PDA

View Full Version : Star Trek: Into Darkness


Comix Obsession
05-13-2013, 07:36 AM
So, I'd imagine we have a fair few Trek fans on here? Anyone seen it yet? What did you think?

Bishop
05-13-2013, 08:38 AM
I'm planning to see it Thursday night.

Duane Korslund
05-13-2013, 09:12 AM
not yet....prolly this coming weekend...looks decent....I'm a fan of the other timeline though....

Ingrid K. V. Hardy
05-13-2013, 10:06 AM
I'll be going to see it, probably with my daughter, this weekend or next depending on time.

Comix Obsession
05-13-2013, 12:34 PM
Excellent, then I won't say anything about it until others chime in. Except this: saw it today, and was a huge fan of the first. This sequel definitely has me sealed as a Trek fan from now on. Even came home and looked at some of the box sets!

Duane Korslund
05-13-2013, 12:48 PM
be careful....you'll find there's a pretty large difference between the action in jj's work and other tv shows/films. In fact, movie-wise...very few Trek films stack up. The Wrath of Kahn and First Contact are definitely stand outs...
As a Trek fan I definitely see the merit in all of the TV shows (even Voyager and Enterprise) but the action is definitely slower and the morality is much higher.
Still, if you hold to the ideals of the Federation just about all of it is watchable and most of it is enjoyable. Except Insurrection, it sucks something fierce!

Buckyrig
05-13-2013, 01:16 PM
Except Insurrection, it sucks something fierce!

Nemesis is worse than Insurrection. And The Final Frontier is pretty much unanimously considered the worst of the movies for a reason.


And I actually kind of liked Insurrection. :whistlin:

Honestly, First Contact is the only really good Next Generation movie though.

Duane Korslund
05-13-2013, 01:27 PM
Nemesis is worse than Insurrection. And The Final Frontier is pretty much unanimously considered the worst of the movies for a reason.


And I actually kind of liked Insurrection. :whistlin:

Honestly, First Contact is the only really good Next Generation movie though.

Insurrection huh? I dunno..Worf with a huge Pimple and Picard dancing....oh and Riker shaved again...this time a lot chunkier! The whole "stop and embraced this moment" theme was a good idea...but I think they just went about it too....schmultzy I guess.

I agree...First Contact was the topper for Next Gen.

Buckyrig
05-13-2013, 01:32 PM
Insurrection huh? I dunno..Worf with a huge Pimple.

Good Lord, the biggest problem with Worf in the movies were the contrivances to get him on the Enterprise.

"Don't you have a job somewhere?"

"I saw cameras over here."

:laugh:

Duane Korslund
05-13-2013, 02:38 PM
Good Lord, the biggest problem with Worf in the movies were the contrivances to get him on the Enterprise.

"Don't you have a job somewhere?"

"I saw cameras over here."

:laugh:

A omnipotent space bear is attempting to devour Andoria...Worf just happens to be planting space tulips on the Andorian moon as the Enterprise comes to investigate.

Qapla! Space bear....dont take any guff from those swine!

Co.Inkadink
05-13-2013, 06:19 PM
I can't wait to see Star Wars Trek 2!

dx
05-13-2013, 09:00 PM
I can't wait to see Star Wars Trek 2!

Well in my opinion all of the Trek movies except Wrath of Kahn, pretty much blow for various reasons.

1st Contact was horrible in almost every aspect and most was mostly a snooze fest.

Even the reboot had major issues that were simply covered up in Action Make-up. You know...all the visual spectacles Abrams brings to the table.

Ingrid K. V. Hardy
05-14-2013, 09:13 AM
The only real issue I had with the first Star Trek reboot were all those damn lens flares. The movie should have been called "Flare! Logic Relit!"

:p

Apart from that, I like the renewed characters.

dx
05-18-2013, 02:14 AM
It was pretty damn good. Awesome visuals, great pacing, the plot/story was great and managed to play homage to the original series.

Ingrid K. V. Hardy
05-19-2013, 07:51 AM
Really enjoyed it, and amazingly... even my daughter liked it!

Thought the pacing was a bit relentless (for my personal taste), there was hardly any time to come up for air. But is great fun and I will definitely get the DVD. The movie feels a bit like a whole season of episodes squished and squeezed into 2 hours (or however long it is) but anyway. Without saying names or talking story - for those who haven't seen it yet - I will just say I really liked the evil dude.

