Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Mon Dec 29, 2014 3:45 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 199 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 10  Next
STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS 
Author Message
Cinematographer

Joined: Sat May 05, 2012 4:33 pm
Posts: 584
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
mrguinness wrote:
Lots of bad, but some good... I tried hard to steer clear of blatant spoilers...

1) The shuttle was not meant for the heat of hovering over a volcano? Isn't it meant to enter and leave a planets atmosphere?

2) The LA Cityscape was gorgeous, and must have taken the CGI artists AGES to render. Couldn't they have lingered on the initial shot a LITTLE longer than 4 seconds so we can appreciate?

3) The entire first 2 hours of the movie were about the needs of the one outweighing the needs of the many until plot devices made it otherwise. Not very Star Trek at all.

4) Pike tells Kirk he helped him get a second chance... Um.. more like a 6th chance if you ask me...

5) Speaking of Pike, can the Talosians & Vina just go fuck themselves now, or did the destruction of Vulcan free the writers from any continuity?

6) The music was mostly terrible. NOTABLY when the Klingon's first appeared in person.

7) When Spock was chasing K, is there some movie rule where the director yells "Run real fast but don't move your head an inch?" How is that physically possible?

8) I still CANNOT STAND the way the backs of people's heads look in 3D. I disagree with James.. The 3D is an abomination.

9) (last one...) In the credits, this movie is dedicated to the memory of the 9/11 responders? Huh??

Now the good...

1) When Chris Pine dons the yellow shirt for the first time and gets in the turbolift with Uhura, he BECOMES Shatner/Kirk. It was palpable and a very cool moment.

2) John Cho makes me think of George Takei SO MUCH. It was great seeing him sit in the chair.

3) The number of reminders and interpretations are so much fun, and I disagree with you guys, I think JJ Abrams did lots of those things to make us laugh. I wasn't laughing at the movie, I was laughing with it, and so were others in the audience, though not as many as I would have thought. I thought the Wrath of Kahn juxtaposition was great.

4) Klingons & Tribbles :-)

5) Carol Marcus's gratuitous body shot

6) James is right about Peter Weller's acting, but Robocop fits well into the Star Trek world :)

7) What else? Doesn't matter. The 3D sucked and is completely unnecessary and takes away from the enjoyment of movies, but it is what it is and the IMAX was pretty and I had fun, laughed and cried a bit too. Seems Kirk & Spock will get to me sometimes no matter what as part of the Young Guard!
That was just...weird. :?:

Like I said, I hope that the movie's ending sets up a thirteenth installment which is closer to what Roddenberry envisioned.
[Reveal] Spoiler:
A five-year journey through space seems like a great set-up for the 50th-year anniversary coming up in 2016. Hopefully, it will capture more of the wonder associated with the original series.


Fri May 17, 2013 2:52 pm
Profile
Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 6:18 pm
Posts: 230
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
I saw this movie last night and I loved it! The cast really seems to be coming into their own with inhabiting these characters. Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, and Karl Urban displayed tremendous chemistry. My biggest issue was with
[Reveal] Spoiler:
the big reveal of John Harrison being ... "KAAAAHHNNNNN!!" was how the movie became so very predictable for me from the moment that Kirk leapt right into that core of radioactivity and beyond. The only real question mark that resulted from that sequence was just how they would go about resurrecting him, well outside of a third movie titles, "The Search for Kirk," that is. Ultimately, I thought it was a nice touch, though.


The ending was somewhat anticlimactic for me. It was, as Owen Gleiberman put it, a "popcorn morality play." And that's all right. It ended on a highly optimistic note. In short, it was a movie worthy of Star Trek lore.


Fri May 17, 2013 7:41 pm
Profile
Second Unit Director

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 8:07 pm
Posts: 227
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
I just got back from seeing it. In a nutshell, I was disappointed. I'll try not to post spoilers, but needless to say:

1. The writers are borrowing too much from the Wrath of Khan playbook. I get they're fans of it and are inspired by it, but reacreating scenes, moments and reintroducing characters from it is not working or it's being done too much.

