|
bullet3 posted:The more I think about it the more this movie just makes me sad and depressed about the state of sci-fi. If this is what most people accept as a well-written movie, then gently caress, we really have lost, game over man. Why bother trying to make something original, or logically consistent, if you can just throw some quips and explosions every 5 minutes and people will eat it up. What do you expect? Do you honestly think 2001 would work today? The classic "good" science fiction movies worked because they were similar to mainstream movies. Movies could be slower paced because people were willing to sit through them. Movies that make the most money nowadays are fast paced. Studios want to make money, so they will keep making action filled movies. We're lucky we can get a decent TV show on the air.
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 04:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 08:42 |
|
|
I saw this with my mom the other night. Funnily enough, she was super against seeing this but did because there was nothing else available during the limited time we had to see films. She ended up enjoying it, which goes to show the film's success as an exciting action movie, especially since she's usually not that into action movies. I saw where they were heading with John Harrison pretty early, and to be honest I would have preferred if he was a new villain. The actor's performance was vastly different from the original Khan but powerful enough that I thought it could stand on it's own. I also thought the reversal of Spock's death scene was a little too much reference for my taste. In general the Khan references felt like they were distracting more then rewarding as a Trek fan. I thought the film was great until the near end. As cool as the Enterprise crashing down to Earth looked, it felt like it added a fourth act to the film. I also thought the Spock/Khan fight on the ships wasn't as thrilling as a final fight as it could have been, especially since it feels like it just ends and goes straight to the epilogue. For all the last minute rescues this film pulls off, it felt like at the end they had Kirk under ice and Khan on their sensors so the threat wasn't as imminent. The cast is what really made this film for me in the end. Karl Urban as Bones is still the best.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 04:23
|
|
|
bullet3 posted:The more I think about it the more this movie just makes me sad and depressed about the state of sci-fi. If this is what most people accept as a well-written movie, then gently caress, we really have lost, game over man. Why bother trying to make something original, or logically consistent, if you can just throw some quips and explosions every 5 minutes and people will eat it up. Just because there is action in a movie doesn't mean it's poorly written. It's well written because the actions of the characters make sense within the context of the movie, and there are no glaring plot holes (at least none that I cared to pay attention to).
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 04:24
|
|
|
bullet3 posted:The more I think about it the more this movie just makes me sad and depressed about the state of sci-fi. If this is what most people accept as a well-written movie, then gently caress, we really have lost, game over man. Why bother trying to make something original, or logically consistent, if you can just throw some quips and explosions every 5 minutes and people will eat it up. It's not like we don't get intelligent sci-fi movies still though. This year we are getting Elysium, and Gravity. Off the top of my head there has been District 9, Moon, and Children of Men (I'm sure someone can add more to that list). It's just that they are few and far between, but when we do get something, it's well worth the wait. And Into Darkness really is a pretty good movie anyways in my opinion.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 04:25
|
|
|
Pycckuu posted:Just because there is action in a movie doesn't mean it's poorly written. It's well written because the actions of the characters make sense within the context of the movie, and there are no glaring plot holes (at least none that I cared to pay attention to). No, its fine that there's action (in fact the set-pieces in isolation are probably the movies biggest strength), its poorly written because it has too many villains, both of whom we barely get any time with so there's almost no characterization to them, because it relies on mirroring scenes from a past film which don't fit in the context of the new one, because it uses an awful, lazy, deus ex machina plot device, and because it largely abandons the themes it introduces in the first half so it can shoe-horn a fan favorite villain that doesn't fit in this story. Edit: I come down harsh because I expect better of Star Trek. This ended up being a merely average movie when it could've been great. bullet3 fucked around with this message at 04:31 on May 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 04:29
|
|
|
bullet3 posted:Edit: I come down harsh because I expect better of Star Trek. This ended up being a merely average movie when it could've been great. I guess you haven't seen too much Star Trek then because a lot of it plain stinks. Especially the films. The series finale to DS9 is literally one giant deux ex machina, and that show is beloved by hardcore Trek fans. Actually the pilot is the exact same way too. To criticize STID for this is pretty laughable.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 04:33
|
|
|
Welp, Into Darkness only grossed $70.6m in its opening weekend compared to $75.2m for Trek 2009. Since the Wednesday night opening, Into Darkness has $84.1m compared to Trek 2009's $86.7m for its first 4 1/2 days. And remember, Trek 2009 didn't have the help of 3D ticket prices. For all of you who became upset about Abrams destroying the franchise and being happy to see him go to Star Wars, you'll be glad to know that if there is a sequel, it will have a much smaller budget - this is the beginning of the end.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 04:35
