PDA

View Full Version : So Kaylore, I was wondering


v2micca
01-01-2013, 08:37 AM
If J.J. Abrams ever stops playing coy and just admits that Cumberbatch is indeed portraying Khan, will he ever make it into your Avatar rotation?

El Guapo
01-01-2013, 09:08 AM
<1000 post rule?

TheReverend
01-01-2013, 09:33 AM
That was my assumption from the trailer too.

Admittedly though, the only star trek I've ever seen was the new one and most of my star trek info has come from the OM

TheReverend
01-01-2013, 09:33 AM
<1000 post rule?

Bye week. Relax :)

Bronco Yoda
01-01-2013, 09:51 AM
The trailers look more like Gary Mitchell than Khan to me. It's probably neither.

DivineLegion
01-01-2013, 10:00 AM
I'm boycotting Abrams until he agrees to do the new Star Wars trilogy.

Kaylore
01-01-2013, 10:01 AM
The trailers look more like Gary Mitchell than Khan to me. It's probably neither.

This.

First, cumberbatch is a bad ass. If you get a chance, see him in Sherlock. If he got to play Khan, I would definitely consider it. However I'm 80% sure he isn't Khan. And 50% sure he's Gary Mitchell. We'll find out soon. Regardless, the new movie looks like it could be a good sequel.

OBF1
01-01-2013, 10:25 AM
I am still not sure what in the hell this thread is about ???

Broncos_OTM
01-01-2013, 10:31 AM
I am still not sure what in the hell this thread is about ???
Ditto. Not knocking it. Just have no clue besides its about startrek

v2micca
01-01-2013, 10:36 AM
This.

First, cumberbatch is a bad ass. If you get a chance, see him in Sherlock. If he got to play Khan, I would definitely consider it. However I'm 80% sure he isn't Khan. And 50% sure he's Gary Mitchell. We'll find out soon. Regardless, the new movie looks like it could be a good sequel.

Eh, I'm not as excited. The 9 minute preview that ran in front of the Hobbit looked god-awful to me. I still cannot stand Chris Pine's douchebag Kirk and Zackory Quinto's Sheldon Cooper, which I'm guessing he thinks is Spock. And when it comes to Trek, not getting those characters right is a deal breaker.

broncocalijohn
01-01-2013, 10:42 AM
Who is Kalore? Is this the same person as Kupr?

BowlenBall
01-01-2013, 10:46 AM
Who is Kalore? Is this the same person as Kupr?

I think they both played on the 2007 Steelers offensive line with Foneco.

broncocalijohn
01-01-2013, 10:52 AM
I think they both played on the 2007 Steelers offensive line with Foneco.

Well, I see V2Micca went and changed the title. I guess he didn't want to go the way of Broncosfan2438 and try to change the title once Foneco took off. I think he caught it in time. Funny note: Kaylore pretty much started the Foneco thread with his post of it being a phone company in France.

Jetmeck
01-01-2013, 11:30 AM
Eh, I'm not as excited. The 9 minute preview that ran in front of the Hobbit looked god-awful to me. I still cannot stand Chris Pine's douchebag Kirk and Zackory Quinto's Sheldon Cooper, which I'm guessing he thinks is Spock. And when it comes to Trek, not getting those characters right is a deal breaker.

Seriously are you kiddin me.............

Kirk and Spock would be proud of their latest portrayals.......what more could you want from the "next generation" so to speak ?

v2micca
01-01-2013, 11:57 AM
Seriously are you kiddin me.............

Kirk and Spock would be proud of their latest portrayals.......what more could you want from the "next generation" so to speak ?

Oh, I don't know, a Kirk who doesn't come off as an entitled fratboy and burgeoning sociopath and a Spock with a voice that sounds like he has actually experienced puberty. Seriously, they stuck him in a scene with Nimoy and there must have been a 3 octave difference between the two.

And seriously, what kind of a Military organization hands the Flag Ship off their fleet over to a 25 year little s*** that just graduated from the academy?

broncosteven
01-01-2013, 12:00 PM
This.

First, cumberbatch is a bad ass. If you get a chance, see him in Sherlock. If he got to play Khan, I would definitely consider it. However I'm 80% sure he isn't Khan. And 50% sure he's Gary Mitchell. We'll find out soon. Regardless, the new movie looks like it could be a good sequel to The Abyss.

Fixed it for you.

JJ Abrams has totally destroyed the Star Trek Universe. What is up with the Enterprise crashing into San Fran bay?

broncosteven
01-01-2013, 12:06 PM
Seriously are you kiddin me.............

Kirk and Spock would be proud of their latest portrayals.......what more could you want from the "next generation" so to speak ?

The whole appeal of Spock in TOS was the conflict within as he kept his emotions at bay. In the new reboot he is strutting around tapping Uhura and showing all kinds of emotions, I was never a big Spock fan but it was a huge plot point in about every episode in one way or another it was at the least hinted at so getting that wrong destroyed any shred of respect I have for this new reboot. That and a 20 year old Kirk not even out of the Academy getting command for the flagship of the Federation made it as plausable as the movie Battleship.

broncofever
01-01-2013, 12:21 PM
This.

First, cumberbatch is a bad ass. If you get a chance, see him in Sherlock. If he got to play Khan, I would definitely consider it. However I'm 80% sure he isn't Khan. And 50% sure he's Gary Mitchell. We'll find out soon. Regardless, the new movie looks like it could be a good sequel.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/XSoIs4wfaeM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Must agree, have become a big fan of Sherlock and both lead actors in it. As for the character, it's been long rumored to be Khan and the preview gives some indication that is a revenge scenario giving some small credance to Wrath, but I think you may be correct that he is not Khan. One random detail came out of the Wikipedia on Benedict, take it for what it's worth though because I am not sure it's really verified, but it stated he was playing John Harrison. also found this article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2252860/Benedict-Cumberbatch-looks-menacing-newly-unveiled-costume-upcoming-Star-Trek-film.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490

So he probably won't be replacing your avatar. And really who could replace Ricardo Montalban and his rich corinthian leather.

BowlenBall
01-01-2013, 12:23 PM
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/192QNhVzihg?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corinthian_leather

Corinthian leather is a term coined by the advertising agency Bozell to describe the upholstery used in certain Chrysler luxury vehicles. The term first appeared in advertising in 1974.[1] Although the term suggests that the product has a relationship to or origination from Corinth, there is no relationship; the term is a marketing concept.

The term was first used during the marketing campaign for the 1974 Imperial LeBaron, but the term is usually associated with the marketing campaign for the 1975 Cordoba and that campaign's celebrity spokesperson, Ricardo Montalban, who described "the thickly-cushioned luxury of seats available even in soft Corinthian leather."[2][3]

Despite the exotic origin suggested by the name "Corinthian leather", much of the leather used in Chrysler vehicles during the era originated from a supplier located outside Newark, New Jersey.[4]

Some sources say the term refers to the combination of leather seating surfaces and vinyl seat sides, while other sources say the term simply referred to the leather itself.[5][6][2]

Jetmeck
01-01-2013, 12:33 PM
Oh, I don't know, a Kirk who doesn't come off as an entitled fratboy and burgeoning sociopath and a Spock with a voice that sounds like he has actually experienced puberty. Seriously, they stuck him in a scene with Nimoy and there must have been a 3 octave difference between the two.

And seriously, what kind of a Military organization hands the Flag Ship off their fleet over to a 25 year little s*** that just graduated from the academy?


So you don't like Spock's voice ? lol

That 25 year old fratboy just saved the planet Earth so yeah maybe he showed some promise ? lol

You do realize the time line had been screwed up in the first movie ?

Also everyone take a chill pill on the new movie, not completed or edited yet...................

broncosteven
01-01-2013, 12:39 PM
So you don't like Spock's voice ? lol

That 25 year old fratboy just saved the planet Earth so yeah maybe he showed some promise ? lol

You do realize the time line had been screwed up in the first movie ?

Also everyone take a chill pill on the new movie, not completed or edited yet...................

If your counting timeline why are the ships completely different and uglier. Just total fail, they should have just started over with a new ship and crew or gone with a new cast of new characters and have a Starfleet Academy movie if they wanted. Going back and reusing the characters I have 40+ years invested in is sacrilege.

Bronco Yoda
01-01-2013, 12:40 PM
Ricardo Montalban OWNS that role. I can't even imagine anyone else doing it regardless of the type of reboot. There are just some roles that are untouchable... and IMO that is one of them.

