View Full Version : J.J. Abrams to helm the USS Enterprise
MC Pee Pants
05-10-2009, 05:23 PM
God points jab. Alittle too cute in certain spots, i dont mind a corny joke here and there but every scene? Still a good movie, but i dunno about movie of the summer.
fezident
05-10-2009, 05:32 PM
:blink:
drusilla
05-10-2009, 08:18 PM
I'm no Henry Higgins but I was proabably just taking a cheap shot at Yelchin's hammy accent.
i'm just very protective of anton yelchin since i saw him as the son on huff.
i just knew that the accent was supposed to be over the top in the show too, but i was just curious. hoping to see the movie next weekend.
Doogie
05-10-2009, 08:29 PM
I just got back from watching it...I enjoyed it and liked that it was a whole alternate reality 'Star Trek.' Almost like one of the "mirror" episodes from any of the series.
I personally was enjoying a lot of the references that they did to the original series, movies, etc. I will list a few of them in spoiler mode...
I loved the fact that as Kirk was doing the Kobiyashi Maru scenario he was eating an apple. Exactly the same thing he was doing as he was explaining how he beat the test to Saavik in 'Wrath of Khan.'
The line Spock dropped about "...anything that is not impossible, however improbable, is probably the truth." A nice reference to a line from Star Trek VI. Which, ironically, was originally slated to be a movie about Kirk and Spock in the academy.
The Scotty reference to "Admiral Archer's beagle being re-arranged" was from the TV series Enterprise (set 100 years before Kirk's time) reference and Capt. Archers pet beagle 'Porthos' from that series. So assuming it is an alternate reality, Archer might still be alive and serving as an admiral.
And the ship that Uhura was assigned too before complaining to Spock was Kirks original assignment: The U.S.S. Faragaut.
I enjoyed the movie immensly and am glad they decided to go a whole new route as opposed to trying to rehash old story lines or stay within the canon of Star Trek.
brettmojo
05-11-2009, 01:32 AM
I really am disappointed it didn't top that dog shit Wolverine.
thepaulo
05-11-2009, 02:27 AM
i'm just very protective of anton yelchin since i saw him as the son on huff.
i just knew that the accent was supposed to be over the top in the show too, but i was just curious. hoping to see the movie next weekend.
He's a cute kid.
Gritty
05-11-2009, 03:34 AM
It was alittle too epic at times. Like when they first unveiled the Enterprise and the Orchestral music blew my eardrums out.
I'm with you on the soundtrack. It didn't click with me at all. I don't normally pay much attention to the music but this time it was overpowering. Couldn't ignore it.
Otherwise a fine film.
Furtherman
05-11-2009, 05:17 AM
I thought it was great too. A lot of fun and I liked the new crew. It did leave you wanting more interaction among themselves, which we'll hopefully get in the sequels.
And I liked the Beastie Boys getting in there!
Furtherman
05-11-2009, 05:36 AM
Oh and a few of the star wars looking aliens that showed up here and there-- i could have done without them.
At one point I thought I saw one of the band members from the Creature Canteen.
happytypinggirl
05-11-2009, 05:54 AM
At one point I thought I saw one of the band members from the Creature Canteen.
yea i know what you mean.
TheMojoPin
05-11-2009, 06:56 AM
What the hell are there two threads about the same damn movie?
Merged.
i'm just very protective of anton yelchin since i saw him as the son on huff.
i just knew that the accent was supposed to be over the top in the show too, but i was just curious. hoping to see the movie next weekend.
he was really enjoyable.
foodcourtdruide
05-11-2009, 11:20 AM
Saw it, thought I'd hate it, but liked it. Fun action movie with a convoluted plot at times. Cast is solid and movie was fun and exciting. Definitely worth the $8.50 a ticket matinee.
abrahms needs to let go of star trek and handed the keys to the star wars franchise immediately. that one needs the saving.
conman823
05-11-2009, 10:18 PM
That has nothing to do with it. Of course its more advanced. But why would a ship with no reason to have weapons have an arsenal like that? THAT was the point. Or are we to assume that taxis 20 years from now will be equipped with vulcan cannons?
O.K. to answer you, I'm gonna go uber-geek (and use spoilers just in case):
Its a planet mining ship. Obvisously it has the huge planet drill. The rockets could be used to break down certain planet types to soften it up for the drill. And Phasers is kinda standard on all ships, even shuttle crafts. Again Phasers that are 150 years more advanced.
Now what i did find a little confusing was:
So this "Red matter" either 1- Blows your Planet to shreads, or 2- Allows you to time travel to the past? WTF?? Thats some serious shit!
conman823
05-11-2009, 10:20 PM
abrahms needs to let go of star trek and handed the keys to the star wars franchise immediately. that one needs the saving.
Trust me, Star Trek needed the saving more.
Star Wars will be redone after Lucas dies. He will never let that fall into someones hands who might make him look like an overhyped boob that he is.
Just read the Star Wars books series. These guys write better books then the entire prequel series.
LordJezo
05-12-2009, 03:40 AM
It was alittle too epic at times. Like when they first unveiled the Enterprise and the Orchestral music blew my eardrums out.
In our theater people started clapping and cheering when that happened. Then again when Spock original showed up.
I haven't been seen a movie with an audience like that in while.
Furtherman
05-12-2009, 05:03 AM
<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/arzeCy6yrIg&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/arzeCy6yrIg&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>
Doctor Manhattan
05-12-2009, 08:33 AM
abrahms needs to let go of star trek and handed the keys to the star wars franchise immediately. that one needs the saving.
They made a lot more money the Star Trek films, I don' think they need saving. As said before Lucas is not going to let anyone else make a Star Wars movie if he has anything to say about it. Once he dies then I'm sure it will be remade or hopefully a new series of movies in the same universe is created (No need to remake the originals, maybe the prequels could stand to be remade)
Has JJ Abrams directed any other movies outside of Star Trek and Mission Impossible III? Maybe he needs to direct an original movie before taking the keys to another franchise.
Trust me, Star Trek needed the saving more.
Star Wars will be redone after Lucas dies. He will never let that fall into someones hands who might make him look like an overhyped boob that he is.
Just read the Star Wars books series. These guys write better books then the entire prequel series.
he let someone else direct empire, why not abrahms on a new one? ive read the star wars books. theyre great. thats what id like from the movies. star trek was fine. it was star trek. now its star wars 2. red matter? star trek would explain it.
