Star Trek Into Darkness (2013) (2 Viewers)

[PaulDA]

Visual proof: http://imgur.com/gallery/YGgY0

Love the one with the Gorn. Has anyone seen the commercial for the new Trek video game where Shatner is playing against a Gorn (in classic TOS getup) and they start fighting?

 

[Ockeghem]

Love the one with the Gorn. Has anyone seen the commercial for the new Trek video game where Shatner is playing against a Gorn (in classic TOS getup) and they start fighting?

Paul,
Yes, I have seen that commercial and I posted the link for it a few months ago in the Star Trek Trivia thread. And I love the accompanying original series music too!

 

[Edwin-S]

That is a great link. Lets see, in the Bowling Ball, he doesn't even touch the guy. The Drop Kick the guy is just standing there and Kirk doesn't really kick him but places his foot on his chest and pushes. The Hand Chop, doesn't look like it would harm a fly.

But that was part of the charm of the series. Fun, but kinda cheesy.

They looked cheesy, but at least you also didn't sit and think, "how do you guys manage to still stand up?" after watching these modern fight sceness. The kind of beating they take in films now would leave anyone a quadraplegic and eating through a feeding tube. But that's Hollywood. If a severe beating is good then an epically severe one is even better.

 

[Scott-S]

I held off reading this thread until I saw the movie. I am glad I did. It seems filled with tons-o-hate. I think there are some people that will never be happy with any Trek film.

I loved this movie. I have seen all previous Trek stuff, and have come to like the whole "reboot" idea as a way of getting some fresh take on this universe.

My only concern, and this is a really big concern............

Is there nobody else concerned that there are now Tribbles with Khan blood in them?

 

[DaveF]

Is there nobody else concerned that there are now Tribbles with Khan blood in them?

i assumed this will be used as the genesis of how tribbles 'explosively' reproduce in a future movie.

 

[Tino]

I'm no doctor, but are platelets, which were injected into the dead tribble, the same as blood?

 

[Scott-S]

Platelets are in blood.

 

[RobertR]

I held off reading this thread until I saw the movie. I am glad I did. It seems filled with tons-o-hate. I think there are some people that will never be happy with any Trek film.

Sounds like your attitude is, "no reasonable (reasonable as defined by you) person could possibly disagree with me about this movie".

So very tolerant of you.

 

[Scott-S]

Na, I am just too tolerant of movies. I can find something to like about most movies. Especially in the Sci-fi world. Because I know the people who work on them are trying their best to make what they think is a good movie (most of the time) so I can appreciate the effort. It might not always work, but having a "bad" sci-fi movie is better than having none at all. I am just afraid that since it is really hard to please most of us "nerds", there will be fewer attempts in the future.

I sort of think that is why Lucus thru in the towel on the Star Wars franchise. He just got tired of the fans reaction to choices and just gave up trying to please everyone. (that, and 4 billion dollars )

I admit that my opinion of the Trek movies is influenced by my shear happiness that we are getting new stuff.

Star Trek (and Star Wars) fans are a really tough bunch to please. Unfortunately if they made a Trek film that would please the hard core fan, it might not make any money, They have to try and balance out pleasing the Trek fans and yet still a good movie for casual audiences that might not care about the cannon.

 

[Ted Van Duyn]

They have to try and balance out pleasing the Trek fans and yet still a good movie for casual audiences that might not care about the cannon.

I think the issue with STID is that they tried to do both things too many times. They bring in Khan, but they change his ethnicity. They keep his genetically altered superiority, but they change his personality. The story has Khan as the bad guy, but he's such an inherently evil bad guy that nothing that made him respectable amongst the crew remains.

See where I'm going with this? If you're going to use an established character, the least anyone would expect from a writer who respects the material is to have some understanding on what made that character tick. But instead of going in that direction, they simply crafted Khan into whatever they deemed "commercial" for the sake of simplicity and action. Eugenics wars? Gone. Khan's wish to find a new world for his people so they could build their own empire? Gone. Khan's charming and charismatic appeal? Gone. The potential of Khan actually being a good guy? Gone.

 

[Tino]

Platelets are in blood.

I know that. But the injection of the platelets instead of pure blood may affect the recipient differently. Or maybe not......