|
|
|
bullet3 posted:Edit: I come down harsh because I expect better of Star Trek. This ended up being a merely average movie when it could've been great. Honestly before Star Trek 09 came out, I had pretty low expectations of the film. The Next Generation movies were all really bad, most of the TOS movies sucked as well, most of Voyager was bad, and I wish Enterprise never happened. Deep Space 9 was just okay. The only consistently great shows were TOS and TNG.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 04:39
|
|
|
If it's the end (and I half-assumed it would end anyways since Abrams will be making Star Wars for the next decade) then look forward to the future of Star Trek: NOTHING
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 04:40
|
|
|
1st AD posted:I guess you haven't seen too much Star Trek then because a lot of it plain stinks. Especially the films. This is a totally fair point, I would say the best of Star Trek and what I personally hold it up to is the original 6 films, of which 5 are good to great. I'm not a fan of TNG or DS9 for many of the reasons you state. But honestly, we don't even have to go back that far, the last movie was pretty drat good, and this one isn't as strong.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 04:40
|
|
1st AD posted:The series finale to DS9 is literally one giant deux ex machina, and that show is beloved by hardcore Trek fans. Actually the pilot is the exact same way too. To criticize STID for this is pretty laughable. The difference being that the Emmissary plot is one facet of a seven-season show and wasn't even the primary focus of the finale, which both the writers and fans acknowledge as being mishandled. It also probably isn't a good idea to bring up DS9 as a point of comparison, since it literally did almost everything STID was trying to do far better, in the 90's, on a lower budget.
|
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 04:41
|
|
|
1st AD posted:If it's the end (and I half-assumed it would end anyways since Abrams will be making Star Wars for the next decade) then look forward to the future of Star Trek: The ending felt like a setup to a t.v. series to me. Please let there be a t.v. series! There for sure isn't going to be another Abrams movie.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 04:41
|
|
|
1st AD posted:If it's the end (and I half-assumed it would end anyways since Abrams will be making Star Wars for the next decade) then look forward to the future of Star Trek: I don't think it's gonna take him a decade to direct Star Wars Episode VII. It's slated for 2015, after all.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 04:41
|
|
|
bullet3 posted:its frustrating when the common reaction seems to be "it's great, just turn your brain off, its a summer movie, what do you expect". The common (positive) reaction here has been something like "it's pleasantly explicit about condemning Starfleet's militarism and also has meaningful parallels to our own current events". Did you miss all that discussion in this thread?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 04:42
|
|
|
jivjov posted:I don't think it's gonna take him a decade to direct Star Wars Episode VII. It's slated for 2015, after all. He is making 3 Star Wars films.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 04:42
|
|
|
Hopefully paramount takes it away from Abrams and gives it to someone who'll do a more cerebral take on the material. It probably wouldn't hurt to do it on a lower budget anyway, as this weekend shows, there's only so much money Star Trek is capable of bringing in anyway.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 04:43
|
|
|
I said come in! posted:It's not like we don't get intelligent sci-fi movies still though. This year we are getting Elysium, and Gravity. Off the top of my head there has been District 9, Moon, and Children of Men (I'm sure someone can add more to that list). It's just that they are few and far between, but when we do get something, it's well worth the wait. That's the problem with sci-fi. It takes so long for a good film to come out. Nearly every other genre gets a canon builder every year, or every other year. Since 2000, the only movies I might add to your list would be minority report and cabin in the woods
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 04:51
|
|
|
Sanguinia posted:This may seem like a silly question, but am I the only person who was kind of annoyed that the name of the evil ship was USS Vengeance? I know this is a nitpick tier gripe but it really bothers me. This is from a few pages back, but seriously. If you force an evil genius design a massive dreadnaught for you and he names the damned thing "Vengeance," you pretty much need to expect that to come back and bite you in the rear end.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 04:57
|
|
|
I said come in! posted:He is making 3 Star Wars films. Source please? He's only confirmed for Episode VII. There have been rumors of him getting VIII and IX, but unless something has been announced in the last couple days, it is by no means confirmed.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 04:57
|
|
|
