Escape to the Movies: Star Trek: Into Darkness

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

Warachia:

You probably wouldn't like the series as a whole then, it's filled with plotholes that even children can find.
FTL communication has been in the series for a long time.
If the Klingons have their shields up or are hiding in caves and you're only scanning the surface then it can be very easy to miss them, more of a writing flaw then a plothole.
I can't defend this one, it's a massive plothole in the entire series, apparently starfleet only keeps one extra ship on alert near earth.
When their warp core finally failed they could not resist gravity any longer, why they were pulled in so fast I do not know.
I can't defend the next point either, though it did level half a city.

I actually enjoyed Star Trek Voyager, and some of The Next Generation (granted, I only ever caught occasional episodes). But then again, in Voyager there was a very real sense of scale, and distance, and time. They really were all on their own, forced to make their own choices and live with them, with no chance to confer with their commanding officers back home. It felt like a proper deep-space story.

I don't mind FTL communications, the sci-fi setting I help develop has them. Hell, even harder sci-fi settings have them sometimes. But being able to dial up someone's personal phone on Earth, from a starship orbiting an alien world in an entirely different star system? That's just insane. Either the Klingons are from Alpha Centauri or something and are just extremely close to Earth... or Star Trek's FTL communications are just ludicrously, impossibly fast. Actually, speaking of that, what do they even use for FTL communications? If they wanted to send a transmission the Klingons wouldn't be able to intercept, it'd need to be some sort of tight, focused beam. So... did they hit Scotty's phone itself with the beam (extra preposterous), or like, did they hit some sort of communication's relay orbiting Earth that relayed the message to his phone (more plausible, but then their message would hardly be a secret if they were trying to hide it from Starfleet). I suppose quantum entanglement could actually make it work. Since that could, in theory, achieve instantaneous communication from anywhere else in the universe.

But, if they had their shields up, wouldn't their shield emissions be lighting them up like christmas trees? Shields have to emit something, they aren't covering the ship in a black hole. I could maybe get behind the idea of them hiding their ships in caves... but Khan was also hiding in caves and they still sensed him. A single human, from orbit.

Yeah, it just seemed odd that the cradle and center of the human race (which seems to be the single-most important species in Star Trek, given how they seem to run everything) is so vulnerable and exposed. Then again, Starfleet isn't technically a military organization, so maybe they're just incompetent when it comes to system-defense operations. Seriously though, why does no one on Earth have a proper space navy? Or at least a dedicated, militarized force to protect the home system.

I dunno, maybe I just don't "get" Star Trek. I was just always lead to believe that it was the more serious, and realistic of the Wars/Trek debate. Suppose after reading more serious, thought-out sci-fi I just had too of high expectations. I don't mind crazy time-space shenanigans if they're an established part of your setting's internal logic. But having such ludicrous communications technology, and Earth being so inept at defending its own nearby space, and completely ignoring the actual distances and velocities involved in space travel. That's the stuff that just really bugs me if I start to think about it.

Grenge Di Origin:
*sigh* Maybe then I should go see the Wrath of Khan, then? Like Doctor Who, I've always wanted to get into this quintessential nerd franchise but I don't know a good starting point for it. Do I watch the original series, do I watch Next Generation, do I start with the movies? I just don't know...
...but, having stopped before I could get spoiled, I'll probably watch this one anyhow.

If you just want to understand khan and his motivations http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Augment

If you want to become a fan I'll give you a list.

Here is s a list I think will benefit a noob, or rather good jumping points. I do not think you will enjoy the original wrath of khan without at least some background.

The list will be in order of how much useful exposition to the universe you can gain

TOS = the original series TNG = the next generation MOV = full length theatrical movie SxE = season and episode
Parentheses will denote honourable mentions but not necessary inclusions.

TOS:
"Errand of mercy" 1x27
"Amok time" 2x05
"Space seed" 1x24 episode with Khan
("The cage" 1x00 or "The menagerie" 1x15,16 the pilot episode or its retcon...yes there was a retcon in the very first season
("Mirror, mirror" 2x10) The original alternative evil universe and what if source for almost all fiction, much will become clear after this... also Spock's beard is in this episode
("The trouble with tribbles" 2x13 great sample of the trek humour and including the cutest aliens in the galaxy, but it also gives insight to political situation of the galaxy
("City on the edge of forever" 1x28) not too much exposition but the best acting in the series, and to be honest most of the acting was really cheasy otherwise

TOS MOV
"Wrath of Khan" second star trek film one of the best sci fi movies, and not just star trek. avoid the first star trek movie like the plague it might make you give up on trek forever
"Undiscovered country" sixth star trek I love this movie drama,action, politics, conspiracies and large hams
("Voyage home") not very serious but very amusing.... well depends on your sense of humour and love for the characters

TNG probably all of it is optional if you just want context, it is however the series with the greatest stories by volume, it has a lot of crap too but nowhere near as much as the other series. Anyway here we go.

"The neutral zone" 1x26 ROMULANS---ish
"Q who" 2x16 BORG!!! main enemy of the series and progenitor of many cybernetic hive tropes... not the Swedes

"The measure of a man" 2x09 this is mostly to illustrate what tng was about, not so much space adventures but ethics, it is one of the reasons it has aged better than the rest of trek. Many of the ethical and moral dilemmas the crew face are some our society has yet to deal with or are in the process of dealing with

"Times squared" 2x13 good old time paradoxe, good adventure story

("Darmok" 5x02 or "I borg" 5x23 or "The enemy" 3x09 "The drumhead" 4x21) same description as "the measure of a man, TNG is littered with these humanist episodes

("Frame of mind" 6x21) some of the best acting in the series and one of the greatest stories, but not very trekish
("A fistful of Datas 6x08) this epsiode demonstrates what thee humour of TNG was like
("All good things" 7x25,26 few series have a good final episode, this is a text book example of how to do it.

TNG MOV
"First contact" eighth film a lot of lore and exposition and great action. in general all the even numbered trek movies are good or passable, the odd numbered ones are crap and best to be avoided like the plague

Hope this helps you get into the series :-) it will certainly help you spot where some of the greatest sci fi concepts have come from. A general rule of thumb is that if didn't come from Star Trek it probably came from the Twilight Zone...

captcha: end of story :-D

I'm not joking that I was really planning on yelling "KAAAHHHNNN!!!" at the beginning of the movie, that is, if I decided to go see it. Highly unlikely, after seeing the last "Star Trek" movie

Wow. I had already figured out who the villain was even before the movie even started and I was planning on just yelling that as a joke. Talk about irony. Wait, scratch that. Obvious. Yeah, that's it, obvious. Or it could be just be anti-climactic.

Either or.

You know what, Bob? You keep going with this "Who the hell Abrams thinks he is" crap ever since he was announced as the director to the next Star Wars. Well, let me tell you who he is: he is a director making a film for our entertainment. He isn't making an adaptation of a series of true events and then distorting the facts, like Michael Bay did with Pearl Harbor. He is taking a work of fiction made for entertainment and directing a sequel to it. And I don't know how the hell you can even make the mistake of blaming the writing on him when anyone who saw more than 3 seconds of a moviemaking class knows that this part is done by the script writers.

But you know what? You want to hate Star Trek Into Darkness because you don't agree with this take on it, please do. You have all right to do it. Good criticism comes from knowing how to defend your opinion well and with some passion - that is why I love Yahtzee and Doug Walker. But don't do this bullshit of saying that he has no right to touch what you like. This is exactly the kind of behaviour that makes geek culture look bad. It's the same stupid thing half the whovians keep doing when it comes to Steven Moffat, because apparently if you get handed a sci-fi series that's 50 years old and want to ignore some of the canon to take it to new places with a more contemporary look, that makes you Satan.

I remember when Yahtzee was talking about sequels once, and said that the worst thing you could do is give the control to someone "who swears he will pay proper respect and bring back all his favorite characters and running gags and give it great big cuddles and make sure no nasty men do it any harm for ever and ever", because then this is going nowhere. And that is exactly what you are doing. So seriously, give it a break. Not only for this, but for Star Wars too when it comes out, and for the next Spider-Man.

Can't wait for star wars 7.

DalekJaas:
Good review Bob, no valid points, just obvious nerd rage. Wah it references Wrath of Khan too much but its diffffferennttttt!

Into Darkness was a great movie, much better than the steaming pile of crap that was Iron Man 3, which I still have no idea how you talked yourself into liking.

But then I guess this movie is marketed at normal people who will enjoy a sci-fi for its own merits, not people like Bob.

Zing. Really scored a few points there, champ. Quick, call him fat while he's on the ropes, impress everyone with your enormous e-penis!

