|
Aatrek posted:Yup, you're cool. I couldn't find the never-ending headspin gif or I would have linked that. Blistex posted:What I would like them to do for the next one is have the Enterprise and crew in the middle of a full-scale war with the klingons. The first 15 minutes could be just straight up action showing how the Feds and Klingons are pouring huge amounts of resources into the meat-grinder and how it looks like neither side is going to really walk away with a clear-cut victory. Somehow a plot is uncovered where it becomes apparent that there is a 3rd party pulling the strings and hoping to take advantage of a weakened federation and klingon empire (just to take more territory, not blow up earth!). The enterprise is dispatched to find proof, stop the 3rd party, whatever. Meanwhile there is a klingon commander who has a vendetta against Kirk and the enterprise because they blew up his son's ship or disabled his and didn't even bother to finish him off, he could be chasing Kirk and they eventually have a final battle or work together to defeat the 3rd part. In the end there could be a truce, or both sides ally against the third party. I don't see this happening becuase it completely goes against STID's ending. It's specifically rejecting the DS9 era grimdark stuff (I love DS9 btw) and saying "This isn't what Star Trek IS, but here's one last grimdark movie for you, we're moving on". I'd like to see the next movie be a lot more like the opening of STID was. Someone said it earlier in the thread: "Star Trek has always been about pulpy, two-fisted space adventures, starring Kirk, where they go around gawking at weird poo poo and occasionally loving or punching it." primaltrash fucked around with this message at 15:40 on May 24, 2013 |
#
?
May 24, 2013 15:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 19:55 |
|
|
Things they can use: 1) Klingons 2) Romulans 3) Cardassians 4) M5 Daystroms revolutionary computer goes mad, and we must stop him!
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 15:48
|
|
|
Riso posted:Things they can use: Or sexy Scottish ghost candles.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 15:52
|
|
|
It's a pipe dream, but I'd really like the third Star Trek movie to be just like three separate 45 minute stand-alone episodes instead of a single overarching, Earth threatening story. Maybe you can weave them together Pulp Fiction like. Basically I don't really care about the plot, I just want to see these actors performing together.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 16:19
|
|
|
armoredgorilla posted:I couldn't find the never-ending headspin gif or I would have linked that. A single throwback line in the middle of a Klingon vs Fed battle could be, "Good thing we foiled Admiral Robocop's plan! Huh?" I would like to see anything, almost anything other than "Villain threatens Earth". Hell a bad guy that steals Spock's brain and then goes faster than warp 10 and turns in to a salamander almost seems better than another loving rehash of WOK. They did WOK perfectly the first time, every time they try to do it over it gets worse and worse. Just anything DIFFERENT would be nice for a change.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 17:05
|
|
|
People keep saying this movie was a rehash of WoK, but the plot doesn't resemble that film in almost any way. Just because the movie has Khan and dueling Federation ships doesn't make it a Wrath rehash.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 17:16
|
|
|
Strange Matter posted:Basically I don't really care about the plot, I just want to see these actors performing together. I expect the next one to have as much phasers and as little slow-moving, TMP-style Space Amazement as the last two. It'll be all "we wish we could be peaceful explorers, but the baddies force us to be blockbuster action heroes" again. Like Trek has been from the beginning, basically. And though I'd prefer something slow and explorative, the Handgrenade in Candyland style has worked quite well for two movies now, so as long as they keep up the quality ... Echoing the wish for no more high-stakes, earth-threatening maniac though. The beginning of STID? That's not exploration. That's still action scenes to save a planet. It's like, there's this supposedly low-key thing with Kirk running from some guys with sticks, but yeah, there's also a volcano, and actually, a planet-destroying volcano, in the background. Blistex posted:They did WOK perfectly the first time, every time they try to do it over it gets worse and worse. DFu4ever posted:People keep saying this movie was a rehash of WoK, but the plot doesn't resemble that film in almost any way. Just because the movie has Khan and dueling Federation ships doesn't make it a Wrath rehash. - the Enterprise critically hurt by being shot by a superior federation ship - the Enterprise crew fighting a low-key battle, but outgunned and desperate - Kirk and Spock bonding over a personal problem of Kirk, and the death of one of them - cackling maniac What do you mean? Cingulate fucked around with this message at 17:23 on May 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 17:19
