Star Trek Into Darkness [ SPOILERS FROM POST 452 ]

expectationlost · 18-05-2013 05:42PM

the underwear scene was embarrasing, could not someone involved in the film just say no. the whole alice eve character was crap

http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/star-trek-into-darkness/25637/star-trek-into-darkness-alice-eve-and-expensive-underwear

something for the dads and then that stupid thing scotty talks too for the kids

so am i getting this right jj abrams criticises the drone assasination program but not gitmo, cos they decided to keep em on ice, like theyre doing over there now

and then all the scenes, where something dreadful is going happen immenently and then they seem to have time to talk about it for 2 minutes

ps goood movie, good bockbuster i like how they turned around the spock dying scene, although you knew kirk was never going to be dead for long

fluke · 18-05-2013 10:50PM

Serviceable sequel that looks and sounds great with the cast making the most of their roles.

On the downside the story gets really confusing and the villain or

villains

are convoluted.

Decent sequel but a bit of a let down after the last one. At times it feels like Abrams is afraid to tamper with his own formula.

Also, enough of the Earth settings already. This makes Earth seem like it's a grocery shop around the corner.

Technocentral · 20-05-2013 10:55PM

Watched ST: The Motion Picture last night, a far superior picture to either of Abraham's pictures.

Fysh · 21-05-2013 01:46PM

Technocentral wrote: »

Watched ST: The Motion Picture last night, a far superior picture to either of Abraham's pictures.

Depends on what you want and expect, surely? Also, it's Abrams. /nitpicking

Don't get me wrong, I grew up watching TOS & TNG, and I'm not sure I particularly like the way in which the franchise has been changed to stay current. (Though I will say that the Abrams films are, even at their worst, no more flawed or problematic than Voyager or Enterprise were). It's not that it's bad necessarily...but having seen stuff like Firefly, I find it a bit dull that the female characters in NuTrek aren't given much to do (not helped by nonsense like The Scene With Alice Eve In Her Pants For No Good Reason, either).

But judging the new films, which by necessity have to be fairly standalone action-adventure of a fairly conventional sort, by standards established with the older films is pointless. The older films all got to piggyback to some extent on the fact that there were several seasons worth of episodic TV show adventures in which the audience had become familiar with the cast.

Technocentral · 21-05-2013 02:13PM

Fysh wrote: »

Depends on what you want and expect, surely? Also, it's Abrams. /nitpicking

Don't get me wrong, I grew up watching TOS & TNG, and I'm not sure I particularly like the way in which the franchise has been changed to stay current. (Though I will say that the Abrams films are, even at their worst, no more flawed or problematic than Voyager or Enterprise were). It's not that it's bad necessarily...but having seen stuff like Firefly, I find it a bit dull that the female characters in NuTrek aren't given much to do (not helped by nonsense like The Scene With Alice Eve In Her Pants For No Good Reason, either).

But judging the new films, which by necessity have to be fairly standalone action-adventure of a fairly conventional sort, by standards established with the older films is pointless. The older films all got to piggyback to some extent on the fact that there were several seasons worth of episodic TV show adventures in which the audience had become familiar with the cast.

Fair comments, but very little of the ethos, wonder, majesty and the quest for knowledge in The Motion Picture, TOS, Voyager, STNG and even Enterprise is in any way evident in what are basically action adventure blockbuster that basically just name checks well established characters for the sake of it.

Fysh · 21-05-2013 03:25PM

Technocentral wrote: »

Fair comments, but very little of the ethos, wonder, majesty and the quest for knowledge in The Motion Picture, TOS, Voyager, STNG and even Enterprise is in any way evident in what are basically action adventure blockbuster that basically just name checks well established characters for the sake of it.

I think that's what's missing for me too - but in both our cases we're expecting that the franchise in the 21st century will have the same focus as it did previously.

Without a concurrent TV series to build a new audience, the films have to work by themselves, which means more bombastic action and less of the considered, thought-provoking stuff. There's still some interesting allegory in the new film, to its credit, but to a certain extent I think the likes of you and I have to accept that this is a new version with its own focus.

I can't imagine my 13-year-old nephew being particularly interested in (or impressed by) Star Trek: TMP, but I know he had a lot of fun watching ST:ID.

SK1979 · 22-05-2013 06:13PM

Saw this last night with my brother. I actually really enjoyed it. Probably more so than the 'reboot'. My brother hated it though so seems a Marmite. Cumberbatch was excellent and being Khan was actually a shock for me. Switched off following this before it came out so I was genuinely surprised.

Plenty of stupid things in it (Kirk kicking the warp drive to fix it probably being the worst) and they really should of let Kirk die. Pine is annoying and could either be replaced or even go on without him as it's the alternative universe.

catallus · 22-05-2013 10:48PM

I enjoyed it overall, it was entertaining.

