• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Star Trek into Darkness |OT| Not very tired at all

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dead said:
That Cucumber guy is pretty amazing though. Never seen him in anything before, but his screen presence is incredible.
Click to expand...

You should watch Sherlock - he is just as good in that.

dummydecoy said:
Nitpick: How the hell did Khan
survive multiple stun blasts from Neytiri when he fell with just one
the first time?
Click to expand...

The first time was to the back of the head, wasn't it? And even then, I suppose he could have used it as a tactical advantage, knowing attention would be off him.
 
dummydecoy said:
Was late and missed the first 5 minutes of the film. FUCK. I might have to see it again just for that.
Anyway, movie was awesome. I hope the third one wraps up nicely so we get a nice triology.

Nitpick: How the hell did Khan
survive multiple stun blasts from Neytiri when he fell with just one
the first time?
Click to expand...

Wasn't he faking it the first time?
 
Tellaerin said:
I enjoyed the movie myself, but I have to agree with Dax01 on this one. Science fiction, even of the pewpew lazers variety, should at least pay lip service to highschool-level science. (Hell, sf games like Mass Effect do it!) Trek shouldn't be "My Little Starship: Science Is Magic".
Click to expand...

eh, I don't know, I pick my battles with that one. If I was watching something like Moon, it would be a huge break, but for stuff along the lines of Star Wars I don't pay it much attention. I get that Trek used to be more of the former, which is maybe why some of the diehards found the 09 movie so jarring, but at this point I'd think people should know what to expect from JJ's ideas about sci-fi.
 
Hex said:
Not talking about "them" as in people in the movie. I am talking about people in threads, fans and people talking about the movie and Trek in general.
Click to expand...

Reminds me of Tron fans who came into the franchise with Legacy referring to Flynn as "Kevin". Guess it's one of those things we're going to have to get used to.
 
jon bones said:
and some of us feel that in every thread (in every forum) about anything, there are tons of people who just refuse to enjoy stuff - and then frame their amateur level criticisms as some sort of weird nerdy superiority complex. we gotta deal with all the negativity, you guys gotta deal with all the positivity.
Click to expand...

I don't think people refuse to enjoy stuff, but I think that sometimes people just don't enjoy things and then come up with massive lists afterwards.

And I don't think Trek has ever paid significant lip service to real science. There's a few episodes of TNG that managed to pull off doing that, but before and after it's pretty much always been a very soft humanist kind of SF where the science is in service of the characters and the story and not the other way around. Warp, transporters, the genesis device, mind swapping machines, the great barrier, gods sitting out the universe on some planet, telepathy, telekenesis, etc. are all ridiculous notions in a scientific context but are almost omnipresent in Trek.
 
maharg said:
I don't think people refuse to enjoy stuff, but I think that sometimes people just don't enjoy things and then come up with massive lists afterwards.

And I don't think Trek has ever paid significant lip service to real science. There's a few episodes of TNG that managed to pull off doing that, but before and after it's pretty much always been a very soft humanist kind of SF where the science is in service of the characters and the story and not the other way around. Warp, transporters, the genesis device, mind swapping machines, the great barrier, gods sitting out the universe on some planet, telepathy, telekenesis, etc. are all ridiculous notions in a scientific context but are almost omnipresent in Trek.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by massive lists?

And warp? Really? Come on, that's absolutely necessary, and is a huge false equivalence.

Nobody's really complaining about something being scientifically feasible as they are complaining about the inconsistent nature of it, the problems it brings up, and so on. Trek has done some stupid scientific things in the past, and was promptly made fun of for it, but that doesn't mean there's a limit. What you list there are devices used to help sell a story and characters, which doesn't make sense in the context of ignoring gravity of planets. That's laziness in the writing, just like a star going supernova and destroying a planet 500 lightyears away within the same year.
 
Me and my wife and ber friend saw it yesterday afternoon and we all loved it. I thought it was a much better movie than the first, and I loved the first. I'm also a hardcore Star Trek fan. I just think it hit all the right notes for me, and I felt the characters were given some breathing room and growth. Really, really had a great time with it, as did our audience, which thankfully wasn't a packed theater (these days I'm just not big into hive crowds and lines.

Me and my wife might actually see it again today or tomorrow. I haven't watched a movie multiple times in the theater since Spider-man 2.
 
Saw it late this afternoon. Thought it was dreadful. I had high hopes that they would do some new and different things with this different time line. Instead we got all kinds of stupid, big plot holes and contrivances. I thought the cast was good but the story was bad and very predictable. I also think they completely squandered some opportunities to do new and interesting things.
 
