Now that people are starting to see it, hopefully we'll have a post where the bickering is based on, yknow, the movie that the post is about. (Sorry Zoo, I didn't wanna archive the 60+ replies of nonsense in the other joint.)

Comes out midnight May 15. bwood will put some horribly spoiler filled reply below. Just ignore it til you see it.

I for one cannot WAIT. (For the movie, not bwood's reply. Although I'm sure it'll be fine too.)

___________________________________________________________________________________
Voila, Magic.

I'll be goin in on this some more once I see it.

This weekends offerings were such a massive letdown after IM3.

We have Hangover 3 and Fast & Furious 6 opening the same week, which seems to have a massive overlay between the two audiences (I;m guessing it's about 85%) Now You See me opening opposite After Earth....... Nobody saw Gatsby opening this weekend and saw a huge opportunity?

A Marvel movie is supposed to launch summer blockbuster season, but this shit feels like February.

All of which makes my anticipation for this that much more painful, as it's (now, it was formerly #1) my #2 pick for the summer tent poles. I've read less than flattering things about it, but I am undeterred based on the nature those criticisms.

I'm hoping this will be one of the best movies of the summer. Everything I've read seems to point to The Man of Steel being the likely #1... so now I'm hoping this plays for second.

Early shows started at 8:00pm

The action kept going, had good humrous bits. I haven't seen Ironman so I won't compare the two in terms of May action flicks.

Def worth seeing. I am not a trekkie so I just dug it for a fun flick, didnt look deep into the universe.

First scene is dope tho.

As a reviewer stated on Salon this week, "the Abrams 'Star Trek' movies feel as if they didn’t just depict an alternate universe but were created in one – a universe in which the original 'Star Trek' was an action-adventure Marvel Comics title rather than a geeky, Enlightenment-saturated 1960s TV series. Start with that idea, and you can make sense of almost everything about 'Star Trek Into Darkness.'"

Now, that's true.

If you're the nitpicking type, you'll probably hate this movie. It's not really respectful of the canon in any meaningful way. It's taken the characters and settings of Star Trek and re-purposed them in much the way that happens to Sherlock Holmes every 15 years or so.

That said, I think this one captures the spirit of Star Trek MUCH better than the first one. It's a swashbuckling adventure. It's a story about friendship. It's somewhat allegorical. And all that while remaining a pretty great action movie. It sits comfortably in the set of movies alongside TWOK and First Contact, and it feels like someone took lessons from the second half of DS9's run on how to approach the nature of Starfleet itself.

I'm probably gonna go see it again this weekend on IMAX 3D, since I saw it on a regular screen this time around.

..be back with mine later


*skatin' the rings of saturn*

..and miles to go before i sleep...

I'm contemplating on whether or not to see @ IMAX. Is it Avengers/slapsticky status or more realistic?

Don't feel like wasting $$ if I don't have to.

Its ambition potentially makes some of its grander effects feel FXy, but I wasn't bothered in the slightest.

I can't fault anyone for their complaints here, as especially the first quarter or so had me scratching my head as to why characters were doing certain things, and things that seemed "highly illogical" were more or less accomplished by characters saying "well, that was unlikely."

Yet I didn't, in the grand scheme of the film, care. I was having a good time.

It's fast paced, engaging, fun, full of good dialogue, and the last half in particular is pretty terrific. Some of the action had me clutching my armrests.

Quinto and Cumberbatch are both outstanding. Pine gets it right, but I just can't get past how awesome both of those guys are.

There's a certain plot device that is starting to feel very tired (listeners of my podcast will know what I'm talking about)... but they find a twist on it that made it not bother me.

Nothing really matches the first ten minutes of the first film... but I was engaged, I laughed, and I was thrilled. That's all you can ask for in a summer blockbuster, honestly.

My full review here: http://www.examiner.com/review/star-trek-into-darkness-abrams-wrath-is-convoluted-but-consistently-fun

I appreciated the bit where Bones is injecting a tribble with blood that will cause enhanced cell regeneration.

anybody note that?

hah

Q: Who made the first joke about lens flares?

Pegg: Probably some film student who wanted to demonstrate his or her knowledge of film terminology, thus elevating themselves to an assumed level of critical superiority, which gave them the kind of smug, knowing smile that indicates a festering sour grape, fizzing in the pit of their own ambition. It’s become a sort of communal stick to have a crack at JJ with, mostly by people who didn’t know what the fuck lens flare was, until someone started sneering the term all over their blog. It demonstrates JJ’s supreme talent as a film maker that the main means of knocking him is to magnify a throw away artistic choice, into some sort of hilarious failing. Lens flare is essentially an anomaly caused by light hitting the lens and creating refracted shapes. Because it draws attention to the fact that we are looking at a filmed event, it actually creates a subliminal sense of documentary realism and makes the moment more vital and immediate. In the same way Spielberg spattered his shots with bloody seawater in Saving Private Ryan, JJ suggests that the moment we are in is so real and alive, there just isn’t time to frame out all the light and activity. The irony is by acknowledging the film’s artifice, you are enhancing the reality of the moment. It’s clever and I love it. On set we call it ‘best in show’ and our amazing director of photography, Dan Mindel has a special technique to achieve it. To the detractors, I offer a polite fuck you and suggest you find a new stick to beat us with, if being a huge, boring neggyballs is necessary for your personal happiness.

source: http://collider.com/simon-pegg-star-trek-into-darkness-interview/

well said Mr. Pegg

__________________________________________________________________________________
A No Rough Stuff Type Deal

Countless filmmakers have been using lens flare for decades. I never understood the complaint.

I have enjoyed all of Abrams' features as a director, and consider his association with lens flare mostly inconsequential. but it can be misused. and he's done it.

Godard used hand-held cams in Breathless, but that doesn't mean we have to like all shakycam shit that has come out since. and just because lens flare was awesome in Blade Runner doesn't mean Abrams couldn't reign his use in.

and to me, Pegg's response reads less like an attack on PTP and more like something a PTP critic might say.

I should have clarified. I feel Abrams successfully uses lens flare. as others have successfully used lens flare before him. I've never been bothered by it.

I've been bothered by things in his films. Just never that.

Half of the lens flare isn't even lens flare. It's just noise thrown up on the screen because JJ thinks it looks cool. And he throws it ALL OVER THE MOVIE. Alice Eve is trying to beg to her father and then a big smudge comes over her. It's ridiculous.

Those "lens flares' are caused by JJ actually shining a flashlight into the side of the camera.

