|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Jun 16, 2013 13:21:18 GMT -5
Over at GeekExchange.com:
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Jun 16, 2013 14:23:16 GMT -5
Star Trek Into Darkness has broken the $400 million Worldwide mark and has surpassed the Worldwide Gross of its predecessor.
At Box Office Mojo:Star Trek Into DarknessTotal Lifetime Grosses
Domestic: $210,491,000 51.1%
+ Foreign: $201,700,000 48.9%
= Worldwide: $412,191,000 boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=startrek12.htm Star TrekDomestic: $257,730,019 66.8%
+ Foreign: $127,950,427 33.2%
= Worldwide: $385,680,446 boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=startrek11.htm
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Jun 17, 2013 14:02:32 GMT -5
Over at TrekNews.net:LeVar Burton: Star Trek Into Darkness Is Missing Gene Roddenberry’s Vision June 16, 2013 By TrekNews.net Staff In Star Trek 2013, Star Trek: TNG  The folks over at TMZ recently caught up with TNG star LeVar Burton. Discussing Star Trek Into Darkness, Burton said he’s seen the film twice already and remarked that it was missing something very important — the vision of Gene Roddenberry. "At the end of the movie I really care about what happens to the characters, but I’m pretty much missing Gene Roddenberry in J.J.’s interpretation. And at the end of the day, that’s just not OK for me." The reporter remarked that Burton’s addition to the cast would have… Read More » www.treknews.net/2013/06/16/levar-burton-star-trek-into-darkness-is-missing-gene-roddenberry/
|
|
|
|
Post by TrekBeatTK on Jun 17, 2013 16:47:33 GMT -5
Thank you, Levar!
He's more gracious than I. At the end of the movie, I DIDN'T care what happened to the characters. I was done with them all long before it ended. And I agree, the Roddenberry element was just not there and I am NOT okay with that. That's why I prefer even Insurrection and Nemesis because even though they were not good movies, they tried to be good Star Trek.
-TK
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Jul 1, 2013 13:41:10 GMT -5
Honestly, I just don't see it, but Digital Spy just ranked "Star Trek Into Darkness" as the second best movie of 2013. This also comes on the heels of Zap2it.com having put out a similar list of their own late last week where the film also showed up very favorably. |
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Jul 1, 2013 13:55:28 GMT -5
I'd have to think about it.
I thought Iron-Man 3 sucked, and it ranked 10th. That may say something to the lack of good movies.
Most of those movies, I haven't seen and don't even sound interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by TrekBeatTK on Jul 1, 2013 15:56:39 GMT -5
I don't see it either. I liked Iron Man 3 but didn't love it; it's definitely flawed.
Cloud Atlas was pretentious nonsense.
I did really want to see Stoker though, and am bummed I couldn't.
42 may be the best thing I've seen this year so far. But yeah, there hasn't been a whole lot to talk about yet.
-TK
|
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Jul 2, 2013 6:15:42 GMT -5
I haven't seen 42. As a big baseball fan, I'm tired of the deification of Jackie Robinson. The man went through a lot, and handled it, but there comes a point where you over honor him.
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Jul 11, 2013 19:34:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Jul 12, 2013 9:00:34 GMT -5
I found this guy's take interesting, but pointed out a couple of things in reply that I didn't agree with him about.
This is from the article Link I posted previously.
------------------------------------------------
kalazar 2 points 13 minutes ago
>> What is that they messed up.
His strength. Khan might have been strong, sure. But in the end of Space Seed, Kirk just hits him with a pipe and beats him. RAAAAAGEEEEEE Khan ain't that mad. Sure, he's upset. But start an inter-planetary war? No way. He'd pick a fight with Admiral Robocop specifically, not the entire Klingon Empire and Federation. Also, the head popping. Again, Khan ain't that strong. His race. Yeah. Just gonna say it. Khan is Latin. He is most certainly not the whitest fucking person you could find (Seriously. Just the name: Benedict Cumberbatch is the most non-ethnic pairing of names possible.) Is it important for his character? Kinda. In the same way that Kirk isn't black, and Uhura isn't white. But, we know how Hollywood is these days, and all bad guys must now be white dudes for fear of upsetting any other race.
>> We don't even know if he is indeed Khan Noonien Singh or one of the others 72 frozen augment followers.
That's a very specious argument. We could just as well say "Well, we don't know if this is actually James T. Kirk. It could be a clone!" There's no mention of even the possibility of the Khan character being anything other than Khan.
|
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Jul 12, 2013 14:15:45 GMT -5
I think I pointed the thing about Khan's strength in my initial review.
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Jul 15, 2013 8:43:22 GMT -5
That haircut has got to go. It screams something, but I'm not going to say what it is.
And someone should tell him that he should lose some weight, especially before the next movie. It's becoming more and more noticeable.
