Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Thu Jul 31, 2014 8:14 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 199 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 10  Next
STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS 
Author Message
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3373
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
I know he was in the show, nevertheless, the fact that somehow who was in the show hated the film adaption dosen't make it a bad film.


Mon May 20, 2013 7:35 pm
Profile
Producer

Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 11:04 am
Posts: 2110
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
Well mark me as some one who has never seen the tv show but loved the movies. Well, II-IV anyway. I liked but didn't love the first one.

I do want to give the show a try and since I believe they are available to watch on netflix, I'll definitely have to get on it one of these days.

I've never been a fan of the Law & Order franchise so adding unnecessary action scenes might actually make it an improvement! :lol:


Tue May 21, 2013 3:52 am
Profile
Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 6:18 pm
Posts: 202
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
Vexer wrote:
nologo wrote:
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:

No it is NOT a fact! :evil: saying that it is makes you sound incredibly arrogant and ignorant :roll: not EVERYONE HAS to love Wath Of Khan, I think it's a decent film but I just wasn't blown away by it like most people were.

You're right about them not being in the same league, Into Darkness is far superior IMO, i'm sorry you can't accept someone having a different opinon then you :lol:


Everybody is wrong. Galaxy Quest is clearly the superior film to all. FACT. :mrgreen:


Tue May 21, 2013 1:01 pm
Profile
Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 10:26 am
Posts: 227
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
Taleswapper wrote:
Galaxy Quest is clearly the superior film to all. FACT. :mrgreen:


Irrefutable.

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


Tue May 21, 2013 2:02 pm
Profile
Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 9:42 am
Posts: 270
Location: NJ
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
I am officially annoyed no one ran with this reference.....

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


Tue May 21, 2013 8:26 pm
Profile
Cinematographer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 2:41 pm
Posts: 639
Location: The Desert
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
Awf Hand wrote:
Taleswapper wrote:
Galaxy Quest is clearly the superior film to all. FACT. :mrgreen:


Irrefutable.


Real truth.

Image

_________________
"The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool."
Letterboxd Profile


Tue May 21, 2013 9:16 pm
Profile WWW
Site Admin

Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:55 pm
Posts: 3119
Location: Mount Laurel, NJ, USA
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
Awf Hand wrote:
My feeling is that they are beginning to treat "Star Trek" the same way as they treated "Mission Impossible". It has been taken from something cerebral and thought provoking and turned into explosions and explosions.


Hopefully, that doesn't surprise you. That's what Hollywood does these days. In many ways, STAR TREK is just a product name. It has brand recognition. Wait until after reboot #3 (whatever the 2016 film is called). All the stars' contracts are up then. Quinto has already said he's not coming back. Pine is on the fence, but Kirk w/o Spock is pointless. My guess is they'll bring back everyone who doesn't demand too much money and back-fill with new, "exciting" faces. By the time we get to the fifth or sixth film in this series, there won't be much of STAR TREK left except the name.


Wed May 22, 2013 2:06 pm
Profile WWW
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3373
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
James Berardinelli wrote:
Awf Hand wrote:
My feeling is that they are beginning to treat "Star Trek" the same way as they treated "Mission Impossible". It has been taken from something cerebral and thought provoking and turned into explosions and explosions.


Hopefully, that doesn't surprise you. That's what Hollywood does these days. In many ways, STAR TREK is just a product name. It has brand recognition. Wait until after reboot #3 (whatever the 2016 film is called). All the stars' contracts are up then. Quinto has already said he's not coming back. Pine is on the fence, but Kirk w/o Spock is pointless. My guess is they'll bring back everyone who doesn't demand too much money and back-fill with new, "exciting" faces. By the time we get to the fifth or sixth film in this series, there won't be much of STAR TREK left except the name.

As long as the films are entertaining, i'm OK with that.


Wed May 22, 2013 3:07 pm
Profile
Cinematographer

Joined: Sat May 05, 2012 4:33 pm
Posts: 584
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
Should somebody in the near to distant future reboot Star Trek and bring it closer to what the original series and movies were about, I can see Abrams' films being not just forgotten, but also reviled. Hopefully, that won't be the case, but let's face it: no one gives a second thought to the Burton Batman films nowadays (I've seen both films once, enjoyed them, and still have no intention of ever seeing them again). There are still plenty of scientific and intellectual questions for Trek to mine. Abrams' films might be stellar in their own regard, but they do not represent the best that the franchise has to offer.