I haven't seen this one yet, but the first one had way too many lens flares when people were just talking to one another. I felt they were there to keep the easily distracted occupied for the brief 10-12 minutes of dialog.

Edit: I re-read Pegg's thing - I guess he missed the point of Saving Private Ryan's cinematography. Speilberg didn't modify the orientation of the lens shutters, or shoot without film coating, or push the development of the film, or anything else for MOST OF THE MOVIE. During the action sequences yes, but not for most of the dialog.

i luh that shit.

V.

The lens flare in this film was ridiculous. Every supposedly emotional moment suddenly has a big purple mark over someone's face. It's a distracting silly gimmick that takes away from the film and that Abrams uses in a ridiculous fashion.

I got a laugh outta Pegg's answer...but he's wrong. The lens flares are meant to convey a sense of realism? Nope. They make the various sets look like a cartoon backdrop and it's impossible for the viewer to situate themselves 'in' the movie. It's just too noisy to keep track of where we're supposed to be and what's happening around us. The photography in the CSI series is another clear example. It's ridiculous. And will seriously date the look of the movies in later years.

----------------------------



O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "

~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~
You cannot hate people for their own good.

too many action scenes here run on a timer -- classically suspenseful, but overdone in this case. I also missed a sense of adventure. it's there during the two planetary trips, but the rest of the movie has generic set-ups which aren't even that smart (in a sci-fi sort of way).

most glaring, however, was the novelty of a reboot wearing off. callbacks that were fun the first time now seem hokey, and everyone outside of Kirk and Spock are hollow place-holders from the past.

the good part is that even with all those distractions, it's a well-paced, enjoyable couple of hours. it's just not great, or as impressive as the previous film.

>most glaring, however, was the novelty of a reboot wearing
>off. callbacks that were fun the first time now seem hokey,
>and everyone outside of Kirk and Spock are hollow
>place-holders from the past.

Carol Marcus serves no purpose, minus the delightful underwear shot. And the quotes from previous films started to feel forced... especially one ultra-famous one in a late moment in the film, where I was actually emotionally invested UNTIL the reference.

>the good part is that even with all those distractions, it's a
>well-paced, enjoyable couple of hours. it's just not great, or
>as impressive as the previous film.

The first ten minutes of the first one likely wont be topped, sadly. I'll still be in line for Star Trek 3, I just worry now that, despite how enjoyable I found this one to be, it does seem to hold the threat of diminishing returns. Although maybe Abrams will leave it in the hands of someone who can inject something new into the equation.

I appreciated what essentially was a remix of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (which I called in the other post, btw, and yes I'm taking credit)

Very, very plot-heavy movie. There was so much plot that I felt like it took away from the things that made the first film so interesting, like the relationship interplay between Spock and Uhura (or maybe I'm just remembering the first film through rose-colored glasses). We were given a taste of that personal interplay during the sequence when those two and Kirk were in the pod together, and it stuck out because it *seemed* like the first film had a bit more of that, and I missed it here.

I'm also not sure we needed the sequence where young Spock talks to old Spock about "Harrison." Not that the "surprise" of it killed any story momentum, it just felt superfluous, like someone said they had to throw some kind of bone to the old fans. Eh, this is a new era, and a new Trek. Maybe it would have worked had it come earlier in the movie?

The sequence with Kirk and "Harrison" hurtling through space to get to the other ship was fantastic... yes, we've seen it done before, but the editing of it was so crackerjack that it played really well.

I agree with Longo in that Cumberbatch and Zachary Quinto were really good and engaging. I'd like for them to find a way to incorporate him in further movies. Pine was cool, as was Zoe, and Simon Pegg was awesome as well. Kinda felt like Karl Urban phoned it in, like he was just resigned to doing a DeForest Kelley impersonation. It was also cool to see Peter "Buckaroo Banzai/The Original RoboCop" Weller get some major screen time, even if it was just an extended Dick Cheney (or was it Dick Jones?) riff...

Eh, I enjoyed myself.

__________________________________________________________________________________
A No Rough Stuff Type Deal

__________________________________________________________________________________
A No Rough Stuff Type Deal

30+ min of the film was shot with IMAX cameras, but its fake / post-converted 3D. Yet the IMAX version is only being released in 3D? Thats lame.

BC a bit too but I still enjoyed his performance for the most part

Pegg, Pine & Quinto were solid & so were the effects. Karl Urban kinda works as Funny Bones.

I started to doze off at one point but overall it's a pretty fun flick

And I thought I was disengaged from Iron Man 3. This one didn't even give you a chance because whenever there was a moment of real emotion or really any conflict, it was interrupted by a bunch of lens flare, Karl Urban doing his DeForrest Kelley impression, and/or some other lame joke. I mean, I liked the Bones stuff in the beginning but after a while it was like, "Enough!"

The film opens with Kirk and Spock apparently having regressed to having the exact same character flaws they supposedly overcame in the first film, which leads to Kirk losing his job for a whopping 8 minutes.

As usual, logic takes a backseat. Amazing photon torpedoes go from ultimate weapon to not being able to really make a dent on a ship when one is detonated next to 71 other ones. Bones has 71 other frozen bodies, he even brings one in to the medic bay... but then says he HAS to have Kahn's blood because he's apparently the most super of the super people. In a more nitpicky one, the United States's military preparedness has clearly diminished as a starship can come crashing into the Earth and nobody even bothers sending a few missiles at it to blow it up before it crashes into San Francisco.

Technically, I thought the action scenes weren't shot very well and the final 10 minutes or so was kind of a "Get to it already" since the life saving blood of Kahn was well established by then.

In the end, I get why people can enjoy it but I thought it was lame and I'm pretty much done with the Bad Robot crew (but hopefully Michael Arndt and Kathy Kennedy can save them from themselves

"big stuff" = general plot and conflict. All seemed pretty
solid.

"small stuff" = some of the character stuff. Kirk is already
annoying. Spock still good, tho.


Averaged out to a good movie, because the big stuff was more
good than the small stuff was bad.


Soulhonky's review is on point, though he thought less of it
than me

JJ's worst film by some distance. A lateral move at best for the franchise. I don't think you're going to get much repeat business with this one. That being said, he stills seems like a decent choice to make the new Star Wars IMO.

Surprised by a lot of the comments in this thread... I thought it was great and the scenes shot in IMAX were especially amazing.

It was a lot of fun, but there was too much action and too many winks. They tried really hard to help us compare it to a much better movie.

I'm looking forward to Abrams being busy with that other franchise, and curious what will happen for the 50th anniversary.