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:TWoK is in large part: I'm pretty sure the Reliant was not intended to be a superior ship. It just happened to get in the crucial first shots because Kirk wasn't fast enough in realizing the Reliant was a threat. Also, since you pointed out shallow similarities I'll point out differences. -Evil Federation commander who isn't Khan. -Conspiracy subplot. -Klingons -Earth is threatened -No real space battle takes place, since the Enterprise gets beat to poo poo immediately and pretty much stays that way. -Khan isn't out for revenge against Kirk, because they just met. -Khan doesn't die nor does he lose his crew. The similarities to WoK are mostly fan service/homage bits. Otherwise the two stories have very little in common. DFu4ever fucked around with this message at 17:35 on May 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 17:31
|
|
|
DFu4ever posted:I'm pretty sure the Reliant was not intended to be a superior ship. It just happened to get in the crucial first shots because Kirk wasn't fast enough in realizing the Reliant was a threat. I probably shouldn't claim that my bullet point list outlines the things TWoK objectively is about, but that's what makes the movie work, for me. That's the scenes I remember; Kirk talking about being old, Spock talking about how to live one's life, the Enterprise critically hurt and limping into the nebula, Khan igniting Genesis while dying, Spock dying. None of the Admiral Marcus scenes, of the Klingon scenes, Earth being threatened, didn't register with me much. Maybe that's just me, but it's been pointed out that the damage done by Khan crashing the Dreadnaught is glossed over; the Klingons and Marcus are mostly cannon fodder for Khan to demonstrate his superiority (I mean, he can't really show his superiority by killing the Enterprise, so he has to kill Worf, but Worf isn't around, so he has to kill Klingons and daddy). What worked for me best about TWoK I found again in STID. I'm not saying it's a rehash or whatever, but there's definitely connections on a more than superficial level.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 17:45
|
|
|
quote:You just implied Nemesis > STID. No Star Trek 2009 was essentially a remake of WoK. Nero even has his own KHAN  moment which is way better than the one in this film.This film was a bad remake of TUC. Khan isn't even the main antagonist.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 17:51
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:This film was a bad remake of TUC.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 17:55
|
|
|
I want them to do a big budget remake of the episode where scotty is xharged with murdering a hooker and the real killer is an energy cloud that used to be jack the ripper.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 18:49
|
|
|
Throb Robinson posted:I want them to do a big budget remake of the episode where scotty is xharged with murdering a hooker and the real killer is an energy cloud that used to be jack the ripper. I can't go with this on account of Piglet died in 2005.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 19:14
|
|
|
New Half In the Bag is 45 minutes straight about Into Darkness: http://redlettermedia.com/half-in-the-bag-star-trek-into-darkness/ They didn't like it.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 19:28
|
|
|
They didn't like it or: Star Trek - Going Through The Motions.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 19:39
|
|
|
I wouldn't trust their Star Trek reviews because they've all been the spergiest pieces of poo poo ever which have focused 100% on plot and almost nothing else. Actually I'm pretty sure most of their reviews on anything have been plot focused, except for the Star Wars ones which are slightly more in-depth. I stopped watching their reviews because there was one point where they reviewed Revenge of the Sith and made fun of the lazy camera work, then started up Half in the Bag immediately after which features...lovely looking sets and lazy camera work.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 19:44
|
|
|
Its a web video series.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 19:49
|
|
|
If you pop onto Vimeo there's probably millions of videos that are better produced.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 19:56
|
|
|
1st AD posted:I stopped watching their reviews because there was one point where they reviewed Revenge of the Sith and made fun of the lazy camera work, then started up Half in the Bag immediately after which features...lovely looking sets and lazy camera work. 
