Star Trek Into Darkness [** SPOILERS FROM POST 452 **]

FutureGuy

krudler wrote: »

Oh for fcuk sake, that's taking pedantry to a new level. Why don't they show how long it takes Batman to climb buildings in real time as well while they're at it.

krudler wrote: »

Oh for fcuk sake, that's taking pedantry to a new level. Why don't they show how long it takes Batman to climb buildings in real time as well while they're at it.

The "picking things apart for the sake of picking things apart" brigade are out in force. In the Entreprise tv show, set 100 years before this, the enterprise can get to the Klingon home world in a few days without going full speed.

But that's all conveniently forgotten of course.

For all the moaners and bitchers. This is Star Trek now. Its an action franchise first that deals with sociopolitical issues second. The Star Trek you crave is gone. Get over it. It's a dinosaur that simply not work anymore as a commercial entity. Any Trek film from 1-10 would absolutely tank if released today. Yes even The Wrath of Khan.

Anyone remember a film that has a more blatant reference to 9/11 and the aftermath of terrorist activity? Or deals with the use of drone strikes. Or the fact that good and evil are just words. No lets glaze over that and cry about the time taken to get to a different planet.

If you don't like it, go watch Moon or some other boring overhyped sh!te where nothing happens.

Trek is popular, vibrant and relative again and it hasn't been this good in many many years.

Well done to JJ, the creators and the cast for making Trek great again. Ill be going to see it again Wednesday.

MrStuffins

This is reminiscent of The Dark Knight Rises thread.

"How did Bruce Wayne get back to Gotham? They never showed him getting back to Gotham, so how are we supposed to know how he got back?"

senordingdong

I saw it last night and find it is largely the same as the first movie in all aspects.

If you can see beyond the visuals and think about it too much it will dissapoint, so just enjoy this as a colourful, noisey, action filled feast of eye candy.

Also, maybe it was just me but I found the lens flare even more excessive this time around.

Potentially Toxic

MrStuffins wrote: »

Yeah? Well tell me then, how fast is warp speed? How far is Kronos? How long should it have taken to get to Kronos?

Kronos is 80 light years from Earth according to starter lamps.com. Assuming Kirk's ship can do warp 6 for long journeys then it should take 5.7 weeks to reach Kronos.

Potentially Toxic

MrStuffins wrote: »

This is reminiscent of The Dark Knight Rises thread.

"How did Bruce Wayne get back to Gotham? They never showed him getting back to Gotham, so how are we supposed to know how he got back?"

No it's completely different. You can assume Bruce Wayne figured it out.

In Star Trek into darkness it's quite clear the writers are just lazy and not too bright.

Potentially Toxic

krudler wrote: »

Oh for fcuk sake, that's taking pedantry to a new level. Why don't they show how long it takes Batman to climb buildings in real time as well while they're at it.

No it's really not. If you want to a long term universe and numerous movies down the line you need to build a ligically consistent universe in order to have interesting and compelling plots. It just gets ridiculous when you can put planets wherever you want and change their positions whenever you want.

If The Klingon Empire was so accessible they would have conquered earth centuries ago like the rest of the planets they conquered.

If you were watching a movie where a flight from Europe to America only takes a few seconds it would ruin the movie because its logically inconsistent and takes you out of the movie.

MrStuffins

Potentially Toxic wrote: »

No it's completely different. You can assume Bruce Wayne figured it out.

In Star Trek into darkness it's quite clear the writers are just lazy and not too bright.

Nope. In Star Trek you can assume it took as long as it took and assume that 1 minute of screen time i does not equal 1 minute of actual time.

When I was young I brought a girl to see Jurassic Park III, which was set on an island off Costa Rica IIRC?. She was studying botany or something i'm not sure. But in any case, while we sat watching the movie she leaned to me and said "This is so unrealistic. See those trees? Those trees don't grow in that part of the world."

