Star Trek Into Darkness

New movies! Old movies! B-movies! Discuss discuss discuss!!!

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Postby Ribbons on Thu Jul 04, 2013 10:19 am

But they did work in Tribbles! That way everybody wins
User avatar
Ribbons
SQUARE PEG
 
Posts: 13856
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:00 am

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Postby Fried Gold on Thu Jul 04, 2013 5:36 pm

Ribbons wrote:But they did work in Tribbles! That way everybody wins

It was an oversized novelty Tribble though.
User avatar
Fried Gold
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 13930
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 12:28 pm
Location: ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Postby Al Shut on Fri Jul 05, 2013 4:11 am

They had a wookiee in Star Trek?
Note to myself: Fix this image shit!
User avatar
Al Shut
THE LAUGHING ZONER
 
Posts: 6204
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 1:57 pm
Location: Oberhausen, Germany

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Postby Fried Gold on Fri Jul 05, 2013 12:31 pm

Al Shut wrote:They had a wookiee in Star Trek?

Yeah, it was one of the background members on the Starfleet council.
User avatar
Fried Gold
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 13930
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 12:28 pm
Location: ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░

Re: Star Trek Into Darknesses with Rick James!!!

Postby TheButcher on Mon Aug 12, 2013 2:03 am

Star Script Doctor Damon Lindelof Explains the New Rules of Blockbuster Screenwriting
Scott Brown wrote:Damon Lindelof, the ubiquitous ­screenwriter-producer whose name seems attached to all of Hollywood’s biggest blockbusters, is doing his damnedest to get small. This summer, he (along with fellow triage artists Drew Goddard and Christopher McQuarrie) miraculously pulled Brad Pitt out of the mass grave that was World War Z’s zombocalyptic original third act and restored the regular-guyness that made Pitt’s character work. He also resisted the temptation to threaten Earth’s existence (yet again!) at the end of Star Trek Into Darkness, focusing instead on a personal vendetta—albeit one enacted via a dizzying mile-high pursuit across a 23rd-century cityscape. But, hey, you have to give something to get something.

“It was always about Spock and Khan duking it out with the stakes being Kirk’s life,” says Lindelof. “But there were earlier story iterations where the Klingon Fleet was simultaneously heading for Earth to get retribution, only to be turned around via diplomatic intervention by Uhura. We dropped it pretty early on, as it didn’t feel intimate, cool, or earned.”
User avatar
TheButcher
ZONE NEWS DIRECTOR
 
Posts: 17418
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:02 am
Location: The Bureau of Sabotage

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Postby Lord Voldemoo on Tue Aug 27, 2013 11:52 pm

Star Trek Into Darkness to be re-released with World War Z as a Double Feature

It'll be a short run, Aug 30-Sept 5, just trying to hit that end of summer labor day crowd, I guess. One regular price ticket for both shows back to back.

I must admit, I didn't like Into Darkness very much, and I didn't watch WWZ because I was afraid I'd be horribly disappointed given my enjoyment of the source material...but there's a part of me that wants to do this just for the novelty of a double feature. It's a good idea, why the hell not squeeze a few more bucks from those who might have missed the initial run? I just wish it were Man of Steel and Pacific Rim (both of which I'm embarrassed to say I missed).
Image
User avatar
Lord Voldemoo
He Who Shall Not Be Milked
 
Posts: 17641
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 1:18 pm
Location: Pasture next to the Red Barn

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Postby Peven on Wed Aug 28, 2013 6:54 am

Lord Voldemoo wrote: I just wish it were Man of Steel and Pacific Rim (both of which I'm embarrassed to say I missed).


B4NNED
Image

perversely contrarian since 2005
Peven
Is This Real Life?
 
