Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Search   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online

NOW... SHALL WE BEGIN.....!!!

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> NOW... SHALL WE BEGIN.....!!! Page: <<   < prev  4 5 6 [7] 8   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
NOW... SHALL WE BEGIN.....!!! - 22/5/2013 1:36:45 PM   
Templars27

 

Posts: 5
Joined: 1/8/2011
Back in 2009, JJ Abrams took over the reigns of the Star Trek franchise. The result was a film which single-handedly re-invented the flagging starship that was the USS Trek. This new Star Trek took a huge wad of cash at the multiplex thus not only saving the franchise from oblivion but securing that a sequel would definitely be on the cards. Abrams first story was good but was hampered by two things - having to include an origin story for background and also having a weak-ish villain too. Happily the introductions for the crew have been served in time for this second outing, and the villain of the piece is a far, far more interesting personality.
The film opens at a breakneck pace. At first, if it was not for the sci-fi trappings you would be forgiven for thinking you had purchased tickets for Indiana Jones 5 as Kirk and co are caught up in all manner of japery which see`s our heroes fleeing from angry primitive aliens, jumping off towering cliffs and plummeting into the depths of a very active and very angry volcano. The cost of the crew`s actions here result in the Enterprise being recalled to Earth for a dressing down.
At this point, the film introduces the critical element of the story - John Harrison, played by the ultra-cool Benedict Cumberpatch. His very presense on screen immediately gives the film a certain gravitas that the previous offering lacked. He leers, smirks and ultimately dominates every scene he`s in, dripping evil and being an effective foil to Pine`s Kirk and Quinto`s Spock. This is not to say that either actor loses anything as both Chris Pine and Zachery Quinto look and feel comfortable in the roles they have made their own, and its noticable they have a good chemistry between them. But Cumberpatch is awesome... he literally is a one-man message of mass destruction, which he demonstrates on an attack in London and then more horrifically, in San Francisco at Starfleet HQ. Harrison`s motives are unknown to begin with, but as more of the plo

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 181
(FULL OF SPOILERS) - A big disappointment ... - 22/5/2013 3:12:24 PM   
Nicky C

 

Posts: 701
Joined: 31/5/2006
Did I watch the same film as everyone else? I loved the 2009 film and was eager to see the next chapter, but there's so much not done with the available material that this is barely a continuation from where the last film left us in terms of character progression. Kirk is back to being impetuous again, so he learned nothing from the last story. Spock explains that 'he seems unemotional but that's because he's actually super emotional' ... which we already flippin' know because it was one of the biggest thematical devices of the whole of the last movie! ... so that's recycled as well. The 'father-son' talk between Pike and Kirk is repeated (and it's such a repeat that they even reference the same scene from the previous movie ... un-fucking-believable). The space jump is repeated, except now it's horizontal instead of vertical. Wow, what a difference. Kirk being stripped of his captaincy is utterly irrelevant to the story because he gets its back without any hard work whatsoever. The 'big reveal' that Cumberbatch is Khan was not a reveal at all because we already knew (yes we did ... shut up). Khan was supposed to be 'brilliant' but we saw none of his genius in the story or his actions. He was angry, hurt, vengeful, beautifully played by Sherlock (who even makes threats of horrific violence sound like invitations to a romantic dinner - absolutely delicious), but where was the genius? Putting Khan and Marcus at odds dilutes both of their venom as well. None of the bad guys (like you need more than one when you've got Khan!) have a big plan and were very reactionary, and of course by having a weak villain you weaken your heroes. Also, there is no ending ... literally. Your hero in Star Trek is Kirk, but Kirk's not even there at the climax .. in fact he's fucking dead! Spock takes the reins in the pitifully-weak conclusion (fist fight on a moving platform?! Is that it?! Are you fucking kidding me?!) but the story isn't about Spock so it's completely out of context. Hero

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 182
Disappointing! (spoiler alert) - 24/5/2013 4:07:51 PM   
moonlightallan

 

Posts: 11
Joined: 19/8/2007
Like most people I enjoyed the first movie, and thought rightly so that JJ Ab, has rescued the dying franchise, with well-known characters not too badly brought back to life by today’s actors.

Leap forward to 2013 and the sequel, what promised to be a great moody sequel turns out to be full of unnecessary references to the previous film and mostly to The Wrath of Khan! The beginning of the movie sees Indiana Jones style (running from the natives) and diving into the sea to find the Enterprise under the water. Other than looking impressive when it surfaced, what was the point of this? Did beaming down suddenly not work? Oh lets try to sink a ship the size of a city under the sea, that’s far more discrete!!
The characters simply haven't progressed at all, Kirk loses his Captains chair for what reason? He gets it back a few minutes later. The original series worked well because McCoy, Kirk and Spock gelled so well. This simply doesn't happen in this movie. McCoy's script is so shallow you couldn't paddle in it, and he's simply there to deliver some kind of comic relief, but it becomes tiresome. Spock carries on in robotic format as per the last film and Scotty has more to play with but really shows the actor (who is funny is his other films), is really not up to it. Chekov has to be the worst out of all the characters and seems to be there with his ridiculous put on accent for nothing more than ridicule.
The whole Spock fight with Khan? Oh please, fighting and jumping around on moving platforms (Star Wars prequels anyone?) ..
Khan had none of the charisma of the original or menace, he simply strolled about looking moody and shot up a few people and made Spock scream Khaaaan (another cringe-worthy moment).
The Klingons? What happened to them? Talk about a let-down. Make up was minimal to say the least. It was established in the original movies how they would look, not like some actor with a bit of head makeup on.
The role reversal was cringe worth

