• There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Server side Maintenance is done. We still have an update to the forum software to run but that one will have to wait for a better time.

Star Trek: Into Darkness

E

Eoraptor1

SOH-CM-2022
Saw it. Liked it. Yes, there are more lens flares. Not going to say anything else until more of the membership have seen it. Note: I'm coming at it as enjoying an entertaining summer movie, not a religious text, which is why I haven't logged in to a dedicated Star Trek fan site for at least five years.

JAMES
 
Ok, full disclosure: I like Star Trek (the old series). I understand the frustrations of the followers of the “religious text”. My frustrations with these movies, although minor in the “grand scheme of things”, isn't about Star Trek in particular. It's all these “re-makes” that piggy-back on a title, but have almost nothing in common with the title upon which they're “piggy-backing”. So now Snow White is some sort of knife wielding vampire huntress? I can't wait for the Gilligan's Island movie remake... I'll probably watch the new "Star Trek" movie, because I like adventure films, more or less. But "Star Trek", it isn't. They should call it "Space Awesomeness" and let it stand on it's own. :icon_lol:
 
I've heard that the new Gilligan's Island will be about the castaways fighting off the zombie apocalypse with coconuts and bamboo sticks....
 
Willy said:
I've heard that the new Gilligan's Island will be about the castaways fighting off the zombie apocalypse with coconuts and bamboo sticks....
Click to expand...

There's a video game out that nearly fits that description. You'd better watch yourself. You could be stepping on someone's intellectual property.

JAMES
 
I expect Disney's new Star Wars films will go the same way, a whole new image, mostly action, and trading on an established name. Hmmmm... maybe Disney will include zombies in their Star Wars galaxy too?
 
Willy said:
I've heard that the new Gilligan's Island will be about the castaways fighting off the zombie apocalypse with coconuts and bamboo sticks....
Click to expand...

It's a "buddy" flick with Brad Pitt as Gilligan, and George Clooney as the Skipper... Ocean's 14 is the working title.

Dick
 
I haven't seen a Star Trek film on opening day since First Contact, and I saw all of the originals starting with Star Trek 3 The Search for Spock on opening day up until First Contact... To young for the Motion Picture and Kahn at the time for opening day though.. I agree with PRB on his comment about the newer movies, though I enjoyed the last one and I will end up seeing this one for me its not the Trek that I grew up with and not the Trek that I have come to love and I do not expect it to, but they aren't really Star Trek either. They tend to feel almost like a video game sometimes, lots of action, lots of jumping, running and very little emphasis on story with little or no moral meaning. Its hard to teach an old dog new tricks in my case!

I just watched the release of Star Trek The Next Generation's Best of Both Worlds on Blu-ray, this was the one that was re-released last month and played in select theaters, tonight and with all of its modern enhancements, full HD and excellent sound I came away from that feeling like I have experienced Star Trek, even watching the movies again up through the Next Generation stuff it is Star Trek and it s Gene Roddenberry's vision of Star Trek, deep story lines and well defined characters. If you don't plan on buying the Next Gen series on Blu-Ray and you are a fan I would strongly recommend this version of these two episodes.. Goes right along with First Contact! I picked mine up for $10 bucks and it was money well spent in my honest opinion.

And James I would tend to agree with you on the Star Wars movies as well..
 
Gdavis101 said:
I haven't seen a Star Trek film on opening day since First Contact, and I saw all of the originals starting with Star Trek 3 The Search for Spock on opening day up until First Contact... To young for the Motion Picture and Kahn at the time for opening day though.. I agree with PRB on his comment about the newer movies, though I enjoyed the last one and I will end up seeing this one for me its not the Trek that I grew up with and not the Trek that I have come to love and I do not expect it to, but they aren't really Star Trek either. They tend to feel almost like a video game sometimes, lots of action, lots of jumping, running and very little emphasis on story with little or no moral meaning. Its hard to teach an old dog new tricks in my case!

