you weren't going to like it. It's not a surprise to me that you didn't. Worst kept secret or not, I personally enjoyed it, loved the use of Benedict Cumberbatch and enjoyed the whole thing. It was a good popcorn movie, a great movie to continue the series with, and did well with the material. It's not Wrath, but it's a good second movie.

I'd say the movie was fine. Not best star trek ever, but it does well for what it has.

The full cast don't get used to good effect, but honestly, how many movies have 7 main characters who are influential for the entire movie? Thinking right now of Fellowship of the Ring, where Gandalf, Frodo & Aragorn play key parts, the rest of the fellowship may well have been other people. Scotty standing up for his beliefs meant more to me than anything the characters i didn't mention in fellowship did...

my biggest issues are as follows, wasn't Admiral Marcus black in the first movie (maybe different admiral, i thought it was the same guy...) & Spocks hair was annoyingly flappy (thought it was a wig) in the chase scene near the end

(not being racist above, or not trying to be, but I kept thinking that the admiral wasn't admiral Marcus...)

Dale Ware:
my biggest issues are as follows, wasn't Admiral Marcus black in the first movie (maybe different admiral, i thought it was the same guy...) & Spocks hair was annoyingly flappy (thought it was a wig) in the chase scene near the end

(not being racist above, or not trying to be, but I kept thinking that the admiral wasn't admiral Marcus...)

Nope, it was a different admiral. Tyler Perry played a character named Admiral Richard Barnett in the 2009 movie.

darksakul:
No character development? Is Bob just so Anti-JJ Abrams that he refuses to see whats in front of him?

There is more character development in this one film that all 3 seasons of TOS. Yeah it does not top the Character development the 2nd 3rd and 4th Star Trek Films had, but that is 3 movies telling a bigger story than each film's smaller adventure can hope to carry.

And Bob get off your High Horse.

Bob doesn't say that there's no character development. He says that the character arcs that are in the film are basically retreads of the first movie. And I'm prone to agree with him.

I also posit that if people saw the EXACT same movie with Michael Bay's name attached to it instead of JJ Abrams(might as well, since two of the three writers involved also wrote Transformers and Revenge of the Fallen) people would feel very different about the movie.

This movie was really cute. A bunch of amusing callbacks to original series stuff, nice action sequences, and Pine acting in the Shatner-style for 2 hours. Watching this with a bunch of Star Trek fans, they were quite happy and amused to be served, we all laughed through it. Success as a work of fanservice there I guess.

As a work of science fiction in the grander scheme of things, I agree with Bob's assessment.

Raesvelg:

Thyunda:

Wait I forgot, how did we conclude that he didn't discern the motivations of the Admiral?

The part where he hid on Kronos. We've been over this.

If he understood that the Admiral wanted a war with the Klingons, then hiding out on Kronos is stupid.

If he didn't understand that the Admiral wanted a war with the Klingons, then Khan is stupid.

Since we can be fairly certain that Khan is not stupid, we must assume that the writers are stupid. As evidenced by the fact that the instant he's confronted with the situation, Khan has either worked it all out in advance, or he worked it out in ten seconds in the middle of a firefight.

It's a plot hole. Just accept it and move on with your life, it needn't interfere with your enjoyment of the film.

Noooo but I already countered that point! If the Admiral DIDN'T want war with the Klingons, he'd have simply warned the Klingons of Khan's presence on their planet, and diplomatically ended the situation. However, that would require co-operation, and the military would lose massive amounts of public support if they ordered a pre-emptive strike against the Klingons at any point after this co-operative gesture.

It could also be that he was well aware of Starfleet doctrine and knew that any ship the Admiral sent after him simply would not fire without attempting to take him alive first.

OH yes, that's the other thing. Starfleet wasn't even militarised by this point - Klingon defenders would have destroyed the Enterprise if it had fired on Kronos (which was half the plot), so the only way Khan would have ever been in any danger at all would have been if the Vengeance showed up, and that was still being fitted out. Khan was playing for time by hiding on Kronos, it wasn't a permanent plan at all.

See. Too quick to call plothole. That makes perfect sense.

Thyunda:

Noooo but I already countered that point! If the Admiral DIDN'T want war with the Klingons...

