# Star trek :  Into Darkness



## ruffneck23 (Apr 9, 2013)

couldn't see a thread and as its just over a month away I thought id start one:

but please merge if there is another.

Thoughts on how its shaping up so far ? Personsally I thought the reboot was excellent, watched it again the other day and it hasn't lost a thing.

I'm looking forward to it myself ( but I'm lucky to be going to an advance screening )

you?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 9, 2013)

Meh


----------



## Belushi (Apr 9, 2013)

Overall I enjoyed the reboot but it would have been much better with a decent bad guy.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Apr 9, 2013)

hence Benedict Cumberband in the sequel ?

I so reckon he's Khan...


----------



## maomao (Apr 9, 2013)

There's no colon in the title. It's 'Star Trek Into Darkness'


----------



## ruffneck23 (Apr 9, 2013)

that doesn't really express your views on the film or am I missing something ?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 9, 2013)

I haven't seen it yet so I don't really have any views on it. The last film was enjoyable enough (if a bit too simillar in places to the awful Star Trek: Nemesis) even though they cast a lump of wood as Kirk.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Apr 9, 2013)

I quite like the fact that Kirk is a bit wooden, its very much Shatner 

I do agree about the nemesis similarity tho, but I look at it more of an introduction movie, with a half way decent plot stuck on top


----------



## AverageJoe (Apr 9, 2013)

I enjoyed the reboot too.

Looking forward to seeing Cumberbatch as a baddie in this. BTW ruffneck23 - he's not Khan. He's based on a very old character indeed.

Benedict Cumberbatch as John Harrison.[4] His character is described as "one of [starfleet's] top agents".[5] Co-star Karl Urban had stated that Cumberbatch would be playing Gary Mitchell, a character from the original series episode "Where No Man Has Gone Before", but that is unconfirmed by the production team.[6]

Synopsis of that episode - 

Gary Mitchell is a Starfleet lieutenant commander and ship's navigator. He and James T. Kirk have been friends since he joined the service, and Kirk asked for Mitchell aboard his first command. At Starfleet Academy, he remembers "Lieutenant" Kirk as being "a stack of books with legs," and that "in his class, you either think or sink." Mitchell also "aimed a little blonde lab technician" at Kirk, who almost married her. Later, on the planet Dimorus, Mitchell almost died from a poisoned dart thrown by "rodent things" who were aiming for Kirk. In 2265 aboard the _Enterprise_, Mitchell is "zapped" by the Galactic Barrier, which turns his eyes glowing silver and grants him enhanced ESP powers. As he grows stronger, he becomes a danger to the ship and crew, so Kirk is forced to maroon him on the planet Delta Vega. Mitchell doesn't go quietly, however, and Kirk is forced to kill him on the planet's surface.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Apr 9, 2013)

I think / hope its mis-direction and the reveal will come right at the end or something


----------



## Stigmata (Apr 9, 2013)

He's John Harrison, the guy who invented the marine chronometer and solved the problem of longitude for sailing ships. He's a righteous badass.


----------



## Nine Bob Note (Apr 9, 2013)

Stigmata said:


> He's John Harrison, the guy who invented the marine chronometer and solved the problem of longitude for sailing ships. He's a righteous badass.


 
Can we expect Del and Rodney in Trek uniforms?


----------



## DexterTCN (Apr 10, 2013)

The reboot was good enough and referential enough for fans/trekkies and easily good enough to entice new (younger) fans.   They could have gone further and shown a much longer period of the academy...but never mind.   The interplay between the top 3 is what fans were looking at.

Abrams is running hot enough that Into Darkness should be better than his first foray, I'll go and see it - I didn't go and see the first one.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Apr 10, 2013)

The first one looked great but had no heart, felt very hollow despite some excellent casting (Bones and Spock were superb)...hopefully they'll be less of Simon Pegg in this one, he was a poor choice for Scotty...


----------



## Ax^ (Apr 10, 2013)

who would you suggest?


----------



## EastEnder (Apr 10, 2013)

ruffneck23 said:


> I do agree about the nemesis similarity tho, but I look at it more of an introduction movie, with a half way decent plot stuck on top


I loved the reboot, but mainly cos it was visually impressive, and cos it was about damn time ST made it back onto the big screen.