When I asked my daughter what she liked about this movie - she is such a tough-sell and this is the first time that she and I go see a sci-fi movie together - she said right away "the characters". She is totally right, Spock, Kirk, McCoy, Scotty, etc., the actors are doing a great job with them. I caught Katérie laughing more than once...

Moonrider
05-19-2013, 09:21 AM
Just got back from the movie. Less lens flare-y than the first movie, which is nice. Cumberbatch is like a totally badass Alan Rickman :laugh: Alice Eve seem to be there just for the fanboys, as she didn't have much to do but to look pretty and British. I didn't know the role she plays was a preexisting character, and I take it the scene showing off her underwear is most likely there only as fan service. I'm still on the fence about how the Klingons are visually portrayed here. I like how they twist the plot of the original timeline, but the conclusion is still easily predictable thanks to excessive amounts of foreshadowing. Overall I liked it better than the first movie.

Bishop
05-19-2013, 12:09 PM
I really enjoyed it. Excellent story, acting, visuals, and action. Climber batch as fantastic as the villain.

Ingrid K. V. Hardy
05-19-2013, 12:29 PM
:laugh: Seems his fans are called Cumber-people.... He was great. (I haven't seen Sherlock)

Comix Obsession
05-19-2013, 02:25 PM
Good to hear I'm not the only one who loved it. Yeah, Cumberhatch was the highlight, I knew from the trailers that he was going to be awesome. I've got to check out Sherlock! I loved that Scotty got more time in this one, Simon Pegg was born for this role, I swear. Also, they turned Spock into a badass and gave Kirk a lot more depth this time round. I absolutely loved it - it's the most fun I've had watching a movie in ages.

Bishop
05-19-2013, 02:49 PM
I finished season 2 of Sherlock on Netflix yesterday. It is fantastic.

Moonrider
05-22-2013, 11:00 PM
What makes the movie fall short of being anything special, though, is that

SPOILER!!!!!

it is basically just a reenactment of the 'Space Seed' mixed with several scenes from Wrath of Khan. JJ Abrams didn't try bold enough to go where no reboot has gone before, so to speak.

dx
05-23-2013, 12:47 AM
What makes the movie fall short of being anything special, though, is that

SPOILER!!!!!

it is basically just a reenactment of the 'Space Seed' mixed with several scenes from Wrath of Khan. JJ Abrams didn't try bold enough to go where no reboot has gone before, so to speak.

Maybe...but lets be serious...Trek has never been that bold. Action, visuals, intensity, ...Abrams delivers where all other Trek films failed. Including his (Abrams) own Star Trek relaunch.

Bishop
05-23-2013, 08:30 AM
Maybe...but lets be serious...Trek has never been that bold. Action, visuals, intensity, ...Abrams delivers where all other Trek films failed. Including his Abrams own Star Trek relaunch.

This. 100% this.

Angel
05-27-2013, 01:34 AM
I thought Cumberbatch was kinda cheesy as a villian he delivered his lines with his mouth open waaay to much like he was trying to inhale air while eating something that was too hot, or he bit off a way too big bite of his sandwich. Pretty cheesy. Peter Weller was much more threatening.

The Dag
05-27-2013, 01:37 AM
I thought Cumberbatch was kinda cheesy as a villian he delivered his lines with his mouth open waaay to much like he was trying to inhale air while eating something that was too hot, or he bit off a way too big bite of his sandwich. Pretty cheesy. Peter Weller was much more threatening.

only time i show him do that was when he was crying. which is the face everyone makes when they cry and talk.

Angel
05-27-2013, 01:42 AM
It was during all of his jibba jabba in the cell

dx
05-27-2013, 02:17 AM
It seems like every major villain has to deliver their lines like Anthony Hopkins did in "Silence of the Lambs" to be menacing and taken serious.

The Dag
05-27-2013, 02:30 AM
It was during all of his jibba jabba in the cell

so yes when he was crying.

Angel
05-27-2013, 02:58 AM
To be fair he was crying almost the entire movie

CHWolf
05-27-2013, 03:11 AM
This sounds fantastic.

