Star Trek Into Darkness (Post-release)

did anybody find the seat belts odd. obvious CG

when scotty was knocked out and on the ground, where did the belts come out from? his uniform?

We just got home. I officially fear for the future of the Star Wars franchise in the hands of Abrams.

Also: The moral of the story, kids, is actions have no consequences! SWEET! :sick

Roddenberry is spinning in his grave like a top.

Let's face it the films weren't that bad, despite the nitpicking. My favourite character has always been McCoy. And seeing him again played by Karl is so very much a treat as he repects DeForrest Kelly so much. I just miss the relationships he had with Spock. At least he can turn out a decent movie despite plagiarising WoK...could be seen as flattery but...meh.

I would still buy ItD on DVD when it comes out.

This is the biggest difference.

tsam said:

did anybody find the seat belts odd. obvious CG

when scotty was knocked out and on the ground, where did the belts come out from? his uniform?

Click to expand...

He was on a seat in front of the console, not the ground.

Strickler said:

He was on a seat in front of the console, not the ground.

Click to expand...

Yeah, Spock lifted him up and put him in the chair to belt him in. Considering the ship was falling and he could have been killed lying on the ground, it was a nice touch.

I have to say the more I think about it, I think the weakest aspect of the film was the Admiral Marcus character. Remove him and just focus on Khan and you eliminate a lot of what people are having difficulty with.

The movie was a good, entertaining movie in the same vein that The Wrath of Khan is a good movie because they took a lot of plot elements from it. I was disappointed. The movie started out great, creative and engaging. I thought that they might actually give us a unique story. I guess all of the worthwhile stories of the Star Trek universe have been told and this is all we have left.

Bryancd said:

Wow, character disorder and a narcissit. Don't be too disappointed, but no one was waiting for your response.

Click to expand...

I agree with Jeyl, it's ok to not agree with his point of view but don't make it personal.

Take it from me: it's become very easy to ignore someone once you've realized they're twisting facts to suit theories rather than theories to suit facts.

Same as the first film? Is this a joke? Pulling a few locational parallels that belie the actual context if the new scenes does not reflect any structural similarities, of which there are NONE.

Don't feed the troll.

I went in looking for a fun action adventure film with some humor, and came out pleased. I'm not an expert on Star Trek or a super fan, but a general audience fan mostly from TGN, but I could see doing a reversal of the Wrath of Khan being a let down for hardcore fans?

When Khans shipped crashed in to Alcatraz, I instantly thought that may have been a reference to the canceled show, J.J did?

All it took to convince me that Admiral Marcus was a cold blooded bad guy was seeing the model of the NX-01 on his desk. No decent starfleet officer would ever showcase that ship if they wanted to convey a sense of peace and prosperity.

And yet "Enterprise" is my wife's favorite Trek and I am pretty sure she's not a militant.

I saw the film last night. All in all not bad, but at the same time there were a few things that got to me. The biggest problem I had was with the whole death scene being a complete rip off from TWOK. That one sequence pulled me completely out of the film. The line between homage and blatant rip off/ fanservice was crossed and cheapened the film. It felt forced and completely out of place as well. The plot was terribly predictable in many aspects and despite the claim that JJ rebooted to tell new stories doesn't wash as there were many times during the show that I thought, "I've seen this film before".

That being said the dialogue was snappy, I am liking the actors more and more, Scotty and McCoy are fantastic. The action was good and fun and I liked BC as the villan. Although I think the Gary Mitchell story would have made a more interesting feature instead of rushing to Khan right away. You know, the whole "Where no one has gone before" instead of "I've seen all this before".

I still think the writers are a bit lazy and that JJ has terrible taste in Starship aesthetics (the Klingon ships are just fugly). But over all I give the film 3.5 stars out of 5.

But more so than the film the thing that bugs me the most is how discussion becomes so polarized lately. The personal attacks for having a different opinion over a film sucks the enjoyment out of talking about them. People who like the film ( and it's not just Trek but most movies these days) just seem to take it way too personally and think that anyone who didn't like it, or parts of it, are somehow out of their minds and are open to being insulted and treated poorly. Yeah, people have different opinions, but liking or not liking something does not give one licence to treat others like crap. It's a movie, that's all. People have different tastes. Lets discuss these things without the personal attacks. Think about it, would you launch into a bunch of personal attacks and insult someones character, ancestry and intelligence because you like tomatoes and they don't? Probably not, at least not in public, you'd look like an ass, right? The same thing applies to personally attacking someone for their taste in pictures. It's just stupid and unnecessary. And it's also pretty Un-Trek, who's core message is unity.

I have no problem with anyone's opinion about the film, if anything I find them interesting even though they may not jibe with my own. I can certainly see, appreciate, and respect the other side of the coin. What I will not accept is those who constantly obfuscate perfectly reasonable conversations with pedantic and baiting arguments. I appreciate your sentiment, but you really had to be there to understand.

Bryancd said:

And yet "Enterprise" is my wife's favorite Trek and I am pretty sure she's not a militant.

Click to expand...

I was referring more towards Admiral Marcus' complete disregard of life.

Jeyl said:

I was referring more towards Admiral Marcus' complete disregard of life.

Click to expand...

By implying your personal bias towards "Enterprise" as being a Trek series based on violence. Like I said, obfuscating and baiting at the same time.

Bryancd said:

By implying your personal bias towards "Enterprise" as being a Trek series based on violence. Like I said, obfuscating and baiting at the same time.

Click to expand...

Who said anything about violence? Archer barely raised a finger when he condemned a whole race to extinction. NuKirk's actions in the opening that saved an entire planet and it's inhabitants is the exact opposite of what Archer had done, and these scroll worshipers didn't even ask for help.

Just saw it.

Awesome!

I think JJ will make Star Wars great again.

Spock rocks!

Just a little warning for everyone because this is my female portrayal rant.

Carol Marcus changing her clothes in the shuttlecraft was just face palm inducing. I think Alice Eve is certainly a person who can act, but even I wish someone on this production just took JJ back and said "Does the film really need this?". I can't think of a single reason other than to give Kirk a "Oh, that Kirk!" moment at her expense.

Also, JJ Abrams talked about this very scene in an interview he did a while ago.

JJ Abrams said:

"It's great to have these women in the movie and while Alice Eve's character gets down to her underwear, so does Kirk. There's equal opportunity flesh. But it's a critical thing for me that the female voice is center stage as the male voice."

Click to expand...

Kirk does not strip down to his underwear in that scene, nor in any other scene that I can recall. Could he be referring to the scene where he wakes up with the two female aliens that were in bed with him? Maybe, but it's a bad example for two reasons. First, despite showing Kirk getting out of bed, the camera stays focused on the two alien girls still laying in his bed with their underwear in plain sight. Second? It's a two to one ratio. That's not equal.