I know the US has to wait another week but it's out in the UK today anyway. So discuss and stuff. I'm hopefully off to see it this weekend. Shame about the stupid title but looking forward to it.
Printable View
I know the US has to wait another week but it's out in the UK today anyway. So discuss and stuff. I'm hopefully off to see it this weekend. Shame about the stupid title but looking forward to it.
Why did UK get it early?
Because we're great!
I have no idea actually, we got The Avengers and Iron Man 3 a week early too.
That's weird. Those are American movies! And doesn't the UK usually get them a long time after us?
Going to see it tomorrow. :) Looking forward to it!
That is odd. It's understandable when it's for movies like Harry Potter or James Bond, but for Marvel and Star Trek movies? Someone in the UK deserves a gold star for pulling off that deal.
Be happy it's only a week you lot over the pond have to wait, and not 3 months like we had to wait for Wreck-It Ralph. ._.
Shall be going to see this at some point soon. Dunno when, but soon.
Yeah, Dances With Wolves came out last week. We honestly can't wait for The Lord of the Rings, although some people have bucked the obvious trend of us being a backward country by getting it pirated on VHS.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tifa's Boobs
Disney/Pixar is always the exception, these days release dates for the big films are nearly always simultaneous or only a week or two apart in the UK and US. I remember the days when it was months between US and UK releases.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shauna
SATURDAY?!Quote:
Originally Posted by Shauna
I can't wait, can't wait to see this! :excited:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shorty
Well that was very good. The interplay between the characters is great and unsurprisingly Cumberbatch has a whale of a time as the villain. Seeing Mickey, I mean Noel Clarke, in it briefly was weird. The pace is so breakneck at times there's not much room to breathe, but it's highly enjoyable nonetheless.
And of course:
(SPOILER)'Khaaaaaaannnnn!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!' The identity came as no surprise but was fun to have Spock say the line this time.
Ugh I want to see it so bad but it doesn't come out until September here. :(
I am so goddamn excited for this. You guys have no idea.
I agree :) I found it a tad predictable in a lot of places but that didn't take away from my overall enjoyment of it. So much so that I'm going to see it again next weekend >_>Quote:
Originally Posted by charliepanayi
Where the hell are you? Antarctica?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yar
A couple studios had some major success releasing movies early in the international market. The reasoning I've seen to justify it is that the U.S. release is often treated as the official release, and if the European release is delayed from the U.S. release, pirating number skyrockets in the international market. Conversely, when it releases early internationally, pirating is down internationally with no marked raise in U.S. piracy because people are largely unaware of the earlier release date. I just wonder why they don't just solve the problem with simultaneous releases.
It's already released in Aus too which is odd and doesnt make up for month long waits for other movies.
I my knowledge of the series is based mainly on parodies so Im sure theres a lot of references im missing but it was a good movie. 3D wasnt much worth it.
I actually recently (a few months ago) started watching Star Trek: TNG (currently on season 3), and have only seen a few episodes of the original, so I'll probably be totally lost during this movie, but sharky is a big Star Trek fan and I have been saving up for a long time (I have a job now, but I didn't at the time and I didn't know when I would have one, so I made sure to save the money when I got it) so that I can bring him to the movie as my treat.
Saw it again last night. Just as enjoyable second time around. Few little references I missed the first time around as well.
I saw it on Thursday. I wouldn't call myself a hardcore Star Trek fan but I have watched the majority of each of the series. I don't know if that adds to the predictability of certain elements in the movie but it didn't make it any less enjoyable. Into Darkness a nice mirror version of the original series of movies. I'll definitely be seeing it again soon.
Saw it last night and thought it was great. Cumberpatch and Quinto were brilliant in their roles. Seriously, they are the perfect casting for those two roles. I also thought the movie had enough blend of action and 'ship politics' type moments. The Enterprise was also very well portrayed as a character.
Seeing this makes me excited to see what Abrams can do with Star Wars.
Seriously, the movie was fantastic. There isn't a SINGLE moment where it slows down and gets boring. NOT A DAMN ONE. It's consistent with its pacing of trout happening and not enough to make your head hurt.
Also Judge Dredd/Bones was the best. DAMN IT MAN, IM A DOCTOR NOT A TORPEDO SPECIALIST!
Loved this and can't understand what some people don't like about it. A lot of the complaints seem to boil down to "They changed the characters", but it's a freaking alternate universe. Of course the characters are different. That's the whole point. There have also been complaints about the similarities to previous Trek films/episodes, which were obviously intentional homages, and some people have claimed Kirk didn't learn anything over the course of the film, which is pretty clearly directly contradicted by a number of plot events, such as (SPOILER)the fact that, as he himself admits, he does what Spock would have done at the end of the film (while, of course, Spock does what Kirk would have done).
But yeah, great film, acting was perfect, effects worked nicely, soundtrack was up to the usual Giacchino standard and the plot didn't let up for a minute. Couldn't really have asked for much more.
is it worth it to see it in 3d or is normal OK?
I saw it in normal and don't really have any regrets, but I've heard the 3D was tastefully done. I don't usually care about 3D unless it's something huge like Avatar though.
thanks the man, i'll be going in hot without shades in an hour
I saw it and loved it as well, and I have to agree with you. I just watched Movie Bob's review of it on the Escapist after getting home and I wouldn't really recommend anyone do the same. Actually, I wouldn't really recommend anyone watch any of his videos. He's not a very good film critic.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Man
I was let down by the ending. (SPOILER) that's cheating asking old spock! CHEATER SPOCK. With the way the action scenes were going I was thinking they would actually kill cumberbatch's character. But they didn't. And that made me go :/
OTHER THAN THAT I thought it was amazing. I love the twist of how the characters are in the alternate reality.
As a person who isn't a fan of Star Wars or Star Trek, is this worth seeing? I did watch and like the first film though wasn't overly amazed by it.
It's a very good scifi movie and not really like the original Star Treks. JJ abrams said that's why he made them as actiony as they are. He was bored by the original Star Trek's so he wanted to re make them so people like him could enjoy them. If you enjoyed the first you'll enjoy this one. It's not omg best movie ever but it's a good watch at least!
yeah it was pretty good :)
it wasn't anastasia though :(
I thought it was worth watching but nothing amazing. Seeing the shouts to older Star Trek stuff and the switching of character roles was fun but overall it's nothing I really want to see again anytime soon.
I've never watched Star Trek or known much about it until the Abrams re-boot. And I really liked this movie. Better than the 1st one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiny
I thought the cast, aside from the blonde chick and robocop, were so perfect. Pine, Quinto, and Cumberbatch were all amazing and had such great chemistry with each other.
I really love Cumberbatch as an actor and he was just excellent here. So freakin' magnetic. I liked the complexity in his character. And I love that he always has a badass coat on.
I thought the story, the flow, the action, everything made for a great entertaining ride. The only downsides were really robocop. (SPOILER)Is this guy EVER a good guy? He's always the villain, it kinda sucked that as soon as I saw his character, I knew he was gonna be bad. And I really disliked what happened with San Francisco. I mean, c'mon, Earth really has NO defenses? Nothing to prevent or mitigate a gigantic star ship from crashing into a major city?!
It made perfect sense to me that San Francisco was so open to attack. Starfleet isn't a military organisation and they probably don't expect terrorist attacks.
It makes ZERO sense.
Are you trying to say that in the future, with all this crazy ass technology, that earth does not have a defense mechanism for huge objects colliding into the earth???
Da smurf?
And who cares if Star Fleet is not a military organization, I assume that a military does exist in some form. Shouldn't someone have noticed at some point that there was a big ol' battle being waged just above the earth? And once one of the ships starting hurtling towards SF, shouldn't there have been something, anything, to prevent the crash landing or at least, mitigate the catastrophic damage? This is a futuristic society with god damn teleportation and intergalactic capabilities. And they have no shield or response with which to protect earth?
