|
ComposerGuy posted:That preview was pretty cool, not gonna lie. Definitely made me more excited for the movie. The Hobbit turned out okay, but by the time the Trek preview finished I was pretty sucked in and was wishing I was watching that already.
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2012 05:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 09:06 |
|
|
I read some blogger's wishlist for a TNG reboot, and now I really want to see Christopher Eccleston as Picard.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2012 06:40
|
|
|
God drat, there is no good Riker though. A crash diet and Just-For-Men for Frakes? Josh Holloway? Can Nathan Fillion grow a beard? Totally stumped.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2012 10:22
|
|
|
Baron Bifford posted:I never understood this episode. Klingons are too dumb to understand spreadsheets? Just how do they manage their massive empire? Somebody gut this p'tak, he talks too much!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2012 18:06
|
|
|
Steve Yun posted:I could be wrong, but I'm guessing this film is JJ Abrams' way of remaking Wrath of Khan without using Khan. I am fairly certain you are wrong because that was the first 9 minutes of the movie.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2012 12:23
|
|
|
Waffles Inc. posted:I know you were probably kidding but this would be drat good casting, honestly. I just imagined him rolling his eyes and cooly blowing away Greedo and it turns out that you're right.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2013 18:03
|
|
|
Tequila Bob posted:Isn't there a Star Wars ep. VII thread? If not, maybe it's time. If you think you might enjoy them, you could probably just go ahead and read them without worrying about whether they are canon or not.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2013 17:00
|
|
|
Most of the people who have a problem with Trek 09 have a problem with it because it conflicts with their idea of what Trek should be, not with what it actually is. e: And by that I mean that Trek is a lot of things, not one specific thing. Professor Beetus fucked around with this message at 19:00 on Feb 19, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2013 18:53
|
|
|
thrawn527 posted:Oh Christ. Don't go all Dirk Benedict on us, now. Taking a notoriously sexist character and switching the gender for the new series could potentially be really awesome, if done well.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2013 16:46
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:I said this in the Star Wars thread, but sci-fi has a real lack of proactive female characters that it really should work to fix. I thought Dredd was pretty awesome in that it had a really wicked awesome female villain as well as a fairly strong female lead; Dredd's superior happened to be a woman as well.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2013 16:53
|
|
|
Mogomra posted:If it is a Mass Effect clone, that's a good thing, right? If it were, that would be, but this looks pretty crappy. A generic, linear shooter with ugly graphics. Of course, I'll probably still play it, because I'm a sucker.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2013 15:31
|
|
|
My biggest hope for this game is that there will be a button dedicated to bro fisting your co-op partner like in those Army of Two games. That way, when I'm playing Spock and pull of a sick headshot I can turn to Kirk and be like, "Bro! That was sick! Pound it!"
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2013 17:03
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Or better yet, the upgradeable cursing from 50 Cent: Blood and Sand Yes! I want to spend my hard earned spacebux on "double dumbass" and "the hell I am."
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2013 17:17
|
|
|
Comfortador posted:Hey AAtrek, the blu-rays for the original ST movie(s) bundle is on sale, are these all the good versions of the movies? (I really care about the extended Motion Picture more than anything really) The Motion Picture is the theatrical cut, and it doesn't have the redone effects from the special edition DVDs. It still looks amazing on Blu Ray, however, so you should get them anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2013 16:40
|
|
|
Mortanis posted:I don't understand why this is a valid criticism. The movies are a different standard than the TV shows. We expect a higher caliber of quality when we're talking about the big screen and attempting to appeal to a slightly wider audience than a semi-serialized television show. You can use a magical plot device to solve a problem on the show. It's bad writing, but you've got another 21 episodes to do something good with at least. There's a lower standard for a sci-fi TV show and a blockbuster movie. It's a valid criticism when the people most upset about the leaked plot details are pulling the "not in my Trek" card. A lot of stuff is Trek, whether people want to admit it or not. That said you can reduce anything to sounding silly as poo poo, as has been pointed out before, so I really have no patience for any criticism that comes from a place of "well I haven't actually seen this film but I read what some angry nerd thinks on the Internet and now I agree!"
