Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2013 19:15:23 GMT -5
What they are doing is telling us to buy the cheapest, most bare bones thing possible.
I have no intention of buying this movie any time soon. Let them include everything, and then maybe I'll consider it so I can laugh at watching them pat themselves on the back on the Bonus features for their perceived brilliance of resurrecting Khan as a British guy ...and only when it's cheaply priced will I consider picking it up at that.Try Wal-Mart in about 4 years, that's how long it took for them to finally go down on the Star Trek 2009 2-disc DVD, it's now $5, because they have literally dozens of copies, go check your local store and see if they're there, NW Indiana and SoCal have 'em! |
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Sept 2, 2013 16:44:05 GMT -5
Try Wal-Mart in about 4 years, that's how long it took for them to finally go down on the Star Trek 2009 2-disc DVD, it's now $5, because they have literally dozens of copies, go check your local store and see if they're there, NW Indiana and SoCal have 'em! And then what --buy multiple copies in order to get all of the Bonus materials? I seriously doubt it --especially not of this film. |
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Sept 2, 2013 16:46:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Mel on Sept 3, 2013 4:39:59 GMT -5
I read that. What's VAM? I couldn't tell from the article, or by doing a search. Thanks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2013 18:57:29 GMT -5
Try Wal-Mart in about 4 years, that's how long it took for them to finally go down on the Star Trek 2009 2-disc DVD, it's now $5, because they have literally dozens of copies, go check your local store and see if they're there, NW Indiana and SoCal have 'em! And then what --buy multiple copies in order to get all of the Bonus materials? I seriously doubt it --especially not of this film.  I was being sarcastic to make this very point, if the first film which is considered far superior and has about every extra has a glutton of unbought DVDs, then just wait until Into Darkness bombs on Blu-Ray/DVD! |
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Sept 5, 2013 22:38:21 GMT -5
Get a load of this --just had it brought to my attention over on reddit . . .
The Daily Dot:'Star Trek Into Darkness' writer If you don't like it, pitch a better movie
By Gavia Baker-Whitelaw on September 05, 2013 t seems like a no-brainer to suggest that when engaging with your fans online, you probably shouldn’t actively insult them. For example, don’t log on to a popular fansite and start posting comments describing other readers as “shitty fans” and telling them to “f*ck off”.
reddit Links:
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Sept 7, 2013 11:58:50 GMT -5
The late author Ann Crispin gave her view of the sequel, and it's not pretty:
|
|
|
|
Post by TrekBeatTK on Sept 7, 2013 12:54:37 GMT -5
The late author Ann Crispin gave her view of the sequel, and it's not pretty: She is right about every single point. Even Karl Urban, though he's doing his best, is given nothing to do except say "Dammit, man!" every five minutes. I thought I sort of cared for the first half, but once they were rehashing TWOK I found I just didn't care either. Let 'em all die. -TK |
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Sept 10, 2013 6:10:52 GMT -5
It was a good review.
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Sept 11, 2013 18:53:54 GMT -5
He's put together a great list, although frankly I didn't care about Number 7. The Klingon homeworld has gone by both those names for a very long time.
Over at Blastr:
|
|
|
|
Post by TrekBeatTK on Sept 11, 2013 19:42:25 GMT -5
I had several of those concerns myself. But it's not just Trek purists who are upset. It's like Independence Day; it's a fun sci-fi movie if you turn your brain off. But now that the hype of 1994 has passed, ID4 is spoken of with great disdain as this illogical, laughable mess. I have this sneaking suspicion that in 5 to 10 years those of us who pointed out the many flaws in this movie will be vindicated.
And again, that is not to say the other Trek films don't have flaws; they do, even TWOK has the silly "only ship in the quadrant" nonsense, but they manage to be compelling. The "socially relevant" stuff about terrorism was better handled on ENT (!), the movie has very real problems choosing a villain and as this piece pointed out, the motivations of the villains are confused or entirely absent. It just wasn't thought out.