Makes sense my ass.
Quite possibly they didn't have such a system because before the events of this film they'd never been attacked in such a fashion (let's not forget that there appear to be no major safeguards preventing the terrorist attacks at the start of the film either). Not to mention that a system that prevents objects from entering the atmosphere wouldn't be able to distinguish between presumably benign objects and malicious objects. The Vengeance was a Starfleet vessel. Even if there was a system in place for preventing malicious objects from entering the Earth's atmosphere, there would be no reason for said system to reject the Vengeance. How would it know the Vengeance was being piloted by a madman intent on killing as many people as possible? Even if there were military defences, by the time it was apparent the Vengeance was going to crash into San Francisco, it would probably have been too late for them to respond.
Dude, the ship wasn't being flown into earth, it was careening toward earth. When a ginormous thing is hurtling towards earth with seemingly no signs of stopping, there should be defensive mechanisms in place. I mean, what happens if a ship loses power or like the enterprise, it's been crippled and starts plummeting towards earth? They really have nothing planned for that kind of situation? That is just lousy planning. And again, MAKES ZERO SENSE.
Seriously, what are you even trying to argue right now?
So bizarre when people try and explain away plot holes as if there are really explanations. No. There is no explanation other than the fact that they wanted to make a huge ass action sequence.
Lousy planning is evident throughout the film. (SPOILER)For example, Starfleet gathers all its officers in one room and Kirk has to point out that they're sitting ducks for a terrorist attack - which, of course, immediately happens. There also don't appear to be any defences in place protecting the secret Section 31 installation, which is how Thomas Harewood was able to blow it up so easily. Seriously, you're singling out that one instance of lousy planning as bad writing? It's pretty obvious Starfleet don't have their trout together at all, and this is repeatedly shown throughout the film. It's perfectly in character that an organisation with so few safeguards protecting its own buildings and personnel wouldn't have one in place for large objects plummeting towards earth either. There seems to be a presiding attitude of either arrogance or complacency causing Starfleet not to prepare for attacks and accidents.
They probably do, but stop and ask yourself what large objects they're going to be concerned about crashing into the Earth. Asteroids are the only likely scenario. Comets are a possibility but not nearly as probable since there aren't that many of them out there compared to asteroids. But what all of those have in common is that they're a lot easier to deal with the farther away from Earth they are. In fact, if you've waited until they fall from high Earth orbit to do something about them then it's already too late, even on Star Trek for the most part. I'll forgive you're not knowing since you say you aren't really a fan of Star Trek, but even in the 24th century in it's own continuity (over 100 years after this movie), things like shielding an entire planet or moving/destroying large asteroids are nearly impossible. Even shielding cities isn't really that reasonable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Miriel
So odds are any defensive ability to prevent things like asteroids colliding with the planet relies on using their sensors to track and deal with them when they're still millions of kilometers out. When you typically rely on a system like that, asking why they didn't do something about this is like asking why the military didn't shoot down a 747 over New York when some people in the streets just noticed it was a second or two away from hitting the World Trade Center.
There is no military. Starfleet serves as a defensive force in the event of attack or all out war, but their primary mission is exploration. You also need to realize that Earth itself is not very heavily defended, and is largely reliant on starships to protect it. Earth in Star Trek is nothing like Earth today. Yes, it is the center of Starfleet and the Federation government, but it's also quite deep in Federation space, and basically solved problems like poverty, war, most diseases, etc. at least a hundred years before the movie even takes place. Earth has been at peace a long time. They haven't been at war for quite some time, and terrorist attacks don't happen. So yes, their complacency seems quite reasonable to me.Quote:
And who cares if Star Fleet is not a military organization, I assume that a military does exist in some form. Shouldn't someone have noticed at some point that there was a big ol' battle being waged just above the earth?