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 183
No faith in JJ now - 25/5/2013 6:01:54 PM   
3wonders

 

Posts: 8
Joined: 19/1/2009
Fun, but revived old scenerios killed it for me. Even Spock shouts 'Khan!!!' In a William Shatner stylie. Why reboot the franchise only to duplicate it? Please keep Daniel Lindelof away from huge sci-fi franchises - his scripts practically annihilates them. On this evidence, I'm worried for Star Wars.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 184
Disappointing - 25/5/2013 11:42:03 PM   
mancalledpete

 

Posts: 109
Joined: 3/5/2006
Just saw it. Managed to avoid spoilers & that was good... But still... Wasn't as epic as everyone was making out. 3 stars at best. Some nice bits, but it felt like a Directors Cut & could easily have been cut by 30mins to sharpen it up. Egos on patrol.
...and what is with the frickin Nimoy cameo AGAIN... Just totally unnecessary.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 185
star trek into darkness - 26/5/2013 1:45:50 PM   
empsdirector

 

Posts: 1
Joined: 26/5/2013
Just saw it.. Kahn is in it. There are two major problems with this film
1) It takes place before the 1960's TV episode Space Seed, where Kahn is introduced. The Wrath of Kahn was a sequal to Space seed, and the Search for Spock was a sequal to The Wrath of Kahn. The problem: Kirk and crew meet Khan and "Into Darkness". But in Space Seed, which I watch last night, they have never met Kahn before. They do not now who each other is. This means Space Seed cannot happen.

Bad writing and directing of Into Darness

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 186
RE: star trek into darkness - 27/5/2013 2:36:55 PM   
FoximusPrime

 

Posts: 380
Joined: 11/12/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: empsdirector

Just saw it.. Kahn is in it. There are two major problems with this film
1) It takes place before the 1960's TV episode Space Seed, where Kahn is introduced. The Wrath of Kahn was a sequal to Space seed, and the Search for Spock was a sequal to The Wrath of Kahn. The problem: Kirk and crew meet Khan and "Into Darkness". But in Space Seed, which I watch last night, they have never met Kahn before. They do not now who each other is. This means Space Seed cannot happen.

Bad writing and directing of Into Darness


These latest films aren't prequels. The previous film set out the alternate reality in which both that and this film take place due to various tinkerings with time travel, etc., so any events you saw in Star Trek before the 2009 film either will not happen at all or won't happen quite as before.

Think of it as an "alternate timeline" episode where, instead of returning to the status quo at the end, we stay with those characters.

_____________________________

Spoiler colour: #F1F1F1

(in reply to empsdirector)
Post #: 187
RE: (FULL OF SPOILERS) - A big disappointment ... - 27/5/2013 5:07:12 PM   
Private Hudson


Posts: 1839
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nicky C

Did I watch the same film as everyone else? I loved the 2009 film and was eager to see the next chapter, but there's so much not done with the available material that this is barely a continuation from where the last film left us in terms of character progression. Kirk is back to being impetuous again, so he learned nothing from the last story. Spock explains that 'he seems unemotional but that's because he's actually super emotional' ... which we already flippin' know because it was one of the biggest thematical devices of the whole of the last movie! ... so that's recycled as well. The 'father-son' talk between Pike and Kirk is repeated (and it's such a repeat that they even reference the same scene from the previous movie ... un-fucking-believable). The space jump is repeated, except now it's horizontal instead of vertical. Wow, what a difference. Kirk being stripped of his captaincy is utterly irrelevant to the story because he gets its back without any hard work whatsoever. The 'big reveal' that Cumberbatch is Khan was not a reveal at all because we already knew (yes we did ... shut up). Khan was supposed to be 'brilliant' but we saw none of his genius in the story or his actions. He was angry, hurt, vengeful, beautifully played by Sherlock (who even makes threats of horrific violence sound like invitations to a romantic dinner - absolutely delicious), but where was the genius? Putting Khan and Marcus at odds dilutes both of their venom as well. None of the bad guys (like you need more than one when you've got Khan!) have a big plan and were very reactionary, and of course by having a weak villain you weaken your heroes. Also, there is no ending ... literally. Your hero in Star Trek is Kirk, but Kirk's not even there at the climax .. in fact he's fucking dead! Spock takes the reins in the pitifully-weak conclusion (fist fight on a moving platform?! Is that it?! Are you fucking kidding me?!) but the story isn't about Spock so it's completely out of context. Hero


I kind of agree with you.

Kirk is the hero of Star Trek - he should be doing the fighting. Plus we didn't get to see Khan being clever.

What I loved about TWOK was the battle of wits between Kirk and Khan aboard their respective ships. Submarines in space or old fashioned warships at sea.

The line Spock says when they go into the Mutara Nebula sums it up. Khan is highly intelligent, but he lacks experience. Kirk of course has that in spades as well as being clever. Now can we get on with seeing this Kirk gaining experience and give us some new adventures?

Star Trek's mantra should be upheld with the stories: "Where no man has gone before". I don't want to see remakes of old stories or characters!

And yes, I kept in 'man' and not 'one' since I personally think it sounds more dramatic.