Posts: 14542
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:45 am
Location: Group W bench

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Postby RogueScribner on Wed Aug 28, 2013 12:21 pm

STID was not a good movie. I'm glad I didn't pay any money to see it.
My eye isn't lazy; it's ambidextrous!
User avatar
RogueScribner
The Dork Avenger
 
Posts: 9609
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 3:52 am
Location: Melbourne, FL

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Postby Lord Voldemoo on Wed Aug 28, 2013 1:40 pm

Peven wrote:
Lord Voldemoo wrote: I just wish it were Man of Steel and Pacific Rim (both of which I'm embarrassed to say I missed).


B4NNED


srsly. It's been a bad summer for movie watching for me. I keep meaning to go then accidentally ending up in a beer garden somewhere.
Image
User avatar
Lord Voldemoo
He Who Shall Not Be Milked
 
Posts: 17641
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 1:18 pm
Location: Pasture next to the Red Barn

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Postby TheBaxter on Wed Aug 28, 2013 1:42 pm

still haven't seen it. based on what i've heard, i don't think i'm going to like it.

(for reference, i'll just mention that Wrath of Khan is not only my favorite ST film, but one of my favorite sci-fi films of all time, and an underrated masterpiece)
Image
User avatar
TheBaxter
Carlos Danger
 
Posts: 19034
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 5:00 pm

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Postby Peven on Wed Aug 28, 2013 10:00 pm

I liked the movie, didn't love it, it was really a "Part II", and think it did a good job as a launching point for a series of truly original movies now that the Enterprise is beginning its 5 year journey, something none of the movies so far has really covered even though the original series which people claim to love so much was based soley on that premise. I honestly can't see why some have their panties in such a twist over this movie, if you are going to be THAT hung up on using some characters or plot points from earlier ST works then why aren't you complaining about there being a Captain Kirk and a Spock and a Dr Bones? for fuck's sake, talk about just reusing previous ideas and shitting over our memories of the original characters......right? :roll:
Image

perversely contrarian since 2005
Peven
Is This Real Life?
 
Posts: 14542
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:45 am
Location: Group W bench

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Postby RogueScribner on Wed Aug 28, 2013 11:00 pm

They rebooted the franchise in 2009. New actors were playing established characters in a new story. Fine. I didn't love everything about the first movie either, but it was okay overall. The problem with the sequel is that they they went against their own mission statement: they didn't spin the franchise off into a wonderfully new direction unbeholden to established continuity. The sequel took a famous villain and plopped him into a story that recycled major plot points from an earlier movie. AND DID IT POORLY. It's like they had a checklist of things to put into the movie without considering WHY it should be in the movie in the first place. Did they think Star Trek: Nemesis didn't do a good enough job already of ripping off Star Trek II? TWOK had many iconic moments and lines of dialogue that grew organically out of the story it was telling and made sense in context. Some of the iconic moments and lines of dialogue were recycled into ST:ID without a care for the context around them so it all played like a horrible karaoke song. Sorry, but I'll stick to the original, thanks. You wanna do something new? Then do something new. Don't throw in a dead tribble and references to Gorn and think you're buying points with the fans. IT MEANS NOTHING except that you've heard of Gorn and tribbles. Aside from the fact that this was a karaoke movie, it was full of plot holes and ridiculous events that even if they did make an original story it wouldn't be that good. They shot themselves in the foot twice. The acting was fine, the production value was certainly high, it had some interesting spectacle here and there, but the story was inane fan service that ironically only works to alienate fans. I'm not sure who the movie was made for. General audiences don't really know who Khan is outside of some memes and fans who do know can only be pissed off at his portrayal in this movie. Stuff blowed up real good, I guess, but once upon a time Star Trek was about more than that. This was an overblown fantasy action movie that has nothing to do with Star Trek. It's just a label they threw on the poster to get people to see it.