Kaylore
01-01-2013, 12:55 PM
I liked the new Star Trek. I'm a Treker. I favored the next generation with Picard and company. The original series is really old and hasn't aged well. I had problems with the reboot, but they were the plot holes, not the portrayals of their characters. I actually liked how the Kirk and Spock styles clashed. That's something TOS didn't do enough of. I don't think Abrams tells very good stories, but he's a good story teller and puts on a good show. I enjoyed Star Trek and hope to enjoy this one.

SoCalBronco
01-01-2013, 01:03 PM
I loved the original series and was a huge fan of the first six films. I was skeptical going into the 2009 film especially since they changed some history.....but I loved the film and understood that they had to create an alternate universe in order to pique fan interest going forward. I'm really looking forward to next May.

Cumberbatch can't be Khan....he doesn't have the pecs for it. :)

Chris
01-01-2013, 01:20 PM
So hungover right now. If I move my head an inch ill puke. If I speak I'll puke. Just thought I'd share.

broncosteven
01-01-2013, 01:29 PM
I liked the new Star Trek. I'm a Treker. I favored the next generation with Picard and company. The original series is really old and hasn't aged well. I had problems with the reboot, but they were the plot holes, not the portrayals of their characters. I actually liked how the Kirk and Spock styles clashed. That's something TOS didn't do enough of. I don't think Abrams tells very good stories, but he's a good story teller and puts on a good show. I enjoyed Star Trek and hope to enjoy this one.

The plots of the TOS are very comparable to those of NG, the limits are the effects. Have you seen the TOS Bluerays that have updated effects? I think the best TOS episodes are better than the best NG ones and I like NG but watching Dr Crusher and Deanna Troi make me feel the way I feel when listening to NASA loops with Gene on them.

To me TOS is the main course and NG is the desert. I would like to rewatch DS9 and Voyager, I didn't like DS9 at the time and don't remember much other than 7 of 9 from Voyager.

Houshyamama
01-01-2013, 02:33 PM
Benedict Cumberbatch is playing Smaug in the Hobbit as well. This dude is about to become one of the bigger actors in Hollywood. Good for him I say, the guy can act.

cutthemdown
01-01-2013, 02:42 PM
The new Star Trek is about being more original then other reboots. The new villian will not be Khan.

Mediator12
01-01-2013, 03:44 PM
I liked the new Star Trek. I'm a Treker. I favored the next generation with Picard and company. The original series is really old and hasn't aged well. I had problems with the reboot, but they were the plot holes, not the portrayals of their characters. I actually liked how the Kirk and Spock styles clashed. That's something TOS didn't do enough of. I don't think Abrams tells very good stories, but he's a good story teller and puts on a good show. I enjoyed Star Trek and hope to enjoy this one.

Can you clarify this? It's not like you to openly contradict yourself in the same sentence ;D

As for the New Star Trek, I have yet to see the last one. Kids and priorities and all. I guess I'll have to see it to get an opinion.

Houshyamama
01-01-2013, 04:19 PM
Can you clarify this? It's not like you to openly contradict yourself in the same sentence ;D

As for the New Star Trek, I have yet to see the last one. Kids and priorities and all. I guess I'll have to see it to get an opinion.

I think he's saying Abrams is good at telling stories, he just doesn't pick great stories to tell. Like a comedian who has great timing and comedic sense, with subpar material.

Kaylore
01-01-2013, 07:29 PM
The plots of the TOS are very comparable to those of NG, the limits are the effects. Have you seen the TOS Bluerays that have updated effects? I think the best TOS episodes are better than the best NG ones and I like NG but watching Dr Crusher and Deanna Troi make me feel the way I feel when listening to NASA loops with Gene on them.

To me TOS is the main course and NG is the desert. I would like to rewatch DS9 and Voyager, I didn't like DS9 at the time and don't remember much other than 7 of 9 from Voyager.

I have watched the entire remastered original series, yes. The new planets, ships and effects certainly help. You need to watch DS9 seasons 4-7. They are some of the best Trek work out there.

Kaylore
01-01-2013, 07:50 PM
I think he's saying Abrams is good at telling stories, he just doesn't pick great stories to tell. Like a comedian who has great timing and comedic sense, with subpar material.

Exactly. As a writer, Abrams is pretty crappy. His characters are forgettable, his plot points are lazy and ill-thought out and that creates massive plot holes. You can tell he "works backwards" and conceptualizes visually stunning scenes, but then tries to force them into a story afterward. His narratives are driven by action sequences.

That said, his movies are fun. The action is good. The physics (the localized ones, anyway) are realistic. His pacing is excellent, he knows how to get the right dialogue for the moment, his characters emotions are believable in the moments, and the scenes flow and escalate well. He captures comedic timing well, drama well, and action well. He's a good story teller, but his stories are kind of lame.

***Spoiler Alert***
In Star Trek, at the end of the opener we see this incredible silhouette of the Ramulan ship, damaged as the escape pods flee against a fiery background. It's powerful image.

...but how is there suddenly a fireball in this shot? It's pretty, sure, but it wasn't there before the scene started. It's not a sun, they were nowhere near one. Was it part of the nova leaking in from the future? The answer is it was pretty and looked powerful in that moment so he wanted it there.

See also:
A supernova "destroying" the galaxy - This is Star Trek. They could have thought up literally ANYTHING and we would have bought it and went with "supernova." Lazy.
Why does Spock need THAT much red matter. Apparently only a drop is needed and he has enough for the whole galaxy.
And you can't drill a hole through a planet because the mantle is liquid and it would just keep collapsing on itself.
Speaking of, why do you need to put the Red Matter in the center of the planet anyway? You could squirt some in low orbit and be on your way.
Spock watched his planet get destroyed looking up at the sky. Was that a Vulcan moon? It didn't seem like it. Yet he could see it clearly. Anything that close to Vulcan would have been consumed.

The worst thing about this is Star Trek is the play-doh of writing. You can make anything work with a little effort. The nova could be some kind of galactic storm. The red matter could be only reactive in areas of high gravity and mass, etc. One sentence or a word change would have explained this stuff.

That said, I enjoyed the movie. It was good.

Bob's your Information Minister
01-01-2013, 07:58 PM
He's not playing Khan.

Houshyamama
01-01-2013, 08:02 PM
Exactly. As a writer, Abrams is pretty crappy. His characters are forgettable, his plot points are lazy and ill-thought out and that creates massive plot holes. You can tell he "works backwards" and conceptualizes visually stunning scenes, but then tries to force them into a story afterward. His narratives are driven by action sequences.

That said, his movies are fun. The action is good. The physics (the localized ones, anyway) are realistic. His pacing is excellent, he knows how to get the right dialogue for the moment, his characters emotions are believable in the moments, and the scenes flow and escalate well. He captures comedic timing well, drama well, and action well. He's a good story teller, but his stories are kind of lame.

***Spoiler Alert***
In Star Trek, at the end of the opener we see this incredible silhouette of the Ramulan ship, damaged as the escape pods flee against a fiery background. It's powerful image.

...but how is there suddenly a fireball in this shot? It's pretty, sure, but it wasn't there before the scene started. It's not a sun, they were nowhere near one. Was it part of the nova leaking in from the future? The answer is it was pretty and looked powerful in that moment so he wanted it there.

See also:
A supernova "destroying" the galaxy - This is Star Trek. They could have thought up literally ANYTHING and we would have bought it and went with "supernova." Lazy.
Why does Spock need THAT much red matter. Apparently only a drop is needed and he has enough for the whole galaxy.
And you can't drill a hole through a planet because the mantle is liquid and it would just keep collapsing on itself.
Speaking of, why do you need to put the Red Matter in the center of the planet anyway? You could squirt some in low orbit and be on your way.
Spock watched his planet get destroyed looking up at the sky. Was that a Vulcan moon? It didn't seem like it. Yet he could see it clearly. Anything that close to Vulcan would have been consumed.

The worst thing about this is Star Trek is the play-doh of writing. You can make anything work with a little effort. The nova could be some kind of galactic storm. The red matter could be only reactive in areas of high gravity and mass, etc. One sentence or a word change would have explained this stuff.

That said, I enjoyed the movie. It was good.

I enjoyed the new Star Trek, in fact I LOVED it. But my girlfriend definitely got tired of me pointing out how ridiculous most of it was. I had to stop requiring it to make sense and just enjoy the ride. I don't think they employed many scientific advisers for the movie, or if they did... they didn't listen to them very closely.


Speaking of, why do you need to put the Red Matter in the center of the planet anyway? You could squirt some in low orbit and be on your way.

Yeah, this was stupid. All they had to do was shoot a drop of it at the planet and the black hole would oscillate back and forth consuming the planet until it came to rest at the center of mass.

