Star Trek Into Darkness [ SPOILERS FROM POST 452 ]

Outkast_IRE · 12-05-2013 05:40PM

ror_74 wrote: »

I thought the visuals were a bit too busy in places and at times hard to make out in 3D.

Exactly the reason i went to see it in 2d.
Had a similar experience with The Hobbit , where if there was too much happenining on screen at the time it was hard to focus on what you wanted to see with the 3d.

I like 3d when its done properly , Life of Pi and Avatar being two prime examples. But this idea of stuff sticking out at you every scene doesnt work.

krudler · 12-05-2013 05:43PM

Gintonious wrote: »

Quick one.

Do you need to have seen the first one to see this? Might go to it later but I've not seen the other yet.

Watch the other first, there's some character beats and plot points that carry over, and its fantastic, so you should just watch it anyway

Ole Rodrigo · 12-05-2013 05:50PM

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

I like 3d when its done properly , Life of Pi and Avatar being two prime examples. But this idea of stuff sticking out at you every scene doesnt work.

Definitely - those are good examples. If the quality of the rendering was better and 3d more subtle it would make all the difference.

There is great opportunity for digital effects in sci fi films, IMO, if they can learn something from Life of Pi.

Frank Bullitt · 12-05-2013 06:17PM

krudler wrote: »

Watch the other first, there's some character beats and plot points that carry over, and its fantastic, so you should just watch it anyway

Watched it there, really enjoyed it, going to the new one later on.

Very geeky weekend for me.

kevohmsford · 12-05-2013 06:31PM

Watched it is Mullingar earlier in 3D. Really enjoyed the movie.
Could not get this out of my head for some reason when Spock shouted.

fitz · 12-05-2013 09:16PM

Daemos wrote: »

And forgive me, I'm not a Trekkie per se, so don't know all the details, but were all the people in the cryogenic missiles super-soldiers like Khan? If so, why did they need his blood to bring Kirk back? Could they not use the blood of whoever they took out to put Kirk in?

This bothered me too. I thought Khan's crew were all genetically enhanced? Surely the could have used the guy they had just thawed out and had in a medically induced coma?

suicide_circus · 12-05-2013 09:27PM

Enjoyed it. it was intense and bromantic.

thought Spock's "Khaaaaannnnn" was weak

good action, but a little hectic, film slightly too long, needed more Klingons.

Baddy was good

7.5/10

Sad Professor · 12-05-2013 09:49PM

fitz wrote: »

This bothered me too. I thought Khan's crew were all genetically enhanced? Surely the could have used the guy they had just thawed out and had in a medically induced coma?

Plot hole most likely. Although it wouldn't be a huge stretch to say that Khan was the strongest of the group. He was their leader after all and last to be deposed. I never got the impression in Wrath of Khan that his crew shared the same strength and intellect.

I don't think it's a big deal either way since Spock's motivation for going after Khan was revenge, not to save Kirk. All McCoy and co knew for certain was that Khan's blood worked. They didn't have time to test the others.

But tbh, as with the last film, the plot is a bit of a disaster and it's best not to think about it too much.

david75 · 12-05-2013 10:55PM

To echo the sentiment of many others, why bother establishing an alternate timeline of your not going to so anything new with it? But to go and reworks previous plot ? Redundant.

Also!!

So Spock meets himself, and is in both movies, Pike is still in there, and Abrams likes nothing better than pleasing fans.

They gotta figure out a way for young Kirk to meet old Kirk in the next one.
It's only right and proper.

krudler · 12-05-2013 11:05PM

david75 wrote: »

To echo the sentiment of many others, why bother establishing an alternate timeline of your not going to so anything new with it? But to go and reworks previous plot ? Redundant.

Also!!

So Spock meets himself, and is in both movies, Pike is still in there, and Abrams likes nothing better than pleasing fans.

They gotta figure out a way for young Kirk to meet old Kirk in the next one.
It's only right and proper.

It's an alternate timeline but the same universe I guess, everyone they'd encounter in the original series and movies still exists. Khan was in the tv show before Trek II so I imagine they'll find a way to bring Cumberbatch back for a sequel down the line if they wanted to.

Chris_Heilong · 12-05-2013 11:07PM

Great film, a few logistical flaws but best film of the year so far.

Outkast_IRE · 12-05-2013 11:09PM

I went into this movie blind, having only watched the original trailer that was released months ago maybe pre christmas, and i was so much better off for it.
I think

the whole engagement with the klingons etc was just a setup for the next movie, or maybe a spin off series to take place while the enterprise is off traveling on its 5 year mission ? that would be sweet.

david75 · 12-05-2013 11:41PM

They need shatner in the next one. It'd make it. What is Star Trek without corny?

Corny has been what's missing from these reboots. We love it really:)

Frank Bullitt · 13-05-2013 08:39AM

Went to it last night, thought it was fantastic, really enjoyed it.

PunkFreud · 13-05-2013 09:08AM

david75 wrote: »

They need shatner in the next one. It'd make it. What is Star Trek without corny?

