Star Trek Movies

Page 6 of 9 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Star Trek Movies

Post  Kiran on Mon May 13, 2013 4:29 pm

I'll probably still see it eventually. I'm too big a fan not to. Right now though I think I'm just personally annoyed by the thing that happened.
avatar
Kiran

Posts : 2583
Join date : 2011-10-21

Back to top Go down

Re: Star Trek Movies

Post  Cutebutpsycho on Mon May 13, 2013 6:49 pm

That's how I feel too. Really, I am crazy enough to buy a ticket to Peeples and then go see Star Trek. But I also figure I have another week to mourn before my birthday to figure out what I see for this month.

I'm just waiting to see someone ask JJ and Cumberbatch directly: "SO. WHAT. THE. FUCK?" Not to be an asshole, but I want to know what the fuck is going on.
avatar
Cutebutpsycho

Posts : 710
Join date : 2011-10-21

Back to top Go down

Re: Star Trek Movies

Post  laddical on Thu May 16, 2013 1:38 pm

Excellent movie. Great action, solid performances from Pine, Quinto, Pegg. Even Cumberbatch is excellent. And there are some truly great nods to the original continuity.

But the Big Spoiler... it really does just cast a pall over everything. It's wrong in every way. Creatively, ethically. It's really something I'm having a hard time getting past. All the worse because the movie itself is AMAZING. But JJ and his team wanted to play their stupid game and it's hurt the film in a very core way.

And once again, a little schadenfreude is to be had over the fact that the new timeline undoes everything except Enterprise. No blatant references like last time with Archer and Porthos. But there's a moment when Admiral Marcus talks about the problems with the Klingons ever since first contact that reminds us that Enterprise happened and it's the only thing that still exists untouched in both timelines.
avatar
laddical

Posts : 1607
Join date : 2011-10-22

Back to top Go down

Re: Star Trek Movies

Post  Poubelle on Fri May 17, 2013 3:20 am

So I did genuinely enjoy it. It's a well-made movie and the cast all do excellent jobs with what they have. But that said, laddical is right: the BIG SPOILER is a huge problem all around.
Spoiler:
-The whitewashing, obviously. They only use "Khan" and not his full name for awhile so I kept attempting to convince myself "maybe he's just got a single name and it's a little weird but it's not QUITE as so very Indian as his full name..." --and then his full name got used. Nope. And if they cast a white guy to hide who his character was, aren't there plenty of actors out there who are both not white AND not Indian? You'd still have a pretty big group. Heck, even if you wanted to avoid a Latino actor because he'd be too obviously like Montalban, that's still a sizable pool. It'd be an iffy choice, but not as iffy as casting the pastiest white British guy possible to play an Indian guy. And obviously, casting an actor of a different race didn't really help because "he's Khan!" was the #1 speculation for MONTHS, and it leaked out there immediately and unavoidably (goodness knows I tried to avoid it) as soon as there were preview screenings.

(Personally, I don't think being spoiled for Cumberbatch's real role before I saw the film took away too much. I could see how it was meant to be a surprise, but meh. There was still plenty of mystery over why Khan would be doing all the stuff he did in the first place anyway.)

-The whole thing seemed to turn into a remake, not a reboot. There were too many callbacks that were way too on-the-nose. I've already seen a Star Trek movie about fighting Khan, thanks. Like, why go through the huge alternate timeline mess if we're just going to rehash what came before? And as much as Kirk's parallel death was kind of moving, it didn't really work. OF COURSE they're not killing the captain! And like, they'd already explained the lifesaving blood, and I was thinking "hmm, McCoy must have some of Khan's blood saved" as Spock was pushing his hand against the glass. And the bringing Kirk back just didn't feel earned, especially when you think about the fact that it took an ENTIRE MOVIE to bring Spock back. "Whoo, magic blood, here's the captain back, yay!" just made the whole chunk seem like tension for the sake of tension, and reversing the death scene from the previous Khan movie because that's gonna look cool, I guess.

-Holy crap was the admiral-gone-bad underdeveloped. I think a Starfleet admiral conspiring to use Kirk & Co. to start a full-out war with the Klingons could've been a really interesting idea on its own, and might've led to a deeper movie... but there was no depth here. He was just hellbent on starting a war because, well, the plot needed him to be.