But he does. And Khan knows this, since that's why the Admiral found him and thawed him out.

Thyunda:

It could also be that he was well aware of Starfleet doctrine and knew that any ship the Admiral sent after him simply would not fire without attempting to take him alive first.

Given that it was just by the barest thread that Kirk didn't just torpedo Khan from 20 light-years out, that seems like more of a gamble than you'd be willing to take with your life. For that matter, he had to know that if the Admiral really wanted him dead, he could have just done the job himself. Also from outside of Klingon space. Khan knows this, because he designed the weapons to do it.

The only reason Khan didn't die in a rain of exploding Augment-corpsesicle torpedoes is because the Admiral misjudged Kirk. He surrenders because he realizes that they have the torpedoes (which will allow him to prove his story, and provide emotional leverage), that Kirk has almost undoubtedly disobeyed orders to attempt his capture, and that as such he can manipulate Kirk into doing what he wants.

Which is the kind of thing that you'd expect from Khan, except for the part where he had to be an idiot to get himself into that situation to begin with.

Thyunda:

OH yes, that's the other thing. Starfleet wasn't even militarised by this point - Klingon defenders would have destroyed the Enterprise if it had fired on Kronos (which was half the plot), so the only way Khan would have ever been in any danger at all would have been if the Vengeance showed up, and that was still being fitted out. Khan was playing for time by hiding on Kronos, it wasn't a permanent plan at all.

Except that the Enterprise wasn't going to show up in easy range of Kronos. The entire plan was to show up on the border of the Neutral Zone and nuke the site from there. Klingons wouldn't even know that the Enterprise was firing on the planet until the warheads hit, and wouldn't know who did it for certain unless they got very lucky.

Like, by having the Admiral sabotage the Enterprise's warp core so that it would be left crippled on the edge of the Neutral Zone with a notoriously hot-headed captain whose mentor had just been murdered in charge. And there's little doubt that once the Enterprise had gone boom, there'd have been no actual record of the orders sending Kirk out there to begin with, or that they'd fired on Kronos at all. It would just appear to be a random act of aggression by the Klingons, which the Admiral would have fortunately stumbled upon in his dreadnought just in time to kill said Klingons and avenge the Enterprise.

Khan's goal of using Kronos as a base of operations for his terrorist attacks only works if he assumes that the Admiral isn't willing to pursue him there, which only works if he thinks that the Admiral isn't willing to provoke a war with the Klingons. But he does know. That's the entire reason the Admiral had him making advanced weaponry.

I repeat: The problem with writing super-intelligent characters is that they're not written by super-intelligent authors.

Idlemessiah:
Well this came off as very unprofessional. You're supposed to be a movie reviewer Bob, not a movie complainer. I want to see a review that tells me whether or not to see a film based on the coherence of the story, quality of the action / direction and the effort of the actors etc. I DON'T want to see a review that vilifies a film just because the director played loose with the source material. Look at how loose Iron Man 3 was, yet that warranted a review AND a Big Picture episode to tell us how you loved that twist.

We all know that Bob is a fanboy, but its gone beyond the point of being a little bit biased to just being:

"Don't go see this film! The asshole director changed a thing that I hold sacred! I don't care if you've never ever seen ANY Star Trek, it will ruin EVERYTHING for you!"

And letting that fanboyism into your reviews is like I said, very unprofessional. I'll be going elsewhere for my movie reviews from now on, although I expect this video will still get views if only from people want to listen to Bob jumping around the monkey cage.

Oh and just in case it wasn't clear, I enjoyed Into Darkness, rather a lot, particularly the radiation airlock sequence, very clever.

If you had actually paid attention to the video, you'd know that Bob disliked Into Darkness because it has references to the original Star Trek that serve no story purpose and actually undermine the quality of the story on top of a lackluster plot.

If you want to rationalize completely dismissing a dissenting opinion about something you liked by pretending it's just a fanboy opinion, do it in your head. Don't come on the forum and try to play the "unprofessional" card while completely misconstruing someone's point of view for your own purposes.

