Saw the new Star Trek movie

While the cast put on just as great a performance as they did in the last one, Into Darkness was pretty convoluted. It felt like it took too long to go through a lot of horseshit to get to the meat of the movie. Once it got there, it was pretty good, but it could have been written a lot tighter in the beginning. In fact, stuff that happened before the beginning of the movie and was talked about rather than shown would have been much more interesting to focus on than what they spent the first 45 minutes setting up.

It's okay. I saw it in 3D and it had pretty good 3D effects, but the story could have been better.

I get pissed off when they add minorities to the cast of films that arent supposed to be there just to tick a fucking box.

Pennzoil GT-R wrote:I get pissed off when they add minorities to the cast of films that arent supposed to be there just to tick a fucking box.

I'm pretty sure all the minorities in the new Star Trek were originally of that race in the first one.

I'm hearing pretty mixed reviews; some people saying it was great, others disappointed.

That's the one thing I hate about book adaptations, and movies based off cult followings. Too much "needs" to be explained to clue in the crowds that just go to see a movie, and are presumed to know little or nothing about the backstory.
JUST FUCKING GET TO IT, MOVIE.

Which is doubly stupid here because the whole point of starting the new timeline was to give the writers more latitude to do whatever the fuck.

Spoiler:

J.J. Abrams already said that he didn't want to make if for the Star Trek fans, he wanted to make a movie for the masses.

I like J.J., but I kind of think that was the wrong move to make.

SBF wrote:J.J. Abrams already said that he didn't want to make if for the Star Trek fans, he wanted to make a movie for the masses.

I like J.J., but I kind of think that was the wrong move to make.

It depends. I think getting too "fan-servicey" stagnates a franchise. "Enterprise" was boring as shit because they didn't do anything that TNG, DS9, and Voyager hadn't already done a shitload of times before...the only time "Enterprise" was at all interesting was when they tried to make it like "24" with the Zindi plotline, and Scott Bakula is being all Jack Bauer and there was actually shit going on. Sometimes you need to change things up, and catering to the fanboys like they'd been doing for years wasn't cutting it anymore. I applaud them for taking the franchise in a new direction, even if I wasn't entirely satisfied with the latest movie. The one before it was great despite some plotholes and showed that broadening the appeal doesn't necessarily have to be bad.

I think I watched one or two episodes of Enterprise. Just couldn't get into it.

JaysonAych wrote:

SBF wrote:J.J. Abrams already said that he didn't want to make if for the Star Trek fans, he wanted to make a movie for the masses.

I like J.J., but I kind of think that was the wrong move to make.

It depends. I think getting too "fan-servicey" stagnates a franchise. "Enterprise" was boring as shit because they didn't do anything that TNG, DS9, and Voyager hadn't already done a shitload of times before...the only time "Enterprise" was at all interesting was when they tried to make it like "24" with the Zindi plotline, and Scott Bakula is being all Jack Bauer and there was actually shit going on. Sometimes you need to change things up, and catering to the fanboys like they'd been doing for years wasn't cutting it anymore. I applaud them for taking the franchise in a new direction, even if I wasn't entirely satisfied with the latest movie. The one before it was great despite some plotholes and showed that broadening the appeal doesn't necessarily have to be bad.

This is exactly it. If you just appeal to the hard core fans, you'll basically end up making an endless stream of one off, hour long, shows that air on the Sci Fi channel - and that's about it. Studios aren't going to finance a movie that only appeals to 1 - 5% of the population, and I can't believe that there are many more people than that who are dogmatic trekies. Not inherently a bad thing, just depends on what you're in it for.

thewalrus wrote:

JaysonAych wrote:

SBF wrote:J.J. Abrams already said that he didn't want to make if for the Star Trek fans, he wanted to make a movie for the masses.

I like J.J., but I kind of think that was the wrong move to make.

It depends. I think getting too "fan-servicey" stagnates a franchise. "Enterprise" was boring as shit because they didn't do anything that TNG, DS9, and Voyager hadn't already done a shitload of times before...the only time "Enterprise" was at all interesting was when they tried to make it like "24" with the Zindi plotline, and Scott Bakula is being all Jack Bauer and there was actually shit going on. Sometimes you need to change things up, and catering to the fanboys like they'd been doing for years wasn't cutting it anymore. I applaud them for taking the franchise in a new direction, even if I wasn't entirely satisfied with the latest movie. The one before it was great despite some plotholes and showed that broadening the appeal doesn't necessarily have to be bad.

This is exactly it. If you just appeal to the hard core fans, you'll basically end up making an endless stream of one off, hour long, shows that air on the Sci Fi channel - and that's about it. Studios aren't going to finance a movie that only appeals to 1 - 5% of the population, and I can't believe that there are many more people than that who are dogmatic trekies. Not inherently a bad thing, just depends on what you're in it for.

But to what extent does it need to be changed? The whole alternate timeline from the first movie confused me so much that I had to stop and rewatch the movie from the beginning because I thought I missed something. I thought the movie was going to be how the original Enterprise crew came together in a more adventurous way, which it was, but then they had to add the alternate timeline. Why? It wasn't necessary.

While it wasn't entirely necessary, it does allow writers to create whatever stories they want going forward without having to pick their way through the minefield of canon that had built up over the last 45 years. Freeing themselves from that constraint gives them more leeway to take characters and events in different directions.

