ChiefsPlanet
Page 9 of 12 « First 5678 9 101112
Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page

ChiefsPlanet (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   Media Center (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   Movies and TV Star Trek 12 Gets Release Date (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=221538)

Deberg_1990 05-19-2013 03:22 PM
Spoiler!

Sure-Oz 05-19-2013 03:37 PM
Just got back from seeing. Enjoyable summer flick but the first one was better. I've never really watched the original star trek shows much or movies but this has garnered my interest to seeing the original show and movies.

I was a big Next Generation fan and have enjoyed those movies.

I love the cast in these movies but felt like it could've been more.

Frazod 05-19-2013 03:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by siberian khatru (Post 9692284)
I literally groaned out loud in the theater.

I went with my sons, 18 and 14. The older one is fairly familiar with the TOS; in fact, last night we watched three of my favorite TOS episodes, and we both agreed they were better than this high-tech movie. He had pretty much the same reaction I did.

My 14-year-old, though, knows virtually nothing about TOS, and he liked the movie more than we did. And I'm sure there's lots of folks, young and old, like him out there.

I agree with GoChiefs: Come up with something original. If I see there are whales in the next one, I'm checking out.
Which original episodes did you watch?

siberian khatru 05-19-2013 03:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by frazod (Post 9692353)
Which original episodes did you watch?
Balance of Terror, Mirror, Mirror and The Enterprise Incident. They aren't my 3 favorite (Doomsday Machine is my favorite), but they are top 5-10.

Frazod 05-19-2013 03:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by siberian khatru (Post 9692357)
Balance of Terror, Mirror, Mirror and The Enterprise Incident. They aren't my 3 favorite (Doomsday Machine is my favorite), but they are top 5-10.
Those are all good ones. Doomsday Machine is my favorite, as well. I especially love it with the enhanced special effects.

I still remember the first time I saw that when I was a little kid, before I realized that lead characters couldn't die. I was going nuts at the end. :D

Sure-Oz 05-19-2013 03:54 PM
Star Trek: Original Motion Picture Collection (Star Trek I, II, III, IV, V, VI + The Captain's Summit Bonus Disc) [Blu-ray] (2009)

I just purchased this set off amazon for $35

Hammock Parties 05-19-2013 03:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sure-Oz (Post 9692374)
Star Trek: Original Motion Picture Collection (Star Trek I, II, III, IV, V, VI + The Captain's Summit Bonus Disc) [Blu-ray] (2009)

I just purchased this set off amazon for $35
I got the same deal! :thumb:

Sure-Oz 05-19-2013 04:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Branden Albert's Huge Balls (Post 9692376)
I got the same deal! :thumb:
I'm pretty excited to see the originals. They have the show on netflix as well for me to check out. Good stuff

Frazod 05-19-2013 04:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sure-Oz (Post 9692396)
I'm pretty excited to see the originals. They have the show on netflix as well for me to check out. Good stuff
II, III and VI are the only ones worth buying, IMO.

Hammock Parties 05-19-2013 04:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by frazod (Post 9692461)
II, III and VI are the only ones worth buying, IMO.
So you defend this trash but now the highest-grossing Star Trek film of all time (IV) isn't worth buying?

Frazod 05-19-2013 05:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Branden Albert's Huge Balls (Post 9692464)
So you defend this trash but now the highest-grossing Star Trek film of all time (IV) isn't worth buying?
We've had this conversation before. IV is entertaining, but it's not Star Trek. It's like the Star Trek cast vacationing in San Francisco being followed around by a film crew. There was no villain. There was no tension. There were no battles. There wasn't even an Enterprise until the last minute of the movie. Are you ****ing kidding me?

Even III, with it's wretched sets and planet FX and crappy Saavik and pussy-fest of David and Captain Esteban, had Kruge and ships getting blown up and a planetary explosion.

Hammock Parties 05-19-2013 05:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by frazod (Post 9692575)
ships getting blown up and a planetary explosion.
Well, we know what gets frazod drunk.

Star Trek IV is awesome, and anyone who says otherwise doesn't know shit about making movies or Star Trek.

Let me guess, you hated all those stupid TNG episodes where they went into the holodeck, too?

NO SHIPS BLOWING UP = WORTHLESS!

Frazod 05-19-2013 05:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Branden Albert's Huge Balls (Post 9692580)
Well, we know what gets frazod drunk.

Star Trek IV is awesome, and anyone who says otherwise doesn't know shit about making movies or Star Trek.

Let me guess, you hated all those stupid TNG episodes where they went into the holodeck, too?