Slight nitpick, but they have interstellar capabilities. They can't travel to other galaxies. Also, they can't teleport a starship, nor can they produce shields large enough to protect entire planets or cities.Quote:
This is a futuristic society with god damn teleportation and intergalactic capabilities. And they have no shield or response with which to protect earth?
Why would they expect a ship to lose power that close to Earth or be crippled and plummet towards it? Like I said, attacks on Earth don't happen in this time period. You could argue that maybe they should be a little less complacent after what Nero did in the first movie, but that was an advanced ship from more than 100 years in the future that also happened to be destroyed, so they probably didn't anticipate something like that happening very often. There's literally no reason for a planet that hasn't been involved in a single war in over a century to believe that a ship will be crippled or lose power while in orbit. That really just doesn't happen.Quote:
I mean, what happens if a ship loses power or like the enterprise, it's been crippled and starts plummeting towards earth?
And hell, even if a ship was in an actual orbit and lost power, it would simply continue in a decaying orbit until they could either get help or it burned up. There's no reason for them to think a ship will just show up, not take up a standard orbit, and suddenly be attacked or lose power.
-_-Quote:
So bizarre when people try and explain away plot holes as if there are really explanations. No. There is no explanation other than the fact that they wanted to make a huge ass action sequence.
PS. I still think your explanations don't make sense. Complacency isn't even the issue. It's not about constant vigilance. It's about using your god damn eyes to see that something smurfed up is currently happening, and then using resources to prevent it from getting worse. I mean sheesh, all cars come with airbags. The idea that a super technologically advanced world doesn't have any kind of shield in place for earth's defenses is absurd and so desperately reaching.
And oh my god, it's not even a big thing guys. It was the one thing that bothered me in an otherwise great movie because collateral damage for the sake of big action sequences always bothers me (you shoulda seen my reaction to the latest Die Hard movie. John McClane causes a LOT of god damn deaths! Like, civilian deaths!!). I'm just amazed at the lengths people will go to cover up plot holes with explanations that even the filmmakers wouldn't even have come up with.
I think even in today's world we'd be aware of a battle going on in space right ouside of Earth's orbit. I mean, we have satellites and stuff.
Being aware of a battle outside Earth's orbit and having the resources to actually do something about it are two different matters entirely.
This is not a plot hole.
Of course not, because it all makes perfect sense right?
Listen. This is what happened.
1) They wanted a big action sequence that was spectacular in scope to bring the movie to it's closure.
2) They needed to make Khan the ultimate bad guy. Killing off the enterprise wouldn't have done that, because even robocop was willing to do that. They needed to make him completely smurfing bad so show the depths of what Alternate Spock was talking about. So in order to do that, he needed to do something catastrophic against the people of earth.
So then you have the San Francisco sequence. The filmmakers weren't thinking about how much realistic sense it would make within the universe to have a gigantic star ship land on top of a city, with seemingly zero response from earth. They weren't thinking, "The history of earth up until this point explains why this-this-and-this."
It's ok guys, really. Movies are allowed to have contrivances to reach an end, and those contrivances don't need to be defended with all sorts of gibber gabber about how this totes makes sense because of whatever reason you want to try and force into the movie.
Good lord, everything I touch turns into a debate.
The Man and Vivi22. You two. All the time. God damn.
But it does make realistic sense, because of what Vivi and I pointed out. The Federation does not have the resources to stop a spaceship careening towards Earth, and given their history there is no reason they would think such a thing would be necessary. Certainly if you disregard the backstory of the Federation it seems ridiculous, but Earth is in the middle of Federation space and apart from Nero's attack in the last film, which they are likely to have thought was an isolated incident due to their complacency that is clearly established elsewhere in the film as well, hasn't been attacked for a hundred years. It also makes sense on a meta level since they were pretty obviously trying to evoke 9/11 (indeed they dedicated the film to 9/11 first responders iirc) and the U.S. was similarly complacent at that point.
