Star Trek "Into Darkness"

[Irvrobinson]

Red Matter, Cold Fusion, Scifi for today's generation of the dumbed down audience.....

Great post, and so true.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Or how said Cadet loses his Captain's rank just to get it back the next day. Gimme a break.

Different time and practices in the future fleet. Field promotions are commonplace it seems.

 

[markw]

Wow. I feel like I'm in an episode of "The Big Bang Theory". As long as I'm not Captain Sweatpants I'll be OK with that.

 

[afterlife2]

Might be of some interest: http://www.amazon.com/gp/socialmedia/promotions/StarTrek1701Sweepstakes2/ref=fbr_s_StarTrek1701Sweepstakes2?_cnctRsp=success&ie=UTF8&sm-sweeps_submit.x=77&sm-sweeps_submit.y=18&sweepsConnect=1&sweepsEligibility=1

 

[3db]

Wow.... Talking about raining on a parade. You guys who don't like the flick, your points were made over and over again. Jut let it be for the rest of us who enjoyed the flick. I think these last two Star Trek flicks were awesome considering they are trying to reboot the series. The character development of today's Star Trek is very much in keeping with the old Star Trek characters and that makes it a big plus for me in my enjoyment of these flicks.

 

[STRONGBADF1]

Wow. I feel like I'm in an episode of "The Big Bang Theory". As long as I'm not Captain Sweatpants I'll be OK with that.

Come to think of it...I've never seen you and Captain Sweatpants in the same place at the same time.

 

[darien87]

Wow.... Talking about raining on a parade. You guys who don't like the flick, your points were made over and over again. Jut let it be for the rest of us who enjoyed the flick. I think these last two Star Trek flicks were awesome considering they are trying to reboot the series. The character development of today's Star Trek is very much in keeping with the old Star Trek characters and that makes it a big plus for me in my enjoyment of these flicks.

Wow. Awesome???? I'd call that a bit of a stretch, but hey like whatever you like. I seem to be about the only person that hated the Transformers movies and EVERYONE thinks I'm nuts for not liking the Nolan Batman films, so what do I know.

 

[markw]

People, these are only fargin' movies. They aren't real.

Cheez 'n crackers people. Get a life!

Some people act like someone insulted their mother when discussing these things. NONE OF THEM ARE REAL! THEY ARE ALL FICTION!

..and you wonder why people make fun of nerds?

 

[j_garcia]

Wow. Awesome???? I'd call that a bit of a stretch, but hey like whatever you like. I seem to be about the only person that hated the Transformers movies and EVERYONE thinks I'm nuts for not liking the Nolan Batman films, so what do I know.

You aren't alone, I hated all of the Transformers movies too. But you ARE crazy for not liking the Nolan films

Watched Into Darkness last night and I found it trying to pay homage to the series and work in little bits to tie it into the whole thing rather than being a "rehash". I enjoyed it quite a bit, but I liked the first one better.

 

[gene]

Transformers Prime & Beast Hunters kills the Michael Bay movies!

 

[its phillip]

The Transformers movies are so stupid but I still enjoy watching giant robots fight and stuff The cheesy lines and characters do get annoying.

The Nolan Batman trilogy was excellent, I thought. Weakest film was of course The Dark Knight Rises. Batman Begins is my favorite of the three.

 

[darien87]

Transformers Prime & Beast Hunters kills the Michael Bay movies!

Beast Wars was a pretty cool show. I thought the Autobot leaders name was kinda silly though. Optimus Primal? C'mon man.

 

[markw]

Lemme get this straight: Y'all are trashing star trek for not being realistic and, in the same thread, analyzing kid's cartoons?

 

[mtrycrafts]

Lemme get this straight: Y'all are trashing star trek for not being realistic and, in the same thread, analyzing kid's cartoons?

Looks like that is what is happening. Strange, isn't it. I wonder why they call it sci-fi?

 

[Irvrobinson]

Lemme get this straight: Y'all are trashing star trek for not being realistic and, in the same thread, analyzing kid's cartoons?

Well, I can't speak to cartoons at all, but in the sci-fi genre there's good and bad stuff. I'm more into books than movies, but some sci-fi makes you think. Michael Crichton, for example, had that talent. Jurassic Park was far better as a book than a movie, IMO, but it simply stretched modern science a bit. I have to admit that I'm so practical even while reading the book I was wondering why any sane investor would go beyond creating giant herbivores, which would certainly have attracted millions of people to the island, but I suppose the story would have been a touch less exciting without velociraptors. Other books of his, the Andromeda Strain, West World... they made you think, they didn't embarrass you while watching or reading. Well, maybe West World. Next wasn't well written, IMO, but at least the concept was fascinating. How is the latest Star Trek movie even vaguely comparable? It sounds like the Next Generation TV show had more attraction and ingenuity.

Science Fiction probably is one of the most difficult genres to work in and produce quality results, but it is possible, and it doesn't take a PhD in high energy physics to come up with better concepts than red matter. The Star Trek franchise is surely so valuable one would think the best available ideas and writers would be attracted and engaged. I haven't seen the movie yet, but I'm already convinced by Gene's posts that they could have done a lot better.