I just watched the release of Star Trek The Next Generation's Best of Both Worlds on Blu-ray, this was the one that was re-released last month and played in select theaters, tonight and with all of its modern enhancements, full HD and excellent sound I came away from that feeling like I have experienced Star Trek, even watching the movies again up through the Next Generation stuff it is Star Trek and it s Gene Roddenberry's vision of Star Trek, deep story lines and well defined characters. If you don't plan on buying the Next Gen series on Blu-Ray and you are a fan I would strongly recommend this version of these two episodes.. Goes right along with First Contact! I picked mine up for $10 bucks and it was money well spent in my honest opinion.

And James I would tend to agree with you on the Star Wars movies as well..
Click to expand...

I go way back with Star Trek. When I was a little boy, my babysitter (now my doctor) would let me stay up to watch it. I have all the original tech manuals and blueprints, all in first editions, so the Original Series is definitely my favorite. I still have my LP with Gene Roddenberry talking about how the series began. I liked all the other series, and I think they all got better as they went along, but TOS is still my favorite. I was old enough to see Star Trek: The Motion Picture when it came out. I have the Director's Cut on disc, and it looks better to me now than it did at the time. The special features about the renewed series that almost was especially interesting. There was almost a second Five Year mission. I have all the movies, but I think the stereotype is true; the even numbered movies are better. I don't call myself a Trekkie, a Trekker, or any such thing. I'm just a person who enjoys the franchise. There's a segment of the fandom who treat it like an exclusivist mystery cult, and who viciously go after anyone who rubs them the wrong way like they spat on their mothers. I have no time for that. I'm a grown frakking man, with grown frakking man problems. I'm also reconciled to the fact that the world is swarming with people who are never going to agree with me. So be it, but I do not argue Star Trek "canon" like I'm St. Thomas Aquinas, or Jeremy Irons in The Borgias. Treating it like fundamentalist religion sucks out all the enjoyment for me.

I saw that "Best of Both Worlds" Blu Ray set yesterday, but I had already spent too much money. I'm on an austerity budget until I finish the project I'm working on. It's one of my favorite episodes. First Contact is definitely my favorite Next Gen movie. The other two I'm kind of lukewarm about. If you want to see something that IMO really captures the spirit of TOS, check out the Star Trek: The New Voyages website at their homepage or on YouTube. The episodes are all fan made. The first couple are pieced together on a shoe-string budget (exactly like the original series) and look it, but they're now almost network tv level in terms of production design. The premise of the series is that they're picking up exactly where the old series ended and are depicting the last two years of the original five-year mission. I grew up with the cheesy 1960s special effects, so I have a certain amount of nostalgia connected with them, but to kids who've grown up playing single-person shooters, and watching flat-screen televisions, it looks just that, cheesy. My cardiologist's nurse practicioner (who I really like BTW) and I were discussing this during my exam last year. She called the original series "cheesy" and my blood pressure spiked right in office. That is what I call taking something too seriously. All that being said, I'm just not of a temper to beat up a filmmaker for making movies that people actually want to see, and writers for writing books people want to read. Even something like Twilight, which I found barely readable, and was roped into seeing at the multiplex instead of Gran Torino. I read the first book just out of curiosity, and to be able to talk about it with authority. (You wouldn't believe how many people show up at literary event to flame books they haven't read.) Now, as you all know by now, I hate the rash of pretty-boy vampires with their hair-gel being nice to high-school girls instead of eating them like a proper creature of the night, but I kept thinking the whole time I was reading it: if I were a 12 or 13 year old girl, this would be my favorite book. I'm not going to beat up Stephanie Meyer for knowing and speaking to the fantasy world of her audience. Plenty of people do, but I'm not inclined. Chole Grace Moretz, in Let Me In. That's a proper vampire in a proper Hammer vampire film.

One last thing. I'm not convinced a lot of people who say they want originality are really prepared to back that up at the movie house. If by some miracle a filmmaker gets funding to make a movie that doesn't follow traditional narrative structure, or isn't strictly plotted, my guess is movie audiences who mainly want to be entertained will find it "too difficult" and it will end up in an art-house cinema, like the North Park or University Plaza in Buffalo; someplace in an arty community. It will NOT be released as a summer film at a chain multiplex like the Regal.