Over at Digital Spy:'Star Trek 3 may film next year under JJ Abrams,' says Zachary Quinto " Star Trek 3 should be filming, I suppose, next year," said Quinto at the 2013 Galway Film Fleadh. "It's going to be made a lot quicker than the last one. That's the plan, although nothing is confirmed yet." Quinto also mentioned the possibility of Abrams's return for the Star Trek Into Darkness follow-up.
|
|
|
|
Post by TrekBeatTK on Jul 15, 2013 9:00:16 GMT -5
That haircut has got to go. It screams something, but I'm not going to say what it is. Yes, why do they seem to all have stupid haircuts? Is it so they can recognize each other at a distance? -TK |
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Jul 16, 2013 8:28:23 GMT -5
So that Jerk Lindelof is going to be significantly involved with writing the script to the third film too.
I guess this is another Trek movie I can write off.
I can't stand that guy --everything he touches turns to crap.
Over at Screen Rant:
|
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Jul 16, 2013 9:31:09 GMT -5
This movie was a pretty big success. I can see why they would keep the same team together.
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Jul 16, 2013 10:12:09 GMT -5
This movie was a pretty big success. I can see why they would keep the same team together. |
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Jul 16, 2013 12:21:44 GMT -5
I think so too, and I think, though I don't know, a factor in the lesser domestic sales was the release of the movie overseas a month earlier than in the US. While most people may not care about that, it would be foolish to ignore that many can download a movie or buy a bootleg.
Plus, the internet is a path to spoilers, for those inclined.
I think if they released the movie here first, it would have done better domestically.
I guess you can't ignore the foreign numbers though.
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Jul 24, 2013 18:24:48 GMT -5
Barely out of the theaters and already I've gotten a Pre-Order email from Amazon about this.
|
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Jul 26, 2013 8:16:42 GMT -5
I liked the movie, but I can wait to own it. It will eventually be $10.
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Jul 27, 2013 12:11:21 GMT -5
Star Trek Into Darkness Wikipedia Page Info (under Controversies) - Check out the quote by Roberto Orci, which closes out the citation:**Despite an acclaimed performance from Cumberbatch, Christian Blauvelt from website Hollywood.com criticized the casting of Khan in Star Trek Into Darkness as being "whitewashed into oblivion", due to his character Khan being of Indian heritage in the Star Trek canon.[119] There have been similar accusations of whitewashing by fans[120] and American Sikhs [121] with Star Trek: Voyager actor Garrett Wang tweeting "The casting of Cumberbatch was a mistake on the part of the producers. I am not being critical of the actor or his talent, just the casting."[122] Through a comment on Trekmovie.com, co-producer and co-screenwriter Bob Orci addressed the issue of Khan Noonien Singh's casting saying, "Basically, as we went through the casting process and we began honing in on the themes of the movie, it became uncomfortable for me to support demonizing anyone of color, particularly any one of Middle Eastern descent or anyone evoking that. One of the points of the movie is that we must be careful about the villain within US, not some other race."[123][124]** Doesn't this figure? Another politically correct liberal pantywaist in Hollywood makes a judgment call based on his own political sensibilities rather than trying to honor the original material in the best way possible by not in any way disregarding or dismissing what they intended and had done in "Space Seed" and "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan". No, instead, Orci takes it upon himself to decide that Khan's ethnic background should be changed. And isn't it interesting --he has no problem whatsoever making the villain a lily-white Brit ...that doesn't offend his sensibilities AT ALL.
When I read this yesterday it made me pretty damn angry, although I shouldn't be surprised, because Orci is a product of his environment.
CRAM said yesterday that he'd wait until this movie drops to ten bucks before he'd buy it. I tend not to do that, especially with Trek films, however, I now find myself wondering whether I should add this movie to my collection at all.
And frankly, this piece of news also moves me in the direction of viewing the Abrams movies as events in a similar but different alternate universe rather than the original mainline universe. The original prime timeline must obviously remain intact. After all, if Khan is now a Brit, then clearly he can't be the same guy we saw in the original series and second theatrical film. There's just no way, or he'd be Indian, or perhaps a Latin-Indian mix born of parents with different racial backgrounds. Liberal eugenics might well have allowed for such a mixed parental pairing in Khan's case.
I think that if Benicio del Toro had taken on the role instead of Cumberbatch, as had been originally reported before he either dropped out or Abrams and Orci changed their minds and decided to go in a different casting direction, it would have been more difficult to rule out the Abramsverse as being the prime universe in a state of being totally rewritten because the definitive evidence still wouldn't be there to support it. However, since they chose to cast Cumberbatch instead, that's a totally legitimate argument on which to assert that it is in fact a different universe altogether, separate and apart from the original, the latter of which does in fact remain unchanged.
And screw Orci and his ridiculous leftist thinking.
Friggin' Jerk.
|
|
|
|
Post by TrekBeatTK on Jul 27, 2013 17:26:31 GMT -5
Thing is if this is really the direction they wanted to go, then why not just use any one of the other 72 mutants, many of whom were white? Why not make it Joaquim's movie? And funny how he asserts the movie is about "the enemy in the US" when Khan was cast British and they set it in London. I'm confused by his preposterous liberal propaganda here because what is the "9/11 message" supposed to be then? This movie supposedly has one, thanks to the dedication at the end. But the terrorists responsible for that WERE NOT AMERICAN. They WERE the different-colored foreigners. So I'm really supposed to believe this is all one big Bush-bash or something ten years later?