And of course none of the movies addressed the 5 year mission; it was over by the time the movies began.
My eye isn't lazy; it's ambidextrous!
User avatar
RogueScribner
The Dork Avenger
 
Posts: 9609
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 3:52 am
Location: Melbourne, FL

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Postby TheBaxter on Tue Sep 17, 2013 5:35 pm

so i finally saw Star Trek Into Lens Flares a few weeks ago on BR. i liked it, and thought it was a lot better than the previous film.... until that moment towards the end when they completely shit the bed. if you've seen the movie, you should know what moment i'm talking about. the moment when this film flies a little too close to the sun known as Wrath of Khan and completely burns its wings off and falls to earth in a flaming heap of poop. and then makes one final big loud PLOP at the end with a line "reading" so bad, so ill-conceived, that i haven't cringed so badly at a line of "dialogue" since the infamous "DO NOT WANT" of the prequels. i have to admit, when i first figured out where they were going with that scene, i was a little impressed with their audacity at going for it, and their cleverness at switching it up the way they did, despite the fact that the scene is completely unearned from both an emotional and a plot-level point of view. but while i may have given it a pass up to that point, the final word destroyed whatever indulgence i was inclined to feel towards this film. after that, everything else that happens is uninspired, pointless, meaningless action movie crap.

but like i said, i was liking the film up to that point. i didn't completely understand the mystery-conspiracy at the heart of the film (in other words, i couldn't quite figure out the details of how exactly that whole marcus-khan arrangement was supposed to work) but i did like the fact that there was some kind of a mystery thing going on, kind of reminded me of Undiscovered Country. and while portraying the role of Khan in this film would seem a thankless task, i really liked the take on the character and cumberbatch's performance. i liked that this version of Khan relies more on his scheming intellect, and is more cold and calculating and quietly menacing, as opposed to the rage-and-revenge fueled guy we saw in TWOK. too bad they couldn't have maintained that through the whole film, instead of taking the lazy way out, first with a poorly executed "remake" of an iconic scene, and then a lame by-the-book action-movie conclusion.
Image
User avatar
TheBaxter
Carlos Danger
 
Posts: 19034
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 5:00 pm

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Postby caruso_stalker217 on Thu Oct 03, 2013 2:52 am

CARUSO REVIEWS STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS

Image
Image
User avatar
caruso_stalker217
TOO AGED FOR THIS MALARKEY
 
Posts: 9882
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2007 6:03 pm
Location: Oregon, US of A

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Postby TheButcher on Mon Dec 02, 2013 6:54 pm

J.J. Abrams Shares One 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Regret That Might Surprise You
The future 'Star Wars' director opens up about his feelings in an exclusive look back.
Kevin P. Sullivan wrote:For fans of the series, the lead-up and the marketing around "Star Trek Into Darkness" promised a different movie than the one that hit screens in May. Every interview and article postured who Benedict Cumberbatch was playing, but an hour into the movie, the character reveals his true identity without any major impact on the story. It was enough to make fans wonder what all the secrecy was about.

When director J.J. Abrams stopped by MTV News to discuss his latest project, "S.," the book he co-authored with Doug Dorst he revealed that he does regret withholding Khan's identity from the audience.

"The truth is I think it probably would have been smarter just to say upfront 'This is who it is.' It was only trying to preserve the fun of it, and it might have given more time to acclimate and accept that's what the thing was," he said.

The idea to keep Khan on the D.L. apparently came from the studio, which, according to Abrams, didn't want to give the impression that a comprehensive knowledge of "Star Trek" cannon was required in order to enjoy the latest installment.

"The truth is because it was so important to the studio that we not angle this thing for existing fans. If we said it was Khan, it would feel like you've really got to know what 'Star Trek' is about to see this movie," he said. "That would have been limiting. I can understand their argument to try to keep that quiet, but I do wonder if it would have seemed a little bit less like an attempt at deception if we had just come out with it."

But "Star Trek Into Darkness" is Abrams' rearview mirror, and as he moves forward with "Star Wars: Episode VII," he's also a producer on the next "Star Trek," which is said to be considering Joe Cornish as a director. Abrams could not say for sure whether Cornish would eventually beam up, but he sure hopes so.