While watching a movie about an island inhabited by dinosaurs cloned from the DNA of a millions of years old dead mosquito chasing humans around and getting up to mischief, she complained about the realism of the trees in the background. Some people!

knucklehead6

Potentially Toxic wrote: »

No it's really not. If you want to a long term universe and numerous movies down the line you need to build a ligically consistent universe in order to have interesting and compelling plots. It just gets ridiculous when you can put planets wherever you want and change their positions whenever you want.

If The Klingon Empire was so accessible they would have conquered earth centuries ago like the rest of the planets they conquered.

far be it from me to use 2012 as an example but how did you feel about them taking ovv from las vegas, then seconds later being over hawaii?? that must've made you go insane.

McLoughlin

Potentially Toxic wrote: »

Did anyone else notice that it only took the enterprise les than a minute to reach Kronos. Shouldn't it take weeks or months to reach Kronos?

It's nonsense like this that makes this movie and the previous an empty shell of a movie with no substance.

Qo'noS was established to be in close proximity to Earth, located only four days away at warp 4.5

stevenmu

knucklehead6 wrote: »

far be it from me to use 2012 as an example but how did you feel about them taking ovv from las vegas, then seconds later being over hawaii?? that must've made you go insane.

That's the perfect example to use. There was a ton of stuff that made no sense in 2012, and look how unbelievably crap a movie it was :pac:

knucklehead6

stevenmu wrote: »

That's the perfect example to use. There was a ton of stuff that made no sense in 2012, and look how unbelievably crap a movie it was :pac:

this guy is particularly concerned about the timing though..

He's not Dara O Briain ranting on about the neutrino's evolving!!

Potentially Toxic

knucklehead6 wrote: »

far be it from me to use 2012 as an example but how did you feel about them taking ovv from las vegas, then seconds later being over hawaii?? that must've made you go insane.

I can't remember that movie. There just needs to be some basic fundamental logic applied as a minimum. Travelling to Kronos in less than a minute is ridiculous and completely alters the potential movies which can be made in future to be logically consistent with the new position of Kronos.

knucklehead6

Potentially Toxic wrote: »

I can't remember that movie. There just needs to be some basic fundamental logic applied as a minimum. Travelling to Kronos in less than a minute is ridiculous and completely alters the potential movies which can be made in future to be logically consistent with the new position of Kronos.

You are looking for logic on a movie set in the future where people zip about the place on massive starships.....

TheUsual

See with Star Trek, all bets are off.

Spock came back from the future in the previous film and changed the time-line.
He also brought back advanced science (in his head), so improved engines and weapons are all possible with his help.
He already messed up teleportation science by giving Scotty his own equations from the future.
In fact Spock should be arrested by the Time Police. :pac:
You can't compare anything that happened in the other Trek films with these new one's.

Potentially Toxic

knucklehead6 wrote: »

You are looking for logic on a movie set in the future where people zip about the place on massive starships.....

Ridiculous. There are certain axioms assumed to be true such as soacetravel faster than light. Once those axioms are set the universe should be logically consistent.

Potentially Toxic

TheUsual wrote: »

See with Star Trek, all bets are off.

Spock came back from the future in the previous film and changed the time-line.
He also brought back advanced science (in his head), so improved engines and weapons are all possible with his help.
He already messed up teleportation science by giving Scotty his own equations from the future.
In fact Spock should be arrested by the Time Police. :pac:
You can't compare anything that happened in the other Trek films with these new one's.

Even the position of planets?

krudler

knucklehead6 wrote: »

You are looking for logic on a movie set in the future where people zip about the place on massive starships.....

And timetravel, and teleporters, and shooting people out of space into planet's atmospheres. oh and alien races where every member looks identical, and an entire planets population shares the exact same foibles and character traits.