But it seems the writers started off great and then painted themselves into a corner; two great villains were kind of wasted because the writers seem to have ran out of ideas.

The whole idea of a main character being killed off so melodramatically and then being brought back almost immediately leaves a bad aftertaste. Almost ruined the whole film for me.

I might be totally wrong but if Kirk just did as he was told and launched the missiles from the edge of the neutral zone wouldn't it have stopped a lot of carnage? I mean given that a war with the Klingons is probably going to happen anyway?

pinkypinky · 23-05-2013 02:07PM

JJ Abrams on Conan O'Brien admitting the Alice Eve underwear shot was gratuitous. And then makes up for it with a clip of Benedict Cumberbatch in a shower, which was cut from the movie.

http://www.digitalspy.ie/movies/news/a483972/benedict-cumberbatch-shirtless-in-star-trek-shower-scene.html

The Black Oil · 24-05-2013 06:59PM

Generally solid in the entertainment department, but without question the weakest element is the plot. You might at some points start asking yourself if you even care. Standard, transparent Hollywood nonsense. Hero does his thing, is pulled up on it by the brass. Stuff hits the fan, who jumps up to save the day? You know the rest.

Harrison was pretty Bane-like in his physical strength. I'm not sure if the Enterprise itself is supposed to be a character, I guess so, right? It should be more than just a mechanical tool, though to be fair, she can take quite a kicking, and the presence of the crew actually give the ship a bit of life, of course. Yes, that shot of Alice Eve in her underwear is gratuitous - Kirk's a bit of a man whore, though.

Pine's 'boldly go' didn't seem to have the impact in contrast to others who've said those famous words. Bones remains a favourite, but better writing, please.

2 people left the screening I attended.

Technocentral · 24-05-2013 08:36PM

The Black Oil wrote: »

Generally solid in the entertainment department, but without question the weakest element is the plot. You might at some points start asking yourself if you even care. Standard, transparent Hollywood nonsense. Hero does his thing, is pulled up on it by the brass. Stuff hits the fan, who jumps up to save the day? You know the rest.

Harrison was pretty Bane-like in his physical strength. I'm not sure if the Enterprise itself is supposed to be a character, I guess so, right? It should be more than just a mechanical tool, though to be fair, she can take quite a kicking, and the presence of the crew actually give the ship a bit of life, of course. Yes, that shot of Alice Eve in her underwear is gratuitous - Kirk's a bit of a man whore, though.

Pine's 'boldly go' didn't seem to have the impact in contrast to others who've said those famous words. Bones remains a favourite, but better writing, please.

2 people left the screening I attended.

That was me, twice.

A Neurotic · 24-05-2013 10:27PM

Enjoyed the movie overall. Biggest downfall for me was the doctor character. Impossibly awful actor there. His lines were cheesey enough but his delivery was shocking. Hammiest of hammy ham.

ScumLord · 25-05-2013 04:53PM

catallus wrote: »

The whole idea of a main character being killed off so melodramatically and then being brought back almost immediately leaves a bad aftertaste. Almost ruined the whole film for me.

It didn't so much ruin it for me. It was just obvious he was going to be saved unlike in the original. So I was just waiting for that to happen so the films main plot line could continue. It did work for some people though, I did see people getting all teary eyed.

krieture · 26-05-2013 11:08AM

Watched this on friday. Have to say i didn't enjoy it at all. I found it cheesy and cringy. Cumberbatch was the only shining light. He was excellent as Khan. Apart from that i felt massively underwhelmed.

The story was poor. Nice effects and well shot but tbh i wanted to leave after an hour. What was up with the lingerie bit? So unnecessary......

silvine · 26-05-2013 06:03PM

Couldn't be arsed reading 41 pages. Is Darth Vader in this?

krieture · 26-05-2013 06:08PM

silvine wrote: »

Couldn't be arsed reading 41 pages. Is Darth Vadar in this?

No

ScumLord · 27-05-2013 04:58PM

silvine wrote: »

Couldn't be arsed reading 41 pages. Is Darth Vader in this?

No but his brother Tom Vader did the catering.

Fuzzytrooper · 28-05-2013 07:48AM

I have no idea why, but for some reason I can really see Danny Dyer in Christopher Pine's place as Kirk. He's well 'ard.

podgemonster · 28-05-2013 08:41AM

ScumLord wrote: »

No but his brother Tom Vader did the catering.

The cast complained about his catering as the toast was a little on the dark side!

/gets coat.

timetogo · 28-05-2013 09:04AM

I saw it for the second time last night. In 3D this time. The 3D in the first scene (the pink planet) was great. For the rest of the film I didn't notice it much.

I enjoyed this film but on second viewing (because I'm slow) a load of questions arise.

Why did Khan go to Cronos? The transwarp device obviously didn't go with him so he beamed to a spot that he'd never be able to get out of. Was there a master plan I was missing.