Blood Brain Barrier:

Farther than stars:

Blood Brain Barrier:

A stable society would not exist without alienation and division. That's how it encourages people not to stray outside its boundaries. So I don't see why making visible what is already there should be discouraged. Stability is also no concern of mine: I'm interested in making things better not preserving the status quo, and that goal isn't served by censorship.

[quote="Blood Brain Barrier" post="6.408263.17059393"][quote="Farther than stars" post="6.408263.17059063"][quote="Blood Brain Barrier" post="6.408263.17058865"][quote="Farther than stars" post="6.408263.17058763"]Because if I am to discourage the existence of discriminatory language, I must then shun the people who use that language and thus perpetuate its existence and the associated stereotypes. Choice doesn't really come into it.
And I'm not saying the mob always knows more than the individual simply because it's a mob. But it does have more credibility in that absence of valid arguments on the side of the individual. Nothing about that comment was productive and its only possible result was alienation and division, both of which should be discouraged in order to maintain a stable society.

A stable society would not exist without alienation and division. That's how it encourages people not to stray outside its boundaries. So I don't see why making visible what is already there should be discouraged. Stability is also no concern of mine: I'm interested in making things better not preserving the status quo, and that goal isn't served by censorship.

Status quo and stability are two fundamentally different concepts. The status quo simply means that everything remains the way it is. "Stable" (in the sociological sense) means an absence of factors which would hamper human survival, such as war*, hunger and natural disasters. A degree of this kind of stability is a requirement for the advancement of society, because it creates the environment in which science can be done and in which technology can be developed.
But even disregarding your comment about stability, would you explain to me exactly how your comment was productive towards the betterment of society? I'm sure you don't wholeheartedly believe in the anti-censorship argument or otherwise you would be advocating child pornography as well.
And "making visible what is already there" doesn't apply here, because we've already established that the Jewish stereotype is a weak one. Therefor not only is it not true (the stereotype never 'was there' in the first place), it also misinforms people more than it informs them.

*Which is dependent on division and more likely because of alienation.

OverlordSteve:

Idlemessiah:
*le snip*

If you had actually paid attention to the video, you'd know that Bob disliked Into Darkness because it has references to the original Star Trek that serve no story purpose and actually undermine the quality of the story on top of a lackluster plot.

If you want to rationalize completely dismissing a dissenting opinion about something you liked by pretending it's just a fanboy opinion, do it in your head. Don't come on the forum and try to play the "unprofessional" card while completely misconstruing someone's point of view for your own purposes.

Reading through my previous post I seem to have missed out completely the fact that I have seen no other Star Trek content than the 2 re-boot films so all the series reference stuff went over my head (except the big internet meme ones like the Vulcan-hand and the big-bad guy's name).

As for Bob, he likes Star Trek, he doesn't like Abrams. Abrams changes something Bob likes but has no control over. Bob rages and uses his movie review series to warn people off seeing a decent early-summer blockbuster. To be fair, Bob has stopped me seeing movies in the past because his rants about them are so profound, and I probably would have avoided Star Trek if I had watched this video beforehand.

At the end of the day, Bob is a butthurt Trekkie and his rant has likely scared off a good number of people who would have otherwise enjoyed this film.

Farther than stars:

Blood Brain Barrier:

Farther than stars:
[quote="Blood Brain Barrier" post="6.408263.17059393"][quote="Farther than stars" post="6.408263.17059063"][quote="Blood Brain Barrier" post="6.408263.17058865"][quote="Farther than stars" post="6.408263.17058763"]Because if I am to discourage the existence of discriminatory language, I must then shun the people who use that language and thus perpetuate its existence and the associated stereotypes. Choice doesn't really come into it.
And I'm not saying the mob always knows more than the individual simply because it's a mob. But it does have more credibility in that absence of valid arguments on the side of the individual. Nothing about that comment was productive and its only possible result was alienation and division, both of which should be discouraged in order to maintain a stable society.

A stable society would not exist without alienation and division. That's how it encourages people not to stray outside its boundaries. So I don't see why making visible what is already there should be discouraged. Stability is also no concern of mine: I'm interested in making things better not preserving the status quo, and that goal isn't served by censorship.