Fedaykin
01-01-2013, 08:06 PM
The whole appeal of Spock in TOS was the conflict within as he kept his emotions at bay. In the new reboot he is strutting around tapping Uhura and showing all kinds of emotions, I was never a big Spock fan but it was a huge plot point in about every episode in one way or another it was at the least hinted at so getting that wrong destroyed any shred of respect I have for this new reboot. That and a 20 year old Kirk not even out of the Academy getting command for the flagship of the Federation made it as plausable as the movie Battleship.

^^ This. And I am half blind from the flares.

Oh and Star Trek is not an action series (which does not mean it does not contain action, but only that it is not the core). The new trek is Trek only in name.

/nerd rage

Tyrant
01-01-2013, 08:47 PM
Benedict Cumberbatch is playing Smaug in the Hobbit as well. This dude is about to become one of the bigger actors in Hollywood. Good for him I say, the guy can act.

BBC is churning out some quality talent. Cumberbatch and Freeman are great in Sherlock. The guy who was a vampire in Being Human (forget his name) is really good as well. Haven't seen The Hobbit, but hear he is in it as well.

Chris
01-01-2013, 09:19 PM
BBC is churning out some quality talent. Cumberbatch and Freeman are great in Sherlock. The guy who was a vampire in Being Human (forget his name) is really good as well. Haven't seen The Hobbit, but hear he is in it as well.

The English acting style lends itself to a lot of what's being produced in Hollywood these days (Australians are trained the same way).

Fedaykin
01-01-2013, 11:20 PM
Benedict Cumberbatch: Most "British" name ever!

ZONA
01-02-2013, 10:00 AM
I think Kaylore is actually more infatuated with Ricardo then he is with Khan. Just admit it dude. :)

bronco militia
01-02-2013, 10:18 AM
this latest star trek trailer looks like a Batman movie....

Archer81
01-02-2013, 10:26 AM
Nerds. Every single one of you.


:Broncos:

orangeatheist
01-02-2013, 10:36 AM
...Star Trek is not an action series (which does not mean it does not contain action, but only that it is not the core).

Exactly. ^5

I've pointed this out to my 8 year old son repeatedly as we contrast Star Trek with Star Wars. If I want "pew pew," I watch Star Wars. Star Trek was much more cerebral. And that's not to say I didn't enjoy the new Trek movie or will not be at the midnight showing of the new film. But I wish they'd bring back a series where they can explore the galaxy again, explore strange new worlds, seek out new life and new civilizations, and boldly go where no one has gone before.

Kaylore
01-02-2013, 10:38 AM
Exactly. ^5

I've pointed this out to my 8 year old son repeatedly as we contrast Star Trek with Star Wars. If I want "pew pew," I watch Star Wars. Star Trek was much more cerebral. And that's not to say I didn't enjoy the new Trek movie or will not be at the midnight showing of the new film. But I wish they'd bring back a series where they can explore the galaxy again, explore strange new worlds, seek out new life and new civilizations, and boldly go where no one has gone before.

I think that format works better in episode form on TV. As a movie, audiences are going to want more and that means more action. Even TOS movies were more heavy with action and less "thought provoking" than the episodes.

Crushaholic
01-02-2013, 10:46 AM
Nobody seems to want "cerebral", in their Star Trek movies. I'd bet that if you took a poll of Star Trek fans, the least liked movies would include "Motion Picture" and "Undiscovered Country". Both of them are very much "thinking" Star Trek movies. "Motion Picture" was, essentially, about the existence of God. "Undiscovered Country" had a very cool Sherlock Holmes-like mystery, to it...

Kaylore
01-02-2013, 11:00 AM
Nobody seems to want "cerebral", in their Star Trek movies. I'd bet that if you took a poll of Star Trek fans, the least liked movies would include "Motion Picture" and "Undiscovered Country". Both of them are very much "thinking" Star Trek movies. "Motion Picture" was, essentially, about the existence of God. "Undiscovered Country" had a very cool Sherlock Holmes-like mystery, to it...

I think you mean "The Final Frontier." Undiscovered country was the same director that did Wrath of Khan and had epic space battles in it.

The problems with I and V were both were bad movies that took themselves and the franchise way too seriously and had plot holes nebulous villains that didn't work. The Enterprise vs. a big cloud? God is actually an alien? A barrier at the end of the universe? Weird wormhole scene?

There were aspects that worked. I liked the humor in ST V and I think some of the elements in ST I felt like a Trek episode. But the other movies were just better movies.

ST fans like thoughtful stories. Look at the top episodes of all the series'. There are usually one or two more cerebral episodes right up there. The City on the Edge of forever is right there with balance of terror. Best of Both worlds and measuer of a Man. We like everything.

orangeatheist
01-02-2013, 11:22 AM
I think that format works better in episode form on TV. As a movie, audiences are going to want more and that means more action. Even TOS movies were more heavy with action and less "thought provoking" than the episodes.

Yep, couldn't agree more. Which is why I enjoy the movies tremendously but specifically stated in my previous post that I wish they'd do a new series and get the Trek on the right Track!

Bronco Yoda
01-02-2013, 11:57 AM
I try not to look to deeply into the small details or it will just ruin it. Suspension of disbelief while watching it is what I try to do. Just sit back and enjoy it for what it is. Not that I always can do that but I try.

I thought they did a great job with the new Kirk. Spock not so much. The writing will never be that same because the original was based around Social Statements of their times. Now it's about eye candy and action sequences.

now speaking of eye candy....

***WARNING**** (star fap)
http://johneaves.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/penny-trek-2.jpg

Kaylore
01-02-2013, 12:03 PM
I actually liked Spock better than Kirk in the new one.

Beantown Bronco
01-02-2013, 12:05 PM
now speaking of eye candy....

***WARNING**** (star fap)
http://johneaves.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/penny-trek-2.jpg

I prefer this one:

http://www.eonline.com/photos/5910/star-trek-s-sexiest-aliens/212872

TerrElway
01-02-2013, 12:54 PM
I'm a huge trek nerd and loved the new one. I'm a fan first of the original series. Kirk was one of my heroes as a kid. TNG - has its moments. Never cared for the others.

The new one was a "re-boot" so that gave license for revisionist history. In fact, the whole premise was playing out what Kirk and the gang were trying to avoid in City on the Edge of Forever. Changes in the past change the timeline of the future in ways that are certain yet unclear. So it is a bit ironic to me that everyone gets so mad about the changes in the re-boot when it's really just letting us go forward on the "past is altered to the future changes" ride.

Spock and his Vulcan IDIC philosophy (Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations) would also find the whole debate "fascinating", I'm sure.

As to the British actors, I'm with Tyrant and excited as hell to see Cumberbatch. He's top notch. Freeman was GREAT as Bilbo Baggins, spot on. He is very good in The Office as well.

El Guapo
01-02-2013, 01:25 PM
this latest star trek trailer looks like a Batman movie....

The poster does, too. :(

http://screenrant.com/star-trek-2-into-darkness-poster/



But then again there is no more originality in Hollywood. ROFL! http://www.dailyinspiration.nl/has-hollywood-lost-its-creativity/

bronco militia
01-02-2013, 01:46 PM
So hungover right now. If I move my head an inch ill puke. If I speak I'll puke. Just thought I'd share.

<object width="560" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/d7n8GqewJ2M?hl=en_US&amp;version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/d7n8GqewJ2M?hl=en_US&amp;version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="560" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

bronco militia
01-02-2013, 01:50 PM
The poster does, too. :(

http://screenrant.com/star-trek-2-into-darkness-poster/



But then again there is no more originality in Hollywood. ROFL! http://www.dailyinspiration.nl/has-hollywood-lost-its-creativity/

I'm glad I'm not the only one

TerrElway
01-02-2013, 01:51 PM
The poster does, too. :(

http://screenrant.com/star-trek-2-into-darkness-poster/



But then again there is no more originality in Hollywood. ROFL! http://www.dailyinspiration.nl/has-hollywood-lost-its-creativity/

Originality requires taking risks. Risks can cost you money. We wouldn't want to do something new and risky and lose money because then we would lose our job etc. etc.

Just like in sports, it's safer to copy someone else's success than try to make your own!

We've seemingly become a society that is risk averse and failed risk gets punished severely enough to discourage it in most cases. At least institutionally. Large institutions got to where they are because somewhere along the line someone took a risk. Yet the larger and more successful the institution gets, the more risk averse it becomes. It's an interesting paradox.

SoCalBronco
01-02-2013, 01:52 PM
I think you mean "The Final Frontier." Undiscovered country was the same director that did Wrath of Khan and had epic space battles in it.

