[B]thought #1:[/B] it's a stupid title, but the dark knight rises has proven that dumb titles have no correlation with the quality of the film
[B]thought #2:[/B] I enjoyed the first one, but like Plinkett said in his review of it: if they try to top the first one, this film will be visually overloaded to the point of being stupid. Seriously, there was almost CGI in the first film alone to cause this problem - black holes, supernovae, black holes sucking up supernovae, black holes sucking up planets. any more and it will just become obnoxious
[B]thought #3:[/B] while I did enjoy the first one like I said, I'm guessing that what emperor scorpius is trying to convey is that the film was nothing like actual star trek (TOS, TNG, DS9, etc. (TNG movies notwithstanding; they're awful)). star trek has always been a readily accessible sci fi series for the thinking man. It's intelligently written and directed. Star Trek the... Star Trek is a big dumb action movie. That's not to say it's bad - it looks fantastic, has good casting, direction and performances, and whip smart (not intelligent) dialogue - for what it is, it's great. But it ain't no star trek.
Star Trek 2009 did not suck. It really revived the franchise and rebooted it for a new wider audience. It's better than having a dead franchise.
P.S.
I liked the new movie, really.
Sounds like a dance move
baby we gon just star trek into the darkness!
yeah!
It sounds like a "Before and After" puzzle on Wheel of Fortune.
[editline]11th September 2012[/editline]
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/EUPDT.png[/IMG]
[del]You're welcome.[/del]
[QUOTE=fenwick;37634083]You're welcome.[/QUOTE]
don't pre-emptively say you're welcome please it degrades us all
[QUOTE=Amiga OS;37631453]The last film didn't even deserve the name of Star Trek.[/QUOTE]
OH MY GOD YES HOW DARE THEY MAKE A MOVIE ABOUT A GUY NAMED CAPTAIN KIRK ON A STARSHIP CALLED ENTERPRISE AND CALL IT STAR TREK? IT'S TOTALLY INACCURATE.
[QUOTE=SFC3;37633989] It really revived the franchise and rebooted it for a new wider audience. It's better than having a dead franchise.
[/QUOTE]
I could not disagree with this concept more. There is much worse that can happen to a franchise than being dead.
[QUOTE=NuclearJesus;37635063]OH MY GOD YES HOW DARE THEY MAKE A MOVIE ABOUT A GUY NAMED CAPTAIN KIRK ON A STARSHIP CALLED ENTERPRISE AND CALL IT STAR TREK? IT'S TOTALLY INACCURATE.[/QUOTE]
read my post on the last page maybe it will help you comprehend what the argument actually is
I'd make an analogy you could understand but I don't know your interests other than PENIS
And on rolls the hate. Hell, the jokey puns just flow naturally with a title like that...
[I]How can they call it Into Darkness with so much lens flare?[/I]
[I]Into Darkness... That's an accurate way to describe where the quality levels of this franchise are heading.[/I]
[I]Into Darkness? Like space darkness? Good, then no one can hear you scream from watching this crap.[/I]
I think this is just going to be another one of 'those movies' that I won't enjoy but will watch for the sake of watching, a bit like the last movie. It's like watching those car crash videos where you just KNOW that pedestrian walking along is going to get turned into people paté - there's no reason for you to sit there and watch it happen, but damned if you're not going to.
I can see the appeal in these movies but I just can't enjoy them. If you grew up on Star Trek, they're really quite poor by comparison. I can't even fully describe WHY that is - I give anything a chance but something just isn't right about JJ's attempts at Star Trek. Maybe someone else can elaborate it better than I.
Well probably because JJ Abrams has literally said that he didn't like Star Trek, and wanted to make it something he would like.
I actually liked the Star Trek movie, but it was the only Strek Tar thing I have ever watched so I may be biased. I am excited for the sequel, even though that name IS terrible.
Star Trek into the bootyhole.
[QUOTE=Mingebox;37636039]Well probably because JJ Abrams has literally said that he didn't like Star Trek, and wanted to make it something he would like.[/QUOTE]
Wait what? When did he say that? I'm looking for a source but I can't find anything.
The 2009 Star Trek movie was really good. I hope this new one is better, despite its silly name.
[QUOTE=JeanLuc761;37636356]Wait what? When did he say that? I'm looking for a source but I can't find anything.[/QUOTE]
Never said such thing. The Trek community (including myself) would have crucified him for doing so.
[QUOTE=Delta616;37636394]Never said such thing. The Trek community (including myself) would have crucified him for doing so.[/QUOTE]
I was gonna say...
Despite Star Trek (2009) creating an alternate reality, it felt like a total love-letter to fans as well as a very accessible introduction for newcomers, in my opinion.
I recall him saying that Galaxy Quest was his favorite Star Trek movie somewhere.