_____________________________

Watch my spoof movie of FULL METAL JACKET here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCGRWVvM-Zo&feature=plcp&context=C31ca298UDOEgsToPDskJ4_UorjolrWTaxEGMj5GO0

(in reply to Nicky C)
Post #: 188
RE: No faith in JJ now - 27/5/2013 5:07:39 PM   
Private Hudson


Posts: 1839
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: 3wonders

Fun, but revived old scenerios killed it for me. Even Spock shouts 'Khan!!!' In a William Shatner stylie. Why reboot the franchise only to duplicate it? Please keep Daniel Lindelof away from huge sci-fi franchises - his scripts practically annihilates them. On this evidence, I'm worried for Star Wars.


Yep, I agree with that.


_____________________________

Watch my spoof movie of FULL METAL JACKET here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCGRWVvM-Zo&feature=plcp&context=C31ca298UDOEgsToPDskJ4_UorjolrWTaxEGMj5GO0

(in reply to 3wonders)
Post #: 189
RE: No faith in JJ now - 28/5/2013 8:09:30 AM   
jobloffski

 

Posts: 1894
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: elsewhere
quote:

ORIGINAL: Private Hudson


quote:

ORIGINAL: 3wonders

Fun, but revived old scenerios killed it for me. Even Spock shouts 'Khan!!!' In a William Shatner stylie. Why reboot the franchise only to duplicate it? Please keep Daniel Lindelof away from huge sci-fi franchises - his scripts practically annihilates them. On this evidence, I'm worried for Star Wars.


Yep, I agree with that.




I disagree that 'duplication' took place with this film. Khan appeared, but differently, in an alternative timeline with basically the same constituent elements as the original one. Inevitably, the same universe, taking just a slightly different start point, will have crossover., Inthis case, in a way a way that sets up a potential FUTURE Wrath of Khan scenarion, but with differences as to why itmight transpire and what might happen in it, and with the focus potentially being on Spock, not Kirk.

People are complaining bitterly that STD(ahem) didn't carry the weight of certain things in Wrath of Khan. How could it? This filmwas still about building characters, not paying off on a (space) seed planted decades previously with decades of ''fan love' for the characters involved..

I say character building in STD for the following reasons...by willingly laying his life down for his crew, the 'saved' Kirk has become worthy of being his father's son and earned the loyalty of the crew he was willing to die for. Spock continues to struggle with his major loss and has a 'saviour complex' now (willingness to die to save a planet after witnessing the destruction of his own and his temper is a bigger issue because threaten those he cares for and you get his wrath (the film shares out the wrath that can come from a threat to your 'family' in various ways rather than centring it on one manlooking for vengenance). Bones is sewn up as acharacter now. The major character trinity of the series is done and dusted, Kirk has grown into someone who is worthy of the job he has, Even Scotty now 'works' because he has had stuff to do. Now stuff can happen/be encountered and (frankly) other directors can join the party and probably do a little better at the plot of a single film now the hard work is done.

I think people expected the film to pay off on all the star trek they have ever loved. I think the film was seeking (with nods to the previous lore) to just be a second step into a fictional world that is only two films long, featuring characters who have only had a short amount of screen time to relate to each and therefore cannot possibly ever have been more than that second step onto setting in stone the ensemble. The characters are more formed now. Where it goes from here is...wherever it goes.

< Message edited by jobloffski -- 28/5/2013 9:39:48 AM >


_____________________________

Yes, dreamers dream and doers do. But if dreamers DON'T dream, doers don't have anything TO do. Everything that is only here because people exist, only exists because someone thought of it., or in other words, dreamed it.

(in reply to Private Hudson)
Post #: 190
Recycled pi$$ - 28/5/2013 3:08:13 PM   
Normal Control


Posts: 82
Joined: 11/11/2012
I was willing to ignore the racism undertones in the beginning, and things were rolling along confidently until about halfway thru. Then things started falling apart quicker than a crack-ho forced on cold turkey. Lindelof took his maggot penis out and started pissing everywhere. Again. JJ Abrams (a McG anagram?) directed it at the screen. Maybe that was actually some of the lens flare. Out of a million things wrong with this piece of shit, I'll save time and highlight just one. If Cucumberbatch's Khan was such a genius, why didn't he see thru the sabotage / trojan horse trick? It's only been used in every other Hollywood movie for the last 20 fucking years or so including 2 others so far this summer. The main thing writers, director, actors, etc need to do in any movie, especially a sci-fi picture is suspend disbelief. The cumulative lack of talent and conviction by the end was staggering. I got so bored I wanted my money back several times over.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 191
RE: star trek into darkness - 28/5/2013 3:27:56 PM   
BelfastBoy

 

Posts: 582
Joined: 30/11/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: FoximusPrime


quote:

ORIGINAL: empsdirector

Just saw it.. Kahn is in it. There are two major problems with this film
1) It takes place before the 1960's TV episode Space Seed, where Kahn is introduced. The Wrath of Kahn was a sequal to Space seed, and the Search for Spock was a sequal to The Wrath of Kahn. The problem: Kirk and crew meet Khan and "Into Darkness". But in Space Seed, which I watch last night, they have never met Kahn before. They do not now who each other is. This means Space Seed cannot happen.

Bad writing and directing of Into Darness


These latest films aren't prequels. The previous film set out the alternate reality in which both that and this film take place due to various tinkerings with time travel, etc., so any events you saw in Star Trek before the 2009 film either will not happen at all or won't happen quite as before.

Think of it as an "alternate timeline" episode where, instead of returning to the status quo at the end, we stay with those characters.