I really enjoyed myself and will be seeing it again today with my wife and sister in law. It was fun and well paced just like the first.

I loved the chemistry between Pine, Quinto, and Cumberbatch.
I loved the visuals despite a few moments of all-too-obvious green screen footage.
I like the flare effect personally.
I even dug another Nemoy cameo.

I enjoyed the moral pondering. I enjoyed Kirk's dilemma, ultimately deferring to Spock. Their relationship is a huge plus to this flick personally.

Two major gripes:

The lack of anything to do for the supporting characters outside of Scotty, who was excellent. In many ways this echoed the first one.

Uhura didn't do shit but cry and bicker with Spock, although that was fun. Like the first one, she serves to translate for one scene and that's about it.

SULU!!!! WTF!!! We couldn't get him going toe to toe with Johnny Kahn in another fencing extravaganza? I was bummed at that, even though he got a moment to flex. Just not enough Sulu for me.

The second major gripe is the villain twist I saw a mile away. The second his kid showed up on ship it was a wrap for how that was going to go. Harrison was great for what he had but the bait and switch at the end was a detriment IMO.

Personally, had Harrison remained the villain the entire time and attacked earth as a whole with some true WMD's instead of one bombing and a laughably weak assault on Star Fleet, I'd have been far more invested in bringing him down and the end would have been more satisfying.

I enjoyed it a great deal, but it fell well short of the potential offered by Kirk and Spock's relationship along with Harrison/Kahn's character.

>Uhura didn't do shit but cry and bicker with Spock, although
>that was fun. Like the first one, she serves to translate for
>one scene and that's about it.
>
>SULU!!!! WTF!!! We couldn't get him going toe to toe with
>Johnny Kahn in another fencing extravaganza? I was bummed at
>that, even though he got a moment to flex. Just not enough
>Sulu for me.

For the film's two minority characters to have so little to do was wildly disappointing. Especially when Sulu in particular was so badass in the first.

>The second major gripe is the villain twist I saw a mile away.
>The second his kid showed up on ship it was a wrap for how
>that was going to go. Harrison was great for what he had but
>the bait and switch at the end was a detriment IMO.

The delivery of the "twist" had no impact either, since it means nothing to any of the characters, and Abrams doesn't film it with the iconography one would hope for in a big Khan reveal. He should have a badass low-angle slow zoom or something.

The amount of disbelief you have to suspend to sit through this movie is daunting.

So we're back to the rebel, rogue Kirk who is demoted again only to be promoted again when the plot needs him to.

Chris Pine is not a strong actor. His deficiencies really showed in this film when he had to be emotionally engaging and convince the audience of such. Dude has a really limited range. The scenes with him and Cumberbatch are really lopsided, in particular when Kirk goes to question the detained "Khan".

Zach Quinto is actually one of the stronger actors here.....his Spock is pretty strong. But he was written way out of character in more than a few scenes. Particularly the incredibly wack ending.

Prime Spock is still around. WTF? So we just ask him meta questions about the old Star Trek? That's how this is going to go?

The supporting cast was given nothing to do but spout cliches and buffer the shitty interactions of other characters and the terrible plot points.

Soooooooooooo Star Fleet admirals can build "secret" ships that are massive and no one knows shit about it?

The Enterprise can just peace out and Star Fleet is none the wiser for what amounts to a "reconnaissance" mission to Klingon space to "capture" Khan.....but turns into a okey doke resulting in dead Klingons.

The Klingons do not return for retaliation later in the film. They were just used as a plot device to get Khan to explain why he is even in this movie.

The two "Enterprises" come barreling down to Earth as they are battling and once again....WHERE THE FUCK IS STAR FLEET.

The only thing that was great about this movie to me outside of a few decent performances was the futurism, particularly in London and San Francisco. Really cool to watch.

Spock hunts down Khan and takes him out. lol. Ok.

I have the same issues with this as I do with the first one. This is just a dumb ass script. Alternate timeline or not, not EVERYTHING is going to be this jarringly different and nonsensical. So much of this movie goes against the "modus operandi" of Star Trek and what the ideals and core of the "mission" is.

They continue to throw "winks" and "nods" to the "old" Star Trek but they are not honoring it as much as inadvertently mocking it.

To me that's lazy and it's insulting.

For entertainment purposes people who care nothing about that and can get past a lot of this making no sense will have a good time looking at a run of the mill action movie with weak exposition and uneven performances.

JJ Abrams is in over his head here. That is clear. He needs to move on to Star Wars so those fans can actually hold him to doing something right. Star Trek fans are some pussies.

because its not the old star trek. and not like the old shits were flawless. this movie opened doors for so many new fans to enjoy the franchise, instead of letting it wither and die. Truth be told, I was never a star trek fan. I discovered it way too late in life and found it boring. So yes its easy to write me off like some newcomer who doesn't understand and make an argument that these new films only appeal to non-fans. But the fact is, it was an exciting movie that opened so many doors to so many possibilities. One thing I did wish though was more of exploration. They set up the possibility of all these worlds and showed us a glimpse of that by the opening sequence and then later the klingon encounter. I did wish they would go in further. I don't see how people complain that it isn't a star trek film. If it was the same, wouldn't that be boring?

JJ Abrams said he found Star Trek to be boring. It is clear from watching these movies he doesn't get what made Star Trek what it was to so many fans. These Star Trek movies have a different appeal but they leave a lot to be desired for fans of the "prime" Star Trek.

Yes some of the older movies weren't great.......but they were in essence still Star Trek movies and they at least tried to adhere to certain essential Star Trek elements.

These movies make almost no sense whether they are a different timeline or not. Star Trek is based on exploration AND explanation. It is not unreasonable to expect a tighter script and more attention to be paid towards the science fiction aspects of the story. It is clear they they threw this stuff in the movie as an afterthought. Almost none of it makes any sense and the attention isn't paid to it that it should.

Beyond even the Star Trek purist disappointments........this was just not a good movie to me. It was boring and predictable. I can see how and why people would enjoy it though, and majority rules so it'll make money and people will by and large call this a good movie.

but then you said that JJ found old star trek movies boring. I am writing with no snark, I honestly truly must not "get" what the star trek aesthetic is all about. I tried watching the old films, shows etc and I don't get it. You speak of exploration and explanation, but when I watch older films, all i see is focused stories that move at a very slow pace. I am not ruling out that I'm missing something, i most likely am, but I GET what JJ was doing with this. And I agree with him. what I don't get is people jumping to criticize so quickly that its not the same. OF COURSE it isnt the same. How can it be? its a different vision, different cast, different writers. And im ok with that, its an art form where one defines their own expression rather than trying to copy another. Look at james bond. Even a film with such dry standards and minimal changes in its feel in its entire run managed to step out of bounds. People seem to have a hard time to adapt to the changes (i am guilty of that regarding some other franchises) but honestly, these last 2 treks breathed much needed life into the franchise. Maybe you don't llike where it went, and maybe you are right to do so, since i clearly don't understand, but for me and people like myself. of whom there are many, this was a very intriguing look into the universe that might have me just curious enough to look more into its history

There's people who find the old Star Trek boring and this new shit is way more boring to me than that every was because I could at least see the merit in what they were doing before.