NO SHIPS BLOWING UP = WORTHLESS!
We're not talking about the series, spanky. But seriously, most of the episodes people remember as being the best, had battles in them. Sure, City on the Edge of Forever and Inner Light always rank highly, but those are the exceptions. The rule is Best of Both Worlds, Yesterday's Enterprise, Redemption, Doomsday Machine, Balance of Terror. Deep Space 9 sucked until it got dark and started focusing on battles with the Klingons and the Dominion.

When it comes to movies, you need more. I think you need to watch Plinkett's review of Phantom Menace, and pay special attention to the part where he explains the elements of a good science fiction movie.

Hammock Parties 05-19-2013 05:13 PM
I think you need to shut up with your dumbass opinions. Anyone suggesting "Into Shitness" is on par with VI needs their head examined.

Frazod 05-19-2013 05:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Branden Albert's Huge Balls (Post 9692618)
I think you need to shut up with your dumbass opinions. Anyone suggesting "Into Shitness" is on par with VI needs their head examined.
You need to get over J.J. Abrams ****ing you up the ass that night and never returning your calls later.

Deberg_1990 05-19-2013 05:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by frazod (Post 9692606)
We're not talking about the series, spanky. But seriously, most of the episodes people remember as being the best, had battles in them. Sure, City on the Edge of Forever and Inner Light always rank highly, but those are the exceptions. The rule is Best of Both Worlds, Yesterday's Enterprise, Redemption, Doomsday Machine, Balance of Terror. Deep Space 9 sucked until it got dark and started focusing on battles with the Klingons and the Dominion.

When it comes to movies, you need more. I think you need to watch Plinkett's review of Phantom Menace, and pay special attention to the part where he explains the elements of a good science fiction movie.

Even Trouble with Tribbles had decent Crew vs Klingon hard fisted action....

Hammock Parties 05-19-2013 05:45 PM
Anyway, can't wait for the next Abrams Star Trek script, wherein the whale probe from STIV comes along, but Spock Prime goes to the shore and holds up his iPod and plays whalesong at it until it leaves.

Deberg_1990 05-19-2013 05:47 PM
Abrams should reboot Trek V next.

George Clooney as Sybok!

RealSNR 05-19-2013 06:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deberg_1990 (Post 9692702)
Abrams should reboot Trek V next.

George Clooney as Sybok!
I've always wanted to see Karl Urban and Chris Pine sing campfire songs

JD10367 05-19-2013 06:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoucheMcCloud (Post 9691839)
At this point, it's hard to see anything being "Greenlit".

Star Trek Into Darkness is performing very poorly at the box office. It's $20 million under estimates this weekend and the numbers will continue to slip. It'll likely hit its budget of $190 million but I think the future will is murky. It's taken in less during its opening weekend than Star Trek in 2009. That is not a good sign.

Abrams has never been a Star Trek fan and he's off to the Star Wars universe, his true first love. Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof haven't shown that they can create blockbuster movies on their own and Lindelof's quickly developing a "Franchise Killer" rep around town. Paramount will likely look to a completely different team if the decide to move forward.

Paramount was really upset with Abrams and the four year lag between films and the box office disappointment with the sequel will likely give them pause when considering another director, writer and most importantly, budget, if they decide to move forward in the Star Trek universe.

Right now, I don't think that's a given. Studios don't usually make movies, especially big budget summer blockbusters, with the intent to "break even".
I don't know how much money you have, but apparently your opinion of "very poorly" must differ from mine. It's made $84M for a four-day opening (which is only $2.7M less than the first film). It's fighting off "Iron Man 3" which opened a few weeks ago with the 2nd-highest opening ever. It's a sequel (and sequels always tend to make less). It was recently pushed to a Thursday opening which many people were probably not aware of. And it has a strong exit rating with moviegoers, which bodes well for continued solid performance.

DaneMcCloud 05-19-2013 08:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JD10367 (Post 9692777)
I don't know how much money you have, but apparently your opinion of "very poorly" must differ from mine. It's made $84M for a four-day opening (which is only $2.7M less than the first film). It's fighting off "Iron Man 3" which opened a few weeks ago with the 2nd-highest opening ever. It's a sequel (and sequels always tend to make less). It was recently pushed to a Thursday opening which many people were probably not aware of. And it has a strong exit rating with moviegoers, which bodes well for continued solid performance.
This post is, without a shred of doubt, the most ignorant non-football post I've read in the history of Chiefsplanet.

Hammock Parties 05-19-2013 09:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoucheMcCloud (Post 9693254)
This post is, without a shred of doubt, the most ignorant non-football post I've read in the history of Chiefsplanet.
Why? Isn't 84m a lot?

DaneMcCloud 05-19-2013 09:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Branden Albert's Huge Balls (Post 9693442)
Why? Isn't 84m a lot?
1. Into Darkness earned $70 million it's opening weekend. Star Trek earned $75 million.