Of course what you say is correct, but this is my issue with the direction these new films may be taking. Surely the best concept of the 2009 reboot was the notion that, while TOS, TNG, DS9, Voyager, Enterprise etc are still there for those who want to watch them, the new films have wiped that timeline of events out of existence completely? (Technically Enterprise should've already happened but we'll not worry about that too much...!) So, the writing and production team are totally free to develop characters and plots pretty much however they want, so let's hope that they don't end up using slightly different versions of events and people that have already been seen before. I'm content to lay a lot of the blame for some of the worst excesses with Lindelof, Orci and Kurtzman, but since Abrams seems content to keep on using them, this suggests a lack of judgement on his part too. But, you can't argue with the box office, can you?

Slightly OT but - despite being set up as a Hollywood power broker (not least by Empire), how will Abrams be as a Star Wars director? Given that the writing is being done by people he's not used to dealing with, if he, for example, were to suggest a polish / rewrite of the script by Lindelof, would you all join me in hoping that Kathy Kennedy etc will tell him to f**k off and direct what he's given?! I think the point I'm trying to make is really - will Abrams be treated like a James Bond director, a hired hand in a producer-led franchise? Or will he be granted a lot of creative and production influence? Control freak Lucas tried to micromanage even when he wasn't directing, but I'd personally find it hard to see Abrams accepting a reduced role, even for the chance to direct Star Wars.

(in reply to FoximusPrime)
Post #: 192
RE: star trek into darkness - 28/5/2013 7:47:44 PM   
Cool Breeze


Posts: 2351
Joined: 9/11/2011
From: The Internet

quote:

ORIGINAL: BelfastBoy


quote:

ORIGINAL: FoximusPrime


quote:

ORIGINAL: empsdirector

Just saw it.. Kahn is in it. There are two major problems with this film
1) It takes place before the 1960's TV episode Space Seed, where Kahn is introduced. The Wrath of Kahn was a sequal to Space seed, and the Search for Spock was a sequal to The Wrath of Kahn. The problem: Kirk and crew meet Khan and "Into Darkness". But in Space Seed, which I watch last night, they have never met Kahn before. They do not now who each other is. This means Space Seed cannot happen.

Bad writing and directing of Into Darness


These latest films aren't prequels. The previous film set out the alternate reality in which both that and this film take place due to various tinkerings with time travel, etc., so any events you saw in Star Trek before the 2009 film either will not happen at all or won't happen quite as before.

Think of it as an "alternate timeline" episode where, instead of returning to the status quo at the end, we stay with those characters.


Of course what you say is correct, but this is my issue with the direction these new films may be taking. Surely the best concept of the 2009 reboot was the notion that, while TOS, TNG, DS9, Voyager, Enterprise etc are still there for those who want to watch them, the new films have wiped that timeline of events out of existence completely? (Technically Enterprise should've already happened but we'll not worry about that too much...!) So, the writing and production team are totally free to develop characters and plots pretty much however they want, so let's hope that they don't end up using slightly different versions of events and people that have already been seen before. I'm content to lay a lot of the blame for some of the worst excesses with Lindelof, Orci and Kurtzman, but since Abrams seems content to keep on using them, this suggests a lack of judgement on his part too. But, you can't argue with the box office, can you?

Slightly OT but - despite being set up as a Hollywood power broker (not least by Empire), how will Abrams be as a Star Wars director? Given that the writing is being done by people he's not used to dealing with, if he, for example, were to suggest a polish / rewrite of the script by Lindelof, would you all join me in hoping that Kathy Kennedy etc will tell him to f**k off and direct what he's given?! I think the point I'm trying to make is really - will Abrams be treated like a James Bond director, a hired hand in a producer-led franchise? Or will he be granted a lot of creative and production influence? Control freak Lucas tried to micromanage even when he wasn't directing, but I'd personally find it hard to see Abrams accepting a reduced role, even for the chance to direct Star Wars.


( Sigh ) The Abrams films havnt wiped out the continuity of the original Star Trek universe.It is still there.The new films take place in an alternate timeline.The characters even realise in the last film that they are in an alternate reality now.

_____________________________

'' Iv played Oskar Schindler, Michael Collins, Rob Roy Mcgregor, even ZEUS for gods sake! No one is going to believe me to be a green grocer! ''

(in reply to BelfastBoy)
Post #: 193
RE: star trek into darkness - 28/5/2013 8:18:20 PM   
BelfastBoy

 

Posts: 582
Joined: 30/11/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cool Breeze


quote:

ORIGINAL: BelfastBoy


quote:

ORIGINAL: FoximusPrime


quote:

ORIGINAL: empsdirector

Just saw it.. Kahn is in it. There are two major problems with this film
1) It takes place before the 1960's TV episode Space Seed, where Kahn is introduced. The Wrath of Kahn was a sequal to Space seed, and the Search for Spock was a sequal to The Wrath of Kahn. The problem: Kirk and crew meet Khan and "Into Darkness". But in Space Seed, which I watch last night, they have never met Kahn before. They do not now who each other is. This means Space Seed cannot happen.

Bad writing and directing of Into Darness


These latest films aren't prequels. The previous film set out the alternate reality in which both that and this film take place due to various tinkerings with time travel, etc., so any events you saw in Star Trek before the 2009 film either will not happen at all or won't happen quite as before.

Think of it as an "alternate timeline" episode where, instead of returning to the status quo at the end, we stay with those characters.


Of course what you say is correct, but this is my issue with the direction these new films may be taking. Surely the best concept of the 2009 reboot was the notion that, while TOS, TNG, DS9, Voyager, Enterprise etc are still there for those who want to watch them, the new films have wiped that timeline of events out of existence completely? (Technically Enterprise should've already happened but we'll not worry about that too much...!) So, the writing and production team are totally free to develop characters and plots pretty much however they want, so let's hope that they don't end up using slightly different versions of events and people that have already been seen before. I'm content to lay a lot of the blame for some of the worst excesses with Lindelof, Orci and Kurtzman, but since Abrams seems content to keep on using them, this suggests a lack of judgement on his part too. But, you can't argue with the box office, can you?

