|
On May 10 2013 23:08 Campitor wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 21:07 TheRealPaciFist wrote:On May 10 2013 13:14 BoxingKangaroo wrote:On May 10 2013 08:38 Campitor wrote: The old Star Trek movies were full of plot holes. I loved Wrath of Khan - it was a good story line. But there were ton of plot holes. Bugs that wrap around your cortex and make you susceptible to suggestion? So a bug the size of a small penis can eat through your inner ear, some cranial tissue, etc., and you wouldn't die of trauma, shock, or infection? I call BS right there. Artificial gravity on space ships that doesn't require centrifical force or send you slamming into the walls when dropping out of warp - I guess the laws of inertia don't exist onboard the enterprise? Scrambling matter and making it reappear in another location with ZERO errors - BS. Faster than light travel via "Warp Speed" pfft. We can create ships that produce and use infinite amounts of energy with zero radiation emissions and contain it in vessels the size of a SUV. See how ridiculous it all sounds when you take it apart?
All SciFi movies will always be silly and have gaping plot holes. You cannot fit a good science based movie into a 2 hour show and not expect massive plot holes - there is a reason it's call science FICTION. You have to accept the fact that any movie that is given a major budget will cater to the biggest crowd and sacrifice sound logic for a bigger box office hit. If you want good SciFi go read a book - that is what I do. I love the old movies and I loved ST2009. I can't wait for the 2013 movie. You didn't describe plot holes at all sorry. The things you mentioned are simply aspects of the universe that the writer is asking you to accept as something that exists in that particular Sci-Fi universe. Some of them are long term staples of the Sci-Fi genre (e.g. FTL travel). As an example, no-one would (or should) complain that a SF movie has warp speed. What they should complain about is if it's used either inconsistently, or ignored completely when it could influence the plot in a major way. In this way, I can accept time travel and red matter in ST2009. No problem. What I cannot accept is lazy writing. Why was Nero pissed at Spock? Because his attempt to save Romulus failed? Uh, ok. How did a major state of the art spaceship end up being commanded by fresh graduates? These plot points rely on people acting completely irrationally (Nero) or completely stupidly (Federation allowing grads to command a starship). It's bad writing. SciFi movies can be: - based on a universe with 'scifi' rules - e.g. Time travel, FTL, transporters - internally consistent - well written (no plot holes) - entertaining IMO ST2009 (and many other recent blockbusters) fail in the writing department. I'm willing to accept some 'suspension of disbelief' in order to be entertained, but some movies don't even stand up to even a cursory analysis of the plot. If you can look past the plot holes and be entertained, fine. But don't tell me it's well written because it's not. And definitely don't tell me that SF movies necessarily have plot holes, because that's frankly wrong. edit: BTW, I'm not a Trek 'fan' by any means. I thought Nero was the weakest part of the movie, his motivation was somewhat difficult to believe (not impossible, though - yes, it's irrational to be angry that Spock's attempt to save Romulus failed. So what? People are irrational - especially people who are the last survivors of their entire species) and I didn't think he was a very fun character to watch. Furthermore, the writing relies again and again on extreme coincidences, one or two of which were a bit jarring for me. And there are the plot holes you mentioned, like why the protagonists' ships never get sucked in by the red matter blackholes. But... I still thought ST2009 was a FANTASTIC movie, and absolute blast to watch, with great characters and an interesting story - and yes, in my opinion, it was well-written. Certainly not the best writing, but good enough to create an investment with the characters, the world, and the stakes, as well as allowing for enjoyable set pieces and comedic one-liners. But that's just my opinion. To me it's well-written; to you it's not; it's all just a matter of opinion. Well said. Anyone here arguing about how the old ST movies are superior to the new ST movies are doing so for subjective reasons. I loved the old ST movies and I love the 2009 movie. The only reason I bring up the plot holes in each movie, and there are many plot holes in each, is to illustrate how each movie violates the most basic premise of science and character development and character motivation as established by its own storyline. So to point out any kind of "bad writing" in one movie while ignoring the "bad writing" in the other movie is just plain bias. See the movies, enjoy them, and judge them for what they are - an indulgent light fantasy that is meant to entertain and make us laugh. These movies aren't supposed to be discussed with any kind of seriousness like old windbags arguing over the bouquet and aroma of fine wines. And yet we are still waiting for you to show us one plot hole. Only thing you done so far is contradicted yourself and proven the opposite. But since you are a fan of ST2009 that is normal for you..
|
+ Show Spoiler +KHHHHHHAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNNNN. Im glad I didnt read anything about this movie and was shocked when cumberbatch turned out to be khan! Also loved wrath of khan
|
On May 11 2013 00:42 -Archangel- wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 23:08 Campitor wrote:On May 10 2013 21:07 TheRealPaciFist wrote:On May 10 2013 13:14 BoxingKangaroo wrote:On May 10 2013 08:38 Campitor wrote: The old Star Trek movies were full of plot holes. I loved Wrath of Khan - it was a good story line. But there were ton of plot holes. Bugs that wrap around your cortex and make you susceptible to suggestion? So a bug the size of a small penis can eat through your inner ear, some cranial tissue, etc., and you wouldn't die of trauma, shock, or infection? I call BS right there. Artificial gravity on space ships that doesn't require centrifical force or send you slamming into the walls when dropping out of warp - I guess the laws of inertia don't exist onboard the enterprise? Scrambling matter and making it reappear in another location with ZERO errors - BS. Faster than light travel via "Warp Speed" pfft. We can create ships that produce and use infinite amounts of energy with zero radiation emissions and contain it in vessels the size of a SUV. See how ridiculous it all sounds when you take it apart?