In other words, many of the users on this forum seem to like the new Trek movies, while later going on to poke holes in them. It just seems like a franchise that some people enjoy for a little while, but then end up feeling guilty about enjoying. Kind of like...Transformers.

Clearly, the two are not on the same level, but still. It's just the general impression I'm receiving, and there's nothing wrong with. Trek fans have a right to prefer the original incarnations of the series, but for my money, Abrams' Trek films are still excellent works of blockbuster film-making. They may not be as thought-provoking as Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy, or they still work on their own terms.


Wed May 22, 2013 5:24 pm
Profile
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3373
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
Sean wrote:
Should somebody in the near to distant future reboot Star Trek and bring it closer to what the original series and movies were about, I can see Abrams' films being not just forgotten, but also reviled. Hopefully, that won't be the case, but let's face it: no one gives a second thought to the Burton Batman films nowadays (I've seen both films once, enjoyed them, and still have no intention of ever seeing them again). There are still plenty of scientific and intellectual questions for Trek to mine. Abrams' films might be stellar in their own regard, but they do not represent the best that the franchise has to offer.

In other words, many of the users on this forum seem to like the new Trek movies, while later going on to poke holes in them. It just seems like a franchise that some people enjoy for a little while, but then end up feeling guilty about enjoying. Kind of like...Transformers.

Clearly, the two are not on the same level, but still. It's just the general impression I'm receiving, and there's nothing wrong with. Trek fans have a right to prefer the original incarnations of the series, but for my money, Abrams' Trek films are still excellent works of blockbuster film-making. They may not be as thought-provoking as Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy, or they still work on their own terms.

I don't ever feel "guilty" about liking films(which I think is silly) like Transformers and Battleship, and I don't expect my opinion to change anytime soon. I enjoyed the Dark Knight trilogy, but I didn't really find them to be "thought-provoking" in any sense.


Wed May 22, 2013 5:37 pm
Profile
Cinematographer

Joined: Sat May 05, 2012 4:33 pm
Posts: 584
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
Vexer wrote:
Sean wrote:
Should somebody in the near to distant future reboot Star Trek and bring it closer to what the original series and movies were about, I can see Abrams' films being not just forgotten, but also reviled. Hopefully, that won't be the case, but let's face it: no one gives a second thought to the Burton Batman films nowadays (I've seen both films once, enjoyed them, and still have no intention of ever seeing them again). There are still plenty of scientific and intellectual questions for Trek to mine. Abrams' films might be stellar in their own regard, but they do not represent the best that the franchise has to offer.

In other words, many of the users on this forum seem to like the new Trek movies, while later going on to poke holes in them. It just seems like a franchise that some people enjoy for a little while, but then end up feeling guilty about enjoying. Kind of like...Transformers.

Clearly, the two are not on the same level, but still. It's just the general impression I'm receiving, and there's nothing wrong with. Trek fans have a right to prefer the original incarnations of the series, but for my money, Abrams' Trek films are still excellent works of blockbuster film-making. They may not be as thought-provoking as Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy, or they still work on their own terms.

I don't ever feel "guilty" about liking films(which I think is silly) like Transformers and Battleship, and I don't expect my opinion to change anytime soon. I enjoyed the Dark Knight trilogy, but I didn't really find them to be "thought-provoking" in any sense.

Well, you're in the minority. Many seem to like the newer Trek films, but then end up regarding them as blockbusters in the simplest sense of the word. Not in the same league as, say, last year's Avengers or TDKR. For a blockbuster to truly stick, it must be memorable, hence my re-evaluation of Abrams' Trek movies.


Wed May 22, 2013 5:40 pm
Profile
Director
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:07 pm
Posts: 1526
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
James Berardinelli wrote:
Awf Hand wrote:
My feeling is that they are beginning to treat "Star Trek" the same way as they treated "Mission Impossible". It has been taken from something cerebral and thought provoking and turned into explosions and explosions.


Hopefully, that doesn't surprise you. That's what Hollywood does these days. In many ways, STAR TREK is just a product name. It has brand recognition. Wait until after reboot #3 (whatever the 2016 film is called). All the stars' contracts are up then. Quinto has already said he's not coming back. Pine is on the fence, but Kirk w/o Spock is pointless. My guess is they'll bring back everyone who doesn't demand too much money and back-fill with new, "exciting" faces. By the time we get to the fifth or sixth film in this series, there won't be much of STAR TREK left except the name.


Ironically, the Mission Impossible films seem to have started moving back in that direction. Part of the reason why I liked Ghost Protocol the best of the series so far is because it actually put an emphasis on the team, more so than the others which were basically the Tom Cruise show.

