Star Trek: Into Darkness - Page 2
Forum Index > Media & Entertainment |
KapsyL
Sweden704 Posts
| ||
Micro_Jackson
Germany2002 Posts
On December 06 2012 18:27 tpmraven wrote: never watched star trek im guessing? Its a race based around war, everyone is a warrior, even the miners I don´t agree with you, most of the time the romulans were presented as the selfish "hide and seek" race. More spys then warriors. + Show Spoiler + They spend 20 years in the past waiting for the old spok or? Thats enough time for building new arms and practice. | ||
archonOOid
1983 Posts
| ||
eviltomahawk
United States11132 Posts
On December 06 2012 18:42 USvBleakill wrote: I don´t agree with you, most of the time the romulans were presented as the selfish "hide and seek" race. More spys then warriors. + Show Spoiler + They spend 20 years in the past waiting for the old spok or? Thats enough time for building new arms and practice. Apparently, the Romulans got captured by Klingons shortly after they destroyed the Kelvin and spent most of those years in jail before they escaped and retook their ship. Unfortunately, this part of the plot got cut and only exists in some deleted scenes and in the accompanying comics and novels. | ||
Ropid
Germany3557 Posts
On December 06 2012 18:27 tpmraven wrote: never watched star trek im guessing? Its a race based around war, everyone is a warrior, even the miners Also, the Romulans are related to Vulcans and get much older than Humans, they could have experienced years of military life at some point, not been miners as their sole profession in their life. Additionally, their body is just plain stronger than a human's, and their brain could enable being more accurate about everything, including movements, just like with a Vulcan, so holding their own against a trained Starfleet officer does not seem strange. | ||
Rannasha
Netherlands2398 Posts
On December 06 2012 18:43 archonOOid wrote: What happened to star trek? It was a dear friend of mine but got lost in enterprise series and the recent movies turned star trek into ordinary action. They screwed up most of season 1-3 of Enterprise, which alienated a large part of the hardcore fanbase (even though season 4 was cool except for the final episode). But since the IP is still strong and well-known, they decided to make movies instead, that cater to a wider audience. The previous movie was quite fun to watch, if you judge it as a action/scifi movie that happens to be in the Star Trek universe, rather than an actual Star Trek movie. I guess it's quite similar to Star Wars episode 1-3 in that sense. | ||
haduken
Australia8267 Posts
| ||
Blazinghand
United States25546 Posts
On December 06 2012 18:48 Rannasha wrote: They screwed up most of season 1-3 of Enterprise, which alienated a large part of the hardcore fanbase (even though season 4 was cool except for the final episode). But since the IP is still strong and well-known, they decided to make movies instead, that cater to a wider audience. The previous movie was quite fun to watch, if you judge it as a action/scifi movie that happens to be in the Star Trek universe, rather than an actual Star Trek movie. I guess it's quite similar to Star Wars episode 1-3 in that sense. Enterprise (and also the TNG movies, but not the series) moved away from the standard TOS/TNG structure for Star Trek and what it's about. Less thinky, more standard sci-fi. I enjoyed Enterprise as a scifi show, but I basically don't think of it as a normal Star Trek series. The final season was more Star Trek-ey and showing the formation of the Federation was actually pretty neat and stuff that should have been shown at some point anyways. I'm able to appreciate both the recent movie reboot and Enterprise, but as Sci-Fi movies rather than as something related to Star Trek. They're fun! good action, good drama, even decent plot for scifi/action. | ||
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On December 06 2012 18:27 tpmraven wrote: never watched star trek im guessing? Its a race based around war, everyone is a warrior, even the miners I have. Its nothing to do with whether your race based on war or not, its a question of whether someone would say "Hey, we are building a miner. What should it have, a large capacity for storage and cheap utilities or a bunch of torpedoes and plasma cannons?" In no other stark trek has a utility vessel been that large and that heavily armed. Nor did the whole concept of "hey, lets travel back in time" work. I mean option 1) travel back in time, warn the senate re: thing that will destroy romulus or 2) travel back in time, tell spock that he will be a bit too late and to get going on the project a year earlier or 3) travel back in time to exterminate all vulcans and all humans. Obviously 3. | ||
Micro_Jackson
Germany2002 Posts
On December 06 2012 18:44 eviltomahawk wrote: Apparently, the Romulans got captured by Klingons shortly after they destroyed the Kelvin and spent most of those years in jail before they escaped and retook their ship. Unfortunately, this part of the plot got cut and only exists in some deleted scenes and in the accompanying comics and novels. Okay i didn´t know that i just watched the movie. But i can imagine why this got cut, is explained how the Klingons captured them? The mining ship destroyed the Kelvin and a fleet in no time. In no other stark trek has a utility vessel been that large and that heavily armed. Nor did the whole concept of "hey, lets travel back in time" work. I mean option 1) travel back in time, warn the senate re: thing that will destroy romulus or 2) travel back in time, tell spock that he will be a bit too late and to get going on the project a year earlier or 3) travel back in time to exterminate all vulcans and all humans. Obviously 3. You forgot rule number 1. if there is a time travel involved in a movie: Don´t think about it because it will not make sense. If you criticize StarTrek for that you should watch Looper because 98% of the story would never happend if someone think´s about it for a minute. There is just no way of making a movie with time travel without creating a plothole. | ||
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On December 06 2012 18:44 eviltomahawk wrote: Apparently, the Romulans got captured by Klingons shortly after they destroyed the Kelvin and spent most of those years in jail before they escaped and retook their ship. Unfortunately, this part of the plot got cut and only exists in some deleted scenes and in the accompanying comics and novels. ..how does that even make sense even in that universe? Klingon ships by then were on par with federation ships. which the super death start is able to easily swat aside. This is what I mean -- I wouldnt mind if Abrams just invented some random abstract race and gave them the same mission. It could be like that one good Voyager episode where time travel actually ended up being cool. | ||
Jayme
United States5866 Posts
On December 06 2012 18:43 archonOOid wrote: What happened to star trek? It was a dear friend of mine but got lost in enterprise series and the recent movies turned star trek into ordinary action. You know it's interesting that you say that because honestly the last Star Trek movie was far more fun and to my liking than the TNG ones. The big reason for this though is the damn characters. The last Trek movie had at least a decent amount of character interaction and really that's pretty much how I would imagine Kirk would act like during his younger years. Hell he acted like this when he was older but it seemed even less tamed. Having a couple movies surround how he grows into a better leader could actually be a damn good series of movies. That being said the TNG movies are trash...because the elements that made TNG so great make terrible movies. Picard is a much more philosophical Captain type that really tries to avoid confrontation. If you watch the series you'll notice that Picard works much more around solving problems without blowing shit up. His maneuvering and how he goes about pulling that off along with all the technobabble is what makes it interesting. Thing is...that makes a fucking horrible movie in this day and age. The audience just is not there. When they DID make the TNG movies they completely destroyed every character, Picard in particular went from not sending a virus to kill the entire borg species to being this vengeful freak of anger during first contact, and so not only do people that want action hate it because it's bad action but trek fans hate it because it's not TNG. Then we have stupid shit like the emotion datachip shit that made no sense and didn't really add anything to the movie, Troy piloting the ship and SHOCK AND AWE crashing it horribly, terrible plot, and in general just not what you watch TNG for. They tried to make it more 'mainstream' and failed miserably. Kirk was a bit more action oriented and can actually do a bit of revival here if the new characters step in and do their jobs. Given that it's back in time and different events can happen having a personality shift makes SENSE so the actors can make the characters their own. At least that's what I'm hoping. I will give it a shot. Anyway if it IS a Wrath of Khan reboot they already have the character growth in there for it. The whole Kirk coming to terms with the No Win Scenario and all the jazz...yea... | ||
eviltomahawk
United States11132 Posts
On December 06 2012 18:54 Sub40APM wrote: ..how does that even make sense even in that universe? Klingon ships by then were on par with federation ships. which the super death start is able to easily swat aside. This is what I mean -- I wouldnt mind if Abrams just invented some random abstract race and gave them the same mission. It could be like that one good Voyager episode where time travel actually ended up being cool. According to the comic, the Kelvin's destruction managed to cripple the Romulan ship enough so that it couldn't hold off the subsequent Klingon attack, which I guess makes some sense. | ||
oBlade
Korea (South)4616 Posts