There were some fun fannish bits I liked, though!
Spoiler:
-Yay, Nimoy again! My theatre applauded when he showed up. (Though I hope "Spock goes to Spock Prime for the answer" doesn't happen again because that's going to get old right away.)

-SECTION 31! (That didn't really show up til DS9, right? I never would've guessed that DS9 stuff would show up in these movies.)

-Chekov's look when Kirk told him to put on a red shirt was priceless.

-Hey, it's a tribble!

There were also some plot holes (um, Earth has more than one ship, right?). But I loved how much Scottie got to do, I loved McCoy being McCoy, and I sure did enjoy Chris Pine's pretty face in 3D. It's just not a movie you can think about too hard. Which is sad, because Star Trek, to me, has always been the sort of science fiction you CAN think about (well, maybe don't think about all their science too hard). I keep thinking back to JJ Abrams being interviewed on the Daily Show, where he told Jon Stewart he though Trek was "too philosophical." Abrams's Trek isn't nearly philosophical enough.
avatar
Poubelle

Posts : 691
Join date : 2011-10-22

Back to top Go down

Re: Star Trek Movies

Post  Raksha on Fri May 17, 2013 10:40 pm

My mom and I just got back from seeing this and we're both pretty disappointed. First, the whole SPOILER business does leave a bad taste in the mouth. Then on top of it, the movie was...okay. Just okay. There were moments that I liked and I still love the cast and think they're perfect, but...meh. Maybe the even numbered movies in Ultimate-verse Star Trek are going to be the bad ones, instead of the odd numbered ones in 616-verse!

About the spoiler:
Spoiler:
I thought Cumberbatch did a good job, he was pretty intimidating in places. But still. What, JJ Abrams, is Naveen Andrews not returning your phone calls anymore or something? It's not like white people are hurting for good roles in Hollywood, so knock that shit off.
avatar
Raksha

Posts : 963
Join date : 2011-10-22
Age : 36
Location : 137

Back to top Go down

Re: Star Trek Movies

Post  Skyblade on Sat May 18, 2013 12:46 am

Well, to be fair
Spoiler:
Naveen Andrews would be great if you needed your genetically engineered supermen economy-sized.

Skyblade

Posts : 89
Join date : 2012-05-06

Back to top Go down

Re: Star Trek Movies

Post  laddical on Sat May 18, 2013 12:54 am

Well it's not like

Spoiler:
Ricardo Montalban was exactly a giant.
avatar
laddical

Posts : 1607
Join date : 2011-10-22

Back to top Go down

Re: Star Trek Movies

Post  Poubelle on Sat May 18, 2013 2:48 am

EDIT: IMDB has a casting spoiler, so if you're still trying to avoid that, don't click the link. Or look up Into Darkness on their site.

Question: Both of Kirk's parents were listed in the credits. (They're on IMDB, too.) Where in the movie were they and what the heck did they do? I don't remember them at all.

(Also, it amuses me that Cupcake is actually named Cupcake in the credits, especially since I don't think he actually gets called that in this particular film.)
avatar
Poubelle

Posts : 691
Join date : 2011-10-22

Back to top Go down

Re: Star Trek Movies

Post  bookworm on Sat May 18, 2013 3:19 am

I spent most of the movie hoping that
Spoiler:
Khan was a title given to him, and he was waiting for the opportunity to wake the real Khan up. When they defrosted the guy at the end I was all MAYBE IT'S KHAN! Nope.

I was sitting next to Narfzz when the credits rolled and this picture articulates what I was feeling perfectly.

I still liked it overall, but between the holes in the plot and that, I don't think I'll buy it.
avatar
bookworm

Posts : 1083
Join date : 2011-10-22
Age : 37
Location : Georgia

Back to top Go down

Re: Star Trek Movies

Post  Jamie on Sat May 18, 2013 2:35 pm

Poubelle wrote:
Question: Both of Kirk's parents were listed in the credits. (They're on IMDB, too.) Where in the movie were they and what the heck did they do? I don't remember them at all.