But plot wise, it was laughable. How does an ensign become captain of the flagship in the space of a few days, without bothering with all those trifling in-between ranks?? Not sure that ever really made sense. And why was Spock attempting to prevent a supernova by turning the star into a blackhole? As any halfwit knows, collapsing a star from the inside is pretty much _guaranteed_ to make it go nova! That's kind of exactly what actually happens during a supernova..... Brian Cox would not be amused.

And spaceships that get pulled into a blackhole tend to get squished smaller than a proton, they rarely emerge unscathed a few decades in the past. And if they were unable to resist the gravity whilst being pulled into the blackhole, how did they manage to escape it on the "other" side?

Still, it's Trek, therefore awesome. Can't wait for the sequel.


----------



## mwgdrwg (Apr 10, 2013)

Loved the first one, so can't wait to see this.


----------



## Reno (Apr 10, 2013)

Ax^ said:


> who would you suggest?


 
He's a Tribble out for revenge for having been made fun off in TOS. They have evolved to look human.


----------



## Bungle73 (Apr 10, 2013)

Just booked to see this in May in 3D at the BFI IMAX in London. It's one of only three cinemas in the UK that has a true IMAX 70mm film print!


----------



## ruffneck23 (Apr 10, 2013)

When is it actually out for general release ? is it the 26th or something ?

( I know I started the thread but im seeing it before  )


----------



## ruffneck23 (Apr 10, 2013)

Bungle73 said:


> Just booked to see this in May in 3D at the BFI IMAX in London. It's one of only three cinemas in the UK that has a true IMAX 70mm film print!


 
it was you wasn't it ? 

http://uk.movies.yahoo.com/star-trek-into-darkness-fans-crash-imax-site-160126305.html


----------



## Bungle73 (Apr 10, 2013)

ruffneck23 said:


> When is it actually out for general release ? is it the 26th or something ?
> 
> ( I know I started the thread but im seeing it before  )


9th of May.  You can see it at the IMAX at 1 minute past midnight if really want to be one of the first.


ruffneck23 said:


> it was you wasn't it ?
> 
> http://uk.movies.yahoo.com/star-trek-into-darkness-fans-crash-imax-site-160126305.html


Yes.


----------



## stuff_it (Apr 10, 2013)

ruffneck23 said:


> couldn't see a thread and as its just over a month away I thought id start one:
> 
> but please merge if there is another.
> 
> ...


Fuck you and your advance screening.  :jealous:

At least the pictures is dirt cheap in Brum, and for this I may actually have to drag my arse down the cinema.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Apr 10, 2013)

Be jealous not, I was lied to 

Its not an advanced screening but an exclusive screening on the 11th at the BFI Imax , but never mind im sure I'l be ok


----------



## stuff_it (Apr 10, 2013)

ruffneck23 said:


> Be jealous not, I was lied to
> 
> Its not an advanced screening but an exclusive screening on the 11th at the BFI Imax , but never mind im sure I'l be ok


There should be a green smiley for these occasions.


----------



## DexterTCN (Apr 10, 2013)

EastEnder said:


> ...But plot wise, it was laughable. How does an ensign become captain of the flagship in the space of a few days, without bothering with all those trifling in-between ranks?? Not sure that ever really made sense. And why was Spock attempting to prevent a supernova by turning the star into a blackhole? As any halfwit knows, collapsing a star from the inside is pretty much _guaranteed_ to make it go nova! That's kind of exactly what actually happens during a supernova..... Brian Cox would not be amused.....


 
ahem...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_matter#Red_matter


----------



## EastEnder (Apr 11, 2013)

DexterTCN said:


> ahem...
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_matter#Red_matter


OMG WTF! Red Matter _isn't_ real??!! 

When will the lies end....


----------



## EastEnder (Apr 11, 2013)

Best ST reboot scene:


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Apr 16, 2013)




----------



## DexterTCN (Apr 16, 2013)

EastEnder said:


> OMG WTF! Red Matter _isn't_ real??!!
> 
> When will the lies end....