The problems with I and V were both were bad movies that took themselves and the franchise way too seriously and had plot holes nebulous villains that didn't work. The Enterprise vs. a big cloud? God is actually an alien? A barrier at the end of the universe? Weird wormhole scene?

There were aspects that worked. I liked the humor in ST V and I think some of the elements in ST I felt like a Trek episode. But the other movies were just better movies.

ST fans like thoughtful stories. Look at the top episodes of all the series'. There are usually one or two more cerebral episodes right up there. The City on the Edge of forever is right there with balance of terror. Best of Both worlds and measuer of a Man. We like everything.

ST I was among the worst films in the history of film. It just went on and on with nothing of value happening. It was a relief when they finally found Voyager so that it would be over. Outside of the unveiling of the refurbished Enterprise and McCoys beard the film was trash. The uniforms were lame and virtually no one would get a boner from a bald chick.

ST V failed because Paramount went Bowlen. Shatner had plans for more action and they didn't want to pay for everything in the original script. Also it was thought Connery would be Sybok but they wouldn't pay for that either. Changing the bridge chairs from the end of ST IV was also a huge irritant.

Ray Finkle
01-02-2013, 01:54 PM
ST I was among the worst films in the history of film. It just went on and on with nothing of value happening. It was a relief when they finally found Voyager so that it would be over. Outside of the unveiling of the refurbished Enterprise and McCoys beard the film was trash. The uniforms were lame and virtually no one would get a boner from a bald chick.

ST V failed because Paramount went Bowlen. Shatner had plans for more action and they didn't want to pay for everything in the original script. Also it was thought Connery would be Sybok but they wouldn't pay for that either. Changing the bridge chairs from the end of ST IV was also a huge irritant.

and you wonder why you're in a dry spell......jeez, did you speak Klingon during the dates?

:D

Kaylore
01-02-2013, 02:05 PM
I love how McCoy's beard was a selling point for a film. Is that a knock on the film or praise for an admittedly epic beard?

SoCalBronco
01-02-2013, 02:07 PM
I love how McCoy's beard was a selling point for a film. Is that a knock on the film or praise for an admittedly epic beard?

Both...that film was beyond awful.

Beantown Bronco
01-02-2013, 02:16 PM
and you wonder why you're in a dry spell......jeez, did you speak Klingon during the dates?

:D

Apparently, he does it on guys nights out too.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/l8WWd19Ok1c" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Kaylore
01-02-2013, 02:19 PM
Both...that film was beyond awful.

There is a director's cut out there that is much better. It goes from an F to a D+. Totally serious.

DenverBrit
01-02-2013, 02:31 PM
Benedict Cumberbatch: Most "British" name ever!

Almost as "British" as Englebert Humperdinck. ;D

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ckGmMO0zbJo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

broncocalijohn
01-02-2013, 02:42 PM
^^ For what it is worth, I miss Coupling on BBC America.

Fedaykin
01-02-2013, 03:20 PM
I think that format works better in episode form on TV. As a movie, audiences are going to want more and that means more action. Even TOS movies were more heavy with action and less "thought provoking" than the episodes.

On average, the typical episode isn't particularly what I would call 'cerebral'. There are a few stand outs like the ones you mentioned, but they are not typical. There's episodes on the other end too.

However, the typical episode is a mix of thinkin' and fightin' with the emphasis more usually on the thinkin' end, much in the same vein as II, IV, abd VI.

It's the main problem with the TNG movies. They tried to turn Picard into an action hero, which is simply not what that character is about.

DenverBrit
01-02-2013, 03:47 PM
^^ For what it is worth, I miss Coupling on BBC America.

Me too!! Great show.

The Melty Man!!

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/bs1zz4zZhdM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/XdkfmUhZRh8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

broncosteven
01-02-2013, 04:29 PM
I think that format works better in episode form on TV. As a movie, audiences are going to want more and that means more action. Even TOS movies were more heavy with action and less "thought provoking" than the episodes.

This is why in the movies they always come back to Earth, it always seems the Earth is in peril, in TOS they never went to earth of their current time. There is more drama if Earth is destroyed rather than some made up planet.

broncosteven
01-02-2013, 04:35 PM
ST I was among the worst films in the history of film. It just went on and on with nothing of value happening. It was a relief when they finally found Voyager so that it would be over. Outside of the unveiling of the refurbished Enterprise and McCoys beard the film was trash. The uniforms were lame and virtually no one would get a boner from a bald chick.

ST V failed because Paramount went Bowlen. Shatner had plans for more action and they didn't want to pay for everything in the original script. Also it was thought Connery would be Sybok but they wouldn't pay for that either. Changing the bridge chairs from the end of ST IV was also a huge irritant.

Kaylor is right, the Directors cut of STTMP is much better, it actually makes sense, and BTW one of my best friends in HS worked on the Directors cut and he is interviewed in the bonus content. I didn't like the movie until I saw the directors cut and then I got it. It is now the movie I wanted it to be when I saw it opening weekend as a kid. My friend Daren loved that one the most and it shows through in the directors cut.

There is no excuse for ST-V or Generations for that matter. I used to like VI a lot but it has not held up as well as II, IV and I (once you get over the bad uniforms and the fact you can see Deckers cock through them).

Rewatch the STTMP Directors cut and you will thank Kahn and I.

Kaylore
01-02-2013, 05:40 PM
This is why in the movies they always come back to Earth, it always seems the Earth is in peril, in TOS they never went to earth of their current time. There is more drama if Earth is destroyed rather than some made up planet.

This was my problem with the James Bond series. You don't need to threaten the entire earth to create drama. A great example is in the Walking dead. You just need to threaten the main characters, not the whole Earth every time.

Archer81
01-02-2013, 09:09 PM
So I bought Mass Effect for the PS3. Its pretty sweet.


/Nerdcontribution.

:Broncos:

v2micca
05-18-2013, 07:42 PM
Well Kaylore


Spoilers[ Looks like you might have to add Benedict Cumberbatch to your rotation. Was there ever in cinema history a reveal that was more clearly telegraphed? By the time he claims to be Khan, was there anyone in any theater that hadn't already realized who he really was.]

Br0nc0Buster
05-18-2013, 08:18 PM
Just got back from the movie theater.

Fantastic movie

Lots of twists and plot references from the older Star Trek movies

Definitely a must see

KCStud
05-18-2013, 09:09 PM
Exactly. As a writer, Abrams is pretty crappy. His characters are forgettable, his plot points are lazy and ill-thought out and that creates massive plot holes.

This is exactly what I thought when I watched Lost.

JJ isn't bad, but he's not amazing like people proclaim. I'll take Christopher Nolan over him every single time.

broncosteven
05-18-2013, 09:33 PM
I rewatched the real Star Trek II - The Wrath of Khan tonight with my 10 year old daughter for the 1st time.

I totally loved how she ended up literally at the edge of her seat and was horrified when ***30 year old Spoiler Alert!**** Spock died. She admitted to me that she loved it. Now I have someone in the house to trade lines with who gets it. I tucked her in bed with the "I have been, and always will be...your friend" quote.

Nothing can top ST II.

broncosteven
05-18-2013, 09:36 PM
The new Star Trek is about being more original then other reboots. The new villian will not be Khan.

We bet a couple grand on this didn't we?

SoCalBronco
05-18-2013, 09:56 PM
I rewatched the real Star Trek II - The Wrath of Khan tonight with my 10 year old daughter for the 1st time.

I totally loved how she ended up literally at the edge of her seat and was horrified when ***30 year old Spoiler Alert!**** Spock died. She admitted to me that she loved it. Now I have someone in the house to trade lines with who gets it. I tucked her in bed with the "I have been, and always will be...your friend" quote.

Nothing can top ST II.

I think I've watched STII prolly somewhere in the vicinity of 30 times. Yes it's a great film and to fully appreciate some of the stuff in this film obviously one would need to be familiar with STII and also the space seed episode. I enjoyed Into Darkness.....good action...maybe a little too much action and a bit too little sci-fi but I liked the ways they paid homage to STII....in their alternate universe way.

I'd give it a B+.

broncosteven
05-18-2013, 11:01 PM
I think I've watched STII prolly somewhere in the vicinity of 30 times. Yes it's a great film and to fully appreciate some of the stuff in this film obviously one would need to be familiar with STII and also the space seed episode. I enjoyed Into Darkness.....good action...maybe a little too much action and a bit too little sci-fi but I liked the ways they paid homage to STII....in their alternate universe way.

I'd give it a B+.

I will take her to see JJ's Reboot when it comes around to the Dollar theater in a month or less.

