What's the most recent one? Or which one can I watch without prior knowledge?
Star Trek: Into Darkness - Page 11
Forum Index > Media & Entertainment |
kafkaesque
Germany2006 Posts
What's the most recent one? Or which one can I watch without prior knowledge? | ||
Holy_AT
Austria978 Posts
On May 09 2013 18:46 Nekovivie wrote: Why can't we all just enjoy the movie? I do not like statements such as yours without any content or opinion or justifcation for your claim. If you want to argue why it is enjoyable or why it fits into the star trek universe, you should provide facts and opinions and not give a one liner with abolutly no sense or backing at all. I had arguments with people, where I disliked something, but they offered me a unique perspective to a film or book that I didn't previously see and so I came to enjoy it more. You offer no such thing and I wonder how comments like yours dont make you shame yourself. | ||
NicolBolas
United States1388 Posts
On May 09 2013 18:46 Nekovivie wrote: Why can't we all just enjoy the movie? Because it's not a very good film. As I explained. Unless you're saying that we shouldn't think about or discuss movies or something. Because that kind of intellectual sloth is what allows people like Michael Bay to exist. On May 09 2013 18:49 kafkaesque wrote: I've never seen a Star Trek movie, only half of an episode I absolutely hated. What's the most recent one? Or which one can I watch without prior knowledge? Um, all of them? Generally speaking, the Star Trek films require only the most simplistic knowledge of Star Trek, which you would probably understand from pop-culture even if you've never watched an episode of any show. You could walk into Star Trek 6 and learn quickly enough that the Klingons are long-time enemies of our heroes, for example. Even Star Treks 3 and 4, which are direct sequels to 2, will explain all of the events you need to know from prior films as needed. | ||
Holy_AT
Austria978 Posts
On May 09 2013 18:49 kafkaesque wrote: I've never seen a Star Trek movie, only half of an episode I absolutely hated. What's the most recent one? Or which one can I watch without prior knowledge? Thats very difficult to say and it depends on what you enjoy. Normally star trek always offers some moral or lesson to be learned and its stories are often slow paced with lots of dialog and conversion. If you dont like this style you may not find star trek enjoyable. Also star trek put much focus on the science part of science fiction and tried to provied a somewhat realistic future. If you like long drawn out dramas with good characters that you get to know over the show, I'd recommend DS9, my all time SciFi favourite show. If you are young (I am 30) I think you will mislike TOS (the old series) or even TNG (the next generation) because it would seem antiquated to you and you may not have the patience to look at the story. I myself am not really a fan of TOS but I like the movies myself because of this. I'd recommend my all time favourite star trek movie "Star Trek the First Contact" to you if you want to watch a movie and all of the TOS movies but the first one (witch you may not like if you never had experience with star trek). If you have endurance you should start by watching TNG and then DS9. | ||
Silvanel
Poland4601 Posts
On May 09 2013 18:49 kafkaesque wrote: I've never seen a Star Trek movie, only half of an episode I absolutely hated. What's the most recent one? Or which one can I watch without prior knowledge? The newest film by JJ Abrams is a good bet in my opinion. Decent action movie, without much into it. You dont really need to know anything to enjoy it. All other movies require prior love of StarTrek to be enjoable (i watched some of them and hated them all). I am obviously speaking from personal experience. | ||
Sumahi
Guam5609 Posts
I still prefer most of the original films to the reboot from JJ Abrams. But I still enjoyed his vision. | ||
Perscienter
957 Posts
Current arithmetic mean of the written reviews on imdb: 6.61 | ||
MGHova
Canada274 Posts
| ||
bode927
United States164 Posts
On May 09 2013 18:29 NicolBolas wrote: Huge wall of text by both myself and NicolBolas last seen on page 10 I actually find myself agreeing with a lot of your points, but there's more to it, so let me explain. I can comprehend and agree with what you're saying about the Kobiyashi Muru, Kirk becoming captain in ST2009, and the "kirk's age theme" in WoK. However, I can honestly say that none of these things were things that bothered me through repeated viewings of ST2009, nor in my viewings of any other Star Trek content. Why is this? There are probably a few reasons. One, obviously I am a lot less informed on the entire topic of Star Trek than you are. Beyond that I would like to ask you how many times you have seen Star Trek 2009? Did you have to watch it multiple times to be able to provide this level of analysis? Or have you compiled ideas by talking to other Star Trek fans? If you were able to achieve that level of analysis after only one viewing of the film, I have no problem saying that you are a much more intelligent person than I am. When I watch ST2009 in the future, these issues will still not bother me because I do get excited by good special effects, cameos by beloved characters, and references to Wrath of Khan that I can see and identify. If in your eyes or the eyes of the trekkie community that makes me some lesser form of a trekkie, then so be it. Because after all, the point of watching a film is to enjoy it. If it's good enough that is. | ||