Moonrider
05-27-2013, 10:41 AM
To be fair he was crying almost the entire movie

Still, those are all manly tears.

Morganza
05-31-2013, 05:56 PM
I give this movie a thumbs up, it's as good as the first movie.

Justice41
06-02-2013, 11:59 PM
was it me or did the movie seem a little confined? It seemed like everything was done in tight quarters. Had a weird vibe but I dug it. Scotty's the man.

Ingrid K. V. Hardy
06-03-2013, 09:10 AM
You know, I actually have to agree with you... Not that it was bothersome at all, I totally enjoyed the ride, but it's true... It did seem a bit confined.

Duane Korslund
06-03-2013, 09:24 AM
I thought Cumberbatch was kinda cheesy as a villian he delivered his lines with his mouth open waaay to much like he was trying to inhale air while eating something that was too hot, or he bit off a way too big bite of his sandwich. Pretty cheesy. Peter Weller was much more threatening.

This...totally!!! His over-enunciation was becoming a little distracting. I dug the flick...the only thing that kinda got me was that it didnt feel...I dont know...surprising....when I saw the first one...I was surprised by the intensity..the awesomeness. This time I appreciated the story, the direction, and the movie overall...but it didnt have the magic I felt the first time. Which is weird because I felt the intensity of the movie mirrored the first movie. That and I was disappointed that I figured out who Crumberpatch's character was very quickly...which was still cool.

Moonrider
06-03-2013, 10:12 PM
I still think that Galaxy Quest is the best Star Trek movie ever.

HaphazardJoy
06-04-2013, 04:17 PM
I liked it, I liked it a lot.

Phatman
06-04-2013, 06:26 PM
So, tribbles can take a blood transfusion from earthlings? WHAT?????

Phatman
06-04-2013, 06:33 PM
Star Trek: Into Darkness is a good action movie playing in the Star Trek universe to take money from fans. Abrams knows how to make a beautiful movie, but the writing is horrible. There are so many leaps of poor logic in this tale, that I have no idea where to start with it's stupidity. I wish Abrams would just have made a new movie in the Star Trek universe or a new sci-fi picture all together. This isn't Star Trek. I fear for what he's going to do with Star Wars if this same group of writers are involved.

Justice41
06-04-2013, 06:38 PM
Of course it's star trek Just not for old farts smoking weed while eating nacho's off their stomach. This is star trek for the Ritalin age.
As for Star wars couldn't care what they do to it. Anything is going to be better than the last four pieces of crap. Yes I included Jedi as it was boring shiite.
PHATS!!! What dragged you outta your coffin? Did you here CHWOLF was banned?

Phatman
06-04-2013, 07:20 PM
Of course it's star trek Just not for old farts smoking weed while eating nacho's off their stomach. This is star trek for the Ritalin age.
As for Star wars couldn't care what they do to it. Anything is going to be better than the last four pieces of crap. Yes I included Jedi as it was boring shiite.
PHATS!!! What dragged you outta your coffin? Did you here CHWOLF was banned?

All I know is MY Capt. Kirk beat Khan by hitting him with a pipe. Now Super Khan is taking out half of the Klingon Empire and jumping around like some X-Man.

I have long said that there are only two true Star Wars' movies: Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back. The rest are toy commercials. Return of the Jedi was garbage. That whole "Leia's your sister" was the ultimate slap in the face: the dude tounged her in the last movie!

The Wolf banning is more evidence of my theory that you actually own and run the site: it's my only explanation as to why you are still here.

Justice41
06-05-2013, 01:19 AM
Ha!!! Wolf is like any other corporate raider, They find ways to devalue the company then when the stock and companies revenues are down they swoop in and buy the company cheap. WOLF was just tearing this place up with his constant barrage of whiny negative crap. At least I keep my whiny negative crap here and in the chat area but he spread it everywhere. Hell he's been gone a few days and you're back so is a few others and even Draw-offs are back. When i would log in i would see Wolfs name on almost every thread or section. Just didn't even want to be bothered posting.

Comix Obsession
06-05-2013, 09:45 AM
This is Star Trek how it would have been done had they had the budget. That's how I see it. It keeps the tone of the original series and just does a LOT more with it. I loved every minute of it, even considered going back to pay to see it again.