2. Industry analysts and the studio expected $90-$100 million, so it's far short of expectations.

3. Studios DO NOT, I repeat, DO NOT expect sequels to earn less than their predecessors, especially when the budget of the sequel is $40 million more than the original. Look no further than Spiderman 2, The Dark Knight, The Matrix Reloaded, Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest, etc. Iron Man 2 was slightly below Iron Man ($6 million less) but Iron Man 3 has already exceeded both films.

4. Into Darkness will likely earn its $190 million dollar budget back domestically (minus marketing, of course) but it won't be a major earner and will certainly have a disappointing take. Generally speaking, a film begins to decline in its second week of release by 50%. Given that next weekend is a 3 day holiday, it's likely that Star Trek will only see a modest loss of maybe 30%-40%, so the total would be around $135 million or so in week two (and I'm being optimistic).

By week three, the domestic gross would likely be around $20 million and by week four, all bets are off because The Man of Steel is released and it will get crushed. $10 million in week four would be huge.

So for the sake of guessing, that puts the film at the following:

Week 1: $85 million
Week 2: $50 million ($135)
Week 3: $20 million ($155)
Week 4: $10 million ($165).

By the end of an 8 week run, it should probably reach $190 million but that isn't exactly a given, especially when considering the tepid response the film received this weekend and the other choices available in Iron Man 3, Man of Steel, in a addition to Monsters University and World War Z the weekend of June 18th.

If it hasn't hit its budget by the end of June, it's dead in the water.

Hammock Parties 05-19-2013 09:57 PM
What about the overseas take? That doesn't count for anything?

Frazod 05-19-2013 09:59 PM
Did you see the movie, Dane?

DaneMcCloud 05-19-2013 10:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Branden Albert's Huge Balls (Post 9693505)
What about the overseas take? That doesn't count for anything?
Yeah, it counts but with this film, foreign is already at $80 million and it was released earlier than the U.S. If the film does recoup its $190 million dollar budget domestically, the additional $80-$100 million it does internationally basically covers the cost of worldwide marketing, with a little profit thrown in.

Given that actors, producers and directors are usually given some backend (depending on the final numbers, of course), this film will be lucky to break even with its theatrical release.

DaneMcCloud 05-19-2013 10:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by frazod (Post 9693511)
Did you see the movie, Dane?
No, unfortunately I haven't seen it. With everything that's going on my household, it's likely to be a PPV or DVD screener.

I'm bummed because we went to opening night at the Cinerama Dome back in 2009, which was a blast! I'm pretty sure I mentioned it but more than 75% of the audience was dressed in TOS gear and some cast members came out to greet us.

Frazod 05-19-2013 10:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoucheMcCloud (Post 9693520)
No, unfortunately I haven't seen it. With everything that's going on my household, it's likely to be a PPV or DVD screener.

I'm bummed because we went to opening night at the Cinerama Dome back in 2009, which was a blast! I'm pretty sure I mentioned it but more than 75% of the audience was dressed in TOS gear and some cast members came out to greet us.
That's too bad - I really liked the 3D. It's worth seeing in the theater.

Deberg_1990 05-19-2013 10:08 PM
Damn, who knew Dane was a corporate bean counter? :)

Frazod 05-19-2013 10:15 PM
Another thing about the opening - wasn't changing the opening from Friday to Thursday a last minute thing? I don't think a lot of people realized it. Mainly because I saw it Thursday night at 8:00 and the theater was only about 2/3rds full.

Clay's ranting aside, this is a good movie. It's gotten good reviews and everybody I've talked to that saw it has liked it.

Is it possible that Abrams dicking around for four years lost some non-Trekkies?

DaneMcCloud 05-19-2013 10:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deberg_1990 (Post 9693533)
Damn, who knew Dane was a corporate bean counter? :)
LMAO

Yeah, ten years at Paramount and Uni kind of clued me in.

:D

DaneMcCloud 05-19-2013 10:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by frazod (Post 9693528)
That's too bad - I really liked the 3D. It's worth seeing in the theater.
Maybe I can catch a late night showing before it leaves the theaters. That's probably my best bet.

Have the 3D glasses improved since Avatar? I got a massive headache and had to take them off repeatedly when watching it in the theater.

I have a good friend that's working on 3D holographic programming that is incredible, with glasses that weight less than like 3 ounces, but it's not available for feature film just yet.

Hammock Parties 05-19-2013 10:19 PM
I personally don't mind 3D at all now.

I'd prefer NOT to have it, since the picture is brighter without it, but it's worth the tradeoff of seeing the film in IMAX.

Seems like 9/10 movies I want to see that are on the IMAX here are shown only in 3D. Which sucks, because when they're not, it's truly amazing. I saw Raiders of the Lost Ark in IMAX 2D a few months ago and it was epic.