They made a lot more money the Star Trek films, I don' think they need saving. As said before Lucas is not going to let anyone else make a Star Wars movie if he has anything to say about it. Once he dies then I'm sure it will be remade or hopefully a new series of movies in the same universe is created (No need to remake the originals, maybe the prequels could stand to be remade)
Has JJ Abrams directed any other movies outside of Star Trek and Mission Impossible III? Maybe he needs to direct an original movie before taking the keys to another franchise.
again, abrahms should be able to do new star wars movies, not retreads. roddenberry would be fucking pissed seeing this shit.
love your avatar!
Doctor Manhattan
05-12-2009, 09:48 AM
he let someone else direct empire, why not abrahms on a new one? ive read the star wars books. theyre great. thats what id like from the movies. star trek was fine. it was star trek. now its star wars 2. red matter? star trek would explain it.
Lucas hired a director for Empire and Jedi because it was too much work to direct, write, and produce the first one. He was still part of the creative process on Empire but didn't have to be there for everything (and it made that a great film as a result) at this point I think we all agree if Lucas gave Star Wars to someone else to work with, without his input, Star Wars could be really great!
again, abrahms should be able to do new star wars movies, not retreads. roddenberry would be fucking pissed seeing this shit.
I would say Abrams made this movie so that he doesn't have to retread. At this point any sequels they make for the 2009 Star Trek can do new stuff even if it's with the same characters. Some of the characters have been altered as a result of Nero and they can explore them as new characters.
Spock's mother and planet are gone, they were part of the original Spock's life, Kirk is a different person because he father died just as he was born. Admiral Pike is a very different person who could be more of a part of the new stories.
I am not sure if Roddenberry would like the new Star Trek. I can't be sure that he wouldn't either. I am a huge fan of the original series and Star Trek: The Next Generation but think the movie series wasn't really living up to what those shows and the eariler movies were able to do. This new movie is very different but I think it maintains a lot of the sprit of the original (albeit with a lot of cheese that the newer generations seem to enjoy these days)
love your avatar!
Thank you!
fezident
05-12-2009, 03:08 PM
I'm under the impression that this is an all new, totally uncharted Star Trek universe.
This version of Lenard Nimoy's Spock is technically not the same Spock that WE already know.
Or to put it another way... none of the stuff from the original series has happened.
Meaning...
Let's just say that, in the next film, JJ Abrahms introduces a new character... for example.... Kirk's biological sister.
If the sister met the Lenard Nimoy version of Spock and the Quinto Spock in the next movie, I don't think Nimoy-Spock WOULD say "James Kirk never had a sister."
Instead... he would actually REMEMBER meeting her.
Right?
Because in this version of ST, she exists.
Furtherman
05-12-2009, 04:03 PM
I'm under the impression that this is an all new, totally uncharted Star Trek universe.
This version of Lenard Nimoy's Spock is technically not the same Spock that WE already know.
Or to put it another way... none of the stuff from the original series has happened.
Meaning...
Let's just say that, in the next film, JJ Abrahms introduces a new character... for example.... Kirk's biological sister.
If the sister met the Lenard Nimoy version of Spock and the Quinto Spock in the next movie, I don't think Nimoy-Spock WOULD say "James Kirk never had a sister."
Instead... he would actually REMEMBER meeting her.
Right?
Because in this version of ST, she exists.
Wrong.
Sort of.
Leonard Nimoy's Spock IS the 'ol Spock we know from the series - all that he experienced, did happen.
If Kirk has a sister in the next movie, then that would be wrong. His father died when he was born - due to Spock's future events that caused the black hole and sent Nero through. As soon as Nero came through, a new timeline was established. The original series did happen, but only to Nimoy-Spock.
Quinto Spock will be experiencing a new timeline. Things may or may not be the same.
If Kirk had a sister, she would have been an older sister and we might have heard about her.
So Nimoy-Spock would indeed say, "James Kirk never had a sister", because in his timeline, he never met a sister.
fezident
05-12-2009, 05:00 PM
Yes. What you're saying makes sense.
(my "sister scenario" was made without thought. I kinda forgot about that his mom died, but... you were still able to see my point. Very cool.)
Basically, we're doing BACK TO THE FUTURE rules.
I was thinking of it more as an etch-a-sketch that had been shaken clean.
Time travel makes me crazy go nuts.
hey, im not a fan of the previous recent star trek films either (insurrection was awful and nemesis was REALLY awful lol) and i think the new movie was really fun and good. still, the point of star trek is having underlaying themes that go a little deeper than rebellion (a theme that is fine for one movie but i wonder what theyll use to keep the action and excitement going nonstop in the next films, they gotta start taking orders sometime). star trek also doesnt talk down to the audience (tho i cant speak for post roddenberry or post ds9 stuff). this movie went action fantasy instead of sci fi fantasy, hell the movie was basicallly star wars a new hope. without leia.
the science? red matter. stuff that does...something. instead we get puffy hands . but i said all this already.
its great they can explore the cast as new characters, im fine with that. im a legion of superheroes fan, ive been through 3 reboots already lol i just want some smarts in my star trek. travel through a wacky water tube if you want, just fucking dont make it stupid.
brettmojo
05-12-2009, 06:00 PM
Didn't they explain the red matter in the movie? Wasn't it some new material the Romulans mined that they eventually gave the Vulcans who could use it to create it?
I mean what else do you want to know? I don't go to the movies to sit through a chemistry class and it's never been a staple of the Star Trek universe to explain things when it comes to scientific applications. I mean Heisenberg compensators? How the fuck does that work?
Didn't they explain the red matter in the movie? Wasn't it some new material the Romulans mined that they eventually gave the Vulcans who could use it to create it?
I mean what else do you want to know? I don't go to the movies to sit through a chemistry class and it's never been a staple of the Star Trek universe to explain things when it comes to scientific applications. I mean Heisenberg compensators? How the fuck does that work?
i know what you are saying. but red matter isnt even trying lol. like in the last draft they would have called it black hole juice or something. I LIKE STAR TREK AND IM FUCKING NITPICKY
brettmojo
05-13-2009, 01:23 AM
Well... Looks like I'm not the only one who thought the first ten minutes of the movie was great (http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1611192/story.jhtml).
Friday
05-13-2009, 01:55 AM
Well... Looks like I'm not the only one who thought the first ten minutes of the movie was great (http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1611192/story.jhtml).
i, too, loved the 1st ten minutes and every moment after.
and i read some comment on here about the first ten being way cheesy so i actually went In expecting silliness.... but i thought every second of Trek was perfectly orchestrated.
Furtherman
05-13-2009, 09:13 AM
Ha! I just read about an in-joke I missed to why the Beastie Boys' Sabotage was played.
From Shatners' voice over out-takes for a Star Trek video game. You've probably heard it before - 'I don't say Sabotage - YOU say Sabotage... I say SabAtaghhs"
Ha! I just read about an in-joke I missed to why the Beastie Boys' Sabotage was played.
From Shatners' voice over out-takes for a Star Trek video game. You've probably heard it before - 'I don't say Sabotage - YOU say Sabotage... I say SabAtaghhs"
Shit - I forgot about those! Stern use to play those. Hysterical.
furie
05-13-2009, 01:40 PM
im sorry
but they just wouldn't take a cadet on academic suspension and make him first officer, then captain of the flagship
unfuckingbelivable
Furtherman
05-13-2009, 01:49 PM
Ahhh yes, the believability of Star Trek.
"they" didn't... Pike made him first officer, then Kirk proved himself in battle when Spock lost his Vulcan mind.
Should we wait for the 3rd movie for Kirk to be promoted?
Well... Looks like I'm not the only one who thought the first ten minutes of the movie was great (http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1611192/story.jhtml).
He also thought Mission Impossible 3 and War of the Worlds were mindblowing.
He also wrote and directed Jersey Girl.
Furtherman
05-13-2009, 01:51 PM
He also thought Mission Impossible 3 and War of the Worlds were mindblowing.
He also wrote and directed Jersey Girl.
MI3 IS a great action flick and the best one of the series.
In fact, Phillip Seymor Hoffman made a better bad guy in MI3 than Eric Bana's Nero in Star Trek.
furie
05-13-2009, 01:53 PM
Ahhh yes, the believability of Star Trek.
"they" didn't... Pike made him first officer, then Kirk proved himself in battle when Spock lost his Vulcan mind.
Should we wait for the 3rd movie for Kirk to be promoted?
by they i meant anyone
even if pike saw a certain something in kirk, the other 500 people on the ship wouldn't follow him
im not saying wait that long to promote him, how about start him him as a Lt?
Drunky McBetidont
05-13-2009, 01:53 PM
He also thought Mission Impossible 3 and War of the Worlds were mindblowing.
He also wrote and directed Jersey Girl.
i am willing to bet i can find more shit in any other writer/director's body of work. leave mr kevin smith out of this arguement.
thanks....
Furtherman
05-13-2009, 01:55 PM
im not saying wait that long to promote him, how about start him him as a Lt?
Because this is Star Trek and there has always been a Captain Kirk.
im sorry
but they just wouldn't take a cadet on academic suspension and make him first officer, then captain of the flagship
unfuckingbelivable
And I guess all the time warps and alternate realities were?
fezident
05-13-2009, 02:22 PM
MI:3 kicked all kinds of ass. Great action... great pace... great acting all around.
Doctor Manhattan
05-13-2009, 02:49 PM
i am willing to bet i can find more shit in any other writer/director's body of work. leave mr kevin smith out of this arguement.
How about Stanley Kubrick, The Coen Brothers, Alfred Hitchcock, Wes Anderson, Christopher Nolan, David Fincher, Spike Jonze, Frank Capra, James Cameron, Quentin Tarantino, Paul Thomas Anderson, Orson Wells, Paul Haggis, Peter Jackson, Mel Gibson, Martin Scorsese...
Some of these names you could argue have made more bad movies the Smith, but some of these names there is no way to compare. Kubrick and The Coen Brother's have excellent records.
I like Kevin and I love Clerks and Dogma. But he's made some stinkers.
CHUCKWAGONCOOK
05-13-2009, 02:57 PM
How about Stanley Kubrick, The Coen Brothers, Alfred Hitchcock, Wes Anderson, Christopher Nolan, David Fincher, Spike Jonze, Frank Capra, James Cameron, Quentin Tarantino, Paul Thomas Anderson, Orson Wells, Paul Haggis, Peter Jackson, Mel Gibson, Martin Scorsese...
Some of these names you could argue have made more bad movies the Smith, but some of these names there is no way to compare. Kubrick and The Coen Brother's have excellent records.
I like Kevin and I love Clerks and Dogma. But he's made some stinkers.your LOST sig pic is my birth date. Feb 7th.
That's wakky.
brettmojo
05-14-2009, 05:21 AM
He also thought Mission Impossible 3 and War of the Worlds were mindblowing.
He also wrote and directed Jersey Girl.
Jersey Girl wasn't mind blowing?
robot artist
05-14-2009, 05:42 AM
What a monumental piece of shit this movie is. Star Trek for the Gossip Girl generation.
I cannot believe the positive feedback this film is engendering; I have so many problems with this movie, it would take hours to write them all out. Instead I'm going to feature a review I found online that touches on a few things I completely agree with. (Spoilers abound)
Star Trek review
by Kommando
On the plus side:
many hints towards old canon, classic lines and true to form shuttles.
likeable characters
MICHAEL BAY EXPLOSIONS
CGI, lots of it.
Lenard Nimoy
On the minus side:
big red reset button
epileptic cameraman
lens flare
forgettable villain
spock uhura love interest.
dumb kirk
forgets lots of old canon, gross universe inconsistencies.
makes the entirety of Memory Alpha, Memory Beta and the last 40 years of Trek irrelevant.
Plot holes V'ger could fit through.
engineering looks like a brewery, oh wait, it is!
no time to process what just happened, the plot moves from action to action.
shit ending
inevitable sequel.
JJ. Abrams.
This contains spoilers, but then the whole movie spoils star trek, like spoiled meat and 8 week old milk.
JJ Abrams, of the Lost and going nowhere fame, spins star trek about and gives it the Michael Bay treatment in this newest instalment of one of the greatest sci fi franchises to grace this earth, so entirely > Star Wars, brought to us by the visionary Gene Roddenberry who is no doubt rotating at 1400rpm in his orbital grave.
I saw this at Imax with several not quite trek fans, they emerged bug eyed and grinning saying "hurrah, i can start watching trek from this point forward and miss nothing", i punched them.
JJ takes the established canon and quietly swishes it under the rug invoking implausible singularities to bring an angry Romulan named nero back in time after the destruction of Romulus in a "totally unpredicted supernova" in the post Voyager timeline. old spock tried to use a completely unexplained "red matter" to create a black hole that will absorb the supernova. he succeeds but both him and the romulan ship are pulled back in time to the moment of Kirk's birth where George Kirk and his wife are aboard the USS Kelvin. they abandon ship but not before the whole Trek timeline is thrown into chaos. George valiantly kamikaze's the Kelvin into the Romulan ship and Jim Kirk is born aboard a fleeing shuttlecraft.
wait what?
thats ok, every time trek screws with time they always reset everything back to normal at the end. it'll be ok. so i sat and enjoyed the Generic Action Movie 8 with callouts and memorable lines delivered by a young fresh from the academy crew. But then when the bad guy is vanquished, uhura and Spock hook up (? - token hollywood love interest) and Vulcan is destroyed... oh yeah, Eric Banner implodes Vulcan, and earth is saved thats it... there is no fix. nothing is corrected.
wait what?
you just rewrote trek. all of it. new timeline from the beginning. Kahn is out there, V'ger is on its way back... this is some serious shit.
do you realise what you just did. you've taken the whole trek universe and wrote a big "MINE" on it.
imagine for a second if you did this to Star Wars. time fix, Anakin dies. lolz! heads would roll.
but people walk out of this giving it three thumbs up and saying this is what the franchise needed.
im sorry but i feel stabbed in the back. the altruistic post scarcity, humanitarian star trek has been pushed aside for pretty explosions, product placement, and vindictive anti-heroes.
im sorry if i sound bitter and puritan, but my childhood has been butched and replaced by a Brittany Spears lookalike.
