The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Star Trek XI: The Movie > Star Trek Into Darkness
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 06-01-2013, 04:25 AM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,282
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by omegaman View Post
The next movie won't be about exploration. I'm 100 percent sure of that. There will be a villain or multiple villains guaranteed.
For sure. You don't break with a formula that works, not to mention that these guys are not good at anything else but dumb action flicks.
But even I don't think that it will be Khan again. Four times in a row would be too much and make even the most braindead viewer realize the eternal repetition of the same.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 06-01-2013, 01:05 PM
omegaman's Avatar
omegaman omegaman is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Penrith NSW Australia
Posts: 4,613
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by horatio View Post
For sure. You don't break with a formula that works, not to mention that these guys are not good at anything else but dumb action flicks.
But even I don't think that it will be Khan again. Four times in a row would be too much and make even the most braindead viewer realize the eternal repetition of the same.
Agreed. Khan's tucked away and won't return until the fourth instalment. Kirk and co will be up against the Klingons next for sure.
__________________
TREK IS TREK. WHATEVER THE TIMELINE!

The next TV Series should be called STARFLEET!
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 06-01-2013, 07:55 PM
martok2112's Avatar
martok2112 martok2112 is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: River Ridge, LA
Posts: 6,480
Default

Ummm....sorry, but in watching shows like Fringe, Abrams and Co. write much better than just "dumb action flicks", and despite my mild objections to some revisiting of some territory in the first viewing of STID (which I enjoyed even more the second time around), STID is not a "dumb action flick".
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 06-01-2013, 09:59 PM
samwiseb samwiseb is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,208
Default

No, it is not. And I haven't watched Fringe regularly, however that's been my impression as well.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 06-02-2013, 03:02 AM
martok2112's Avatar
martok2112 martok2112 is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: River Ridge, LA
Posts: 6,480
Default

Yeah, so far, I've only caught a few episodes of the third season...it's a fave of my roomie's on Netflix....and from what I can tell, Fringe is a kick*** show. Good story and concept.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 06-02-2013, 06:21 AM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,282
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by martok2112 View Post
Ummm....sorry, but in watching shows like Fringe, Abrams and Co. write much better than just "dumb action flicks", and despite my mild objections to some revisiting of some territory in the first viewing of STID (which I enjoyed even more the second time around), STID is not a "dumb action flick".
Sorry, but just throwing good and familiar ingredients into your meal without doing any actual cooking work does not lead to a good meal.
After having learned the rough plot I asked two very basic and intuitive questions about whether Marcus is crazy and the cold war tensions with the Klingons and Romulans are not perceived anymore, as in all previous Trek, as three-player game and why the history books are destroyed and only OldSpock knows that Khan was a power-hungry tyrant. Nothing fancy, it is just the stuff than immediately came to mind. And as I expected the guys who have seen the movie indicated that the writers did not think at all about this very basic stuff.
This suffices to call their writing dumb. Given that O&K also wrote the scripts of two Michael Bay movies this is hardly surprising.

And lest I get accused of want Trek to be particularly intelligent , TMP is a sleeping pill. A good Trek movie has something of everything: some action, some humour, some smart ideas and so on.
TWOK, TUC and FC had all of this. Average Trek movies lack something, e.g. TVH lacks action (there, I said it, the movie lacks sh*t blowing up). Bad Trek movies just feature one ingredient, e.g. TFF had only humour, TMP was just based on an idea and the last three movies focused too much on action.

It is hardly a coincidence that Shinzon, Nero and Marcus have one thing in common, absent or hard-to-construct motivations. Of course I am not advocating that characters should be crystal clear and transparent. This is not realistic, we do very often not know what we really want.
But when you gotta pull stuff like "Shinzon wants to destroy Earth and not the planet of his former oppressors because Picard reminds him of how his life could have been so it is basically about envy" or "Nero, not a solider but a working man, does not blame his own government for not having prevented a natural catastrophe but actually wants the kill the guy who actually tried to help and then also blow up Earth ... because he is stupid and believes Romulan propaganda about the evil Federation or whatever" out of your a*s to make sense of why these villains go ape-sh*t it is safe to say that the writing was lazy. Of course you can also claim that the villains are just meant to be psychopaths but this is even worse, converting Trek into a reactionary franchise in which the good guys blow up the psychopathic, evil-by-nature bad guys. Last time I checked Balance of Terror or Errand of Mercy did portray the enemies to be fairly rational (and lest somebody accuses me of being a hippie peacenik, you do not dehumanize your enemy not for his sake but for your sake and you try to understand your enemy in order to be able to fight him better).