"I don't know if Joe Cornish is the guy. My guess is that's up in the air. I adore him and love him and can't wait to see what he does next," Abrams said. "Hopefully it will be 'Star Trek.' Whatever it is, he's brilliant. 'Attack the Block' was one of my favorite movies of the year when it came out."
User avatar
TheButcher
ZONE NEWS DIRECTOR
 
Posts: 17418
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:02 am
Location: The Bureau of Sabotage

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Postby Ribbons on Mon Dec 02, 2013 7:12 pm

You know, I admire his humility, but that explanation about the studio sounds a little fishy to me. If they were so adamant about the villain not being Khan, rather than making his identity a twist, why didn't they just make him… not-Khan? It's still very bizarre, and it is certainly one of the most jarring and distracting elements of an otherwise-decent movie (controversial death scene excepted).
User avatar
Ribbons
SQUARE PEG
 
Posts: 13856
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:00 am

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Postby caruso_stalker217 on Mon Dec 02, 2013 8:03 pm

Should have been Harry Mudd.
Image
User avatar
caruso_stalker217
TOO AGED FOR THIS MALARKEY
 
Posts: 9882
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2007 6:03 pm
Location: Oregon, US of A

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Postby TheBaxter on Tue Dec 03, 2013 10:58 am

by the time i finally saw STiD, i already knew the villain was Khan. that knowledge did not make the film any better.
Image
User avatar
TheBaxter
Carlos Danger
 
Posts: 19034
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 5:00 pm

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Postby Spandau Belly on Tue Dec 03, 2013 12:38 pm

Seeing the title abbreviated to an acronym makes me wish they'd promoted this movie as STD.
Image
User avatar
Spandau Belly
self-fellating peacock
 
Posts: 7396
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:15 am
Location: ????

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Postby TheBaxter on Tue Dec 03, 2013 1:45 pm

they would've given it the hollywoodized acronym ST:N2D... which would be confusing when they had to market it as a 3D film.

and i've always felt that jj abrams was Heavily Addicted to Lens Flares And Sloppy, Substandard Editing & Directing.
Image
User avatar
TheBaxter
Carlos Danger
 
Posts: 19034
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 5:00 pm

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Postby Fievel on Tue Dec 03, 2013 2:13 pm

I, for one, see what you did there.
Achievement Unlocked: TOTAL DOMINATION (Win a Werewolf Game without losing a single player on your team)
User avatar
Fievel
Mouse Of The House
 
Posts: 12118
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 2:07 pm
Location: White Lake, MI

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Postby Fried Gold on Tue Dec 03, 2013 4:18 pm

Surely part of the reason they kept it a secret is because they probably knew their use of Khan would get ripped apart before release.
User avatar
Fried Gold
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 13930
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 12:28 pm
Location: ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Postby caruso_stalker217 on Tue Dec 03, 2013 9:43 pm

Spandau Belly wrote:Seeing the title abbreviated to an acronym makes me wish they'd promoted this movie as STD.


http://dizzydennis.tumblr.com/post/2960 ... -seen-that
Image
User avatar
caruso_stalker217
TOO AGED FOR THIS MALARKEY
 
Posts: 9882
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2007 6:03 pm
Location: Oregon, US of A

Re: Star Trek and the Chamber of Secrets

Postby TheButcher on Sat Dec 07, 2013 2:34 am

Benedict Cumberbatch Talks 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Secrecy
The actor says that he doesn't know if keeping the identity of his character secret for so long was good or bad for the movie.
Graeme McMillan wrote:Tis the season to rethink whether or not Khan should've been named in advance of Star Trek Into Darkness, apparently; after director J.J. Abrams said that perhaps the decision to keep the character's identity secret ahead of time was more trouble than it was worth, Khan himself -- actor Benedict Cumberbatch -- has weighed in on the subject.

Asked by IGN about Abrams' comments, Cumberbatch pretended to complain about "all the times we had to lie for him," before saying "It's logistics, isn't it? It don't know if it's a bad or a good thing, it was his call, I was fine with it. I like the idea [of it]."