Frazod 05-19-2013 10:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoucheMcCloud (Post 9693549)
Maybe I can catch a late night showing before it leaves the theaters. That's probably my best bet.

Have the 3D glasses improved since Avatar? I got a massive headache and had to take them off repeatedly when watching it in the theater.

I have a good friend that's working on 3D holographic programming that is incredible, with glasses that weight less than like 3 ounces, but it's not available for feature film just yet.
I saw it in regular 3D and 3D Imax. The regular 3D glasses were a kind I hadn't seen before and seemed better than those I'd worn in the past (they were solid, the stems didn't fold). The Imax 3D glasses were the standard crappy ones.

Imax doesn't really do anything for me. Seemed like a waste of money.

Hammock Parties 05-19-2013 10:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by frazod (Post 9693542)
Clay's ranting aside, this is a good movie. It's gotten good reviews and everybody I've talked to that saw it has liked it.
It's a good movie that unfortunately is very forgettable, and doesn't deserve to be ranked with the best Star Trek movies.

The third act is horrific, stupid and insulting.

Frazod 05-19-2013 10:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Branden Albert's Huge Balls (Post 9693558)
It's a good movie that unfortunately is very forgettable, and doesn't deserve to be ranked with the best Star Trek movies.

The third act is horrific, stupid and insulting.
I agree, the ending could have been better. I watched it with a more critical eye the second time around.

RINGLEADER 05-19-2013 10:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoucheMcCloud (Post 9693497)
1. Into Darkness earned $70 million it's opening weekend. Star Trek earned $75 million.

2. Industry analysts and the studio expected $90-$100 million, so it's far short of expectations.

3. Studios DO NOT, I repeat, DO NOT expect sequels to earn less than their predecessors, especially when the budget of the sequel is $40 million more than the original. Look no further than Spiderman 2, The Dark Knight, The Matrix Reloaded, Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest, etc. Iron Man 2 was slightly below Iron Man ($6 million less) but Iron Man 3 has already exceeded both films.

4. Into Darkness will likely earn its $190 million dollar budget back domestically (minus marketing, of course) but it won't be a major earner and will certainly have a disappointing take. Generally speaking, a film begins to decline in its second week of release by 50%. Given that next weekend is a 3 day holiday, it's likely that Star Trek will only see a modest loss of maybe 30%-40%, so the total would be around $135 million or so in week two (and I'm being optimistic).

By week three, the domestic gross would likely be around $20 million and by week four, all bets are off because The Man of Steel is released and it will get crushed. $10 million in week four would be huge.

So for the sake of guessing, that puts the film at the following:

Week 1: $85 million
Week 2: $50 million ($135)
Week 3: $20 million ($155)
Week 4: $10 million ($165).

By the end of an 8 week run, it should probably reach $190 million but that isn't exactly a given, especially when considering the tepid response the film received this weekend and the other choices available in Iron Man 3, Man of Steel, in a addition to Monsters University and World War Z the weekend of June 18th.

If it hasn't hit its budget by the end of June, it's dead in the water.
Your numbers may end up being correct, but the actual remit to the producer/film less exhibitor and distributor fees (even when the film is financed in whole or part by the distributor) is typically on a sliding scale from as little as 90% for an event movie during the first couple of weeks to around 70% in the out weeks. Internationally, the distribution breakdown is much different, with around 50% returning to the producer/financed.

Even if the budget before P&A was $190mm (it wasn't), the film should perform much better overseas than the first one. Part of the reason it opened up first overseas was there was virtually no way for it to make back its budget and marketing spend primarily from the domestic box office - hence the change in distribution strategy.

So if it ends up making the money you estimate, you're looking at a remit of around $140mm (less around $40mm direct marketing and fees) or $100mm from the domestic ($90mm deficit) - so they'd need $180mm internationally to break even. Of course they'll make additional in home entertainment, so they should be okay - but it likely won't do huge business.

Frankly, there was no reason it needed to cost as much as it did IMO, but I guess if a lot of buildings don't crumble, it's just not a summer blockbuster.

DaneMcCloud 05-19-2013 10:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by frazod (Post 9693542)
Is it possible that Abrams dicking around for four years lost some non-Trekkies?
I know that Paramount was very upset with the delay and I can only imagine that it hurt the box office. I also have to say that I think that Paramount did a poor job of marketing the film. While there are a few billboards around town, we haven't been bombarded with Into Darkness.

Also, they really failed (IMO) by not scheduling the original Star Trek film on premium movie channels or FX or Spike or Network within weeks of its release to generate more interest in this film. Hell, Paramount is part of Viacom (which also owns Showtime), so Star Trek should have been raging for a month in advance.