On the subject of Wolf, I agree with Justice. He was killing this place with his arrogance. Nobody was safe from his rants, and any time you tried to call him out with logic or even debate with him on a level that didn't suit his 'I'm winning!' level of maturity he would just post either a passive-aggressive response laced with insults or refuse to even acknowledge the response at all. I made the mistake of falling into this trap more than once, and I'm ashamed I even bothered to engage with him, to be honest. I don't even know why he was banned, but maybe it was because he was suffocating every thread with his nonsense (kinda like I'm doing now), or was it something more specific?

Moonrider
06-05-2013, 11:29 AM
I don't have any problems with him personally either, or maybe I've learned how not to take anything on this forum personally. Still, reading him fiercely debating a movie that he knew solely based on a Wikipedia entry is a cringe-worthy experience.

Back on track about Into Darkness, I was really hoping that Cumberbatch's character at one point deviate from his original incarnation into someone more unique to this new universe. The promise of him being Star Trek's equivalent of The Joker doesn't seem to deliver on me. He's basically leaning towards the Hans Gruber of Star Trek instead of that. Someone who seem like a very complicated or conflicted villain at first, but suddenly revealed to be nothing more than another crazed ubermench-ish despot (in Gruber's case, just a common thief), though quite a charismatic one at that.

I imagined a 'what if' scenario where he's revealed to be a genuine sympathetic villain and the other guy is the real main antagonist (Peter Weller's awesomeness is underused in this movie). It would reinforce the idea that everything is different now and Young Spock have to think on his own instead of relying on Old Spock's now outdated knowledge of the past. The deus ex machina with the regenerating blood is too cliched. What, Bones didn't have time check if the other superhuman popsicle people have that same blood attributes? Also, if that blood can resurrect lives imagine how much this superhuman race is worth chopped off and bled dry on the black market!

Bishop
06-05-2013, 02:00 PM
Also, if that blood can resurrect lives imagine how much this superhuman race is worth chopped off and bled dry on the black market!

That's pretty funny. I didn't even think of that. I was just enjoying the ride.

dx
06-06-2013, 09:47 PM
Star Trek: Into Darkness is a good action movie playing in the Star Trek universe to take money from fans. Abrams knows how to make a beautiful movie, but the writing is horrible. There are so many leaps of poor logic in this tale, that I have no idea where to start with it's stupidity. I wish Abrams would just have made a new movie in the Star Trek universe or a new sci-fi picture all together. This isn't Star Trek. I fear for what he's going to do with Star Wars if this same group of writers are involved.

What exactly did you want? A slow pace, mostly non-Sci-Fi movie that was taking place in a forest, or SF in the Eighties...or a dirt lot with fake Boulders? Perhaps it needed people with glued on Logo pieces walking around like zombies.

Trek has always been underwhelming Sci-Fi with lousy visuals and settings that look remarkably look like anything you kind find outside of a city.

Phatman
06-07-2013, 07:47 PM
What exactly did you want? A slow pace, mostly non-Sci-Fi movie that was taking place in a forest, or SF in the Eighties...or a dirt lot with fake Boulders? Perhaps it needed people with glued on Logo pieces walking around like zombies.

Trek has always been underwhelming Sci-Fi with lousy visuals and settings that look remarkably look like anything you kind find outside of a city.

Sorry bro', but if you want to talk about Star Trek as just props and special effects then we can end the conversation here. You don't get it and never will.

Start Trek can work as a motion picture AND be sci-fi that is true to what the original creation was about. This was a beautiful action movie with a bunch of Star Trek stuff thrown in and a nonsensical, dumbed down plot. However, this sort of movie is a good reflection of the society that we live in today: superficial, lacking substance, simple-minded, might makes right, etc. ,etc. Good writing could save this entire movie, but it was lazy and pandering to pop culture references over character or story development.

Phatman
06-07-2013, 07:49 PM
This is Star Trek how it would have been done had they had the budget. That's how I see it. It keeps the tone of the original series and just does a LOT more with it.

Try again. The tone and theme aren't even close.

Comix Obsession
06-07-2013, 08:33 PM
Try again. The tone and theme aren't even close.