Last edited by horatio : 06-02-2013 at 06:30 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 06-02-2013, 06:28 AM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,078
Default

Why is anyone wasting their time on the judgements of someone who at last record hadn't even ponied up to see the film?

Their opinion is irrelevant until they have.
__________________
'If the Apocalypse starts, beep me!' - Buffy Summers
'The sky's the limit.....' Jean-Luc Picard, 'All Good Things'


courtesy of Saquist
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 06-02-2013, 06:44 AM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,282
Default

Let me check, I predicted Khan more than two years ago and I also predicted that the movie will be structurally similar to the former one.
You on the other hand denied Khan when it was already hyper-obvious. Furthermore you wrote back in the days that you want the second movie to feature a story with more meat after the first movie had to set up everything. Now you just shifted that into the future and label ST09 and STID as set-up movies.

So much about precise predictions and relevant opinions.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 06-02-2013, 06:54 AM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,078
Default

I wouldn't pat yourself on the back too much for Khan, given we all knew from May 2009 that he was on everyone's lips and a potential.

No, for a while I didn't think they would use him but by the time of the release it was pretty much likely. I was simply content to wait until seeing the actual film to find out for sure. Obviously, what with certain spoilers emerging before the film came out that didn't quite make it all the way to first viewing before having it confirmed. What I also repeatedly said over the years was that reusing Khan wasn't a deal-breaker.

And it isn't.

Yes, I wanted a meatier story and I think the first half of the film goes in a positive direction in that manner, however it does lose it's way somewhat once Khan is revealed and once the back half of the film kicks in. So I'd agree with Sam when he says it doesn't quite do everything I wanted it to do. But that doesn't translate into finding it a bad movie. I can least say I've sat down and watched it however to reach that conclusion instead of concentrating on reviews that confirmed pre existing bias and seeking casual viewer opinions which match while (as normal) ignoring any positive reviews as they don't suit.

For what it's worth, I doubt you would like STID all that much and yeah I've had to revise my opinion on what I wanted vs what it delivered. I don't mind doing that particularly, once what's actually been done becomes evident from the material itself. But I don't think it's unreasonable if engaging in detailed conversation that all parties in the conversation are singing from the same perspective of at least one viewing. Doesn't matter much to me if someone's reaction is 'Loved it', 'Hated it' or inbetween, but for discussion purpose at least, it seems fair.
__________________
'If the Apocalypse starts, beep me!' - Buffy Summers
'The sky's the limit.....' Jean-Luc Picard, 'All Good Things'


courtesy of Saquist

Last edited by kevin : 06-02-2013 at 07:06 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 06-02-2013, 07:41 AM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,282
Default

I have said, not often but I think once or twice, that these movies are fairly similar (and I do not pat myself on the back for seeing the obvious in advance, that with the same moviemakers aboard and the new Trek movies more resembling 21st century superhero trilogies than the 80s make-it-up-as-we-go-along Trek movies variance among movies will be smaller, but rather wonder why some folks disavowed the obvious) so if one likes/dislikes the first movie it is very likely that one will also like/dislike the second movie. You basically say the same thing when you claim that a guy like me will most likely not like STID.
This in addition to the extremely negative statement by a friend of mine who normally doesn't dislike ordinary summer action flicks that "STID does not feature a story" (even I think that sounds too harsh, he probably meant that the movie rushed through a not very well crafted story) plus the basic info about the plot suffices to make me not want to watch the movie.

But yeah, I still have the audacity to talk about it. You have not seen each and every VOY or ENT episodes to know that you don't like the respective series and that whatever STRUCTURAL criticism you have applied to the episodes you know can also be validly applied to the ones you don't know (unless there is a structural break).

So no idea why you claim that my opinion is irrelevant. I do after all not comment on scenes I don't know or the acting or production values (although I guess they are as top-notch as in the previous movie) but only on the basics of the plot. And when there is something that interests me but I don't know, like whether the ingredients that have been present in the background (and given our identical opinion on early TNG I guess you would agree that background, atmosphere, texture and so on often matter more than the plot) of all other Trek incarnations, the three-player nature of the UFP-Klingon-Romulan cold war and the extreme "burned fingers" human anti-genetics stance, are present in STID or not I ask.

Last edited by horatio : 06-02-2013 at 07:44 AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:26 PM.


Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.