It's real, we just haven't discovered it yet.   /nods wisely


----------



## ruffneck23 (Apr 16, 2013)

whats the release date then , it seems on the trailer the itsth 17th which opposes the 9th of may that Bungle 73 stated ?


----------



## Bungle73 (Apr 16, 2013)

ruffneck23 said:


> whats the release date then , it seems on the trailer the itsth 17th which opposes the 9th of may that Bungle 73 stated ?


9th of May, like I said: http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt1408101/?ref_=sr_2


----------



## ruffneck23 (Apr 16, 2013)

ah got it , itsthe 9th in the uk , 17th for the US 

oooh do i go spoil it on the US fanboy sites cos im nasty


----------



## ruffneck23 (Apr 16, 2013)

Bungle73 said:


> 9th of May, like I said: http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt1408101/?ref_=sr_2


http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt1408101/?ref_=sr_2

i do love your condescending manner


----------



## DexterTCN (Apr 16, 2013)

ruffneck23 said:


> i do love your condescending manner


Well you did call him a liar publicly


----------



## ruffneck23 (Apr 16, 2013)

i did'nt i wanted clarification, i just quoted what was said , saw a diffent date on the trailer and asked...


didnt think it was that big a deal to ask..?

I could have posted ' youre a liah bugel so there, all i did was check.

*shrugs'


----------



## DexterTCN (Apr 17, 2013)




----------



## zenie (Apr 17, 2013)

EastEnder said:


> I loved the reboot, but mainly cos it was visually impressive, and cos it was about damn time ST made it back onto the big screen.
> 
> But plot wise, it was laughable. How does an ensign become captain of the flagship in the space of a few days, without bothering with all those trifling in-between ranks?? Not sure that ever really made sense. And why was Spock attempting to prevent a supernova by turning the star into a blackhole? As any halfwit knows, collapsing a star from the inside is pretty much _guaranteed_ to make it go nova! That's kind of exactly what actually happens during a supernova..... Brian Cox would not be amused.
> 
> ...


 
Stop being logical 



Bungle73 said:


> Just booked to see this in May in 3D at the BFI IMAX in London. It's one of only three cinemas in the UK that has a true IMAX 70mm film print!


 
Does anyone else find the IMAX screen too big?  Maybe I need to try it again.

Looking forward to this, I was a right trekkie in my youth, though more TNG/DS9 than the original series...


----------



## EastEnder (Apr 17, 2013)

zenie said:


> Stop being logical


----------



## T & P (May 1, 2013)

Well well... The Guardian, not a newspaper usually prone to give high praise to Hollywood blockbusters, gives it 4 stars out of 5...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2013/may/01/star-trek-into-darkness

Looking forward to seeing it...


----------



## ruffneck23 (May 1, 2013)

Saw the final full trailer when I went to see iron man, its not often that I'm this up for a film ...


----------



## Remus Harbank (May 2, 2013)

I'll watch it if it's got Gates McFadden in it


----------



## Kanda (May 7, 2013)

Roll on Friday!!!!


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 7, 2013)

Remus Harbank said:


> I'll watch it if it's got Gates McFadden in it


 
Seems like a good reason not to watch it


----------



## EastEnder (May 8, 2013)

She must be about 90 by now...


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 9, 2013)

I've just got back from seeing it.   Was alright.  Struggled to stay awake (3D glasses), but picked up the second half.  Not something I'd rush to go and see again though at the cinema, but if it was on TV, I'd probably watch it again


----------



## Balbi (May 9, 2013)

Liked it, loved it. Works as a sequel, third chapter please.


----------



## chandlerp (May 10, 2013)

*


Spoiler



kaaaahhhhhhnn!!!!!


*


----------



## stuff_it (May 10, 2013)

chandlerp said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> *!!!!*




We haven't all seen it yet.


----------



## Reno (May 10, 2013)

Oh for fucks sake, I'm going to see this tonight. stuff_it can you get rid of your quote please, because that's what has spoilt it for me now. Cunts !