Abject failure. i feel like crying.
Link (http://www.atomicmpc.com.au/UserReview/162,star-trek-review.aspx)
brettmojo
05-14-2009, 06:01 AM
What a monumental piece of shit this movie is. Star Trek for the Gossip Girl generation.
I cannot believe the positive feedback this film is engendering; I have so many problems with this movie, it would take hours to write them all out. Instead I'm going to feature a review I found online that touches on a few things I completely agree with. (Spoilers abound)
Star Trek review
by Kommando
On the plus side:
many hints towards old canon, classic lines and true to form shuttles.
likeable characters
MICHAEL BAY EXPLOSIONS
CGI, lots of it.
Lenard Nimoy
On the minus side:
big red reset button
epileptic cameraman
lens flare
forgettable villain
spock uhura love interest.
dumb kirk
forgets lots of old canon, gross universe inconsistencies.
makes the entirety of Memory Alpha, Memory Beta and the last 40 years of Trek irrelevant.
Plot holes V'ger could fit through.
engineering looks like a brewery, oh wait, it is!
no time to process what just happened, the plot moves from action to action.
shit ending
inevitable sequel.
JJ. Abrams.
This contains spoilers, but then the whole movie spoils star trek, like spoiled meat and 8 week old milk.
JJ Abrams, of the Lost and going nowhere fame, spins star trek about and gives it the Michael Bay treatment in this newest instalment of one of the greatest sci fi franchises to grace this earth, so entirely > Star Wars, brought to us by the visionary Gene Roddenberry who is no doubt rotating at 1400rpm in his orbital grave.
I saw this at Imax with several not quite trek fans, they emerged bug eyed and grinning saying "hurrah, i can start watching trek from this point forward and miss nothing", i punched them.
JJ takes the established canon and quietly swishes it under the rug invoking implausible singularities to bring an angry Romulan named nero back in time after the destruction of Romulus in a "totally unpredicted supernova" in the post Voyager timeline. old spock tried to use a completely unexplained "red matter" to create a black hole that will absorb the supernova. he succeeds but both him and the romulan ship are pulled back in time to the moment of Kirk's birth where George Kirk and his wife are aboard the USS Kelvin. they abandon ship but not before the whole Trek timeline is thrown into chaos. George valiantly kamikaze's the Kelvin into the Romulan ship and Jim Kirk is born aboard a fleeing shuttlecraft.
wait what?
thats ok, every time trek screws with time they always reset everything back to normal at the end. it'll be ok. so i sat and enjoyed the Generic Action Movie 8 with callouts and memorable lines delivered by a young fresh from the academy crew. But then when the bad guy is vanquished, uhura and Spock hook up (? - token hollywood love interest) and Vulcan is destroyed... oh yeah, Eric Banner implodes Vulcan, and earth is saved thats it... there is no fix. nothing is corrected.
wait what?
you just rewrote trek. all of it. new timeline from the beginning. Kahn is out there, V'ger is on its way back... this is some serious shit.
do you realise what you just did. you've taken the whole trek universe and wrote a big "MINE" on it.
imagine for a second if you did this to Star Wars. time fix, Anakin dies. lolz! heads would roll.
but people walk out of this giving it three thumbs up and saying this is what the franchise needed.
im sorry but i feel stabbed in the back. the altruistic post scarcity, humanitarian star trek has been pushed aside for pretty explosions, product placement, and vindictive anti-heroes.
im sorry if i sound bitter and puritan, but my childhood has been butched and replaced by a Brittany Spears lookalike.
Abject failure. i feel like crying.
Link (http://www.atomicmpc.com.au/UserReview/162,star-trek-review.aspx)
He probably hates the DH too...
fezident
05-14-2009, 06:29 AM
Robot Artist...
you obviously do not understand -even vaguely- the concept of a "reboot".
This is not a cover band. This is not a remake. This is a wiping of the slate. The director can take whatever liberties he wants with these characters and put them in whatever adventures he imagines. It has no bearing on the logic/rules that were established in the 60ies.
TheMojoPin
05-14-2009, 06:53 AM
Plus Gene Roddenberry sucks.
Like George Lucas, his creation was always much better when it ended up in other people's hands.
Friday
05-14-2009, 07:03 AM
methinks hbox and robot artist should get a motel room and talk about things.
and then make wet hot nerdy man love.
oh yeah.
Doctor Manhattan
05-14-2009, 07:31 AM
Robot Artist...
you obviously do not understand -even vaguely- the concept of a "reboot".
Agreed, by complaining that this movie doesn't fit into the original cannon, Kommando is just showing everyone that he is missing the point of the movie. It should be obvious, as soon as Spock's mother is killed and Vulcan destroyed, that this isn't the same universe, and as a result this will not fit in with the story lines from the original series and older movies. Kirk and Spock can't fight to the death on Vulcan, Spock's mother can't talk to Spock on Vulcan about "how he feels" after he dies and comes back.
This is a new Star Trek and people are, of course, free to feel it isn't as good as the older Star Trek. However complaining that it doesn't fit is stupid. Just complain about what it is, not what it isn't!
In this universe only the old Spock has memories of the original timeline, a few people will know that they are in an alerted universe, but I would argue that there really isn't a true original untouched universe as they have time traveled before and changed things. But now that it's new actors it's bad?
you just rewrote trek. all of it. new timeline from the beginning. Kahn is out there, V'ger is on its way back... this is some serious shitYes if they continue with a series of movies from this point forward they will no doubt touch on a lot of elements from the original stories (as they did in this movie) They can deal with Kahn and V-Ger but are not tied to doing the exact same things with them.
engineering looks like a brewery, oh wait, it is!
I will agree that Engineering didn't look right to me. It reminded me of that MST3k episode "Space Mutany" where they used the old Battlestar Galactica ship exterior but the engine room looked like a huge factory.
