Topic: Star Trek Into Darkness - Review and Discuss  (Read 34152 times)

0 Members and 8 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline manitoba1073

  • FLEET ADMIRAL OF THE YARDS
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1119
  • Gender: Male
    • manitobashipyards
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness - Review and Discuss
« Reply #40 on: May 29, 2013, 10:08:29 pm »
I was thinking of a Bynar too, although this one is like the supermodel of his species that shows up on Binar magazine covers, but a JJ-version of Norman sounds cool too. But he's just there because JJ liked the cantina bar scene from Star Wars...


ps ANOTHER thing I hated - the afore-mentioned doohickey. Being that it's the crucial part of the matter/ANTIMATTER warp core, shouldn't Kirk been, you know, VAPORISED? Forget radiation, that boy should be toast.

 Considering it was offline when he was kicking it, Id say nope. However the residual radiation was bad enough.

But it comes online right away when his last kick does the trick, so Kirk should get annihilated.  :skeptic:

 It came on shortly after he fell down the side. It only register on the computers that it was aligned, then they restarted it, all shortly after he fell.



Offline Sirgod

  • Whooot Master Cattle Baron
  • Global Moderator
  • Vice Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 27836
  • Gender: Male
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness - Review and Discuss
« Reply #41 on: May 29, 2013, 10:46:22 pm »
Did you guys notice the guy on the bridge that sounded like a machine and had the cybernetic implant on the back of his head?

Adam

That blue thing on the back of his head, was a small copy of the Top of the bridge. You know how the old show, had the red beacon at the top of the interior bridge, In the movie, it is blue.

I think he is also in the comic, along with cupcake, but I am not sure, as It's all second hand info bro.

Stephen
"You cannot exaggerate about the Marines. They are convinced to the point of arrogance, that they are the most ferocious fighters on earth - and the amusing thing about it is that they are."- Father Kevin Keaney, Chaplain, Korean War

Offline Czar Mohab

  • Faith manages.
  • Lt.
  • *
  • Posts: 564
  • Gender: Male
  • Chewie - Go jiggle the handle!
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness - Review and Discuss
« Reply #42 on: May 30, 2013, 01:40:42 pm »
Hehehehehe

The Czar
US Navy Veteran - Proud to Serve
Submariners Do It Underwater - Nukes Do It Back Aft - Pride Runs Deep
Have you thanked a Vet lately?

Subaru Owners Do It Horizontally Opposed!
Proud Owner - '08 WRX - '03 Baja - '98 Legacy

Offline TAnimaL

  • Lt.
  • *
  • Posts: 772
  • Gender: Male
    • Combat Logs from the Cold Depths of Space
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness - Review and Discuss
« Reply #43 on: May 30, 2013, 06:08:47 pm »
many a face-palm moments in STID, and the Klinks weren't the worst. At least they spoke Okrand-designed klingonasse, and had bat'leths, even if they were fancy ones.

For the record, cyborg dude on the bridge is identified as "Science Officer 0718." So, not something canon like we all thought, but just something they thought looked "neat."
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Science_Officer_0718

Offline Nemesis

  • Captain Kayn
  • Global Moderator
  • Commodore
  • *
  • Posts: 13059
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness - Review and Discuss
« Reply #44 on: May 30, 2013, 06:32:12 pm »
Somewhere Berman and Braga are congratulating each other since it has been proven that there is someone less suited to make Star Trek than them.
Do unto others as Frey has done unto you.
Seti Team    Free Software
I believe truth and principle do matter. If you have to sacrifice them to get the results you want, then the results aren't worth it.
 FoaS_XC : "Take great pains to distinguish a criticism vs. an attack. A person reading a post should never be able to confuse the two."

Offline knightstorm

  • His Imperial Highness, Norton II, Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2106
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness - Review and Discuss
« Reply #45 on: May 30, 2013, 06:52:35 pm »
Somewhere Berman and Braga are congratulating each other since it has been proven that there is someone less suited to make Star Trek than them.

Well, Berman was responsible for the best decade in the franchises history so there's a lot of people who are less suited to make Star Trek than him, but Abrams is definitely one of them.

Offline TAnimaL

  • Lt.
  • *
  • Posts: 772
  • Gender: Male
    • Combat Logs from the Cold Depths of Space
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness - Review and Discuss
« Reply #46 on: May 30, 2013, 08:40:02 pm »
Here, here. To me, despite the stumbles, all the TV Trek from 1966-69, 1973, 1987 to 2005 WAS Star Trek, and the movies were just struggling to make money. Kudos to Roddenberry, Coon, Fontana and Berman for making it.

Offline Lono

  • Lt. Junior Grade
  • *
  • Posts: 445
  • Gender: Male
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness - Review and Discuss
« Reply #47 on: June 24, 2013, 12:44:00 pm »
Just saw it yesterday, I couldn't believe what I saw. It was a sad day for trek, I don't wanna spoil anything but it was terrible :hoppin:

Adam

Hah ha hah ha ha - The HATE is STRONG in this one!

Dead on!


Offline knightstorm

  • His Imperial Highness, Norton II, Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2106
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness - Review and Discuss
« Reply #48 on: June 24, 2013, 05:29:06 pm »

For the record, cyborg dude on the bridge is identified as "Science Officer 0718." So, not something canon like we all thought, but just something they thought looked "neat."
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Science_Officer_0718


Personally, I think this post captures everything I'll need to know about that film.

Offline Czar Mohab

  • Faith manages.
  • Lt.
  • *
  • Posts: 564
  • Gender: Male
  • Chewie - Go jiggle the handle!
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness - Review and Discuss
« Reply #49 on: June 25, 2013, 12:01:07 am »

For the record, cyborg dude on the bridge is identified as "Science Officer 0718." So, not something canon like we all thought, but just something they thought looked "neat."
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Science_Officer_0718


Personally, I think this post captures everything I'll need to know about that film.


I know I've seen that exact character (bald cyborg that connects to the main computer with a [at the time of filming] scripted but not generally known name) somewhere else before... *DIGS AROUND INTERNET*

Yup. I was right.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Lobot

Can't even steal from the correct franchise. Sad. For both. Just a little less sad, however, than the fact that JJ has the great potential to crash and burn *that* franchise as well...

The Czar

P.S. Please let there be no Chew-Spock-a, Captain James T. Solo's copilot on the U.S.S. Millennium 'Prise.
US Navy Veteran - Proud to Serve
Submariners Do It Underwater - Nukes Do It Back Aft - Pride Runs Deep
Have you thanked a Vet lately?

Subaru Owners Do It Horizontally Opposed!
Proud Owner - '08 WRX - '03 Baja - '98 Legacy

Offline Age

  • D.Net VIP
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2690
  • Gender: Male
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness - Review and Discuss
« Reply #50 on: July 11, 2013, 04:58:30 pm »
I saw this lastnight and thought it is to fast paced lack of story line and a rip off of The Wrath of Kahn.It went from the being here to there to here and there etc etc.JJ couldn't come up with his very own storyline that he had to rip it off from Gene's TWoK and Spock being in it again.It makes for good fast paced sci fi movie but it isn't Star Trek.

I am just glad I din't pay to go and see it yes I dled it.

It did give me an idea how to bring back Kirk to use nanites from 7 of 9 after all it was writtin in the book.

Offline EschelonOfJudgemnt

  • Lt. Junior Grade
  • *
  • Posts: 259
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness - Review and Discuss
« Reply #51 on: July 11, 2013, 07:09:17 pm »
it seems that some of you are having the same reaction that I had with the first JJ outing...

'That's 2+ hours of my life I'm not getting back..."

Haven't seen STID, because I KNOW I would be disappointed.  And it sounds like my 'pulling random rabbits out of hats'  observation r.e. Abram's 'scriptwriting/directing' style is still dead on the mark with the second outing.

What makes me even more sad is that this encourages the further 'dumbing down' of the average moviegoer.  At least the Star Trek franchise pre-Abrams made some attempts at intellectual stimulation, and at showing deep meaningful relationships!

But, for those looking for mindless action dramas, I'm sure it's great.  Terminator and Aliens (Alien 2) were great too, but then they didn't need to be overly complicated, just cool.

Just remember, friends do not let friends get STID's.

Offline TAnimaL

  • Lt.
  • *
  • Posts: 772
  • Gender: Male
    • Combat Logs from the Cold Depths of Space
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness - Review and Discuss
« Reply #52 on: July 12, 2013, 09:30:10 am »
Not to nitpick (ok, I'm a Trekkie, I live to nitpick), but TWOK wasn't "Gene's" - he was pointedly cut out of the ST movie process ST2 onwards, as a "consultant" who as rarely listened to or tolerated, frankly.

That's why I prefer ST TV to the TOS movies - they were Trek'lite, IMHO

Offline knightstorm

  • His Imperial Highness, Norton II, Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2106
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness - Review and Discuss
« Reply #53 on: July 12, 2013, 09:47:14 am »
Not to nitpick (ok, I'm a Trekkie, I live to nitpick), but TWOK wasn't "Gene's" - he was pointedly cut out of the ST movie process ST2 onwards, as a "consultant" who as rarely listened to or tolerated, frankly.

That's why I prefer ST TV to the TOS movies - they were Trek'lite, IMHO

Gene had a few good ideas in the 60s, but outside of that he was a disaster.  The only film where he was a major creative influence was TMP.  Paramount blamed him for it, which was why he was cut out of the other films.  They only brought him on board for TNG because they needed to create a link to TOS.  And the first season of TNG which he had full creative control over SUCKED.

Offline Age

  • D.Net VIP
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2690
  • Gender: Male
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness - Review and Discuss
« Reply #54 on: July 12, 2013, 04:49:23 pm »
I would say it was DC Fontana who linked TOS  to the TNG episodes as for the films that would be Harve Beneette.I would say Gene authorised them.