Four years is a long time for a sequel with, for lack of a better term, a "cult" audience.

DaneMcCloud 05-19-2013 10:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RINGLEADER (Post 9693571)
Your numbers may end up being correct, but the actual remit to the producer/film less exhibitor and distributor fees (even when the film is financed in whole or part by the distributor) is typically on a sliding scale from as little as 90% for an event movie during the first couple of weeks to around 70% in the out weeks. Internationally, the distribution breakdown is much different, with around 50% returning to the producer/financed.

Even if the budget before P&A was $190mm (it wasn't), the film should perform much better overseas than the first one. Part of the reason it opened up first overseas was there was virtually no way for it to make back its budget and marketing spend primarily from the domestic box office - hence the change in distribution strategy.

So if it ends up making the money you estimate, you're looking at a remit of around $140mm (less around $40mm direct marketing and fees) or $100mm from the domestic ($90mm deficit) - so they'd need $180mm internationally to break even. Of course they'll make additional in home entertainment, so they should be okay - but it likely won't do huge business.

Frankly, there was no reason it needed to cost as much as it did IMO, but I guess if a lot of buildings don't crumble, it's just not a summer blockbuster.
Yeah, I agree completely but I think what could really help this film in the long run is the DVD release. The Star Trek audience will most likely eat it up, as opposed to a film with similar numbers without the built-in audience.

Chiefspants 05-19-2013 10:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Branden Albert's Huge Balls (Post 9691842)
Spoiler!
Stop, just stop. The only reason you are so infatuated with that idea is because you were the one to think of it. Ready for your response if had Abrams proceeded with your idea? "**** YOU ABRAMS, THE ORIGINAL KHAN WOULD HAVE BEEN TOO INTELLIGENT TO HAVE EVER BEEN MARGINALIZED INTO THIS SITUATION. WHO IN THE ***ING THEATER CARES THAT KHAN SACRIFICED HIS LIFE AT THE MOVIES CLIMAX? RATHER THAN FEEL ANY EMOTION OVER HIS SELF SACRIFICE, THE THEATER BREATHED A SIGH OF ****ING RELIEF THAT THIS CHARACTER COULD NEVER SHOW HIS TRUE POTENTIAL."

The truth is, this movie was dead in the water for you the moment Khan was selected as the villain. Don't deny it, you made a myriad of posts about your belief of the movie's inevitable failure if they had made this selection for the antagonist.

Someone mentioned earlier that this movie may have cemented Khan as a Joker like figure in the Star Trek universe. Honestly, this may be what extends the life of Trek franchise in the future(Whether it be a TV series, movie or otherwise).

Trek fans were starting cry foul over how "derivative" the franchise was becoming with each new series taking place in the Trek universe. Well, it's not perfect, but this current franchise is probably Trek's best bet to stay relevant in the newer generations. This idea is underlined by the average age of people (+30) who are attending Into Darkness. While this series may be unsuccessful at reviving the Trek universe, it was probably its best hope of rejuvenating the franchise.

I feel that Abrams is probably one of the most overrated directors in Hollywood, but Clay's incessant fanboy trolling over Into Darkness pushed me over the edge. This was a fun adaptation and re-visioning of one of the best storylines of Trek history. You admitted this much before going all Hulk troll inside the thread.

I'm not going to waste my time responding to any of your trollboyant retorts to me, so instead I will direct you to your own post directed at those raging about Iron Man 3's Mandarin Storyline.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Branden Albert's Huge Balls (Post 9677795)
LMAO

butthurt fanboys
Chiefspants out.

Hammock Parties 05-19-2013 10:38 PM
Spoiler!


Uninspired, unoriginal, stale bullshit.

When the climax of the movie is DEVOID of emotion and UTTERLY PREDICTABLE, that's a load of horseshit. A giant, Borg Cube sized load of it.

STEAMING PILE OF DAMON LINDELOF EXCREMENT.

Chiefspants 05-19-2013 10:43 PM
I don't know about you guise, but this sure sounds like someone ready to be objective about dis moviezz!1!1!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Branden Albert's Huge Balls (Post 9686683)
Leaving in 13 minutes. Can't wait to shit on this movie.

Hammock Parties 05-19-2013 10:44 PM
Way to cherry pick. 90 percent of my posts leading up to the movie were genuine bouncing off the walls excitement.

Frazod 05-19-2013 10:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoucheMcCloud (Post 9693572)
I know that Paramount was very upset with the delay and I can only imagine that it hurt the box office. I also have to say that I think that Paramount did a poor job of marketing the film. While there are a few billboards around town, we haven't been bombarded with Into Darkness.

Also, they really failed (IMO) by not scheduling the original Star Trek film on premium movie channels or FX or Spike or Network within weeks of its release to generate more interest in this film. Hell, Paramount is part of Viacom (which also owns Showtime), so Star Trek should have been raging for a month in advance.