Also, they could have kept Khan as an Indian since they had Marcus as a white guy, and he was really the guy pulling the strings behind this whole ordeal. But instead of making him the true protagonist, they went with Khan because it was easy. Again, if Orci really wanted the enemy to be one of us, keep focus on Marcus! I think Orci just loves talking out of both sides of his mouth to defend every idiotic decision they make in their scripts. He has never ever just said, "Yeah, we messed up." There's always some excuse.
I agree, this has to be some other universe entirely and not one spun off after Nero appeared. There's no way that event would have changed Khan's race.
-TK
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Jul 28, 2013 12:33:15 GMT -5
The film has hit the $450 million Worldwide Gross mark.
Over at Box Office Mojo:Star Trek Into DarknessTotal Lifetime Grosses Domestic: $225,608,000 50.1% + Foreign: $224,600,000 49.9% = Worldwide: $450,208,000 boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=startrek12.htm
|
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Jul 29, 2013 13:59:33 GMT -5
Ultimately, no matter what idiotic comments Orci made, his attempts at liberal spew don't really work in this movie. If he was trying to forcefeed his agenda, he failed. It was just a movie.
In a way, that's a good thing, because when you look at a movie like Avatar for example, it was ruined by Cameron's politics. I actually sided with the humans in that one.
Casting Cumberbatch means nothing in terms of the prime universe. I still say that the events of the 2009 movie completely overwrite the prime universe, unless and until they do something that says otherwise.
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Jul 29, 2013 18:19:42 GMT -5
Casting Cumberbatch means nothing in terms of the prime universe. I still say that the events of the 2009 movie completely overwrite the prime universe, unless and until they do something that says otherwise. |
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Jul 29, 2013 19:34:04 GMT -5
Of course, but by the same logic, Chekov should have been about 11 years old, and Simon Pegg looks NOTHING like James Doohan. It's the same guy.
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Jul 30, 2013 11:52:32 GMT -5
Of course, but by the same logic, Chekov should have been about 11 years old, and Simon Pegg looks NOTHING like James Doohan. It's the same guy.
Thank you Roberto Orci for being such an asshole, but at least you've distinguished the difference between the original and this new universe. That can no longer be disputed. |
|
|
|
Post by TK on Jul 30, 2013 12:13:08 GMT -5
Yeah, Chekov is young enough that his birth could have been affected by a timeline diverging. And Scotty, well, he's a Scottish engineer. Not every actor looks exactly like their character, but he's PLAYING the same guy whether or not he looks it.
But Cumberbatch doesn't seem to playing the Khan that we saw in "Space Seed", the Khan who goes back to the 1990s, the Khan who they had computer records on and was sort of a household name. You can fudge the race of the actor playing him if the character is meant to be Indian, but there's no indication of that here beyond his name. Never mind that Khan Prime was a brilliant strategist and not just an insane supervillain who crushed people's skulls in his hands.
And that's not even dealing with the other bizarre idiosyncracies of this universe, like how people just seem to be assigned rank and department at random.
-TK
|
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Jul 30, 2013 13:54:59 GMT -5
Neither is changing physical appearance, like Kor, Koloth and Kang. It's still impossible to reconcile the old and ridged Klingons, especially when factoring in Kahless.
While I agree that casting him as Khan was a poor choice, it's clear he's meant to be Khan--the same guy. This version of Khan had a year or so to adjust to the future. So he wouldn't be exactly like in Space Seed.
Characters can be written out of character. For example, Kirk would have suggested to Picard that he travel back in time and arrest Soran in Ten Forward.
Kirk was very much out of character.
That's writing.
But it's very clear this is Khan.
And if Chekov's birth was affected, please explain how Nero could make Chekov older. It at best, would be a sibling, not him.
|
|
|
|
Post by TrekBeatTK on Jul 30, 2013 15:42:29 GMT -5
Tiny changes in the timeline can have drastic repercussions, and I suppose it's possible that Nero's interference somehow set off a chain reaction leading to Chekov's parents marrying sooner and thus his birth coming earlier. It's a stretch, but possible. But that can't account for Khan not being Khan.
The ridges on Kor, Kang and Koloth bother me to this day. But they were at least the same actors.
And we've just been talking Khan, and haven't even gotten to Carol Marcus being British now too.
All theories whether they be timeline overwrites, timeline divergences, or simple alternate universe, have problems. This whole thing is a mess and I'd rather they just implode the whole thing and pretend it never happened.
-TK
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Jul 30, 2013 18:41:09 GMT -5
While I agree that casting him as Khan was a poor choice, it's clear he's meant to be Khan--the same guy. But it's very clear this is Khan.
Ergo, it's a different universe altogether. |
|