 

[Tino]

Btw, STID holding up well in its third weekend. From boxoffice guru:

Tied with the same amount, $16.4 million, was Star Trek Into Darkness which fell 56% in its third weekend and raised its cume to a good $181.2M for Paramount.

It's currently running about $10 million behind the 2009 film at the same point in its run, but has already passed the total international gross by $20 million so far with a few major markets left to open.

 

[TravisR]

I know that. But the injection of the platelets instead of pure blood may affect the recipient differently. Or maybe not......

Obviously it's sci-fi mumbo jumbo but the 'recuperative power' must have been in or on the platelets. In other words, they could have given Kirk whole blood but the platelets were all that was needed to save him.

 

[RobertR]

I am just too tolerant of movies. I can find something to like about most movies. Especially in the Sci-fi world. Because I know the people who work on them are trying their best to make what they think is a good movie

I see no reason to accept what I think is bad simply because someone “tried”. The people who assembled cars that are lemons “tried”, after all. Would you be happy with a car that turned out that way simply because they “tried”? I think not. And why should they “try their best” if people are fine with much less than that?

It might not always work, but having a "bad" sci-fi movie is better than having none at all.

A good movie is better still.

I am just afraid that since it is really hard to please most of us "nerds", there will be fewer attempts in the future.

Conversely, I’m afraid that being happy with mediocrity simply because it’s “better than nothing” will encourage still more mediocrity, since the message will be “ relax, you don’t NEED to try to give us your best. Mediocrity is just FINE”.

I sort of think that is why Lucus thru in the towel on the Star Wars franchise. He just got tired of the fans reaction to choices and just gave up trying to please everyone.

”golly gee fans, you’re supposed to never question my choices. Why can’t you be like the yes-men I surround myself with?” What I see in interviews is a man who only wants to please himself, not fans, and probably now admits to himself that his choices just weren’t that good.

I admit that my opinion of the Trek movies is influenced by my shear happiness that we are getting new stuff.

I can see that.

Star Trek (and Star Wars) fans are a really tough bunch to please.

Unusually so? I don’t think so.

Unfortunately if they made a Trek film that would please the hard core fan, it might not make any money, They have to try and balance out pleasing the Trek fans and yet still a good movie for casual audiences that might not care about the cannon.

That doesn’t mean the particular choices they made are the ONLY possible ones, or the best ones.

 

[Scott-S]

I am begining to feel like a bad movie. Every line is being judged.


JK. I like a good discussion.

 

[Tino]

Robert, did you see this film?

 

[Nelson Au]

I was just thinking after reading the last few posts that back in the day, when Roddenberry and Coon and Fontana and Justman and all the rest were simply doing their best at the time. They had no history to worry about or fan base. They only had flash Gordon, Forbidden Planet and a few other films to be influenced by. They did pretty well I think with a modest little TV show that still manages to have a large fan following.We're they more talented? We're they simply the right people doing the right thing at the right time? Did they have better real world life experiences to draw stories from? I suspect it was all those things. Most of the team were WW2 vets and saw war and many awful things in life. Today's movie makers are influenced by Lucas and Star Trek and other re-runs. So these guys likely just don't have the same ability to create from a certain point of view. They are boomers and their life experiences are vastly different and education mght not have been as strong. Or as another poster who used to participate here would call them hacks. What I'm trying to say is that any new attempts at doing Star Trek can only be judged against the original and the makers of these new films have nothing but that history that they grew up with. I think it might take another group outside of Bad Robot to really make Star Trek films as original as the originals were in the 1960's. Or maybe these guys can do it, but are hampered by certain requirements for a large budget mainstream summer popcorn movie.

 

[schan1269]

To throw out another "storied cannon" movie experience to draw from...Bond.If "original Trek" is Connery...The "TNG" movies are Dalton...What are these two?Moore or Brosnan?

 

[Tino]

Craig

 

[Chuck Anstey]

To throw out another "storied cannon" movie experience to draw from...

Bond.

If "original Trek" is Connery...

The "TNG" movies are Dalton...

What are these two?

Moore or Brosnan?

An attempt to remake Goldfinger with a new Connery rather than using a new actor with a different take on the character and new adventures after having setup that these are supposed to be a new take on the characters with a new and different timeline.