goddam what was that?


shit...


so I'm still deeply in the process of making my mind up on what to think about this..

being a long time trek nerd since early 70ees, I REALLY REALLY loved the reboot 3 years ago. and technically the new one isn't so much different, but still... this time something was just not right.. I think?!

maybe after watching a few more times I'll know better...

################ SPOILERS AHEAD ################

































































################ SPOILERS AHEAD ################

okay, 3 years ago as well as now I LOVED the many goodies and referencs to the old Star Trek and all the wonderful details hidden all over the movie

and I felt the same for at least an hour during this one as well... we even get a tribble, and the new Klingons also were quite fine, but wasted for a short cameo of 5 minutes? I want an extra movie for them!)
but then I think they went too far:

no subtle quotes and references anymore, but a direct cut&paste from Wrath of Khan with the reversed Spock saves the ship scene up to screaming "KAHHHHHHHHN!!!!"
THAT was over the top, at least for me.

and why the hell create an alternate timeline/universe in the first place, if even some scenes and some dialogue remain the same? seems they coudln't go all the way and decide to simply do a full remake of Space Seed or Wrath Of Khan.. so it turned into a bit of a hypbrid... the main problemas I see it: unlike 3 years ago this time the movie directly competes against Wrath Of Kahn. and lost. at least in my book

okay, other things to bitch about, a VERY constructed storyline with illogical decisions and twists, that only serve to connect one action sequence after the other. but I could tolerate all that, just as some other strange things (like Nazi (?) style uniforms for Starfleet f.e.... or Spock singlehandedly taking out the guy who just before killed of 2 dozen Klingons... or Spock in tears... or Spock asking his Prime alter ego "bohooo what should I do daddy?"... ) despite all that I still liked many things, however..... the overall feeling of disappointment remains..... maybe also because of overblown expectations. but yeah, Cumberbatch was baddass



anyway, I will have to sleep over this a few more nights and maybe change my mind on some things

################ SPOILERS END ################

[Edited 5/10/13 7:21am]

I only know that everything that MERCENARY called Abrams touches is AVERAGE

I fear for my star wars.

Are all the damned flares gone, that's one thing I want to know?

**** BIGASS SPOILERS ****

I actually was not expecting him to be Khan at all, so that was a pleasant surprise.


It hit all the right marks, albeit clinically, in the beginning of the film. It was very 'finding Nemo' in it's formula at the beginning--make the audience care, so I give them kudos for that.

A few things that I wished Abrams would have addressed (albeit I understand why they didn't).

1. What happenned to the remaining vulcans after their home planet was destroyed in the previous film? How did they rebuild their civilization, and where? This would have been a fascinating storyline to approach. Spock mentions it in his all-too-heartfully conveyed explaination to Ahura and Kirk on the pod, but the problem with this is that if a person watches Into Darkness without the benefit of having seen the previous film, this would have been a tedius subtext thrown in with very little emotional impact.

2. We find out that Khan is 300 years old, and his very quickly narrated back-story is given to us by Khan himself, but this is done again via his narration when Abrams should have shown us--this disengages the audience members who are not sci-fi fans, nor fans of the genre. Show us.


3. The entire Klingon sequence could have been removed and still the scenerio of the Enterprise being stuck in Klingon territory would have increased the stakes. But why Khan would chose to hideout in Kronos is beyond me, since he was merely intersted in recovering his crew first.

4. Kirk and Spoke don't have enough of a friendship, nor is it shown in great detail in the movie, sufficient to make that final scene between the two of them the tear jerker it was meant to be. At the end of Wrath of Khan, the movie is heart-wrenching because the series established the strong bond between them--even Bone's reaction at the end of the movie shows this. But, in this movie, it feels Hollywood forced.