Status quo and stability are two fundamentally different concepts. The status quo simply means that everything remains the way it is. "Stable" (in the sociological sense) means an absence of factors which would hamper human survival, such as war*, hunger and natural disasters. A degree of this kind of stability is a requirement for the advancement of society, because it creates the environment in which science can be done and in which technology can be developed.
But even disregarding your comment about stability, would you explain to me exactly how your comment was productive towards the betterment of society? I'm sure you don't wholeheartedly believe in the anti-censorship argument or otherwise you would be advocating child pornography as well.
And "making visible what is already there" doesn't apply here, because we've already established that the Jewish stereotype is a weak one. Therefor not only is it not true (the stereotype never 'was there' in the first place), it also misinforms people more than it informs them.

*Which is dependent on division and more likely because of alienation.

You misunderstood me: what you called "Division and alienation" is already there in society (for example in property laws of which division is the very essence), not the jewish stereotype. So making comments of that nature does no harm. Or any nature, in my opinion. But child pornography is not a comment, is it? I don't see how taking pornographic pictures is any kind of speech or commentary, so "censoring" it isn't censorship but something else entirely which can easily be justified on a separate basis.

I don't accept the argument that anything that threatens a stable society should be shunned: that sounds like something that would have been argued by those against the French revolution and republicanism which followed. You sort of contradicted yourself by saying I was threatening the stability of society by making comments and then claiming stability is about human survival, which obviously cannot be threatened by comments.

Idlemessiah:

OverlordSteve:

Idlemessiah:
*le snip*

If you had actually paid attention to the video, you'd know that Bob disliked Into Darkness because it has references to the original Star Trek that serve no story purpose and actually undermine the quality of the story on top of a lackluster plot.

If you want to rationalize completely dismissing a dissenting opinion about something you liked by pretending it's just a fanboy opinion, do it in your head. Don't come on the forum and try to play the "unprofessional" card while completely misconstruing someone's point of view for your own purposes.

Reading through my previous post I seem to have missed out completely the fact that I have seen no other Star Trek content than the 2 re-boot films so all the series reference stuff went over my head (except the big internet meme ones like the Vulcan-hand and the big-bad guy's name).

As for Bob, he likes Star Trek, he doesn't like Abrams. Abrams changes something Bob likes but has no control over. Bob rages and uses his movie review series to warn people off seeing a decent early-summer blockbuster. To be fair, Bob has stopped me seeing movies in the past because his rants about them are so profound, and I probably would have avoided Star Trek if I had watched this video beforehand.

At the end of the day, Bob is a butthurt Trekkie and his rant has likely scared off a good number of people who would have otherwise enjoyed this film.

Whether or not you or any given audience member knows who Kahn is doesn't change the fact that his reveal adds nothing to the movie in the context of its own universe.

You can make as many irrelevant assumptions about Bob's supposed Secret Agenda as you want, it doesn't change the fact that he's justified his dislike of Into Darkness with a well-explained and valid criticism of the movie.

And really? His "rant" has supposedly "scared off" potential fans? Bob's job is to express his opinion on the movies he's seen. We're free to listen or not listen to it as we please, and he can't "scare off" anyone who doesn't choose to be scared off in the first place. You might as well say they nobody should ever review movies, lest their opinions artificially influence people's viewing habits. It's ridiculous.

At the end of the day, Bob's feelings on Star Trek as a brand and J.J. Abrams as a director are irrelevant, because he's still presented a valid criticism of Into Darkness. And all you have to try and rebut said criticism are irrelevant facts and assumptions.

I enjoyed the movie and frankly I enjoyed the new take on Khan honestly. The action scenes were fun and action packed as well.

Blood Brain Barrier:
You misunderstood me: what you called "Division and alienation" is already there in society (for example in property laws of which division is the very essence), not the jewish stereotype. So making comments of that nature does no harm. Or any nature, in my opinion. But child pornography is not a comment, is it? I don't see how taking pornographic pictures is any kind of speech or commentary, so "censoring" it isn't censorship but something else entirely which can easily be justified on a separate basis.

I don't accept the argument that anything that threatens a stable society should be shunned: that sounds like something that would have been argued by those against the French revolution and republicanism which followed. You sort of contradicted yourself by saying I was threatening the stability of society by making comments and then claiming stability is about human survival, which obviously cannot be threatened by comments.