All SciFi movies will always be silly and have gaping plot holes. You cannot fit a good science based movie into a 2 hour show and not expect massive plot holes - there is a reason it's call science FICTION. You have to accept the fact that any movie that is given a major budget will cater to the biggest crowd and sacrifice sound logic for a bigger box office hit. If you want good SciFi go read a book - that is what I do. I love the old movies and I loved ST2009. I can't wait for the 2013 movie. You didn't describe plot holes at all sorry. The things you mentioned are simply aspects of the universe that the writer is asking you to accept as something that exists in that particular Sci-Fi universe. Some of them are long term staples of the Sci-Fi genre (e.g. FTL travel). As an example, no-one would (or should) complain that a SF movie has warp speed. What they should complain about is if it's used either inconsistently, or ignored completely when it could influence the plot in a major way. In this way, I can accept time travel and red matter in ST2009. No problem. What I cannot accept is lazy writing. Why was Nero pissed at Spock? Because his attempt to save Romulus failed? Uh, ok. How did a major state of the art spaceship end up being commanded by fresh graduates? These plot points rely on people acting completely irrationally (Nero) or completely stupidly (Federation allowing grads to command a starship). It's bad writing. SciFi movies can be: - based on a universe with 'scifi' rules - e.g. Time travel, FTL, transporters - internally consistent - well written (no plot holes) - entertaining IMO ST2009 (and many other recent blockbusters) fail in the writing department. I'm willing to accept some 'suspension of disbelief' in order to be entertained, but some movies don't even stand up to even a cursory analysis of the plot. If you can look past the plot holes and be entertained, fine. But don't tell me it's well written because it's not. And definitely don't tell me that SF movies necessarily have plot holes, because that's frankly wrong. edit: BTW, I'm not a Trek 'fan' by any means. I thought Nero was the weakest part of the movie, his motivation was somewhat difficult to believe (not impossible, though - yes, it's irrational to be angry that Spock's attempt to save Romulus failed. So what? People are irrational - especially people who are the last survivors of their entire species) and I didn't think he was a very fun character to watch. Furthermore, the writing relies again and again on extreme coincidences, one or two of which were a bit jarring for me. And there are the plot holes you mentioned, like why the protagonists' ships never get sucked in by the red matter blackholes. But... I still thought ST2009 was a FANTASTIC movie, and absolute blast to watch, with great characters and an interesting story - and yes, in my opinion, it was well-written. Certainly not the best writing, but good enough to create an investment with the characters, the world, and the stakes, as well as allowing for enjoyable set pieces and comedic one-liners. But that's just my opinion. To me it's well-written; to you it's not; it's all just a matter of opinion. Well said. Anyone here arguing about how the old ST movies are superior to the new ST movies are doing so for subjective reasons. I loved the old ST movies and I love the 2009 movie. The only reason I bring up the plot holes in each movie, and there are many plot holes in each, is to illustrate how each movie violates the most basic premise of science and character development and character motivation as established by its own storyline. So to point out any kind of "bad writing" in one movie while ignoring the "bad writing" in the other movie is just plain bias. See the movies, enjoy them, and judge them for what they are - an indulgent light fantasy that is meant to entertain and make us laugh. These movies aren't supposed to be discussed with any kind of seriousness like old windbags arguing over the bouquet and aroma of fine wines. And yet we are still waiting for you to show us one plot hole. Only thing you done so far is contradicted yourself and proven the opposite. But since you are a fan of ST2009 that is normal for you..
I actually did point out some plot holes. I'm not the only one who thinks the same. I said Spock touching the reactor with gloves as a plot hole. Other people agree: http://www.trekspace.org/profiles/blogs/star-trek-ii-plot-holes. And here is another site that depicts faulty physics, as defined by the movie's lore, as plot holes: http://www.movieplotholes.com/star-trek.html. So I'm not the only one who sees the violation of physics, as defined by the movie's own lore, as plot holes.
|
Seen ID and you should give it a try. Some comments and jokes are over-the-top, a few things don't work, i. e. it's not flawless. But in general, my impression was, that it captures the spirit of Star Trek quite well.