People simply have different sensibilities and perceptions of what they deem to be quality material and what isn't. You, on the other hand, are waaaaay too emotionally attached to the old guard to be remotely objective about the new ones.

What's the problem with being "attached" to something and respecting it? They don't give a fuck about me being objective here.

Me being objective is walking in expecting there to be some continuity and some substance that lets me know I'm sitting in a Star Trek movie and not some wack fuckin redux.

It's not just the fact that it's redone that is pissing me off with these movies......it's the blatant disregard for the Star Trek ethos and any kind of attention to detail when it comes to the structure of the "universe" that has been built over the last 40+ years.

I find it really telling and kind of pathetic that people aren't more willing to call this what it is if they know better. They are so passive about seeing some big budget makeover for this shit that they are cool with the essence of the franchise being shitted on.

This is the problem with a lot of stuff nowadays. People are not willing to take a stand for something. They can throw all the money they want at this and sensationalize it but until they actually sit down and actually pay attention to what Star Trek was and can still be then they will be doing a disservice to one of the most important science fiction franchises in our history. These scripts are really bad and you can tell these writers didn't give a fuck about going back and researching this material before they wrote these movies.

It's sad that we don't even ask for more than this out of one our really beloved franchises.

I've never been a person to sit idly and just let myself accept something that I KNOW could be done better and should be. I'm sorry that it's easy for some people. That's fine. I'm not telling anyone not to go see this.....but I am telling them that I don't care for it and I'm giving them specific reasons.

>What's the problem with being "attached" to something and
>respecting it? They don't give a fuck about me being objective
>here.

I said that you're too attached to be objective. Whether or not they care is immaterial to that fact.

>Me being objective is walking in expecting there to be some
>continuity and some substance that lets me know I'm sitting in
>a Star Trek movie and not some wack fuckin redux.

LOL

Again, you want it to be the same. It's not. You're emotionally compromised and thus cannot present an objective perspective. You are not objectively viewing these movies and you've proven that several times.

>It's not just the fact that it's redone that is pissing me off
>with these movies......it's the blatant disregard for the Star
>Trek ethos and any kind of attention to detail when it comes
>to the structure of the "universe" that has been built over
>the last 40+ years.

LOL alrighty then. Like I said... you want it to be the old Star Trek. It's just not.

>I find it really telling and kind of pathetic that people
>aren't more willing to call this what it is if they know
>better. They are so passive about seeing some big budget
>makeover for this shit that they are cool with the essence of
>the franchise being shitted on.

The "essence" isn't being shit on. That's you being emotional and nothing more. Again, your #1, 2, and 3 issues are that it hasn't taken a strict approach to "stay true" to the old work.

>This is the problem with a lot of stuff nowadays. People are
>not willing to take a stand for something.

We're talking about a summer tentpole science fiction movie based on a series that started out as a cheesy show in the 60's that was pitched as a western in space and almost didn't make it before getting canceled after three seasons because of low ratings.

This is not about political, social, and economic issues that plague our society. We're talking about a movie.

So please, take your "nobody wants to stand for something!" rhetoric elsewhere. We're talking about a MOVIE. There's nothing to "stand for". It's not that serious- despite the fact that *you* clearly are, for someone who says he isn't a trekkie.

They can throw all
>the money they want at this and sensationalize it but until
>they actually sit down and actually pay attention to what Star
>Trek was and can still be then they will be doing a disservice
>to one of the most important science fiction franchises in our
>history.

There's no such thing as an "important" work of fiction. Influential perhaps, enjoyable sure, but important? That's one of the worst ways to describe any work of art.

>These scripts are really bad and you can tell these
>writers didn't give a fuck about going back and researching
>this material before they wrote these movies.

You know what? Fuck the original material. I hope they buttfuck the Star Trek carcas- because that's what it was before this reboot- for another 8 films exactly like this, just to piss off whiny people like you. The script could be GREAT, but if it didn't strictly adhere to the original, you'd still hate it.

>I've never been a person to sit idly and just let myself
>accept something that I KNOW could be done better and should
>be. I'm sorry that it's easy for some people. That's fine.
>I'm not telling anyone not to go see this.....but I am telling
>them that I don't care for it and I'm giving them specific
>reasons.

Cool story.

"There's no such thing as an "important" work of fiction. Influential perhaps, enjoyable sure, but important? That's one of the worst ways to describe any work of art."

This is one of the dumbest things I have ever read. EVER. Yes there is a such thing. There is art that challenges us to think differently and in some cases to feel differently about immediate issues in our lives. Star Trek and X-Men are both examples of art taking the social issues of an era and making a strong commentary about where we could be as people and what happens when we persecute others.

Art allows us to expand our scope of existence and capabilities beyond what we have and what we are currently and that is HUGELY important. IMPORTANT.

Importance is a term of value vs. worth. Art falls right into the category of what this means to different people. While someone may see the intrinsic and transcendent value in something, to someone else it isn't worth anything except it's monetary appeal. Value is different things to different people. This is why art is important though. Occasionally we are given things that push our boundaries as people and we can appreciate the value of that art AND show it's worth without requiring that it be changed to try and gain it's worth at the expense of it's value.

You are going to have some smartass, bullshit response to this. Carry on.

>This is one of the dumbest things I have ever read. EVER.
>Yes there is a such thing. There is art that challenges us to
>think differently and in some cases to feel differently about
>immediate issues in our lives. Star Trek and X-Men are both
>examples of art taking the social issues of an era and making
>a strong commentary about where we could be as people and what
>happens when we persecute others.

Those are great things. Important? LOL.

>Art allows us to expand our scope of existence and
>capabilities beyond what we have and what we are currently and
>that is HUGELY important. IMPORTANT.

Art, as a whole, is important.

There is no single work of art that is important, in and of itself.

Food, shelter, human affections, family, these things are important. financial stability is important.

A fucking movie is not.

Your precious Old School Star Trek is no more important in the grand scheme of things than you are.