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2013 16:55
|
|
|
korusan posted:Has it been mentioned how long he's been dead for? This is important. If it's any longer than about five minutes I for one will march right out of the theater and demand a refund.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2013 22:22
|
|
|
MadScientistWorking posted:Now we are approaching levels of not having any dam clue about modern medicine levels of whining. Technically speaking at the very maximum you can be dead for a half an hour using modern day technology. I would imagine more so using space science. Hell after careful searching that is what stasis pods are designed to do. Given my earlier post, it's possible that was sarcasm.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2013 01:49
|
|
|
Dan Didio posted:He co-wrote alongside Kurtzman and Orci, which is like the trifecta of nerd rage. Hey, wait a sec. You're Australian, why haven't you seen this yet and reported back?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2013 15:30
|
|
|
Dan Didio posted:It was a choice between seeing this or Iron Man 3 this week and I chose Iron Man. You're a monster, Dan Didio.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2013 00:59
|
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:Are there any delightfully anachronistic Sabotage-esque needle drops in this film? This is of importance to me. Seconding this. I didn't like that it took a reboot of the franchise to acknowledge that music was made in the second half of the 20th Century. I get why TNG didn't want to use anything too contemporary, but come on, you can't tell me there wouldn't be at least one person on the Enterprise who geeks out about classic rock or something. e: For the record, I actually groaned the first time I saw JJTrek and got to the Sabotage part, but after I had time to reflect I acknowledged it as the nice cold splash in the face it was supposed to be. I still think the kid Kirk was obnoxious and terribly cast though. Professor Beetus fucked around with this message at 19:54 on May 9, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 9, 2013 19:52
|
|
|
Chewbacca posted:I love how at the beginning Kirk brought up the fact that he hadn't lost one person under his command to Pike. Then later, when the splodey spaceship on spaceship action happens, we have extended shots of little crew members getting blown up and sucked into space. Not like it ruined the movie or anything but shouldn't that moment have been a bigger deal for Kirk? I guess his whole "crew as family" biz is more "bridge-crew as family." I thought this was handled pretty expertly, when Kirk was trying to get to the engine room and he glimpses two crew members fall to their deaths. It's a blink and you'll miss it moment but the look on Kirk's face says it all. Honestly there's a lot I don't like about Pine's portrayal of Kirk but he nailed some pretty emotional stuff. "I'm frightened, Spock." Oh and the Anchorman blurb was dumb as hell. I realize it wasn't from the movie proper but it was so forced and unfunny that it doesn't give me much hope. Remaining cautiously optimistic about Ender's Game, though. e: Ha ha, Despicable Me 2. Never thought I'd see the day where an Eminem song was used to promote a children's film, but here we are, folks.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2013 05:15
|
|
|
Rageaholic Monkey posted:Am I crazy, or was there a title card at the beginning of the end credits dedicating the movie to our armed forces? I was getting up to leave and I only caught a glimpse of it, but I thought that's what I saw. I'm still not sure, though. Yeah. It was definitely my least favorite thing about the movie. e: That article really clears things up; without the context it seems forced and obnoxious. Professor Beetus fucked around with this message at 05:28 on May 18, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 18, 2013 05:25
|
|
|
effectual posted:One callback that actually would've improved the movie (slightly) imo is the last line, just copy it from Kirk's earlier closing ones: "Second star to the right, straight on 'til morning". I actually thought they were going to use "out there, thattaway" a la The Motion Picture.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2013 05:52
|
|
|
moths posted:
"A lie?" "An omission."
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2013 06:31
|
|
|
Dystram posted:Another example is the myriad comic book movies that invent new characters and stupid story-lines even through they have years and years of good source material to draw on. This is kind of fallacious due to the fact that 95% of "years and years of good source material" is dated, un-filmable garbage, at least when it comes to mainstream comics.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2013 08:14
|
|
|
1st AD posted:Why do you think Hollywood continues to pump out remakes and reboots? It's because of viewers like you (and me) that support this. Actually I'm okay with the Star Trek movies so this is not a problem for me, but for example I won't watch any comic book films. Hbomberguy posted:I think he meant unfilmable as in 'should never BE committed to film, because it's garbage'. I meant to say it should be hauled away as garbage. For example, the Dark Phoenix saga. Or pretty much any mainstream comics from the 90s.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2013 19:39
|
|
|
Also, the character we see in the new movies is ten or so years younger than when we first see Kirk in the Original Series. Beyond that, there may be a few odd mentions of Kirk being bookish, but if you actually sit down and watch TOS, Kirk punches stuff constantly. The public perception of Captain Kirk may be exaggerated, but it's definitely all there in the source material.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2014 15:44
|
|
|