I really can't agree that 5/6 of the original Star Trek films are good to great. I feel like the only film that even tries to be groundbreaking is TMP and that one is marred by really bad editing. (I love the cinematography and styling of that film, but very few people agree with me  ).The other films have a really cheap look to them because they were produced by the Paramount TV division on lower budgets and feature really rote/boring cinematography (the effects are good though). They should've found a way to keep Richard Kline on for at least TWOK because he had one hell of an eye for shooting Star Trek - if his visual style carried over to that film, I could easily that that TWOK was an excellent piece of film and not just a good Star Trek story. I said come in! posted:The ending felt like a setup to a t.v. series to me. Please let there be a t.v. series! There for sure isn't going to be another Abrams movie. I don't want to see a TV series because the best parts about Abrams Star Trek would get utterly lost in translation - the sweeping camera movements and the larger than life sets would all get replaced with tiny and cheap looking sets adorned with too many LCD screens and uninspired lighting. I think Battlestar Galactica proved that there are plenty of ways to tell compelling sci-fi stories without being trapped into being Star Trek and all the tropes that writers get suffocated by. 1st AD fucked around with this message at 05:00 on May 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 04:58
|
|
|
1st AD posted:I really can't agree that 5/6 of the original Star Trek films are good to great. I feel like the only film that even tries to be groundbreaking is TMP and that one is marred by really bad editing.  You're not alone buddy, you're not alone.It's just such a pleasant film to look at with the sets, the stepping stones they walk across to get to V'Ger at the end is such an awesome shot to me.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 05:02
|
|
|
jivjov posted:Source please? He's only confirmed for Episode VII. There have been rumors of him getting VIII and IX, but unless something has been announced in the last couple days, it is by no means confirmed. Yeah, I'm certain that only Episode VII is a confirmed Abrams joint. For all we know, Disney's plan may be to bring him in chiefly to establish the aesthetic and direction for the new trilogy, and then potentially rotate in other names. Meanwhile on the Star Trek front, a recent Pegg interview floated the idea that a third film could have a new director with Abrams overseeing as a producer. Personally, I'd like to see Brad Bird come in for an installment of either series.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 05:03
|
|
|
Just a reminder, Writer Carey Wilber first proposed the story of what became "Space Seed" in September 1966, early in Star Trek's history. In the proposal, the villain was Harold Erickson, an ordinary criminal exiled into space in suspended animation. He sought to free his gang from the Botany Bay, seize the Enterprise, and become pirates. Gene L. Coon proposed that Erickson should be a true rival to Kirk, a genetic superman who had once ruled part of Earth. After Ricardo Montalbán was cast, the character was changed from the blond Nordic Erickson to the dark Khan Noonien. ("Noonien" came from Gene Roddenberry, who had an old Chinese friend named Noonien Wang that he had lost touch with. Roddenberry hoped that perhaps Wang would see the episode and contact him.) So the character was going to be white until casting. Kilo147 fucked around with this message at 05:05 on May 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 05:03
|
|
|
I'm kind of disappointed that Spock Prime played the "I don't want to mess with time" card, seeing as just by him going back in time he's made huge changes to the timeline (the new Enterprise is an example of the arms race the Narada spawned, although I forget if that was implied in '09 or if it was a comics thing). He's spent enough time with Kirk Prime to know when to go cowboy, and this is kind of it. "Oh, by the way Starfleet, here's some stuff you should know: the Voyager probe is going to come back to earth changed by aliens, watch out for this Q alien who likes to gently caress around and is gonna sic this other nasty race, the Borg, on us. Also some alien parasite things are gonna try to infiltrate Starfleet, oh and if anybody every finds a derelict ship called the Botany Bay just blow it away, thanks." I mean, obviously not all his knowledge is going to still be relevant, what with timeline changes, but just warning people about the Crystalline Entity could save entire colonies, for example.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 05:06
|
|
|
Guilty posted:That's the problem with sci-fi. It takes so long for a good film to come out. Nearly every other genre gets a canon builder every year, or every other year. Since 2000, the only movies I might add to your list would be minority report and cabin in the woods Inception firmly belongs in that category. It will be interesting to see if they take Star Trek back to television, but wouldn't that only happen if Paramount thought that they'd make more money on TV than with blockbuster movies?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 05:08
|
|
|
The more likely outcome is that they do another movie, but scale back the budget a bit. Who wants to bet they do a time-travel story where the crew comes back to 2015?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 05:09
|
|
|
bullet3 posted:Hopefully paramount takes it away from Abrams and gives it to someone who'll do a more cerebral take on the material. It probably wouldn't hurt to do it on a lower budget anyway, as this weekend shows, there's only so much money Star Trek is capable of bringing in anyway. Hasn't the last two ST films made a pretty clear framework for how to make a lot of money on Star Trek, by getting a lot of butts in the seats that wouldn't otherwise bother? mr. stefan posted:It also probably isn't a good idea to bring up DS9 as a point of comparison, since it literally did almost everything STID was trying to do far better, in the 90's, on a lower budget. I think it's interesting that while DS9 invented Section 31 to add to its Darker and Edgier portfolio, the new film treats them as an enemy whose removal allows a purer, truer nature of Trek to exist.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 05:10
|
|
|
