|
Post by Jim on Sept 12, 2013 20:44:05 GMT -5
So you're saying that JJ Abrahms is the Jerry Bruckheimer of Sci-Fi? Explosions and blasts...... who needs a story line?? Uwe Boll or Michael Bay or... Abrahms makes B-movie grade sci-fi films with great special effects. I'm glad you posted that. Michael Bay was who I was thinking of.... not Bruckheimer! (Sorry Bruckheimer). I meant to throw Michael Bay under the bus...
|
|
|
Post by briank on Sept 12, 2013 21:28:05 GMT -5
Dang, you guys are picky. I liked it.
|
|
stiehl11
Emo VIPs
Give me available light!
Posts: 7,261
|
Post by stiehl11 on Sept 12, 2013 22:18:52 GMT -5
Uwe Boll or Michael Bay or... Abrahms makes B-movie grade sci-fi films with great special effects. I'm glad you posted that. Michael Bay was who I was thinking of.... not Bruckheimer! (Sorry Bruckheimer). I meant to throw Michael Bay under the bus...
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Sept 13, 2013 10:22:07 GMT -5
That's awesome, thanks for posting that.
|
|
|
Post by brubacca on Sept 13, 2013 10:47:40 GMT -5
This movie is just not that enjoyable to watch. I saw it for the first time last night, and it felt very sporadic and chaotic. Wish that JJ would have just stayed with a new story instead of remaking this one. I wasn't inherently against it, but it wasn't successful. I generally like Sci-Fi and Trek movies, but this was a bit of a mess. I get the need to pay homage to the original series, but this just didn't hit the mark from an entertainment standpoint.
|
|
|
Post by Porscheguy on Oct 13, 2013 7:52:02 GMT -5
Movie 6.5 Production values 10 Picture 10 Sound 10
Wow, what a let down story wise. First of all Kirk (Chris Pine) is like 30 years old and looks even younger and I could not picture a neophyte like that as captain of a 100 trillion dollar star ship. The characters were reduced to caricatures of the original TV series cast with way too much silly arguing between Kirk and Spock and the Bones character was not likable at all. Scotty was a pleasant surprise, his tongue and cheek humor was refreshing and enjoyable. Zoe Saldana was reduced to a sound bite character. I have no idea why Leonard Nimoy's cameo was included as he had nothing to say (can we have Star Trek movie just once without him).
My problem is more about the interaction between the characters and their cartoon like performances. Key goof: Kirk wakes up at the end of the movie and is told by bones of his transfusion with Kahn's blood. "You've been out for 2 weeks" bones informs him as he lies there in sickbay, hair perfectly coiffed and freshly shaven... Huh?
The best part for me was the theme song (penned by Alexander Courage) at the end perfect played by a big orchestra - love that theme song!!
|
|
|
Post by gohantanch on Oct 13, 2013 8:06:55 GMT -5
Dang, you guys are picky. I liked it. Some People just like to be negative, and bash anything new.
|
|
|
Post by Porscheguy on Oct 13, 2013 8:35:32 GMT -5
Dang, you guys are picky. I liked it. Some People just like to be negative, and bash anything new. What's new about Star Trek? It's been around for 50 years...
|
|
|
Post by RightinLA on Oct 13, 2013 10:45:27 GMT -5
Sometimes we need to put things into perspective. A few months ago, I lent a friend of mine some spare Polk speakers, a Pioneer receiver and a Sony bluray player to replace a HTiB set up that I thought was horrible for a main room. He was impressed with the sound improvement with the material he had, using his X-Box, and while watching TV. Last week I lent him Star Trek into Darkness and he was so impressed with the picture and incredible sound of that movie. His friends liked the movie too. They had seen the 2009 Star Trek and felt that this movie was a great sequel to it. They haven't seen the Star Trek series so they aren't colored with preconceived notions of what a Star Trek movie should or shouldn't be. They simply enjoyed it for what it was. This was interesting as I watched the original series on TV and also enjoy this recent incarnation immensely and look forward to more.