>Importance is a term of value vs. worth. Art falls right into
>the category of what this means to different people.

Cool. You overvalue the shit out of Star Trek, especially for someone who supposedly isn't a trekdork.

>someone may see the intrinsic and transcendent value in
>something, to someone else it isn't worth anything except it's
>monetary appeal. Value is different things to different
>people. This is why art is important though. Occasionally we
>are given things that push our boundaries as people and we can
>appreciate the value of that art AND show it's worth without
>requiring that it be changed to try and gain it's worth at the
>expense of it's value.
>
>You are going to have some smartass, bullshit response to
>this. Carry on.

Like the bullshit you just posted?

LOL

I hope Star Trek gets fucking lightsabers in the next one. I hope they hand this shit off to Michael Bay and he manages to throw some shit in there that will give Ewoks a run for their money. I hope he adds skating Transformers. Just to piss you off.

You're just trollin at this point.

Knowing how you feel that these filmmakers have zero respect for the original franchise

And also knowing how much you didn't like the last film

I'm wondering why you went to go see this anyway. It's not like the Bad Robot team said that this film would respectfully honor the original series and pay homage to the fans of it, or note that they were changing things up creatively from the last film. It's the exact same people making the movie as last time.

So again, not to pick on you or pile on (because frankly more than a few people here do this same type of shit and it's kinda annoying when they do), but I'm really wondering why you even bothered to spend your money on this. And I'm not buying, "I wanted to see it because I wanted to have an open mind," either.

__________________________________________________________________________________
A No Rough Stuff Type Deal

I never wanna be that guy. So I went and it was as bad as I thought it would be.

Again, there was no indication given that creatively, this movie was going to be markedly different than the first one which you hated so much

Why even bother with this if you knew that the same people who were behind something you disliked so much would behind this one as well?

_________________________________________________________________________________
A No Rough Stuff Type Deal

You already hated it before you saw it.

You saw it to say you saw it so people couldn't call bullshit on your hate.

lol.

Incredible set pieces and dramatic scenes with very sharp writing...but the character development, particularly for Khan, left a lot to be desired.

Enjoyable for what it is but nothing that really stuck with me. Doesn't compare to the first.

My friend and I laughed hard when they revealed that all that technology to teleport people and things: Yet it can't tell the difference between a human being and a goddamn torpedo.

i'm out.
_____________________
"WHOLESALE REUSABLE GROCERY BAGS!!"
@etfp

So you've hidden all of your friends in live torpedos. Mistake #1.

You can scan your enemy's ship and even entire planets for lifeforms, but not a torpedo?
The only way to open it up is to disarm it by... ripping something out?
All that does is reveal to cryotube within... but Bones gets all of those tubes out whole?
How do they have the time to take apart and put back together all 72?
Furthermore, how do they put back in the things they ripped out to open the torpedos in the first place?
Furthermore, how do they time the torpedos, which have a 30 second countdown initially, to all being activated precisely before Khan beams them on board?
Are these torpedos now just hollow shells with a warhead attached?
AREN'T THESE MISSILES, SINCE TORPEDOS ARE TO BE PROPELLED UNDERWATER?!

I really liked it too, but I'll be goddamned if ANY of that shit makes a lick of sense, lmao.

Shit like this is why these movies are an embarrassment to Star Trek. They gave no fucks about any of the science being even remotely believable.

>They gave no fucks about any of the science being
>even remotely believable.

Star Trek II was about a torpedo that you could shoot at a planet that would disassemble it, and then re-assemble it as an Earth-like planet, and Star Trek III hinged on Spock somehow getting caught up in the vortex and being re-generated as a rapidly-aging kid, who somehow stopped aging rapidly just because he was off the planet.

Star Trek IV allowed the crew to go back in time by, um, whipping around the sun really fast.

And let's not even get into the physical inconsistencies in the zero-grav scenes in Star Trek VI. Or into Star Trek V at all.

NONE OF THE SCIENCE IN STAR TREK IS REMOTELY BELIEVABLE.

Now, that said, there's plenty of room for hate for Star Trek Into Darkness. But not taking science as "seriously" as the rest of the franchise? I'ma go with.............NO.

>
>Star Trek IV allowed the crew to go back in time by, um,
>whipping around the sun really fast.
>

WITH GIANT HUMPBACK WALES IN TRANSIT

>
>>
>>Star Trek IV allowed the crew to go back in time by, um,
>>whipping around the sun really fast.
>>
>
>WITH GIANT HUMPBACK WALES IN TRANSIT




~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~
You cannot hate people for their own good.

Spock asked for the doctor's help in modifying the torpedoes. The doctor said he was a doctor not a whatever. Spock said he needs him *because* he's a doctor. Presumably it was the doctor's job to come up with convincing fake life signs.

definitely most entertaining movie I've seen this year.

There may be a few inconsistencies in the plot but it's a summer action movie, it was fun and that's all that really matters.

far from perfect. But for what it was I really enjoyed it.

I dunno if anyone else noticed, but I saw it in 2D and really didn't spot the lens flare / find it annoying.

what I specifically did not like this time around is how "kirk hanging off of ledges" was replaced in this movie by "tight shot to character talking OMG UNEXPECTED EXPLOSION / IMPACT"

you can't do that shit repeatedly in the same movie so many times it actually becomes expected.

http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

I didn't mind em the first time tho

>I dunno if anyone else noticed, but I saw it in 2D and really
>didn't spot the lens flare / find it annoying.

>what I specifically did not like this time around is how "kirk
>hanging off of ledges" was replaced in this movie by "tight
>shot to character talking OMG UNEXPECTED EXPLOSION / IMPACT"
>
>you can't do that shit repeatedly in the same movie so many
>times it actually becomes expected.

i'm checking out of the marvel franchise. iron man was great, 2, 3, and avengers weren't. i'm done, though it'll take some willpower not to see the wolverine in japan flick.

jj and star trek have made some incredibly beautiful music together. both movies have been great. like, legitimately great. only gripe is that i'm not sure why they bothered killing kirk, since no one believes they'd do that, plus the solution was so obvious. otherwise, i loved it. cumberbatch killed it. love the lens flare, hope jj never lets the trolls talk him out of it.

in other news, my hopes for the new star wars flick just got impossibly high. i could see it reaching episode 1 hype levels by 2015.

So do 72 frozen bodies.
But other than that I enjoyed it.


"Your current frequencies of understanding outweigh that which has been given for you to understand." Saul Williams

*
*
*
* I'm Gone! Hollaaaaa!

http://io9.com/star-trek-into-darkness-the-spoiler-faq-508927844

is how they cured death and treated it like an afterthought.