He went on, "the intention was to have a reveal in the audience that was going to be thrilling, that people would [gasp and ask] 'Really?' And that worked to an extent, because not everybody what they were in for when they went into the theater, and some people wanted to join in that thrill of seeing it and experiencing it in the theater, rather than having it spoiled for them by reviews, or Internet gossip, or trailers that gave everything away. So who knows? For those people, I would say it was a good thing."

For his part, Cumberbatch said that the audiences he saw the movie with enjoyed it. However, he admitted, "For anyone else that wants to find out [spoilers], there are always ways of finding out, and people have their hunches."
User avatar
TheButcher
ZONE NEWS DIRECTOR
 
Posts: 17418
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:02 am
Location: The Bureau of Sabotage

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Postby TheButcher on Tue Jun 24, 2014 12:51 pm

I watched this again on netflix a couple of weeks ago.
It wasn't as bad as I remembered.
The whole keep Khan a secret campaign ruined this movie the first time I saw it.
I really liked the whole Khan & Kirk team up.
The whole movie should have been like that.
Keep the fans waiting for Khan's heel turn.
User avatar
TheButcher
ZONE NEWS DIRECTOR
 
Posts: 17418
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:02 am
Location: The Bureau of Sabotage

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Postby TheButcher on Tue Dec 01, 2015 11:37 am

Damon Lindelof Admits Keeping Khan a Secret in ‘Star Trek Into Darkness’ Was a Mistake
The bungled "reveal" is one of the lessons learned that has resulted in the spectacular second season of Lindelof's HBO series 'The Leftovers'.
User avatar
TheButcher
ZONE NEWS DIRECTOR
 
Posts: 17418
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:02 am
Location: The Bureau of Sabotage

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Postby TheButcher on Thu Dec 17, 2015 6:45 am

STAR TREK BEYOND Will Politely Ignore INTO DARKNESS
Justin Lin opts to ignore the death cure.
DEVIN FARACI wrote:The end of Star Trek Into Darkness fundamentally changed the status quo of the Star Trek universe. Not only did the Federation now have the ability to beam themselves between planets in different parts of the galaxy, ending the need for starships, they had also cured death thanks to the magic blood of Khan and his crew. The human adventure had come to an end, it seemed, as humanity had ascended to the level of immortals who could be essentially omnipresent in the galaxy.

Of course that wasn’t the intention of Into Darkness, it was just the side effect of some perhaps overly convenient plot points. Some of us wondered how the next movie, Star Trek Beyond, would handle these immense revolutionary changes, and when I talked to director Justin Lin about the first teaser for his movie I asked him about it. His basic answer: his movie will be politely ignoring just about everything that happened in Star Trek Into Darkness, especially magic blood and interstellar beaming.
[Co-writers] Simon [Pegg] and Doug [Jung] and I have spent some time on that. [laughs] Star Trek has been around for 50 years, and every filmmaker that comes on has a different point of view, and it’s a universe that can support many points of view and journeys and adventures. I embraced what JJ has brought - without him this whole group wouldn’t be together - so I’m definitely very appreciative of him. At the same time, do we address it? No, but we don’t discount it. We don’t sit there and say it doesn’t exist, it’s part of this universe now.


The big takeaway, though: feel free to watch Star Trek 09 and then skip right to Star Trek Beyond, as none of the events of Star Trek Into Darkness will have an impact on the new movie.
User avatar
TheButcher
ZONE NEWS DIRECTOR
 
Posts: 17418
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:02 am
Location: The Bureau of Sabotage

Re: STAR TREK 4 (Now w/ 100% More Amazeballs)

Postby TheButcher on Tue Jan 10, 2017 5:23 am

User avatar
TheButcher
ZONE NEWS DIRECTOR
 
Posts: 17418
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:02 am
Location: The Bureau of Sabotage

Previous

Return to Movie Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests