New Star Trek Page 177

  • Page

    of 179 First / Last

  • OptimusPube 5 Jan 2014 15:20:28 2,410 posts
    Seen 9 minutes ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    :D

    Is it supposed to be like this?

  • wizardofoz85 5 Jan 2014 17:48:31 299 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    @OptimusPube I can never understand how people spell Khan wrong. I mean the subtitle for the original was Wrath of KHAN.
  • thelzdking 13 Jan 2014 13:47:45 3,955 posts
    Seen 17 hours ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    Star Trek: Into Darkness - 3/10

    Even if the 2009 film was a poor Star Trek film, it was a decent enough sci-fi action flick, this is not even that. As a sci-fi action film it is a hyperactive mess: it won't sit still for a minute before chucking a hackneyed action sequence or some awful, awful dialogue at you. The acting is uniformly appalling.

    As a Star Trek film it is a complete failure, bordering on farce. It is Star Trek in aesthetic only; it tries every trick in the book to appear like a Star Trek film, but it makes no attempt to be anything other than a generic sci-fi action blockbuster. The pointless reuse of the Khan story (and the hilariously clumsy nods to The Wrath of Khan) turns it from a crappy reboot into a lazy and manipulative cash-in.

    The effects were rather nice, though.
  • Steve_Perry 13 Jan 2014 13:58:40 2,443 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    I've seen it a couple of times now and it's ok. I would compare it to a watching a good tribute band. It all sounds and looks similar but is missing something.

    I'm happy there are still Star Trek movies being made though and I enjoy these for what they are, a bit of brainless fun.

    VIVA STEFANSEN

  • spindizzy 13 Jan 2014 14:37:42 6,400 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Star Trek: Into Darkness - 9/10

    Really excellent romp.
  • spindle9988 13 Jan 2014 14:46:28 3,368 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    I really liked the new star trek films. I am not a star trek fan though, so that probably helps
  • mcmonkeyplc 13 Jan 2014 15:01:07 38,899 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    We discussed the new films again on Saturday over some craft beer like proper geeks and came to the conclusion that new star trek films do not meet the (pseudo?) intellectual needs of a Star Trek fan. They're just fun action films.

    For it to be accepted as a good Star Trek film by Star Trek fans it needs the intellectual crap and action crap in equal measure.

    11 almost managed it with it's screwed up alternate reality creation and then ruined it with "red matter".

    12 did fuck all and was just a decent action sci-fi.

    Edited by mcmonkeyplc at 15:01:31 13-01-2014

    Edited by mcmonkeyplc at 15:02:04 13-01-2014

    Come and get it cumslingers!

  • Steve_Perry 13 Jan 2014 15:18:54 2,443 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    There is just no sense of exploration or discovery in the new ones. The old films had many faults but at least they made you think a bit. I was drawn to the show as a kid because it really piqued my imagination. The new films are set on Earth 50% of the time or very close to it.

    Go do some exploring ffs. I'm sure the next film will be a bit more adventurous. Hopefully.

    VIVA STEFANSEN

  • LeoliansBro 13 Jan 2014 15:28:08 41,863 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    There's no sense of discovery or exploration in the old ones either.

    TMP: Crisis in Earth Orbit.
    TWOK: Crisis at some research station (Genesis is a MacGuffin, not a 'discovery' proper).
    TSFS: Same setting as TWOK.
    TVH: Set on Earth.
    TFF: Don't even dare.
    TUC: Set on Earth, Kronos and Khitomer.
    STG: They're floating in space on a goddam square-rigged ship waiting for the plot to happen to them FFS.
    STFC: Set on Earth.
    STI: 'Does anyone remember when we used to be explorers?'
    STN: Romulus.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • RedSparrows 13 Jan 2014 15:29:23 20,754 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    The end of this last one was setting up exploration - I hope it goes that way, preferably without the Abrams/Lindelof wank. Fat chance of that, though.

    They're fun action films, up to a point, but they're so... standard, and miss what makes Star Trek commendable and chose to see it as a bit fuddy-duddy. Abrams in an interview I saw talked about how he'd never really enjoyed Star Trek. I get why they wanted to broaden the appeal, but it's a shame. However, I am not a big Star Trek fan, so I'm probably missing a lot.