Four years is a long time for a sequel with, for lack of a better term, a "cult" audience.
I can't really speak to that. They had me at hello. :D

Hammock Parties 05-19-2013 11:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoucheMcCloud (Post 9157187)
I agree. But I'm more worried about that assclown Lindelof ****ing it up than the time between movies.
Well lo and behold!

Hammock Parties 05-19-2013 11:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chiefspants (Post 9185986)
Going to call it,
Spoiler!
You ****ing called this YEARS in advance.

Boy I bet you were surprised!

patteeu 05-20-2013 09:26 AM
I saw it last night. I agree with Siberian's "meh". I'm pretty much on board with most of GoChief's negative reactions (but I wouldn't say it completely ruined the movie for me). It was a kind of lame movie but it wasn't horrible.

jiveturkey 05-20-2013 10:07 AM
I loved it.

I'm not a Trek fan but these last two movies have been a ton of fun IMO.

My wife even loved it and she hates anything that involves space.

Hammock Parties 05-20-2013 10:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jiveturkey (Post 9694013)
I loved it.

I'm not a Trek fan
Big shocker.

the Talking Can 05-20-2013 11:21 AM
so i'm going to offer a bit of a mea culpa to the fanbois...

i spent some time discussing the film with a friend, a fan with fairly encyclopedic knowledge of the series, who really laid out how badly he thought they misused Kahn's storyline...

i still found the movie highly entertaining (and I'm generally averse to 'just' being entertained), but i can now see why people are disappointed in it...

bevischief 05-20-2013 11:37 AM
This why I wait and buy the DVD.

keg in kc 05-20-2013 12:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by the Talking Can (Post 9694187)
so i'm going to offer a bit of a mea culpa to the fanbois...

i spent some time discussing the film with a friend, a fan with fairly encyclopedic knowledge of the series, who really laid out how bad he thought they misused Kahn's storyline...

i still found the movie highly entertaining (and I'm generally averse to 'just' being entertained), but i can now see why people are disappointed in it...
I've seen every episode of every series not named "voyager" and multiple times for TOS, TNG and DS9. While I've never done cosplay, I have owned tech manuals, the Science of Star Trek, built models, played games, read expanded universe novels (mostly in the 90s), so on and so forth. The problem with most fanboys (and that goes for comics in general, as much as for trek) is that they often lack imagination where "canon" is concerned. They want slavish devotion the story they know. And they really have a hard time dealing with a rebooted universe where things don't occur exactly the way they're used to. Kahn in the movie was not the Kahn from Space Seed. He was discovered 5 or 6 years before Kirk found the Botany Bay in the original timeline, there was no McGivers, there was only Admiral Marcus (or whoever was involved with Section 31). Meaning he was found by a military vessel and not an exploratory craft. He was woken alone and his companions were used as leverage to gain his cooperation. So there are some reasons for thinking his behavior might differ under the individual circumstances. Kahn prior to his exile was a warlord responsible for subjugating and/or killing millions. In the 90s (heh, note the movie didn't mention the Eugenics Wars or its dates). So I don't think it was a stretch having Marcus trying to use his "savagery" as they put it in the movie.

Not that there weren't some issues. Magic space blood? Really?

I liked Trek into Darkness primarily because to me it actually did embody many of the original themes of Star Trek. Exploration versus militarism. Spock continuing to seek the balance between logic and emotion. Kirk growing up. Beyond that there are modern day parallels to the events in the movie, for all the talk about it being a "remake of WoK". Which it was not really. If anything I thought it was truer to the franchise than just about anything from the 2009 film.

Just one fanboy's opinion...

RealSNR 05-20-2013 12:30 PM
Saw it last night. Here are my thoughts:

Spoiler!


That being said...

It was entertaining. There were some good parts. I have a couple of other friends who want to see this movie, and I'll likely go see it with them. Multiple times.

I was pretty high on Star Trek (2009). I liked that movie. This one gets a final grade of "meh". Too much lazy shit that got slapped together with JJ Abrams' own diarrhea.

Star Wars is his first love? Yeah, it probably is. ****ing moron. At least that body has already been raped by Lucas, so whatever "revival" he does of it will be hard to disappoint fans of Star Wars. They've already seen the worst.

Hammock Parties 05-20-2013 12:33 PM
Agree about Spock. I can't stand Quinto's portrayal. It's completely different than Nimoy's Spock to be honest.

Spock seems like a high strung lil bitch in this.