Maybe
Spoiler:
when Kirk was coming back to life? I remember hearing Pike's line from the first movie "Can you do better?" So maybe something his parents said was garbled up in there. Weak, I know. But it's the only thing I could of.
avatar
Jamie

Posts : 151
Join date : 2011-10-24
Age : 35
Location : Salt Lake City, Utah

Back to top Go down

Re: Star Trek Movies

Post  PirateCatarina on Sat May 18, 2013 4:59 pm

I'm going to come out and say that I really liked the movie, overall. Yes it had a few weird bits and I'd LOVE to hear some reasoning behind The Spoiler, but I came out of the theater more pleased than displeased with the movie.

PirateCatarina

Posts : 62
Join date : 2011-12-19

Back to top Go down

Re: Star Trek Movies

Post  dionneshea on Sat May 18, 2013 11:18 pm

Jamie wrote:
Poubelle wrote:
Question: Both of Kirk's parents were listed in the credits. (They're on IMDB, too.) Where in the movie were they and what the heck did they do? I don't remember them at all.

Maybe
Spoiler:
when Kirk was coming back to life? I remember hearing Pike's line from the first movie "Can you do better?" So maybe something his parents said was garbled up in there. Weak, I know. But it's the only thing I could of.
That was it exactly.
Spoiler:
When Kirk was waking up you could hear his mom say, "George, you should be here" and his dad say, "Let's name him after your dad. Let's name him Jim."

I just got back from it and I more or less liked it. I found it really predictable. Like, I could have predicted the entire outcome of the film by a third of the way in, and did. I kept hoping they weren't telegraphing things that obviously, but it turns out that they were. Also, it did nothing to change my mind that Benedict Cumberbatch is a strange alien creature whom I do not enjoy looking at. He's a fine actor, but I find him too odd looking to countenance in 3D on a big screen.

I think the cast is the strongest thing about the franchise. They need to hand over the storytelling and directing to someone else. JJ was OUT OF CONTROL with the lens flares, even more so than usual.


Last edited by dionneshea on Sun May 19, 2013 1:37 am; edited 1 time in total
avatar
dionneshea

Posts : 501
Join date : 2011-10-21

Back to top Go down

Re: Star Trek Movies

Post  Cutebutpsycho on Sun May 19, 2013 12:28 am

Saw it (spent a long time agonizing about it) and because it was my birthday, my friends paid for my ticket. I think some of it was also to avoid me getting tossed out of the theater for buying a ticket to 42 and then going to meet them in the theater.

"This is not what grown-ups do," the mister told me.

"It's my birthday. I can do what I want," I replied.

Anyways, I honestly think Iron Man 3 was better (admittedly I saw it yesterday and LOVED it). Not just because I'm still upset with the spoiler, but the pacing lagged and some of the surprises were just meh. If they were waiting four years for the right script, what the hell was the original script they had?
avatar
Cutebutpsycho

Posts : 710
Join date : 2011-10-21

Back to top Go down

Re: Star Trek Movies

Post  bookworm on Sun May 19, 2013 12:41 pm

I have a feeling we're in the minority with our outage, sadly. I went and saw it again with a large group of friends yesterday, and they didn't have a problem with it.
avatar
bookworm

Posts : 1083
Join date : 2011-10-22
Age : 37
Location : Georgia

Back to top Go down

Re: Star Trek Movies

Post  Cutebutpsycho on Sun May 19, 2013 12:46 pm

Yeah. I got into it with a friend who was all "How do you know BC wasn't cast because he was the right man for the job?"

I think that the whole spoiler thing was just a ruse to keep people from organizing an ability to ask real questions. It's hard to ask about an "alleged" thing.
avatar
Cutebutpsycho

Posts : 710
Join date : 2011-10-21

Back to top Go down

Re: Star Trek Movies

Post  punkysdilemma on Sun May 19, 2013 12:50 pm

Saw it last night, liked it overall. Didn't find it had the emotional weight they wanted it to have in certain spots, but liked it overall.

Spoiler:
I was very sad about Captain Pike. Bruce Greenwood has been awesome in this role, just the right amount of gravitas, and the movies need someone older to occasionally bring Kirk up short. And so much for that.