Corny has been what's missing from these reboots. We love it really:)

I'm pretty sure old Shatner Kirk is dead. I remember reading that they wanted to bring him into Star Trek 2009 to say the "Where no man has gone before" speech, but they didn't want to break canon, so they used old Nimoy Spock instead.

krudler · 13-05-2013 09:34AM

PunkFreud wrote: »

I'm pretty sure old Shatner Kirk is dead. I remember reading that they wanted to bring him into Star Trek 2009 to say the "Where no man has gone before" speech, but they didn't want to break canon, so they used old Nimoy Spock instead.

only in Old Spock's timeline though, which he's no longer in. Wasn't it that it was changed by Bana attacking the ship that Kirk's dad was on altering the timeline, Kirk's dad was meant to be the reason he joined Starfleet? I'm not a Trekkie at all but that's what I gathered.

Bullseye1 · 13-05-2013 09:46AM

Old Kirk would tell the new Kirk to stop running around like a headless chicken, take a deep breath and use some grey matter.

conorhal · 13-05-2013 11:34AM

ST: Into darkness was what I tend to refer to as 'a faberge'. Shiny, spectacular looking and expensive, but hollow.

There was a good review over on AICN that highlights my problems with the film so I'll post a link and crib a paragraph.
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/62238

"So if you were to ask me what one thing Abrams and his screenwriting brain trust of Alex Kurtzman, Roberto Orci and Damon Lindelof could do to erase the goodwill built up by STAR TREK ’09, my answer might very well be, “Bring back Khan, get him caught up in a silly conspiracy that involves going to war with the Klingons, then rush through a surfeit of nonsensical incident as you mechanically build to an unforgettable moment from someone else’s better movie.”

Into darkness feels like the abridged cliff notes for Wrath of Kahn that link a series of action secenes that build to what is supposed ot be an emotional pay-off which, because it comes so early in the new series which has barely established the characters and theire relationships as little more then sketches, feels completey un-earned.
McGuffings abound and are so blatently displayed that they telegraph major plot points practically from the opening scenes, and the plotting is so mechanical that if feels as if a 'bad robot' wrote the screenplay.
The film also spends such a rediculous amount of time making nods and metta in-jokes to Trek's history that it occasionally slips into oughright parody, the scene when Kirk chides Bones for the excessive use of laboured metaphors might be cute but it becomes one of an endless series of in jokes that sink the drama.

TBH I found the film dull, noisy and stupid.

Potentially Toxic · 13-05-2013 01:03PM

Can they not come up with new villians and species to fight against?

Abrams created a whole new timeline only to waste it by rehashing the same old crap. Can he not think of new interesting species to introduce that no one has seen before?

Potentially Toxic · 13-05-2013 01:04PM

Can they not come up with new villians and species to fight against?

Abrams created a whole new timeline only to waste it by rehashing the same old crap. Can he not think of new interesting species to introduce that no one has seen before?

neonman · 13-05-2013 01:25PM

Went to see it yesterday and thought it was really good a lot better than I thought it would be. Thought the dialog between the crew was very good and well scripted. Bones for me was one of my favorite characters.

Already looking forward to the next one...Would love to see the Borg next.

Potentially Toxic · 13-05-2013 01:49PM

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.

MrStuffins · 13-05-2013 02:03PM

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.

How fast is Warp Speed?

Was the journey shown in Real Time? I can't remember but not many things in movies are in fact shown in Real Time. There'd be a lot of very long movies in that case!

Potentially Toxic · 13-05-2013 02:16PM

MrStuffins wrote: »

How fast is Warp Speed?

Was the journey shown in Real Time? I can't remember but not many things in movies are in fact shown in Real Time. There'd be a lot of very long movies in that case!

They should be able to give the viewer a feel for how much time has passed.

Warp speed is the speed of light. I think Kirk's Enterprise had a top speed of warp 6 or so. It's an exponential scale I believe similar to the Richter scale. Warp 6 would probably be a few thousand times the speed of light ( just guessing, no calculations done).

But the bottom line is Kronos has to be very far away, otherwise they would have conquered Earth as they had warp technology well before humans.

MrStuffins · 13-05-2013 02:32PM

Potentially Toxic wrote: »

They should be able to give the viewer a feel for how much time has passed.

Like what? Stuble on Kirk's face? An 80s style montage?

stevenmu · 13-05-2013 02:34PM

They seem to have completely glossed over the mechanics of warp speed. Any trip seems to take the exact amount of time required by the plot, even if it's contradictory to previous trips.

And while the "punch it" lever looks cool, it doesn't seem to allow for different speeds, it's just on/off.

krudler · 13-05-2013 02:35PM

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.

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.

Potentially Toxic · 13-05-2013 02:37PM

MrStuffins wrote: »

Like what? Stuble on Kirk's face? An 80s style montage?

Have people mention the length of time that had passed or mention it indirectly. Or have "3 months later" appear at the bottom of the screen.

Sad Professor · 13-05-2013 02:39PM

How long it did or didn't take them to get to Kronos or anywhere else is nitpicking. Films compress time. Very few films give a proper sense of the passage of time without resorting to on-screen titles and/or slowing the film to a crawl.

This isn't an episode of the tv show, folks.

MrStuffins · 13-05-2013 02:45PM

Potentially Toxic wrote: »

Have people mention the length of time that had passed or mention it indirectly. Or have "3 months later" appear at the bottom of the screen.

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

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

Comments

Star Trek Into Darkness [ SPOILERS FROM POST 452 ]