2. I don't know about you, but I felt the movie was a bit convoluted for its own good.

3. One reason the 2009 version worked was the writers used elements from the previous shows/films as a starting point and then took off in their own direction. I feel like they did a reverse apporach here and it didn't work.


Fri May 17, 2013 9:50 pm
Profile
Assistant Second Unit Director

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 8:54 am
Posts: 72
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
Taleswapper wrote:
I saw this movie last night and I loved it! The cast really seems to be coming into their own with inhabiting these characters. Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, and Karl Urban displayed tremendous chemistry. My biggest issue was with
[Reveal] Spoiler:
the big reveal of John Harrison being ... "KAAAAHHNNNNN!!" was how the movie became so very predictable for me from the moment that Kirk leapt right into that core of radioactivity and beyond. The only real question mark that resulted from that sequence was just how they would go about resurrecting him, well outside of a third movie titles, "The Search for Kirk," that is. Ultimately, I thought it was a nice touch, though.


The ending was somewhat anticlimactic for me. It was, as Owen Gleiberman put it, a "popcorn morality play." And that's all right. It ended on a highly optimistic note. In short, it was a movie worthy of Star Trek lore.


I was really with the movie until
[Reveal] Spoiler:
the big Khan reveal. They made the mistake of failing to make Khan interesting. Instead, they were counting on him being interesting just because he was Khan. It really sapped the life out of the movie that the only reason I'd care at all about the twists and climaxes of the ending is if I'd already seen Space Seed and Wrath of Khan and knew what they were referencing. (Which I have and did, but still...) It would have been stronger I think for them to do their own Khan story instead of filling it with echos. And if they were going to fill it with echoes, there's a good way to do that too--but I think it takes more conversations about destiny and fewer fistfights on floating garbage trucks.


There was a lot of good here, but in the end I think it tried to do too much and didn't quite build to the climax they were going for. I enjoyed the attempt to build a theme
[Reveal] Spoiler:
"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"
but it got a little muddled in standard 2010s a hero will rise plotting.

Overall, a fun time at the movies, and
[Reveal] Spoiler:
Leonard Nimoy's cameo is pretty much worth the price of admission.


Also, the Kronos chase, the space jump, and the fistfight at the end have me really excited for Star Wars. So there's that.


Sat May 18, 2013 7:33 am
Profile
Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 10:26 am
Posts: 280
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
I go to the opening weekend of a movie maybe once or twice a year. STID had me amped enough that I paid full price and sat in a crowded theater to see it. I was disappointed.

I'm a big fan of all things ST. Syndicated ST episodes are scheduled viewing. I own all the movies and all the series but DS9.

My feeling was that STID
[Reveal] Spoiler:
stepped beyond homage into scene-farming and plucked the low hanging fruit from the years of other's best efforts.
While I understand that ST '09 started the crew down an alternate timeline, I have a bit of fear how many of the next films are going to be one-off remakes. I expected something new and fresh and original and I got a fucking "re-imagination" of TV and movies I'd seen before. At least the CGI was good. Much like a few other posters, I cough-laughed when Kirk puts his hand on the glass. Big eyeroll when Spock yells Khan. In WoKhan, I was teary-eyed when Spock died. Not here. Not even a little.


While this won't stop me from seeing the next ST installation, I damn sure won't be there opening night or pay full price again.

_________________
______________________________
Specializing in rodent behavior modification.
-Watch me pull a habit out of rat.


Sat May 18, 2013 8:40 am
Profile
Cinematographer

Joined: Sat May 05, 2012 4:33 pm
Posts: 584
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
Well, I'm definitely seeing this one again just to make sure that my anticipation for the movie didn't get in the way of my objectivity.

One valid criticism: does anyone else feel as if Khan deserved a better origin story? Perhaps the movie doesn't hold up so well after later consideration.


Sat May 18, 2013 2:56 pm
Profile
Assistant Second Unit Director

Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2009 4:16 am
Posts: 118
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
Quote:
does anyone else feel as if Khan deserved a better origin story? Perhaps the movie doesn't hold up so well after later consideration.


