I had been roped into seeing it twice already. It lived up to my expectations. The new movies have greater appeal to non-trekkies. Trekkies, even if they don't care for the new stuff, will still see it because it is more Star Trek.
I had been roped into seeing it twice already. It lived up to my expectations. The new movies have greater appeal to non-trekkies. Trekkies, even if they don't care for the new stuff, will still see it because it is more Star Trek.
You guys are actually going on and on about all this?
Get out in the garage fer cryin out loud.
It's a Star Trek movie..
The only thing you can be sure of is being stuck in a theater with some goof who hasn't left his house since the LAST movie.
Then, halfway through, he'll start a discussion JUST LIKE THIS ONE.
Which begs the question: why are you posting? Closet Trekkie? 
In reply to Appleseed:
Nope, got some booze in me and I feel like stirring the pot.
Saw it earlier today. Loved it.
Only two relatively minor gripes that I think I can spout without giving away spoilers, even though they are near the end:
Beyond that, the movie was a lot of fun. I like the actors they found to play the different roles. They bring their own twist while capturing the soul of the original character. They don't quite have the chemistry of the original cast, but they don't have years of experience together to get to that point either.
Beer Baron wrote: #2: Aren't there like 72 *other* sources you can get what you need from conveniently on hand?
That's the single biggest thing I thought.
Also, didn't they not know how to open the pods without killing people inside because they were too antiquated?
Other than that, it was a good film.
Appleseed wrote: Which begs the question: why are you posting? Closet Trekkie?
because I'm madly in love with Rachel Nichols
http://www.startrek.com/article/catching-up-with-trek-2009-s-green-gal-rachel-nichols
Saw it in Atmos last night with the team. Seven audio guys and their wife's. The sound was amazing yet it was about 6db too quiet. If you can you need to hear Atmos!! It is amazing!!!
Maroon92 wrote:Beer Baron wrote: #2: Aren't there like 72 *other* sources you can get what you need from conveniently on hand?That's the single biggest thing I thought. Also, didn't they not know how to open the pods without killing people inside because they were too antiquated?
They didnt open them just removed them whicg I guess explains why they couldnt use them.
Getting back to Earth bugged me more.
They came out of warp near the moon, and I think had some inertia somehow. The line was something like "200,000 kilometers from Earth"
Which bugs me, because originally in Trek you weren't allowed to use warp drive in-system because of damage to subspace near planets.
Though I did REALLY like when Sulu was in command for that short period.
sobe_death wrote: Though I did REALLY like when Sulu was in command for that short period.
Big +1
I loved the nod to how he will eventually become a Captain.
sobe_death wrote: They came out of warp near the moon, and I think had some inertia somehow. The line was something like "200,000 kilometers from Earth" Which bugs me, because originally in Trek you weren't allowed to use warp drive in-system because of damage to subspace near planets.
That raises the question: Why the hell are there no other Starfleet ships nearby wondering what the hell is going on and doing anything to intervene? I know there was some trouble with commanding officers, but surely they would have had some quick field promotions to fill voids.
Lots of great moments in the movie, but I'm annoyed the villain is Khan. Just way too obvious, not to mention the canon Khan was Indian, not a pasty white British dude. (And I say that as a pretty big Cumberbatch fan.)
Saw it this afternoon.
I just can't accept Pine as Kirk. He makes Shatner seem "restrained".
The plot wasn't what I expected at all. It was okay, but what really bothered me was the Art Design. The TOS ship (due to budget limits) was clean and simple. This new NCC-1701 is massive on an industrial scale with huge vats of radioactive crap lying around? Are you kidding me?
stroker wrote: Saw it this afternoon. I just can't accept Pine as Kirk. He makes Shatner seem "restrained". The plot wasn't what I expected at all. It was okay, but what really bothered me was the Art Design. The TOS ship (due to budget limits) was clean and simple. This new NCC-1701 is massive on an industrial scale with huge vats of radioactive crap lying around? Are you kidding me?
Massive, industrial, and radioactive seems a lot more plausible to me! Art design I'm willing to let the director do what he wants -- just look at the huge exterior changes that happened as a result of the "refit" between the end of the original series and Star Trek: The Motion Picture.
All in all, I liked Into Darkness, I'd say it was the best Trek movie since 6. Yes, a few plot holes, but nothing that really interfered with my suspension of disbelief (unlike the 'red matter' in the previous one which just made no sense at all).
As for complaints about the alternate sources -- while they might have worked, there was no direct empirical evidence for it the way there was with the one in particular. If they'd failed to get that one, trying one of the others would probably have been next on the list.
codrus wrote: As for complaints about the alternate sources -- while they might have worked, there was no direct empirical evidence for it the way there was with the one in particular. If they'd failed to get that one, trying one of the others would probably have been next on the list.
Right. Which is why I'm a lot less bothered by that than, "If they were in the middle of traveling through warp speed, when the berkeley did they get back to Earth? And if they did get back, why the berkeley did no one else notice?"
I thought it was awesome. Definitely one of the best Star Trek movies ever. It's the first movie I've seen in years that I'm actually thinking about seeing a second time in theaters.
Spoiler alert:
"KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!"
Jerry wrote:
Nah. Yes, they still had a bit of it on the bridge (and anything is too much), but it was toned down a lot from the previous movie.
Saw it yesterday, I give it B- to the last ones A+. Not bad, but trying a little too hard, the jump back to Earth was piss poor. Cumberbatch was great as Khan, the best character in it. Plenty opf links to the old TV series as well. I will keep watching them, but this wasn't great. Oh, and Alice Eve spent too long wearing too much
I find it somewhat ironic that there's been so much discussion about Khan being played by a Caucasian.
The character is Indian, but was originally played by Ricardo Montalban (who is not actually Indian, in case you were wondering).
Just sayin'.
JohnInKansas wrote: I find it somewhat ironic that there's been so much discussion about Khan being played by a Caucasian. The character is Indian, but was originally played by Ricardo Montalban (who is not actually Indian, in case you were wondering).
Arguably, Cumberbatch is more likely to have Indian DNA than Montalban, and you will find more people who look like him in India too.
I've finally figured out what bugs me about the movie. TOS was supposed to be an attempt at serious issues through the lens of science fiction. "Relevance" (in 1960's terms) done in a consistent universe created in Roddenberry's mind. All they're doing with these movies is feeding Geekdom with retreads of movies they've already made . When are they going to try something like the second Nolan Batman film done in the Trek universe? Can't happen soon enough.
Well, I'm told the entire movie was allegedly a commentary on the "Global War on Terror," but I didn't see that. Then again, I was always bad at catching hidden meanings.
You'll need to log in to post.