We felt things kind of went off the rails when Khan's identity was revealed and they started redoing scenes from Wrath of Khan. I think there's an interesting sci-fi seed in the idea that even in this new universe, things inexorably gravitate towards what has happened before, but these movies are too popcorn-action-y to get the emotional weight in there. In Wrath of Khan Kirk et al. are feeling older and pondering their fates and here comes a dreaded enemy from the past who is older and much more, uh, wrathful than when we first met him, but here there's no history with Khan and the reboot crew, only history with someone named Khan and the audience, and that felt a little off.

Also, with the whole reversal of who dies in the radiation-flooded compartment scene, I think they missed an opportunity to make it much more poignant that what happened before is happening again. It just didn't land that way. Something about the music or the framing. If they had quieted the whole thing down in the approach to that scene I think it would have had a much better sense of foreboding and inevitability, but it was still I AM AN ACTION MOVIE all up in there. Missed opportunity, IMO.

Everyone in the theater laughed at the "KHAAAAAAAAAAAAN" moment here too. They reeeeeally should have resisted doing that.

Loved that in this universe there was still an exploded moon around Q'onos.
avatar
punkysdilemma

Posts : 1332
Join date : 2011-10-24
Age : 38
Location : Silicon Valley, CA

Back to top Go down

Re: Star Trek Movies

Post  Cutebutpsycho on Sun May 19, 2013 12:52 pm

I think you hit it on the head Punky with what left me meh. I haven't seen the original, but there were moments where I felt like the callbacks were just getting to be a bit too much.
avatar
Cutebutpsycho

Posts : 710
Join date : 2011-10-21

Back to top Go down

Re: Star Trek Movies

Post  bookworm on Sun May 19, 2013 2:38 pm

I thought that moon had exploded in Undiscovered Country. I was confused as to why is exploded decades early.
avatar
bookworm

Posts : 1083
Join date : 2011-10-22
Age : 37
Location : Georgia

Back to top Go down

Re: Star Trek Movies

Post  punkysdilemma on Sun May 19, 2013 2:43 pm

I was fanwanking that the overmilitarization of the various factions in the reboot universe meant they overmined the moon 50 years early.
avatar
punkysdilemma

Posts : 1332
Join date : 2011-10-24
Age : 38
Location : Silicon Valley, CA

Back to top Go down

Re: Star Trek Movies

Post  laddical on Sun May 19, 2013 3:30 pm

That's pretty much what I concluded as well. Which also explains the presence of the Dreadnaught class ship that appears to be a match for Galaxy insize and Defiant in armament a century early.
avatar
laddical

Posts : 1607
Join date : 2011-10-22

Back to top Go down

Re: Star Trek Movies

Post  RiverThames on Sun May 19, 2013 9:45 pm

Saw it. Enjoyed it, despite the fact that aspects were clearly
Spoiler:
a cover version of Wrath of Khan.
Despite that, there was a lot in the core to enjoy.

With regard to
Spoiler:
whitewashing Khan, I wonder if it's entirely because he was the villain. I can imagine there were studio execs (and the worst aspects of this reeked of studio fingerprints demanding hitting the WoK notes) who would be all, "If we make the bad guy a person of color, we'll get crucified!"

As for Big Spoiler Itself :
Spoiler:
Yeah, kind of pointless, and in a strange way, almost inconsequential.

I mean, consider my crazy-ass theory off Cumberbatch being Angry Picard from the Future. If, when Khan Explains it All To You, instead of it being, "Adm. Marcus found our ship, woke me, kept my crew frozen to force me to design superweapons" it was, "They pulled my ship back in time, put my crew into stasis to force me to design superweapons", would it really be significantly different?
avatar
RiverThames

Posts : 857
Join date : 2011-10-21
Age : 44
Location : Austin, TX

http://www.mrmaresca.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Star Trek Movies

Post  Cutebutpsycho on Sun May 19, 2013 10:12 pm

Spoiler:
Your Picard idea works wonderfully in this case too. The Tribble theory of "Admiral Marcus held my people hostage, threatening to turn them into furry novelty hats or enslave them as adorable pets unless I aided him in making superweapons, would also work.

Why yes, I am very attached to the idea of a tribble.