SNR's review is on point. This film is pissing off a lot of hard core Trekkies.

the Talking Can 05-20-2013 12:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by keg in kc (Post 9694333)
I've seen every episode of every series not named "voyager" and multiple times for TOS, TNG and DS9. While I've never done cosplay, I have owned tech manuals, the Science of Star Trek, built models, played games, read expanded universe novels (mostly in the 90s), so on and so forth. The problem with most fanboys (and that goes for comics in general, as much as for trek) is that they often lack imagination where "canon" is concerned. They want slavish devotion the story they know. And they really have a hard time dealing with a rebooted universe where things don't occur exactly the way they're used to. Kahn in the movie was not the Kahn from Space Seed. He was discovered 5 or 6 years before Kirk found the Botany Bay in the original timeline, there was no McGivers, there was only Admiral Marcus (or whoever was involved with Section 31). Meaning he was found by a military vessel and not an exploratory craft. He was woken alone and his companions were used as leverage to gain his cooperation. So there are some reasons for thinking his behavior might differ under the individual circumstances. Kahn prior to his exile was a warlord responsible for subjugating and/or killing millions. In the 90s (heh, note the movie didn't mention the Eugenics Wars or its dates). So I don't think it was a stretch having Marcus trying to use his "savagery" as they put it in the movie.

Not that there weren't some issues. Magic space blood? Really?

I liked Trek into Darkness primarily because to me it actually did embody many of the original themes of Star Trek. Exploration versus militarism. Spock continuing to seek the balance between logic and emotion. Kirk growing up. Beyond that there are modern day parallels to the events in the movie, for all the talk about it being a "remake of WoK". Which it was not really. If anything I thought it was truer to the franchise than just about anything from the 2009 film.

Just one fanboy's opinion...
ha, you and my friend would be friends...

not having any of this knowledge, my experience of the movie was that is was well balanced in the way that is near impossible for blockbusters...they have to be funny/sad, serious/light, smart/dumb etc...

i kind of like that they turned the volume down on the 'militarism'/terror as the movie progressed, but it was established enough to be in your mind...i'm worn out on the 'heavy' a la the 3rd Nolan Batman, which was - to me - a total sludge

i surprised myself, as I am generally pretty cynical about mega-budget movies, but this one caught me on the right day I guess...and totally agree about the 'magic blood'...which does then lead to some questions about committing to the spock/kirk WoK reversal...but

siberian khatru 05-20-2013 12:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SNR (Post 9694383)
Saw it last night. Here are my thoughts:

Spoiler!


That being said...

It was entertaining. There were some good parts. I have a couple of other friends who want to see this movie, and I'll likely go see it with them. Multiple times.

I was pretty high on Star Trek (2009). I liked that movie. This one gets a final grade of "meh". Too much lazy shit that got slapped together with JJ Abrams' own diarrhea.

Star Wars is his first love? Yeah, it probably is. ****ing moron. At least that body has already been raped by Lucas, so whatever "revival" he does of it will be hard to disappoint fans of Star Wars. They've already seen the worst.
Agree with most everything there.

TOTALLY agree on Spock, and on Kirk. I disagree on Scotty -- Pegg just doesn't work for me, it seems like he's doing a parody of Doohan. Doohan always had a serious side, too, and I haven't seen that with Pegg (that I can recall).

I also HATE the Uhura and Spock romance. Not sure why, maybe I'm just racist.

The one character and actor I really like in the two films is Urban as McCoy. To me, he nails it.

Fire Me Boy! 05-20-2013 12:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Branden Albert's Huge Balls (Post 9694392)
Agree about Spock. I can't stand Quinto's portrayal. It's completely different than Nimoy's Spock to be honest.

Spock seems like a high strung lil bitch in this.

SNR's review is on point. This film is pissing off a lot of hard core Trekkies.
Aren't they "Trekkers" now?

Hammock Parties 05-20-2013 12:52 PM
I don't get into that.

If you like Star Trek, you're a Trekkie. Period.

siberian khatru 05-20-2013 12:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fire Me Boy! (Post 9694443)
Aren't they "Trekkers" now?
I think they have been almost since the beginning. I remember reading as a kid in the 70s fans bristling at the "Trekkie" moniker, preferring "Trekker."

siberian khatru 05-20-2013 12:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Branden Albert's Huge Balls (Post 9694445)
I don't get into that.

If you like Star Trek, you're a Trekkie. Period.
It never bothered me either. "Trekker" complaints are pretentious, IMO.

keg in kc 05-20-2013 12:58 PM
Sorta hits on something I said earlier: people have a hard time wrapping their brains around this not being the Spock they grew up with. This one saw Vulcan destroyed and met an all but ancient version of himself from another reality. He's like ****ed-in-the-head Spock 2.0, and younger than we've ever seen to boot, since all these events occurred years prior to the date of TOS pilot.

That said, the Uhura romance has never made any sense to me. But I have an eternal boner for Zoe Saldana so it slides.