Spakstik posted:I thought the movie was going in a similar direction right up until the point where they're on Marcus's ship and Kirk tells Scotty to drop him once they get to the bridge. I didn't think Khan would join Starfleet, but maybe help Kirk defeat Marcus then collect his frozen crew and shove off to parts unknown. This route probably wouldn't jive with the fact that he killed Kirk's father figure, but it would've been an interesting inversion of the adversarial relationship between Kirk and Khan and could've been a good chance to show that the series was going to take old characters in new directions. Instead they literally phone a guy from the old movies who tells them that no, Khan is 100% evil and they have to fight him. It'd also be a nice callback to Khan's portrayal in Space Seed.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2014 15:24
|
|
|
Black Bones posted:Voyager does it's own thing and it's awesome. Ah, posting from the alternate universe in which Voyager wasn't just rehashed TNG and spec scripts rejected from other series.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2014 16:53
|
|
|
I'm kind of the opposite mindset. I was more interested in Khan working with Kirk in the movie because of the nature of his character in Space Seed. Space Seed had a very optimistic view of the kind of society Khan and his followers could create and it's a shame that Wrath became the only version of Khan most people care to remember. I think the movie would have worked better if the main villain was Admiral Marcus and Kirk and Khan were never truly enemies. They could have ended it similarly to how Space Seed ended, but I guess it was too important to have someone yell Khan.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2014 16:52
|
|
|
lizardman posted:What's crazy is that Cumberbatch actually resembles Joachim, Khan's second-in-command in TWOK. I think it could have worked. Mostly I just think there's a lot of interesting nature/nurture stuff to be mined in the character and that wasn't really explored in the movie. I probably liked STID more than most here (and certainly more than most in the Star Trek TVIV thread) but I liked it in spite of what they did with Khan, not because of.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2014 05:27
|
|
|
Subyng posted:Who cares about anything? You can ask "who cares" about literally everything. For starters, only drooling retards care about authorial intent where it concerns criticism.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2014 07:14
|
|
|
Subyng posted:Sure, but you maybe should care about authorial intent where it concerns a poster trying to determine authorial intent? That's what I gather from some of SuperMecha's posts about, as another poster put it, "Abrams-Star-Trek-movies-as-meta-commentary-on-past-Star-Trek-works". If someone's going start arguing about the meaning of various aspects of the movie, then yes, plausibility of intent by the author is important because a meaning or message has to have a source (the author) who intended to express that message. I could probably contrive some post about how the number of eyebrow hairs on Chris Pine's face reflects some important motif but you probably wouldn't buy it. People get defensive when new people bluster into threads where people are having discussions about film crit and go "WHOA GUYS AREN'T YOU THINKING ABOUT THIS TOO MUCH???" Why don't you contribute something instead of reflexively attacking something you don't agree with while not providing any sort of counter-argument other than "nuh-uh!"
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2014 23:01
|
|
|
DFu4ever posted:especially if the discussion involves attacking the creator due to an interpretation that is completely different than what was actually intended. Who cares? If they can back up their read of the film and have a good discussion, who gives a poo poo if that particular read isn't what the director intended? It's not "easymode criticism" for people to find critical reads of films that enhance their film-watching experience. Like, how depressing would it be if you couldn't glean anything out of a Frank Miller work other than what he intended? Professor Beetus fucked around with this message at 03:58 on Jul 5, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2014 03:55
|
|
|
Snak posted:That part is not offensive. It only becomes problematic if his ethnicity is somehow integral to his character. If his identity is purely that of a genetic superman/genius, then there is no reason he could not be white and British. I don't really think there's anything about Khan's race in particular that was essential to the character, but it does seem silly for the whitest dude in Britain to play a guy named Khan Noonian Singh.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 09:01
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:I'm pretty sure Picard doesn't disobey any orders in Generations although it's been a long time since I've seen it. Generations and First Contact were at least willing to explore Picard's character (Nemesis I guess was but it failed hilariously) so that's a plus mark on their report card. First Contact actually does show Picard disobey Starfleet's orders to stay out of the fight because they're worried he might lose it and go apeshit. He disobeys orders, shows up and saves the day and promptly loses it and goes apeshit. I actually really like First Contact because despite being a Star Trek zombie action comedy it actually has some believable character moments for Picard that we've never seen before. It takes a lot to push Picard into Captain Ahab revenge mode but being stuck on his ship fighting hand-to-hand with the Borg for a few days might just do it. Well, it's a bit of a shame that they rehashed all the Borg stuff for Picard because they'd already explored a lot of that in the episodes 'Family' and 'I, Borg'. It seemed like a step back for the character if you'd watched TNG. e: I do want to make it clear that Patrick Stewart did incredible stuff with the material, though.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2014 23:21
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 09:06 |
|
|
http://insidemovies.ew.com/2014/12/22/justin-lin-star-trek-3-director-roberto-orci/ Justin Lin directing Star Trek 2016. Sorry Jonathan Frakes, but color me stoked!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2014 04:37
|
|