They are, and they are. The tone might seem lost amongst the clever effects and superb action, but it's still in there. The theme is the same, and like I say, it's what the original was going for on a much smaller budget. It doesn't matter if you think it's better or not, it's still Star Trek, just on a much larger scale.

dx
06-08-2013, 12:32 AM
Sorry bro', but if you want to talk about Star Trek as just props and special effects then we can end the conversation here. You don't get it and never will.

Start Trek can work as a motion picture AND be sci-fi that is true to what the original creation was about. This was a beautiful action movie with a bunch of Star Trek stuff thrown in and a nonsensical, dumbed down plot. However, this sort of movie is a good reflection of the society that we live in today: superficial, lacking substance, simple-minded, might makes right, etc. ,etc. Good writing could save this entire movie, but it was lazy and pandering to pop culture references over character or story development.


What great Trek cannon are you referring to? What has been so terrific and awe inspiring. The show was cool and campy...but everything was campy in that era. The movies have sucked though in almost every aspect in the past...so I am wondering....what great Trek stuff are you referring to in comparison with Into Darkness?

Moonrider
06-08-2013, 09:00 AM
Eh. So what if some people like the old version better. Without any tv shows to keep the popularity steady this Star Trek reboot is probably only good for another sequel or two anyway.

Justice41
06-08-2013, 12:08 PM
ALRIGHT!! Movies seen and gone. Geeks.

Phatman
06-14-2013, 10:39 AM
What great Trek cannon are you referring to? What has been so terrific and awe inspiring. The show was cool and campy...but everything was campy in that era. The movies have sucked though in almost every aspect in the past...so I am wondering....what great Trek stuff are you referring to in comparison with Into Darkness?

The original Star Trek had a lot of modern, contemporary themes underlying the science fiction and crappy, dated special effects. It was made during the space program and held an optimism and vision for humanity, that is completely lost in the new movies. These themes were carried on into "Next Generation" and explored further. Both shows had action, but there was actual thought and deeper concepts underlying every episode. I get that the majority of people only get the shiny, colorful, pop culture stuff from the show and really don't pay attention about what is really being said in the show or much of anything else.

I agree that most of the Star Trek movies suck (the two Abhram's movies don't suck/they just really aren't thematically "Star Trek"). They are dumbed down action schlock with Star Trek pop culture references. They are poorly written, but visually stunning. Again, there is nothing really memorable or lasting from this movie. It is just more cgi junk in a world saturated by such.

Phatman
06-14-2013, 11:06 AM
They are, and they are. The tone might seem lost amongst the clever effects and superb action, but it's still in there. The theme is the same, and like I say, it's what the original was going for on a much smaller budget. It doesn't matter if you think it's better or not, it's still Star Trek, just on a much larger scale.

I doubt you watched much if any Star Trek or STNG from your comments. I'm not talking about the movies, but the television shows. Many of the movies have a different tone from the show: they are more action oriented, and a lot of the directors (Berman especially) completely ignore who the characters are or what Star Trek is really about.

CGI effects aren't a big deal anymore. Neither is hyper-super action on this new digital landscape. Good movies still come down to telling stories and this one made little to no sense throughout.

jeffo46
06-26-2013, 05:15 PM
My wife and I went to go see it this past Sunday . She's the trekkie ,not me. But I'll be honest here , as long as J.J. Abrams keeps on directing this new francise , then I won't have any problem spending my money going to see them. I loved this one, which I thought was way ahead of the 1st film. There was not a dull moment and I absolutely loved it.

dx
06-27-2013, 03:29 AM
I doubt you watched much if any Star Trek or STNG from your comments. I'm not talking about the movies, but the television shows. Many of the movies have a different tone from the show: they are more action oriented, and a lot of the directors (Berman especially) completely ignore who the characters are or what Star Trek is really about.

CGI effects aren't a big deal anymore. Neither is hyper-super action on this new digital landscape. Good movies still come down to telling stories and this one made little to no sense throughout.


Oh for Fucks sake....Star Trek the Motion Picture was such a piece of art. The Voyage Home set in the 80's with a combo of S.F. and Monterey Bay Aquarium was so awe inspiring and just blew your mind story telling. How about that majestic film, First Contact taking place mostly in a forest with a tent city and jute box playing really horrible music, only to be offset with zombies wearing glued on lego pieces. Yeah...lets go back to that.