+ Show Spoiler +But... it breaks continuity again. And by that, I mean that the '09 explanation of having a parallel universe can't work. Engineering room changed completely, too, or they were never near the warp-core in the first film. But that's also true Star Trek. Making up theories, to reassure continuity and then breaking it again. It happens all the time.
|
Just quickly, is it necessary to have seen the first Star Trek film to understand Into Darkness? I have seen the first, but a friend of mine hasn't wondering if he will end up super confused or if it will make sense.
|
Zachary Quinto is a boss. That is all.
|
The re-boot doesn't make sense, but both films have enclosed stories.
|
On May 14 2013 17:11 Wetty wrote: Just quickly, is it necessary to have seen the first Star Trek film to understand Into Darkness? I have seen the first, but a friend of mine hasn't wondering if he will end up super confused or if it will make sense.
Nope, but if you watch StarTrek II: The Wrath of Khan beforehand you can talk the talk. ;D
Also, can anyone explain why Praxis was shattered to pieces? Shouldn`t that happen like 40 years later?
|
On May 14 2013 17:34 Leporello wrote: Zachary Quinto is a boss. That is all. yeah, really underrated actor. I also really liked him as sylar in Heroes.
|
This movie is more action then science fiction. Its too bad really because cast is great. Dont get me wrong,its a good movie but it could be so much better. They gave too much emphasis on action and CGI then actual story,it needed more mystery.
If you ask me last good ST movie was First contact.
|
I watched it now and I have to say i was not dissapoint. Sort of felt like they built up for a awesome ending that wasnt as awesome but the movie is still a clear 9 in my opinion. it pretty much caught my attention all the time and was really exciting
|
On May 14 2013 09:34 Perscienter wrote:Seen ID and you should give it a try. Some comments and jokes are over-the-top, a few things don't work, i. e. it's not flawless. But in general, my impression was, that it captures the spirit of Star Trek quite well. + Show Spoiler +But... it breaks continuity again. And by that, I mean that the '09 explanation of having a parallel universe can't work. Engineering room changed completely, too, or they were never near the warp-core in the first film. But that's also true Star Trek. Making up theories, to reassure continuity and then breaking it again. It happens all the time.
Yes, I agree.
Some of the comments/scenes (re: Bones/Spock/Kirk and their respective quirks) was a little overdone and, at times, veered close to parody. But this may also be because I am a long time ST fan and a little of that goes a long way with me.
But, overall, this was a lovely Star Trek movie. (The major failing, in my view, were the endless endings.)
As to watching prior ST movies, it is not strictly necessary. The movie does strongly reference WOK (ST: II) but it's not necessary to watch it to appreciate this movie. Although, certain scenes are better appreciated having watched WOK as they are a twist on what originally happened in the original ST Universe. That said: + Show Spoiler +I am still in two minds about the reverse of the Kirk death scene after having saved The Enterprise. While watching it, my first reaction was, "blasphemy!" before I told myself to get over myself. Still, it may have gone a little too far, I think. As to the signposted Kirk resurrection, that was also a little much - but, the Tribble was a nice touch. After all, it did save Kirk from some trouble... hahaha! .
|
Want to see. Want to see. Want to see. Want to see. Want to see. Want to see.
Apparently the theatre near my house is selling tickets for an IMAX viewing tomorrow. So going visit and look into this.
|
I liked Into Darkness way more than its predecessor.
While I enjoyed watching Star Trek 2009 in cinema - because it reanimated the old characters in an interesting way and was audiovisually stunning - I wouldn't enjoy rewatching it: the plot contains too much nonsense that is hard to swallow and the villain's motivations lack logic and depth, Nero is basically just a plot device.
Into Darkness is definitely an improvement when it comes to plot and villain, while it builds on all the positive stuff from the first movie.
|
Not a very good movie, but I managed to enjoy myself somewhat. Tried hard to ignore all the illogical errors. Have to say I liked the villain, Cumberbatch is a cool actor.
|
Watched it tonight in IMAX 3D.
Outstanding film. Great special effects and a LOT of them, from start to finish, and a great story line, though one part is kinda obvious. Final scenes are great too.
I thoroughly enjoyed this film, and I look foward to going back to the theatres to watch it again.
Oh, and as a side bonus, on exiting the theatre, I got a free poster for being at the first showing of the film.
|
Saw it tonight too at scotiabank theatre in downtown montreal... should've been in IMAX 3D but the imax broke down so we watched it in 'regular' 3D and got a free pass to whatever else in the future.
Word of warning: leave all your knowledge of physics, biology and canon species attributes at the door... you won't be needing them... this film doesn't attempt to portray science, it portrays a re-imagining of Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan.
|
Loved it + Show Spoiler +best partway before the movie started, guy behind me says, he better not scream khan at any point this movie. When Spock did everyone in the theater burst out laughing
|
Just so y'all know... this was a fucking awesome movie. + Show Spoiler +Considering how many twists there were, it remains to be seen whether I will enjoy it as much the second time, but... IMAX, man!!!! Cumberbatch was brilliant, there were the typical witty one-liners from the first movie, and while I thought the beginning was a little weak, it really came through in the end.
|
Cumberbatch was awesome, Alice Eve was terrible but she had to be in the movie, cause ya know...
+ Show Spoiler + What about the Klingon's how many of their soldiers died, and ships "shot" down. No response at all...
|
|
|
|