Furtherman
05-14-2009, 07:34 AM
The phrase "raping of my childhood" has quickly become such a lame allegory which has no merit considering actual memories of anyone's childhood are never as clear as they think they remember them to be, unless you were actually raped.
The film is generating positive feedback because it's a fun, sci-fi flick with American iconic character who time has come and gone. To see them in a new, fresh angle is great!
The one thing the movie didn't have that most of the Trek's had before, was a moral speech that underlined the crew's actions. No doubt that will be in the next film, but for this re-boot, this alternative timeline - why not start it off fun and energetic?
You can sit on your front porch and complain to everyone that passes by that the "neighborhood ain't what it use to be", or you can move forward with everyone else.
brettmojo
05-14-2009, 07:40 AM
The phrase "raping of my childhood" has quickly become such a lame allegory which has no merit considering actual memories of anyone's childhood are never as clear as they think they remember them to be, unless you were actually raped.
I was once... I remember it clearly...
http://www.cclapcenter.com/archives/southparkindie.jpg
Plus Gene Roddenberry sucks.
Like George Lucas, his creation was always much better when it ended up in other people's hands.
That really isn't fair - Lucas' tight fist over his movies is very different from Roddenberry's work on his creation - especially since Gene only really had his hands in 1 of the 11 movies (and you can make the argument that half of those other 10 were average at best, or dogshit at worst). Treks 5, 7, 9 and 10 were not "much better" by any stretch, than the 1979 movie (which was more studio meddling, and then using Roddenberry as a scapegoat) and not to mention that Next Generation has not aged nearly as well as Roddenberry's original series, while Voyager, Deep Space Nine and Enterprise have all but been forgotten.
Furtherman
05-14-2009, 10:59 AM
Plus Gene Roddenberry sucks.
Like George Lucas, his creation was always much better when it ended up in other people's hands.
He didn't suck though - he brought more humanizing issues than anyone else had before to the small screen. Race, sex, politics, tolerance, etc... He had a show that naysayers of the day largely ignored due it's "fiction", but he really did get across some important issues. Yea, he had terrible special effects, but the message was there.
TheMojoPin
05-14-2009, 11:00 AM
That really isn't fair - Lucas' tight fist over his movies is very different from Roddenberry's work on his creation - especially since Gene only really had his hands in 1 of the 11 movies (and you can make the argument that half of those other 10 were average at best, or dogshit at worst). Treks 5, 7, 9 and 10 were not "much better" by any stretch, than the 1979 movie (which was more studio meddling, and then using Roddenberry as a scapegoat) and not to mention that Next Generation has not aged nearly as well as Roddenberry's original series, while Voyager, Deep Space Nine and Enterprise have all but been forgotten.
I'm not a ST fan. All I know is the only ST stuff I like has zilch to do with GR.
TheMojoPin
05-14-2009, 11:01 AM
He didn't suck though - he brought more humanizing issues than anyone else had before to the small screen. Race, sex, politics, tolerance, etc... He had a show that naysayers of the day largely ignored due it's "fiction", but he really did get across some important issues. Yea, he had terrible special effects, but the message was there.
In the most overwritten, hamfisted ways possible.
Furtherman
05-14-2009, 11:02 AM
In the most overwritten, hamfisted ways possible.
It was 1966. Give him a break!
TheMojoPin
05-14-2009, 11:04 AM
It was 1966. Give him a break!
NO.
fezident
05-16-2009, 07:18 AM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/bzkq87pGtXM&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/bzkq87pGtXM&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
STC-Dub
05-16-2009, 05:12 PM
One......of......the......greatest.....actors..... .of.....all.......time!!!!
methinks hbox and robot artist should get a motel room and talk about things.
and then make wet hot nerdy man love.
oh yeah.
I liked the fucking movie. I just don't think it's God's greatness materialized in film form. It's a good summer blockbuster action film. Nothing more, nothing less.
Contra
05-16-2009, 06:08 PM
So in other words you don't like the movie.
You love it!
foodcourtdruide
05-16-2009, 07:12 PM
I liked the fucking movie. I just don't think it's God's greatness materialized in film form. It's a good summer blockbuster action film. Nothing more, nothing less.
I agree with this 100%
Shatner is a god.
This movie better not suck.
That is all I have to say on the subject.
fezident
05-16-2009, 07:31 PM
<object type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="http://www.collegehumor.com/moogaloop/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=1910892&fullscreen=1" width="640" height="360" ><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true"/><param name="wmode" value="transparent"/><param name="AllowScriptAccess" value="true"/><param name="movie" quality="best" value="http://www.collegehumor.com/moogaloop/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=1910892&fullscreen=1"/><embed src="http://www.collegehumor.com/moogaloop/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=1910892&fullscreen=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="640" height="360" allowScriptAccess="always"></embed></object><div style="padding:5px 0; text-align:center; width:640px;">See more <a href="http://www.collegehumor.com/videos">funny videos</a> and <a href="http://www.collegehumor.com/pictures">funny pictures</a> at <a href="http://www.collegehumor.com/">CollegeHumor</a>.</div>
extracheese
05-17-2009, 04:20 PM
Im confused about something - Nero and Spock go back in time, and meet Geroge Kirks ship..etc..He exiles Spock so Spock can witness the desctruction of Vulcan. So why did Nero wait 25 years to do this? Couldnt he have done this immediatly after destroying George Kirks ship?
Also - if Nero had Spock aboard when he came through time, why did he ask George if he knew this man (held up picture of old spock). Nero knew he couldnt possibly know him and also knew where he was (either in the brig or on the planet he exiled him on).
What did Spock do in that barron cave for 25 years??
Im confused about something - Nero and Spock go back in time, and meet Geroge Kirks ship..etc..He exiles Spock so Spock can witness the desctruction of Vulcan. So why did Nero wait 25 years to do this? Couldnt he have done this immediatly after destroying George Kirks ship?
Also - if Nero had Spock aboard when he came through time, why did he ask George if he knew this man (held up picture of old spock). Nero knew he couldnt possibly know him and also knew where he was (either in the brig or on the planet he exiled him on).
What did Spock do in that barron cave for 25 years??
Spock didn't appear until 25 years after Nero appeared. That's why they waited.
Judge Smails
05-17-2009, 04:33 PM
Im confused about something - Nero and Spock go back in time, and meet Geroge Kirks ship..etc..He exiles Spock so Spock can witness the desctruction of Vulcan. So why did Nero wait 25 years to do this? Couldnt he have done this immediatly after destroying George Kirks ship?
Also - if Nero had Spock aboard when he came through time, why did he ask George if he knew this man (held up picture of old spock). Nero knew he couldnt possibly know him and also knew where he was (either in the brig or on the planet he exiled him on).