I just had a write up on my Friends Facebook thread about this:

I with Jeff Carlisle's last 2 posts. For me I convinced myself I was in love with TMP when it first came out because I was so glad to have ST back, I loved much of the original film, telling anyone who would hear, but secretly was disappointed in pacing and Shat's over the top anger and bitterness (as well as some wooden overacting). It wasn't until I saw the Directors cut when it truly flowed and was the work of art it was meant to be. I like Daren's point about TWOK being another episode, it is spot on but still my favorite movie. I pulled TWOK out and watched it with my 10 year old daughter tonight as my private act of rebellion against the opening of the latest JJ Reboot. Abby was on the edge of her seat, asking questions and even was as shocked as I was (the 1st time I saw it) at the end when ***Spoiler alert*** Spock died. Totally loved re-watching it through her eyes and seeing her react the same way I did when I was a kid. Sure TWOK doesn't have the cinematic beauty of TMP but writing/content wise with the many underlying themes, literary quotes, Moby Dick and Paradise Lost allusions (Khan), and smart action of the chess like move and counter move of the battle sequences it is my favorite Trek movie and one of my favorite movies of all time. Kirk doesn't make rash decisions hoping for the best, he and Spock make calculated moves based on experience. The drama of the Kobayashi Maru theme alone is brilliant, we all wonder what we would do in a no-win situation and throwing the quotes from the beginning and ending of Tale of Two Cities makes it that much more relatable, and HUMAN, what Trek really is about, the human condition. Beyond ST IV I think the human condition has been lost at least in the movie franchises and the last couple TV series. JJ doesn't get the drama of toy puppet who makes a wish and wants to become a real boy. Spielberg, got it in "Close Encounters", Kubrick, got it "AI". JJ does his best flim flam redirection to get you to think you are getting a good movie that is pretty, has lots of action (stuff got all blowed up real good and people ran around jumping off stuff and squeezing through things) yet is empty and meaningless at it's core, much like "Asteroid" or" Armageddon". After all of JJ's redirection and you expect to find Star Trek Into Darkness ball under the middle cup he turns that same middle cup over an it is empty, but hey for the few seconds everything was happening around you it was almost worth it but you tell your self you will never again try to beat a flim flam man on a street corner. Good night all!

Kaylore
05-18-2013, 11:45 PM
I'm definitely going to fork over for a babysitter and go see this soon. This and Man of Steel are my top priority this summer.

And it appears Miss I was right. ;-)

Agamemnon
05-19-2013, 01:49 AM
I'm still not over the fact that J.J. Abrams has no idea what a black hole is or how it works yet went ahead and made a movie where they featured prominently. Everyone else seemed to love the first movie, but watching it just hurt my head.

rugbythug
05-19-2013, 07:07 AM
I'm definitely going to fork over for a babysitter and go see this soon. This and Man of Steel are my top priority this summer.

And it appears Miss I was right. ;-)

My wife loves Star Trek. Going on a Birthday outing next week.

Jetmeck
05-19-2013, 12:11 PM
More reviews, who has seen it ?

Used to ST in 2d .... . you guys seeing it in 3d ?

Thanks.............

UberBroncoMan
05-19-2013, 02:16 PM
More reviews, who has seen it ?

Used to ST in 2d .... . you guys seeing it in 3d ?

Thanks.............

3D was solid. Honestly for me 2D or 3D are fine.

StugotsIII
05-19-2013, 04:32 PM
More reviews, who has seen it ?

Used to ST in 2d .... . you guys seeing it in 3d ?

Thanks.............

It was awesome…

2D was perfect.

3D is a damn gemmick.

ZONA
05-19-2013, 04:45 PM
Just saw this a few hours ago in 3D. I honestly don't see a ton of movies in 3D but I thought Avatar was really well done and I have to say this new Star Trek was fabulous in 3D. They didn't over do it like some movies. But some scenes are just much better in 3D IMO, like when they jump off the cliff. In 3D, you FEEL that almost.

The movie itself was bad ass. The special affects were astonishingly impressive. When that ship hits the ocean and crashes through the city, WOW.

If you can see this in IMAX 3D - do it. I did however, bring my own 3D glasses I got when I got my TV last year. I think they helped some. At least they were more comfortable but I think they show the 3D better also.

Miss I.
05-19-2013, 07:03 PM
I'm definitely going to fork over for a babysitter and go see this soon. This and Man of Steel are my top priority this summer.

And it appears Miss I was right. ;-)

I completely I agree with this post and if I was anywhere near you I'd volunteer to babysit just you could see it so we could talk about it. I loved it, but I am not as let's just say biased about the series. I just watched if from a set aside reality and any previous star trek perspective and enjoyed the ride in 3-D. I took my Godson and we had a blast. I don't want to say more because I truly think it's better to let everyone experience it for themselves and make their own choice. I liked it though and am, as you said also, looking forward to The Man of Steel (though my reasoning has more to do with the eye candy playing Superman...hey, you get your hot Asian chicks, I get hot English dudes wearing tights, it is what it is). ;D

And K I am always right, when will you learn that? ;D (ok, maybe not always, but at least sometimes).

I hope you enjoy the film K.

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
05-19-2013, 08:16 PM
Just watched Star Trek: Into Darkness. This was at least 10 times better than the first one. Highly, highly suggest everybody watch this one. That is all.

KKKKKKAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHNNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Harvitz81
05-19-2013, 08:53 PM
Saw it this morning. For the record - I loved the first one and am a big Star Wars fan and to a lesser extent, Star Trek (though I have seen all the original films multiple times). I never watched any of the original Trek series, so don't know much about the Khan backstory for what Abrams did to ruin it for me. I did watch a ton of next generation though, which really states more for what time period I grew up in than anything else.

I love the action and think this one sits pretty well with the first one. I think I like it better though as Cumberbatch steals the show with his performance in this. Total badass!

I really wish there was some way to continue this alternate time path that Abrams started though. Now that he is leaving, I wonder what happens as I really think they have some good actors in place. The ending even set up a potential series perfectly, but I already read that won't be done as Abrams and I believe CBS couldn't come to an agreement. It would be a killer series though and I hope someone else can take up the directors chair and give us a couple more flicks out of this series.

All in all - I go to movies to be entertained and I was in this one. More entertaining to me than seeing IM3 a couple weeks ago.

I had mixed thoughts on wanting to see Man of Steel, but the trailer before Star Trek convinced me it is a must see for me as well this summer. Also, Elypsium looked pretty interesting as I had not seen any trailers for that previously, but I digress...

bowtown
05-19-2013, 09:03 PM
He's not playing Khan.

Bob's prediction failures transcend all phases of entertainment. Rennaisance Failure.

broncosteven
05-19-2013, 09:48 PM
Just watched Star Trek: Into Darkness. This was at least 10 times better than the first one. Highly, highly suggest everybody watch this one. That is all.

KKKKKKAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHNNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

10 x 0=?

Anything would be better than the 1st reboot.

I will go see it but I am waiting until it hits the dollar theater, we have one with a very good screen, used to be a legit theater before the multiplexes hit it big, I actually saw Undiscovered Country there when it was part of a big chain.

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
05-19-2013, 09:54 PM
10 x 0=?

Anything would be better than the 1st reboot.

I will go see it but I am waiting until it hits the dollar theater, we have one with a very good screen, used to be a legit theater before the multiplexes hit it big, I actually saw Undiscovered Country there when it was part of a big chain.

Remember in the other thread how you said that the first movie lacked any sense of humanity. Well this one had a dash of that. Well a small dash, but it was there. For me Undiscovered Country was the best but this was better than the first.

UberBroncoMan
05-19-2013, 10:46 PM
Bob's prediction failures transcend all phases of entertainment. Rennaisance Failure.

Hahahaha

Bob's your Information Minister
05-20-2013, 07:24 AM
Such a ****ty third act. Ruined the movie for me. Abrams is a hack and Lindelof should go write some cartoons or something.

TheReverend
05-20-2013, 07:26 AM
Such a ****ty third act. Ruined the movie for me. Abrams is a hack and Lindelof should go write some cartoons or something.

The Chiefs sure have turned you into a Grumpy Gus.

v2micca
05-20-2013, 07:39 AM
The Chiefs sure have turned you into a Grumpy Gus.

Don't confuse the messenger for the message. It really is a terrible 3rd act. While I over all hated the film, even I can admit that there were some decent elements in the first and second act before the entire thing goes off the rails and gives us one of the most hackneyed 3rd acts I have seen in the last decade. It really does devolve into self parody. The saddest part is that I can totally picture the writer's room as they "brainstormed" this crap ending giving themselves high fives for how clever they were being about subverting another classic Trek scene instead of trying to actually come up with a new iconic scene. But, I guess the rule of thumb here is that if you can't write a decent movie make sure you drop references to a good movie.