I understood you perfectly well. I'm not saying there isn't any division within society. I'm saying that the less there is, the better. Even property laws are there for that reason. They're not instituted to create division, they're tolerated to ensure that greedy* people don't take too much, because that would create more division (and encourage wars; all wars are fought over property after all).
And I'm also not saying that we should censor discriminatory language. I'm saying that there should be a moral outrage about it, because it does harm people. Not only does it perpetuate the stereotype, but individual people can also be offended by it. Weighing up against no benefit for using that language, not using it must prevail.
And finally, I would argue that the French revolution actually helped to the benefit of creating a stable society in the long run by eradicating the monarchy. After all, you don't need to be genius to figure out that a society governed by a forum of rational discussion, run by the electorate, provides more stability than a society which is led by the whims of arbitrary genetic traits. But I'm not going to have the 'Just War debate' with you, because it's not applicable to this situation, i.e. nobody is going to raise a revolutionary army in order to either eradicate or promote discriminatory language (or any language for that matter).

*greed being another concept which in shunned

It's a decent, dumb action movie. Easy on the eyes in 2D (though the 3D is blurry as hell and overall horrible), and a fun way to spend 140 minutes.

However, somehow my biggest gripe with the new Star Trek films is that they seem to go to great lengths to make the setting seem much smaller and less grand than the old films managed to.

Example: There's a line in there about Khan knowing that Starfleet gathers "all captains and first officers" after an attack. Are those dozen people there "all captains"? Has Starfleet downsized to less ships than the Swiss navy? This might be an issue with the German translation, but I can't imagine what the original sentence would have been.

Another example: Kronos (Qo'nos) is apparently now visible/in shuttle range FROM THE NEUTRAL ZONE. The 'Verse in Firefly felt bigger, and that's just a single solar system!

Final exhibit: Freeing themselves from the TCS Vesuviu-- I mean the Federation battleship (seriously, they even have custom uniforms a la Black Lance. Did this remind no one of Wing Commander IV?), they jump back to Earth, with the battleship catching up to them. After what seems like a pretty brief flight (just long enough to hear about the other ship being faster-than-warp) they are already a couple of kilometers from Earth. So maybe Kronos IS on Mars, actually, and the Neutral Zone runs across the Solar system?

This takes a lot out of the fun about Star Trek for me, a series known for its expansiveness should not seem this small.

Also: The 3D was horrendous. Lens flares that flattened the screen, massive out-of-focus objects that obscured those in focus... I have no idea how anyone could consider the 3D here 'good'...

Still, it was a good action flick. Not Scifi, mind you, but simple action.

Raesvelg:
-snip-

Starfleet doctrine still insists that Khan was never in any real danger. Kirk was specially chosen because he had to prove himself capable of following orders to fulfill the potential his dead mentor told him he had. The only reason Khan could have possibly misjudged is because he'd never met Kirk.

The rest of what you said is good though - I only saw it once and my memory is awful.

If you've never seen or liked the original Star Trek, then you might well enjoy this movie. Just go see it in 2D.
If you are an old Star Trek fan, you probably already know what to expect from the new movies. I'll have to say about this one the same I did about the first one: it's not bad. I've spent a lot more boring 120 minutes watching Oscar movies.
But if you were expecting the "big secret" and saw it as a chance for the movie to achieve the old Star Trek "greatness", well, you'll probably agree with Bob.

Now, honestly I don't care about the movies. The only reasons why I loved the older movies was because I already knew the characters from the much much longer TV series (plural) and the better image and set quality. How could we say that the new movies are "too action paced", when the older ones were just as action filled, barely reminding the politics already discussed in the series? My favorite of the bunch is Wrath of Khan, but only because of just how gorgeous the Enterprise and the uniforms look. "Generations" was my second favorite, because of Kirk. Otherwise, all Star Trek movies so far have been just decent SF flicks, for anyone not involved in the TV series. The new movies are not any different. Actually, they might just be better. They have a much better chance to catch the public and force the release of a new series. And we all know that's what we actually want. A Star Trek series in the post Battlestar Gallactica / Firefly era? I'm drooling...