If someone sent this script out as a spec, it would get ripped to pieces and probably not make it past the mailroom.

SPOILERS






























































Khan was so sympathetic to the point where he wasn't even a villain. Which is fine, except it's like it wasn't on purpose, because it felt like to me they barely acknowledged.


Yeah Kirk did what he could to help him, but I still feel like they tried to play him as this supreme bad guy, especially at the end. And they did so much to hammer home the similarities between the two and their situation, "What would you do to protect your family?", that it would be nice if the actual movie itself showed some remorse.

Halfway through the movie, I was like Oh, it's all gonna take place in this one area? So that guy's the main bad guy? Nope! It's still him!

I wasn't mad about it @ all but I did think it was a bit forced

http://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie-talk/damon-lindelof-admits-gratuitous-star-trek-strip-scene-171222662.html

his track record of breaking character continuity or plausibility is well-known. Paramount bringing him in to "fix" World War Z is an ominous sign.

...I'm still gonna pass on that one

Characters secondary, visuals and "moments" first.

Part of being a great set piece guy IMO is fitting the set piece logically into the story. And, honestly, I'm not sure of many set pieces that he's conjured up that were all that memorable.

And while I have no idea what precisely he wrote in Prometheus and STID, both have memorable set pieces IMO.

A PG-13 movie aimed at young males has a woman in her drawls for all of 5 seconds? STOP THE PRESSES

__________________________________________________________________________________
A No Rough Stuff Type Deal

Truth be told I was hoping to see a little more from Alice but I digress

.

http://www.slashfilm.com/what-fast-furious-6-could-teach-star-trek-into-darkness-about-half-naked-women/

Nevermind that her fine milky white titties (it was barely 5 seconds) was in the goddamn trailer was just...c'mon.

i'm out.
_____________________
"WHOLESALE REUSABLE GROCERY BAGS!!"
@etfp

5 seconds of underwear to put into the trailer and Super Bowl ads.

I've even seen films put in the trailer and then cut that scene from the film later, lol.

It's totally blatant and unnecessary, but very common practice, and I'd be wildly surprised if there wasn't some pressure from on high put on Abrams to put an underwear scene in the film.

The point I guess is the anger shouldn't be so much lobbied at Abrams but at the studio system in which he operates.

Personally, I think this was just a complaint that became a "controversy" because Lindleof responded to it. Yes, it was about as hamfisted of a "We need some titties in there" shot as there could be but those shots aren't rare in film. (Although the obvious place to get that trailer shot was the scene of Pine in bed with the two ladies; that way you don't make your weapons expert somewhat inexplicably strip down. Or, at least, have Pine strip down as well so it's not as random.)

A pointless, gratuitous underwear shot wasn't too surprising when Alice Eve's entire role was fairly pointless to begin with. If you can accept that, after two major terrorist attacks, someone can sneak onto a top secret mission easier than it takes to get through TSA right now, then I'm not sure why her randomly stripping is a surprise. Lindleof and Co. eschew plot logic all the time; not sure why people expected it when it came to boobs.

>Personally, I think this was just a complaint that became a
>"controversy" because Lindleof responded to it. Yes, it was
>about as hamfisted of a "We need some titties in there" shot
>as there could be but those shots aren't rare in film.
>(Although the obvious place to get that trailer shot was the
>scene of Pine in bed with the two ladies; that way you don't
>make your weapons expert somewhat inexplicably strip down. Or,
>at least, have Pine strip down as well so it's not as
>random.)
>
>A pointless, gratuitous underwear shot wasn't too surprising
>when Alice Eve's entire role was fairly pointless to begin
>with. If you can accept that, after two major terrorist
>attacks, someone can sneak onto a top secret mission easier
>than it takes to get through TSA right now, then I'm not sure
>why her randomly stripping is a surprise. Lindleof and Co.
>eschew plot logic all the time; not sure why people expected
>it when it came to boobs.

and note it was a fully aware scene very tongue in cheek(y)
and smacked liberally of the history of JTK/William Shatner galavanting around the universe humping blue women


ie why are we complaining now?
its part of the history
i find it amusing when done like this
a very clear stated irreverence
~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~
You cannot hate people for their own good.

You guys are dweebs

Rj - I'm mad at you bro, this movie was fun


----------------------------



O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "

While there are some nerdy complaints about Into Darkness (I guess if you call knowing that cold fusion doesn't actually freeze things or that there wasn't a eugenics war in the 1990's), I think most of this shit is basic plausibility and nonsense ala the problems with The Dark Knight Rises. I mean, they one upped the world's greatest knee brace by curing death.

As for the most nitpicked movie, After Earth's trailer alone got nerdier complaints than this one and I think more critics/haters are looking to bash M. Night than JJ.

>While there are some nerdy complaints about Into Darkness (I
>guess if you call knowing that cold fusion doesn't actually
>freeze things or that there wasn't a eugenics war in the
>1990's), I think most of this shit is basic plausibility and
>nonsense ala the problems with The Dark Knight Rises. I mean,
>they one upped the world's greatest knee brace by curing
>death.

Nah

Dark Knight/Rises were just awful

Both took place on earth, too, allegedly

Joker's teleportation powers
The random jail in bangladesh
the magic knee brace
Bruce Wayne invading countries

Nah

>As for the most nitpicked movie, After Earth's trailer alone
>got nerdier complaints than this one and I think more
>critics/haters are looking to bash M. Night than JJ.

Oh, obviously

But that's to be expected...its not nerdy, though

Its mad at M. Night and Willy, which can take on a
nerdy face but isn't really nerdy

Y'all are in here crying about camera lenses, shit that
no one that you can't care about if you're a cool dude
who hangs out with crews and represents

The best is: "Good movie, bad Star Trek movie"

Wait...what?



----------------------------



O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "

>The random jail in bangladesh

if this is referring to the actual jail... what's the problem? if this is referring to how he gets back with no resources... who cares? he's fucking batman (and he did the same thing in BB, which you triumph as a cinematic masterpiece just to bring down the other two).

>Bruce Wayne invading countries

lol @ you thinking this is the first time batman has snuck up on someone.

now the kiss... that was bullshit.

>The best is: "Good movie, bad Star Trek movie"
>
>Wait...what?

Whenever anyone gripes about silliness in the Star Trek universe (and God, how they do), it's like they've forgotten that THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST ICONIC SCENES IN STAR TREK HISTORY: http://youtu.be/4SK0cUNMnMM

And I love Star Trek (and the above scene). But some of these nerds need to come the hell on.

