You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.
Just got back from an IMAX 3D presentation.
Not as good as Part I. Not even close.
This series went from "Star Trek for Dummies" to "Michael Bay's Star Trek" in less than a movie. Sad.
I especially did not like the not-so-subtle nods (in fact, it borders on shameless plagiarism) of another classic Star Trek movie (Note: Not the one with V'Ger or the whales). The only redeeming factor was Benedict Cumberbatch's John Harrison (that was his name, right?) going Hulk Smash on some pesky Klingons in a chaotic set piece (Note: I say "chaotic" because there is no sense of geography, just like a Michael Bay movie). One thing I gotta say about that John Harrison guy: Bro, you've got some serious anger issues. Like, drink some Green Tea and stuff.
Anyway...
Of every candidate, Disney chose this JJ Abrams douche to direct Star Wars?
On release day I suspect I will be at home clipping my toe nails.
I just came back from watching this movie. You think it's a "nod" to Wrath. You think it's a ripoff of Wrath.
Is this one of the IMDB kiddie forums, or is this TypoC?
It seems as if you think you are mature enough to see through Abrams' gimmick in this movie. But I'm afraid that you're not yet mature enough to see that it's no gimmick. And it's hardly plagiarism, because
if it weren't for Old Spock's timely words of advice, the ending would have been quite different.
I just came back from watching this movie. You think it's a "nod" to Wrath. You think it's a ripoff of Wrath.
Is this one of the IMDB kiddie forums, or is this TypoC?
It seems as if you think you are mature enough to see through Abrams' gimmick in this movie. But I'm afraid that you're not yet mature enough to see that it's no gimmick. And it's hardly plagiarism, because
if it weren't for Old Spock's timely words of advice, the ending would have been quite different.
I'd give it a positive rating, because I found it enjoyable, but I think I liked the 2009 version better.
Think about what happened:
1. They flew the Enterprise to Kronos, then back to earth. Not much really happened.
2. Too much was obvious setup. Spock was in danger, but not really because Kirk beams him up. Kirk loses his command but not really, because Pike is conveniently going to die. Scotty leaves the Enterprise, just so he can conveniently be planted on the new big secret ship and disable it. The torpedoes are conveniently unscannable, so we know later what Spock's play will likely be when the time comes. Bones gets a blood sample from Kahn which he tests on a dead tribble for kicks, and we know it has rejuvenating properties (we already saw a dying girl be restored by it), so when Kirk and Spock switch places to pull a Kubayashi Maru, it loses some impact because we know it's not going to last. I mean, they did a good job of not pulling anything blindly out of their ass to resolve a situation unfairly, but so much was telegraphed that it was all rather predictable and by the numbers.
3. Oh, the old "admiral wants to start a war so he uses the good guys as pawns" trick. Wheee.
I was moved in spots but more by what I brought to the movie than the movie itself.
Also, lots of trek trivia points (old series, although I think the Section 31 is a ref from DSN) which might either please or annoy fans. Finally the banter was funny in spots but just too scripted, it didn't feel organic sometimes. At least they meta'ed it once in a while so that we knew they knew it was too predictable too.
Cumberbatch was good. I found him intimidating, he carried himself well
It was also nice to Spock be a badass and go a few rounds.
Generally, I do agree with those criticisms... most of all, with the exposition on the Scene Not To Be Named
as well as the big point that Harrison's identity is a big deal to the audience, maybe, but not to Kirk, and thus loses its power to some degree. Basically in ST2, that Kirk was a generation older and he and Kahn had long history together. This Kirk is a young man and has no history with Kahn.
I also agree with the criticisms about the tech plotholes.
Same here; I much preferred the 2009 version.
I didn't hate Darkness, but found it derivative and ultimately insulting.
After all, a 2001 Wrath of Khan marathon on Spike TV is what made me a fan of Trek.
It was among the things that helped me cope through the horror of 9/11.
Cumberbatch was good. I found him intimidating, he carried himself well
The major redeeming factor was the always reliable Cumberbatch.
He was a fantastic and genuinely menacing heavy, dare I say one of the best ST villains of all time.
While he (and the "John Harrison" character) belongs in a better movie, Darkness will catapult him to the A-list where he belongs.
I'd give it a positive rating, because I found it enjoyable, but I think I liked the 2009 version better.
Think about what happened:
1. They flew the Enterprise to Kronos, then back to earth. Not much really happened.
2. Too much was obvious setup. Spock was in danger, but not really because Kirk beams him up. Kirk loses his command but not really, because Pike is conveniently going to die. Scotty leaves the Enterprise, just so he can conveniently be planted on the new big secret ship and disable it. The torpedoes are conveniently unscannable, so we know later what Spock's play will likely be when the time comes. Bones gets a blood sample from Kahn which he tests on a dead tribble for kicks, and we know it has rejuvenating properties (we already saw a dying girl be restored by it), so when Kirk and Spock switch places to pull a Kubayashi Maru, it loses some impact because we know it's not going to last. I mean, they did a good job of not pulling anything blindly out of their ass to resolve a situation unfairly, but so much was telegraphed that it was all rather predictable and by the numbers.