DalekJaas:
Into Darkness was a good, good movie, it was well-paced, we got to enjoy the characters since the first movie already developed them, the villain was stand-out and it had plenty of well placed references to Wrath of Khan.

While I didn't think it was a bad movie - as in, I didn't want to demand my money back - it definitely required a lot more action and explosions because they were really the only things that worked. The ham-fisted attempts at characterisation and drama (Uhura and Spock's conversation in the shuttle got me shushed for - involuntarily - Pegg-quoting by muttering "skip to the end" while looking at my watch, while the cheese-fest of the big scene in the radiation chamber had me wishing they'd throw a big surprise twist and have the Enterprise be eaten by militant space unicorns or something) were genuinely difficult to watch, because the poor actors seemed to be trying so hard and failing so badly. They were let down by the script, granted, but the acting was sub-par as they tried desperately to make an audience care about cheesy, boring nonsense.

Worst, for my money, was Cumberbatch. He's a great actor. He's fantastic in Sherlock. Which is apparently why they hired him on to play some fanfic writer's wet dream about Sherlock in space with superpowers.

All things considered, decent action and crappy bits-that-weren't-action. Not worth the expense of a cinema ticket, just wait until it comes on TV and you can do something else during the boring parts.

Azaraxzealot:
Has everyone forgotten that the reboot doesn't affect the continuity of the original Star Trek by any means?

From my understanding, this is not a simultaneous timeline, this is time travel over-writing the original timeline. Someone travels from the original timeline into a past point on that timeline and makes changes. This doesn't split off an alternate universe, it just changes the future of the existent one and means events of TOS never happened/haven't happened yet.

I used the word timeline far too much.

(however, on the subject of time travel: didn't Spock make a big point in the first one about keeping it a secret that he was from the future/alternate future? Why is it that in this one present Spock, one of only two people who know about the time-fucking switcheroo, is quite happy to call him up and acknowledge his time-displaced self [/b]openly and in front of the entire bridge of the Enterprise?[b])

Diegolomac:
You know what, Bob? You keep going with this "Who the hell Abrams thinks he is" crap ever since he was announced as the director to the next Star Wars. Well, let me tell you who he is: he is a director making a film for our entertainment. He isn't making an adaptation of a series of true events and then distorting the facts, like Michael Bay did with Pearl Harbor. He is taking a work of fiction made for entertainment and directing a sequel to it. And I don't know how the hell you can even make the mistake of blaming the writing on him when anyone who saw more than 3 seconds of a moviemaking class knows that this part is done by the script writers.

But you know what? You want to hate Star Trek Into Darkness because you don't agree with this take on it, please do. You have all right to do it. Good criticism comes from knowing how to defend your opinion well and with some passion - that is why I love Yahtzee and Doug Walker. But don't do this bullshit of saying that he has no right to touch what you like. This is exactly the kind of behaviour that makes geek culture look bad. It's the same stupid thing half the whovians keep doing when it comes to Steven Moffat, because apparently if you get handed a sci-fi series that's 50 years old and want to ignore some of the canon to take it to new places with a more contemporary look, that makes you Satan.

I remember when Yahtzee was talking about sequels once, and said that the worst thing you could do is give the control to someone "who swears he will pay proper respect and bring back all his favorite characters and running gags and give it great big cuddles and make sure no nasty men do it any harm for ever and ever", because then this is going nowhere. And that is exactly what you are doing. So seriously, give it a break. Not only for this, but for Star Wars too when it comes out, and for the next Spider-Man.

Though I perhaps would of worded it slightly less aggressively, this is basically the impression I have of Bob's review. It really feels as though he's just angry that Abrams got control of several of his favourite franchises. I don't understand why or how, since Abrams has really done nothing to justify such venom. He's a great director who is working non-stop to bring us, the fans, exciting blockbusters of those franchises we love. Hell, it could be so much worse, stop hating on the guy simply because it's not your perfect vision of Trek.

Diegolomac:
You know what, Bob? You keep going with this "Who the hell Abrams thinks he is" crap ever since he was announced as the director to the next Star Wars. Well, let me tell you who he is: he is a director making a film for our entertainment. He isn't making an adaptation of a series of true events and then distorting the facts, like Michael Bay did with Pearl Harbor. He is taking a work of fiction made for entertainment and directing a sequel to it. And I don't know how the hell you can even make the mistake of blaming the writing on him when anyone who saw more than 3 seconds of a movie making class knows that this part is done by the script writers.