After that, we should bear in mind that Trek in any medium tends to take a little time to come into its own. For instance, The Motion Picture is a fine example of sci-fi but kind of the odd man out in the terms of the first six films. In early TNG/DS9, it takes the actors and writers a little while to understand exactly what the characters and stories are that they're dealing with. So I'm a little more hopeful about this film. Also, it's blasphemous trying to recreate or even pay homage to that classic scene in Wrath of Khan. It's a pretty good hook, though. | ||
Micro_Jackson
Germany2002 Posts
On December 06 2012 18:58 Jayme wrote: You know it's interesting that you say that because honestly the last Star Trek movie was far more fun and to my liking than the TNG ones. The big reason for this though is the damn characters. The last Trek movie had at least a decent amount of character interaction and really that's pretty much how I would imagine Kirk would act like during his younger years. Hell he acted like this when he was older but it seemed even less tamed. Having a couple movies surround how he grows into a better leader could actually be a damn good series of movies. That being said the TNG movies are trash...because the elements that made TNG so great make terrible movies. Picard is a much more philosophical Captain type that really tries to avoid confrontation. If you watch the series you'll notice that Picard works much more around solving problems without blowing shit up. His maneuvering and how he goes about pulling that off along with all the technobabble is what makes it interesting. Thing is...that makes a fucking horrible movie in this day and age. The audience just is not there. When they DID make the TNG movies they completely destroyed every character, Picard in particular went from not sending a virus to kill the entire borg species to being this vengeful freak of anger during first contact, and so not only do people that want action hate it because it's bad action but trek fans hate it because it's not TNG. Then we have stupid shit like the emotion datachip shit that made no sense and didn't really add anything to the movie, Troy piloting the ship and SHOCK AND AWE crashing it horribly, terrible plot, and in general just not what you watch TNG for. They tried to make it more 'mainstream' and failed miserably. Kirk was a bit more action oriented and can actually do a bit of revival here if the new characters step in and do their jobs. Given that it's back in time and different events can happen having a personality shift makes SENSE so the actors can make the characters their own. At least that's what I'm hoping. I will give it a shot. Anyway if it IS a Wrath of Khan reboot they already have the character growth in there for it. The whole Kirk coming to terms with the No Win Scenario and all the jazz...yea... The TNG movies were just 2 hour episodes with more money for special effects. And first contact was by far the best of them. Comparing TNG movies and the JJ Abrams movies is just not fair because in the TNG movies they had to work with the same characters as in the TV show. If you look at the old Kirk episodes and the new movies the only characters which not changed 180 degrees were Kirk and McCoy. Uhura, Sulu and especially Spok and Scotty (Simon Peg !!!) were totally different from the series. | ||
Owl
145 Posts
| ||
oBlade
Korea (South)4616 Posts
On December 06 2012 19:11 USvBleakill wrote: The TNG movies were just 2 hour episodes with more money for special effects. And first contact was by far the best of them. That description could be better. Good TNG episodes, and especially good 2 parters, tended to contain good character development or some moral sentiment or a good story. The TNG films mainly serve as action flicks. It's not just that they have a bigger effects budget. Hell, even DS9 had a good effects budget, but it still had riveting plots and characters. In TNG's case the effects drive the films to be action films. | ||
Von
United States363 Posts
On December 06 2012 18:39 eviltomahawk wrote: That one blond girl in the trailer looks suspiciously like Elizabeth Dehner. Hmmmm... Yes, exactly. The voiceovers and the trailers could be intentionally cut to be misdirection. The threat is not Khan. It's Gary Mitchell. (which is about 1000x more badass and cool on so many levels) | ||
Micro_Jackson
Germany2002 Posts
On December 06 2012 19:15 oBlade wrote: That description could be better. Good TNG episodes, and especially good 2 parters, tended to contain good character development or some moral sentiment or a good story. The TNG films mainly serve as action flicks. It's not just that they have a bigger effects budget. Hell, even DS9 had a good effects budget, but it still had riveting plots and characters. In TNG's case the effects drive the films to be action films. I agree with you mostly but you could say that for almost every movie with a original or series --> movie. Even great movies like Lord of the Ring or the Dark Knight could be called as action flicks (yes i´m looking at you last 1/2 hour of dark knight rises). | ||
Lynkilen
Norway211 Posts
| ||
| ||