Slightly OT but - despite being set up as a Hollywood power broker (not least by Empire), how will Abrams be as a Star Wars director? Given that the writing is being done by people he's not used to dealing with, if he, for example, were to suggest a polish / rewrite of the script by Lindelof, would you all join me in hoping that Kathy Kennedy etc will tell him to f**k off and direct what he's given?! I think the point I'm trying to make is really - will Abrams be treated like a James Bond director, a hired hand in a producer-led franchise? Or will he be granted a lot of creative and production influence? Control freak Lucas tried to micromanage even when he wasn't directing, but I'd personally find it hard to see Abrams accepting a reduced role, even for the chance to direct Star Wars.


( Sigh ) The Abrams films havnt wiped out the continuity of the original Star Trek universe.It is still there.The new films take place in an alternate timeline.The characters even realise in the last film that they are in an alternate reality now.


Yes, I know that. If you read my post again you'll see that's what I'm actually saying. My point is that, even operating in a new timeline where anything can happen, I hope that the production team come up with genuinely original concepts and characters rather than slightly modifying things that have been seen before. This concept of time travel involves a literally infinite number of universes, only one of which contains what we know as Star Trek pre-2009. So it would be nice to get away from Khan, Klingons, Tribbles, 'the needs of the many' etc. I appreciate that these are touchstones of classic Trek but if JJ and Co are determined to make ST "cool", then let's see some originality.

(in reply to Cool Breeze)
Post #: 194
RE: Recycled pi$$ - 28/5/2013 11:32:46 PM   
MonsterCat


Posts: 7934
Joined: 24/3/2011
From: St. Albans, Hertfordshire
.

.

< Message edited by MonsterCat -- 28/5/2013 11:35:58 PM >


_____________________________

"I am a writer, a doctor, a nuclear physicist and a theoretical philosopher. But above all, I am a man, a hopelessly inquisitive man, just like you."

Films watched in 2013

(in reply to Normal Control)
Post #: 195
RE: star trek into darkness - 29/5/2013 9:15:58 AM   
FoximusPrime

 

Posts: 380
Joined: 11/12/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: BelfastBoy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cool Breeze


quote:

ORIGINAL: BelfastBoy


quote:

ORIGINAL: FoximusPrime


quote:

ORIGINAL: empsdirector

Just saw it.. Kahn is in it. There are two major problems with this film
1) It takes place before the 1960's TV episode Space Seed, where Kahn is introduced. The Wrath of Kahn was a sequal to Space seed, and the Search for Spock was a sequal to The Wrath of Kahn. The problem: Kirk and crew meet Khan and "Into Darkness". But in Space Seed, which I watch last night, they have never met Kahn before. They do not now who each other is. This means Space Seed cannot happen.

Bad writing and directing of Into Darness


These latest films aren't prequels. The previous film set out the alternate reality in which both that and this film take place due to various tinkerings with time travel, etc., so any events you saw in Star Trek before the 2009 film either will not happen at all or won't happen quite as before.

Think of it as an "alternate timeline" episode where, instead of returning to the status quo at the end, we stay with those characters.


Of course what you say is correct, but this is my issue with the direction these new films may be taking. Surely the best concept of the 2009 reboot was the notion that, while TOS, TNG, DS9, Voyager, Enterprise etc are still there for those who want to watch them, the new films have wiped that timeline of events out of existence completely? (Technically Enterprise should've already happened but we'll not worry about that too much...!) So, the writing and production team are totally free to develop characters and plots pretty much however they want, so let's hope that they don't end up using slightly different versions of events and people that have already been seen before. I'm content to lay a lot of the blame for some of the worst excesses with Lindelof, Orci and Kurtzman, but since Abrams seems content to keep on using them, this suggests a lack of judgement on his part too. But, you can't argue with the box office, can you?

Slightly OT but - despite being set up as a Hollywood power broker (not least by Empire), how will Abrams be as a Star Wars director? Given that the writing is being done by people he's not used to dealing with, if he, for example, were to suggest a polish / rewrite of the script by Lindelof, would you all join me in hoping that Kathy Kennedy etc will tell him to f**k off and direct what he's given?! I think the point I'm trying to make is really - will Abrams be treated like a James Bond director, a hired hand in a producer-led franchise? Or will he be granted a lot of creative and production influence? Control freak Lucas tried to micromanage even when he wasn't directing, but I'd personally find it hard to see Abrams accepting a reduced role, even for the chance to direct Star Wars.


( Sigh ) The Abrams films havnt wiped out the continuity of the original Star Trek universe.It is still there.The new films take place in an alternate timeline.The characters even realise in the last film that they are in an alternate reality now.


Yes, I know that. If you read my post again you'll see that's what I'm actually saying. My point is that, even operating in a new timeline where anything can happen, I hope that the production team come up with genuinely original concepts and characters rather than slightly modifying things that have been seen before. This concept of time travel involves a literally infinite number of universes, only one of which contains what we know as Star Trek pre-2009. So it would be nice to get away from Khan, Klingons, Tribbles, 'the needs of the many' etc. I appreciate that these are touchstones of classic Trek but if JJ and Co are determined to make ST "cool", then let's see some originality.


That was my feeling too - I was just clarifying the whole 'alternate timeline' thing for empsdirector.

