New Star Trek Page 177

  • Page

    of 184 First / Last

  • FartPipe 5 Jan 2014 15:20:28 4,131 posts
    Seen 12 hours ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    :D
  • wizardofoz85 5 Jan 2014 17:48:31 314 posts
    Seen 6 months ago
    Registered 7 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 4,666 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 6 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.
  • spindizzy 13 Jan 2014 14:37:42 6,840 posts
    Seen 17 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Star Trek: Into Darkness - 9/10

    Really excellent romp.
  • spindle9988 13 Jan 2014 14:46:28 3,890 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 8 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 39,893 posts
    Seen 46 minutes ago
    Registered 13 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
  • Deleted user 13 January 2014 15:29:23
    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
  • Deleted user 13 January 2014 15:31:33
    Also I don't get Chekov saying 'w' for 'v'. There is a definite 'v' sound in Russian. What's the deal?
  • CosmicFuzz 13 Jan 2014 15:42:52 28,861 posts
    Seen 16 minutes ago
    Registered 9 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!
  • mcmonkeyplc 13 Jan 2014 15:44:07 39,893 posts
    Seen 46 minutes ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    I haven't seen Into Darkness again since the Cinema. Maybe I should watch it again.
  • CosmicFuzz 13 Jan 2014 15:50:47 28,861 posts
    Seen 16 minutes ago
    Registered 9 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.
  • CosmicFuzz 13 Jan 2014 15:52:30 28,861 posts
    Seen 16 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    NOT NOW MADELINE!
  • CosmicFuzz 13 Jan 2014 16:00:54 28,861 posts
    Seen 16 minutes ago
    Registered 9 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).
  • Deleted user 13 January 2014 16:02:45
    Yes, and Abrams/Lindelof are massive tools and they suck.

    Agreed? Right guys???
  • Deleted user 13 January 2014 16:03:38
    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 28,861 posts
    Seen 16 minutes ago
    Registered 9 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).
  • Page

    of 184 First / Last

Log in or register to reply