Star Trek Into Darkness...

I enjoyed it at the theatre. I would have liked the story line to have been a bit more original but there are also some advantages to doing what they did
 
It wasn't bad.
To me, though, Star Trek works better with smaller stories for the small screen.
There are only so many "save all humanity" stories you can work in without fatigue setting in.
The Enterprise gang isn't ALWAYS saving the universe. Sometimes they're just bangin green babes and fending off fuzzy kittens.
 
I was bored throughout. Bored of being expected to think a movie is good just because of the special effects. Bored of yet another inane script with a patchy story and piss poor dialogue. Bored of signposted characterisation scenes that belong in a soap opera.

The worst crime a big budget sci-fi movie can commit is to be boring, but most of them have been in recent years :(
 
There wasn't any time travel this go, right? Although I enjoyed the last one quite a bit, I facepalmed over the use of time travel in a reboot right off the bat.
 
Bound, gagged, immolated and peed on the ashes of my beloved Wrath of Khan. A re-imagining of that true classic in the same way that Jar-Jar Binks was a re-imagining of Chewbacca.

Cumberbatch was good, though.
 
I liked it. Taken for what it is and the expectations of the modern audience, I thought they did a great job. Audiences today want more action, more effects, more smoke and mirrors, and less story than they did a generation ago. That is what they delivered.
 
i think the new ones are the best movies of all. Its akin to the new Bond movies which are great movies that dont rely on the history of the franchise.

a key to this is that JJ Abrams never watched Star Trek or even liked it. Thats how you get a fresh perspective.
 
Yes. I agree Myst. I had a friend who kept asking if I'd watched and said I should, but he revealed nothing. So when Cumberbatch said he was you know who, I was all like NO EFFIN' WAY! He's ****! My wife did not care...it was weird (not really she's not a sci-fi fan at all).

These last two Star Treks assuage my initial concerns regarding Disney buying Star Wars. If Abrams is in charge they should be kick ass. That said, Lucas screwed them up so much that even a Disney-fied Star Wars had the potential that the prequels.
 
Mrs.P said:
Cumberbatch did a good job
Click to expand...

That's all he seems to do. The Wikileaks movie looks really good and I'm not a fan of the actual events and people involved, but I'll watch the movie (not in the theater mind you, but eventually).

Did you see the World's End yet? I loved it.
 
I enjoyed it... Just got done watching it. There are more than a couple of giant plot holes but it was still a good time,
 
Overall, I've found Abrams' Star Trek reboot to be pretty ridiculous and not at all in keeping with the spirit of the series. What Abrams has done to Star Trek is as clumsy in its own way as what Lucas did with the Star Wars prequels. Throwing in echoes and quotes from earlier, better Trek movies just rubs salt in the wound.

But I'm not crying in my beer over it or anything. I really didn't expect that Hollywood could "reboot" Star Trek without making major changes to appeal to the younger audiences who make up the majority of ticket sales.
 
It was a fun watch, lessened only by numerous common-sense, "WTF?" plot point moments and foreshadowing done with sledgehammer-like subtlety.

One thing I haven't seen mentioned elsewhere is the apparent evolution of the Enterprise into something that can easily travel underwater and in atmosphere, too. It always seemed implied that the Enterprise was a creature built in space for use in space -- like a battleship lives its entire life in water.

Now it's become the 23rd century equivalent of an amphibious, submersible aircraft carrier with giant-ass tank treads and a periscope. If the Enterprise can do it all, they lose opportunities to have interesting challenges in the future.

Of course it doesn't really matter now that it looks like transporters can do pretty much anything. Wait, why did we need a starship again? And what are all these shuttles on board for? And why do we have a Communications Officer whose primary duty seems to be working the Vulcan?
 
I liked the movie. As you guys mentioned, maybe a bit more of an action movie feel than a carefully developed plot type movie, but a good time nonetheless.
 
USian Pie said:
It was a fun watch, lessened only by numerous common-sense, "WTF?" plot point moments and foreshadowing done with sledgehammer-like subtlety.

One thing I haven't seen mentioned elsewhere is the apparent evolution of the Enterprise into something that can easily travel underwater and in atmosphere, too. It always seemed implied that the Enterprise was a creature built in space for use in space -- like a battleship lives its entire life in water.

Now it's become the 23rd century equivalent of an amphibious, submersible aircraft carrier with giant-ass tank treads and a periscope. If the Enterprise can do it all, they lose opportunities to have interesting challenges in the future.

Of course it doesn't really matter now that it looks like transporters can do pretty much anything. Wait, why did we need a starship again? And what are all these shuttles on board for? And why do we have a Communications Officer whose primary duty seems to be working the Vulcan?
Click to expand...
And speaking Klingon. And being HOT.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top