Things I liked:

1. Big ups to Zachery whats-his-face for making Spock so multi-dimensional that he becomes more interesting than Kirk. Leonard Nemoy explained many years ago that Spock is not an unfealing and unemotional being. That, indeed, Vulcans are not unfeeling and unemotional intrinsically--it's social conditioning that makes Spock who he is. The new Spock shows this very clearly, and in many places humerously.

2. Earth finally feels like a place that people live. The old movies never really conveyed this adequately in my opinion. This one has nightclubs, and backdrops, and the whole nine yards.

3. In in-atmosphere shots of the Enterprise are gorgeous.


Things that I didn't like

1. The sexual tension in this movie comes from a Vulcan and his all-too-girly girlfriend. Do we really need to get that rated G with it? Would it not hurt to have Kirk do, what he does best--tap booties? He taps two aliens in the beginning of this movie, but they are part of superfluous scens. Add a dangerous sex partner ala James Bond formula--This is James Kirk, you motherfuckers--not captain America.

2. The constant pre-reboot references. Just stop it already. Leonard Nemoy's scene was absolutely unecessary.

3. The end was......um....well, you'll just need to see it. Something was super rushed and off about it. They explained it through dialogue!!! WTF?


Overall, pretty good movie though. The first was better, but this was still good fun.

.

[Edited 5/11/13 5:23am]

[Edited 5/13/13 4:57am]

[Edited 5/13/13 4:57am]

imago said:

Overall, pretty good movie though. The first was better, but this was still good fun.

it IS a pretty good movie indeed. I'm just not sure yet if it is also a good Star Trek movie. if that makes any sense

JOYJOY said:

morningsong said:Are all the damned flares gone, that's one thing I want to know? Nope still there.. I still enjoyed the movie but was VERY distracted by them..

after a few minutes I didn't even notice anymore. same with the first one.

btw, the 3D was a nice bonus, but not essential

I put space shots and admit to using flares in my latest 4 minute short film:

https://vimeo.com/66070570

[img:$uid]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v18/ufoclub/ScreenShot2013-05-13at122438PM.png[/img:$uid]

[img:$uid]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v18/ufoclub/ScreenShot2013-05-13at122357PM.png[/img:$uid]

Dancelot said:

JOYJOY said:

morningsong said:Are all the damned flares gone, that's one thing I want to know? Nope still there.. I still enjoyed the movie but was VERY distracted by them..

after a few minutes I didn't even notice anymore. same with the first one.

btw, the 3D was a nice bonus, but not essential

I guess that's his signature, good to have fair warning. I was so excited by the previews this weekend, can't wait for Friday.

ufoclub said:

I put space shots and admit to using flares in my latest 4 minute short film:

https://vimeo.com/66070570

nice!!


even though there were no Klingons

I taught a film class winter semester and showed Star Trek 2, and many of them found it really dated and boring. I was hoping this new trek would be the summer blockbuster that they would all go see on their own, and then, if it is a strange retelling of Trek 2, they might see why Trek2 RULES.

ufoclub said:

I taught a film class winter semester and showed Star Trek 2, and many of them found it really dated and boring. I was hoping this new trek would be the summer blockbuster that they would all go see on their own, and then, if it is a strange retelling of Trek 2, they might see why Trek2 RULES.

There’s been much debate as to whether or not Star Trek Into Darkness will feature elements of the story from the second Star Trek film. Although we will have to wait a few more days to see Into Darkness in order to tell for sure, it’s an excellent reason to take a look at the original sequel.

It’s easy to argue that J.J. Abram’s 2009 Star Trek reboot was one of the best things to have ever happened to the venerable franchise. Not only was it the most profitable movie of the franchise so far, but it invited new fans in a way that none of the previous films were able to. In fact, this wasn’t the first time that the franchise was in trouble. Star Trek initially got off to a bad start with the first big-screen adaptation, Star Trek: The Motion Picture. That 1979 film was an attempt to cash in on the sudden popularity of science fiction after Star Wars made it clear that the genre could indeed be big. The original 1979 film, big on special effects but dull in plot, only entertained fans of the original films and, because of this, it floundered. It looked like Star Trek was done.