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 19:56
|
|
|
yeah half in the bag is intended as obviously bad looking and fake. It's part of the joke. The Redlettermedia guys are perfectly capable of doing good work when they intend to.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 20:00
|
|
|
Febreeze posted:The Redlettermedia guys are perfectly capable of doing good work when they intend to. Which, eh, is pretty much never. Mike is one of the very few professional film critics who I take seriously, and I'm not going to say he is wrong about STID or looking at it from the wrong angle. But I don't know that he gave the things that STID did right enough credit. Jay loves indie stuff a lot more than I can stomach, and I don't always trust him to look at the big picture and not get hung up too positively or negatively on little things like the director choice. MrBims fucked around with this message at 20:21 on May 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 20:19
|
|
|
1st AD posted:I wouldn't trust their Star Trek reviews because they've all been the spergiest pieces of poo poo ever which have focused 100% on plot and almost nothing else. I'd be the last person to suggest people should watch RLM stuff (they shouldn't) but they were fairly positive over 09.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 20:23
|
|
|
I don't place their opinion very highly, even if they did happen to like a film that I liked. One of their biggest missteps was a review of the movie Cop Dog. They really really went full sperg and nitpicked the hell out of that film's plot. A film that is ostensibly a child's film for children and families. This is why I really can't take their reviews seriously, because they kind of miss the forest for the trees.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 20:27
|
|
|
ID wasn't a remake of TWOK any more than TWOK was a remake of Space Seed. And a movie can be a remake of an episode. For example, TMP was a remake of The Changeling. TWOK was about revenge and aging. Other than Khan, who wasn't the protagonist, wanting revenge on Admiral Marcus, there wasn't much revenge in this one. The themes of this one are exploration vs military in Starfleet, and personal responsibility and growth.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 20:30
|
|
|
1st AD posted:I don't place their opinion very highly, even if they did happen to like a film that I liked. Haha, what? You're mad Mike nitpicked loving Cop Dog? The stinker with 3/10 on IMDB? They can't make fun of awful movies just for fun, or as a critical exercise in seeing where movies go wrong?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 20:30
|
|
|
1st AD posted:I don't place their opinion very highly, even if they did happen to like a film that I liked. Wasn't this review a commentary on their own excessively nitpicky coverage of the Star Wars prequels?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 20:33
|
|
|
1st AD posted:I wouldn't trust their Star Trek reviews because they've all been the spergiest pieces of poo poo ever which have focused 100% on plot and almost nothing else. How is it spergy? They clearly said something to the effect of "Make a new dumb Star Trek and make it it's own thing, just make it good."
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 21:22
|
|
|
Unmature posted:How is it spergy? They clearly said something to the effect of "Make a new dumb Star Trek and make it it's own thing, just make it good." They also said "look the direction and acting and visuals are fine, it's literally the script that's the problem" (I agree entirely). Their complaint is that the film doesn't have a story and they would be fine with everything about it so long as there was a plot.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 21:40
|
|
|
'There was no story' is either real lazy criticism or some form of illiteracy or something.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 22:03
|
|
|
Danger posted:'There was no story' is either real lazy criticism or some form of illiteracy or something. It's possible I condensed 40 minutes of discussion into 4 words?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 22:06
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:It's possible I condensed 40 minutes of discussion into 4 words? So let's clarify: If it wasn't condensible to those 4 words you're illiterate/lazy and if it was they were illiterate/lazy.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 22:25
|
|
|
api call girl posted:So let's clarify: If it wasn't condensible to those 4 words you're illiterate/lazy and if it was they were illiterate/lazy. Well no, I've written out much longer posts where I talk about essentially the same things they talk about.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 22:37
|
|
|
The video shows one thing very clearly, the plot does not make any sense and treats the audience like idiots who the writers expect will not be smart enough to see it.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 22:51
|
|
|