risk.nuke
Sweden2825 Posts
The Elitist - I don't like change... or new people. The Elitist was influenced greatly by Star Trek and probably spent a lot of time and money on it. He has created his own narrow vision of what star trek is and will hate on anything that disagrees with his opinion. Elitist will generally: -Assume the film is worse because it targets a wider audience. -Whine how characters are different and wrong. -Hate how the main cast is young, hot and appealing. -Slam down hard on minor things that hold no significance at all as if they were huge deals. (Ex. - Enterprise Engine Room) -Argue how the new film had no soul or an empty clichéd plot development. -Selectively argue how made up shit isn't realistic. -Bitch how lorewise X would have been smarter then Y. -Be utterly unwilling to accept that everyone else likes ST09, not even on a coexistent level. The Nostaglic - Things were better in the past. The Nostalgic watched the star trek long ago and loved them. As the nostalgic matured and started criticizing films the nostalgic have been unable to comprehend that his beloved films have the same faults as many other films such as being, stupid, cheesy, boring, slow paced, bad acting etc. Nostalgic will generally: -Glorify the old movies. -Only ever compare anything to Wrath of Khan. -Claim Star Trek have been dumbed down. -Think old stupid shit is charming. -Think new stupid shit is stupid. On May 09 2013 18:46 Nekovivie wrote: Why can't we all just enjoy the movie? This man has the right of it. It's a visually beautiful fun fast paced well dialouge'd action film that keeps the audience interested from start to finnish. (In other words if we're to be fair, a lot of things the original movies wasn't). But in the end, you either enjoy it or you don't, and if you don't you're not forced to convert others to your stupid opinion so get out. | ||
_SpiRaL_
Afghanistan1636 Posts
It has its moments and I would say the great job benedict cumberbatch does probably pushes it slightly ahead of its predecessor. There are some bits that really pissed me off though. 5/10 | ||
TrickyGilligan
United States641 Posts
On May 10 2013 01:24 risk.nuke wrote: Star Trek 2009 was a great film and we'd be lucky to get a sequel by the same standard. For fun I actually have looked around at the critique of ST09 and I mostly get two category's of people. The Elitist - I don't like change... or new people. The Elitist was influenced greatly by Star Trek and probably spent a lot of time and money on it. He has created his own narrow vision of what star trek is and will hate on anything that disagrees with his opinion. Elitist will generally: -Assume the film is worse because it targets a wider audience. -Whine how characters are different and wrong. -Hate how the main cast is young, hot and appealing. -Slam down hard on minor things that hold no significance at all as if they were huge deals. (Ex. - Enterprise Engine Room) -Argue how the new film had no soul or an empty clichéd plot development. -Selectively argue how made up shit isn't realistic. -Bitch how lorewise X would have been smarter then Y. -Be utterly unwilling to accept that everyone else likes ST09, not even on a coexistent level. The Nostaglic - Things were better in the past. The Nostalgic watched the star trek long ago and loved them. As the nostalgic matured and started criticizing films the nostalgic have been unable to comprehend that his beloved films have the same faults as many other films such as being, stupid, cheesy, boring, slow paced, bad acting etc. Nostalgic will generally: -Glorify the old movies. -Only ever compare anything to Wrath of Khan. -Claim Star Trek have been dumbed down. -Think old stupid shit is charming. -Think new stupid shit is stupid. This man has the right of it. It's a visually beautiful fun fast paced well dialouge'd action film that keeps the audience interested from start to finnish. (In other words if we're to be fair, a lot of things the original movies wasn't). But in the end, you either enjoy it or you don't, and if you don't you're not forced to convert others to your stupid opinion so get out. So, everyone who disagrees with you must be some sort of dysfunctional caricature? I just thought ST2009 was a shit film. | ||
sCCrooked
Korea (South)1306 Posts
On May 10 2013 01:24 risk.nuke wrote: Star Trek 2009 was a great film and we'd be lucky to get a sequel by the same standard. For fun I actually have looked around at the critique of ST09 and I mostly get two category's of people. The Elitist - I don't like change... or new people. The Elitist was influenced greatly by Star Trek and probably spent a lot of time and money on it. He has created his own narrow vision of what star trek is and will hate on anything that disagrees with his opinion. Elitist will generally: -Assume the film is worse because it targets a wider audience. -Whine how characters are different and wrong. -Hate how the main cast is young, hot and appealing. -Slam down hard on minor things that hold no significance at all as if they were huge deals. (Ex. - Enterprise Engine Room) -Argue how the new film had no soul or an empty clichéd plot development. -Selectively argue how made up shit isn't realistic. -Bitch how lorewise X would have been smarter then Y. -Be utterly unwilling to accept that everyone else likes ST09, not even on a coexistent level. The Nostaglic - Things were better in the past. The Nostalgic watched the star trek long ago and loved them. As the nostalgic matured and started criticizing films the nostalgic have been unable to comprehend that his beloved films have the same faults as many other films such as being, stupid, cheesy, boring, slow paced, bad acting etc. Nostalgic will generally: -Glorify the old movies. -Only ever compare anything to Wrath of Khan. -Claim Star Trek have been dumbed down. -Think old stupid shit is charming. -Think new stupid shit is stupid. This man has the right of it. It's a visually beautiful fun fast paced well dialouge'd action film that keeps the audience interested from start to finnish. (In other words if we're to be fair, a lot of things the original movies wasn't). But in the end, you either enjoy it or you don't, and if you don't you're not forced to convert others to your stupid opinion so get out. Thanks for that useless and very poor attempt at lumping people who have concerns about the direction of the franchise into 2 general categories. I could easily do the same pointless task to the group of masses who accept anything and everything without demanding accountability or standards in their product, but I'm quite frankly above such nonesense. Denying facts like "the writing is becoming more basic" or "the storylines lack any creativity" doesn't make you more "accepting" or "open". It just makes fools who don't ask questions and act like sheep. | ||
Yoav
United States1874 Posts
On May 10 2013 01:59 _SpiRaL_ wrote: Meh. About equal to the previous one. Entertaining enough but riddled with so many gaping plot holes it makes it very hard to enjoy more than as a popcorn film. No it is not elitest to think the first one was at best average and at worst pretty unwatchable. The whole movie made no sense. None of the plots or characters actions were understandable at all. Not in a nitpicky way either. I mean in its own self contained universe shit just doesnt add up at all. It has its moments and I would say the great job benedict cumberbatch does probably pushes it slightly ahead of its predecessor. There are some bits that really pissed me off though. 5/10 This is the problem with people critiquing ST09, or perhaps this one (don't know yet). These movies are not meant to be "more than popcorn films." That's what they are. That's their category. If I go and see the next one and it is funny and entertaining and perhaps occasionally thrilling, I'll be happy. The last one, incidentally, was actually plotted out quite nicely, if highly simplistically. There's a reason why Joss Whedon called ST09 "all that an action movie can be." It was really funny and highly entertaining, repeatedly referencing the old show/series (most of which, let's be honest, was/is unwatchably bad) but not being a slave to it. There's a place in this world for the popcorn action movie. Though frankly I worry about this one... the "darker and more serious" tone is dangerous to achieving "good popcorn movie" status. | ||
teapot
United Kingdom266 Posts
Let's see what's wrong with Star Trek: Into Darkness + Show Spoiler + - The continued portrayal of Starfleet as a crypto fascist military regime. Guess Rodenberry's vision was too socialist utopian for today's Teabaggers and their hatred of all things authority and government. - More Transformers style CGI, busy-tech visuals. New Klingon ships. Yuck - More gaping plot holes and weirdness. Putting cryo-bodies in torpedoes. Really? WTF?!? - Crappy fake death. Who didn't see that coming after the " oh just injecting this dead Tribble with Kahn's magic blood") - Completely random cameo from Leonard Nimoy. Ok, the reply to the question, "how did you beat Kahn? ...with Great Cost" Was very good (I hope that one was not from Lindelhoff). - No real motivation for Kahn Noonan Singh. Old one raised some interesting ideas. New one, not so much. Just the illusion of depth, which is basically what is wrong with new Star Trek. Superfical. | ||
Daray
6006 Posts
I will definitely go see it i thought the previous one was pretty good. | ||
_SpiRaL_
Afghanistan1636 Posts
On May 10 2013 02:28 Yoav wrote: This is the problem with people critiquing ST09, or perhaps this one (don't know yet). These movies are not meant to be "more than popcorn films." That's what they are. That's their category. If I go and see the next one and it is funny and entertaining and perhaps occasionally thrilling, I'll be happy. The last one, incidentally, was actually plotted out quite nicely, if highly simplistically. There's a reason why Joss Whedon called ST09 "all that an action movie can be." It was really funny and highly entertaining, repeatedly referencing the old show/series (most of which, let's be honest, was/is unwatchably bad) but not being a slave to it. There's a place in this world for the popcorn action movie. Though frankly I worry about this one... the "darker and more serious" tone is dangerous to achieving "good popcorn movie" status. I completely disagree with this. Why settle for low standards? Why can't we expect more from our popcorn films? It's like you are actively wanting a film which sacrifices everything for cool set pieces and special effects and cheesy references. Why? Why can't a sci-fi action film be a contender for a best picture oscar? Because the filmmakers and writers are incredibly lazy? It was only plotted out quite nicely if you ignore all the stuff that made no sense, which was almost everything... It was SO SO FAR from all an action movie could be. I am sick of people not accepting this kind of criticism. There is NO excuse for this sort of film not to avoid this sort of thing. Did you like the Star Wars prequels? Why not? | ||