The thing with the idea that "if we make a person of color be a terrorist, we're gonna get crucified" is that the character was waaaaaay more complex and sympathetic than the garden variety terrorist that you see in action movies and such. The motives were mixed and complex and it was a really interesting role and for most actors of color, they're often relegated to the background or one-dimensional stereotypes. Hell, Kal Penn played a terrorist on 24, which he acknowledged wasn't great. Why couldn't Naveen Andrews or Oded Fehr have gotten this role instead? It's a killer role and I think they could've done a good job also.
avatar
Cutebutpsycho

Posts : 710
Join date : 2011-10-21

Back to top Go down

Re: Star Trek Movies

Post  RiverThames on Mon May 20, 2013 1:13 am

OK, here's a petty thing, but: not a single alien, save the Klingons, Spock and the one Orion* lady running through San Francisco is a Trek Alien. Not. A. One. They have a bunch of aliens, even serving on the bridge, but I couldn't tell you what they are. What's up with that? Are Andorians or Tellerites that hard?

--
*- Same in the first one, and I could accept that changes in the timeline had the Orions in the Federation, but... come one.
avatar
RiverThames

Posts : 857
Join date : 2011-10-21
Age : 44
Location : Austin, TX

http://www.mrmaresca.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Star Trek Movies

Post  dionneshea on Mon May 20, 2013 2:52 am

I had a half hour argument with my mother this afternoon as to whether it was a good film or not. My mother is an old-school Trekkie who really didn't like the first reboot movie, but loved this one. I'm simply the daughter of a Trekkie, so I don't have the emotional attachment that she does. We started talking about The Spoiler which my mom didn't realise was a spoiler as she's a luddite who doesn't own a computer, much less go on the internet.

Spoiler:
I have a big problem with the whitewashing of the Khan character. If they were going to go that route, why not simply wake up another one of the augments. Then pan over a still frozen Khan at the end, played by someone who is actually Indian, and that can be a set-up for the next film. My mother loved this board's suggestion of Naveen Andrews. However, she thinks that the surprise was worth having the whitest guy ever playing Khan. I don't think it was. There wasn't enough of a payoff of it being a surprise to make that the reason. They could have released that he was playing Khan and had just as much anticipation.

Kind of hilariously, she thought that Cumberbatch was playing an alien because in her words, "He's so odd looking - his head and face are much too narrow for the rest of him." Basically she thought he was in alien costume, which cracked me up. It also reminded me that as an augment, wasn't he supposed to be superior in looks. Ricardo Montalban was a stone-cold fox in his youth (and in his later years if you were to ask my sister). Even if they couldn't get Naveen, surely, they could have gotten Salman Khan or someone similar.

We also argued over Carol Marcus. To be fair, I don't really remember Carol Marcus that much from the TWoK, but my mom thought that this girl was too weak and insipid. I actually kind of liked her. The only two things we agreed on is that Simon Pegg's Scotty is the best part of the reboot (particularly the long shot of him running across the loading dock), and that Bruce Greenwood shouldn't die in things because he's awesome.

I don't know, the more I think about it, the less I like it. There were definitely things about the movie that I loved, but as a whole? Not so much.
avatar
dionneshea

Posts : 501
Join date : 2011-10-21

Back to top Go down

Re: Star Trek Movies

Post  Raksha on Mon May 20, 2013 6:50 am

The more my mom thinks about this movie, the angrier she gets. She emailed me this article about the total mishandling of everything surrounding the SPOILER. And then I had to go to the emergency room again last night at, like, 2 am because I was having more gallbladder issues and as we were driving to the hospital and I was moaning in pain and trying not to vomit all over the car, mom went off on yet another rant about how she thinks this movie was a stiff, forced parody of Star Trek and how she really hopes JJ Abrams' Star Wars commitments means he's not going to be involved with the next one. Her over the top nerd rage was so hilarious to me, it actually made me feel a little better!

I do actually agree with her that JJ Abrams doesn't really get the philosophy behind Trek. She saw him on The Daily Show and he was talking about how he never liked Trek growing up because it was too philosophical and preferred Star Wars, but through making these movies he gets it now. No, actually, he doesn't. The awesomeness of the first movie must have been a fluke.

Ah well. Better luck next time, Trek!
avatar
Raksha

Posts : 963
Join date : 2011-10-22
Age : 36
Location : 137

Back to top Go down

Re: Star Trek Movies

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 6 of 9 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum