Star Trek Into Darkness [ SPOILERS FROM POST 452 ]

Bacchus · 03-05-2013 07:32AM

Jumboman wrote: »

If the Spoiler you speak of is true. Would that not meen the end of the current Star Trek Franchise or does **** come back from the dead in Star Trek 3 ?

Why would that end the franchise?

Alternatively, (on a similar train of thought)

perhaps he isn't killed but is injured to the point that he is in Star Trek TOS

McLoughlin · 03-05-2013 10:09AM

Bacchus wrote: »

Why would that end the franchise?

Alternatively, (on a similar train of thought)
perhaps he isn't killed but is injured to the point that he is in Star Trek TOS

I think they confused Pike with Pine and thought Kirk killed off and not Pike

Jimdagym · 04-05-2013 12:27PM

Star Trek (2009) in on ch4 tonight at 9 for those getting into the mood!

_Kaiser_ · 04-05-2013 12:53PM

Bacchus wrote: »

I won't link the image directly in case it is considered spoilery but for anyone who has seen the trailer....
http://trekmovie.com/2013/04/23/exclusive-hi-res-image-of-uss-vengeance-from-star-trek-into-darkness/

Awesome!

Seems a bit too advanced for the time-frame. As someone in the comments under that image said, it's like a borg-ified Enterprise E more than a TOS era ship

Tusky · 07-05-2013 07:30PM

Saw this today - it's excellent. People who thought the first one was too much of an action movie will have the same problem with this one. Personally, I loved the first one.

Jumboman · 07-05-2013 07:51PM

Tusky wrote: »

Saw this today - it's excellent. People who thought the first one was too much of an action movie will have the same problem with this one. Personally, I loved the first one.

Is it out anywhere in Ireland yet ?

Sad Professor · 07-05-2013 08:27PM

Jumboman wrote: »

Is it out anywhere in Ireland yet ?

It's out on Thursday.

doubledown · 07-05-2013 08:42PM

Tusky wrote: »

Saw this today - it's excellent. People who thought the first one was too much of an action movie will have the same problem with this one. Personally, I loved the first one.

Just saw it. Loved the first but not this one. It's the Quantum of Solace of Star Trek movies...

Star Trek Into Disappointment.

Shame.

Tusky · 07-05-2013 08:57PM

doubledown wrote: »

Just saw it. Loved the first but not this one. It's the Quantum of Solace of Star Trek movies...

Star Trek Into Disappointment.

Shame.

That's extremely harsh. It's exciting, packs an emotional punch and looks great. It gets a bit 'plotty' in the middle, with a tad too much exposition, but if you can forgive it this and some cheesy dialog, there's plenty to enjoy.

doubledown · 07-05-2013 09:01PM

Tusky wrote: »

That's extremely harsh. It's exciting, packs an emotional punch and looks great. It gets a bit 'plotty' in the middle, with a tad too much exposition, but if you can forgive it this and some cheesy dialog, there's plenty to enjoy.

It is harsh but that's how I feel unfortunately.

It's the best way to describe it. Noisy. Loud. Attempts at humour and emotion fall flat. Too many elements lifted from the first movie. And FAR too many nods to the original films. Seriously - why bother with an alternate timeline if you're not going to do anything alternate?

I reckon that the bigger the Trek fan you are the more disappointed you'll be.

It has some good stuff in there but it's not half as good as the first. To say any more would necessitate venturing into spoiler territory.

And for the record I loved the first one.

Kiith · 08-05-2013 12:35AM

I'm going to see the Trek 2009 and this tonight in IMAX. God damn i can't wait :P

knucklehead6 · 08-05-2013 06:42AM

doubledown wrote: »

It is harsh but that's how I feel unfortunately.

It's the best way to describe it. Noisy. Loud. Attempts at humour and emotion fall flat. Too many elements lifted from the first movie. And FAR too many nods to the original films. Seriously - why bother with an alternate timeline if you're not going to do anything alternate?

I reckon that the bigger the Trek fan you are the more disappointed you'll be.

It has some good stuff in there but it's not half as good as the first. To say any more would necessitate venturing into spoiler territory.

And for the record I loved the first one.

i'd regard myself as a fairly big trek fan and i enjoyed it.

not gonna spoiler anything or mention anything but i liked the interaction between the characters, and the little nods back. Ok, gonna spoiler this bit, so be warned

I liked the stance that scotty took when the torpedoes were brought aboard, and how he was wiling to resign his position on a point of principle cos it was a more militaristic mission than an exploratory one.

Tom.D.BJJ · 08-05-2013 12:39PM

Is the savoy showing 2D or 3D in screen one? The reason i ask is that i hate 3D, and want to see 2D on a massive screen.

Mickeroo · 08-05-2013 12:43PM

Did anyone see the Audi ad with the 2 Spocks? Funny enough I thought:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWp7HMbfMWA

Technocentral · 08-05-2013 01:19PM

Tom.D.BJJ wrote: »

Is the savoy showing 2D or 3D in screen one? The reason i ask is that i hate 3D, and want to see 2D on a massive screen.

