Tweet
Originally posted by megoknight
-
Thank you. Sums up my feelings exactly. 2/3 of the movie was pretty original and enjoyable. The last 1/3 was like watching a copy of something that I had already seen in another movie. If it had started with a familiar premise and then went in a new direction, I would have enjoyed it more. I did like it however and will likely give it another viewing in the theater. 2nd time viewing in theater is a tradition for me with Trek and the ones I didn't like the 1st viewing, I like much better the 2nd. So we'll see...Looking for:
--Lion Rock "Mr Rock's" shoes/ boots (these may also be the same as the lion rock monster line boots)
--Mystery Astronaught -
My (admittedly somewhat unlikely) prediction: One more movie, and then the franchise (alternate universe premise and majority of the existing cast intact) goes back to TV for the entirety of the 5 year mission.
__Last edited by Bruce Banner; May 20, '13, 4:43 AM.PUNY HUMANS!Comment
-
lol Yeah, thanks. I might be too close to the mark! hahaha!,haha!Originally posted by megoknightComment
-
I felt like this movie could have gone to television. I can see this cast doing a weekly show. I'd watch. I'd rather watch it on TV than have to pay to see it. Lets get this five year mission rolling.Comment
-
I've seen it and It makes a good case for why fans shouldn't write scripts. I'm a trek-nitpicker so you won't get any rave reviews from me. While I could give the first film a pass on some things I can't this time around. This film is solid on action but the writing is just the result of laziness. You can't just ignore some of the plot holes and the things that make no sense. Sorry guys it should have been waaayyyyy better written.Last edited by johnmiic; May 21, '13, 7:01 PM.Comment
-
Also:
"After making a mere $84 million at the U.S. box office, Star Trek Into Darkness is considered by some to be a disappointment. Perhaps the problem is that it was a touch confusing. To help our readers better understand it, we've complied and answered these Frequently Asked Questions about the movie."Comment
-
Haha, good read, and it took me a minute to realize ROB BRICKEN wrote that, he's a riot.Also:
"After making a mere $84 million at the U.S. box office, Star Trek Into Darkness is considered by some to be a disappointment. Perhaps the problem is that it was a touch confusing. To help our readers better understand it, we've complied and answered these Frequently Asked Questions about the movie."Comment
-
That blog is funny.
I did see it (in 3D to boot). I loved it, it was lots of fun but it was basically a Star Warsish Star Trek movie where things don't nessasarily have to make sense as long as it provides spectacle. Also, the thing where they have sort if a prologue that bears only a small connection to the rest if the story reminds me if Star Wars (at least the couple after the first one)
But I have said it before the idea of the Enterprise being underwater has been a nostalgic foot note in my head ever since I had a dream about the Enterprise exploring underwater as a kid. Just seeing the Enterprise rising from the water made me a bit excited for the movie (for no good reason, I admit).
Then there was the Gold Key comic nostalgia effect. Seeing the Enterprise low in the clouds and also seeing the odd mix of futuristic and more conventional looks. How some areas of the ship look like 20'th century industrial settings for instance just brought me back to the odd things shown by the great Italian artist Alberto Giolitti filling in the details if the Enterprise himself because he was supplied with such sparce reference material.
The war on terror allegory could have been handled better, especially when it came into making Peter Weller's character into an out and out baddie instead if a more conflicted character trying to handle dangerous times for the Federation.
And yeah, the ending turned the homage up to 11. I can see the thinking where in this universe things are going to get repeated from the other universe but in a mixed up way but when they were down to repeating certain lines they needed to mix it up a bit more.
What I loved in between the Star Warsiness though was to see Kirk and Spock's relationship develop and the moments for the other characters. And Karl Urban's McCoy is nothing but a treat.
So, let us see next time around if they can do an honest to goodness exploring a new world story, even if it's a new universe version of an old TV episode (Cibromite Manuever, perhaps?)Comment
-
I really enjoyed the movie but here are a few odd things and observations that did stick out to me.
The Admirals office has models of old space vessels including Archer's Enterprise.
Warp in the new movies only seems to take minutes to get any where. Vulcan in the first movie. It was similar from Earth to the Klingon homeworld and back this time.
Kirks communicator works from Klingon space all the way to San Francisco. No sub space delay.
When the Vengeance explodes they are clearly next to the moon then all of a sudden the Enterprise is falling into our atmosphere.
Not sure why but the small ship they flew reminded me of the Spindrift from Land of the Giants.
The Enterprise in a planets atmosphere bugged at first but they did it in "Tomorrow is Yesterday". Roddenberry didn't do it only because was too expensive to do every week.
Chris Hemsworth is listed in the credits. Deleted scene maybe?
Mudd Incident? I'd love to see that.
Leonard Nimoy/Spock one more time. You bet.Better late than never.....Comment
-
Saw it last nite.. my wife and I were the only people in the theater for the 9:30 3D showing, whereas both Fast and Furious and Hangover 3 were doing brisk business for their late showing. Does not bode well for box office legs..
Anyway, despite some of the plot and writing issues, I thought it was very entertaining, and enjoyed it very much. My wife (not a Trekkie) did as well, altho her comments were along the lines of, "Chris Pine is beautiful".
Funny, but highly critical review can be found here.. the same people who bring you the famous "Plinkett" reviews:
Comment
-
Comment
-
Saw it today. Loved it. Better than the first. And I liked the nods to TWOK. The fact that these guys dared TOUCH that sacred cow and made a great movie astounds me. And yes, the Khan angle was spoiled beforehand, despite trailers showing us what seemed to point toward a VERY different movie.
As for the box office...I'm not sure why Box Office mojo and other outlets expected this one to outdo the first. Trek movies are pretty consistent, I think. I hope their wild expectations don't hurt future installments getting greenlit.
ChrisComment
-
VERY LATE TO THIS SHOW . . . as I was seeing ST:ID just last night . . . I absolutely loved this movie! now I operate from a novice Star Trek knowledge so if there were story line errors and such I wasn't the wiser . . . .from a take the film for face value stand point it rocked the pants off Man of Steel . . . . gotta say it's one the best movies I've seen in a whileMy Custom Figures
1 Corinthians 9:24 - Don’t you realize that in a race everyone runs, but only one person gets the prize? So run to win!Comment
-
Exactly my feelings. I just got back form seeing this and it was so much better than I hoped, and my wishes were high. I rank the first one in my top ten all-time films, and this one may surpass it. Sure there were a few holes here and there (how dod Scottie get a shuttle after resigning Star Fleet?) but the heart of the Star Trek franchise was abundant and overflowing. Paramount should literally be sued by Abrahms for false advertising. The movie shown in trailers and commercials IS NOT the movie we get. Fantastic movie. I can't compliment it any higher.I almost had a psychic girlfriend but she dumped me before we met.
If anyone here believes in psychokinesis, please raise my hand.Comment
Comment