Because, let's face it, no movie can top some of the great Star Trek episodes. In case you're not familiar to them, or find them boring, I guarantee you will fall in love with Star Trek upon seeing these.

Voyager: "Blink of an Eye", "Time and Again", "Year of Hell", "Deadlock", "Memorial", "Warhead", "Demon"/"Course: Oblivion", "Living Witness",

The Next Generation: "The Inner Light", "Clues", "Ship in a Bottle", "All Good Things..."

Original Series: "The Menagerie", "A Taste of Armageddon", "The Alternative Factor", "A Private Little War", "The Devil in the Dark". I was really amused when a friend thought he'd laugh at these episodes for just how old they were. He was in for a huge shock. These episodes are masterpieces of Sci-fi. Sure, the mechanics between the characters were awesome, but what JJ forgot about the original series was just how boldly it went where no series had gone before, in terms of story. Frankly, these episodes have yet to be mached by any Sci-fi series.

K, took enough of your time.

Thyunda:

Starfleet doctrine still insists that Khan was never in any real danger. Kirk was specially chosen because he had to prove himself capable of following orders to fulfill the potential his dead mentor told him he had. The only reason Khan could have possibly misjudged is because he'd never met Kirk.

Oh, Starfleet protocol would have forbidden anyone from going after him. Diplomacy would have ruled the day, etc etc. Kirk, on the other hand, wasn't chosen because he was good at following orders, but rather because he was notorious for breaking the rules based on his emotions. The Admiral was counting on him to fire the torpedoes, kill Khan and destroy any evidence that he or his people had ever even existed, and spark the war all at the same time.

Striking while the iron is hot, so to speak.

The only reason he used Kirk though was to generate a false flag incident, provide a justification for war. It would have been trivial for the Admiral to just warp the Vengeance over, fire the torpedoes himself, and haul ass out of there before the Klingons had the foggiest idea he was there. Khan dies, evidence destroyed, war... not immediately provoked, but probably accelerated by a good amount. Not as perfect a scenario as the one where Kirk fires torpedoes and gets destroyed by the Klingons, but acceptable if the Admiral had decided not to risk assuming Kirk was hotheaded enough to follow his orders.

Khan judged Kirk accurately, the Admiral is the one who screwed up. In fact, I think the only genuine misstep that Khan makes over the course of the film is assuming that Spock would be either unwilling to sacrifice the 72 people in the torpedoes, or not prescient enough to remove the people from the weapons.

Thyunda:

The rest of what you said is good though - I only saw it once and my memory is awful.

Well, it's conceivably possible that Scotty's recovery of the transwarp beaming device from the wreckage of Khan's jumpship was a special miracle and Khan judged the risk of its discovery as vanishingly low. The problem there is that if that were the case, there's no reason to hide out on Kronos; he could have hidden almost anywhere, rather than a planet with a hostile environment where the indigenous species will kill him on sight.

Arguably, he might have actually been safer hiding out on a Federation world, since the Admiral would probably have been a bit more hesitant to bomb one of those indiscriminately.

Like I said, plot hole and lazy writing, but it didn't really affect my enjoyment of the film. I liked it, I thought it was a fairly good treatment of the sort of condensed character growth that would justify the Kirk and Spock of the first film becoming more like the Kirk and Spock of the TV series. Bones was underutilized, but he doesn't really need to change much; he's Kirk's conscience more than anything else, after all, and his character has never really seen any particular growth.

Hopefully they give him more prominence in the next movie, it seems a shame to waste Karl Urban's frighteningly good take on the character.

I enjoyed the movie overall, my previous Star Trek experience only being TNG and the previous JJ Abrams film, however my only major gripe comes with the way the production handled John Harrison/Khan and the way they handled the script when it came to him.

The whole whitewashing issue could have been avoided had they stuck to their original plan. John Harrison was meant to be an original character at the start. JJ wrote him in as being Khan after filming had started, and in the process drove the story away from the Harrison/terrorism focus.

That said, Benedict Cumberbatch gave a phenominal performance in the role he was given, and he was easily the main appeal for me. I don't blame him for taking the role of a previously mexican-played character when he wasn't even aware of this fact while he was offered and auditioned the role.

