[Trailer] Star Trek - Into Darkness

[Raunalyn]

I know this is the internet, but as I see it, he was just expressing his opinion. He isn't interested. I'm ok with that.

I want to see this movie, personally, because I am a huge fan of Benedict Cumberbatch. I also really enjoyed the first reboot of the series. Yes, it was a bit predictable; yes, the story wasn't top notch, but I thought the movie was interesting, fun, and worth the watch.

I think the second one will be more so. That, too, is my opinion.

 

[Dannager]

It's just off-putting for someone to hate on something new in favor of a rose-tinted view of what came before, especially given that "what came before" was lampooned for many of the same things he's calling flaws in the new movies.

Also, I loved this:

Or don't enjoy having my intelligence insulted by a movie with a bunch of pretty 20-somethings

Here is the entire list of billed cast for Star Trek into Darkness under 30 years old:

Anton Yelchin

By the way, that list doubles in size if you go back to 2009, when the previous Star Trek film was released.

The best part is that George Takei, Walter Koenig (who, according to documentation, was introduced for the explicit purpose of providing more sex appeal to teenage girls), and Majel Barrett were all under 30 when The Original Series first aired. That's right: there were more pretty 20-somethings starring in good-old-days Star Trek than there were (and are) in the modern reboot.

 

[Nellisir]

Maybe I just have higher standards.

Or different.

Or don't enjoy having my intelligence insulted by a movie with a bunch of pretty 20-somethings hiding behind FX with mediocre writing, directing, and acting.
In short, I prefer substance over flash.

You sound like my dad.
"Television sucks. There's nothing good on television!"
"Dad, you haven't watched tv since 1970."
"Exactly! It's all crap!"

(My dad does -own- a tv. A really nice one. But he lives in a place with almost no reception, and doesn't have cable or satellite.)

Anyways, I have ADD and love shiny flashy things.

 

[sabrinathecat]

Trek 2: lots of FX (Genesis Wave was a huge bonus with the particle emitter), still about the story.
Trek 6: not much new in the way of FX, still about the story.
Checkov was added (according to an interview with Roddenbury) when a translation of a Russian newspaper got back to him. The newspaper accused Trek of being another US propaganda show--no Russians are in the crew, so this show is 'proof' that the US will triumph. Could be that adding more sex appeal was a factor in the design and casting.
If you take every error, every glitch, and every piece of silliness from TOS, TNG, Voyager, Enterprise, and Trek 1-9, it would not add up to the horribleness of JJATrek1. (IF you add in DS9, the formula reverses).

In truth, the ultimate damning factors for this movie are the Kurtzman and Orci writing team (who have destroyed everything they touched) and J.J. Abrams (I know people liked Lost, but I found it and unwatchable). How these three have careers is a mystery to me.

Flash is pretty.
Substance is better.
Substance with Flash can lead to a truly great movie.

 

[Dannager]

Ooooooooooooookay then.

 

[Nellisir]

Ooooooooooooookay then.

Yep. I keep running into Sabrinathecat, and like Morrus says in the 3rd post, it's the same refrain just about every time.

 

[Elodan]

I look forward to seeing it. Hope there's more McCoy this time around.

 

[Zaukrie]

Not a fan of how the sentiment was stated, but where is the space ship fighting part? Looking forward to this, but some actual space ship stuff would be good.....also, how about Klingons and stuff?

 

[Mallus]

In short, I prefer substance over flash.

So you're not a fan of science fiction films? More a Godard, Resnais, Fassbinder, Bunuel, Clouzot, Mizoguchi, Hitchcock (wait, he's flashy), Kubrick (him too, in his way), Griffith (flash & racism!), and Welles (pretty flashy) sort of person? That's cool.

Personally I think the new Star Trek movie looks awesome (and I started with TOS at the age of 4, circa 1973).

 

[sabrinathecat]

Hey, I am happy to praise anything I find good. Just ask.

TOS had modest effects for the time (some new stuff, but mostly the same ol' tricks). The episodes were driven by story and character.
Trek 2 had good effects, but was still mostly about the story and characters.
Trek 6 had about average FX for the time (the bar was set pretty high at that point), and was totally driven by the story and characters.
JJATrek, on the other hand, was driven by glare and splice-cut editing, and only managed to keep 1 character remotely like the others. As with most Kurtzman/Orci scripts they chose to almost completely ignore what was established, give a 2-finger salute to the existing fan base, and totally rewrite the situations, whenever possible adding scatological humor and sex jokes.
And, call me silly, but if I am going to a movie that is about flashy FX, I want to actually SEE the pretty light show. Black ship. Black background. Only time we can see it is when it passes in front of a star, which blurs everything. Shakey-cam makes me nauseous. Story has plot holes you could fly a star ship through.