True, but the thing I see, is that we don't really know what happened before the original series started and I feel like this is that. As far as I know, Gene Roddenberry didn't write any stories before the original series. They can make it look extremely futuristic and create what action they couldn't in the last 4 decades with green screens and CGI.

They are not going to make 8 of these movies, so I don't really see a need for the alternate time line.

Maybe they won't make 8 more movies, but they could make a TV series based on the new timeline that would last a little while, which was something they were considering.

haha finally saw this movie. Yeah. It was already. At first I was excited - awesome, they're going to make this an ass-kicking, revenge seeking, bad-ass piece of science fiction action movie.

Then they went into that whole "it's morally wrong to kill this guy without trial" / "you can't just invade the Klingon space to get this person" / "we have to find a way to make everything right and just in the end despite the fact that the bad guy blew up a building and killed one of the cooler actors in the move" bullshit.

thewalrus wrote:haha finally saw this movie.  Yeah.  It was already.  At first I was excited  - awesome, they're going to make this an ass-kicking, revenge seeking, bad-ass piece of science fiction action movie.  

Then they went into that whole "it's morally wrong to kill this guy without trial" / "you can't just invade the Klingon space to get this person" / "we have to find a way to make everything right and just in the end despite the fact that the bad guy blew up a building and killed one of the cooler actors in the move" bullshit.  

Seriously, like tens of thousands of people died and the reaction was kind of, "Welp. That was a thing that happened."

SBF wrote:J.J. Abrams already said that he didn't want to make if for the Star Trek fans, he wanted to make a movie for the masses.

I like J.J., but I kind of think that was the wrong move to make.

He better not try that with Star Wars. Lucas already screwed it up enough with his second set.

JaysonAych wrote:

thewalrus wrote:haha finally saw this movie.  Yeah.  It was already.  At first I was excited  - awesome, they're going to make this an ass-kicking, revenge seeking, bad-ass piece of science fiction action movie.  

Then they went into that whole "it's morally wrong to kill this guy without trial" / "you can't just invade the Klingon space to get this person" / "we have to find a way to make everything right and just in the end despite the fact that the bad guy blew up a building and killed one of the cooler actors in the move" bullshit.  

Seriously, like tens of thousands of people died and the reaction was kind of, "Welp.  That was a thing that happened."  

Yeah. Such bullshit. And then they didn't even kill him in the end. They just re-froze him. It's like what the fuck? I paid good money to see an old fashioned ass-kicking. Not some dude with hipster hair get turned into a popsicle after killing a bunch of innocent people.

Swerve wrote:

SBF wrote:J.J. Abrams already said that he didn't want to make if for the Star Trek fans, he wanted to make a movie for the masses.

I like J.J., but I kind of think that was the wrong move to make.

He better not try that with Star Wars. Lucas already screwed it up enough with his second set.

The further I get from those movies, the more I think they weren't as bad as everyone was saying. The first was alright. The kid should have been older, and Jar Jar Binks was as annoying as fuck. But the action scenes were decent, and Ewan McGregor was good as Obi Wan.

The second one would have been great without the love scenes. That was stupid. And pointless. And George Lucas should just realize he can't direct romance. It's amazing he ever had kids.

The last one was actually pretty good, all things considered.

I never saw this new one, but just because this got bumped, I think the Klingon Bird of Prey is the coolest ship. That thing's all sorts of ba looking.

I've always thought the Enterprise was one of the ugliest. A disc with engines on the back. It looks so top-heavy. (Yes, I know, they're in space.) The newer one is cooler looking but it still sucks, IMO.

I liked the Romulan ship as well...

I always liked the Star Wars ships. They looked worn and beat up, which is cool. The ones in Star Trek always look so shiny and new.

Yea, Star Wars > Star Trek

Ep1 was horrible. Liked Liam Neesen and the Darth Maul, but Jar Jar Binks was annoying as fuck. And the kid was, too. Could they have found a worse actor? Natalie Portman is typically a decent actress, but was really bad in that movie as well.

Ep2 was horrible. A really bad love story. Dude’s hair was really annoying with that one “tail” in the back. Somehow he aged 15 years since Ep1 and she didn’t age at all.

Ep3 was pretty good.

Then the original three were just epic all around.

I also thought it was odd they spent three whole movies training Anakin, but Luke was essentially trained in half of one movie.

Talon wrote:I never saw this new one, but just because this got bumped, I think the Klingon Bird of Prey is the coolest ship. That thing's all sorts of ba looking.

In Star Trek 3, it was like, "Holy shit, that thing is awesome!" Then as the movies went on, it was more like, "Hang on, it's just a tiny piece of junk." The original Klingon D7's were always badass though. The Romulan Warbirds in TNG were also fucking cool.

Regarding Star Wars Episodes 1, 2, and 3, if you have an hour or three, you should check out Red Letter Media's take on the films. One of their comedy characters, a deranged psychotic called Mr. Plinkett, narrates a really amusing and comprehensive set of videos that breakdown just how shitty 1, 2, and 3 are (if you saw that Prometheus spoilers video I posted a long time back, it's the same guy). http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/star-wars/star-wars-episode-1-the-phantom-menace/ (NSFW language)

I just watched gravity. Really good movie, even if it did have a few scientific inaccuracies, and Sandra Bullock is still hot.