Oh shoot, totally forgot about Eric Bana almost destroying Earth a few years prior. How could they not boost up their defenses because of that? We put in huge ass x-ray screeners every time someone tries to blow up their underwear.
That's because we're (the U.S. and U.K.) paranoid. Contrast how Norway responded to Anders Breivik's attack on Utøya; their Prime Minister basically said they have to implement more democracy rather than responding by curbing civil liberties. They have basically no war or poverty so they're not paranoid. The Federation is a lot more like modern Norway than they are like the modern U.S. or U.K.
Even though the two Earth cities featured in the movie were in the US and UK?
This is 23rd century earth (specifically, the year 2259), where there hasn't been poverty, hunger, war, etc. for probably at least a hundred years. So, yeah.
Does it cause you physical pain to acknowledge that a movie, a MOVIE, placed theatrics above perfect sound reasoning or something? My god. Just grasping at convoluted explanations.
I can enjoy something and still acknowledge the silliness of certain aspects of it without having to rationalize everything so that it makes perfect sense. I actually HATE it when people do that. Which is pretty much the only reason I'm still posting here. Because it's this weird convergence of two prominent pet peeves of mine. People who read too much into things that happen in books/movies/tv (Lost drove me nuts with this. There was no plan, people! It was all made up along the way!!) and excessive collateral damage in movies.
They trashed San Francisco, it made me pout. That's it. Jesus. I fully understand it was to create lights and bangs and action. There doesn't have to be some sort of entire back history as to why this is like the most reasonable thing to happen ever (which it wasn't, I mean c'mon).
They're both right though. You're the one who refuses to acknowledge that your lack of information about Star Trek lead you to believe something was Hollywood instead of realistic to the movie's reality.
So the reality is complete incompetence on the part of earth's people?Quote:
Originally Posted by theundeadhero
As The Man said:
Ok. Yeah. That is really so much of a better way to look at the movie. :| These people are super advanced but they do not prepare for:Quote:
There seems to be a presiding attitude of either arrogance or complacency causing Starfleet not to prepare for attacks and accidents.
1) Accidents
2) Attacks
Ok. Y'all win. I guess I should accept the idea that Earth, it's people, everyone involved are just so complacent that they can only stare in befuddlement as a battle rages above their atmosphere and can only watch as a big hulking thing comes down to destroy them. With no air support or warning system or even a call from Enterprise down to the folks at home to prepare for some bad trout about to go down, or any of that handy shield technology (which I'm presuming y'all would say has no business being ever implanted on earth or over its major cities, because peace, so much peace). That all makes so much sense and makes me think less of the Star Trek universe. Is that the point? To make me realize just how incompetent they all are? As opposed to just assuming that the finale of the movie was just that, a big finale to add an exclamation point to the climax.
How exactly does this excessive explaining away make things better? I would rather not think of the inhabitants of this reality as being utter dumbsmurfs.
Well, they did put Kirk in charge of their best starship. Twice. So they aren't the sharpest knives.
So I read this whole argument and at the end I'm still left thinking:
How exactly does one stop a damaged giant starship crashing into Earth?
Tractor beam.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aulayna
But since that would require a working ship to be in orbit and there were none that doesn't seem like it was an option.
You bounce a graviton particle beam off the main deflector dish.
That too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shorty
So I went in search of answers. I found this: 5 Horrifying Implications of the 'Star Trek' Universe | Cracked.com
I guess point #2 basically sums up everything. So I concede. Apparently, the lack of any kind of human response to the climatic finale of the movie is totally in line with the Star Trek universe. My bad.
Star Trek: Into Darkness - A Numbered Review -
1.) Thank goodness this was the last "Jar Jar" Abrams film (He did LOST, an epic failure of less-than-mediocrity TV show in my opinion)
2.) I saw this in 3D-IMAX, thought it okay. I love 3D but the Film's use of it seemed not to execute it effectively and utilize it as much as it should or try to grab your interest as it should in key pivotal moments.