3. Oh, the old "admiral wants to start a war so he uses the good guys as pawns" trick. Wheee.
I was moved in spots but more by what I brought to the movie than the movie itself.
Also, lots of trek trivia points (old series, although I think the Section 31 is a ref from DSN) which might either please or annoy fans. Finally the banter was funny in spots but just too scripted, it didn't feel organic sometimes. At least they meta'ed it once in a while so that we knew they knew it was too predictable too.
Cumberbatch was good. I found him intimidating, he carried himself well
It was also nice to Spock be a badass and go a few rounds.
Generally, I do agree with those criticisms... most of all, with the exposition on the Scene Not To Be Named
as well as the big point that Harrison's identity is a big deal to the audience, maybe, but not to Kirk, and thus loses its power to some degree. Basically in ST2, that Kirk was a generation older and he and Kahn had long history together. This Kirk is a young man and has no history with Kahn.
I also agree with the criticisms about the tech plotholes.
Pick it apart, and then come up with a better idea for a movie. You can't.
However, I'm not disagreeing with most of the little nitpickings. But I don't let some continuity errors spoil the movie for me. Or Kirk saying "I'm speaking to the half-human part of you." Huh?
I do disagree with this nitpicking:
"The torpedoes are conveniently unscannable." Yes they were, for the very convenient reason that they concealed some important secrets necessary to making the Admiral's plans come to fruition.
because that's the aspect of the movie that makes some of the other nitpickings make sense, for example:
Scotty had to leave the ship not only because he disagreed with Kirk over signing for something he couldn't identify, but Kirk wanted him to leave because he had fallen for the Admiral's lies about what the torpedoes contained.
And besides:
Your reference to the Kobiyashi Maru incident doesn't make sense to me.
"as well as the big point that Harrison's identity is a big deal to the audience, maybe, but not to Kirk, and thus loses its power to some degree. Basically in ST2, that Kirk was a generation older and he and Kahn had long history together. This Kirk is a young man and has no history with Kahn."
I'll definitely give you that. Consider that the scene in the brig where Harrison revealed his true identity - "I'm Khan" (snarl snarl) - could have been met with some humor by Kirk - "Nice to meet you, Khan" (snarl snarl). The original Khan was much more deceptive, he was more clever about concealing his true psychopathy so he could get what he wants. The new Khan is far more open about it.
Same here; I much preferred the 2009 version.
I didn't hate Darkness, but found it derivative and ultimately insulting.
After all, a 2001 Wrath of Khan marathon on Spike TV is what made me a fan of Trek.
It was among the things that helped me cope through the horror of 9/11.
The major redeeming factor was the always reliable Cumberbatch.
He was a fantastic and genuinely menacing heavy, dare I say one of the best ST villains of all time.
While he (and the "John Harrison" character) belongs in a better movie, Darkness will catapult him to the A-list where he belongs.
...Seriously? I won't even get into specifics or the obvious.
-One of the most blatant and central themes of Darkness--that would be vengeance--had been beaten to death in the franchise long before this movie was even in development.
-Or how about the emergence of a "HOLY-SHIT-YOUR-PANTS" size vessel that absolutely outclasses the Enterprise and is magically destroyed by some cheap, seen-it-from-a-mile-away macguffin? Remember that steaming turd Nemesis? Yeah, well that movie actually managed to pull it off with more sophistication than the last two.
...Seriously? I won't even get into specifics or the obvious.
-One of the most blatant and central themes of Darkness--that would be vengeance--had been beaten to death in the franchise long before this movie was even in development.
-Or how about the emergence of a "HOLY-SHIT-YOUR-PANTS" size vessel that absolutely outclasses the Enterprise and is magically destroyed by some cheap, seen-it-from-a-mile-away macguffin? Remember that steaming turd Nemesis? Yeah, well that movie actually managed to pull it off with more sophistication.
J.J. Abrams put something derivative into the franchise in a very brilliant way - by making it obvious as hell. If this doesn't knock down the "ripoff" critics, who are falling over each other to be the first online movie critic Genius to point out the obvious parallels, nothing will.
Amazing. Got any more juvenile ways to essentially dismiss criticism? Oh wait, now you'll go ahead and agree with me. Whut?
However, I'm not disagreeing with most of the little nitpickings. But I don't let some continuity errors spoil the movie for me. Or Kirk saying "I'm speaking to the half-human part of you." Huh?
I do disagree with this nitpicking:
"The torpedoes are conveniently unscannable." Yes they were, for the very convenient reason that they concealed some important secrets necessary to making the Admiral's plans come to fruition.
because that's the aspect of the movie that makes some of the other nitpickings make sense, for example:
Scotty had to leave the ship not only because he disagreed with Kirk over signing for something he couldn't identify, but Kirk wanted him to leave because he had fallen for the Admiral's lies about what the torpedoes contained.
And besides:
Your reference to the Kobiyashi Maru incident doesn't make sense to me.
But please don't say that you didn't "let" certain things spoil the movie for you, which insinuates I can choose to not be bothered by something or not. That's insinuating that I don't actually want to like it and thus am somehow choosing to let my enjoyment be derailed.
I actually badly wanted to like this movie. It's not my fault if the kinds of problems I ran across, for me, made this movie less palatable for me than I had wished. Remember, for me, this was my "summer pick." I've been waiting for months to see this. Wouldn't you think I would like it more if I could?
Apparently those kinds of problems don't bother you as much. More power to you.
-Or how about the emergence of a "HOLY-SHIT-YOUR-PANTS" size vessel that absolutely outclasses the Enterprise and is magically destroyed by some cheap, seen-it-from-a-mile-away macguffin? Remember that steaming turd Nemesis? Yeah, well that movie actually managed to pull it off with more sophistication than the last two.
Hell, as far as big ships go, we only have to go back as far as Star Trek 2009. (Although there, I think, the resolution didn't feel as telegraphed even if apparent. The red matter seemed to rationally have the properties it did. Here, it seemed that the items in question had an abnormal set of properties, even noted at the time... conveniently just to allow for the ruse to work.)
But please don't say that you didn't "let" certain things spoil the movie for you, which insinuates I can choose to not be bothered by something or not. That's insinuating that I don't actually want to like it and thus am somehow choosing to let my enjoyment be derailed.
I actually badly wanted to like this movie. It's not my fault if the kinds of problems I ran across, for me, made this movie less palatable for me than I had wished. Remember, for me, this was my "summer pick." I've been waiting for months to see this. Wouldn't you think I would like it more if I could?
Apparently those kinds of problems don't bother you as much. More power to you.
Yeah...I really don't have to explain myself to you, kid.
I enjoyed aspects of the movie; I enjoyed it on a surface level.
The set pieces were huge, the 'splosions were pretty, Alice Eve had a nice rack, blah, blah, blah.
But as a piece of cohesive fiction, it was too dependent on the conventions of modern blockbuster cinema. That is all.
P.S.: Do your homework while you are at it--I don't want you to repeat the 7th grade again.
Thankfully, this movie is not raking in the box office receipts that Paramount was hoping. Hopefully it will be a lesson for the studio not to assume the audience is not going to get all the Star Trek II/"Space Seed" references. Though it would be nice to get Nicholas Meyer to do a Trek film again. It would also be nice to have Klingons be major adversaries for the next Trek. Of course, that also makes it a little too easy to remake Star Trek III.
Another problem I had with the movie was that I felt sorry for the CG character animators. They were given next to nothing to do aside from a couple of creatures during the opening scene that are barely given a second of screen time.
I will, however, admit that the post stereoscopic conversion for this movie was excellent. And the vfx were very pretty. And the new warp effect is awesome.
Yeah...I really don't have to explain myself to you, kid.
I enjoyed aspects of the movie; I enjoyed it on a surface level.
The set pieces were huge, the 'splosions were pretty, Alice Eve had a nice rack, blah, blah, blah.
But as a piece of cohesive fiction, it was too dependent on the conventions of modern blockbuster cinema. That is all.
P.S.: Do your homework while you are at it--I don't want you to repeat the 7th grade again.
Thankfully, this movie is not raking in the box office receipts that Paramount was hoping. Hopefully it will be a lesson for the studio not to assume the audience is not going to get all the Star Trek II/"Space Seed" references. Though it would be nice to get Nicholas Meyer to do a Trek film again. It would also be nice to have Klingons be major adversaries for the next Trek. Of course, that also makes it a little too easy to remake Star Trek III.
Another problem I had with the movie was that I felt sorry for the CG character animators. They were given next to nothing to do aside from a couple of creatures during the opening scene that are barely given a second of screen time.
I will, however, admit that the post stereoscopic conversion for this movie was excellent. And the vfx were very pretty. And the new warp effect is awesome.
Of course the Klingons will be the major villain in the next Star Trek. There were hints of that in this movie. I would say they were more than mere hints, however. According to Pike, the Klingons had been making incursions into Federation space and attacked some Federation planets. They were just looking for any excuse to declare all out war.
And they got it.
Also (and this isn't directed at you, Ü™), tiny areas of predictability are common in movies, it is no reason to dislike any movie. If the entire movie was predictable, then yes, it would fail to hold my interest and I would dislike it. But on the whole, this movie's plot was not predictable. I came into it cold, with no knowledge of the plot (except that it would present a typical good guy/bad guy scenario). I didn't know who the main villain was, and in this movie, that is a very important factor to consider.
This Star Trek movie could have been improved in a few ways. I didn't care for the brief scene where the dog was sniffing the lady's boob at the beginning of the movie. And there were some continuity errors at the beginning which, since I noticed them, means they were really bad because I normally don't notice little details like that in movies. Also,
During the final battle sequence, the Enterprise's transporters just happened to go offline, which just happened to necessitate Khan and Kirk jetting over to the Juggernaut in a thrilling sequence that, surprisingly, did not involve them having to avoid any human corpses floating around in space. Later, when they were on board the ship's bridge, Khan was stunned by a single phaser blast but I couldn't be sure if he was just faking it or not. This guy is super-human, after all, and if he was faking it, this could have been shown better. Apparently he was, as in the Spock vs. Khan fight sequence, it required multiple stun blasts just to slightly set him off his keel.