TheReverend
05-20-2013, 07:44 AM
^ I havent seen it yet. Time to exit this thread before I read something I don't want to

Boobs McGee
05-20-2013, 08:00 AM
http://i.qkme.me/3uhi5z.jpg

enjolras
05-20-2013, 08:14 AM
I thought it was fantastic. I don't want to give away any spoilers so I'll leave it at that.

Bob's your Information Minister
05-20-2013, 09:35 AM
The Chiefs sure have turned you into a Grumpy Gus.

I've seen other **** this year that I highly enjoyed.

Iron Man 3 was tits.

ZONA
05-20-2013, 09:44 AM
Good lord, those hating on this flick see way too many thing wrong in life in general. WTF dudes, this isn't an academy winning drama, like silence of the lambs or Schindler's List. Hahahaha. It's a ****in action movie. Try to see it for what it is and then you might be able to enjoy it. If you go in thinking your're going to see A Beautiful Mind or Black Swan, then of course you're not going to like it. ****in grow a set and realize it's an action movie but a damn good one. Nothing like a Transformers or Battle Los Angeles.

Kaylore
05-20-2013, 10:06 AM
Star Trek - especially a reboot - is a hard sell. It isn't ever going to be The Godfather, so film snobs (I actually love film snobs) will hate it. And loyalist fans will probably hate it for not being the original. That leaves very little wiggle room.

I enjoyed the originals and I enjoyed the first reboot movie. I think it's because I don't expect Schindler's list when I go see a Star Trek movie and I don't feel married to the originals.

FWIW Rotten Tomatoes has it at 86% Fresh with users having at 89%.

That puts it ahead of Iron Man 3, Oblivion, The Great Gatsby, Fast Furious 6 and 42.

Point being, if you're going to the movies, you have a decent shot at enjoying this.

TheReverend
05-20-2013, 10:38 AM
I've seen other **** this year that I highly enjoyed.

Iron Man 3 was boobies.

If you like some jerk off taking one of the biggest Marvel villains and something the franchise had building toward since the initial installment and turning it into a ****ing punchline

Bronco X
05-20-2013, 11:55 AM
I liked the first installment of the Star Trek reboot. The second one not so much. It has it's moments. A lot of the action is engaging. I didn't really get into the self referential attempts to spin the series mythology, especially towards the end. Mirroring a prior iconic scene probably isn't the best idea when there's not much chance it can be compared favorably. That isn't comparing this movie to Citizen Kane. It's just comparing it to The Wrath of Khan, and given that the movie is begging for that comparison, that seems fair.

BroncoMan4ever
05-20-2013, 12:02 PM
If you like some jerk off taking one of the biggest Marvel villains and something the franchise had building toward since the initial installment and turning it into a ****ing punchline

i honestly believe Marvel chickened out thinking the Mandarin would come across as racist so they just destroyed the character.

broncosteven
05-20-2013, 12:17 PM
Star Trek - especially a reboot - is a hard sell. It isn't ever going to be The Godfather, so film snobs (I actually love film snobs) will hate it. And loyalist fans will probably hate it for not being the original. That leaves very little wiggle room.

I enjoyed the originals and I enjoyed the first reboot movie. I think it's because I don't expect Schindler's list when I go see a Star Trek movie and I don't feel married to the originals.

FWIW Rotten Tomatoes has it at 86% Fresh with users having at 89%.

That puts it ahead of Iron Man 3, Oblivion, The Great Gatsby, Fast Furious 6 and 42.

Point being, if you're going to the movies, you have a decent shot at enjoying this.

IDK when I was a kid I went into the theater expecting action and adventure and got a couple iconic movies that showed the human condition and made me think a lot about what I would do in a No Win situation or what path is mankind is on re robots (think Terminator type Singularity years before Terminator came out).

I am calming down on the reboots, in another couple of weeks people will have forgotten they even existed. Meanwhile the TV Series and TOS movies will be quoted and found by new generations who might not like the effects in TWOK but love the story more.

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
05-20-2013, 12:26 PM
I think what people don't realize with the Star Trek TOS when they make fun it. Star Trek came out BEFORE we actually went to space. Today going to space has become conventional.

But more importantly any good sci fi isn't about the action. Its about what is it ti be human.

jonny1
05-20-2013, 01:04 PM
Saw it, like it, that is all.

v2micca
05-20-2013, 01:08 PM
Good lord, those hating on this flick see way too many thing wrong in life in general. WTF dudes, this isn't an academy winning drama, like silence of the lambs or Schindler's List. Hahahaha. It's a ****in action movie.

Any there in lies the rub. Star Trek was never meant to be a ****ing action movie series. It was meant to be a sci-fi movie franchise. It was supposed to be something in the mold of The Abyss, or the original Alien, not DieHard in space. It was movie franchise that was meant to grapple with bigger ideas and themes, and while the original 10 didn't always succeed in that endeavor, at least they ****ing tried.


Try to see it for what it is and then you might be able to enjoy it. If you go in thinking your're going to see A Beautiful Mind or Black Swan, then of course you're not going to like it. ****in grow a set and realize it's an action movie but a damn good one. Nothing like a Transformers or Battle Los Angeles.


Sorry, when playing with the Star Trek franchise, you don't get to play the "Its just a fun summer movie get over your expectations" card This is a franchise that influenced countless thousands of young minds towards the science and engineering fields, it was a franchise that in a very racially backward time dared to put a Black Woman and Asian Man on the bridge. Yes, their metaphors were sometimes clunky and unwieldy, but this was a franchise that was always about expecting more. To see all of that reduced to a pandering action film franchise is the equivalent of Producing a Godfather sequel in the mold of The Fast and the Furious. So yes, I will criticized this poorly conceived, poorly written, and poorly executed pile of excrement.

Bob's your Information Minister
05-20-2013, 02:44 PM
If you like some jerk off taking one of the biggest Marvel villains and something the franchise had building toward since the initial installment and turning it into a ****ing punchline

I don't care about the comics.

It was a good, entertaining flick and showed me something I hadn't seen before.

It wasn't a POS ripoff.

broncosteven
05-20-2013, 08:27 PM
Any there in lies the rub. Star Trek was never meant to be a ****ing action movie series. It was meant to be a sci-fi movie franchise. It was supposed to be something in the mold of The Abyss, or the original Alien, not DieHard in space. It was movie franchise that was meant to grapple with bigger ideas and themes, and while the original 10 didn't always succeed in that endeavor, at least they ****ing tried.





Sorry, when playing with the Star Trek franchise, you don't get to play the "Its just a fun summer movie get over your expectations" card This is a franchise that influenced countless thousands of young minds towards the science and engineering fields, it was a franchise that in a very racially backward time dared to put a Black Woman and Asian Man on the bridge. Yes, their metaphors were sometimes clunky and unwieldy, but this was a franchise that was always about expecting more. To see all of that reduced to a pandering action film franchise is the equivalent of Producing a Godfather sequel in the mold of The Fast and the Furious. So yes, I will criticized this poorly conceived, poorly written, and poorly executed pile of excrement.

This is what I have been trying to say all along Bravo!

http://www.larryportzline.com/pics/kane-clap.gif

Mat'hir Uth Gan
05-21-2013, 01:53 AM
I loved it. I'm not a big Sci-Fi fan at all, I prefer High Fantasy (dork v. nerd, right?), but my wife grew up on Star Trek so I went to see it with her. I thought the first reboot was good, and I thought this one was much better. I really liked this movie. I would classify it more action than Sci-Fi though.

All that being said, I never watched Star Trek on TV nor the original movies, though I did see the one with the whales as a kid. And I remember pretty much that it had whales.

So, for comparison purposes, I have nothing. I just watched this as a detached person looking for some action entertainment, and it passed with flying colors in that regard.

cutthemdown
05-21-2013, 02:15 AM
Maybe as the characters get older they will deal with some themes more like what humanity is, the search for knowledge etc etc. Right now Spock Kirk and company are young and brash. Just a different take on it that sort of gives the series room to grow when Abrahms turns it over to a new director to do star wars.

Kaylore
05-21-2013, 09:31 AM
Star Trek the show - essentially a series of self contained morality plays - wouldn't work as a movie, and I actually don't think it would work as a series anymore. People want continuity and progression in their shows now. You can't really have these self-contained episodes where everything wraps up nicely and they move on to the next thing. The last vestiges of this are in crime dramas and maybe you could make a case for hospital dramas. Even those have started to veer away from the compartmentalization of stories in an episode.

