Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
You people realize that if they made these movies for just Star Trek fans they wouldn't sell for shit right? I've loved the shows for years, but you can't take the TV show to the movie theater. No one wants to watch 2 1/2 hours of Picard problem solving a political crisis or making contact with a new lifeform. They want to see ship battles and action sequences.
If you want to bring back the heart and soul of what the shows were about (exploration, discovery, non-violent problem solving), get another TV show up and running. As for the movies, give me the popcorn and the explosions with hot chicks in short dresses. That's what the good Star Trek movies always did. II, III, and VI where the best ones by far (of the original cast, I'm leaving TNG out for now). I hated the save the whales and oh look we met god ones. Although I did think VGer was a pretty awesome idea in the original, even if it was an obvious knock-off of 2001.
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
Quote:
Originally Posted by
serial138
You people realize that if they made these movies for just Star Trek fans they wouldn't sell for shit right? I've loved the shows for years, but you can't take the TV show to the movie theater. No one wants to watch 2 1/2 hours of Picard problem solving a political crisis or making contact with a new lifeform. They want to see ship battles and action sequences.
If you want to bring back the heart and soul of what the shows were about (exploration, discovery, non-violent problem solving), get another TV show up and running. As for the movies, give me the popcorn and the explosions with hot chicks in short dresses. That's what the good Star Trek movies always did. II, III, and VI where the best ones by far (of the original cast, I'm leaving TNG out for now). I hated the save the whales and oh look we met god ones. Although I did think VGer was a pretty awesome idea in the original, even if it was an obvious knock-off of 2001.
I liked Star Trek IV . It was humorous going back in time . The only thing good about Star Trek V was how hot the Romulan Ambassodore to Nimbus III was .
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
I might have to rewatch V. I don't remember any hot Romulan ambassador.
All I remember was Spock's annoying brother and all of a sudden Scotty became a clueless moron. Drove me nuts.
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
Here's a great never-heard-of-before idea for a movie that will take Stark Trek to a whole new warpfront: let's give the Villain an English Accent...
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BellaBellucci
OK, I'm done staying quiet about this (it's been an entire 24 hours :lol:): Star Trek Into Darkness has wonderful characters. The way they play off each other is typically excellent Abrams/Orci/Kurtzman fare. One of my favorite things about Trek has always been the extent to which the bridge crews are always close like family. In fact, that's why I watch Trek movies when I'm alone over the holidays. So, on that level this was a terrific movie.
The sets and effects were great. The 3D was terrific. And you gotta love Benedict Cumberbatch as you-know-who. In my opinion, a movie of this nature is most successful when you can actually relate to the antagonist somehow.
BUT THAT SCRIPT! UGH! It's a miserable combination of Space Seed, Trek II, and Trek 6 with far too much disruption simply for the sake of reminding the audience that this is a new universe. Guess what, JJ: we get it. And the remake of a classic scene (with a twist that JJ no doubt convinced himself was witty) that really had no business being conceived, let alone shot, was just too much to bear. And yes, they include the classic line, but it's not what you think. It's far, far, FAR worse. Oh, and don't get me started on the unnecessary shoehorning of one particular Vulcan who shall go unnamed, but whose identity should be pretty obvious to everyone. Shatner must be ripping his hair out.
Being lenient because I'm a Trekkie and this movie is openly marketed as a summer popcorn movie, not to mention the pure adrenaline rush I derived from it, I give it 8/10 overall (as have most of the critics for mostly the same reasons ), but I will warn you... the final sequence will have you screaming, 'Jaaaaaaaaaaaaay Jaaaaaaaaaaaay!'
~BB~
My reaction to a "t". To nutshell it: endlessly derivative whilst nonetheless enthralling.
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GroobyKrissy
I think it will be pretty interesting to see how Star Trek Fans relate to this movie. I just saw it last night, and although I wouldn't consider myself a "Trekkie", I do like the series. I agree, Bella. After it was over, I walked out kind of feeling a little bit ripped off. I've seen WoK only a couple of times but even at that, I was like, "Haven't they already made this movie?" After all the build up, I was kind of expecting something totally new and interesting.
Odd, that's the feeling I have every time I see a MoS trailer: c'mon, we know the back story, we know the villain, let's move on to new territory already.
