|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on May 28, 2013 14:06:44 GMT -5
See, I knew Lindelof was responsible in a big way for how this film turned out. He probably also had a lot to do with that idiotic opening scene and the Enterprise hiding underwater.
Of course, this wouldn't be the first time that Orci tried passing the buck.
Over at Blastr:Star Trek writer reveals he 'argued against' Khan as Into Darkness villainBy Nathalie Caron Tue, 05/28/2013 - 1:33pm  Khan or not Khan? Seems the writers were also at odds about using one of Star Trek’s most beloved and iconic villains for their second Trek outing with Into Darkness. More: www.blastr.com/2013-5-28/star-trek-writer-reveals-he-argued-against-khan-darkness-villain
|
|
|
|
Post by TrekBeatTK on May 28, 2013 16:29:16 GMT -5
Roddenberry got too idealistic in later years, and some of the writing of MT was decidedly too liberal for me at times as well (just watched "Rejoined" last night; I think it's kind of a mess). But it's true, this new Trek is missing some of that Roddenberry spirit. Even Enterprise had it at its best, and DS9 when it was subverting it tried to at least respect it. Among other things, I felt like the new Starfleet was far too "military". While some of this is the point of the movie, touches like having Starfleet dress uniforms with 20th Century-style hats were just very off-putting to me.
I really didn't feel like this was Star Trek.
-TK
|
|
|
|
Post by TrekBeatTK on May 28, 2013 16:37:30 GMT -5
I'm not at all surprised for it to be Damon behind it, HOWEVER...
I'm also not entirely convinced that Orci was totally against it from the get go. Unless it was Kurtzman who wanted it. Why do I say this? Because I've been rewatching Fringe, and there's an episode toward the end of season 1 that has relevance.
It aired right around the time the new Trek was coming, and there's a scene with Clint Howard where he says William Bell was activating his soldiers for the coming war. War with who? Romulans from the future who are here to change history, and he knows this because he claims to be Spock. This of course is the plot of the Trek movie, which might seem like just a case of shameless self-promotion. But how did the conversation get there? Khan. He says Bell was creating people to be advanced soldiers (or something like that) "like Khan Noonien Singh." And that's the turning point where peter knows he's a crackpot. But isn't it interesting that the one element not discussed from the new Trek is Khan? And that the plan is supposedly to activate people like Khan to help fight against the changes coming from the alternate reality. Ultimately, isn't that Admiral Marcus' plan in Into Darkness? Didn't he wake Khan in order to help him militarize Starfleet in response to the destruction of Vulcan?
That scene seemed to indicate to me that Kurtzman and Orci had the germ of the idea for this movie and for using Khan waaay back in 2009. Everything else has been smokescreens and lies.
-TK
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on May 29, 2013 14:20:39 GMT -5
Over at io9:What's the future of Star Trek after "Into Darkness?"Charlie Jane Anders Today 9:25am  "] Star Trek Into Darkness is a hit movie — it's just not enough of a hit for Paramount. What does this mean for the future of Trek?
|
|
|
|
Post by TrekBeatTK on May 29, 2013 16:46:49 GMT -5
It was a good read, and I'm not surprised it's dropped off. I predicted it would. Just today, three people asked me if I saw it and I had to tell them I hated it. Every other Trek film I'd watch again. But I have no desire to see this again any time soon. Even Insurrection I looked forward to the VHS. And Nemesis I saw three times (though one was just so it would make more money). And while I didn't love some of the things done in ST09, I bought the DVD. But I don't care if I never see this one again. I'll buy it just to have, but it really ticks me off the more I think about it.
-TK
|
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on May 30, 2013 10:17:00 GMT -5
Ignoring inflation, it's almost a million dollars ahead of the last movie at this time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mel on May 30, 2013 13:16:37 GMT -5
I don't go onto Facebook very often, but I did a few days ago.
When STID opened, a friend mentioned (posted) having no interest in seeing it. To my surprise, that (fairly benign) statement generated comments from about 150 people saying that they can't stand ST; just a few said it's been since the 2009 movie. A mere handful said they are long-time fans of ST fans.
It's good I missed all that. I would have felt honor-bound to defend Trek.
|
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on May 30, 2013 14:26:32 GMT -5
It's weird, because for me, this is the first thing I feel that I liked since I guess Trials and Tribbleations.
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on May 30, 2013 16:04:21 GMT -5
Here's what I posted yesterday in response to the io9 article:
The domestic advertising, particularly on TV, was very poor this time around in my opinion. The commercials were short and clipped, in contrast especially to the trailers that were released online, which did a far better job of outlining what the movie was about. They focused much of their advertising resources abroad so as to improve the film's performance internationally, and that ended up hurting them in the domestic market.