That shit was silly and goofy even back in the day

Mother_Established was a nerdy black chick from the hood,
man...she schooled me on that back in the day


----------------------------



O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "

Nerdgers are gonna lose their mind over that one

Watch

So a tiny sliver of Kryptonite in the room weakens him... but he somehow lifts A WHOLE FUCKING ISLAND LACED WITH A SHITLOAD OF KRYPTONITE? Hmph.

Logic was the least of my concerns with that one

I do recall smh @ that scene tho

It should be the standard that films are held up to. Obviously, films won't always be perfect but when stupid shit happens, then it should be called stupid rather than the people who point it out being called nerdy.
However, if Star Trek's only problem was thinking that cold fusion freezes things and people acted like it ruined the movie, then I could see the nerdy complaint.

>However, if Star Trek's only problem was thinking that cold
>fusion freezes things and people acted like it ruined the
>movie, then I could see the nerdy complaint.

Even though I enjoyed it much more than you, I can see the problems with the film: the overplotting, the inconsistency and underdevelopment of character, etc.

But assuming all of those problems were remedied, I would never give a second thought to something like a cold fusion bomb, because I would've filed it under "this is the future, and maybe that shit exists now," and I would've filed the whole hare-brained scheme with the volcano under "Kirk is a reckless motherfucker and always has been." And so forth. It's not like the movie spent the whole story building up the idea that a cold fusion bomb can't exist, so I just accept it. Is it silly? Of course. But I don't mind at all.

Superman Returns has more problems than the Kryptonite island, for sure. But since they spent the entire film showing JUST how weak kryptonite makes him, for him to suddenly be able to lift an island made of it was blatantly shattering what you had spent the entire movie building up. I could ignore all sorts of logic problems inherent in a Superman film (how he doesn't just crush most of the things he tries to lift or fly into, and so forth)... but once they shatter the world they've built, then THAT's what sends me on a big nerd tirade about littler things that otherwise I could buy.

I don't think my Kryptonite island complaint is nerdy... but it certainly sets off a chain reaction in me that leads to crazy nerdy complaints.

"You don't belong here...but you must find your DESTINY!!!"

Movie is gonna be awful

----------------------------



O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "

and by far i mean not even close.

should've actually listened to okp this time. i reeeaaaally want my 2.5 hrs and $40 back.

shit was basically a homoerotic emo-fest in space. every other scene is a CU of some man crying, then 10 minutes later it's a man beating another man's face in, then back to the crying. then a few explosions and laser blasts thrown in.

not sure how much the studio set aside for internet payola, but it must be a considerable amount.

i'm hoping this is simply an anomaly in JJ's otherwise solid track record.

nm

I don't get all the hate. Gfx were cool (lens flare aside). Music worked out. Good times.

someone made the point of "JUST GET TO IT ALREADY" on giving kirk the injection we all knew he was gonna get. Sulu and Uhura definitely should have had more to do given how long the movie was, but I enjoyed the performances of Kirk, Spock, and Khan a lot. Much stronger villain than the first one, but that was really the only improvement.

~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~
You cannot hate people for their own good.

Well done! What a blast that was. Delivered the goods on every level.
Believable character motivations (well, at minimum it HAD character motivations, which is more than I can say for certain summer blockbuster flicks I've seen so far this year). Excellent cast n performances. Gorgeous visuals in both the 'special effects' sense and in the 'directors choice of shots/perspective' sense. We really loved it. Going to see it again for sure. (It was nice to get the bland empty taste of iron man 3 out of our mouths). Well done JJ and crew! (It was so enjoyable that my wife was even willing to overlook the fact that David Lindeloff was kinda involved :)

>(It was nice to get the bland empty taste of
>iron man 3 out of our mouths).

funny, i have the exact opposite opinion of both films.

>>(It was nice to get the bland empty taste of
>>iron man 3 out of our mouths).
>
>funny, i have the exact opposite opinion of both films.

Really? Thats why theres Chocolate and vanilla I suppose. I really WANTED to love ironman3, I really did. (Iron Man 1 is still one of my favorite flicks ever) ..but unfortunately, my wife and I both left ironman3 kinda shrugging our shoulders. I mean, one way I personally gauge how good a movie is or isn't to me is how much I think about it afterwards. Memorable scenes, situations, surprises? unexpected moods, tones, textures? Does anything 'linger' with me?

With ironman3, I'm sad to say, nothing did really. While watching it, I chuckled here and there, but for me it lacked something to hold on to. I didn't feel any 'heart and soul' in it. It felt heavy on presentation, light on guts. Now, to be clear, I don't want to give the impression that I had an AWEFUL time at IM3 , because I didn't. I had a decent ok time. But it's just, nothing stuck with me. It didn't feel like a real meal, it felt...well it felt like popcorn. Not a fully satisfying meal, but more like an easy to consume snack that, while not awful or anything, it's nevertheless something that is predictably generic easy to get anywhere and ultimately forgettable. A coworker said this to me...'I felt like I was watching a transformers movie'....and you know what , I thought that was pretty on point with how I felt afterwards too. Which is unfortunate to me, because, as I said before, the first iron man flick still ranks as one of my favorite 'blockbuster' flicks ever. That one had action and stuff...but also had enough heart n soul to make me feel satisfied in the end.

To be fair, when I saw iron man 3 it was a late show and I was tired, so I'm gonna see it again, just to make sure my weariness didn't play into my ambivalent take, so we'll see...but I'm pretty sure my first take was accurate. But like I said, we'll see on second viewing....

With trek though, I left this first viewing right out of the gate feeling pretty exhilarated and excited...recalling great scenes both grand and subtle, cool moments and deliveries by certain actors, there was humor, actual tension (in both the 'action' sense of tension and in the 'emotional' sense of tension too.....it just 'stuck' with me. Was it perfect? Nah. But based on one viewing each...it absolutely stuck with me in a way that IM3 definitely did not....

enjoyable somewhat

but my god these action movies are all the same

im not really invested in the Trekverse n just loosely followed the mythos over time. but i really enjoyed the 2009 reboot and this followed on in the same vein. no complaints.

i never seen any of the films either so the history is lost on me cept for the name. as someone in that category, i had a blast.

V.

I only went because my lady wanted to see it. Lots o' fights and explosions. Lots o' plot holes and head scratchers. Left the theater shaking my head, but not surprised one bit. I would have preferred to stay home and re-watch Pitch Black to save money. I was entertained, but equal amounts disdainful. I can't say I was disappointed because I expected it to be lame.