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Cecil Rhodes
enough with the Trekkie term . It is Trekker . If you are going complain about cannon, non=cannon. jj abrams etc you have to use the appropriate term for a Trek Fan(atict) .
It is 'Trekkie' in a behind the scenes clip not sure which one some one said that at one of the early conventions, the first one Gene Roddenberry when to. Gene used the word 'Trekkie' and someone in the crowd yelled out the it was 'Trekker' not 'Trekkie', to which Gene responded "I created it I am pretty sure what the right term is".
And as a very hardcore Star Trek fan I have to say that I absolutely hated the 2009 movie, and am only going to this one because I am being dragged there by a friend. I love all of the other Star Trek series, movies, and games, but this new 'THING' I can not call it Trek. I just have a problem with the flow of the whole thing. I can`t stand the fact that there are so many plot holes that you can fly a Galaxy Class Starship through. I loved the old Trek, there was a good story, character development (specifically Deep Space Nine), philosophical depth, and continuity (the stories tried their best to respect each other).
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
Quote:
Originally Posted by
volkov2006
It is 'Trekkie' in a behind the scenes clip not sure which one some one said that at one of the early conventions, the first one Gene Roddenberry when to. Gene used the word 'Trekkie' and someone in the crowd yelled out the it was 'Trekker' not 'Trekkie', to which Gene responded "I created it I am pretty sure what the right term is".
And as a very hardcore Star Trek fan I have to say that I absolutely hated the 2009 movie, and am only going to this one because I am being dragged there by a friend. I love all of the other Star Trek series, movies, and games, but this new 'THING' I can not call it Trek. I just have a problem with the flow of the whole thing. I can`t stand the fact that there are so many plot holes that you can fly a Galaxy Class Starship through. I loved the old Trek, there was a good story, character development (specifically Deep Space Nine), philosophical depth, and continuity (the stories tried their best to respect each other).
So, I am interested just as an Fan of the series and not a "Trekker" or "Trekkie" or whatever the correct term is (#teamstarwars), what are some of the most glaring "plot holes" that the new movies have in them?
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GroobyKrissy
So, I am interested just as an Fan of the series and not a "Trekker" or "Trekkie" or whatever the correct term is (#teamstarwars), what are some of the most glaring "plot holes" that the new movies have in them?
!WARNING I AM A HARDCORE STAR TREK NERD YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!
Okay let me start:
1:The set up for the first movie is that a star near Romulus was going to go nova. The Romulans ask for either Vulcan/Federation support, even if there was a treaty after Nemesis they are very arrogant and more than likely would have never asked for help even if the knew they were doomed. Then the Vulcans come up with this 'Red Matter' which just seems really out of nowhere to be used to create a black hole to suck up the nova, which seems really weird because the Romulans could have done that themselves, their ships are powered by 'Artificial Singularities' which is just a fancy term for Artificial BLACK HOLE.
2: When we see the USS Kelvin in the first scene it is supposed to be before the timeline splits, so should the details of the ship and crew reflect that, and then the timeline changes after the death of Kirks father.
3: The uniforms: the colors are all wrong even in Enterprise we had the colors set up(Red, Gold, Blue) why were they all of a sudden different.
4: the antennas on all of the consoles seems weird, in Enterprise again they had wireless consoles(and if they were not wireless at least the cords went into the superstructure).
5: Then the insignia on the uniforms was the Delta Shield which was not adopted until after Kirks historic 5-year mission(Yes I am that much of a hard core fan), in The Original Series every ship and station had their own insignia.
6: During the fight we see the Kelvin firing the normal beam-type phasers, and a blueish-white pulse-type phaser which was not developed until the 24th Century for the Defiant Class.
7: The design of the ship is that the Nacelle in on the ventral(bottom) of the saucer and the engineering section is on the dorsal(top) of the saucer, when the captain goes to the shuttlebay he has to go up from the bridge yet he rides the turbolift down into the engineering section.
8: When they evacuated the Kelvin why the hell would someone repel down, why would there be a big open space like that on a ship(space is limited on a starship).
9: Later in the movie 'Pike' says that Kirks father saved 800 people, so a Kelvin Class starship has a crew of 800, and is supposed to be a similar size to a Miranda Class starship that has a crew of 80, the TOS Enterprise only had a crew of 400, the first ship to have a crew size close to 800 was the Galaxy with a crew of 1016.