I agree with Bob's major criticisms even though I personally found the movie good and certainly better than Iron Man 3.

I consider myself to be a Trek fan and I grew up watching Star Trek 2 dozens of times growing up. I thought this movie was pretty great actually.

While I'll grant that the redo scene from ST2 is just bad, the rest of the movie was a lot of fun. To me it seems like a lot of Bob's personal bias is wrapped up in this review. Everyone knew it was Kahn, that's not really a surprise, and I don't really think that JJ was actually spinning it too much that it was, other than not willingly giving away plot details before you actually go see the movie. But the Kahn revelation was hardly a twist.

The characters themselves were the characters that have existed in the TV show, and the 6 movies that already had them, there isn't much development needed IMO, they are the characters that we know, for the most part.

But the one thing that actually bothers me about this review is the comment that the Klingons are Orcs now. That is an unfair comment that isn't even true in the context of the movie. In the shot that Bob is using, they are wearing masks. When they take off said masks, they looked like Commander Worf to me (close enough anyway). Bob knew that, yet he makes the Orc comment for no other reason to support his opinion.

To not like the movie is one thing opinions are opinions sorry you didn't like the movie, but at least be honest with the facts of the movie. This review came off as more of a personal rant against Abrams and his annoying qualities more than anything.

Just as a disclaimer: I have no real stake in Star Trek, the only ST movie I've seen is Wrath of Khan and only casually have seen the shows, but I'd like to say I'm fairly familiar with what the show is all about and who the characters are
and can respect why the show works. So with these movies, I'm leaning toward the laymen's POV and I'm judging these movies not against the show, but as basic Film 101 films by themselves...

------------------------

So in that regard, the first movie barely got a passing grade for following JUST enough of the "Summer Movies For Dummies" amateur screenwriting handbook to work. Welp, seems after that experiment Abrams went ahead and dumped that shit and went Revenge Of The Fallen here.

Je. Sus. Christ.

There's no WAY this is escaping at LEAST a Top 5 spot in the year end Worst Of list. It sure as hell has reserved as spot in mine. Even in this review you were FAR too nice to this awful, embarrassing piece of stupid ass shit...And I don't even know who it's more embarrassing for; Abrams and company themselves or the inexplicably large number of dolts actually admitting to liking this dumbass movie (the same dolts that will completely and utterly forget about this dullard of a film a month or two from now when it gets outclassed by THE REST OF THE SUMMER, just like the original 09 flick did).

The ONLY reason it isn't joining the ranks of Green Lantern or Transformers levels of legendarly bad is because at least they have competent actors trying their damnedest to make such a rancid script work, but damn was it trying. (Benedict Cumberbatch is criminally wasted in here. Poor guy thought he was actually in a GOOD movie). At least the equally flawed Prometheus ATTEMPTED to come up with a mildly unique and interesting script that just fell flat on its face. This movie just took bits of Star Wars, bits of Silence of The Lambs, and bits of Wrath of Khan, threw it in a blender without the top on and pushed GO, creating a pastiche of bullshit that they just pour out of their asses with no regard toward whether it worked for the narrative or not (because narratives and making sense are for SNOBS THAT HATE MOVIES GRRR RAWR HISS).

It's the Resident Evil 6 of summer movies; trying SOOOO hard to please every damn body, trying to "Gain Broader Appeal" and "Appease The Masses" and other buzzphrases that certain former video game CEOs throw around that it pleases no damn body with any sense of quality recognition and it just becomes this dumb, ugly, desperate, bloated mess of bad cliches, convolutedly stupid plots in vein attempts to seem "deep and complex", and goddamn Student Film level re-eneactments of famous scenes ripped out of context that miss the entire goddamn point of what MADE those scenes work in the first place, so much so that it almost seems like a parody or even a downright insult. All in attempts to fool non-discerning people that don't care about things like "quality" that this incomprehensible orgy of worthless mumbo jumbo was worth a damn JUST long enough to swipe $8-15 out of your pocket. Because when you actually start thinking about it, you stop enjoying it because it's just that dumb. Soooooo you come up with the classic "just tern ur brain off guise" excuse stems from; it's a defense mechanism to shield yourself from admitting that you actually got invested into something so incredibly braindead.