It's sci-fi, sometimes you gotta just ignore the minor stuff.

tunguska

FutureGuy wrote: »

For all the moaners and bitchers. This is Star Trek now. Its an action franchise first that deals with sociopolitical issues second. The Star Trek you crave is gone. Get over it. It's a dinosaur that simply not work anymore as a commercial entity. Any Trek film from 1-10 would absolutely tank if released today. Yes even The Wrath of Khan.


If you don't like it, go watch Moon or some other boring overhyped sh!te where nothing happens.

Saw this at the weekend and I have to say I was fully prepared not to like it but I did. Having said that its not even in the same league as Wrath of Khan or Moon. But I'll stick to the Trek stuff so as not to go off topic.
The positives:

- The pace didnt let up from start to finish, held the attention all the way
- It looked great, lens flare and all
- Sets things up nicely for a few more sequels, has lots of potential

The negatives:

- The dialogue was at times unbelievably bad. I read somewhere that the same lads wrote Transformers..........it shows.

- The Spock/Uhura "fighting" arc was just nonsense and completely unnecessary

- Benedict Cumberbatch was good and bad, his performance that is. I mean one minute Im thinking hes doing a great job, the next he's chewing the scenery and hamming it up like larry oliver at the Royal Shakespearean crimbo party.

- The whole wrath of Khan in reverse ending = No.
I think that highlighted the gulf in class between the Wrath of khan and the new trek. They tried too hard to make us care about the spock/kirk bromance. I was watching the new kirk die and I felt zip, flat line. But watching spocks death scene in the wrath of khan is the polar opposite, its a really moving scene full of heart and emotion. And the reason for that is by the time that movie was made those characters had been around for nearly 20years. I just think with the new trek they were trying to get that kind of emotional investment at a fraction of the time, but it just doesnt work that way. They need to let things develop organically and not try to manipulate the audience into caring for the characters.

Potentially Toxic

knucklehead6 wrote: »

You are looking for logic on a movie set in the future where people zip about the place on massive starships.....

Yes, that is the future, it is assumed that the technology exists to allow space travel.

Do you think simply because space travel exists we should remove the need for the movie to make sense.

The two movies are ridiculous and absolutely butcher Star Trek. This is worse than what Michael Bay did to transformers. It's hideous.

The doctor is a bloody idiot, as is Simon peg as Scotty. Their acting is terrible. It's just unbelievable that so many idiotic characters would have such power on a state of the art star ship, the flagship of starflower.

The Klingon scene was a waste of time. JJ Abrams had the opportunity to introduce is all to te Klingons and all we see is a stupid little fight scene. The Klingon facial designs are horrendous.

who_me

I thought it started really well, the London/San Francisco of the future were a nice fresh touch considering how little we see of Earth in the series & films. The pacing was good too, although it's so frantic you never really have time to build up anticipation of anything. "Oh, he's dead? Pity, I liked hi... ooooh, lense flare..."

The new character I thought was quite weak, and the scene where the pleads to her Dad was, IMO, massively cringey.

BUT

Have I just watched the same movie 3 times?

Star Trek Nemesis: Big Romulan ship going to attack Earth. Enterprise crew get inside it (Data jumping from ship to ship) and destroy it just in time.
Star Trek: Big Romulan ship going to attack Earth. Enterprise crew get inside it (Sulu & Kirk jumping from ship to shiponly damage it) and destroy it just in time.
Star Trek Into Darkness: Big Enterprise ship (woooh, different!) going to attack Earth. Enterprise crew get inside it (yes, Khan and Kirk jump from ship to ship..) and well, ok, they kinda failed to destroy it just in time.

Ok, I'm simplifying the plot, but IMO there's a shocking lack of originality / variety in the storylines. It's a pity the Klingons don't feature more, but it's pretty obviously set up for the next movie. Let me guess... a giant Klingon ship going to destroy Earth....

tl;dr - Good beginning, some great scenes, fresh species and gadgets, but the second half could have been from clippings from previous movies. Pity.