Will just repost thoughts from the Movies you seen recently thread

ViewtifulJC said:
Star Trek Into Darkness: 6/10 - As you expect from the screenwriting hack trimutive of Orci/Kurtzmann/Lindelof, the screenplay is a fuckin' disaster. A hodgepodge of themes from previous Star Trek films(most notably a Wrath of Khan) with none of the pathos or coherence, with some of the most inane, tired, awful dialog passing for "banter" you'll hear all year. You got Peter "mothafuckin' Robocop" Weller on this movie, and somehow he doesn't command the screen with every line out of his mouth? That's on your ass, guys. JJ Abrams seems to have forgotten any cinematic storytelling skills he learned from Super 8 aping Spielberg, because holy hell does his camera go in weird places for no reason whatsoever. And the CLOSE-UPS! My goodness, you have some of the best visuals of the year up there, how about a wide-shot, Mr. Abrams? This isn't TV anymore. He does his damndest to suck the energy out of this thing.

But the cast is so great, they sell every lame joke like their lives depended on it. The pace is constantly rollicking along with emphatically grand action sequences, a rousing score, and likable characters going on another adventure. It works, but just barely.
Click to expand...

Abrams will probably be alright for Star Wars, though. As long as he has some better writers, cuz goddamn Orci/Kurtzman/Lindelof are fuckin' terrible
 
ViewtifulJC said:
Will just repost thoughts from the Movies you seen recently thread

(deleted review)

Abrams will probably be alright for Star Wars, though. As long as he has some better writers, cuz goddamn Orci/Kurtzman/Lindelof are fuckin' terrible
Click to expand...

You, uh, may want to spoiler some of that? Or are mild spoilers okay now in this thread?

And I have to disagree with your assessment, I thought the writing was more than acceptable in this movie, the banter was especially good IMHO. It wasn't superlative writing for sure, but not near as bad as you make it out to sound. You just seem bitter about it for some reason...
 
Just got back, Summer movies to me are pop corn flicks, and this one was better than IM3, fastest 2 hours in a movie theater since Avengers, I was like fuck it's already ending....Next up Fast 6...
 
maharg said:
I don't think people refuse to enjoy stuff, but I think that sometimes people just don't enjoy things and then come up with massive lists afterwards.

And I don't think Trek has ever paid significant lip service to real science. There's a few episodes of TNG that managed to pull off doing that, but before and after it's pretty much always been a very soft humanist kind of SF where the science is in service of the characters and the story and not the other way around. Warp, transporters, the genesis device, mind swapping machines, the great barrier, gods sitting out the universe on some planet, telepathy, telekenesis, etc. are all ridiculous notions in a scientific context but are almost omnipresent in Trek.
Click to expand...

No, the list happened while I was watching it.
 
All this talk about
Botany Bay
seems more than just a bit spoilerish, don't you think? I mean, it kind of cements certain stuff, and I'm sure there are people browsing this thread that haven't seen the movie but maybe want to read some non-spoiler impressions.
 
Figboy79 said:
All this talk about
Botany Bay
seems more than just a bit spoilerish, don't you think? I mean, it kind of cements certain stuff, and I'm sure there are people browsing this thread that haven't seen the movie but maybe want to read some non-spoiler impressions.
Click to expand...

Good point. Edited my post.
 
I liked this slightly better than the first movie, which still isn't all that much. Like Viewtiful said, it's basically a pale imitation of Wrath of Khan propped up by some great acting.
 
maharg said:
I thought the
Botany Bay
was what they were going to find near Jupiter. Was a bit disappointed in what it turned out to be.
Click to expand...
would've been clever if a Botany Bay model was in Marcus's model ship collection. Cochran's ship was cool too.
 
I liked it.

I guess if you
use Khan as a measuring stick, Spock is stronger than Kirk.

A lot of dumb but I like space stuff and the special effects were great.
The body surfing through the debris field was dope.
 
Their are plot holes in almost anything so why make sure everything is airtight . You will end up suffocating the enjoyment out of everything. It is just a fun popcorn flick.
 
DAVIDHUXLEY said:
Their are plot holes in almost anything so why make sure everything is airtight . You will end up suffocating the enjoyment out of everything. It is just a fun popcorn flick.
Click to expand...

You can have fun flicks that don't have stupid plot holes and terrible writing in them. It's not impossible, you just need to be a good writer, a good producer, or a good director. Stop settling for mediocrity.
 
My hype is building.

Am I ready for a terrible, nonsensical plot? Hell yeah!
Am I ready for terrible dialogue? Hell yeah!
Am I ready for this film to take elements from other Trek series without considering the context in which they worked? Hell yeah!
Am I ready to
watch the film rip off the ending to an unarguably better film?
Heeeeeeeellll yeah!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Andy Weir’s Star Trek pitch was rejected in favor of Starfleet Academy
41
545
AJUMP23 replied
Starfleet Academy is the best first season of a Star Trek show ever
2
75
1K
Trilobit replied
New ‘Star Trek’ Movie In Works At Paramount - Not Connected to Any Previous or Current TV or Movies
News  2
75
2K
EternalSunshine1976 replied
Star City (For All Mankind spinoff) - Official Teaser
18
491
NotMyProblemAnymoreCunt replied
End of the Kurtzman-era Trek.
2
58
710
Hudo replied
Top Bottom