And in a practical sense, he ain't Leonard Nimoy, so it ain't ever going to be the same. Just isn't possible. I'd argue his character is more iconic than Shatner's.

siberian khatru 05-20-2013 12:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by keg in kc (Post 9694461)
Sorta hits on something I said earlier: people have a hard time wrapping their brains around this not being the Spock they grew up with. This one saw Vulcan destroyed and met an all but ancient version of himself from another reality. He's like ****ed-in-the-head Spock 2.0, and younger than we've ever seen to boot, since all these events occurred years prior to the date of TOS pilot.

That said, the Uhura romance has never made any sense to me. But I have an eternal boner for Zoe Saldana so it slides.
Speaking of ...

Spoiler!

keg in kc 05-20-2013 01:01 PM
Spoiler!

Donger 05-20-2013 01:09 PM
So, it sucks? I was going to take the wife to see it in a theater.

Fire Me Boy! 05-20-2013 01:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donger (Post 9694489)
So, it sucks? I was going to take the wife to see it in a theater.
It sucks for one out of 10 viewers.

A movie doesn't get 86% fresh from critics and 89% fresh from audiences on Rotten Tomatoes by sucking. That based on damn near 79,000 reviews, by the way.

DMAC 05-20-2013 01:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donger (Post 9694489)
So, it sucks? I was going to take the wife to see it in a theater.
I enjoy the Star Trek movies, but I don't study and critique them.

I saw it in IMAX 3D last night and was thoroughly pleased. Worth the $30.

Donger 05-20-2013 01:25 PM
Thanks.

Bowser 05-20-2013 01:27 PM
Aren't you a bit of a hardcore Trekkie, Donger?

Donger 05-20-2013 01:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bowser (Post 9694528)
Aren't you a bit of a hardcore Trekkie, Donger?
Not really. I've never seen an original episode, although I've seen all the old movies. I've also never watched any of the other TV iterations, except TNG.

Huge TNG nut.

Hammock Parties 05-20-2013 01:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donger (Post 9694489)
So, it sucks? I was going to take the wife to see it in a theater.
It doesn't suck. It's decent. The third act is just an insult to anyone who loves Star Trek II, though.

Bowser 05-20-2013 01:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donger (Post 9694536)
Not really. I've never seen an original episode, although I've seen all the old movies. I've also never watched any of the other TV iterations, except TNG.

Huge TNG nut.
Wow, that's strange and impressive you've never seen a TOS episode, especially considering how much you like TNG.

Try it on for size sometime. A lot of that series didn't age well, but there are a few gems to be found in there. Deep Space Nine is very good after the first season, as well.

Donger 05-20-2013 01:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Branden Albert's Huge Balls (Post 9694565)
It doesn't suck. It's decent. The third act is just an insult to anyone who loves Star Trek II, though.
Thanks for your opinion.

Donger 05-20-2013 01:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bowser (Post 9694576)
Wow, that's strange and impressive you've never seen a TOS episode, especially considering how much you like TNG.

Try it on for size sometime. A lot of that series didn't age well, but there are a few gems to be found in there. Deep Space Nine is very good after the first season, as well.
No thanks.

Hammock Parties 05-20-2013 01:48 PM
Seasons 4-7 of DS9 are better than TNG.

Donger 05-20-2013 01:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Branden Albert's Huge Balls (Post 9694591)
Seasons 4-7 of DS9 are better than TNG.
I don't care.

Hammock Parties 05-20-2013 01:50 PM
Well, I do.

Frazod 05-20-2013 01:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donger (Post 9694536)
Not really. I've never seen an original episode, although I've seen all the old movies. I've also never watched any of the other TV iterations, except TNG.

Huge TNG nut.
The original series has been remastered, and the special effects completely redone. These are available on Netflix for streaming. They couldn't really do much to improve the interior sets and cheesy planet soundstage locations, but the space shots are actually better than Next Generation now.

Honestly, there are only a handful of original episodes I'd watch at this point, but there are some real gems. Three you should absolutely watch are:

Doomsday Machine
City on the Edge of Forever
Balance of Terror

Hammock Parties 05-20-2013 01:54 PM
And for the love of god, watch Amok Time.

underEJ 05-20-2013 02:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoucheMcCloud (Post 9693572)
I also have to say that I think that Paramount did a poor job of marketing the film. While there are a few billboards around town, we haven't been bombarded with Into Darkness.
Par. is a marketing wasteland these days. They can't open a film domestically, meeting expectations, to save their lives. It is really strange.

DaveNull 05-20-2013 03:29 PM
Maybe they should consider putting out original movies instead of reboots and sequels.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:19 PM.
Page 9 of 12 « First 5678 9 101112
Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.