    Edited by RedSparrows at 15:29:45 13-01-2014
  • Steve_Perry 13 Jan 2014 15:31:13 2,443 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    Well, as I said, at least they made you think a bit.

    VIVA STEFANSEN

  • RedSparrows 13 Jan 2014 15:31:33 20,754 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Also I don't get Chekov saying 'w' for 'v'. There is a definite 'v' sound in Russian. What's the deal?
  • Steve_Perry 13 Jan 2014 15:32:38 2,443 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    Wiktor Wiktor.

    VIVA STEFANSEN

  • CosmicFuzz 13 Jan 2014 15:42:52 21,240 posts
    Seen 13 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    RedSparrows wrote:
    Also I don't get Chekov saying 'w' for 'v'. There is a definite 'v' sound in Russian. What's the deal?
    It's a throwback reference to the comedy way he spoke back in the original series/films. Although that doesn't really explain why he does it in the first place I suppose!

    What's your thoughts on Heroes Reborn? Read my TV musings here.

  • mcmonkeyplc 13 Jan 2014 15:44:07 38,899 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    I haven't seen Into Darkness again since the Cinema. Maybe I should watch it again.

    Come and get it cumslingers!

  • LeoliansBro 13 Jan 2014 15:44:35 41,863 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Steve_Perry wrote:
    Well, as I said, at least they made you think a bit.
    They certainly did, here is what I was thinking:

    TMP: Crikey, this is taking a while isn't it?
    TWOK: Ooooh, submarine warfare. Awesome!
    TSFS: Why does this look so much shitter than The Wrath Of KhOHMYGOD THEY BLEW UP THE DAMN SHIP.
    TVH: Star Trek is going to be funny now?
    TFF: Ugh.
    TUC: Classy, but bugger me they are old.
    STG: Picard and Kirk work really REALLY well together and the opening sequence is beautiful. Shame the rest sucks donkey balls (apart from Soran).
    STFC: PEW PEW PEW PEEEW BOOM PEW PEW is that it? Oh Borg, raar.
    STI: 'Does anyone remember when we used to be interesting?'
    STN: See TUC, but without the 'classy' bit (and with a healthy serving of straight up raiding of previous plots).

    Edited by LeoliansBro at 15:45:39 13-01-2014

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • Steve_Perry 13 Jan 2014 15:45:31 2,443 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    Not a fan of the films then?

    VIVA STEFANSEN

  • LeoliansBro 13 Jan 2014 15:45:52 41,863 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Love them.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • Steve_Perry 13 Jan 2014 15:46:02 2,443 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    :)

    VIVA STEFANSEN

  • Steve_Perry 13 Jan 2014 15:49:05 2,443 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    TVH: Star Trek is going to be funny now?
    Yes, yes it is.



    Inspired by this.

    Edited by Steve_Perry at 15:52:52 13-01-2014

    VIVA STEFANSEN

  • CosmicFuzz 13 Jan 2014 15:50:47 21,240 posts
    Seen 13 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    The older Trek films definitely had something about them that the new ones miss (especially Into Darkness, which I really don't like that much as a film let alone a Trek film). The parables with real life stuff (aka cold war coming to an end in ST6), the slow paced, plodding nature of them, the way characters were put to the forefront rather than set pieces.

    Although as I'm thinking now, I'm really only talking about TOS films. The TNG films were definitely on their way into the action-blockbuster route, just on a much smaller budget. Insurrection I suppose dealt with a more 'cerebral' subject (mass relocation, hardly the stuff of action blockbusters, but it is the most 'thinking' movie of the TNG).

    It's hard to put my finger on what it was about the Khan-SFS-TVH trilogy or Undiscovered Country that made them such great films. But whatever it was, new Trek is sorely lacking it.

    What's your thoughts on Heroes Reborn? Read my TV musings here.

  • CosmicFuzz 13 Jan 2014 15:52:30 21,240 posts
    Seen 13 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    NOT NOW MADELINE!

    What's your thoughts on Heroes Reborn? Read my TV musings here.