When Scotty went to the space station he just tootled on in. I dunno you'd imagine a secret space station would have security or even a sensor or two or something. And on the 15 or so craft he was joining, you'd imagine one of them would have had a window and said "Hey who's that geezer"?

The security guard on the big ship was the dumbest guy in the universe. If Scotty could hear Spock say "Open the doors in 10 , 9 , 8" then so could he.

To get rid of the 72 missiles with the crew the plan was to put them all on the Enterprise and then tell Kirk to fire one at Cronos. Hmmmmm. If there was a super secret space station you'd think they could have put them there. Or even fired them into the sun.

The Enterprise was sabotaged while in warp. Would the plan (from the villains point of view) not have been smarter to disable the Enterprise after the missile was fired.

On the missiles one character says they've cleverly replaced the fuel core with the statis pod. Grand. So where would the fuel go?

On both times when the Enterprise was knocked out of warp it was close to it's destinations (20 mins to Cronos in a normal ship and 200,000KM to Earth. If it wasn't knocked out of warp when were they thinking of stopping anyway? If there were a millisecond or two later they'd have overshot their destinations both times.

At the end when Spock was chasing down Khan they noticed the tribble come alive. They had no more of Khans blood so they needed Khan alive. Hmmm. I could think of 71 other people they might have used for blood.

Finally at the end when they're embarking on their 5 year mission Kirk says "which way". I'd hope their planning might be a bit more sophisticated than just picking a direction and heading off.
If the trip from Cronos -> the solar system takes a few minutes how far would they get in 5 years?

That's all just nitpicking though.

And don't read any of that above before you've seen the movie.
The film was great.

Roar · 28-05-2013 09:24AM

timetogo wrote: »

Finally at the end when they're embarking on their 5 year mission Kirk says "which way". I'd hope their planning might be a bit more sophisticated than just picking a direction and heading off.

No need for spoiler tags at this stage

Re: The above one, I was hoping he'd say "second star to the right... and straight on till morning", and I was disappointed when he didn't!

Antar Bolaeisk · 28-05-2013 09:48AM

Roar wrote: »

No need for spoiler tags at this stage

Re: The above one, I was hoping he'd say "second star to the right... and straight on till morning", and I was disappointed when he didn't!

I was expecting the same or some variation thereof. That's just the film all over though, they stick in Leonard Nimoy to appease the older fans and then proceed to get everything else wrong.

godtabh · 28-05-2013 03:00PM

Roar wrote: »

No need for spoiler tags at this stage

Re: The above one, I was hoping he'd say "second star to the right... and straight on till morning", and I was disappointed when he didn't!

That will be in the directors cut

Antar Bolaeisk · 28-05-2013 03:37PM

godtabh wrote: »

That will be in the directors cut

I thought that was going to be the one where we got to see Cucumberbatch take a shower?

KenSwee · 29-05-2013 07:00PM

Just saw it; disappointing. You'd think if they spend millions of dollars on a movie, that they employ a story writer.
I could have done that one for half the price.

Technocentral · 29-05-2013 09:11PM

KenSwee wrote: »

Just saw it; disappointing. You'd think if they spend millions of dollars on a movie, that they employ a story writer.
I could have done that one for half the price.

The original "Wrath of Khan" that its based on is 100 times better, check it out.

krudler · 29-05-2013 11:20PM

KenSwee wrote: »

Just saw it; disappointing. You'd think if they spend millions of dollars on a movie, that they employ a story writer.
I could have done that one for half the price.

They did, only they employed the writers of Transformers and Prometheus.

29-05-2013 11:42PM

Bit behind with my cinema viewing but saw this tonight and I enjoyed pretty much every second of it. Sure the ending is a little rushed and anyone who doesn't figure out the mcguffin obviously has never seen any sci-fi before but overall it's one of the more enjoyable Blockbusters in many a year. A smartish, action packed sci-fi spectacle with a lot of heart and some genuinely emotional moments.

Technocentral · 30-05-2013 12:53AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Bit behind with my cinema viewing but saw this tonight and I enjoyed pretty much every second of it. Sure the ending is a little rushed and anyone who doesn't figure out the mcguffin obviously has never seen any sci-fi before but overall it's one of the more enjoyable Blockbusters in many a year. A smartish, action packed sci-fi spectacle with a lot of heart and some genuinely emotional moments.

: D

:D

: D

Technocentral · 30-05-2013 12:54AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Bit behind with my cinema viewing but saw this tonight and I enjoyed pretty much every second of it. Sure the ending is a little rushed and anyone who doesn't figure out the mcguffin obviously has never seen any sci-fi before but overall it's one of the more enjoyable Blockbusters in many a year. A smartish, action packed sci-fi spectacle with a lot of heart and some genuinely emotional moments.

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

Comments

Star Trek Into Darkness [ SPOILERS FROM POST 452 ]