Danger posted:'There was no story' is either real lazy criticism or some form of illiteracy or something. I think it would be better to say that it had a lazy, incoherent story that only existed to introduce action sequences and visuals. The 5 minutes where they go through the plot (which was accurate) sounded like an 8 year old making up a story. If you can't explain a movie's plot in a minute or less, then it's either a poorly written story, or 34 hours long. You could say that they went into a little too much detail summing up the plot, but if you missed even two or three of the points, then the movie makes absolutely no sense. . . well less sense since it didn't make much to begin with. I find the best stories are the ones that focus on one thing, and don't reply on 50+ plot twists and double-crossing. They put as many plot twists in this one film as there were in the previous 11. I wanted to like this, and even going into it with lowered expectations, I was thoroughly disappointed with the story. Like the RLM guys said, it looked great, but at no point was my brain acknowledging there was a worthwhile story to follow.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 22:55
|
|
|
Thom12255 posted:The video shows one thing very clearly, the plot does not make any sense and treats the audience like idiots who the writers expect will not be smart enough to see it. Which on many levels is pretty true. On the plus side, it still beats the hell out of horrible writing plus horrible action so it still beats the hell out of the TNG movies. They really do need to kick the gently caress out of the writing staff though, I gave 09 a pass because of the odd circumstances around the writers strike. STID doesent have that excuse and made no positive strides. The action was measurably better but even 09 had more heart. That opening scene with the Kelvin gets me, its not even good writing particularly its just a perfect nailing of the camera, desperation and music that just opens the film with a great sucker punch (Imagine how well this would work with a competent script! JJ has really been saving the gently caress out of these movies). They tried to do that with Kirk this time around but they picked one of 2 characters on the crew where that really wouldn't have any impact or consequence. Is JJ sticking around for a third with the Star Wars projects coming up? His direction really kept the first two together despite flaws, if they can keep him on for one more and do a complete renovation of the writing staff there could be a serious gem in the making.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 23:08
|
|
|
The "dialogue" might not have been "brilliant" because these people are pretty young. Spock barely has an understanding of his own emotions and Kirk is extremely immature. I do think Uhura didn't have a good reason to be so dramatic though.Blistex posted:If you can't explain a movie's plot in a minute or less, then it's either a poorly written story, or 34 hours long. lol lol. Where do you guys get this stuff. No Wave fucked around with this message at 23:45 on May 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 23:40
|
|
|
"A starship crew are sent on a mission to assassinate a fugitive responsible for two major terrorist attacks, only to find that their superiors intend for that mission to serve as a catalyst for war. When the crew elect to capture this fugitive instead of killing him, they are betrayed by their superiors and attacked. The fugitive, desperate to reunite with his own crew, plays both sides against each other, and commandeers the stronger ship. The ensuing exchange of blows results in massive casualties before he is finally apprehended." That's a thirty-second summary of the core plot. Thirty more seconds are available to include whatever additional details and flavour you like. Supercar Gautier fucked around with this message at 00:24 on May 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 23:51
|
|
|
Styles Bitchley posted:Yes remember even the original 1960's series is now in an alternate universe. Yes, but things that happened in the 20th century aren't, so the eugenics war, and the freezing of Kahn and his people, should have taken place in the 1990s as originally written. Unless you're saying that by going back in time, Spock arrived at a completely different parallel universe in which everything in the past and future is different and his arrival was predestined. But now we're getting into crazy philosophical territory that I'm sure the writers will never bother addressing (but it would be interesting).
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 00:21
|
|
|
Gianthogweed posted:Yes, but things that happened in the 20th century aren't, so the eugenics war, and the freezing of Kahn and his people, should have taken place in the 1990s as originally written. Unless you're saying that by going back in time, Spock arrived at a completely different parallel universe in which everything in the past and future is different and his arrival was predestined. But now we're getting into crazy philosophical territory that I'm sure the writers will never bother addressing (but it would be interesting).
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 00:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 19:55 |
|
|
Well, being sucked into a black hole sends you back in time, right? Knowing that, what happened to the Narada at the end of Star Trek? No telling how far back its wreckage was sent or what impact it might have had on whatever timelines.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 00:26
|
|