Phatman
06-27-2013, 11:27 AM
Oh for Fucks sake....Star Trek the Motion Picture was such a piece of art. The Voyage Home set in the 80's with a combo of S.F. and Monterey Bay Aquarium was so awe inspiring and just blew your mind story telling. How about that majestic film, First Contact taking place mostly in a forest with a tent city and jute box playing really horrible music, only to be offset with zombies wearing glued on lego pieces. Yeah...lets go back to that.

What part of "most Star Trek movies suck" didn't you get? Again, you are ignoring my main point: the theme is off in these new movies and the stories make no sense. The movies and the tv show are going after two different audiences. The movies are going for mass appeal with dumbed down action and nostalgic pop references to the show. The last two movies, might as well have been something else completely since they have little to do with the original creation thematically.

I get that the new bright and shiny stuff appeals more to people who don't want to think too hard and just be entertained. I'm glad this movie distracted you from your daily grind and gave you some moments of enjoyment. However, don't try to justify it as being anything other than a cardboard cut out of the tv show's universe without a coherent story or consistent character development.

Duane Korslund
06-27-2013, 11:47 AM
What part of "most Star Trek movies suck" didn't you get? Again, you are ignoring my main point: the theme is off in these new movies and the stories make no sense. The movies and the tv show are going after two different audiences. The movies are going for mass appeal with dumbed down action and nostalgic pop references to the show. The last two movies, might as well have been something else completely since they have little to do with the original creation thematically.

I get that the new bright and shiny stuff appeals more to people who don't want to think too hard and just be entertained. I'm glad this movie distracted you from your daily grind and gave you some moments of enjoyment. However, don't try to justify it as being anything other than a cardboard cut out of the tv show's universe without a coherent story or consistent character development.

I agree Phats...and really any time they tried to insert some intelligence thematically into one of the movies...it just didnt work...Star Trek V...religon...Star Trek Insurrection...Embrace the moment, make it last...Star Trek IV...save the whales....Soapboxing was better left to the TV shows...it was what they were designed for. The movies are just bubblegum. The Flavor draws you in, but that's all there is to it. That's all we should expect. Need a new TV series!! I heard a Worf centered one was in the works, but has been nixxed.

dx
06-27-2013, 04:39 PM
What part of "most Star Trek movies suck" didn't you get? Again, you are ignoring my main point: the theme is off in these new movies and the stories make no sense. The movies and the tv show are going after two different audiences. The movies are going for mass appeal with dumbed down action and nostalgic pop references to the show. The last two movies, might as well have been something else completely since they have little to do with the original creation thematically.

I get that the new bright and shiny stuff appeals more to people who don't want to think too hard and just be entertained. I'm glad this movie distracted you from your daily grind and gave you some moments of enjoyment. However, don't try to justify it as being anything other than a cardboard cut out of the tv show's universe without a coherent story or consistent character development.


You assume too much! I have seen the original series that lasted for just 3 seasons. Not to much of Next Gen.

You are stuck on nostalgia and fondness of a really campy show from the late sixties. Most episodes were based on our mythology/history, literature and take on religion. There was nothing really profound about the stories and mainly the settings the shows were based in. Even in Next Gen, the settings usually were an Earth looking forest, Earth looking desert, an Earth looking Arizona, etc with people in Blue paint, Green Paint, Gold paint, that only differentiated their human counterparts with big ears, pointy ears, wrinkled foreheads, antenna, and sometimes a combination. Basically all aliens were like a giant potato head kit, but for humans.

I do not recall any deep, emotional stories that were drama. Every episode mainly put Captain Kirk in a silly dangerous situation in which he would generally find an equally silly solution to get everyone out and nail some aliens during the process.

I enjoy the Batman series with Adam West for the same reasons, but I don't want a movie based on that either. Same goes for equally silly shows like Knight Rider, Incredible Hulk, The Six Million Dollar man, etc. I loved those shows for what they were, but I wouldn't want a movie based on those episodes either.

It's fondness and nostalgia.

oh...as pointed out by Kors, when they tried your way with the movies we got Star Trek the motion picture and Saving the Whales in the 80's.

Moonrider
06-28-2013, 11:07 AM
I assume that you two are fucking nerds.

...
Now kiss.