Completely agree. He was a "Prince"..."ruled over millions"....I want to see that story. Instead of seeing him introduced with bombastic music, good grief, blackmailing a starfleet officer....maybe a little back story would have earned that somewhat confusing, and over the top, introduction


Sat May 18, 2013 3:04 pm
Profile
Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 4:57 pm
Posts: 406
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
Just got back from this and I liked it. It has all the strengths of the reboot with great slam-bang action scenes and strong acting plus it now kinda feels like Star Trek which wasn't the case with the previous one. But man it does have some issues...mostly due to Benedict Cumberbatch or whatever his name is, I just think of him as somebody nerds will stare at slack-jawed at the screen going "DUURRRR HE AWESOME!"

For what? Saying words EVVVVIIIIILLLLYYYYY and with a British accent! He's not interesting...well except for:

[Reveal] Spoiler:
When Kirk's punching the shit out of him in that Klingon planet and he's like "Dude, seriously?" And he's not even the best villain in the movie, Admiral Robocop was! He was interesting, he had great motivation and he actually acted!


Hell, Eric Bana was a better villain in the first one AND HE WAS DRUNK!

And the callbacks were kinda annoying especially

[Reveal] Spoiler:
Spock's KHHAAAAANNNNN!!!!


Like I said, I liked it but man, I can see why it's such a base breaker.


Sat May 18, 2013 3:12 pm
Profile
Cinematographer

Joined: Sat May 05, 2012 4:33 pm
Posts: 584
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
I want to know what Trekkies think of this article discussing the film's plot-holes: http://badassdigest.com/2013/05/14/star ... er-review/.

Nitpicking or valid points? The general consensus seems to be that this is a mild disappointment when compared to the 2009 movie. Perhaps the franchise's better version of Quantum of Solace. Like I said, I definitely need to see t again before reaching a conclusion, but I loved it "in the moment".


Sat May 18, 2013 4:32 pm
Profile
Second Unit Director

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 10:11 pm
Posts: 496
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
This is movie is slick and well made with Abrams and Co. being as Cyrano de Bergerac said about Moliere stealing scenes from his plays; at least he is talented enough to steal the best scenes that work. There is so much lifted from Wrath of Khan I would consider it a remake. The thing that disappoints me is that the Abramsverse Star Trek has become a near mindless action movie with quick cuts,shaky cam and something going pow or boom every 8 minutes. I think one reviewer got it right when he called it Bourne Federation or Star Trek into Adderall . There is just no heart and soul to this movie or chemistry with the actors. I immensely miss the optimistic Enlightenment guided Federation future of Roddenberry which has been replaced by the cynical,dark,ultraviolent and nihilistic dystopia of Abrams.

I can see how it will immensely appeal to the action movie crowd domestic and international with few words of dialogue and a lot of explosions but I preferred Oblivion way more than this as it reminded me of an old school Star Trek episode. On the good side the special effects look top notch and Alice Eve has one of the most gratuitous shots outside of Red Shoe Diaries. The one single thing that made the movie bearable was watching the amazing Benedict Cumberbatch acting circles around everyone. I started to cheer him on with his mission to take down Abram's Federation universe and replace it with the Mirror Universe and Terran Empire.


Sat May 18, 2013 7:31 pm
Profile
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 4027
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
Just got back froms eeing this from my mom and we both nejoyed it, I strongly disagree with the comparisons to the Bourne sequels, this films shits all over those mediocre films and I had no trouble figuring out what was going on. The action was very well done but it did not feel "mindless" or "soulless" in any sense of the word, the story was more then compelling enough, personally I had no problem with the film lifting quite a bit from Wrath Of Khan, I guess because I didn't fall in love with that film like most people did, quite honestly, I think Into Darkness was a superior film. Also I wouldn't call this "nihilistic" at all, it got pretty optimistic at the end.

Oblivion didn't really Trek-ish to me, it felt more like Independence Day mixed with Star Wars.


Sat May 18, 2013 9:05 pm
Profile
Second Unit Director

Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 3:02 pm
Posts: 251
Location: Toronto, ON, Canada
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
In spite of the disappointments expressed by a number of posters here, I still intend to see Star Trek Into Darkness in theatres and am excited about doing so. Just from the trailers alone, I could sense that Benedict Cumberbatch would make a superb villain.

On that note, how many of you here are familiar with Cumberbatch's work on the BBC TV series "Sherlock"? I thought he was absolutely brilliant in that series, and can't wait for the 3rd series (the British term for a TV "season") to come out on PBS or on BBC Canada.

(For those who don't know what I am talking about, "Sherlock" is a re-imagining of the Sherlock Holmes stories set in 21st century London, with Cumberbatch playing Sherlock Holmes opposite Martin Freeman aka Bilbo Baggins in The Hobbit as John Watson).


Last edited by StatGuy2000 on Sun May 19, 2013 11:58 am, edited 1 time in total.



Sat May 18, 2013 9:35 pm
Profile
Second Unit Director

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 10:11 pm
Posts: 496
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
StatGuy2000 wrote:
In spite of the disappointments expressed by a number of posters here, I still intend to see Star Trek Into Darkness in theatres and am excited about doing so. Just from the trailers alone, I could sense that Benedict Cumberbatch would make a superb villain.

On that note, how many of you here are familiar with Cumberbatch's work on the BBC TV series "Sherlock"? I thought he was absolutely brilliant in that series, and can't wait for the 3rd series (the British term for a TV "season") to come out on PBS or on BBC Canada.

(For those who don't know what I am talking, "Sherlock" is a re-imagining of the Sherlock Holmes stories set in 21st century London, with Cumberbatch playing Sherlock Holmes opposite Martin Freeman aka Bilbo Baggins in The Hobbit as John Watson).


It is worth watching as just as another movie but I pretend it is called Bourne Universe not Star Trek. I have seen Sherlock and Benedict Cumberbatch is amazing in that role.The episode with him and Irene Adler is probably the best.He is the best thing in this movie hands down.

Quote:
Oblivion didn't really Trek-ish to me, it felt more like Independence Day mixed with Star Wars.


Did you miss all the 2001 Space Odyssey references like the Hal stand in,shape of the Tet like a monolith,name of Cruise's spaceship and the podcraft? It is a real science fiction story about human identity closer to Total Recall,Twilight Zone or 60's Trek episodes than escapist action fantasy like Independence Day or Star Wars. Remember the film starts with his dream in the old world with Olga Kurylenko not big action scenes with the attack on Earth that is only alluded to and never shown during the whole movie.


Quote:
I think Into Darkness was a superior film. Also I wouldn't call this "nihilistic" at all, it got pretty optimistic at the end.


Every solution in the movie to every crisis is violence and more violence. In the Roddenberry's Trek violence is seen as not very glorious and sometimes pointless and unnecessary. The Klingon and Federation War was even stopped by Organians who refused to allow them to fight.Both sides protest, but the Organians predict the two rivals will get along far better in the future than they presently imagine. When Kirk remarks to Kor that it looks like they won't have have their war after all, Kor responds, in the final scene, "Ah, but it would have been glorious!" The audience and film maker for Into Darkness would agree with Klingon commander Kor.

That is why nearly every 8 minutes there is some kind of violence,explosion or death that is completely fetishized and beautifully shot like soft core porn for the pandering action movie audience. Roddenberry was forced out of Star Trek in the 80s as new producers want to go in this direction and this movie is the apex of that curve.Shows pure nihilism on the part of the filmmaker who only know life through television while Roddenberry and his writers lived a real life and wore their social values on their sleeves.


Sat May 18, 2013 11:37 pm
Profile
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 4027
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
I wasn't a big fan of 2001 and I don't remember much about it, so that's probably why those references went over my head.

I'm still not seeing the whole "nihilism" thing, did you know Roddenbury's prosposed idea for the 2nd Trek film was the Enterprise crew going back in time to prevent the JFK assassination, and instead end up having to ensure that it happens? If you ask me that sounds WAY more "nihilistic"(a term I feel is thrown around too much)then anything in this film. Most people felt that TNG actually improved considerably once Roddenbury left, it had nothing to do with the producers wanting to go in a more "actiony" direction, the general consensus was that Roddenbury was being too controlling. Also it's incredibly narrow-minded and downright ignorant to say the people that made this film have no "social values" :roll: it's fine if you don't like the film, but personally insulting the filmmakers just cause you don't like the new direction strikes me as very immature. I don't see how violence is "fetishized" in this film, I think you're reading way too much into it.

For me a truly nihilstic film is one that ends on a down note with very little hope, having a lot of violence does not automatically make a film "nihilistic"


Sun May 19, 2013 12:41 am
Profile
Second Unit Director

Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 4:52 pm
Posts: 278
Location: North Carolina
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
This was a fun movie; I agree with JB's review. But there are still too many plot holes, and these writers are still addicted to deus ex machinas. I won't make a long list, but there are two major issues that bother me.

In the first movie, I hated the miraculous invention of a long distance transporter (i.e., transporting people to a pinpoint position across many light years), a process that is continued in this movie. The original ST writers were wise to place strict limitations on transporters. Now, in the Abrams universe, people can (potentially) be anywhere in the universe at any moment. It becomes a convenient plot device and, by the way, would change that society in fundamental ways. Read Dan Simmons' Hyperion books to learn how an intelligent SF writer deals with the implications of an instantaneous transport system.

My second problem involves John Harrison:

[Reveal] Spoiler:
So Khan's blood not only miraculously cures disease, but it brings people back from the dead. So now we have a practical system for immortality. And we don't even have to keep Khan and his folks alive. Just clone his red blood cells and everyone in the ST universe becomes immortal. Don't the writers realize that there just might be some implications in this discovery? Or they just don't care as long as they have their deus ex machina to get them out of Kirk's death scene? Sorry, I just hate this kind of lazy writing.


Sun May 19, 2013 8:23 am
Profile
Producer

Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 11:04 am
Posts: 2312
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
slksc wrote:

My second problem involves John Harrison:

[Reveal] Spoiler:
So Khan's blood not only miraculously cures disease, but it brings people back from the dead. So now we have a practical system for immortality. And we don't even have to keep Khan and his folks alive. Just clone his red blood cells and everyone in the ST universe becomes immortal. Don't the writers realize that there just might be some implications in this discovery? Or they just don't care as long as they have their deus ex machina to get them out of Kirk's death scene? Sorry, I just hate this kind of lazy writing.



[Reveal] Spoiler:
This isn't a problem with the movie because Khan's blood doesn't just bring anything back from the dead. Remember, Kirk wasn't COMPLETELY dead, which is why they put him in one of the cryogenic frozen devices to keep him alive long enough so they can bring back Khan alive and use his blood to save Kirk. I think the movie made that pretty clear actually.


Sun May 19, 2013 11:25 am
Profile
Cinematographer

Joined: Sat May 05, 2012 4:33 pm
Posts: 584
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
Vexer wrote:
I wasn't a big fan of 2001 and I don't remember much about it, so that's probably why those references went over my head.

I'm still not seeing the whole "nihilism" thing, did you know Roddenbury's prosposed idea for the 2nd Trek film was the Enterprise crew going back in time to prevent the JFK assassination, and instead end up having to ensure that it happens? If you ask me that sounds WAY more "nihilistic"(a term I feel is thrown around too much)then anything in this film. Most people felt that TNG actually improved considerably once Roddenbury left, it had nothing to do with the producers wanting to go in a more "actiony" direction, the general consensus was that Roddenbury was being too controlling. Also it's incredibly narrow-minded and downright ignorant to say the people that made this film have no "social values" :roll: it's fine if you don't like the film, but personally insulting the filmmakers just cause you don't like the new direction strikes me as very immature. I don't see how violence is "fetishized" in this film, I think you're reading way too much into it.

For me a truly nihilstic film is one that ends on a down note with very little hope, having a lot of violence does not automatically make a film "nihilistic"

Well, 2001 is the cornerstone of quality science fiction.I think that many movies of that genre owe a tremendous debt to Stanley Kubrick's 1968 film.

We all paid to see the movie, so I see nothing wrong with insulting the film-makers behind it, regardless of whether one liked STID or not.

ilovemovies wrote:
slksc wrote:

My second problem involves John Harrison:

[Reveal] Spoiler:
So Khan's blood not only miraculously cures disease, but it brings people back from the dead. So now we have a practical system for immortality. And we don't even have to keep Khan and his folks alive. Just clone his red blood cells and everyone in the ST universe becomes immortal. Don't the writers realize that there just might be some implications in this discovery? Or they just don't care as long as they have their deus ex machina to get them out of Kirk's death scene? Sorry, I just hate this kind of lazy writing.



[Reveal] Spoiler:
This isn't a problem with the movie because Khan's blood doesn't just bring anything back from the dead. Remember, Kirk wasn't COMPLETELY dead, which is why they put him in one of the cryogenic frozen devices to keep him alive long enough so they can bring back Khan alive and use his blood to save Kirk. I think the movie made that pretty clear actually.

[Reveal] Spoiler:
Furthermore, why can't they borrow some blood from one of the other 72 guys in cryo-sleep? Or is that impossible because they would have to be unfrozen first?


Sun May 19, 2013 11:38 am
Profile
Second Unit Director

Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 3:02 pm
Posts: 251
Location: Toronto, ON, Canada
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
oakenshield32 wrote:

It is worth watching as just as another movie but I pretend it is called Bourne Universe not Star Trek. I have seen Sherlock and Benedict Cumberbatch is amazing in that role.The episode with him and Irene Adler is probably the best.He is the best thing in this movie hands down.


I agree that the episode with Irene Adler ("Scandal in Belgravia") was the best. Lara Pulver was incredibly sexy and beguiling as Irene Adler and superior in almost every way possible from Rachel McAdams' portrayal of the same character in Guy Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes films.

Actually, Sherlock is superior to the Ritchie Sherlock Holmes films (and for those who may be tempted, I will not even begin to mention the abomination that is the American TV series "Elementary" with Sherlock Holmes based in New York).


Sun May 19, 2013 12:05 pm
Profile
Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 9:42 am
Posts: 325
Location: NJ
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
Vexer wrote:
I'm still not seeing the whole "nihilism" thing, did you know Roddenbury's prosposed idea for the 2nd Trek film was the Enterprise crew going back in time to prevent the JFK assassination, and instead end up having to ensure that it happens? If you ask me that sounds WAY more "nihilistic"(a term I feel is thrown around too much)then anything in this film.


"City on the Edge of Forever" much?


Sun May 19, 2013 3:11 pm
Profile
Assistant Second Unit Director

Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2009 4:16 am
Posts: 118
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
Quote:
because I didn't fall in love with that film like most people did, quite honestly, I think Into Darkness was a superior film


What....? /facepalm

Honestly, what does it take....

The death of Spock, after a series and 2 films was earned. Within the juxtaposition of saving the ship during the birth of a new world. Kirk quotes from a book that Spock gave to him on his birthday, solidifying not only an earned friendship, but vastly superior writing and storytelling. On the back of a solid film with one of the most memorable, over the top (good) badie performances of all time...

Good grief man. I have seen some pretty questionable opinions on film from you, but that comment takes the cake. quite honestly, they are not even in the same league. Effects wise, of course there is superior design coming from JJ, it's 2013 and 150 million budget....but without the shaky cam, lens flares and veneer, Wrath of Khan holds it's own to this day. Which says more about the film, than your opinion...

Wrath of Khan is still the better film. That is just fact. :roll:


Sun May 19, 2013 4:24 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 199 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 10  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.
Translated by Xaphos © 2007, 2008, 2009 phpBB.fr