Star Trek to the people controlling the cash is basically a brand name. They could easily go on to make Trek films with no connection to any of the previous incernations as long as there's money to be made. Although in some way I sense that if they did try that, it might be enough to drive the fans away who haven't walked off because of the rebooting.

If the original Star Trek characters split after the next one, why not try re-booting teh Next Generation. Hell, Deep Space Nine and Voyager never transitioned to the big screen (aside from Janeway's cameo in Nemesis). That could be their chance.

_________________
This ain't a city council meeting you know-Joe Cabot

Cinema is a matter of what's in the frame and what's out-Martin Scorsese.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1347771599


Wed May 22, 2013 5:52 pm
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:26 pm
Posts: 2157
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
Or develop an original Star Trek crew. A new Next Generation... louder, angrier, and with access to a time machine.

_________________
The temptation is to like what you should like--not what you do like... another temptation is to come up with an interesting reason for liking it that may not actually be the reason you like it.


Wed May 22, 2013 5:58 pm
Profile
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3373
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
Jeff Wilder wrote:
James Berardinelli wrote:
Awf Hand wrote:
My feeling is that they are beginning to treat "Star Trek" the same way as they treated "Mission Impossible". It has been taken from something cerebral and thought provoking and turned into explosions and explosions.


Hopefully, that doesn't surprise you. That's what Hollywood does these days. In many ways, STAR TREK is just a product name. It has brand recognition. Wait until after reboot #3 (whatever the 2016 film is called). All the stars' contracts are up then. Quinto has already said he's not coming back. Pine is on the fence, but Kirk w/o Spock is pointless. My guess is they'll bring back everyone who doesn't demand too much money and back-fill with new, "exciting" faces. By the time we get to the fifth or sixth film in this series, there won't be much of STAR TREK left except the name.


Ironically, the Mission Impossible films seem to have started moving back in that direction. Part of the reason why I liked Ghost Protocol the best of the series so far is because it actually put an emphasis on the team, more so than the others which were basically the Tom Cruise show.

Star Trek to the people controlling the cash is basically a brand name. They could easily go on to make Trek films with no connection to any of the previous incernations as long as there's money to be made. Although in some way I sense that if they did try that, it might be enough to drive the fans away who haven't walked off because of the rebooting.

If the original Star Trek characters split after the next one, why not try re-booting teh Next Generation. Hell, Deep Space Nine and Voyager never transitioned to the big screen (aside from Janeway's cameo in Nemesis). That could be their chance.

Agreed, Enterprise never transitioned either, so that could be potentially interesting.


Wed May 22, 2013 5:59 pm
Profile
Cinematographer
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 5:22 pm
Posts: 736
Location: Hobart Australia
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
Sean wrote:
... but let's face it: no one gives a second thought to the Burton Batman films nowadays (I've seen both films once, enjoyed them, and still have no intention of ever seeing them again).


Plainly wrong here Sean. I have seen Batman's Burton many times and at least once this year. I have wrote about it in these forum in different threads. In my view a reboot of Batman should be closer of what Burton did with Batman than what Nolan did with Batman Begins

Cheers

_________________
The pen is truly mightier than the sword
The Joker (Batman - 1989)


Wed May 22, 2013 6:05 pm
Profile WWW
Cinematographer

Joined: Sat May 05, 2012 4:33 pm
Posts: 584
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
unwindfilms wrote:
Sean wrote:
... but let's face it: no one gives a second thought to the Burton Batman films nowadays (I've seen both films once, enjoyed them, and still have no intention of ever seeing them again).


Plainly wrong here Sean. I have seen Batman's Burton many times and at least once this year. I have wrote about it in these forum in different threads. In my view a reboot of Batman should be closer of what Burton did with Batman than what Nolan did with Batman Begins

Cheers

Perhaps my claim that no one cares about Burton's Batman films is unjustifiable, but for what it's worth, I still prefer the sense of realism Nolan brought to the series. Still, I can see why many appreciate what Burton did.


Wed May 22, 2013 6:34 pm
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:26 pm
Posts: 2157
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
Nolan is the new flavor. Someday, there will be new Batman movies and people will be ga-ga over those. The masses will forget Nolan's movies and the fans will rewatch them every so often out of respect, just as it is with Burton's movies now.

It's not a bad outcome. Most movies are forgotten altogether.

_________________
The temptation is to like what you should like--not what you do like... another temptation is to come up with an interesting reason for liking it that may not actually be the reason you like it.


Wed May 22, 2013 6:53 pm
Profile
Director
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:07 pm
Posts: 1526
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
Sean wrote:
For a blockbuster to truly stick, it must be memorable


Right. A recent example of one that appears not to have stuck is another JJ Abrams effort: Super 8. Almost 2 years after its release, it seems to have faded for much of the moviegoing public.

_________________
This ain't a city council meeting you know-Joe Cabot

Cinema is a matter of what's in the frame and what's out-Martin Scorsese.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1347771599


Wed May 22, 2013 9:15 pm
Profile
Gaffer
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 7:17 pm
Posts: 29
Location: United States
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
I love Super 8. Great film. I'm also a big fan of Burton's Batman. The atmosphere is what makes it really click for me, but I can't help but like Michael Keaton's take on the big man himself.

As for Star Trek Into Darkness, there's some introspection and moral threading that makes its way through the film. I, for one, loved the role reversal during the final scenes (I won't go into detail as not to spoil anyone who hasn't seen it), and I feel that this is J.J.'s best outing in terms of Trek. I thoroughly enjoyed the first film but, to me, this one exceeds that one, by a fair margin, in terms of quality and storytelling. I say that as a hardcore Trek fan, who grew up on the original series, and took immediately to TNG upon its television premiere.

Fans tend to talk about TOS' cerebral qualities, but to be honest, there were just as many gun and run episodes as philosophical conundrums. The nice thing about Star Trek is that it can be many things, and it doesn't have to rely on one story telling archetype to make a quality show. I think we lost that in VOY and ENT, where it became more about technobabbling the technobabble while reversing the McGuffin technobabble array. It wasn't science, it was pseudo-science; fantasy. It gave the appearance of intelligence but lacked the substance to back it up. Now, I'm not saying the series' were bad; obviously people liked them, and that's great, to each their own. One of my favorite Star Trek films is The Final Frontier, and I know most people consider it to be a pile of dreck. Still, I love it, so I don't fault anyone for liking what they like. Let's just not pretend Star Trek is this paragon of human knowledge making it's foray into the scientific strata where it touches on philosophy because, more often than not, it really was about being a western set in space. It's themes were not that complex.

When people like to extol the virtues of Star Trek's amazing powers of cerebral and intellectual prowess, I like to post this image macro:

Image

Because as much as I love Star Trek, it will always be a treasure to enjoy and share, but it will never be my philosophy. It doesn't have the depth for it.

_________________
"I would be delighted to offer any advice I can on understanding women. When I have some, I’ll let you know." - Picard to Data, “In Theory


Thu May 23, 2013 2:45 am
Profile
Second Unit Director

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 10:11 pm
Posts: 394
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
Quote:
One of my favorite Star Trek films is The Final Frontier, and I know most people consider it to be a pile of dreck. Still, I love it, so I don't fault anyone for liking what they like. Let's just not pretend Star Trek is this paragon of human knowledge making it's foray into the scientific strata where it touches on philosophy because, more often than not, it really was about being a western set in space. It's themes were not that complex.


You can sure tell when someone is born after 1977 as they don't really have a conception of how daring a show Star Trek was. Remember it came out in the middle 60's that is the setting of Mad Men where women were subordinate and had few career options like moms,teachers and nurses,civil rights and segregation was a big issue with people being killed to end it and the Cold War with Red Chinese and Soviets was running red hot about an inch away from mutual assured destruction. Now granted the tv show was primarily an action adventure but it showed women working with men onboard a military vessel something they don't do today. It showed blacks as scientists and Star fleet officers and a multi racial crew. Then you had the whole Kirk and Uhura thing which was a way big deal for tv at that time and I believe that episode was banned in some southern states. Add to that a general pacifist anti-war tone which was definitely against the strident jingoism of the time and some people would label commie pinko BS. Even the idea of the Federation as a state that has evolved to eliminate strife and inequality in a way is an ideal of the United Nations and the European Union(a project designed after the bloodiest century in the history of that continent for Europeans to live together). I don't know but it seems a philosophy way ahead of it's time for tv shows of the 1960's and the general public at that time. All stuff we take for granted now and perhaps doesn't resonate as much with the later series because of it. Having an Enlightenment philosophy of making the world a better place to live in for everyone is something anyone can live by.

Now it has been reduced to a nihilistic Galactic Fast and Furious which is kind of sad but might makes right,violence and explosions is what the international audience wants.


Thu May 23, 2013 7:08 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 199 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 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