It's The Amazing Spiderman all over again. There's always that ONE retarded film every year that inexplicably tricks the masses into thinking it was any good, when 10 years down the line it's going to be remembered in the same vein as Independence Day or Wild Wild West, at BEST. Films that had a good amount of box office success and fan support during the time it came out, but over time begins to rot away as everyone either likes it "ironically out of nostalgia" or never EVER admit to anyone that you had any part in that movie's popularity.

The Dubya:
It's The Amazing Spiderman all over again. There's always that ONE retarded film every year that inexplicably tricks the masses into thinking it was any good, when 10 years down the line it's going to be remembered in the same vein as Independence Day or Wild Wild West, at BEST. Films that had a good amount of box office success and fan support during the time it came out, but over time begins to rot away as everyone either likes it "ironically out of nostalgia" or never EVER admit to anyone that you had any part in that movie's popularity.

I understand how Wild wild west fits in what your saying there, despite the fact i love it for what it is, but independence day? Really? it was the casual Sci-Fi epic of the time. until the Matrix came along, and still enjoyable.

Sigh...finally saw it.

I LIKED the last Star Trek. How much? I like it enough to put it UP there. One of the best in my eyes. This isn't saying THAT much, I don't think it was better than the wrath of khan, or the Undiscovered Country, but still...UP there, like 5th best maybe, maybe a little higher.

I can say this partially because some Star Trek movies are god awful bad. Generations, Star Trek V, and Insurrection for example, all suck as movies, and are even worse as Star Trek movies.

I went and saw this new one wanting to tell Bob he was wrong. I wanted to go in and come out saying "See? Your all freaking out over nothing! I mean, come on, Benedict Cumberbatch as Khan!"

Sigh...Bob is right. Bob is even right about...some of...why. Khan is badly done, he gets hardly any backstory. Benedict Cumberbatch plays him very very very well, but that just means he delivers a few quotable lines and stands in front of a camera menacingly a few times. NOTHING is given to his back story. NOTHING is given to anything different that may have happened to him in this new reality.(other than being discovered a bit early due to investigations of the last movie) They sum his character up by having old Spock say "He's a badass" to young Spock. That's kind of it.

The blonde girl is useless. Why is she here? She DOES NOTHING! The story is pandering at best, and insulting at worst, and it all ends in the worst travesty of all.

Near the end of the movie, Khan thinks his crew has been killed. He then decides to get revenge, but having had his ship damaged he doesn't have many options, and the enterprise is already damaged, and about to burn up in Earth's atmosphere, so he sets a course for "Starfleet Headquarters". At this point we get a bunch of panning view of the head quarters that don't show off San Fransisco(where Starfleet Headquarters is supposed to be) but looks like an islandish city.

You then hear the burning exhaust of Khan's crashing ship as it comes in to wreck headquarters, with sounds that sound like they came right out of the original 9/11 video...

Yup, that's right, and before you suggest I'm just imagining this there is a nice little blurb in the credits dedicating the movie to the victims of 9/11.

Don't need this shit, J.J.! Don't need your pandering fan-service filled mess giving me a propaganda message on 9/11. I came here to watch Sci-Fi and you haven't given me anything remotely RESEMBLING Sci-Fi. At best this may have been a forgettable popcorn movie that was made a little worse by deserving to be better. It didn't manage that since it felt the need to preach to me. I'm pissed again, this always happens around the time I think J.J. might be half decent at making stuff, and then he proves me SSOOOO wrong. I'm done.

Ok so Abrams doesn't 'get' Star Trek, but as he is a big star wars fan here's hoping he 'gets' star wars and will use this knowledge to create something special. I'm no Trek fan, so I enjoyed these last two Trek films for what they are, passable entertainment, but Star Wars Episode VII needs to be more than just passable entertainment to not disappoint me as a fan of Star Wars and I'll be honest, I'm a little worried about the chances to that looking at these two most recent Trek films. As I said, I think they're ok, decent movies, but they're not great and if Ep 7 is anything less than great it will be a disappointment.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here