One other issue I had was the notion that apparently one ship can rear-end another ship out of warp. This is the Star Wars thing rearing its head again; Abrams and Lindelof seem to think that warp drive is like hyperspace. We see ships in warp now in this like tunnel effect, and the Vengeance literally PUSHES the Enterprise out of it! Like crowding it out of the lane or something. That's just not how warp drive works. Had they damaged a nacelle or something maybe I could buy it, but we're talking about speed, not wormholes or jump gates. That's a Trek issue.
Then there's the bad movie physics issue which I've mentioned before. The Enterprise tumbling sequence is not compelling to me because it makes no sense. Trek has tried to have credible physics and when it does something ridiculous has a made up in-universe answer ready (inertia? Meet inertial dampers). But I have yet to understand how if the gravity isn't working, Kirk and scotty are able to run on the walls. And if the gravity IS working... why do they have to run on the walls? This ship is made for SPACE and to go in 3 dimensions; the artificial gravity is to keep humans on the floors. Now, if the ship were already in Earth's atmosphere I might have bought it (MIGHT, if the gravity were compromised), but that clearly didn't happen here.
Oh, and the writer nailed it about the problem with Spock Prime. He really doesn't need to be in this movie. Ultimately, he breaks his own rule and it doesn't really help the story. It doesn't give Spock any useful information to beat Khan; it's just there to tease the audience familiar with TWOK. This was just a cameo. Whatever happened to the Leonard Nimoy who refused to do Generations as the part written was just a cameo?
-TK
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Sept 12, 2013 22:24:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Sept 13, 2013 8:55:27 GMT -5
I'm glad this is getting a little press. The idea of spreading the extras between stores is insane. I hope NO ONE buys multiple copies. And aren't the extras as a whole lousy anyway?
The only extra I would care about would be deleted scenes.
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Sept 15, 2013 10:57:18 GMT -5
Sadly, I now feel about the new movies pretty much exactly the same way Crispin did, and apparently TK does too. Not good for the franchise obviously, and I think it's also a significant factor as to why this film performed so much worse than their first outing at the box office, even though they managed to spike their International showing as far as ticket sales go. I just hope that doesn't inspire them to cater more to the international community than the fans here. That would be very bad for the Trek brand too obviously. |
|
|
|
Post by TrekBeatTK on Sept 15, 2013 18:49:33 GMT -5
Question:
Many are justifying it in their heads by doing mental gymnastics saying it wasn't REALLY Khan, but that "John Harrison" just identified as Khan to protect the real Khan or something. Now, on the surface this also kind of doesn't make sense because you'd think Starfleet would have thawed out the real Khan if they only selected one of them. Presumably they knew who he was. But IF they opened one tube at random and the guy said, "Yes I'm Khan" I suppose it could work.
So anyway, purely hypothetical discussion topic, would this movie have been any better if, at the end, Benedict Cumberbatch was put back in his cryotube and then we pan over to another tube and see Ricardo Montalban lying in there? (and considering how they put Arnold in Terminator Salvation, they could totally do it with modern FX for one shot).
-TK
|
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Sept 16, 2013 11:40:59 GMT -5
If they did that, it would have been a sick swerve. I would have applauded.
But Khan was meant to thaw out first, as we saw in Space Seed, and we can assume that didn't change.
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Sept 16, 2013 15:56:42 GMT -5
Question: Many are justifying it in their heads by doing mental gymnastics saying it wasn't REALLY Khan, but that "John Harrison" just identified as Khan to protect the real Khan or something. -TK
Also, a Trek Comic book will coming out soon according to what I've heard that will go back to the Eugenics Wars, and Khan will be a lily-white Brit in that too all of a sudden, which just reinforces my argument that it is not, NOT, NOT the same universe as the original prime universe obviously, but a different one, with a different history. |
|
|
|
Post by TrekBeatTK on Sept 16, 2013 22:01:07 GMT -5
I think it was some commenters on Blastr. I definitely read it somewhere.
Making him white in the comic is silly; again, how does it explain his very name? Khan Singh is not a lily white name!
The only in-canon explanation I can possibly think of (because I was watching it the other day) is that somehow the Eugenics Wars were altered by the events of VOY's "Future's End" (which would also explain why 1996 didn't seem at all ravaged by war). So up through Kirk and up through Picard things happened a certain way, but come Voyager time the timeship goes back and crashes, altering certain events and somehow making Khan white. We wouldn't know because the Khan we saw with Kirk would have been before this alteration occurred.
But even that is ridiculous apologetics and mental gymnastics.
-TK
|
|
|
|
Post by Mel on Sept 17, 2013 19:24:56 GMT -5
If there had been no mention of Khan, and if, at the end of the movie, there was that camera shot, showing Harrison near Montalban as Khan, I would have loved it. I think all TOS fans would. That makes far more sense than claiming Harrison was Khan.
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Sept 19, 2013 23:57:51 GMT -5
What are we going to do with this forum?
Anyway, over at EW:
|
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Sept 20, 2013 6:11:45 GMT -5
The idea that the video game hurt STID is ridiculous. I think it's safe to say that while I may not be the ultimate Star Trek fan, I'm a little better than average when it comes to following the ins and outs of the franchise. I didn't pay attention to the video game at all. Couldn't tell you anything about it other than I think it had a gorn in it.
I would say that if 1 million people paid to see STID, 999,000 did not buy the video game.
The article covers that.
Also interesting is the point that the promotion for STID may have been hurt a little because of the timing of Abrams taking over Star Wars. It was very close together, and it almost seemed like Trek was his stepping stone.
I absolutely agree that STID is not the worst movie. The examples of TFF, GEN, and INS are obviously worse movies.
The quote from Lindolf about using Khan is dumb. If they truly were reading what the fans were saying, it seemed that far more fans did NOT want Khan than did.
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Sept 20, 2013 10:37:59 GMT -5
I absolutely agree that STID is not the worst movie. The examples of TFF, GEN, and INS are obviously worse movies. Apparently you had a different reaction to the retreading of TWoK that a lot of longtime fans didn't care for. It was so bad it played like parody, which is why it's been slammed and shunned by the fan base. I'd even say it probably had a lot to do with why the movie didn't perform as well domestically as its predecessor, except that it opened weak is well. The quote from Lindolf about using Khan is dumb. If they truly were reading what the fans were saying, it seemed that far more fans did NOT want Khan than did. Once again it's an attempt at covering their asses. Orci had been blabbering about whether or not to go Khan since shortly after their first movie finished its run in theaters. Now he blames Lindelof for it, and who knows, perhaps Lindelof did push hard for it, but Orci was already inclined to go in that direction himself anyway more than likely. They're both so full of shit it's a little difficult to know what or what not to believe when one of them starts opening their mouth. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbasil on Sept 21, 2013 13:03:51 GMT -5
My Review: I rented STID. I think the biggest issue I have with this film is that it could have been a great Star Trek Film. My biggest complaint with fans of the film is that if you're over 30 they think you have a beef with the new actors. I don't and I didn't with the first film. All the actors are good. Heck, Quinto nails Spock cold. But neither Abrams film is A. Star Trek or B. An independent film that stands alone on its own merits. Even my wife, who despised Star Trek 2009, said that this was pretty good when it started. But once Christopher Pike was killed the whole thing went down the Space Dumper. Abrams has to use Spock Prime and he has to tinker with Canon and the original STWOK. What a waste of Cumberbatch. He's a great actor who gave his all but the role was wrong. Why can't Hollywood give us the characters we love and a truly new story and advenure for the USS Enterprise ? Because creativity is dead in Hollywood. It's too easy to repackage already successful concepts. I don't know if it's the worst Trek film, as some fans have said, but it's certainly one of the worst. I want 2 hours of my life back and my Redbox $1.28.  |
|
|
|
Post by TrekBeatTK on Sept 21, 2013 16:37:41 GMT -5
That's exactly it. I'm tired of being referred to as a "butt-hurt fanboy" because I dislike the movie. It's a passable mindless action movie, and even there it has major flaws. But it's definitely not Star Trek. It just isn't. So it's not a good Trek movie. Insurrection and Final Frontier are bad movies, but they are still Trek; even good Trek at times. This movie wasn't Star Trek and for that reason alone it's the worst of the Trek movies.
This is not to say I can't like substandard Trek and defend it. I defended ENT at times, and still do in places. And I don't think all TOS is great either (I despise The Alternative Factor, though I also defend Spock's Brain and The Empath). So I'm not just some whiny Trekkie who wants everything his way. But I do want a movie to make sense.
Is Into Darkness a good movie on its own if you take away the Trek element? I say not really. Maybe a better movie on its own than Insurrection or a few of the others, but Trek09 was a better movie. Is it fun at times? yes. Are there cool 'splosions? Sure. Is it possible to be a decent movie even if the departure from source material bothers me? Of course; that's how I feel about Man of Steel (another one that's likely to go way downhill with the sequel by trying to put in a fight no one wants).
Remember back in 1994 when Independence Day came out and we all thought it was cool and a lot of fun and had great effects and was a great summer movie? Heck, even Armageddon had a better reputation when it first came out among the average moviegoer (and while I don't think it's a masterpiece, I still like it to a point). And now years later all people talk about are the flaws in the plotting and how ridiculous the whole thing is. Independence Day is a joke, and I have this sneaking suspicion that in 5 to 10 years Star Trek Into Darkness' flaws will be more apparent to the non-Trek audience and they won't feel the need to lash out at my for legitimate criticisms. You enjoy it? Fine. There are elements in there that are good; I just did not find them enough to outweigh the rest of the problems. And yes, as you mentioned, there was a good movie in there somewhere.
-TK
|
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Sept 22, 2013 0:33:02 GMT -5
I think it's fair to say I did have a different reaction than most long time fans about the TWOK scenes.
I didn't consider it a ripoff because it was so blatantly meant to be a homage. I remember quite a few ripoffs on Voyager that got me mad. But I didn't get that vibe here. I felt the producers did what they did out of respect, not laziness.
Did it work? For the most part, for me, it did. I think Spock yelling Khan's name did not work well.
And I do agree with you all for being pissed that anyone who doesn't like this movie should be dismissed as some fanboy that can't get over that GR is dead.
I don't see that at all. Even if I disagree with you on quality, I get what the complaints are.
This movie was the first time I've really been on the side of liking a Star Trek anything in years, but I've disliked so much Star Trek that I just get the complaints and don't dismiss them.
For me, while I understand the issues, I find that while yes, you can nitpick and break the movie down and find a lot of flaws, most of which are legit, when I step back and look at the movie as a whole, it did what it was supposed to do, which was entertain. I haven't seen the movie since, but I stand by my original review.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainbasil on Sept 22, 2013 7:55:44 GMT -5
You make some valid points, Cram. I agree with you that the best movies are TOS based films. The main reason I disliked STID so much was because it had so much potential to be a great TOS movie. I also question if it will stand up to a second viewing , even if you liked it. Most Summer action films don't. I remember loving Independence Day at the theater, buying it and wondering why I liked it so much.
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Sept 22, 2013 10:55:12 GMT -5
My Review: I rented STID. I think the biggest issue I have with this film is that it could have been a great Star Trek Film. My biggest complaint with fans of the film is that if you're over 30 they think you have a beef with the new actors. I don't and I didn't with the first film. All the actors are good. Heck, Quinto nails Spock cold.
Also, his yelling "KHHHHAAAAAANNNNN!" like Shatner in ST II was absolutely ridiculous, and the way he behaves while in the mouth of the volcano, raising his arms and accepting his fate of death as though dying in the midst of the most noble gesture didn't sit well with me either. I think Nimoy would have handled that moment very differently if it had been given to him when he was younger instead.
But whatever --the movie had so many darn things wrong with it that to quibble over whether Quinto was or wasn't Spock-like seems a bit trivial. |
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Sept 22, 2013 11:23:39 GMT -5
That's exactly it. I'm tired of being referred to as a "butt-hurt fanboy" because I dislike the movie. It's a passable mindless action movie, and even there it has major flaws. But it's definitely not Star Trek. It just isn't. So it's not a good Trek movie. Insurrection and Final Frontier are bad movies, but they are still Trek; even good Trek at times. This movie wasn't Star Trek and for that reason alone it's the worst of the Trek movies. This is not to say I can't like substandard Trek and defend it. I defended ENT at times, and still do in places. And I don't think all TOS is great either (I despise The Alternative Factor, though I also defend Spock's Brain and The Empath).
"The Empath" I can understand your defending and am relatively unaware of a general distaste for that particular episode among the fan base, if it in fact exists. Yes, it suffered from budget issues, as did a number of the third season episodes, but it also deserves credit for having made those problems work sort of to its advantage as well as it did. I didn't care so much for them moving across the sound stage from set-to-set the way they did in the episode and felt that with a bit more creativity they could have lessened the apparentness of that--but I also have to say in a somewhat contradictory sense that it might well have added to the creepiness of the episode and what the characters were up against in having to deal with the Vians. I guess viewers might also have viewed their motives for testing Gem as specious when they're made clear at the end, but it was a morality play, as were many of the original series episodes, and as such I rather enjoyed it and still do to this day.Remember back in 1994 when Independence Day came out and we all thought it was cool and a lot of fun and had great effects and was a great summer movie? Heck, even Armageddon had a better reputation when it first came out among the average moviegoer (and while I don't think it's a masterpiece, I still like it to a point). And now years later all people talk about are the flaws in the plotting and how ridiculous the whole thing is. Independence Day is a joke, and I have this sneaking suspicion that in 5 to 10 years Star Trek Into Darkness' flaws will be more apparent to the non-Trek audience and they won't feel the need to lash out at my for legitimate criticisms.
I also have similar feelings about "Armageddon". It was an enjoyable action movie despite some of the stupid scenes that they threw in there that were entirely avoidable. I'd also rather sit through that film again than I would "Independence Day".
And I'm also inclined to agree that "Into Darkness" probably won't hold up so well either in the coming years. I really hope that's the case, so that the studio will avoid letting themselves fall into similar traps with the Trek movies in the future. |
|
|
|
Post by TrekBeatTK on Sept 22, 2013 11:58:16 GMT -5
"The Empath" I can understand your defending and am relatively unaware of a general distaste for that particular episode among the fan base, if it in fact exists. Yes, it suffered from budget issues, as did a number of the third season episodes, but it also deserves credit for having made those problems work sort of to its advantage as well as it did. I didn't care so much for them moving across the sound stage from set-to-set the way they did in the episode and felt that with a bit more creativity they could have lessened the apparentness of that--but I also have to say in a somewhat contradictory sense that it might well have added to the creepiness of the episode and what the characters were up against in having to deal with the Vians. I guess viewers might also have viewed their motives for testing Gem as specious when they're made clear at the end, but it was a morality play, as were many of the original series episodes, and as such I rather enjoyed it and still do to this day. I know people who hate "The Empath". I don't quite understand that because I enjoy it as you do. The one thing I'll say though is that I think it's the least "Star Trek" of all the TOS episodes. Something about it feels almost like another series. But a lot of the third season feels "off" in some way too. -TK |
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Sept 22, 2013 19:46:50 GMT -5
|
|