As for Star Wars, I'll wait until it comes out to judge. I only thought the first two films, Eps. IV and V, respectively, were great movies. III and VI, I thought were good. The other two I thought could have been good, if Papa Jedi had loosened with up the ultraformal dialog and left Jar Jar on the cutting room floor - but, the world continues to turn in any case.

JAMES
 
Eoraptor1 said:
As for Star Wars, I'll wait until it comes out to judge. I only thought the first two films, Eps. IV and V, respectively, were great movies. III and VI, I thought were good. The other two I thought could have been good, if Papa Jedi had loosened with up the ultraformal dialog and left Jar Jar on the cutting room floor - but, the world continues to turn in any case.

JAMES
Click to expand...
Oh James! Jar Jar Binks was the "comic relief..."

...which only goes to show that every species has their own version of the Stooges... :cool:
 
n4gix said:
Oh James! Jar Jar Binks was the "comic relief..."

...which only goes to show that every species has their own version of the Stooges... :cool:
Click to expand...

My view is that in the early films the SW Universe was still mostly at peace, so to go from that state to it falling into darkness, some comic relief etc. had to be introduced. If you look at the second trilogy it's great how the look transforms as events take place.
 
I started watching Star Trek from the first run episode in 1966. I read "the making of books" etc. One of the facts I read in several places was that star ships are constructed in orbit, they are not designed to enter the atmosphere or land on a planet. The lone exception to this was the spin off "Voyager". So when I went to see the first movie with the young crew and saw the Enterprise sitting on the ground that was it for me. No more Trek movies.
 
I agree with Paul and GDavis that Trek has lost something. I think Trek has lost it's cojones that it had before. Trek used to tackle sensitive issues when no one else would dare to. Trek had the cojones to create character types at times when no one else would dare to. Remember Majel Barrett playing first officer 'Number One' in the pilot? Trek used to break barriers. That was awesome.

Like Eoraptor, I am a bit of a trekkie too, and I think those cannon fundamentalists completely miss the point of Star Trek. In the show we saw characters like Johnny Trelane, Q, The Prophets, among many characters who could alter realities at the snap of a finger. We saw alternate universes and spatial phenomena that could alter reality instantly. Basically anything and everything is possible in the universe, it is not so one dimensional and set in stone as the fundamentalist think. Also the Vulcan philosophy of IDIC (Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations) which speaks to the same idea that everything is possible.

Cheers
TJ
 
pilottj said:
I agree with Paul and GDavis that Trek has lost something. I think Trek has lost it's cojones that it had before. Trek used to tackle sensitive issues when no one else would dare to. Trek had the cojones to create character types at times when no one else would dare to. Remember Majel Barrett playing first officer 'Number One' in the pilot? Trek used to break barriers. That was awesome.

Like Eoraptor, I am a bit of a trekkie too, and I think those cannon fundamentalists completely miss the point of Star Trek. In the show we saw characters like Johnny Trelane, Q, The Prophets, among many characters who could alter realities at the snap of a finger. We saw alternate universes and spatial phenomena that could alter reality instantly. Basically anything and everything is possible in the universe, it is not so one dimensional and set in stone as the fundamentalist think. Also the Vulcan philosophy of IDIC (Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations) which speaks to the same idea that everything is possible.

Cheers
TJ
Click to expand...

Gene Roddenberry talks about the original Majel Barret "Number One" in "The Cage" which was the original pilot. The interview is on YouTube somewhere. He says the times were very different. The network didn't believe audiences would accept a woman in a command position, and in the test viewings, the women were less accepting than the men! Comments went along the lines of: "Who does she think she is?" They didn't like her telling men what to do! The network also considered the entire episode "too cerebral". Also, in the Star Trek LP I mentioned Gene Roddenberry also says the network execs recommended, "While you're at it, get rid of the guy with the ears." IMO, there's only ONE thing cooler than Mr. Spock, and that's Mr. Spock with a beard, but they didn't know that back then.

