Star Trek: Into Darkness - Page 4
Forum Index > Media & Entertainment |
phipsL
Germany189 Posts
| ||
N.geNuity
United States5111 Posts
On December 06 2012 17:56 chocopaw wrote: Can somebody explain to me why the first movie was so well received? I watched it, and while I didn't find it unbearable like some of my hardcore trekkie friends did, I didn't find it good by any means. cuz parachuting 2 guys or whatever to land on a little platform and take out a thing that mines out entire planets is totally cool and awesome right guys? (I actually don't remember that well, but that was pretty darn dumb to me). | ||
LaLuSh
Sweden2356 Posts
On December 06 2012 23:06 N.geNuity wrote: cuz parachuting 2 guys or whatever to land on a little platform and take out a thing that mines out entire planets is totally cool and awesome right guys? (I actually don't remember that well, but that was pretty darn dumb to me). The new industry standard: at least 1 explosion every minute or you risk losing the audience's attention. I didn't think the new star trek movie was outright bad either. But it was no different from a transformers movie. Watchable. Nothing more, nothing less. I find I've been saying this about every action/thriller movie the past 5 years. Watchable, but mehhhhhhhh. | ||
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
On December 06 2012 22:42 Campitor wrote: I think most of the audience who are upset that this reboot regarding it's departure from Star Trek cannon fail to realize that it's a parallel universe and not the original universe that Old-Spock, the Klingon's, and the original Star Trek come from. Spock alludes to this when he mentions that in "his universe" Kirk's father lives to old age and gets to see his son graduate while in the non-cannon universe Kirk's father dies ramming the Kelvin into the Romulan mining ship. Since this is a parallel universe it would make sense that the characters would be different and the lore would be different. I loved the reboot, I love what J.J. Abrahms did with the characters, and I loved the pacing of the movies. I can't wait to see the new one. Maintaining the brand while altering the essence is a fairly bland slight of hand to draw the biggest possible audience. It reminds me of the Catholic Encyclopedia's article on pantheistic immortality: Pantheism, if logical, can offer only an impersonal immortality, a future condition in which the individual is absorbed into the absolute—the one infinite being, whether conscious or unconscious. Practically, this differs little from annihilation. This is what is happening to the Star Trek franchise as well. The myth of the continuation of Star Trek after death is being propagated by a usurper, who has become accepted by most former subjects by merely taking the namesake, not having even pretended to imitate the character of the deceased. Trekkies(ers) will be assuaged by the recompense that their franchise is still alive, still putting movies out there, in which they are thrown a bone in the form of occasional homage or reference to the old franchise. They will pay the obligatory $10 every three years to see a film which they desperately want to love and believe, but which after all leaves a bitter taste in their mouths they are barely willing to admit. It's the same sensation as when the Star Wars community maintained the pretense for years after The Phantom Menace that Star Wars was alive and well. As they say, sometimes it's better to let go and move on. | ||
-Archangel-
Croatia7457 Posts
| ||
Gorsameth
Netherlands20764 Posts
On December 06 2012 22:57 ThomasjServo wrote: Hahaha I had the same thought, I don't mind it though, I like the darker takes on series that have been much more campy in the past. I had to be sure you had seen this. Of course you have a point. I understand the point of that union video. Yes the older ST has to much dialog for your average retard to follow but is there anything at all in this trailer that says Star Trek to you? To closest we got was a spaceship rising out of water. it could have been a boat and have the same effect. | ||
Hryul
Austria2609 Posts
I just hope we don't see any red monsters on an ice planet any more. And I'm slightly annoyed by landing yet another vessel somewhere. I mean it was cool and stuff with the bird of prey. Then the saucer in ST:VII and finally at X where they crashlanded it into another vessel. I think we had enough. | ||
BallinWitStalin
1177 Posts
On December 06 2012 23:20 LaLuSh wrote: The new industry standard: at least 1 explosion every minute or you risk losing the audience's attention. I didn't think the new star trek movie was outright bad either. But it was no different from a transformers movie. Watchable. Nothing more, nothing less. I find I've been saying this about every action/thriller movie the past 5 years. Watchable, but mehhhhhhhh. This is a bit much. It is definitely different from a transformers movie. Comparing the filth Michael Bay spits out to the start trek movie....Michael bay is the cheesiest, most pablum producing movie director I know of. He is absolutely terrible, single handedly ruined transformers, and is going to ruin Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. I actually enjoyed the previous star trek movie (that shit was actually pretty dark, they blew up vulcan, functionally killed all the TNG, deep space nine, and voyager characters due to timeline changes). I definitely though the opening scene was pretty good, too. I don't see how it can be compared to Michael Bay movies, other than it has "explosions", but come on, what sci-fci movie nowadays doesn't have explosions every now and then? I thought they did a reasonably decent job. It wasn't groundbreaking, but the movie was definitely, definitely better than transformers, which was a steaming pile. At least star trek didn't have rascist "gangsta" comic relief robot brothers. | ||
QuanticHawk
United States32009 Posts
On December 06 2012 22:57 ThomasjServo wrote: hehehehe this is so accurate I did like the reboot. I'll probably see this. | ||
Existential
Australia2107 Posts
| ||
Gnosis
Scotland912 Posts
On December 06 2012 19:24 Von wrote: 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) Looked like Sherlock Holmes to me | ||
Tobberoth
Sweden6375 Posts
On December 07 2012 01:24 QuanticHawk wrote: hehehehe this is so accurate I did like the reboot. I'll probably see this. About as accurate as saying "Why watch news when you can watch explosions and why read a book when there's already text on the cover of this braindead action movie". | ||
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
I can see why the hardcore Star Trek fans would be upset with these new movies, but they definitely have far more mass appeal. | ||
Liman
Serbia681 Posts
| ||
Spidinko
Slovakia1174 Posts
| ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
On December 06 2012 17:56 eviltomahawk wrote: That end clip is suggestive spoilerish if you watched + Show Spoiler + Wrath of Khan. Wrath of Khan It looks like it will be a good action movie at least, but I wonder if it will be a good Star Trek movie as well. Don't think they would be that stupid to pull something like that. Noticing the blonde woman I really hope isn't annoying character. | ||
Hubble
Germany248 Posts
| ||
itkovian
United States1763 Posts
| ||
Microsloth
Canada194 Posts
On December 06 2012 23:06 N.geNuity wrote: cuz parachuting 2 guys or whatever to land on a little platform and take out a thing that mines out entire planets is totally cool and awesome right guys? (I actually don't remember that well, but that was pretty darn dumb to me). Of course you'll hate movies if you don't pay attention to them. It was 3 guys.... space jumping from a shuttle, entering Vulcan's atmosphere, using parachutes to land on a small platform with the purpose of disabling the drill.... because the powerful electrical signal emitted from the drill was disabling communication and transported abilities. The "thing" doesn't mine out entire planets. It makes a simple hole straight down where ever it drills. Which... kind of makes sense for a "drill". The plot of this movie is nowhere near as terrible as these hard core trekies are making it out to be... It has few holes, which is more than we can say for the majority of sci-fi/action movies. | ||
a176
Canada6688 Posts
On December 06 2012 23:33 -Archangel- wrote: This teaser is pathetic, even for a non-ST movie. I believe that's why they call them teasers. | ||
| ||