(And everything else after)

^This....Abrams has got to be one of my favorite directors because he can take something whether it be a genre or another franchise and add his own spin to it. Yeah his films aren't "Ground breaking," but they are amazingly entertaining.

Now back on topic, while I didn't think that Into Darkness was as good as the first one, it was still entertaining and surprisingly intense at some moments, not to mention it was definitely a lot better than Iron Man 3.

One of Bob's worst reviews, especially on the heels of Ironman 3 were he wasn't scandalized by the variation it it. Maybe he is more Star Trek Geek than Comic book geek therefore variance bothers him more with one media than another.
My 2 cents:

Ok I finally watched the movie yesterday and I can say that I disagree with you Bob, but like everyone else, is entitled to their own opinion.

I want to point out the fact that aside from the reboots I haven't seen any Star Trek related movies or tv series for that fact (heresy, yea I know), because I didn't found them either interested or I was born after this phenomenon was in it's prime. Same goes for the Star Wars franchise, even though I love the video games related to that universe.

With that out of the way let's get to the movie at hand. I found it very good and the performance of Cumberbatch was fantastic. He was very imposing and menacing every time he appeared on screen. He literally "killed it".

I really don't get why some critics are thinking that this film has so much fan service and it wasn't that good.

I must recommend to those that haven't seen it, that they should regardless.

You know, i just realised something, Hollywood yet again went for the stereotypical, mustache twirling english villain stereotype, now i ask you this, what is the logic of changing his race even though they went through great lengths to recreate the original cast in the first place? To throw people for a Loop? People have been saying he was who he was from the moment his casting was announced and halfway in the movie an person with a fair knowledge of Trek knew.

I like Cumberbatch his characteristics still echo the original series explanation of the "supermen" of the Neurogenetics Wars and that's good but Cumberbatch's script left him with no depth of character (or maybe not as much).

It would have been more clever if Cumberbatch was in the first movie as a small bit character.

Works like a charm. EVERY SINGLE MOVIE Bob hated, I loved. And Star Trek follows that pattern perfectly.

This film was downright horseshit.
A mockery of what the franchise used to stand for.

I've disagreed vehemently with Moviebon on dozens of issues in the past but this is one where he hits the mark.

JJ Abrams career and work is best described as being completely disposable and Into Darkness follows that very trend.
In about two, maybe three years from now, people are going to look back on this and wonder just what the hell where they thinking by ever enjoying it.
Christ, if the Transformers films can accrue a fanbase and make billions of dollars at the box office, then what's stopping this garbage?

This blows and damn the rest of you for lowering the standards for all of us.

Bob bleeds a little too much nerdstagia sometimes. This one was fine. 8/10 just as most of the reviews said. Abrams did what Abrams does - he churned out another very watchable Star Trek movie. Oh noes they high-fived fans a couple times. Get over it man. Ok the blood thing at the end just totally opens up a big bag of worms but other than that, meh I enjoyed the whole thing. The Spock and Uhura dialog was really endearing. Tearjerker for me because I really got it personally. The big emotional scene near the end actually wasn't quite as good. Way too talkie, but that's pretty typical Abrams & crew trying to be Joss W. Actually one of the things that Bob complains about is the Banter dialog. It was really good in this one. Surprisingly good. Overall just a good movie I'd watch again a few times.

If I had to nail down just one thing that really disappointed me with this film. The scripting for Benedict Cumberbatch. His character was not only the opposite of the source material, but just really robotic through the whole film. He had zero personality. Whether it was intended or not he just was not enjoyable to watch at all. I don't think it had anything to do with the actor. I don't know why they went in that direction.

Blood Brain Barrier:

Mason Luxenberg:

Blood Brain Barrier:

The reason you liked this film is because you're not a Trekkie. Only non-Trekkies could enjoy it because that's what Abrams wanted. You can't make money unless you pander to the larger audience and not a niche, and Abrams is a Jew after all.

Way to be randomly anti-semitic, jackass!

Ya well, if Shakespeare and South Park can do it then so can I. Historical stereotyping is great.

Yeah, but where Shakespeare and South Park use stereotyping in a comedic or dramatic sense, often to deliver a political point of some kind, you're just being mean and hateful with your comment.

Don't you dare attempt to justify your statement by comparing yourself to arguably history's greatest writers. Your comment wasn't funny, didn't feature any political satire that I could pick up on, and didn't add any weight to your overall opinion of the film.