As you say, they have literally a galaxy of possibilities now so I found it disappointing that they essentially gave us a retread of what we'd seen before, even more so when they..."paid homage" to The Wrath of Khan.

It would even have been marginally less annoying had John Harrison actually been one of Khan's lieutenants or a 23rd century agent who was genetically enhanced with what now seems to be the magic blood of Khan's crew, rather than being the man himself. A brand new character would've been the preferred choice though, removing the need to shoehorn in fanboy references.

I should reiterate that I still found the film fun, just dumb fun unfortunately.

_____________________________

Spoiler colour: #F1F1F1

(in reply to BelfastBoy)
Post #: 196
RE: star trek into darkness - 30/5/2013 12:01:37 AM   
Cool Breeze


Posts: 2351
Joined: 9/11/2011
From: The Internet
Saw it again tonight and enjoyed it even more than the first time.One of the best summer blockbusters i have seen in years.Action packed,funny,terrific characters and outstanding special effects.

A few details i noticed this time round.The vessel that Kirk,Spock, and Uhura take down to Kronos was confiscated from Harry Mudd! Kirk references the '' Mudd incident last month ''.Seems in this timeline the character is an arms dealer.

Also when Admiral Marcus is giving Kirk his mission to take out '' John Harrison '' , he passes by a collection of models of famous ships from Trek history including Archers NX-01 and Zefram Cochrans warp ship.

I really need to catch up on the spin off comics that have been published since 2009 and im sure they will chronicle the crews adventures on their 5 year mission until the next movie comes out.

_____________________________

'' Iv played Oskar Schindler, Michael Collins, Rob Roy Mcgregor, even ZEUS for gods sake! No one is going to believe me to be a green grocer! ''

(in reply to FoximusPrime)
Post #: 197
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 31/5/2013 4:28:10 AM   
topdiablo3

 

Posts: 3
Joined: 31/5/2013
It must be useful for you



D3 Gold
RS Gold
WOW Gold






(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 198
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 31/5/2013 11:38:03 AM   
galvatron


Posts: 1281
Joined: 1/10/2005
Who else spent the next few days shouting 'KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN'

Just me?

(in reply to topdiablo3)
Post #: 199
Star Trek Into Darkness (2013) - 31/5/2013 1:29:20 PM   
BJORNtheBLU

 

Posts: 13
Joined: 19/1/2013
Star Trek Into Darkness reminds us that Star Trek isn't just 60s science fiction television show that was only good in the day, followed by a load of poorly scripted and directed feature films (one even directed by Leonard Nimoy). JJ Abrams' take on Gene Roddenberry's classic seminal 60s show is something more than anything Trekkies have ever witnessed before. This film was something quite special. Following up from the big hit 'Star Trek' in 2009 which got Star Trek back on its feet, this film has a more interesting plot. It wasn't flawless by any stretch of the imagination but managed to keep up the audiences immersed for 132 minutes which is quite an achievement. There are excellent action set pieces that do, I mean do look fantastic, great character development and chemistry and beautifully directed by JJ Abrams. Stereotypically he is labelled as someone who only cares about special effects, but that is complete rubbish, yes Abrams likes good special effects but lets face it most of us want that anyway. But to say thats all he likes is false. He likes a decent script that carries the movie along and he likes to give each of his characters a lot of attention so we actually care about them.

For me the star of the show is Zachary Quinto. I think his performance would have been highly appreciated by both Leonard Nimoy and Gene Roddenberry because he stays very close to the original characteristics of Spock. You don't see Quinto, you only see Spock and that is the best complement you can give an actor. Chris Pine was very good as Kirk, managing to keep the same character that Shatner played but adding his own take on it that surprisingly defiantly works. Benedict Cumberbatch was good. Thats all i'm going to say. People are saying he carried the film along. No. He made the film have a villain. But anyone who can shout and scream can do that. His Kahn wasn't the best thing since sliced bread like most people seem to think. If Cumberbatch was so good surly he would have won a Golden Globe by now!

When the crew of the Enterprise is called back home, they find an unstoppable force of terror from within their own organization has detonated the fleet and everything it stands for, leaving our world in a state of crisis. With a personal score to settle, Captain Kirk leads a manhunt to a war-zone world to capture a one man weapon of mass destruction. As our heroes are propelled into an epic chess game of life and death, love will be challenged, friendships will be torn apart, and sacrifices must be made for the only family Kirk has left: his crew.

As said earlier, four years ago, director J.J. Abrams rebooted the Star Trek franchise with great swagger by treating the launch film as a unique pop culture origin story. The movie was all about how the Enterprise crew first came together, almost like Batman Begins, Abrams made it his own however at the same time sticking to the Gene Roddenberry origin. The first Star Trek really it was about how Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto rose up to become those superheroes of yore, Kirk and Spock, by echoing the looks, voices, and personalities of William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy just enough, while still making the roles their own. The two actors now really have a chance to get their Kirk and Spock on. Pine, with ice blue eyes and lips that dance on the edge of a smirk, does something marvelously clever: He evokes Shatner's hamminess by underplaying it. And Quinto makes the glowering, dagger-browed Spock almost fiercely withholding.

With great visuals that cost Hollywood a ton, this entry into Abrams' Star Trek universe is more than a good film. I can recommend this film to anyone over 12. Enjoy. Verdict: Abrams has left Star Trek in a very good place and with infinite possibilities. These two entries are easily the best two Star Trek films brought to screen. Thank you JJ Abrams. Just please don't get carried away. I am going to give this film a B+.