And for those whining the movies are too action packed for what Star Trek was, guess what? Most of the movies had action, and all the cerebral movies that dealt with existentialism and morals were the worst.

In order of awesomeness
1. Wrath of Khan - Action
2. First Contact - Action, humor
3. Undiscovered Country - Action, humor
3. Star Trek - Action, humor
4. Voyage Home - humor, morality
5. Generations - action, humor, morality
6. Search for Spock - action, morality
7. Nemisis - action, morality
8. Motion Picture (Director's cut) - morality
9. Insurrection - action, morality
10. Final Frontier (sorry Shatner) Morality, some action

IdahoBronco7
05-21-2013, 10:45 AM
WTF ?

v2micca
05-21-2013, 01:51 PM
And for those whining the movies are too action packed for what Star Trek was, guess what? Most of the movies had action, and all the cerebral movies that dealt with existentialism and morals were the worst.


I think you misunderstand my complaint. I'm not complaining about the amount of action in the film. Action sequences are often an important part of any drama. Its typically the tool used to achieve resolution in a conflict. But action was never the point, even in Wrath of Khan, which is arguably one of the more action packed of the first 10 movies. Wrath of Khan was all about facing your own mortality. Hell, it even gets pretty heavy handed with it (as I mentioned, the Treks weren't always deft with their themes) But it is pretty clearly a morality play in which Kirk finally learns that he can't cheat death.

You've mentioned it earlier in this very thread, J.J. Abrams is a great visual story-teller, but hasn't got the first clue how to construct a cohesive narrative that makes any sense. Every plot point in the film is a poorly conceived attempt to stage the next action sequence. I remember reading that when Naughty Dog was creating Uncharted 3, they created the big action set pieces first, and then tried to find a way to stitch them together into a single narrative. It really feels like that is Abrams approach to story-telling as well, and it just doesn't work for me.

Kaylore
05-21-2013, 02:04 PM
I think you misunderstand my complaint. I'm not complaining about the amount of action in the film. Action sequences are often an important part of any drama. Its typically the tool used to achieve resolution in a conflict. But action was never the point, even in Wrath of Khan, which is arguably one of the more action packed of the first 10 movies. Wrath of Khan was all about facing your own mortality. Hell, it even gets pretty heavy handed with it (as I mentioned, the Treks weren't always deft with their themes) But it is pretty clearly a morality play in which Kirk finally learns that he can't cheat death.

You've mentioned it earlier in this very thread, J.J. Abrams is a great visual story-teller, but hasn't got the first clue how to construct a cohesive narrative that makes any sense. Every plot point in the film is a poorly conceived attempt to stage the next action sequence. I remember reading that when Naughty Dog was creating Uncharted 3, they created the big action set pieces first, and then tried to find a way to stitch them together into a single narrative. It really feels like that is Abrams approach to story-telling as well, and it just doesn't work for me.

I am totally convinced that's what he does. I think he can think visually and his approach to sequences is dynamic and innovative. But yes, as a story writer he isn't very good and you can see him frame things around these beautiful scenes he wants to show with often clumsy results.

That said, I like some of his movies. Probably because I think some things can get messed up if you try to bog them down with too much moral rhetoric or overly-clever plot points. I haven't seen Into Darkness, yet, and I may hate it, but one thing I've learned as a fan of the franchise since I was five is that Star Trek is it's best when it doesn't take itself too seriously. Abrahms breathed life into a dead franchise, and as imperfect as it has been (and sometimes outright ludicrous) he brought it back with, if arguably not more popularity, certainly more appeal than when it whithered on the vine. For that I will excuse some of these things if I get to enjoy new Star Trek movies again. For me, Star Trek is beloved, but it isn't sacrosanct.

SoCalBronco
05-21-2013, 02:52 PM
Star Trek the show - essentially a series of self contained morality plays - wouldn't work as a movie, and I actually don't think it would work as a series anymore. People want continuity and progression in their shows now. You can't really have these self-contained episodes where everything wraps up nicely and they move on to the next thing. The last vestiges of this are in crime dramas and maybe you could make a case for hospital dramas. Even those have started to veer away from the compartmentalization of stories in an episode.

And for those whining the movies are too action packed for what Star Trek was, guess what? Most of the movies had action, and all the cerebral movies that dealt with existentialism and morals were the worst.

In order of awesomeness
1. Wrath of Khan - Action
2. First Contact - Action, humor
3. Undiscovered Country - Action, humor
3. Star Trek - Action, humor
4. Voyage Home - humor, morality
5. Generations - action, humor, morality
6. Search for Spock - action, morality
7. Nemisis - action, morality
8. Motion Picture (Director's cut) - morality
9. Insurrection - action, morality
10. Final Frontier (sorry Shatner) Morality, some action

Negged for putting the Motion Picutre above anything including non-ST films that may have gone straight to video (directors cut or not.....dooooont care).

Ok....I wouldn't actually neg rep you but you get the point.

McCoys beard and bald women.....they might be amusing for a moment.

Prolly not much longer that.

Kaylore
05-21-2013, 06:20 PM
Negged for putting the Motion Picutre above anything including non-ST films that may have gone straight to video (directors cut or not.....dooooont care).

Ok....I wouldn't actually neg rep you but you get the point.

McCoys beard and bald women.....they might be amusing for a moment.

Prolly not much longer that.

Really the director's cut is a lot better.

Requiem
05-21-2013, 06:39 PM
Saw the previews for the film and I shook my head wondering, "When the **** did Star Trek become GI Joe in space?"

broncosteven
05-21-2013, 08:26 PM
Star Trek the show - essentially a series of self contained morality plays - wouldn't work as a movie, and I actually don't think it would work as a series anymore. People want continuity and progression in their shows now. You can't really have these self-contained episodes where everything wraps up nicely and they move on to the next thing. The last vestiges of this are in crime dramas and maybe you could make a case for hospital dramas. Even those have started to veer away from the compartmentalization of stories in an episode.

And for those whining the movies are too action packed for what Star Trek was, guess what? Most of the movies had action, and all the cerebral movies that dealt with existentialism and morals were the worst.

In order of awesomeness
1. Wrath of Khan - Action
2. First Contact - Action, humor
3. Undiscovered Country - Action, humor
3. Star Trek - Action, humor
4. Voyage Home - humor, morality
5. Generations - action, humor, morality
6. Search for Spock - action, morality
7. Nemisis - action, morality
8. Motion Picture (Director's cut) - morality
9. Insurrection - action, morality
10. Final Frontier (sorry Shatner) Morality, some action

The TNG movies I don't remember but I only saw them once or twice. I liked the last one the best.

1) TWOK
2) TMP DIRECTORS CUT!!!
3) Voyage Home
4) the last TNG movie
5) ST III
6) Undiscovered Country
Everything after doesn't really matter. A year or 2 ago I would have swapped VI and III but III actually holds up better than VI.

Kaylore
05-21-2013, 08:49 PM
I love VI. Christopher Plummer is awesome. And Kim Catrall is a suprisingly good Vulcan. The battles are good. Everyone gets a moment of being awesome and funny, and Christian Slater even makes a cameo.

broncosteven
05-21-2013, 08:55 PM
I love VI. Christopher Plummer is awesome. And Kim Catrall is a suprisingly good Vulcan. The battles are good. Everyone gets a moment of being awesome and funny, and Christian Slater even makes a cameo.

Yea but I rewatched all but V 2 years ago and I thought VI didn't hold up as well and III surprised me more with age.

What you posted above is why I liked it when I first saw it. Maybe it was the cluncky end where they *** Spoiler Alert *** foil the assignation plot that I didn't like it. There were small things too that should been caught in post production.

I hated III for the longest time mostly because they destroyed the Enterprise and the replacement Saavik but it was better shot and had some good action plus it was a very good setup to the next movie.

SoCalBronco
05-21-2013, 09:00 PM
Yea but I rewatraumatic the but V 2 years ago and I thought VI didn't hold up as well and III surprised me more with age.

What you posted above is why I liked it when I first saw it. Maybe it was the cluncky end where they *** Spoiler Alert *** foil the assignation plot that I didn't like it. There were small things too that should been caught in post production.

I hated III for the longest time mostly because they destroyed the Enterprise and the replacement Saavik but it was better shot and had some good action plus it was a very good setup to the next movie.

Yeah the destruction of the ship was very traumatic the first time I saw it.

Kaylore
05-21-2013, 09:08 PM
At the time a lot of people thought Leonard Nimoy was just trying to kill the series, and his involvement in it, off forever. He had to be begged to do the movies and only agreed to the second if he could die at the end. It took letting him direct to get the third one going. Then he blows up the enterprise and people thought he was just acting out again.