It was a hateful remark, pure and simple. And as far as I'm concerned, you're a lesser human being for ever thinking it.

Mahoshonen:
I hardly paid attention to any of the news, and I still figured out what the surprise was once I learned that there is, indeed, a surprise.

Going to see it tonight, but I have a feeling Mr. Plinkett will have afield day with this movie.

Bet you anything Mike really liked this movie. He already gave a very positive review of the first JJ Abrams reboot. So no, Plinkett won't be reviewing Into Darkness.

Saw it, loved it....but yeah, your adherence to Trek Lore as the deciding factor on whether a film is worthy or not will probably weigh heavily on your enjoyment here. For me, being someone who has grown up with TOS and been with Trek every step of the way, but who always thought that Trek's greatest burden was its own canonical adherence to what has come before....I was thinking about midway into the film, "This film shows that Trek still has life in it, all it needed was someone who was willing to take it somewhere new and interesting." And it was at that point that I decided that this movie may to date be the film that made me forgive Abrams for prior debacles (i.e. Super 8, Lost).

EDIT: I should point out though that just like the first one this movie had a weird mix of plot holes and some seriously bad science (and, even worse, horible pseudo-science!). Despite that, I enjoyed it....because let's face facts, real science has never been Trek's strong point.

When they called that bomb at the beginning a "cold fusion bomb," though I admit I felt like the script writers were mocking us. Jeez....way to make pseudoscientific babble, guys. Try hiring Okuda next time, at least he's good at the nonsense science words.

I thought it was....okay. At the very least, it was a fun time at the theaters. But absolutely no character arcs(seriously, did any of the characters grow as people?) and story "twists" that made me wanna punch a baby. A big stupid, and loud movie.

If I had paid anymore than the matinee price of $4.50, I would've been very annoyed. As it stands, it was a nice distraction.

EDIT: Quick question about the ending...

MPerce:
I thought it was....okay. At the very least, it was a fun time at the theaters. But absolutely no character arcs(seriously, did any of the characters grow as people?) and story "twists" that made me wanna punch a baby. A big stupid, and loud movie.

If I had paid anymore than the matinee price of $4.50, I would've been very annoyed. As it stands, it was a nice distraction.

$4.50 matinee?!? Where do you live, so I can move there?

camazotz:

MPerce:
I thought it was....okay. At the very least, it was a fun time at the theaters. But absolutely no character arcs(seriously, did any of the characters grow as people?) and story "twists" that made me wanna punch a baby. A big stupid, and loud movie.

If I had paid anymore than the matinee price of $4.50, I would've been very annoyed. As it stands, it was a nice distraction.

$4.50 matinee?!? Where do you live, so I can move there?

Oklahoma City. There's a decent theater next to the zoo that lost a lot of business because it was in a "bad" part of town (aka the rich white people from the nearby suburb are scared of black people), so they lowered their ticket prices a lot.

End result: cheap tickets in a theater that's hardly ever crowded. It's movie heaven.

It wasn't to bad. I enjoyed it.

I mean it telegraphs its plot points really hard but oh well. Also Cumberbatch was amazing, not sure why you thought his character was a bad character, I thought him to be at least believable. I actually think his character was the most believable and interesting out of all of them. Every other character just seems to go through the motions but Cumberbatch's character actually feels like he has a plan, and he actually seems to have emotion. Which as you point out not even Kirk seems to have much emotion.

rcs619:
Seriously though, why does no one on Earth have a proper space navy? Or at least a dedicated, militarized force to protect the home system.

They do, it's just Orci and Kurtzmann keep obliterating them in the first act of their films - ships dispatched to Vulcan in the first film, Starfleet brass in this one. On the bright side, at least they make a half-hearted attempt to explain why the Enterprise is the only ship in the quadrant (which it always is on the old show/movies).

SonicWaffle:
This doesn't split off an alternate universe, it just changes the future of the existent one and means events of TOS never happened/haven't happened yet.

Pretty sure the script refers to their reality as "alternate", and that Abrams et al also used that term to allow people who dislike the new Trek to retain the nostalgia of the original.

didn't Spock make a big point in the first one about keeping it a secret that he was from the future/alternate future?

Unfortunately, I have to credit the writers here, too. The only one old-Spock told this to was Kirk, and only in reference to new-Spock. Additionally, at the end of the film, he told new-Spock that yes, he could have explained the truth to everyone but he allowed events to unfold naturally so that new-Spock could understand how he and Kirk balance each other out, and will forge a friendship rather than continue their enmity. Cheesy, but not dropped down a hole.