< Message edited by BJORNtheBLU -- 14/7/2013 10:51:51 AM >

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 200
Star Trek Into Darkness (2013) - 31/5/2013 1:30:05 PM   
BJORNtheBLU

 

Posts: 13
Joined: 19/1/2013
Star Trek Into Darkness

< Message edited by BJORNtheBLU -- 31/5/2013 1:35:11 PM >

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 201
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness (2013) - 31/5/2013 6:44:31 PM   
Biggus


Posts: 7639
Joined: 2/10/2005
From: Not Local
Will Smith, in his fresher princier days, once said “I think I’ve seen your picture somewhere. Oh yeah that’s right it was in the dictionary next to KERBLAM!!!” Well sorry Will, it seems one of your finest pick-up lines was actually way off the mark. If you pick up a dictionary and search for the aforementioned adjective, the entry will more likely read:

Kerblam: See ‘Star Trek Into Darkness’

This is how it’s done. If you want to know how to construct large-scale entertainment which satisfies the summer blockbuster crowd and fanboys alike then look no further. Star Trek Into Darkness is premium quality sci-fi with lashings of humour, a heavy dollop of heart and a generous side order of geekery. J.J. Abram follows up his 2009 reinvention of the perennial franchise with an ultra-confident, supercharged ride which invites fans both existing and potential to jump aboard.

Despite there being only one previous outing for this latest Trek incarnation, the cast already wear their respective roles like a second skin. Much kudos was given to the casting decisions upon the release of 2009′s ‘Star Trek’ but the individuals responsible must surely be as smug as can be following this instalment. Chris Pine once again nails Kirk’s defining sense of honour/disregard for procedure dichotomy and ups his game in both the humour and the drama stakes. However the yin to his yang, Zachary Quinto as Spock, pushes one step further giving the beloved Vulcan previously uptapped levels of (emotionless) emotion. Plus it’s always good to see ‘The Artist Formerly Known As Robocop’ Peter Weller return to the big screen.

There are many nods to the original series and indeed a weighty bow to one Star Trek film in particular, all of which are balanced brilliantly with a finger on today’s pulse by Abrams. Visually the film is a knockout. There is more spectacle on display here than at a Vision Express winter sale.

The summer may not be upon us meteorologically speaking but the cinematic season well and truly starts here. Everyone else will be playing catch-up. Kerblam indeed.

_____________________________

"They offered me a hundred grand. You wanna know something? When I found out I'd get my hands on you, I said I'd do it for nothing."

http://fletchsworldoffilm.wordpress.com/

(in reply to BJORNtheBLU)
Post #: 202
Star Trek Into Darkness - 8/6/2013 2:43:50 PM   
Conboy


Posts: 28
Joined: 7/1/2013
This movie has a very simple driving force. How can we top what came before? Already Ironman has produced some sensational visceral action and now Star Trek shot in IMAX 3D delivers a non-stop juggernaut of wall to wall action. JJ Abrams new film is a lot of fun, an all-out assault on the senses. It fulfils the intent to do “Star Trek like Star Wars.” But it doesn’t get everything right, for all its technical wizardry Abrams seems content to present a story short on anything new to say.

Abrams continues his appreciation of Spielberg with a “Raiders of the Lost Ark” inspired opening replete with spears and angry painted natives. The film jumps directly into the action where Kirk and Bones are fleeing savages whilst Spock jumps onto an erupting Volcano. The clock is ticking as the first of many cliff-hangers is engineered. Remember this is the creative team responsible for Alias and Lost. The action then takes us to London 2259 and the Royal Children’s Hospital. A child is dying. John Harrison (Cumberbatch) appears offering the hopeful words, “I can save her” to the childs father Harrison is clearly not all he appears to be, he’s a complex character and it’s difficult to know if he is a villain in the true sense of the word. Another assault inspired by a “Godfather 3” style action set-piece ends with Kirk on a manhunt. His admiral proclaims “Run this bastard down…take him out.” By now it’s clear this addition will not be “exploring and observing” more like shooting and blowing stuff up.

But who dies or gets hurt in these franchise films? Audience test screenings instil the happily ever after formula. But action without consequence is arguably dull no matter how many millions you spend on it. Spoiler Alert: In one scene “Scotty” seemingly has his head crushed, yet moments later he seems almost unaffected by the incident. He touches his sore he

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 203
star trek into greatness - 10/6/2013 8:48:39 AM   
tombaker

 

Posts: 9
Joined: 17/4/2008
Finally saw this yesterday in the theatre, i have been looking forward to it and i wasn't dissapointed. This movie was just a lot of fun, nice action set-pieces and good acting from the regular cast. But the real stand-out was ofcourse Benedict Cumberbatch, an actor i have been following since the amazing Sherlock series hit the screens. Benedict is an amazing actor and a worthy replacement for Ricardo Montalban, not that this movie will ever make me forget Star Trek 2: the Wrath of Kahn, but almost comes close...
This brings me also to a few minor points of the movie, especialy when it comes to the script... For the first half, things seem to take a fun and different turn, all the star trek ingredients are here ofcourse; Kirk ignoring the prime directive, a war-seeking admiral, the Enterprise making a grand entrance, Spock making logic remarks, the Klingons etc. Everything a star trek fan hopes for is in it, there is even a tribble later on.
But a good way into the second half, the writers run out of imagination and decide to remake the Wrath of Khan after al. I had good hopes this turn would have been avoided, and that the story would take a interesting and surprising turn, but it's the same ending exept it's played out just a little bit different... I am sure that people who have never seen the Wrath of Khan will still be surprised and amazed, but i was just a tiny bit dissapointed by the unimaginitive ending...It was a treat to see Leonard Nimoy again though, unnessesary, but still a treat. But still, the ending might not have been surprising enough, it was still good fun and this was def a strong sequel. I can only wish that, once Abrams is done with Star Wars, he'll come back to Star Trek. I only hope he does it before all of these fine actor's reach too much starpower, and can't be afforded anymore...For the sequel, if the original timeline is still preserved, we can expect Whale-aliens using the genesis torpedo to find God...
Thank you J.J.Abrams for maki