  • LeoliansBro 13 Jan 2014 15:53:39 41,863 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    In a nutshell, the films fail because they rip apart the existing dynamic which made the series a success and then are weaker for it. The best films are those with the crew interacting, preferably on the Enterprise.

    TMP immediately fucks things up by promoting Kirk off the Enterprise and then they spend four films getting him back there, only to bollocks it up with the awfulness of TFF. TUC left it too late but it was the closest to what I would hope for in a film (along with TWOK, which decides to ignore the fuck up by sticking Kirk in the Captain's Chair anyway and fuck the reasons).

    Generations separates Picard from the crew. First Contact separates Picard from the crew (yes yes Work whoop-di-doo). Insurrection parks the Enterprise in orbit and then they all go on a spa holiday. Nemesis got it right but was awful for other reasons.

    The films had to epic enough to justify being a film but they tended to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Look at The Defector, The Measure of a Man, Conspiracy. The best TNG episodes are: set largely on the Enterprise; dealing with external disruptions of the status quo; an ensemble piece led by Picard in the midst of his crew. Yes the films contained elements of this but they were kept in as keynotes and not expanded as the rest of the scope of the film was expanded, so they end up as lip service and isolated.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • LeoliansBro 13 Jan 2014 15:54:38 41,863 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Oh and Best of Both Worlds separates Picard from the crew but that is shocking because it hasn't happened yet.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • CosmicFuzz 13 Jan 2014 16:00:54 21,240 posts
    Seen 13 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Very good points LB, and I think I agree with all of them. It always has been the characters that Trek nailed so well. I remember watching an episode of Enterprise (can't remember the name) and pretty much the whole thing was just them trying to outrun a Vulcan ship. It was great, no silly action scenes, no crappy blue shagging chamber, just the crew working together to keep the shipping running just a little bit longer.

    New Trek is happy to paint the characters as broad as possible and up the spectacle count. I watched Into Darkness over the holidays again, and Bones is literally only there to shout metaphors the whole time. Drove me mad every time he opened his mouth. Obviously not every crew member can be used in 2 hours, but give them SOMETHING to do (yes yes he opened up the torpedo but that could have been done by anyone).

    What's your thoughts on Heroes Reborn? Read my TV musings here.

  • Steve_Perry 13 Jan 2014 16:02:29 2,443 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    Yeah the best bits of most of the TNG films are when Picard is on the bridge being the boss. The start of FC is the best part of the movie. Generations is best just before he is beamed down to the planet etc.

    VIVA STEFANSEN

  • RedSparrows 13 Jan 2014 16:02:45 20,754 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Yes, and Abrams/Lindelof are massive tools and they suck.

    Agreed? Right guys???
  • RedSparrows 13 Jan 2014 16:03:38 20,754 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    CosmicFuzz wrote:


    New Trek is happy to paint the characters as broad as possible and up the spectacle count. I watched Into Darkness over the holidays again, and Bones is literally only there to shout metaphors the whole time. Drove me mad every time he opened his mouth. Obviously not every crew member can be used in 2 hours, but give them SOMETHING to do (yes yes he opened up the torpedo but that could have been done by anyone).
    But he injected the whatsit with the MacGuffin blood, in a moment described by my girlfriend as 'FORESHADOWING' in a robot voice.
  • CosmicFuzz 13 Jan 2014 16:04:49 21,240 posts
    Seen 13 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    RedSparrows wrote:
    Yes, and Abrams/Lindelof are massive tools and they suck.

    Agreed? Right guys???
    Haha. Lindelof managed to save the ending to WWZ imo so he gets brownie points for that. And I'm a big JJ fan (really do like most of his other stuff) but I just don't like his Trek. Excited to see what a new director can do with it, although also glad at least one of the Transformers writers has gone too. They were also part of the problem (in that they're just shit writers).

    What's your thoughts on Heroes Reborn? Read my TV musings here.

  • Steve_Perry 13 Jan 2014 16:05:13 2,443 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    RedSparrows wrote:
    Yes, and Abrams/Lindelof are massive tools and they suck.

    Agreed? Right guys???
    JJ is fine, you can't fault the look of the films (even with the lens flare which he admits is ott). It's the scripts which let them down.

    VIVA STEFANSEN

  • Page

    of 179 First / Last

Log in or register to reply