Someone was able to convince Paramount to make a sequel on a small budget. But rather than follow the same formula, this film would have to be different. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan was indeed different. This film is emotional. Characters have interactions, and the plot doesn’t settle for typical Star Trek conventions. This is a swash-buckling adventure movie in space, filled with legendary heroes and villains, a desperate tone, and some new tricks. Granted, it is still a Star Trek film. The action is nowhere near as entertaining or frequent as Star Wars, but it is a big change from what came before and would be something that the franchise would find difficult to replicate in the future, despite 8 more attempts at doing so before the reboot.

Flash forward to today and it is the new Star Trek franchise that in a way has resurrected Star Wars. Ironic, yes, but let’s not forget what got us to this point. Wrath of Khan is a shining example of everything that can be right about Star Trek. Sure, the film is dated and pales in comparison for what passes as exciting these days, but it is the truest example of what a space adventure should be. The characters are unforgettable, the drama is tense, and the boisterous plot is actually more than just explosions and sex. While it took J.J. Abram’s 2009 reboot for Star Trek to finally be cool again, this film proves that the franchise wasn’t just for nerds. There was some good solid film making as well. If you have never seen an original Star Trek film and are even slightly curious to see one (or if you have a hunger for nostalgia), Wrath of Khan is a definite must see.

Story: James T. Kirk has been promoted to Admiral and rather than command a star ship, he spends his days training cadets, making inspections, and feeling uneasy about his advancing years. While on a training mission, Kirk and the Enterprise receive a strange transmission. Kirk decides to investigate and takes command of the Enterprise. What they find is a trap, set up by an old enemy, and the challenges are beyond anything that Kirk and the crew has had to face before…Good (9.3/10)

Acting: Typically with William Shatner as Captain Kirk, you know exactly what type of performance you are getting. Thankfully, in this film, the director was so forceful with Shatner that he literally grew frustrated with the film and actually put on a very emotional performance as a result. The rest of the crew is back and do their jobs well. The standout is, of course, the esteemed Ricardo Montalban as antagonist Khan. The charisma that he exudes in this performance is like nothing else in the Star Trek franchise before or since. He makes a very memorable character and even if he is campy and often over-the-top, it fits with the movie and makes everything move with purpose. The supporting cast in this film is also very good, and gets more action and screen time than is typical. Good (9.0/10)

Direction: The director is Nicholas Meyer. Meyer struggles by placing the camera is odd places during the dialogue, but otherwise makes this a very exciting film. The movie is full of wonderful sweeping exterior shots which fit well with the music. The action is very dramatic, and makes its point in very quick, impactful moments. This is old-school action – no long drawn out sequences. Meyer makes the best of the special effects and really knows how to capture the emotion of the story. Good (9.2/10)

Special Effects/X-Factor: The movie is more than 30 years old, and the special effects show it, but they don’t ruin the film. In fact, when you think about it, the special effects in this film are actually pretty good, even downright evolutionary at times. This film uses some computer-animated sequences that are very ahead of their time. Furthermore, the film makers seem to understand the rather rudimentary nature of these computerized special effects, so they are only used in places that make sense. The music of this movie is tremendous. They don’t make sound tracks like the one in this film anymore. It’s loud, it controls the tone, and keeps everything moving. In all, this film is not only the best of the original Star Trek films but a great film in general. Good (9.6/10)

http://www.cinelinx.com/m...-1982.html

I didn't read a single thing in this thread since there are spoilers. I'm going to see it tonight with a couple of friends..I planned to see the Friday Mid-night premier showing but they moved the premier showing to freaking Wednesday...Very rare that that happens......

Saw it tonight and loved it. Last night I watched this...it made the movie that much more interesting.

http://www.history.com/sh...rse/videos

Anyone interested in the actual science behind the series and movies must watch this.

Okay I saw it, and it hit me like a very pretty piece of fluff / remix of Star Trek II.

A big problem with it is that some characters seem like someone doing a staged recreation of a classic character, but in a fake forced way. Scotty and McCoy... but mainly MCoy doesn't work at all. Seems like I'm watching a skit at a convention.

The effects are amazing, but the new lumpy style of design for spaceships is creating ships from movie to movie in different franchises that have no identity or conscise memorable style. I'm looking at the Klingon ships, police vehicles, and other "extra" ships with this critique.

The story... again there seems to be some kind of imbalance with the set pieces and the integrity of the character moments and the feel of the story as it unfolds. Seem like a half baked story given royal treatment. Absolutely hate that original Spock is in it. that part gives me the mood of a holiday special for network tv...

And I don't know how I feel about a remix alternate version of Trek 2. It's like the technique of effects and score and editing are so great, but the art of the story is atrophied into artificial calculated moments and echoes.

The performances of all the main leads are great.

The effects are spectacular.

The lens flares do get funny.

Well those were my firs thoughts. I did have fun watching it!

I hope my whole class sees it, and then they see how it relates to Star Trek 2, but without all the cool literary references and great script structure that 2 has.

I love 2009's Star Trek and im gonna see into Darkness just for that reason-yes i've been a secret Trekkie for awhile now

morningsong said:

More Bones! . Outside of that, I enjoyed the heck out of it. It seems they got away from making a bunch of possible science mistakes and just stuck with stockpiling this movie with technology. Loved seeing the Earth cities and having some idea how everyday people lived. The Enterprise felt like one of the crew again, during the movie I thought back on how much I cried seeing it destroyed in ST III. Loved more of Scotty in this one I felt he was short changed in the last one. Pine reflected Shatner which I found interesting. The more "emotionally" Spock was different. I'm seeing this sucker again. And the flares I think I enjoyed them more they did seem to add a dimension for me this time around, they did get annoying a couple of times. And Benedict is a cutey, his face, he can be the cold-blooded monster believably so, but he still seems warm if that makes any sense.

I loved the technology. The warp core set was real!! I watched the documentary and it was so fascinating! And btw, I'm in love with Karl Urban!!

From an interview...

http://social.entertainme...o-darkness

Wherever possible he puts you in a real environment whether it be the engineering section or ... we shot at NIF, (the National Ignition Facility) which is this top-secret nuclear facility out of San Francisco, and I think that adds an authenticity, and you really kind of believe.

Pegg: The warp core (set) in the film could well be the place where nuclear fusion ... Star Trek takes place in a post-fusion universe ...where it is discovered because every day, every seven hours, they bombard atoms with other atoms and are trying to create like a small sun which will run the planet and end our reliance on fossil fuel. So the warp core in "Star Trek" might be the site of one of the greatest ever ...

So you're like at the potential birthplace of this hypothetical technology...

Pegg: That's why they let us shoot there, because all of the scientists there are big on "Trek" -- fans.

It sucks.

It re-imagines Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, as a prequel. A weak one at that.

It doesn't hold it's internal logic but throws enough explosions to distract.

Kirk is simply unbearable. He becomes 'emotionally compromised,' but unlike Spock, doesn't lose the captain's chair because of it.

noimageatall said:

morningsong said:

More Bones! . Outside of that, I enjoyed the heck out of it. It seems they got away from making a bunch of possible science mistakes and just stuck with stockpiling this movie with technology. Loved seeing the Earth cities and having some idea how everyday people lived. The Enterprise felt like one of the crew again, during the movie I thought back on how much I cried seeing it destroyed in ST III. Loved more of Scotty in this one I felt he was short changed in the last one. Pine reflected Shatner which I found interesting. The more "emotionally" Spock was different. I'm seeing this sucker again. And the flares I think I enjoyed them more they did seem to add a dimension for me this time around, they did get annoying a couple of times. And Benedict is a cutey, his face, he can be the cold-blooded monster believably so, but he still seems warm if that makes any sense.

I loved the technology. The warp core set was real!! I watched the documentary and it was so fascinating! And btw, I'm in love with Karl Urban!!

From an interview...

http://social.entertainme...o-darkness

Wherever possible he puts you in a real environment whether it be the engineering section or ... we shot at NIF, (the National Ignition Facility) which is this top-secret nuclear facility out of San Francisco, and I think that adds an authenticity, and you really kind of believe.

Pegg: The warp core (set) in the film could well be the place where nuclear fusion ... Star Trek takes place in a post-fusion universe ...where it is discovered because every day, every seven hours, they bombard atoms with other atoms and are trying to create like a small sun which will run the planet and end our reliance on fossil fuel. So the warp core in "Star Trek" might be the site of one of the greatest ever ...

So you're like at the potential birthplace of this hypothetical technology...

Pegg: That's why they let us shoot there, because all of the scientists there are big on "Trek" -- fans.

Do you really think they were filming inside a top secret nuclear facility?!!!

The National Ignition Facility, or NIF, is a large, laser-based inertial confinement fusion (ICF) research device located at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore, California, USA. NIF uses powerful lasers to heat and compress a small amount of hydrogen fuel to the point where nuclear fusionreactions take place. NIF's mission is to achieve fusion ignition with high energy gain, and to supportnuclear weapon maintenance and design by studying the behavior of matter under the conditions found within nuclear weapons.^[1] NIF is the largest and most energetic ICF device built to date.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w...n_Facility

Not so top secret . . . . .

Unless somes proves the Theory of Relativty is wrong, no aren't travelling faster than light, let alone multiple factors times the speed of light.

(I understand you are quoting what someone said in an interview, but that doesn't make it fact.)

[Edited 5/19/13 13:25pm]

noimageatall said:

SUPRMAN said:

morningsong said:

SUPRMAN said:

Do you really think they were filming inside a top secret nuclear facility?!!!

The National Ignition Facility, or NIF, is a large, laser-based inertial confinement fusion (ICF) research device located at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore, California, USA. NIF uses powerful lasers to heat and compress a small amount of hydrogen fuel to the point where nuclear fusionreactions take place. NIF's mission is to achieve fusion ignition with high energy gain, and to supportnuclear weapon maintenance and design by studying the behavior of matter under the conditions found within nuclear weapons.^[1] NIF is the largest and most energetic ICF device built to date.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w...n_Facility

Not so top secret . . . . .

Unless somes proves the Theory of Relativty is wrong, no aren't travelling faster than light, let alone multiple factors times the speed of light.

(I understand you are quoting what someone said in an interview, but that doesn't make it fact.)

[Edited 5/19/13 13:25pm]

You do realize you're complaining about the un-realness of the entire Star Trek franchise since they've been traveling multiple times the speed of light since the very beginning. Seems a pointless exercise.

No, that's not what I'm complaining about.

I'm complaining about the impossible quotes regarding the 'science' of Star Trek pulled from some interview.

morningsong said:

noimageatall said:

The ship felt very real, like a functioning part of the crew. Since it didn't have an actual voice, it was visual. I thought it was all still part of the brewery it's nice they went to a real science facility, that gave it weight. . And Karl over the years has wormed his way into my heart so, he can do no wrong, except for far too many "I'm a doctor, not a..." references And he's a June 7th baby, also. He's on lock. . Loved the interview. I knew I was going to have to see this movie again, cause I realized I missed so much the first time around.. . The whole 9/11 reference I kind of missed, with the exception of me say " please don't a building, please don't hit a building." It's amazing how raw that nerve still is. [Edited 5/19/13 13:58pm]

Yes it did...in the documentary many scientists weighed in on warp speed, time travel, etc. It was very interesting. I also read another interview with Lawrence Krauss, a theoretical physicist. He said, "I don't think we're any closer to warp drive—it was and is still a wild idea. Applying what we know about general relativity, the idea of faster-than-light travel is possible in principle. You can expand space behind you and contract it in front of you and therefore quickly go from one place to another across the galaxy. But the amount of energy required is just unfathomable."


But you never know ...if we could go back 300 years and tell the scientists of that time about lasers, the Internet, HDTV, cellphones, Google Glass, air travel, and the international space station, they'd also say it's crazy and can 'never be done!'. I believe what's been said...if the mind can think of it, it can be done..or something to that effect. Technology is accelerating so rapidly...I'm excited!!

And I feel the same way about Karl. I never knew who he was...just saw him in 'character' parts. I think I first noticed him more in Chronicles of Riddick but I could never remember his name. I do agree that he reiterated that line a little too much, but isn't this supposed to be the 'original' crew?? Not TNG or Voyager... So I'll give them some slack.

noimageatall said:

SUPRMAN said:

morningsong said:

noimageatall said:

Yes it did...in the documentary many scientists weighed in on warp speed, time travel, etc. It was very interesting. I also read another interview with Lawrence Krauss, a theoretical physicist. He said, "I don't think we're any closer to warp drive—it was and is still a wild idea. Applying what we know about general relativity, the idea of faster-than-light travel is possible in principle. You can expand space behind you and contract it in front of you and therefore quickly go from one place to another across the galaxy. But the amount of energy required is just unfathomable."


But you never know ...if we could go back 300 years and tell the scientists of that time about lasers, the Internet, HDTV, cellphones, Google Glass, air travel, and the international space station, they'd also say it's crazy and can 'never be done!'. I believe what's been said...if the mind can think of it, it can be done..or something to that effect. Technology is accelerating so rapidly...I'm excited!!

And I feel the same way about Karl. I never knew who he was...just saw him in 'character' parts. I think I first noticed him more in Chronicles of Riddick but I could never remember his name. I do agree that he reiterated that line a little too much, but isn't this supposed to be the 'original' crew?? Not TNG or Voyager... So I'll give them some slack.

I feel the same way. Who knows what little geniuses who are or who have yet to be given the opportunity will come up with. Folks start thinking like Kelvin, everything worth discovering has already been discovered. . DeForest never used that line that much. There was suppose to be a deeper meaning of the friendship and struggle between the 3 of them which kind of gives Kirk his balance. It's becoming caricature-ish to reduce him to a few funny lines. Nimoy and Shatner went to bat for Kelley about a lot of things it just seems a shame. . I've seen everything he's done except for some NZ episodes of his real younger days. Went from one of the cute guys in LotR to serious anticipation of everything he's in. He has a pilot by JJ Abrams coming out called Human, soon.

Well maybe they will listen to the fans and give Bones some meatier material. I completely forgot Karl was in LOTR. doh

As for 'little geniuses' I just read that this 19 yo won 1st place for using artificial intelligence to create a viable model for a low-cost, self-driving car at this year's Intel International Science and Engineering Fair. I-Robot here we come!




Ionut said his research addresses a major global issue. In 2004, car accidents caused 2.5 million deaths worldwide, and 87 percent of crashes resulted from driver error. With 3-D radar and mounted cameras, Ionut created a feasible design for an autonomously controlled car that could detect traffic lanes and curbs, along with the real-time position of the car and it would only cost $4,000. He received the Gordon E. Moore Award of $75,000, named in honor of the Intel co-founder and fellow scientist.

Henry Lin, 17, of Shreveport, La. also received the Intel Foundation Young Scientist Award of $50,000. By simulating thousands of clusters of galaxies, Henry has provided scientists with valuable new data, allowing them to better understand the mysteries of astrophysics: dark matter, dark energy and the balance of heating and cooling in the universe's most massive objects.