Outkast_IRE

I would love to see some all out war space battles in the next movie.

ancapailldorcha

Watched the original on Friday and the sequel last Saturday. Absolutely loved both but I'm getting sick of

these cop out deaths in films nowadays

. First we had TDKR, then the Avengers and now this.

Nervous Wreck

This new Star Wars film was shit. There weren't even any Jedis. Fuck this.

knucklehead6

Potentially Toxic wrote: »

Yes, that is the future, it is assumed that the technology exists to allow space travel.

Do you think simply because space travel exists we should remove the need for the movie to make sense.

The two movies are ridiculous and absolutely butcher Star Trek. This is worse than what Michael Bay did to transformers. It's hideous.

The doctor is a bloody idiot, as is Simon peg as Scotty. Their acting is terrible. It's just unbelievable that so many idiotic characters would have such power on a state of the art star ship, the flagship of starflower.

The Klingon scene was a waste of time. JJ Abrams had the opportunity to introduce is all to te Klingons and all we see is a stupid little fight scene. The Klingon facial designs are horrendous.

actually if you think about it is quite plausible that the klingons intro scene was setting it up for the next movie.

Chris Pine has signed on for 2 more, so it stands to reason that there will at least be one more.

Burt Macklin

knucklehead6 wrote: »

actually if you think about it is quite plausible that the klingons intro scene was setting it up for the next movie.

Chris Pine has signed on for 2 more, so it stands to reason that there will at least be one more.

It'll be interesting to see if Paramount wait as long again to make a sequel, and whether or not JJ is busy with Star Wars.

ScumLord

I'm very picky about my sci-fi and I'll be the first one to nitpick at silly things but I have to say I loved this film.

I went to see it in the BFI IMAX in 3D while I was in London at the weekend. despite being a bit too close to the screen I enjoyed the experience.


I think it did the blockbuster film perfectly, good action, splashes of light comedy made the interaction between the characters enjoyable and I could see grown men wiping tears away at a certain point in the movie. If anything

Kirks resurrection

was a bit too easy but you knew it was coming and it's forgivable. It's pace is perfect and the cast were perfect. I didn't know Peter Weller was even in this film, there really just isn't enough Peter Weller in film and TV these days.

I didn't see or read anything about this film, I knew based on the last one I'd be going to see it, when the opportunity came up to see it in the IMAX I got to kill 4 birds with one stone, see a 3D movie, go to the IMAX, see the new ST film and stay out of the pub while in London.

pah

Just back from this. Enjoyed it for the most part. I have no problem with the altered timeline, with the same characters cropping up in this series etc.

I just cant help feeling that kirks "death" scene cheapens the original, and made me care less about this one. I actually liked how they turned it around with the role reversal and the acknowledgement of the characters that they would have done the same for each other. I liked how scotty came over the coms to spock to come down as bones did to kirk in twok. Personally I would have thrown in "the needs of the many..."

I just think it was a bit too forced overall and like others have said definitely too early in the series to be emotionally invested in the characters. The film could have finished without it.

pah

In relation to the time it takes to get to Kronos, there was similar nit picking in ST09 when the enterprise warped to Vulcan from Earth in the time it took Kirk to run from sickbay to the bridge. At least they're consistent with the shortness of it.

Josey Wales

I clicked into this thread so I could write up a few words to describe how much I enjoyed this film. From the very first moment to the last I thought it was excellent.

Unfortunately I read back a few pages and see that the thread is descending into the same nitpicking idiocy that detailed The Dark Knight Rises thread from last year. I don't understand why someone would care so much that it took the Enterprise five minutes screen time to reach Kronos? The fun, for me at least, is in the story and not the need to have everything sync up with real world logic. I find it best to suspend my disbelief while watching a movie featuring aliens, starships and transporters.

Amazing film, shame about the thread. Although I guess I've just added to it. Damn!

Technocentral

Am going to see it this afternoon, does anyone know if the Cineworld 2D showings are on a big screen, the savoy one is on Screen 3 which is quite small?