I also expected to see Captain Kirk to have his "hair perfectly coiffed and freshly shaven" in sickbay. After all this is Star Trek set in the 23rd century and giving someone a shave and a hairstyle on a bed has been no big deal for the past 50 years.
|
|
stiehl11
Emo VIPs
Give me available light!
Posts: 7,261
|
Post by stiehl11 on Oct 13, 2013 11:24:07 GMT -5
Dang, you guys are picky. I liked it. Some People just like to be negative, and bash anything new. Trek has been around for 3 generations (almost 50 years; as PG said) and has set a high standard for story telling. This movie, while flashy, neat, and cool, did not live up to that standard. There's no hating here. Great science fiction has been around since before the advent of good special effects and sound; much less great. Take away all the visual excellence and incredible sound of this film and you're left with a movie that doesn't make much sense and with major plot holes that would have tanked a TV series (or film) in the 60's and 70's. While this film was by far better than Star Trek V it fails to compare to the movie it (inexplicably) tries to recreate, much less most of the TOS films from the 70's to (early) 90's in terms of story. Just to be clear: there's no hating here. The things the movie does well are top notch. But, the high standard for science fiction story lines that had been set for the TOS crew was not met with this film. It was, in my opinion, the only (and glaring) shortfall of this film.
|
|
hemster
Global Moderator
Particle Manufacturer
...still listening... still watching
Posts: 51,920
|
Post by hemster on Oct 13, 2013 11:39:21 GMT -5
I agree that theme song was amazing. Given that most movies have shortcomings, this was no exception. As a movie I thought there was a fair amount of entertainment value but I won't be buying it since I don't think it'll get much spin in my HT. Clearly, YMMV...
|
|
|
Post by gohantanch on Oct 13, 2013 17:43:10 GMT -5
Some People just like to be negative, and bash anything new. Trek has been around for 3 generations (almost 50 years; as PG said) and has set a high standard for story telling. This movie, while flashy, neat, and cool, did not live up to that standard. There's no hating here. Great science fiction has been around since before the advent of good special effects and sound; much less great. Take away all the visual excellence and incredible sound of this film and you're left with a movie that doesn't make much sense and with major plot holes that would have tanked a TV series (or film) in the 60's and 70's. While this film was by far better than Star Trek V it fails to compare to the movie it (inexplicably) tries to recreate, much less most of the TOS films from the 70's to (early) 90's in terms of story. Just to be clear: there's no hating here. The things the movie does well are top notch. But, the high standard for science fiction story lines that had been set for the TOS crew was not met with this film. It was, in my opinion, the only (and glaring) shortfall of this film. I could start a whole thing with Trekkies as I am a huge fan of the series. However other than William shatner I am not a fan of the original series. Love next generation, ds9, and voyager, (I'm currently marathoning all 174 episodes of DS9 right now) but never liked the original crew. The wrath of Kahn wa frankly the only original crew movies I liked so I really enjoy this reimagining in an alternate universe. I never said it was a masterpiece but it was a really fun well made movie.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Oct 13, 2013 21:37:27 GMT -5
OK, so I'm a fan, Gene Roddenberry was a dead set genius, way ahead of his time, had a previously unheard of character spread for the 60's, powerful characters, Russian, Chinese, African American, a woman no less, and some guy with pointy ears. Nowadays it's hard to relate to just how dramatic, revolutionary in fact, that was. Plus he introduced so much of the space travel terminology, warp speed, phasers, beam me up Scotty etc. As a result I walk into any Star trek movie already half sold, this one was no exception. Plenty of action, from the start, great sound, really got the sub working. Nice video, with good visual effects. The bonus was the quality of character from Benedict Cumberbatch, very impressive Kahn interpretation, as it needed to be as Ricardo Montalbán (the original Kahn) was a very accomplished, Emmy Award winning, actor. I'm pretty much sold on the characters, except maybe Scotty, James Doohan was just so right for that "dour scott" character.
It's a keeper and I have already watched it twice.
Cheers Gary
|
|