3.) All of Bones aka Dr. Lenard McCoy lines were mostly shoved into one liners during the action or in-action
4.) The balance of the writing between characters were broken. The one campy thing I will miss from the ST Original is the equal written parts between each and every single character.
5.) Loved most of the actors and the new Scotty bugs me, but Scotty is a hard to imitate character to most I find. Loved 'new' Scotty none the less.
6.) The new "Alternate Timeline" has to do with time-compression, which I loathe cause it fails in this film epically because of the re-use of older plot material in an uninspired way, that and I have watched better written material in the TV series of STO, STA, TNG, Voyager, DSP9, & Enterprise. Anything from the entire star trek old universe out did this new film in writing.
7.) Music was pretty good, not amazing but definitely a good additive on the standard film experience.
8.) the effects seemed lost in translation on the Star Trek universe, but are enjoyable none the less
My Advice:
Wait until this hits your local rental store & Stay Far Far Away from (JJ) "Jar-Jar" Abrams. Or if must see it; Do enjoy it in the Standard 2D version.
5.5 out of 10 Overall-Rating
If there is anything that hindered me liking this more it was indeed the scripts written for this Star Trek and the first one by Jar Jar Abrams.
Jar Jar Abrams? Don't make me laugh. More like 'resurrected our franchise' Abrams. And you do realise he doesn't have a screenplay credit on this film or the last one?
And the last two films have been streets ahead of Voyager/Enterprise
Also this isn't Abrams' last film. It's not 100% clear whether he will continue to direct films (although Paramount has said it's possible) but he'll at least continue to be producer.Quote:
Originally Posted by charliepanayi
I saw it on Thursday and thought it was fantastic. One of the best movies I've seen in a theater in a long time.
I LOVED IT
I love Star Trek, like really you guys Star Trek has been important to me all my life and this movie just nailed it. 10/10 maximum feels.
I honestly can't be assed to go back and read everything, but given that Abrams is directing Star Wars Episode VII, how is this his last film.
Anyway, saw it. Loved it.
I meant it isn't his last Star Trek film.
gotta just say that the sound and soundtrack for both star trek movies so far has been excellent
Yeah, I'm hoping for a release of the complete soundtrack soon. At least the single-disc version is out.
ITT some people seem to have trouble accepting that the Federation is not a massive military outfit bristling with guns.
This apparently will come as a shock to those people but the entire plot of the movie (SPOILER)revolves around the precise smurfing fact that Earth was in no way prepared for a war and Admiral Marcus' whole plan was to get Earth ready for the war he believed was coming. It's really not some huge plot hole that Aaron and Vivi are refusing to accept when the whole plot is about that exact issue.
Now, you want to talk plot holes, how about the fact that Khan and his crew were engineered in apparently the mid-1950s. I can't stop being annoyed about that JUST SAY HE WAS ASLEEP FOR 200 YEARS INSTEAD OF 300 JEEZ!
And if you want to talk about something that really, truly does annoy me, the fact they spelt Qo'noS as Kronos rather than Qo'noS was utterly unacceptable. I don't care if I'm the person the Onion is mocking. :colbert:
Overall though the movie was pretty amazing. I think the first one is better, and funnily the thing everyone is praising this for - as a non-stop action romp - is my biggest issue (aside from the Qo'noS debacle) because I really wanted more meat to the thing and it could definitely have stood to have about a half-hour of diplomacy and expository debates and stuff. It's not really a sci-fi movie at all, it's an action movie like Die Hard or something that happens to be in a sci-fi setting. And that's fine and I love it! It's one of the best action movies I've ever seen, in fact, and will watch many more times. But it's not quite what one of the most important sci-fi franchises in history should be, imo.
Still 8/10, very solid. 5/10 if we're counting the 1950s/Qo'noS issues. :doublecolbert:
Saw it last night, it was enjoyable. Boyfriend liked it, so that's what matters :D
MILF sums up my opinions pretty accurately. Still a great film, and a respectable re-boot.