JAMES
 
Well the missus and the kid talked me into going to see this one. No spoilers here but I can say my experience was very subdued and distracted by a young man, carrying a small black suitcase and wearing a black backpack, who skipped the line and went right into the theater. When I asked about him I was told he's OK, he had a ticket. I'm thinking so what if he had a ticket, who is he and where did he go? He went a couple of screens over and I didn't hear a boom, and after the movie I saw him leaving with the same items. Took all the fun out of going as several times my instinct said to leave. I was wondering how I would have felt from a hospital bed, "geez I should have followed my gut". Anyway, as one who saw all the originals more than once, this one kind of left me wondering what they'er doing over there at Paramount. On to Iron Man III.
 
aeromed202 said:
Well the missus and the kid talked me into going to see this one. No spoilers here but I can say my experience was very subdued and distracted by a young man, carrying a small black suitcase and wearing a black backpack, who skipped the line and went right into the theater. When I asked about him I was told he's OK, he had a ticket. I'm thinking so what if he had a ticket, who is he and where did he go? He went a couple of screens over and I didn't hear a boom, and after the movie I saw him leaving with the same items. Took all the fun out of going as several times my instinct said to leave. I was wondering how I would have felt from a hospital bed, "geez I should have followed my gut". Anyway, as one who saw all the originals more than once, this one kind of left me wondering what they'er doing over there at Paramount. On to Iron Man III.
Click to expand...

You can do that in Niagara Falls. You can buy tickets online, or just come to the theater box office early and buy tickets for such and such movie at such and such time. After that you can just walk in and whoever's working as ticket-taker will take your ticket, but you have to have it in hand. They're more strict about what you bring into the theater. They don't like backpacks, briefcases, or messenger bags; they're assuming you're recording the movie to sell on the street, which happens here constantly. I used to walk into the University Cinema in Buffalo with my backpack all the time, however. They just assumed I was a college student, who all carry backpacks, and let me through. It helped that the ticket taker was usually a college student as well. I doubt they do that anymore, what with the current terrorist activity. Still, what I've NEVER seen is a theater manger say anything about a woman's handbag, some of which are just as big as backpacks. I can certainly understand your nervousness.

ATTN: Terry,

I do remember reading in my Trek books that the Enterprise wasn't designed to enter planetary atmospheres, but not only did we see her operate in the Earth's atmosphere in TOS, she was intercepted by a F-104 Starfighter, much to the delight of one of my cousins, who was ground crew for that aircraft around the time episode aired. The tech manuals are tricky that way. Sometimes they contradict what is shown in the series, and vice-versa.

JAMES
 
Eoraptor1 said:
You can do that in Niagara Falls. You can buy tickets online, or just come to the theater box office early and buy tickets for such and such movie at such and such time. After that you can just walk in and whoever's working as ticket-taker will take your ticket, but you have to have it in hand. They're more strict about what you bring into the theater. They don't like backpacks, briefcases, or messenger bags; they're assuming you're recording the movie to sell on the street, which happens here constantly. I used to walk into the University Cinema in Buffalo with my backpack all the time, however. They just assumed I was a college student, who all carry backpacks, and let me through. It helped that the ticket taker was usually a college student as well. I doubt they do that anymore, what with the current terrorist activity. Still, what I've NEVER seen is a theater manger say anything about a woman's handbag, some of which are just as big as backpacks. I can certainly understand your nervousness.

ATTN: Terry,

I do remember reading in my Trek books that the Enterprise wasn't designed to enter planetary atmospheres, but not only did we see her operate in the Earth's atmosphere in TOS, she was intercepted by a F-104 Starfighter, much to the delight of one of my cousins, who was ground crew for that aircraft around the time episode aired. The tech manuals are tricky that way. Sometimes they contradict what is shown in the series, and vice-versa.

JAMES
Click to expand...

I remember that episode and your right it was low. I suppose they did this so they could allow a fighter to reach it. But if it were sitting on the ground how the heck would you get it in orbit? The engine is at the back of the saucer section pointing aft, start it and you slide across the ground, there is no lift. It's just dumb.

Want another example look near the beginning of Star Trek 5. Kirk falls off the side of a mountain, Spock wearing rocket powered boots dives down to catch him. When he grabs Kirk he is horizontal and stationary. The thrust from the boots is clearly shown pointing horizontal. The people that made this scene were idiots. Sorry, it just torques my jaw when they have a total disregard for physics when it is not necessary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top