Grenge Di Origin:
*sigh* Maybe then I should go see the Wrath of Khan, then? Like Doctor Who, I've always wanted to get into this quintessential nerd franchise but I don't know a good starting point for it. Do I watch the original series, do I watch Next Generation, do I start with the movies? I just don't know...
...but, having stopped before I could get spoiled, I'll probably watch this one anyhow.

If you want to start light and easy then go with the Original Series.

If you want to start with a lot of information on the workings of the Trek Universe and have deeper story lines (albeit less action-y) then go with The Next Generation.

Don't start with Deep Space Nine, that would be a mistake.

If you want to have fairly deep stories, not as much info dumps, and a little more action then start with Voyager (though you won't get much info on the workings of the rest of the Star Trek universe, it's kind of it's own entity in that right)

If you want to start at the very beginning (chronologically within the Universe) and have a lot of convoluted story elements then you can start with Enterprise. I highly suggest that you do not start with Enterprise.

Also don't start with the movies, that would be a bad idea as well.

My personal opinion is start by watching the first season of Voyager and the first season of TNG. If you like the more action-y stuff then continue Voyager or switch to Original Series and go back to Voyager later. Follow it up with the Original Series movies, The Next Generation, The Next Generation Movies, Deep Space Nine, and finish with Enterprise.

If you prefer the more political and philosophical Next Generation then finish Next Generation. Then move on to the Next Generation movies, go to Deep Space Nine, Voyager, Original Series, Original Series movies, and finish with Enterprise.

All of them are good, and they all explore interesting ideas, themes, characters, etc. Personally I think TNG is the best and the Original is fairly meh.

I risk incurring twofold wrath here, once for double-posting and again for what I am about to say in the presence of nerds and geeks.

Having seen Into Darkness a second time tonight (don't... say it. just don't.), I realize why this movie is both well-received by audiences and loathed by the likes of Bob. This actually, in disguise, is a movie we have all been waiting 15 years to see. THIS... was a very good STAR WARS movie.

Star Trek has always been - or tried to be - a brand of science fiction that delivers on two levels: it posits about what strange new worlds are out there, enticing new areas of scientific thought, and it serves as social commentary by having worlds that reflect our own in some way. A lot of great science fiction excels because it uses a unique perspective to examine the human condition.

Star Wars, by contrast, is a space fantasy. Often they dispense even with pseudo-scientific pretense and simply declare that a thing exists. Just as dragons and elves and wizards exist in a Tolkeinesque fantasy, Star Wars has the Force, and genocidal space stations, and lightsabers. And no attempt is made to explain any of this: lightsabers exist because laser swords are cooler than regular swords. Throw in a cast of lovable characters and some quotable lines, and you're set.

And that's what we have with Abrams-Trek. We can travel from Q'onos to Earth in 45 seconds; we can create a black hole out of a drop of goop; an entire starship can be operated efficiently by a single individual at the time the story demands it. Supernovas can threaten entire galaxies, and cutting the blue wire stops the bomb with three seconds left. And we love the characters and laugh when they make ear jokes.

So here's hoping that Abrams takes this formula and makes some Star Wars stuff we wanna see, and maybe get some science back into Star Trek and leave the laser swords and seedy bars in the proper franchise.

What I find amusing is so many people I knew wanted this to be Kahn. I'm probably going to have to see it, I love Benedict Cumberbatch enough to accept him as Kahn, plus that is PRETTY close to what they advertised. I don't even know why they made this a big deal since everyone thought the next movie would just be Kahn.

My friends walked out of the first one saying "So...Kahn next then, I guess?" It is the logical next move, and it's a move that, in theory, pays homage to fans(which is being written off here as fanservice by people ready to hate this)while allowing you to say where you are in the story, which is somewhat important when we are tossed into this alternate timeline without warning. The whole film could have significance off that alone. This is where Kirk faces Kahn.

I'm glad that the real twist, on whether or not they kill a major character, and whether or not that major character will be Spock, is not spoken of. I respect you Bob for not liking J.J. much(honestly I agree that Super 8 is just a terrible movie, Lost wasn't very good, and I've mostly enjoyed him as a producer more often than a director), but I'm willing to give this a go despite the warning. If I give my money to a terrible movie, then so be it. I will post my thoughts on...Tuesday I guess, don't have the weekend off.

Grenge Di Origin:
*sigh* Maybe then I should go see the Wrath of Khan, then? Like Doctor Who, I've always wanted to get into this quintessential nerd franchise but I don't know a good starting point for it. Do I watch the original series, do I watch Next Generation, do I start with the movies? I just don't know...
...but, having stopped before I could get spoiled, I'll probably watch this one anyhow.

Okay save yourself some time.

watch the new one now.

Movie bob is off his meds once again, this movie kicked ass. as in it was the best sci fi movie ever
and movie bob clearly must be one of those guys up shatners you know.

Seriously... what was he expecting ricardo monto bonde? Best villain ever?

Either your gonna see that as a joke or your not.

wow bob whined about the fan service girl....

he must really have missed recardo's open shirt look after all.

K_Dub:

Blood Brain Barrier:

Mason Luxenberg:

Way to be randomly anti-semitic, jackass!

Ya well, if Shakespeare and South Park can do it then so can I. Historical stereotyping is great.

Yeah, but where Shakespeare and South Park use stereotyping in a comedic or dramatic sense, often to deliver a political point of some kind, you're just being mean and hateful with your comment.

Don't you dare attempt to justify your statement by comparing yourself to arguably history's greatest writers. Your comment wasn't funny, didn't feature any political satire that I could pick up on, and didn't add any weight to your overall opinion of the film.

It was a hateful remark, pure and simple. And as far as I'm concerned, you're a lesser human being for ever thinking it.

You're kidding, right? Hateful? Am I hateful for thinking black people are better at sprinting? Because they generally are. It's a stereotype but that doesn't make it wrong and it certainly doesn't make it hateful. People with jewish heritage are known for their business acumen. It's a cultural and familial trait that stretches back to biblical times.

The film was okay, but only just.

You know, I wish I could view it on it's own merits, but it insists otherwise, so fuck it. While there were some good elements (the action scenes by themselves were mostly good, it was much easier to look at, the score was still fantastic, and the sound design was memorable), it's the awkward way that the film panders that kills it.

Into Darkness is just the cliff notes version of Wrath of Khan that happened to be written by the village idiot. Why would I watch that? Why wouldn't I just watch 'Wrath' instead? The twist that Harrison is Khan seems to serve no purpose other than to fuel JJ Abrams hubris, which comes to a head at the abysmal ending (why have the characters come to terms with death when we can just have a big chase scene, right?).

While 2009's Star Trek wasn't exactly fantastic, it still had it's own unique identity, this one doesn't. This film, as I said, is NOTHING but a shitty retread of 'Wrath.'

I'd also agree that almost every single character replays their arc from the first film. Seriously, it's not even funny how lazy this writing is. Said laziness also applies to the nature of Khan, which does change constantly. At one point, he's sympathetic, and the next he's a wild fucking animal, it makes almost no sense!

I don't really have too much of a problem with Star Trek becoming another action series, but don't touch what you clearly don't understand JJ, kay?

PS: Can someone please tell me what Alice Eve was doing? What purpose did her character serve, I mean, really?

Magog1:
wow bob whined about the fan service girl....

he must really have missed recardo's open shirt look after all.

Because why make genuine arguments when you can just make gay jokes, right?!

I actually really liked this movie.
I haven't seen Wrath of Khan, so that probably means that it's hard for me to compare the two, but my parents (who are Trekkies) really liked it as well. They said it wasn't as good, but it was still enjoyable. I think Movie Bob is being just a tad harsh.

trty00:

Magog1:
wow bob whined about the fan service girl....

he must really have missed recardo's open shirt look after all.

Because why make genuine arguments when you can just make gay jokes, right?!

I...didn't take this as a gay joke, but rather as a reference to just HOW freaking cheesy the original Kahn was. He was in fact extremely manly, and not affeminate, but he also wore a wardrobe fitting of, like, Neil Diamond or something.

FargoDog:
Oh no, Star Trek Into Darkness has a hamfisted political message which makes it bad and it doesn't quite live up to the best Star Trek movie ever. And yet, Bob will fellate the hell out of The Avengers which is about as politically minded as a six year old knocking over lego and lives up to its premise only by not being absolutely terrible.

I think I'm done with this show.

Why would you even compare this to The Avengers? They're two completely different franchises!

"Nope" as in, "nuh-uh, I am NOT doing this one" or "nope" as in "it sucks, don't bother, there's your review"?

 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