I think that's part of what hurt the film here in the U.S. I'm also inclined to think, however, that the people who were longtime fans of Trek, especially of those original cast of characters, and didn't like Abrams' last film, had been underestimated by Paramount and Abrams and his two writers, Orci and Kurtzman. Part of this was apparent in my clash with Orci and his clique of groupies over at Trekmovie a while back. For those of you who may have read part or all of that exchange, the disdain for me and my point of view over there was abundantly clear. So they took for granted the people who didn't like how the film was constructed, either in whole or in part, and it came back to bite them this time around. They figured they could just write those people off. Well, it turns out they couldn't --not entirely anyway.
The film is doing business, and it's running basically even with the first movie four years ago, but when you factor in ticket price inflation, which is considerably since 2009, they've taken a big hit. Apparently people like Bob, AKA, our own one-time Captain April, who were adamant about not going to see the sequel when it came out, apparently stuck to their guns and haven't bothered to go and check it out, because to them it amounted to just more of the same, a la Abrams' first film. I had mixed feelings about their first effort. There were things I both liked and hated about what they did in ST09, but Orci wasn't open to hearing it, and I mainly focused on just one aspect of their first film that I didn't care for, which was the way that movie apparently overwrote the original timeline of Shatner's Kirk and his crew. So they put together a script for this sequel and decide not to even touch that of ourse, when all that would have been required was a mere line or two at worst if that's all they cared to devote to it, but as we've pointed out here time and time again over the last four years, Orci wanted to have his cake and eat it too on the matter, and I'd say that's come back to haunt and bite him right back in the ass. If you're going to be a dick and not listen to longstanding fans who may, just may know better about something you've done in your first movie, it probably pays to at least listen and take it in. Of course, these guys are highly overpaid Hollywood writers, and to them that gives them the confidence that they know everything about everything about something they're sitting down to write, even when they don't. And I think they have put together a track record at this point that really does speak for itself in that regard.
|
|
|
|
Post by TrekBeatTK on May 30, 2013 16:58:22 GMT -5
It's weird, because for me, this is the first thing I feel that I liked since I guess Trials and Tribbleations. I can see why you'd feel that way. But it's still not enough for me. There were at least three points during the film where I thought "that was dumb, but maybe it'll still get better", and finally it was clear it wouldn't. I liked that 20 minutes or so after Nubiri, with the attack and Pike dying and Kirk's heroic actions. But then they went Khan. And even then I thought, well maybe they're being subversive with the character because he seems to be on our side and just wants to help defeat Marcus. But then they undid THAT too. So I have to just throw up my hands. I defended Enterprise, but I can't defend this movie. Every time I try, I just think of what's wrong with it. Still, as a Kirk fan I can see why you liked this best since '96, though I definitely take issue with thinking it's a better movie than First Contact. Even when its plot logic had holes, FC felt like it had the Trek spirit, and I never got that from this movie. -TK |
|
|
|
Post by TrekBeatTK on May 30, 2013 17:05:29 GMT -5
There's a movie discussion show I watch on YouTube, The Cinefiles, and they just posted their Into Darkness review. Here it is: thisisinfamous.com/the-cinefiles-the-star-trek-into-darkness-review-spoilers/You can also see my comments. I pretty much agree with Eric on almost everything here. And I don't mean to be so negative about it, but it's the first time Star Trek has made me yell-at-the-screen-and-facepalm angry. Galactica did that to me a lot. But when I feel like I might rather watch Hunger Games again than this, that's said. If they had gone with the Section 31 story that they were setting up with Marcus as the real heavy, it would have been a good movie. Make it about Kirk's desire to avenge Pike, which is where the movie was going until it skewed into Khan for two hours, and then tried to say it was all about vengeance in the funeral scene. But no. I just feel I have so many complaints that I can't get them all out at once. Here's a new one: Bones is underutilized in these movies. We never get the Kirk/Bones/Spock trifecta; in this movie Uhura was the Bones role. For all Karl Urban's good, he's reduced to running around saying "Dammit, man!" The next movie needs to really be about exploration. I want a good sci-fi movie without a hammy villain. I want a better TMP. Honestly, minus the costumes and poor pacing, TMP was good Star Trek and a pretty good movie. If they could do something like that but with a little more oomph, maybe they can redeem the mess they've made. -TK |
|
|
|
Post by Mel on May 30, 2013 19:51:43 GMT -5
Thanks for the link. The sound is excellent! I heard practically every comment. It seemed to me that they enjoyed the film, despite the complaints. That surprised me.