What did Spock do in that barron cave for 25 years??
Spock explains to Kirk in the cave that Nero went through the black hole and arrived in the past. Then Spock went through the black hole and found Nero waiting for him. To Spock it was instantaneous but from Nero's perspective it took 25 years. So Nero basically sat around for 25 years attacking Klingons and whatnot and waiting for Spock to show up so he could blow up Vulcan. Also, I'm pretty sure Spock had the Red matter on his ship so Nero needed to get that first.
ChrisTheCop
05-18-2009, 01:32 PM
Saw it this afternoon.
I had heard of people complaining that the time line was changed inexplicably,
and that people died who didnt die in past incarnations of the franchise,
but in truth, it was indeed explained.
I rolled my eyes each time every beloved character had to say their catch phrase,
but all in all it was pretty good. And Uhura is a hottie! Who knew?
I didnt like Nimoy reading the "Final Frontier" tag; I dont think Shatner shouldve been in the flick for obvious reasons, but having Nimoy read that seemed like a slap in the face. Kirk shouldve read them. Just nitpicking of course.
Furtherman
05-18-2009, 01:34 PM
I didnt like Nimoy reading the "Final Frontier" tag; I dont think Shatner shouldve been in the flick for obvious reasons, but having Nimoy read that seemed like a slap in the face. Kirk shouldve read them. Just nitpicking of course.
It's the same tag they used in the teaser trailer last year.
fezident
05-18-2009, 01:51 PM
I completely agree that Chris Pine's Kirk should have narrated that mission statement. It simply doesn't make sense that Spock's character said it. It belongs to Kirk... not William Shatner... or for that matter... whichever original actor just so happened to be in the movie.
TheMojoPin
05-18-2009, 02:05 PM
Didn't Spock say it at the end of II?
Suck it, fools.
Im confused about something - Nero and Spock go back in time, and meet Geroge Kirks ship..etc..He exiles Spock so Spock can witness the desctruction of Vulcan. So why did Nero wait 25 years to do this? Couldnt he have done this immediatly after destroying George Kirks ship?
Also - if Nero had Spock aboard when he came through time, why did he ask George if he knew this man (held up picture of old spock). Nero knew he couldnt possibly know him and also knew where he was (either in the brig or on the planet he exiled him on).
What did Spock do in that barron cave for 25 years??
because they expect people to look at pretty effects and not ask questions. look pretty effects! that dog has a poofy tail! that guy has giant hands! oh, summer movies are fun!
brettmojo
05-18-2009, 02:39 PM
Saw it this afternoon.
I had heard of people complaining that the time line was changed inexplicably,
and that people died who didnt die in past incarnations of the franchise,
but in truth, it was indeed explained.
I rolled my eyes each time every beloved character had to say their catch phrase,
but all in all it was pretty good. And Uhura is a hottie! Who knew?
I didnt like Nimoy reading the "Final Frontier" tag; I dont think Shatner shouldve been in the flick for obvious reasons, but having Nimoy read that seemed like a slap in the face. Kirk shouldve read them. Just nitpicking of course.
Didn't Spock say it at the end of II?
Suck it, fools.
Wrath of Khan like a mother fucker!
fezident
05-18-2009, 03:02 PM
Didn't Spock say it at the end of II?
Suck it, fools.
It sucked both times.
TheMojoPin
05-18-2009, 03:06 PM
Better than Shatner. The man can't touch anything without it turning into an instant punchline.
That said, Nimoy has turned into a really NSFW Blackspider-esque creep in his golden years. (http://www.amazon.com/Full-Body-Project-Photographs-Leonard/dp/0979472725/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1242687933&sr=1-1)
STC-Dub
05-18-2009, 03:21 PM
Spock explains to Kirk in the cave that Nero went through the black hole and arrived in the past. Then Spock went through the black hole and found Nero waiting for him. To Spock it was instantaneous but from Nero's perspective it took 25 years. So Nero basically sat around for 25 years attacking Klingons and whatnot and waiting for Spock to show up so he could blow up Vulcan. Also, I'm pretty sure Spock had the Red matter on his ship so Nero needed to get that first.
The Red Matter was on Spock's ship so Nero did not get his hands on it until Spock came through 25 years later.
pittphantoms
05-18-2009, 04:16 PM
First, I really enjoyed this movie... I thought it was interesting and well written etc...
My major problem... I hate any piece of work that makes everything that happened before it null and void. If I am a major ST fan, I am PISSED that what I grew up watching they basically wrote off in ten minutes on screen...
What makes it worse to me is that they now have free license to reuse old villans like Kahn...
Apparently it would kill Hollywood to employ writers
First, I really enjoyed this movie... I thought it was interesting and well written etc...
My major problem... I hate any piece of work that makes everything that happened before it null and void. If I am a major ST fan, I am PISSED that what I grew up watching they basically wrote off in ten minutes on screen...
What makes it worse to me is that they now have free license to reuse old villans like Kahn...
Apparently it would kill Hollywood to employ writers
as a fan, it doesnt really bother me that they went alternate timeline. it was a really smart and easy move to appease hardcore fans because it keeps original continuity 'intact' (whatever that means as it never really happened in real life anyway), but sets up things to be new.
but, the problem is this hokey new garbage they want to give you isnt trek, its action space opera summer garbage. the crew never has to learn anything, theyre amazing from the get go. its brain dead. and you know theyre gonna use khan next instead of actually trying new ideas. everything about star trek from here on out should be brand new, not a remix. they need to fucking go for it if they want to reboot, not this geoff johns shit.
brettmojo
05-18-2009, 04:36 PM
but, the problem is this hokey new garbage they want to give you isnt trek, its action space opera summer garbage. the crew never has to learn anything, theyre amazing from the get go.
Sulu fucked up putting the ship into warp.
This might be the nerdiest thread in the history of ronfez.net, and that's really saying something.
hammersavage
05-18-2009, 05:39 PM
This might be the nerdiest thread in the history of ronfez.net, and that's really saying something.
We should have a poll for nerdiest, gayest, etc.
Foster
05-18-2009, 05:39 PM
This might be the nerdiest thread in the history of ronfez.net, and that's really saying something.
what about this one nerdiest thread ever (http://www.ronfez.net/forums/showthread.php?t=80511)
Furtherman
10-28-2009, 01:20 PM
Here's a short clip of some of the Klingon scenes that were cut from the movie. (http://io9.com/5392066/at-long-last-meet-jj-abrams-klingons)
They'll be on the DVD that comes out in a couple weeks.
pennington
11-28-2009, 10:00 AM
I just rented it. A few things from the Special Features section:
1) The endless light flashes were added by people aiming flashlights at the camera. A few would have been enough. He even had the ILM people add flashes to the digitally created scenes (like the exterior shots of the Enterprise).
2) The camera movements were done by Abrams himself. He stood next to the cameraman and jiggled the camera.
3) Abrams used real sets and miniatures wherever he could rather than CGI everything. He felt it looks better, I agree.
4) The studio wanted Abrams to use digital cameras. He used old-fashioned wide screen cameras and film because, again, he liked the look.
5) All the Star Wars comparisons are intentional. On the commentary track and in the making-of featurette, Abrams and the writers far too often said they were big fans of Star Wars and Indiana Jones and purposely tried to make Star Trek more Star Wars-ish.
6) They explain how Kirk cheated to beat the Kobayashi Maru simulation. Kirk finds out that the green-skinned girl was the the simulation's programmer so he starts a relationship with her and gets her to put a bug in the program. They took it out of the film because Kirk came across as a cad who was using the green skinned girl. (They keep mentioning in the commentary to check out the deleted scenes on the DVD but there weren't any on the copy I got from Blockbuster).
brettmojo
11-28-2009, 10:50 AM
Yeah, my only other complain about that movie other than the Beastie Boys debacle was the fact at times I thought I was listening to the score from Phantom Menace.
fezident
11-28-2009, 12:33 PM
The endless light flashes were added by people aiming flashlights at the camera. A few would have been enough. He even had the ILM people add flashes to the digitally created scenes (like the exterior shots of the Enterprise).
.
You're referring to the lens flares, yes?
I love that about JJ's movies. Very stylized. MI:III was full of that kinda thing.
Or... are you referring to something else?
TheMojoPin
11-28-2009, 12:35 PM
"Stylized?" Lens flares have been the plague of "MTV filmmaking" for way too long now. It's a joke how many filmmakers are crippled by their inability to make a film without them.
pennington
11-28-2009, 12:40 PM
You're referring to the lens flares, yes?
Yes. I don't have a real problem with them but there were so many it got distracting.
pennington
11-29-2009, 06:41 AM
I thought I was listening to the score from Phantom Menace.
Another Star Wars annoyance, besides the bar scene, was Scotty's sidekick on the planet (partner, whatever).
weekapaugjz
12-01-2009, 09:35 PM
Hi..
I have gone through it... its really good one..
Thanks for sharing the post..
if you really like UFO and aliens, i'm sure you would have liked in the sharing of these post as well.
Marc with a c
12-01-2009, 09:35 PM
Hi..
I have gone through it... its really good one..
Thanks for sharing the post..
if you really like UFO and aliens, i'm sure you would have liked in the sharing of these post as well.
.
So I skipped it when it came out in the theaters because it looked stupid. It was on FX yesterday and so I watched some of it to see if I was mistaken. I wasn't.
I shut it off after the first hour because it was so awful. What a horrible piece of shit. This made the Phantom Menace look like Citizen Kane.
Judge Smails
10-05-2012, 09:46 AM
<iframe width="640" height="465" src="http://teamcoco.com/embed/v/41587" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Furtherman
11-15-2012, 06:45 AM
HOLLYWOOD, CA (November 14, 2012) – Paramount Pictures will release the first 9 minutes from J.J. Abrams' eagerly-awaited "STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS" exclusively in IMAX 3D months prior to the film's official release in May 2013. This first-look at the movie will play in approximately 500 digital IMAX 3D theatres beginning December 14th.
"STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS," the sequel to Abrams' 2009 hit film that redefined the Star Trek universe for a new generation, marks the first time exclusive footage has played in IMAX 3D and only the third time a first-look will be released in IMAX.
It will be shown in front of The Hobbit in IMAX.
fezident
11-15-2012, 10:15 AM
That Hobbit movie barely even looks HBO-worthy.
Furtherman
11-15-2012, 01:13 PM
That Hobbit movie barely even looks HBO-worthy.
I don't know what you've seen but it looks incredible. Like the Lord Of The Rings, but incredible nonetheless.
booster11373
11-15-2012, 02:15 PM
So W/will Riker be in this?
brettmojo
11-15-2012, 02:52 PM
It will be shown in front of The Hobbit in IMAX.
Bastards. Now I have to go watch the hobbit movie.
Furtherman
12-04-2012, 10:51 AM
http://img2-1.timeinc.net/ew/i/2012/12/03/Star-Trek-Into-Darkness.jpg
cougarjake13
12-04-2012, 11:05 AM
looks very dark knight-ish
Furtherman
12-06-2012, 05:57 AM
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/diP-o_JxysA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
pennington
12-06-2012, 04:56 PM
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/diP-o_JxysA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
I'll see it. It looks like Will Smith should be attacking with a fighter plane, though.
Furtherman
12-10-2012, 03:15 PM
A picture was released today showing Kirk, Spock and the new bad guy, listed as “John Harrison".
cougarjake13
12-10-2012, 04:07 PM
A picture was released today showing Kirk, Spock and the new bad guy, listed as “John Harrison".
where's the pic ?
newport king
12-10-2012, 04:08 PM
Khan?
A picture was released today showing Kirk, Spock and the new bad guy, listed as “John Harrison".
Ad Marion Cotilllard played "Miranda Tate" in Dark Knight Rises.
Khan?
I thought I was reading that he is some old starfleet guy that gets like changed into some sort of weird being. So a redshirt come back for revenge or something. Think there is a regular episode about it.
Furtherman
12-17-2012, 08:20 AM
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/r5gdbUC9mWU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Furtherman
12-17-2012, 12:03 PM
The First 10 Minutes of the New Star Trek Into Darkness Leaked Online (http://gizmodo.com/5969174/the-first-10-minutes-of-star-trek-have-been-leaked?utm_source=io9.com&utm_medium=recirculation&utm_campaign=recirculation)
cougarjake13
12-17-2012, 12:31 PM
fucking badass
brettmojo
02-07-2013, 06:20 PM
Entertainment Weekly has spoiled who Cumberbatch is playing (http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/02/07/more-new-star-trek-into-darkness-images?utm_campaign=ign+main+twitter&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social). Brilliant find. I'm even more excited now knowing who he's playing.
I looked at the trailer. One scene looked very familiar. Hmmm, where did I see it before?
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/AJRVOvho_RA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Furtherman
05-18-2013, 11:38 AM
Here is my review, and I'll keep it spoiler free:
If you were not a ST fan before the 2009 re-boot, but enjoyed that film (I did, a lot), then you'll probably love this film too.
If you were a ST fan before and also loved the the re-boot, then you might like this film.
It was good - but they took an iconic Trek story and flipped it, and replaced one game changer with another. Not only was it not done as well as the original, but it just smacks of unoriginal and lazy writing. It was the one thing I was hoping they would not do.
So that was very disappointing. But, it was a good action flick with fine performances by all involved, scattered with some very funny scenes too. Scotty stole every scene he was in and was one of the highlights of the film.
cougarjake13
05-18-2013, 01:17 PM
further
can u pm me what the game changed switch was
I'm curious and prob won't see the movie
furie
05-18-2013, 08:05 PM
i liked it.
foodcourtdruide
05-19-2013, 08:44 AM
Saw it, wasn't impressed.
I just don't get the trust in Abrams. I thought the first two seasons of Lost were really good, and thought the first Star Trek he made was good, considering how ambitious it was (re-imagining a classic/loved story).
However, I feel like there's this re-occurring theme in his work where his characters are depthless/vapid pieces, moving to advance plot-points, which aren't very strong. Star Trek is really no different.
The biggest offense.. just like in Lost, Cloverfield and the first Star Trek, is that major/complex plot pieces are not explained, and magic and vague references takes the place of good story writing. This, to me, in science fiction is beyond lame.
However, if you like watching your friends play Call of Duty or Halo, I think you'll love this though. Every 5 minutes people were running or jumping somewhere, and something blew up.
CountryBob
06-02-2013, 07:49 AM
I liked it.
I don't give a flying fuck about that piece of shit original Star Trek series and if they changed original story lines or whatever. I was totally entertained for 2 hours.
King Imp
06-03-2013, 05:26 AM
Running, jumping, blowing shit up, and Alice Eve's tits. All in all, I enjoyed it.
brettmojo
06-03-2013, 10:47 AM
I enjoyed it... Until the final act.
Abrams basically just stole the entire ending of Wrath Of Khan but jumbled around the specifics. It's like someone plagiarizing an essay but using a thesaurus to change some words. It wasn't clever, it was just really fucking lazy and ridiculous. Especially the part Furtherman mentioned. Any Star Trek fan should and has every right to be annoyed and sickened by it. I really don't care if they continue with this reboot franchise. Maybe the disappointing box office it's done will make them think twice about continuing it or maybe Abrams will jump ship and focus on Star Wars.
Now for the spoiler ridden rant...
The fucking Khan's blood miracle cure shit is one of the worst lazy movie writing fucking plot filler shit I've ever seen... The "red matter" in the 1st film wasn't a big deal with me because I'm really not one of those people who go to a movie and need everything explained to me... But this just felt like they couldn't write anything better to explain how to bring Kirk back to life so they tossed this ridiculousness into the script and ran with it. AND WHO BELIEVED THEY WERE GOING TO FUCKING KILL KIRK? WHO? WAS THERE ONE FUCKING PERSON IN ANY OF THE THEATERS AT ANY SCREENING OF THIS MOVIE ON THIS PLANET THAT BELIEVED FOR ONE SECOND KIRK WAS DEAD? THAT HE WOULD STAY DEAD? No. No. No. No. No. No and if you try to say different you're full of shit. So that being said there was ZERO FUCKING DRAMA when that whole thing went down. I had already gotten annoyed with how Spock just dialed 1-800-COLLECT and hit up Spock about how to deal with Khan even though Spock said he'd never tell Spock anything about the alternate timeline and when I saw them completely ripping off Wrath Of Khan's final act happening right in front of my eyes I couldn't believe everyone involved in story telling this movie thought it was a good idea. Did they think it was an homage? Did they think it was a smart take on Wrath Of Khan? Because it wasn't any of those things. It was a slap in the face of every Star Trek fan who went into this reboot with open hearts and open minds. You know how I felt? Like I was watching Kingdom of the Crystal Skull again. Just my fucking childhood and fandom ripped from my fucking soul. It felt like a SNL skit like Abrams was goofing off of Wrath Of Khan. It felt like he was making fun of Trek in all honesty like he was hahaha'ing the franchise. It was gross. Spock yelling Khan, eick. Especially after all the praise I've had for the guy. I never watched LOST but I liked Cloverfield, I liked Super 8 even though it was a blatantly obvious attempt to redo E.T., the guy claimed to be a fan of the Star Trek universe and respectful of it but after this movie I can't see how any of that is true. If anything this was just a money grab. A few winks at the fans but that's it, just another paycheck.
There's something Shatner always talks about it's the difference between Star Trek and Star Wars and it's something called Sci-Fantasy. Sci-Fi or science fiction is Star Trek. It's fiction based in science fact. Sure when Star Trek first appeared we didn't have phasers or communicators or flat screens or computer pads or wireless interlinking of devices but these were things that were scientifically possible in the future... Well here we are with ipads and cell phones and Bravia televisions and wifi because the science and technology in a sci-fi universe are based in fact. Sci-fantasy is Star Wars, it's midachlorians and light sabers and the force and all the silly sounding made up shit to fill plot holes and advance a story. That's what JJ Abrams is doing to Star Trek and that's what so so so so very fucking wrong with this movie. It's one thing to play around with the cannon of characters or storylines or the history of the original series but it's totally another thing to ignore the science based cannon and technology that makes Star Trek the benchmark franchise of the science fiction universe.
I loved the commentary of the use of drones. I loved how Kirk had to force himself to come to understand the reasons behind Khan's acts of terror and the political commentary. That really made me happy because that is something ingrained in the fabric of Star Trek. The depth that makes Star Trek culturally significant. Deep Space Nine was the pinnacle in my opinion of this. Where TOS and TNG were about the exploration of the universe DS9 dealt with the politics of it. Really one of the best done television shows of all time let alone the best series in the franchise. It's not just about people flying through space blowing things up. The first two-thirds of this movie had me believing that Abrams had a grasp on this. The third act showed me he doesn't.
Furtherman
06-04-2013, 04:35 AM
Another nerd nitpick I had: We see the Enterprise at the Pillars Of Creation nebula. However, the nebula looks like it does from how we see it from Earth, when the light of that nebula reaches us. However, if we were to take a starship there today, that nebula would not be there. It has since dispersed thousands of years ago. So what, right? Yea, well the endings was so disappointing, that I'm going to pick at it like the pissed off nerd I am.
pennington
03-22-2014, 08:29 PM
I finally saw Into Darkness. The first hour looks and sounds - and feels - like it belongs in the Star Wars franchise. In the second half it veers more toward Star Trek but everything is too dark: the scenes, the sets, the lighting. They set it up for Star Trek 3 to explore the universe.
Overall, a fast 2 hours. But it's time for J.J. Abrams to hand this off to someone else.
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.