No need to say otherwise. It was Star Trek into Dumbness. I literally felt dumber after watching this shit because they were trying to actually make me buy into shit that didn't make any sense as a weak scripted, weak acted popcorn movie posing as a Star Trek movie. At least Fast and the Furious knows what it is.

and thats cool

but you seem REALLY upset by this.

And just summarizing your major gripes (from what I can gather)-


Can you tell me what Star Trek movies I missed? Because the way you talk about Star Trek movies, I must have missed some really important ones.

Which ones didn't ignore science??

Which ones didn't have plot holes??

Which ones didn't try to be action movies (and made money)??

Which ones had this grand statement to make?? The one with the whales or whatever??

Which ones didn't have bad acting? (or do Trekkies like to think William Shatner is a good actor still?)


There are definitely flaws in this new movie, but there are literally no flaws that aren't also present in several other Star Trek movies.

None.

You are really looking back at your childhood or whatever with rose colored glasses on.

You have made up your mind that is was/is going to be bad because its not what you grew up with.

Thats fine, but at least own it.

.......based on walking into to it as a Star Trek fan. That is all.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement. I can't speak on the old ones because I only saw one or two of them as a kid. But for fans of the various ST television series, this movie has very little to offer.

>
>and thats cool
>
>but you seem REALLY upset by this.
>
>And just summarizing your major gripes (from what I can
>gather)-
>
>
>Can you tell me what Star Trek movies I missed? Because the
>way you talk about Star Trek movies, I must have missed some
>really important ones.
>
>Which ones didn't ignore science??
>
>Which ones didn't have plot holes??
>
>Which ones didn't try to be action movies (and made money)??
>
>Which ones had this grand statement to make?? The one with the
>whales or whatever??
>
>Which ones didn't have bad acting? (or do Trekkies like to
>think William Shatner is a good actor still?)
>
>
>There are definitely flaws in this new movie, but there are
>literally no flaws that aren't also present in several other
>Star Trek movies.
>
>None.
>
>You are really looking back at your childhood or whatever with
>rose colored glasses on.
>
>You have made up your mind that is was/is going to be bad
>because its not what you grew up with.
>
>Thats fine, but at least own it.
>
>

from perfect.

So when I hear or read people get in arms about how this isn't a good Star Trek movie

I have to point out that by the same standards, none of them were then.

Because I missed the Star Trek movie that was true to science (hahaha), had great acting by every player, had no plot holes, didn't try to be an action movie, had thise huge social/political/human statement to make, etc.

Yeah Kahn beamed to the Klingong home world.

But Spock died and was resurrected by a magic planet maker and by possessing McCoy with his ghost.

you could go on and on.

And the complaints I'm reading (and hearing) aren't comparing this to the TV shows, its comparing them to these other Star Trek movies- some people have seemingly put these things on a pedastal

>Yeah Kahn beamed to the Klingong home world.
>
>But Spock died and was resurrected by a magic planet maker and
>by possessing McCoy with his ghost.

Just say that and KIM from now on.

Look at the previews, and Abrams' track record. WTF did you expect? Anyone acting mad or disappointed is delusional. We all knew exactly what this movie was going to be.


>Just say that and KIM from now on.

But this level of outrage from a guy who claimed he ISN'T a card-carrying Trekkie is wierd.... but still hilarious.

Humor, danger, suspense, great effects

only few complaints like Spock would have been toast in the beginning and no mention of those who died falling out of the Enterprise, war ship conveniently being ready just now

the warp speed(s) was great, the crash, the playfulness between them all, Klingons..the pt II throwbacks...

now we can do the exploring part in the next that you yahoos are crying about...and Im sure a war has started with them 'Ons now

It's weird because I absolutely loved the first one, so I cant remember if that one had the same issue, but here it was so glaring. Maybe cause I was reading some feminist literature previous to watching, but all of the female and most of the minorities (cept Sulu) could have been replaced by lamps and they would filled the same purpose of simply being background noise.

with just a hand cannon and gat was worth the price of admission.

Dude was in God Mode.

i'm so behind on this sumemr's blockbusters. but anyway.

this movie had better character development and interaction than the first. maybe its because we're more familiar with them now, but still. getting to know more of the Enterprise crew was great. I have a lot more appreciation of Scotty and Bones. Kahn was a much more interesting and memorable villain than the Romulans were in P1.

spock and uhura's kiss was excessively long and unnecessary. the original shows never got too wrapped up into crew relationships and emotions, so it was kind of annoying, but hey, that's what people want in a blockbuster. a little bit of everything except really smart shit.

**spoilers**

the logistics of the film were fine up except for Kahn managing to kill all the Klingons and going untouched. Yeah he's super human but not indestructabe (spock and uhura can subdue him but not hundreds of klingons coming in from all angles?) ...and when they had to save Captain Kirk's life. idk they had to get kahn back to save him, they had 72 other genetically superior bodies in stasis to use, plus possibly even the tribble. i guess kahns blood was already tested and stuff but it was still a bit much.

we know the 3rd movie is going to have more of kahn and probably his "family" breaking out of stasis. i'd be surprised if it didn't involve him. still want a tv series to spawn from this revival of the star trek franchise, but its highly unlikely. i'll still watch the movies, if that's all a trek fan can get.

It rocked and annoyed at the same time. I can easily understand why hard line (or even moderately so) Trekkies would be mad, as there were some really gratuitous and unnecessary references here. To be honest, it didn't need to be a remix at all; with a few tweaks the characters brought in could stand on their own as originals. I'm not sure what was more maddening, the call to Prime or the random furball that just happened to be laying around. Bah to that

But on the flipside, the movie was very well paced. After the building got shot up things pretty much took off in a rather enjoyable fashion. The action set pieces looked fantastic (especially in IMAX)

It was okay, entertaining. I enjoyed the first movie more, a little too many references to old stuff that seemed an attempt at fan service but probably was not necessary, especially the reverse Wrath of Khan scene.

it was made me start thinking about how almost everything else didn't make any sense.










>Now that people are starting to see it, hopefully we'll have
>a post where the bickering is based on, yknow, the movie that
>the post is about. (Sorry Zoo, I didn't wanna archive the 60+
>replies of nonsense in the other joint.)
>
>Comes out midnight May 15. bwood will put some horribly
>spoiler filled reply below. Just ignore it til you see it.
>
>I for one cannot WAIT. (For the movie, not bwood's reply.
>Although I'm sure it'll be fine too.)
>
>


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"