risk.nuke
Sweden2825 Posts
On May 10 2013 02:09 sCCrooked wrote: Thanks for that useless and very poor attempt at lumping people who have concerns about the direction of the franchise into 2 general categories. I could easily do the same pointless task to the group of masses who accept anything and everything without demanding accountability or standards in their product, but I'm quite frankly above such nonesense. Denying facts like "the writing is becoming more basic" or "the storylines lack any creativity" doesn't make you more "accepting" or "open". It just makes fools who don't ask questions and act like sheep. haha, no I just had a blast reading people trashing ST09. It's fun because they have no valid points. At least not filmwise. The few accurate points they make are mostly just minor lore things that have been changed to make the film more easily accessible to the casual viewer. But in the end, the fact that they were building ships on earth have literally nothing to do with if the film is good or not. It's just some hardcore trekkies who want to be rewarded for all their extensive knowledge. Nobody else cares. And it's just laughable to hear some angry little nerd chant how the film is atrocious and unwatchable because the engine room in the Enterprise reminds him of a boiler room. I've listened to people say realistically what are the odds that the same crew would band up together in the alternate timeline and that Scotty was randomly stationed at that post. It's fiction. It's all made up. And like they didn't ignore the odds with the old films. Why didn't anyone do something when Kirk took command of the ship. Why did Kirk and Spock go alone to the other ship. Why does anyone ever do stupid stuff or let stupid stuff happen in films. It's for the story. Are you going to sit there and pretend this didn't go on in the old star trek, or the majority of films. REALLY?,it will keep happening. Deal with it. And more arguments like this. Then there are the ones who try to actually justify their claim that it's a bad film because, the writing has gotten less creative and the actors have gotten worse. And the plot doesn't have a soul. First, the actors in the old films are nothing particular. Just because you formed a bond with shattner when you watched him as a kid doesn't make him special. It makes you a responsive little kid like everyone else. Every plot has been done. especially when you judge it like you do and draw long parallells to something that's been done before. I never saw someone blow up vulcan before. I have however seen 100 bad guys trying to kill the good guys home planet. Or a thousand bad guys trying to kill a good guy. How long parallells are you going to draw before you think it's original. The plot doesn't have a soul. Lets just assume this isn't just the dumbest thing I ever read and assume it said. Character development, symbolisation and moral lesson or whatever you want to call it. Every film have something you can learn from, some development or some moral lesson you can take in. It's up to the interpreter to find it. In the end if you didn't see it or learn anything. It's because you're stupid. And the old star trek movies were not better at this then ST09. Saying something doesn't make it so. | ||
aZealot
New Zealand5447 Posts
I'll be watching it this weekend, and I'll make up my own mind. Before starting my workday though: one thing that may be problematic for old Trekkies/Trekkers is that the new movies use old and much loved characters and develop them in different ways in a different setting. This also means that character development and so on is difficult, comparatively, within the movies because we compare them to the characters developed over 4 years of TV, watched through numerous re-runs, and then over 6 movies. This crew and this ship do not have a baseline of characters and story and fandom to draw on as the original Enterprise and Enterprise A did (not to mention the Enterprise D and Enterprise E). Give it a chance lads. (Or, if not, try not to jerk off too much in that circle.) It is also an alternate Universe and another take on Star Trek. I like that the Federation may be developing into something other than the benevolent organisation it was purported to be in the original Universe. I hope that poverty and want are still powerful drivers in this Universe and that this rendition of Star Trek abandons the faith in Technology that Roddenberry had. That aspect of Star Trek always struck me as a little naive, and does so even more than I am older and more cynical. | ||
_SpiRaL_
Afghanistan1636 Posts
Some people are like utter sheep and at the same time cannot take any criticism at all of movies they liked despite there being things that are OBJECTIVELY terrible about the movie. How is this possible? To watch a movie mindlessly without thought or analysis and yet be so determined in your opinion? That's right the movie is objectively, no argument possible, stupid. It might still be entertaining, I enjoyed it ok I suppose, but you cannot defend this. | ||
| ||