Me to, times so far for Savoy and Cineworld only list 3d showings :mad:

doubledown · 08-05-2013 02:55PM

http://www.theeffect.net/2013/05/08/star-trek-into-darkness-review/

knucklehead6 · 08-05-2013 06:59PM

doubledown wrote: »

http://www.theeffect.net/2013/05/08/star-trek-into-darkness-review/

disagree totally

santana75 · 08-05-2013 07:34PM

doubledown wrote: »

http://www.theeffect.net/2013/05/08/star-trek-into-darkness-review/

Agree totally.
Souless is the key word here. The power of hype never ceases to amaze me. They sucked me in with that trailer but I knew in my heart of hearts that it would be the same old same old. Having said that it'll make a tonne of money, the masses will lap it up and it'll be $500m dollars in the black before the public realise its not very good. By that stage JJ and the lads will have already started on the next turkey golden goose.

doubledown · 08-05-2013 07:59PM

santana75 wrote: »

Agree totally.
Souless is the key word here. The power of hype never ceases to amaze me. They sucked me in with that trailer but I knew in my heart of hearts that it would be the same old same old. Having said that it'll make a tonne of money, the masses will lap it up and it'll be $500m dollars in the black before the public realise its not very good. By that stage JJ and the lads will have already started on the next turkey golden goose.

Thanks for reading the review. I'm glad I'm not the only one! A friend I saw it with felt the same way too.

doubledown · 08-05-2013 08:01PM

knucklehead6 wrote: »

disagree totally

No problem. That's the fun of film discussion!

knucklehead6 · 08-05-2013 08:02PM

doubledown wrote: »

No problem. That's the fun of film discussion!

Just can't discuss it until more have seen it!! lol

doubledown · 08-05-2013 08:03PM

knucklehead6 wrote: »

Just can't discuss it until more have seen it!! lol

Without using a shed load of spoiler tags!

knucklehead6 · 08-05-2013 08:10PM

doubledown wrote: »

Without using a shed load of spoiler tags!

Hehehe

Ah well.

Kiith · 08-05-2013 11:44PM

I really enjoyed it. Yeah, it had some of the same problems that the 1st one had, but overall was a really enjoyable experience. Would definitely go see it again.

Loved the soundtrack again as well.

david75 · 09-05-2013 02:51AM

I am a huge star trek fan and sadly i have nothing good to say about this film other than they play faaaaar too much on the Kirk / Spock bromance. In the Star Trek vein, It's a thinly veiled war monger propaganda film and it has lots of explosions and fanboy in jokes and effects to try distract you from how meh it is.

He isnt entirely to blame but i am now dreading the new Star Wars films. This guy is ****ing clueless.

And the corny assed 'twist' is the crappest sickener let down of all time. Made worse by the corny crap that followed.

constitutionus · 09-05-2013 07:48AM

Just a side issue but can someone tell me why no one on radio seems to be able to say "into darkness " without sticking "the" in the middle ?

Fecking annoying

Phony Scott · 09-05-2013 09:31AM

david75 wrote: »

In the Star Trek vein, It's a thinly veiled war monger propaganda film .

But Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (the fanboy favourite) is loaded to the gills with militarism; the uniforms, the military speak, the use of taps during

Spock's funeral

. I have yet to see this one, but what you're saying sounds like business as usual to me.

SimonTemplar · 09-05-2013 10:11AM

constitutionus wrote: »

Just a side issue but can someone tell me why no one on radio seems to be able to say "into darkness " without sticking "the" in the middle ?

Fecking annoying

Sub standard journalists trying to pass themselves off as movie critics?

azezil · 09-05-2013 10:47AM

doubledown wrote: »

http://www.theeffect.net/2013/05/08/star-trek-into-darkness-review/

Kinda agree with that review but like with the first installment it felt to me more like a Star Wars film than Star Trek, and unlike the reviewers view above I hate the new warp effect, contrails in space seriously!?, that just makes no sense what so ever! :rolleyes:

I really enjoyed the first half of the movie but the second half was just cheesy predictable and disappointing.

Also hate what he did with the Klingons!

sink · 09-05-2013 10:56AM

I can't understand what those who are slating it were expecting. We all knew it was going to be a action filled SFX romp with some comedy bits thrown in. It was never going to be a deep original sci-fi plot, which would redefine the genre or bring anything "new". Franchise films are always the same be it 'Bond' 'Star Wars' 'Star Trek' 'Bourne' comic superheroes etc. I went in expecting 2 hours of switch brain off entertainment with lots of nods to the original series and that's what I got. I don't go to a bond film and expect Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, and I don't go to star trek expecting Moon or 2001.

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

Comments

Star Trek Into Darkness [ SPOILERS FROM POST 452 ]