 

[3db]

Science Fiction probably is one of the most difficult genres to work in and produce quality results, but it is possible, and it doesn't take a PhD in high energy physics to come up with better concepts than red matter. The Star Trek franchise is surely so valuable one would think the best available ideas and writers would be attracted and engaged. I haven't seen the movie yet, but I'm already convinced by Gene's posts that they could have done a lot better.

See it for and judge it for yourself. Don't be a sheeple. Gene only attacks it from the sci-fi portion. I look at from a character roll development and from that point of view, it does one hell of a good job. It depends on what is more important, technical relevancy or good character development.

 

[markw]

Science Fiction probably is one of the most difficult genres to work in and produce quality results, but it is possible, and it doesn't take a PhD in high energy physics to come up with better concepts than red matter. The Star Trek franchise is surely so valuable one would think the best available ideas and writers would be attracted and engaged. I haven't seen the movie yet, but I'm already convinced by Gene's posts that they could have done a lot better.

That would depend on the target audience. If the movie was conceived to please trekkies and scientists, then I would have to agree with you.

But, if it was designed as general entertainment with a sci-fi/action bent and a tip of the hat to those who fondly remember the original series and don't mind a laugh or two at their expense, then I think they have succeeded. After all, how bad could it be if Nimoy himself jumped on board and Shatner is still miffed he wasn't. I gues he'll just have to be content with Kaley Cuoco in those Travelocity commercials.

As for the trekkies and scientists who want to bemoan the fact that it itsn't what they would have wanted, if they had enough financial clout to make a dent, then I don't doubt they would have what they want.

But, like in this hobby, while we would never own it, Bose is still loved by many, many people and their P & L statements show it. Their customers don't care what us snobs say. They just enjoy their product for what it is, nothing more, nothing less. Pleasing the most people does have it's financial rewards.

 

[gene]

See it for and judge it for yourself. Don't be a sheeple. Gene only attacks it from the sci-fi portion. I look at from a character roll development and from that point of view, it does one hell of a good job. It depends on what is more important, technical relevancy or good character development.

Actually the character development on the latest Trek was probably one of the weakest links in the movie IMO. Khan was so unauthentic and forced into the film. He's probably the best actor in the movie yet he didn't pull it off as if it was a natural part for him. Mccoy and Scotty were used mostly as comic relief rather than as characters with dimension. The bromance between Kirk/Spock was yet again trusted upon us and unnatural. Carol Marcus was portrayed as a complete bimbo, but she was hot so everyone likes hot right? Even Peter Weller seemed out of place and actually played a better role in ST Enterprise despite the serious flaws in the last season of that show. Lennord Nimoy was out of place in both films and it was painful to watch. Hmm we have this bad guy Khan bent on destroying us, let me make a quick phone call to my older self to ask him what to do. Really?

This movie, and the last as well, have more in common with Star Wars then they do with Star Trek. Jar Jar even admitted that in an interview that he never liked or understood Star Trek but he was always a Star Wars fan boy.

As a result, we got lot's of mindless action, bigger monster eating a big monster, jumping off moving platforms while fighting, timelines that make no sense, weak plot, insultingly stupid science. Sadly Star Wars films to me (all 6 of them) had more depth and believability than this film.

Sorry to rain on everyone's parade but if you didn't already know it, I'm a pretty big Trekkie and very disappointed in the pandering and watering down Jar Jar Abrams did in these movies.

I bought them just to complete my collection and for guests to enjoy when they come and visit, but I cringe anytime I watch them.

Now what blows my mind is Roberto Orci (one of the story writers of the new Trek) did an absolutely fantastic job with Transformers Prime. I just don't see how someone couldn't have improved the plots of the last 2 treks and focused more on believability than mindless stupid action, excessive camera shaking, extreme close ups and over usage of lens flare.

I've pretty much given up on SciFi now b/c there is nothing left with depth of storyline and believability anymore. DS9 was the benchmark in this regard and we will NEVER see another Star Trek like that again IMO.

Now I just wait patiently for more Through the Wormhole episodes with Morgan Freeman or Scifi shows with Dr. Michio Kaku

 

[markw]

By Grabthars Hammer!!!

Well, Gene, unless you can get the original cast to reprise their rolls, maybe in wheel chairs, then maybe you'll be satisfied. Unfortunately James Doohan is already dead, but his acting wasn't far from that even back in the day.

 

[gene]

Well, Gene, unless you can get the original cast to reprise their rolls, maybe in wheel chairs, then maybe you'll be satisfied. Unfortunately James Doohan is already dead, but his acting wasn't far from that even back in the day.

No I don't want to see the original cast come back. The new cast would have been fine if there was a better storyline and director.

Also, I'm all for a new Trek series for TV. TOS is NOT my favorite Trek, DS9 was! So many great actors and deep characters came from that show.

BTW Galaxy Quest had more believability than new Trek