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 204
Star treking through out the universe... - 2/7/2013 1:14:26 PM   
silence1

 

Posts: 53
Joined: 30/5/2012
Ahhhhhhhh a star trek reboot, I believe a short and sweet review is in order. An inspiring film that takes you back to the future... wait wrong film, I mean to the final frontier where a very angry Karn shows himself aboard the USS Enterprise asking for help from its bold and brave crew. Our usual Sherlock Holmes becomes an amazing villian showing us the evil side of Mr.Cumberbatch who shows a real adversary for the daring crew and our wannabe villian Admiral Marcus. This film is a tad worse than the first modern star trek (2008 baby) but really we're talking about two very different villians AND story lines so I'm leaving tonnes of room for any errors that might have appeared. Overall a good film that I rate a 4.3.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 205
Star treking through out the universe... - 2/7/2013 1:14:29 PM   
silence1

 

Posts: 53
Joined: 30/5/2012
Ahhhhhhhh a star trek reboot, I believe a short and sweet review is in order. An inspiring film that takes you back to the future... wait wrong film, I mean to the final frontier where a very angry Karn shows himself aboard the USS Enterprise asking for help from its bold and brave crew. Our usual Sherlock Holmes becomes an amazing villian showing us the evil side of Mr.Cumberbatch who shows a real adversary for the daring crew and our wannabe villian Admiral Marcus. This film is a tad worse than the first modern star trek (2008 baby) but really we're talking about two very different villians AND story lines so I'm leaving tonnes of room for any errors that might have appeared. Overall a good film that I rate a 4.3.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 206
Star Trek: Incoherence - 7/9/2013 8:05:27 PM   
rich


Posts: 5041
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Neo Kobe
x

< Message edited by rich -- 9/9/2013 9:48:11 PM >

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 207
RE: Star Trek: Incoherence - 9/9/2013 9:48:01 PM   
rich


Posts: 5041
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Neo Kobe
There's a lot of great spectacle, action set pieces, character moments and performances ... but this is a thin layer on a weak script that fails to hold together for the length of the story. Roberto Orci recently lashed out at Trek fans for naming it the worst of the film series - perhaps not quite true but even as a sci-fi action film this is incredibly weak with not enough focus and far too much of a mess in the writing department.

2 stars.

_____________________________

Meanwhile...

(in reply to rich)
Post #: 208
"I am, surprisingly, alive... stand by." - 28/9/2013 11:51:47 AM   
movienut707

 

Posts: 220
Joined: 19/10/2012
Smart writing, fast-paced action, exhilarating effects, pitch-perfect humor, and slick direction on behalf of Abrams conspire to make Star Trek Into Darkness one wicked fun movie. And there's plenty of humanity thrown in for good measure. In short, everything a summer popcorn flick should be.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 209
A true beauty. - 10/10/2013 3:04:44 PM   
Gem_1995

 

Posts: 6
Joined: 10/10/2013
From: Redhill
J.J Abrams…you’ve done it again. Star Trek into Darkness not only thrives on stunning action sequences but they are mixed with moments of pure emotional turmoil, you’d be mad to miss it!
The sequel, I feel, possesses a more complex plot line that its predecessor. This is because of the arrival of a new menacing, highly intelligent villain, John Harrison. He is portrayed by the outstanding Benedict Cumberbatch; who brings a sinister edge to an already troubled character.
The film begins shortly where the previous left off, with Kirk (Chris Pine) still holding the role of captain, with the forever loyal Spock (Zachary Quinto) as his first in command. We are thrown straight into the action, as we see the guys faced with the trickiest of missions. Spock, in an attempt to save a civilisation, is in the midst of a raging volcano and is about to set off a device that would freeze the molten lava to its core. The wire attaching him to the ship is long gone and they are unable to beam him back without emerging from the water and exposing themselves to the same race Spock is trying to save.
As Spock let’s go of all feeling, during what he believes are his last minutes of life, the gigantic vessel soars above the seas. Spock is saved. However, this comes at a price. Upon arrival, Kirk and Spock are summoned by Admiral Pike and after a heated debate about what Pike perceived, to be a horrendous decision of breaking the rules just to save Spock; the two are stripped of their authority.
As the crew lay dismembered, it proves the perfect time for the entrance of Harrison. He arrives with a bang, literally… after blowing up a Starfleet base in London. From then on, chaos ensues.
A fast-paced beauty with explosive combat, a twisting plot line whilst still retaining all the wit and humour from the previous. Star Trek into Darkness is the whole package.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 210
Page:   <<   < prev  4 5 6 [7] 8   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> NOW... SHALL WE BEGIN.....!!! Page: <<   < prev  4 5 6 [7] 8   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


 
Movie News  |  Empire Blog  |  Movie Reviews  |  Future Films  |  Features  |  Video Interviews  |  Image Gallery  |  Competitions  |  Forum  |  Magazine  |  Resources
 
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.281