I didn't see your comments, or others, at thisisinfamous.com. I found the the same video at youtube.com, but only saw 4 brief comments, none about STID. Where can I see the comments?
I agree about getting on with their mission and doing something new. TPTB jettisoned the original timeline. They may as well take advantage of that.
But I can't agree that TMP was good except for poor pacing, because the pacing was horrendous. Also, after nearly a decade of waiting for the movie, it didn't have a reunion scene with the crew. I couldn't believe it. I still can't believe it.
|
|
|
|
Post by TrekBeatTK on May 30, 2013 19:57:33 GMT -5
I didn't see your comments, or others, at thisisinfamous.com. I found the the same video at youtube.com, but only saw 4 brief comments, none about STID. Where can I see the comments? Should be on the thisisinfamous.com page if you scroll down. But I'll save you time and just put it here: I'm with Eric; so much of this movie makes no sense. After the opening sequence (which is illogical), I liked the next 30 minutes or so and that was it. I was so glad for Section 31 to be involved, but then that was a lie! Hated the Klingons, and once we heard the words "My name is Khan" I was done. The writing is awful. They don't know how to write Uhura; this version is just an emotional shrew. Everything feels like parody; not just the "KHAAAAN" but EVERYTHING. When McCoy says "I'm a doctor, not a..." in these movies it always starts with "Dammit man!" which is more a product of parody. The writers put in things they think "sound" like Star Trek, like Scotty saying "I'm givin' her all I've got, Captain!" for the FIRST TIME EVER in the last movie. Khan is a military stragetist and a genius; why is he crushing people's skulls in his hands? He just comes off as General Zod. What about that ridiculous Enterprise tumbling out of space sequence? Sure it was a big action scene that seemed fun, but it made no sense. If gravity is working on this ship, then they shouldn't be running on the walls (starships are designed for three dimensions; remember TWOK and how Khan's flaw was "two-dimensional thinking"?). If the gravity failed, then they should be floating around. The physics make no sense; this is a starship, not the Titanic. And is it just me or does it seem there's a lot of wasted space on this ship? Rooms are enormous and hallways are huge and there's a big hole of nothing in the middle! The reason the Khan reveal was kept secret is because they knew a large section of the fanbase didn't want Khan and wouldn't go see the movie. So they wanted to be sure they took our money first. The real villain is Peter Weller, but the way the movie is structured, he's dispatched half-way through. And to top it all off, it just doesn't feel like Star Trek. It's too military (why do the dress uniforms have hats now?). No Trek film is flawless, but this one feels like a "because it looks cool" movie with the Trek name slapped on it. Worst. Trek. Movie. Ever. -TK |
|
|
|
Post by TrekBeatTK on May 30, 2013 20:58:32 GMT -5
Thanks for the link. The sound is excellent! I heard practically every comment. It seemed to me that they enjoyed the film, despite the complaints. That surprised me. They usually try to be fair; it's great when they really disagree though. Back in 2009 they discussed the other Trek films. -TK |
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Jun 2, 2013 18:15:13 GMT -5
This is not good --it's $10 million behind the first movie at this point. 18-Day Total: $181,156,000  18-Day Total: $191,014,403
|
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Jun 2, 2013 19:45:03 GMT -5
I think it's clear it's not going gross as much, but I do think it was a better movie, and TWOK didn't gross as much as TMP, which is astonishing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mel on Jun 3, 2013 2:12:58 GMT -5
Today I watched Starship Troopers again. While piloting a ship, Carmen changed its navigation. The coffee in her cup tilted sideways. She said there's a gravity well out there. I thought, if the gravity worked for the rest of the ship, why didn't it work for the coffee? Oh well. I enjoy that movie.
I also enjoyed your comments about STID. Yes, the ship's rooms, for lack of a better term, are way too big and wasted space.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2013 1:53:12 GMT -5
I think it's clear it's not going gross as much, but I do think it was a better movie, and TWOK didn't gross as much as TMP, which is astonishing. Indeed, however, Wrath of Khan only made around $2-3 million less than The Motion Picture, but also had a greater profit margin because of its lower $11 million budget as opposed to $35 million! It's opposite for Star Trek 2009 and Into Darkness. |
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Jun 4, 2013 6:14:40 GMT -5
No doubt, but the commonality is that STID was a better movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Jun 4, 2013 16:03:36 GMT -5
I noticed late last night the opening week Box Office total for China for STID isn't listed over at Box Office Mojo, even though The Hollywood Reporter reported on it yesterday (see blow). So apparently the film has done an additional $25.4 million in business that isn't listed on the film's Worldwide total over at Box Office Mojo presently.