WarLocke posted:I'm kind of disappointed that Spock Prime played the "I don't want to mess with time" card, seeing as just by him going back in time he's made huge changes to the timeline (the new Enterprise is an example of the arms race the Narada spawned, although I forget if that was implied in '09 or if it was a comics thing). He's spent enough time with Kirk Prime to know when to go cowboy, and this is kind of it. I don't think the issue was changing time, it was more that he wanted to allow the people in this time-line to find their own ways and not use him as an excuse not to grow and develop to face challenges for themselves.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 05:11
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:I think it's interesting that while DS9 invented Section 31 to add to its Darker and Edgier portfolio, the new film treats them as an enemy whose removal allows a purer, truer nature of Trek to exist.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 05:11
|
|
|
Gio posted:That's pretty much how DS9 treated them. My DS9 viewing is spotty, but didn't they go the "You need S31 because the Federation can't exist without us!" route?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 05:13
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:My DS9 viewing is spotty, but didn't they go the "You need S31 because the Federation can't exist without us!" route? That is what the section 31 officers said, and the crew of DS9 proved them otherwise.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 05:15
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:My DS9 viewing is spotty, but didn't they go the "You need S31 because the Federation can't exist without us!" route? Well, yeah that was their reasoning, but Bashir et al. actively worked to undermine them, too. They were not viewed in a positive light, and at best a necessary evil--but I don't think they were seen as that even.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 05:15
|
|
|
I said come in! posted:The ending felt like a setup to a t.v. series to me. Please let there be a t.v. series! There for sure isn't going to be another Abrams movie. It couldn't be a setup for a TV series. Either we get another movie or two about their five year mission, or this was the send off. There's no way to make a TV series out of this. A lot of the people in the movie are from TV shows, but I don't know if you could bring them back to TV. Chris Pine maybe, since Star Trek seems to be the biggest thing he's done. Zachary Quinto apparently already has a TV show. Simon Pegg barely wanted to be Scotty and he only does movies now. Zoe Saldana is busy with movies. If there's ever another TV show, it will have nothing to do with these movies.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 05:16
|
|
1st AD posted:I really can't agree that 5/6 of the original Star Trek films are good to great. I feel like the only film that even tries to be groundbreaking is TMP and that one is marred by really bad editing. piratepilates posted:
TMP is an absolutely gorgeous film and, visually, is only really let down by the costume design. The story behind the editing is sad as hell, they basically had to rush a workprint to theaters. Star Trek as a whole is generally let down by cinematographers rarely willing to take risks and show the material for what it could be, and TMP was a happy exception even if it did have other flaws. MisterBibs posted:My DS9 viewing is spotty, but didn't they go the "You need S31 because the Federation can't exist without us!" route? Not really. they pretty implicitly put it out there that S31 only continues to exist because S31 actively prolongs their existence. I mean, the Dominion War is ultimately brought to an end by a character risking life and limb to cure the Dominion leadership of a bioweapon S31 developed and showing that idealism will trump cynicism in the process, it's pretty heavily shown that they cause more trouble than they solve. On directorchat, it may be absolutely insane to ponder, but I'm kind of curious as to what would happen if you let Nicolas Winding Refn direct the next movie. Babysitter Super Sleuth fucked around with this message at 05:20 on May 20, 2013 |
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 05:16
|
|
|
Cojawfee posted:Simon Pegg barely wanted to be Scotty and he only does movies now. Do you have an interview where he said that?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 05:18
|
|
|
Cojawfee posted:If there's ever another TV show, it will have nothing to do with these movies. I will once again state that what we need is Star Trek: Excelsior (with John Cho as Captain Sulu) or an Outer Limits-type anthology show. 
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 05:20
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:Do you have an interview where he said that? I don't have an interview, but when ST2009 came out, he said he didn't want to get stuck being Scotty forever. I was wrong about the only movies thing, I don't know where I got that from.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 05:22
|
|
|
Cojawfee posted:I don't have an interview, but when ST2009 came out, he said he didn't want to get stuck being Scotty forever. I was wrong about the only movies thing, I don't know where I got that from. Well he says the exact opposite here http://www.amny.com/urbanite-1.812039/simon-pegg-still-beaming-to-play-scotty-in-star-trek-1.5270563
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 05:24
|
|
|
They don't call me Often Wrong Soong for nothing.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 05:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 08:42 |
|
|
Recursive posted:What if instead of Spock totally breaking down and echoing Kirk's tired-but-still-epic "KHAAAAAAAAAAAAN!", we see him look down at Kirk's corpse and slowly, tortuously, gather his emotions, then raise his face up to camera, totally in control, and whisper "Khan" Give it the quiet Dolby whisper treatment.  ). Earlier, Spock had to talk Kirk out of just killing Harrison and bring him to trial instead. After Kirk dies, Spock is feeling what Kirk felt after Pike died, namely: I'm going to kill the son of a bitch that did this.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 06:22
|
|