10: In the time that they are the evacuate using shuttles, they are close to the Klingon Empire not very close but close enough as a point of reference, how many shuttles does that ship have, and those shuttles only have impulse nacelles, and NO WARP DRIVE, it would take at least 3 weeks for Starfleet to send a rescue.
11: Later in the movie the Enterprise, is constructed on the surface of the Earth no starship was ever built on the surface of the Earth, but it was constructed using sensor data from the Kelvin's battle with the Narada so since the Narada is a Romulan mining ship augmented with Borg tech, Starfleet now has Borg tech scans why is the Enterprise not more advanced and able to withstand more than one shot from the Narada.
12: Now the Romulans, why do they not have their brow ridge they are from the future after Nemesis so they should have it. Why if they look like Vulcans why not use subterfuge and pretend to be Vulcans, that is what Romulans do.
13: After the Kelvin collides with the Narada it is disabled, why does the stars gravity well not pull it in to it?
That was mostly just the beginning does anyone want me to continue my "ranting"?
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
Quote:
Originally Posted by
volkov2006
!WARNING I AM A HARDCORE STAR TREK NERD YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!
Okay let me start:
1:The set up for the first movie is that a star near Romulus was going to go nova. The Romulans ask for either Vulcan/Federation support, even if there was a treaty after Nemesis they are very arrogant and more than likely would have never asked for help even if the knew they were doomed. Then the Vulcans come up with this 'Red Matter' which just seems really out of nowhere to be used to create a black hole to suck up the nova, which seems really weird because the Romulans could have done that themselves, their ships are powered by 'Artificial Singularities' which is just a fancy term for Artificial BLACK HOLE.
2: When we see the USS Kelvin in the first scene it is supposed to be before the timeline splits, so should the details of the ship and crew reflect that, and then the timeline changes after the death of Kirks father.
3: The uniforms: the colors are all wrong even in Enterprise we had the colors set up(Red, Gold, Blue) why were they all of a sudden different.
4: the antennas on all of the consoles seems weird, in Enterprise again they had wireless consoles(and if they were not wireless at least the cords went into the superstructure).
5: Then the insignia on the uniforms was the Delta Shield which was not adopted until after Kirks historic 5-year mission(Yes I am that much of a hard core fan), in The Original Series every ship and station had their own insignia.
6: During the fight we see the Kelvin firing the normal beam-type phasers, and a blueish-white pulse-type phaser which was not developed until the 24th Century for the Defiant Class.
7: The design of the ship is that the Nacelle in on the ventral(bottom) of the saucer and the engineering section is on the dorsal(top) of the saucer, when the captain goes to the shuttlebay he has to go up from the bridge yet he rides the turbolift down into the engineering section.
8: When they evacuated the Kelvin why the hell would someone repel down, why would there be a big open space like that on a ship(space is limited on a starship).
9: Later in the movie 'Pike' says that Kirks father saved 800 people, so a Kelvin Class starship has a crew of 800, and is supposed to be a similar size to a Miranda Class starship that has a crew of 80, the TOS Enterprise only had a crew of 400, the first ship to have a crew size close to 800 was the Galaxy with a crew of 1016.
10: In the time that they are the evacuate using shuttles, they are close to the Klingon Empire not very close but close enough as a point of reference, how many shuttles does that ship have, and those shuttles only have impulse nacelles, and NO WARP DRIVE, it would take at least 3 weeks for Starfleet to send a rescue.
11: Later in the movie the Enterprise, is constructed on the surface of the Earth no starship was ever built on the surface of the Earth, but it was constructed using sensor data from the Kelvin's battle with the Narada so since the Narada is a Romulan mining ship augmented with Borg tech, Starfleet now has Borg tech scans why is the Enterprise not more advanced and able to withstand more than one shot from the Narada.
12: Now the Romulans, why do they not have their brow ridge they are from the future after Nemesis so they should have it. Why if they look like Vulcans why not use subterfuge and pretend to be Vulcans, that is what Romulans do.
13: After the Kelvin collides with the Narada it is disabled, why does the stars gravity well not pull it in to it?
That was mostly just the beginning does anyone want me to continue my "ranting"?
Great. Now how about your analysis of the movie we're actually discussing? :rolleyes:
~BB~