Bob's your Information Minister
05-21-2013, 09:33 PM
Nimoy co-wrote Star Trek VI, too.

He's the best thing that ever happened to Star Trek movies.

Bob's your Information Minister
05-21-2013, 09:34 PM
Kaylore, I assume you've already read Shatner's Star Trek making-of books, yes?

This is also a very good read.

http://www.amazon.com/View-Bridge-Memories-Star-Hollywood/dp/B002XULXV0

broncosteven
05-21-2013, 10:29 PM
Nimoy co-wrote Star Trek VI, too.

He's the best thing that ever happened to Star Trek movies.

He was the better director between him and Shat.

Cinematicly Robert Wise was hands down the best director of Star Trek and Star Wars combined. only Riddley Scot gave Wise a run for the money.

After Wise I would go

Nick Meyer.

Then, Nimoy

Meyer again

broncosteven
05-21-2013, 10:38 PM
At the time a lot of people thought Leonard Nimoy was just trying to kill the series, and his involvement in it, off forever. He had to be begged to do the movies and only agreed to the second if he could die at the end. It took letting him direct to get the third one going. Then he blows up the enterprise and people thought he was just acting out again.

I thought it was more written to kill off Spock, and if they couldn't sign him back for a couple more movies then just keep him dead. I just watched this with my 10 year old daughter for her 1st time to see TWOK and you could tell all the forshadowing, the Admiral on the ship meeting in the torpedo tubes, the use of great lit to forshadow death, needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one...the whole no win scenario theme that ran through the major characters, finally the last of the Tale of 2 Cities, I have been and all ways will be your friend. even thought the 1st and last chapters are perfect for the movie the rest of Dickens book doesn't have any other great quotes to steal.

Lucky for us they made the Spock III act believe able and slowly got Spock back to where he could play a couple roles in III and IV which were funny and touching.

Now I have to get ST III for my daughter to watch so she can see how they were able to bring him back to life and cheat the Kobishi Maur again.

Boobs McGee
05-23-2013, 09:56 AM
For all you trekkies, just saw this on r/amazondeals -

Star Trek I-VI + Captain's Summit Bonus Disc (all Blu-Ray) for $38.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001TH16DI/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B001TH16DI&linkCode=as2&tag=martyhucom-20

Your welcome.

SoCalBronco
05-23-2013, 10:17 AM
I thought it was more written to kill off Spock, and if they couldn't sign him back for a couple more movies then just keep him dead. I just watched this with my 10 year old daughter for her 1st time to see TWOK and you could tell all the forshadowing, the Admiral on the ship meeting in the torpedo tubes, the use of great lit to forshadow death, needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one...the whole no win scenario theme that ran through the major characters, finally the last of the Tale of 2 Cities, I have been and all ways will be your friend. even thought the 1st and last chapters are perfect for the movie the rest of Dickens book doesn't have any other great quotes to steal.

Lucky for us they made the Spock III act believe able and slowly got Spock back to where he could play a couple roles in III and IV which were funny and touching.

Now I have to get ST III for my daughter to watch so she can see how they were able to bring him back to life and cheat the Kobishi Maur again.

Yeah just be sure to tell her when she watches III "Now sweetie this doesn't mean you can tell the mean girls at school that you hope pain is something they enjoy, k". I once got in trouble for using some of Lloyd's better lines way back in junior high.

Kaylore
05-23-2013, 12:43 PM
Kaylore, I assume you've already read Shatner's Star Trek making-of books, yes?

This is also a very good read.

http://www.amazon.com/View-Bridge-Memories-Star-Hollywood/dp/B002XULXV0

I actually haven't read a lot of books on the making of certain movies. I have watched a lot of extras on the DVD's and read things here and there, but never a full book. I'll take a look...

broncosteven
05-23-2013, 01:50 PM
I actually haven't read a lot of books on the making of certain movies. I have watched a lot of extras on the DVD's and read things here and there, but never a full book. I'll take a look...

I still have the making of TMP in a box somewhere. That is about the only one I have read. I did read Shat's Bio but only because it was a gift.

Bob's your Information Minister
05-23-2013, 10:25 PM
I actually haven't read a lot of books on the making of certain movies. I have watched a lot of extras on the DVD's and read things here and there, but never a full book. I'll take a look...

Shatner's Star Trek Memories and Star Trek Movie Memories are great reads. Really insightful and entertaining stuff.

Nimoy also wrote two books you might find interesting: I Am Not Spock and years later...I Am Spock.

SoCalBronco
05-26-2013, 11:42 AM
He's not playing Khan.

This is up there with another timeless classic Bob prediction.....


Pfft.

The Chiefs defense will have no trouble stopping Quentin Griffin.

TheReverend
05-26-2013, 08:48 PM
This is up there with another timeless classic Bob prediction.....


Pfft.

The Chiefs defense will have no trouble stopping Quentin Griffin.

Saw it tonight and lol'd at the reveal because of this.

Is that why you didn't like it bobby? Another swing and a miss?

v2micca
06-16-2013, 09:44 PM
I still have the making of TMP in a box somewhere. That is about the only one I have read. I did read Shat's Bio but only because it was a gift.

Hey Broncosteven, as you and I appear to be of likes minds regarding Abrams apparent contempt for the sciences in his film-making process, I thought you might appreciate this break down of the "science" of Into Darkness.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/62867


Apparently in this new Star Trek universe, It would have only taken Gene Krantz about 5 minutes to get Apollo 13 back from the Moon to the Earth.

dsmoot
06-17-2013, 08:25 PM
I liked the new Star Trek. I'm a Treker. I favored the next generation with Picard and company. The original series is really old and hasn't aged well. I had problems with the reboot, but they were the plot holes, not the portrayals of their characters. I actually liked how the Kirk and Spock styles clashed. That's something TOS didn't do enough of. I don't think Abrams tells very good stories, but he's a good story teller and puts on a good show. I enjoyed Star Trek and hope to enjoy this one.

Given when the original series ran, it aged quite well for a long time. When Picard came along the technology leaps made in between were just too much to even make a comparison. You just had to be fair about it. What really aged well was the character development and dynamics between the orginal series characters especially when you consider how the original series ran less than 1/2 of the next generation time line. When you compare the shows running in the mid-sixties, Star Trek was off the charts in a brand new genre before Apollo. It was slow to take but by the time the first reruns hit, it was more popular the most of the first run shows. This was the age of Westerns and variety shows.

Having said that, renewing the two recent Star Trek movies with the original characters was a very risky proposition. Anyone of my era who lived through the time of the orignal series run time with preset expectations would have great skepticism. However, IMO the new producer/director/actors hit a home run on both movies. I applaud the success.

SoCalBronco
06-17-2013, 08:33 PM
I can't imagine how awesome Star Trek must have been in the 60s compared to whatever else was on for a viewer. Even when an episode of TOS is on now I will watch it at the expense of almost anything else on and I'll be totally enthralled by it even though I've likely seen the episode numerous times. This is stuff that is almost 50 year old.....and it's still the best thing since sliced bread.

broncosteven
06-17-2013, 08:42 PM
Hey Broncosteven, as you and I appear to be of likes minds regarding Abrams apparent contempt for the sciences in his film-making process, I thought you might appreciate this break down of the "science" of Into Darkness.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/62867


Apparently in this new Star Trek universe, It would have only taken Gene Krantz about 5 minutes to get Apollo 13 back from the Moon to the Earth.

Good stuff.

I started to read it but I haven't seen the latest POS and wanted to avoid some of the spoilers though I know the big one. I hope I didn't miss it's run at the dollar theater as it disappeared from screens here pretty quickly during the 1st run. I figured I would take the kids to see it on the cheap on a rainy day.

I agree with what I read of the review, it was the science of Star Trek as well as it's humanity that pulled me in. Dudes who believe in conspiracy theories who make up implausable **** because it would be kick ass are what is killing sci-fi these days.

There is way less science and much more fiction. I look at the JJ Universe as Space/Action before I would consider it Sci-Fi.

ghwk
06-17-2013, 11:50 PM
I can't imagine how awesome Star Trek must have been in the 60s compared to whatever else was on for a viewer. Even when an episode of TOS is on now I will watch it at the expense of almost anything else on and I'll be totally enthralled by it even though I've likely seen the episode numerous times. This is stuff that is almost 50 year old.....and it's still the best thing since sliced bread.

TOS is awesome. My 14 yr old has seen both new movies and some of the next Gen movies but is now starting over with the originals. Awesome bonding time.