Offline Tulwar

  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1330
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness - Review and Discuss
« Reply #55 on: July 12, 2013, 05:55:56 pm »
I wanted to know weather this ST was worth the time it took to watch, let alone the ticket price.  While WoK was OK, the rest of the ST movies went were either bad, worse, or ST V.  The only high point of the first JJ ST was Dr. McCoy.  The actor, his lines, and his delivery were absolutely perfect.  Other than that, especially the model of the Big E, everything did suckith.

I guess they're doing the same thing with movies that they did with cartoons.  When I was little, cartoon characters were portrayed as adults.  By the time I was a teenager, the characters were all being voiced by overly emotional, young sounding actors.  I'm not sure how that works, because when I was a child, I never wanted to see anything about other children.  I wanted to see real men doing manly things.

I guess more children want characters they can empathize with.  Either that, or Hollywood thinks that children empathize with other children.  This ST is not for us.  The owners of the franchise are looking for a new audience to exploit, and they are willing to flush anything good that was inherently good about ST down the toilet to do it.

This ST isn't writen for us.  Just how they're supposed to snare another generation with unbelievable characters, crumby sets, goofy storylines, and ugly spaceship models is beyond me.  I'll never understand why they never pick up on the ST novels for storylines, and use fan designs for starship models.  Ah, ST fans are just "trekkies."  I don't think they've figured out that most "trekkies" only but the ST merchandice that they like.  They think we buy just anything with a ST lable.

I didn't buy a ticket to see Nemisis, and I've flipped though it when it came to telivision.  I was curious enough to go to the first JJ Trek, but I don't want to suffer through another.  I really don't need much to go to a ST movie.  What I require is a cool spaceship model.  I don't need a good plot, good acting, or anthing else any other genera would require.  Just one good model.  They can't even to that.  To Hades with the whole ST franchise.  Years from now, when this comes to television, I'm going to watch it up until the first commercial interruption, then I'll watch something else.
Cannon (can' nun) n.  An istrument used to rectify national boundries.  Ambrois Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

Offline Tulwar

  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1330
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness - Review and Discuss
« Reply #56 on: July 12, 2013, 06:05:26 pm »
Not to nitpick (ok, I'm a Trekkie, I live to nitpick), but TWOK wasn't "Gene's" - he was pointedly cut out of the ST movie process ST2 onwards, as a "consultant" who as rarely listened to or tolerated, frankly.

That's why I prefer ST TV to the TOS movies - they were Trek'lite, IMHO

Gene had a few good ideas in the 60s, but outside of that he was a disaster.  The only film where he was a major creative influence was TMP.  Paramount blamed him for it, which was why he was cut out of the other films.  They only brought him on board for TNG because they needed to create a link to TOS.  And the first season of TNG which he had full creative control over SUCKED.

Old Matt Jeffries is the figure from TOS that I miss.  In an interview, he said he went to see ST TMP, thought that the Enterprise bridge looked like a discotech, said he fell asleep, and he never watched any ST production since.  He was the man that came up with both the Enterpise and the Klingon battlecruiser designs.  Perhaps he was a larger figure in the character of the origional ST production than anyone imagined.
Cannon (can' nun) n.  An istrument used to rectify national boundries.  Ambrois Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

Offline TAnimaL

  • Lt.
  • *
  • Posts: 772
  • Gender: Male
    • Combat Logs from the Cold Depths of Space
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness - Review and Discuss
« Reply #57 on: July 13, 2013, 08:40:38 am »
I would say it was DC Fontana who linked TOS  to the TNG episodes as for the films that would be Harve Beneette.I would say Gene authorised them.

As mentioned, GR was cut out after TMP and could no more "authorize" ST and merely a consultant. Parmount owned it and gave it to Harve Bennett. GR had major complaints with TWOK scripts and fought with Meyers that Bennett tried to compromise for, although defaulting to Meyer's in most.

Offline Age

  • D.Net VIP
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2690
  • Gender: Male
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness - Review and Discuss
« Reply #58 on: July 13, 2013, 06:25:57 pm »
I wanted to know weather this ST was worth the time it took to watch, let alone the ticket price.  While WoK was OK, the rest of the ST movies went were either bad, worse, or ST V. 
I liked all the TOS crew movies even 5 more so than I can say for the TNG movies they were better on the small screen.

What I mean by authorize is the canon of Trek meaning NX01 Enterpise is not a canon ship as Gene didn't authorize it.It wasn't mentioned in previose Trek movies/shows.I doubt Gene would of let Kirk die at the end of Generations.

Offline Nemesis

  • Captain Kayn
  • Global Moderator
  • Commodore
  • *
  • Posts: 13059
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness - Review and Discuss
« Reply #59 on: July 14, 2013, 12:40:45 pm »
JJ Trek = BSG 1980
Do unto others as Frey has done unto you.
Seti Team    Free Software
I believe truth and principle do matter. If you have to sacrifice them to get the results you want, then the results aren't worth it.
 FoaS_XC : "Take great pains to distinguish a criticism vs. an attack. A person reading a post should never be able to confuse the two."