I'm not a fan of this sequel as you all know, but it needs all the help it can get given how it's performed domestically thus far.
The Hollywood Reporter:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ China Box Office: ‘Star Trek Into Darkness’ Debuts at No. 11:25 AM PDT 6/3/2013 by Clarence Tsui J.J. Abrams’ second installment in the outer-space franchise pulls in $25.8 million, edging out Peter Chan’s populist drama "American Dreams in China." HONG KONG – Star Trek Into Darkness made a solid but unspectacular landing in China, with the film grossing $25.8 million (158 million yuan) in its first six days on release, according to figures released on the state-backed China Film News microblog. www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/china-box-office-star-trek-561682------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Current Worldwide estimated total factoring in China: $355,969,614
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Jun 4, 2013 16:09:35 GMT -5
The Examiner.com finally got around to posting a review of this film today, and from what I've read thus far, which is only the first paragraph, it ain't pretty.
|
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Jun 4, 2013 22:25:29 GMT -5
Isn't the Examiner a competitor of the National Enquirer? Not sure they are a credible source. Granted, even if they aren't, they are entitled to their opinion.
It's interesting. For a very long time, with maybe the exception of Trials and Tribbleations, I have not liked anything in Star Trek. There were some DS9 episodes I liked after that. Maybe a couple of Voyager and Enterprise episodes. Sadly, I can think of maybe 2 Voyager episodes in the entire run I liked, and maybe a couple of 4th season episodes of Enterprise that weren't bad.
So in reality, this is new for me--a movie I liked.
First Contact was ok. It didn't suck. But I can't say that I came out of the theater anywhere close to STID.
For the most part, since the internet started, I have pretty much railed against new Trek.
Defending it is new for me.
Throughout that time, I have been attacked by trolls countless times. Some arguments got personal, some just involved pushing fact after fact to make my points.
This time around, I'm on the other side, so it's different. But the interesting part is that while I will defend the movie, I am completely ok with anyone attacking it.
There are those that defend Star Trek no matter how bad it is. Berman Apologists before, Abrams Apologists now.
Those people are attacking those that didn't like the movie with the same vigor as always. Even though I do like the movie, I find myself ok with anyone's rants, and even defending their right to do so, even when people whose opinions I agree with go on the "you're stupid" attack.
It's just strange being on the other side. So I have no problem with a bad review. I like reading them and those opinions.
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Jun 5, 2013 17:46:03 GMT -5
Isn't the Examiner a competitor of the National Enquirer? Not sure they are a credible source. Granted, even if they aren't, they are entitled to their opinion.
Frankly, I'm very surprised you didn't recognize just how bad that opening scene to the movie was, and I say that aside from the fact that the Enterprise was hiding underwater there, which was ridiculous all the way around and not really defensible in and of itself. But I'll put that aside. It was just a terrible opening and made "Star Trek" look bad. I was sitting next to a girl who's a little more than an acquaintance and she's not a Trek fan, but she had gone to see "Iron Man 3" with her kids a week or two before, so she's not averse to going to see the mainstream comic book stuff. That she'll get into, but when my friend asked her if she wanted to tag along with us to see "Into Darkness", what do you think her response was as soon as she heard "Star Trek"? Aside from the laughter, as I was told, she immediately identified it through "The Big Bang Theory", of course, which is one of the reasons I'm not really a fan of that show, even though it is pretty funny at times. But it makes sci-fi fans, and "Star Trek" fans in particular and especially, look bad. It plays into the worst kind of negative stereotyping. So this girl, who's in her mid-thirties, laughed, but agreed to come along. So there I am, sitting right next to her in the theater, almost squirming during that opening scene because it was just so downright stupid and horribly choreographed. I would have hated the scene anyway, even if I wasn't sitting next to her (her name is Rosemary by the way, which strikes me as a bit of an odd first name for a Puerto Rican girl, but I digress), but I was a little more acutely aware of how much the scene bothered me because I was sitting next to her, and was well aware of how she viewed Trek fans and that she isn't one herself.
Anyway, moving passed the damn opening, I think they did some things better than the first film. I liked, for instance, how they handled the Klingons and the lead up to that scene where they finally met up with them, but overall, I agreed with the criticisms of the Examiner review, but was very annoyed by the stupid, senseless grammatical gaffes in that piece. Doesn't anyone proofread for these damn publications anymore? And hell, you mean to tell me that the author couldn't proofread his own review before submitting it to be posted? I don't have a Facebook account, but I wanted to post a message there saying "If you're going to be critical of something shouldn't you make sure your own house is in order first? I didn't care for the movie myself and agree with pretty much everything said in this review, but grammatically it's a mess. Hire a proofreader!"
The first movie was better, despite my artistic qualms about how they should have handled it differently given that they were doing a prequel based on the original cast of characters. But the Examiner review got it right as to why this movie blew it, and why it's not as good as their first film.
But my Trek is gone unfortunately, and it ain't ever coming back. That really hit me as I left the theater after seeing this one. |
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Jun 5, 2013 19:52:42 GMT -5
I noticed late last night the opening week Box Office total for China for STID isn't listed over at Box Office Mojo, even though The Hollywood Reporter reported on it yesterday (see blow). So apparently the film has done an additional $25.4 million in business that isn't listed on the film's Worldwide total over at Box Office Mojo presently.
I'm not a fan of this sequel as you all know, but it needs all the help it can get given how it's performed domestically thus far.
The Hollywood Reporter:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ China Box Office: ‘Star Trek Into Darkness’ Debuts at No. 11:25 AM PDT 6/3/2013 by Clarence Tsui J.J. Abrams’ second installment in the outer-space franchise pulls in $25.8 million, edging out Peter Chan’s populist drama "American Dreams in China." HONG KONG – Star Trek Into Darkness made a solid but unspectacular landing in China, with the film grossing $25.8 million (158 million yuan) in its first six days on release, according to figures released on the state-backed China Film News microblog. www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/china-box-office-star-trek-561682------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Current Worldwide estimated total factoring in China: $355,969,614 A rather strange development in relation to this --China now appears in the Foreign listings for STID over at Box Office Mojo, but the film's Worldwide gross hasn't budged. |
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Jun 5, 2013 20:03:51 GMT -5
Okay, now, ya see? We have a sequel here that is underperforming, and a good part of the problem with the film has to do with one of the people commissioned to work on the screenplay: Damon Lindelof. But does he get his walking papers? Did anyone not learn after how he loused up "Prometheus"? No, of course not --so this jerk is looking ahead to working on the next movie. :::Sigh:::
Seriously, I may not even go see it when it hits theaters in four years.
I'll read this later. I'm too annoyed to deal with it right now.
Over at Blastr:Lindelof teases Trek 3 villains and potential crossover with original timelineBy Nathalie Caron Wed, 06/05/2013 - 11:35am  When J.J. Abrams boldly created an alternate timeline with 2009’s Star Trek, fans were left with tons of questions. But many of us had one in particular: would there be crossovers with the prime timeline? More: www.blastr.com/2013-6-5/lindelof-teases-trek-3-villains-and-potential-crossover-original-timeline
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Jun 6, 2013 11:28:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by TrekBeatTK on Jun 6, 2013 15:38:20 GMT -5
But my Trek is gone unfortunately, and it ain't ever coming back. That really hit me as I left the theater after seeing this one. [/color][/quote] I had typed up a long reply to this post last night, but it didn't post. I think I hit preview and then neglected to hit post. ::sigh:: I won't reiterate everything, which was positives and negatives of the movie, but I will mention my closing statement. I feel the same way. It's frustrating that there were elements in there for a good movie, but they just weren't properly exploited. I guess more than anything, it just makes me sad. I too am at a point where I don't think I can bring myself to see another sequel in a theater; like Spock, I just don't want to feel this way again. -TK |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2013 17:21:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Jun 9, 2013 19:57:21 GMT -5
That's a fair assessment, though surprising they would put that on StarTrek.com.
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Jun 15, 2013 12:01:46 GMT -5
According to BoxOffice.com, STID has surpassed the total Worldwide gross of its predecessor, although it lists a projected figure as to the business it's expected to do this weekend.This site also lists a total budget that's sixty million dollars higher than what Box Office Mojo shows for the film's Total Budget, but I'm not sure how they're arriving at that higher figure. It may include advertising costs for the movie, although sixty million dollars sounds shy of what we've heard about those expenses. Notice also that for the first film back in 2009 that they list that movie's Total Budget as $215 million as opposed to the $150 million shown at Box Office Mojo, so again, I'm not sure how BoxOffice.com is arriving at these higher production costs.
Box Office Mojo still shows STID about three million dollars behind its predecessor in terms of Total Worldwide Gross for the movie, but again, BoxOffice.com is basing its current figures on a projection of how much business the movie will do through this weekend, which Box Office Mojo still has yet to report on.
At any rate, STID will likely surpass the Worldwide Gross of the first film this weekend, although I'm not sure how much of a victory that can be considered when taking into account the significantly higher ticket prices compared to four years ago. It may be able to eke out the same Domestic gross as the first film by the time it leaves theaters though, which again, isn't really a victory for the studio or the brand, all things considered.
|
|