Which is fair, honestly.
[QUOTE=JeanLuc761;37636424]I was gonna say...
Despite Star Trek (2009) creating an alternate reality, it felt like a total love-letter to fans as well as a very accessible introduction for newcomers, in my opinion.[/QUOTE]
I agree! They did almost everything right.
[QUOTE=Flicky;37631623]So I'd assume you've never seen any of the phaser assault rifles? They do the exact same thing.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Delta616;37631638]Two words for you, phaser rifles TNG/DS9/VOY era.[/QUOTE]
I was under the impression those were disruptors, not phasers.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;37636653]I was under the impression those were disruptors, not phasers.[/QUOTE]
They're referred to as Phaser Rifles.
[QUOTE=JeanLuc761;37636356]Wait what? When did he say that? I'm looking for a source but I can't find anything.[/QUOTE]
I believe it was in some DVD commentary somewhere, so it's hard to find a source. But I did find this: [url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/may/07/jj-abrams-interview-star-trek[/url]
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;37636653]I was under the impression those were disruptors, not phasers.[/QUOTE]
you're a disruptor
[QUOTE=Mingebox;37636989]I believe it was in some DVD commentary somewhere, so it's hard to find a source. But I did find this: [url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/may/07/jj-abrams-interview-star-trek[/url][/QUOTE]
Aha! There's a big difference between "not liking" and "not getting." His writers did a damn good job mixing the old with the new in a style that Abrams "gets."
The modern treks are action flics, not classic Trek. They cater to a different audience. I hope these new ones aren't considered canon, you can't just rewrite so much and wipe all the classics off the table. It's like turning Star Wars into Jersey Shore. That said I enjoyed the 2009 film, but don't consider it canon.
"Into Darkness" doesn't tell me anything about the plot. But I hope it can top wrath of khan.
I liked the 2009 movie because it removed all the things I hated about TOS. But now there is no room for a TNG re-boot.
[editline]12th September 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Metalcastr;37637358]The modern treks are action flics, not classic Trek. They cater to a different audience. I hope these new ones aren't considered canon, you can't just rewrite so much and wipe all the classics off the table. It's like turning Star Wars into Jersey Shore. That said I enjoyed the 2009 film, but don't consider it canon.[/QUOTE]
I don't consider Voyager and Enterprise canon.
[QUOTE=Metalcastr;37637358]The modern treks are action flics, not classic Trek. They cater to a different audience. I hope these new ones aren't considered canon, you can't just rewrite so much and wipe all the classics off the table. It's like turning Star Wars into Jersey Shore. [B][U]That said I enjoyed the 2009 film, but don't consider it canon.[/U][/B][/QUOTE]
Nor do you need to. The central plot point of the film was that everything in the movie was taking place in an alternate reality that is entirely separate from what happened in "true" Star Trek canon. It's quite the brilliant writing strategy, actually; it ensures that they have a theoretically infinite number of story possibilities without having to worry about upsetting the established canon. Effectively, they get to make their own canon.
[QUOTE=chunkymonkey;37631653]At least the new movie was better than all the TNG movies.
What we need is a new Star Trek TV show that isn't total shit *cough* Enterprise, Voyager, the second half of DS9 *cough*.[/QUOTE]
How could you possibly hate the second half of DS9? It was by far some of the best-written Star Trek there is. I mean, it was the darkest that Star Trek ever got, but it did that to enhance its messages. It took all of the common arguments against the Federation's ideals (loss of culture and sovereignty inherent in confederations (e.g. the EU in the real world), genetic engineering / transhumanist sentiment, pro-market arguments, and isolationist sentiments to name a few), gave them a fair shot, and came out stronger because of it. Having seen TOS, TNG, and Enterprise coming in, I thought that large parts of Star Trek were overplayed and frankly childish. Once I finished DS9, I had a whole new respect for it. Also, the character development was damn good aside from the larger plot. I'll give you (most of) Enterprise and (most of the first half of) Voyager, though.
[QUOTE=Amiga OS;37631453]The last film didn't even deserve the name of Star Trek.[/QUOTE]
Relevant.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02LgdXVkXgM[/media]
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;37631460]If you watched all of the Star Trek television series, watched the previous movies and perhaps even read the books, you would understand how bad it was.
A film in of itself it was decent. But as a Star Trek movie? I cringed.[/QUOTE]
Even then, it was exactly what I expect from a Star Trek movie intended to establish a new universe. It did its job, and it was entertaining. I didn't go into the theater expecting "In The Pale Moonlight" or a Wrath of Khan style message. I expected a film that established Star Trek in a newer form, and it achieved that readily.
I thought the new movie was okay. Didn't really understand how a supernova can destroy a galaxy though. The best movie in my opinion is First Contact. Not too sure about the title of this movie.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