----------



## chandlerp (May 10, 2013)

sorry, thought it was common knowledge


----------



## Reno (May 10, 2013)

chandlerp said:


> sorry, thought it was common knowledge


 
No, it's supposed to the big plot twist for those of us who don't dig up every bit of hype on a film as not to ruin it. So far there only has been speculation.

Idiot !


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 10, 2013)

Reno said:


> No, it's supposed to the big plot twist for those of us who don't dig up every bit of hype on a film as not to ruin it. So far there only has been speculation.
> 
> Idiot !


 
I didn't give anything away.  I'm well pleased with myself.  I hate secrets and love spoilers


----------



## stuff_it (May 10, 2013)

chandlerp said:


> sorry, thought it was common knowledge


I've spent ages studiously avoiding all the hype so I can go to it fresh.


----------



## ruffneck23 (May 10, 2013)

same as, 28 hours to go...., luckily I didn't see what was in the spoiler tags *phew*


----------



## stuff_it (May 10, 2013)

ruffneck23 said:


> same as, 28 hours to go...., luckily I didn't see what was in the spoiler tags *phew*


*jealous*


----------



## Kanda (May 10, 2013)

3 hours to go


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 10, 2013)

Kanda said:


> 3 hours to go


 
3.00pm at the Ritzy?


----------



## Kanda (May 10, 2013)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> 3.00pm at the Ritzy?


 
IMAX


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 10, 2013)

I reckon there were about 30 people in the Ritzy yesterday when I went to see it.  I like an empty cinema   I've just been looking at seats for tonight, and it's a lot busier


----------



## stuff_it (May 10, 2013)

I may have to IMAX it when I get a chance. It's a tenner though, and I don't know if Cineworld accept non-NUS student ID so it could be more like £12.... 

e2a: Fucking cunts. NUS only.


----------



## Jim Pooley (May 10, 2013)

In Sweden today the main morning newspaper had a review, and the picture of Cumberbatch identified him as playing 



Spoiler



.Khan


 FFS


----------



## Badgers (May 10, 2013)

Fail


----------



## Balbi (May 10, 2013)

Can you all hurry up and see it, I am suffering fanboy overload here. So many decent bits, so, so spoileriffic.


----------



## Lord Camomile (May 10, 2013)

Reno said:


> No, it's supposed to the big plot twist for those of us who don't dig up every bit of hype on a film as not to ruin it. So far there only has been speculation.
> 
> Idiot !


Yup, I managed to avoid it so it plum got me. Not quite sure about how they executed it though





Jim Pooley said:


> In Sweden today the main morning newspaper had a review,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Might want to spoiler that a bit more as the way you've done it could still potentially give a big clue to the twist, for those what can put 2+2 together.


----------



## Balbi (May 10, 2013)

Lord Camomile, it was a bit fudgey.


----------



## stuff_it (May 10, 2013)

Balbi said:


> Can you all hurry up and see it, I am suffering fanboy overload here. So many decent bits, so, so spoileriffic.


Sorry, you're likely to have to keep it in spoiler tags for at least another four days.


----------



## Bungle73 (May 10, 2013)

There are very few "proper" IMAX screens in the UK (the BFI being one of those).  Unfortunately they've been diluting the brand by allowing the name to be used be all and sundry.

http://blogs.laweekly.com/arts/2012/07/dark_knight_rises_imax.php

http://www.avforums.com/forums/movies-cinema/1642174-imax-cinema.html


----------



## Kanda (May 10, 2013)

I'm off to the BFI, Waterloo


----------



## Bungle73 (May 10, 2013)

Kanda said:


> I'm off to the BFI, Waterloo


I'm booked for the week after next (I'm away next week).


----------



## Lord Camomile (May 10, 2013)

Balbi said:


> Can you all hurry up and see it, I am suffering fanboy overload here. So many decent bits, so, so spoileriffic.





stuff_it said:


> Sorry, you're likely to have to keep it in spoiler tags for at least another four days.


Spoiler thread? Has precedent, but don't know if it annoys people/the mods*.



*not suggest the mods aren't people, of course, just, y'know... ah balls


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (May 10, 2013)

Bungle73 said:


> There are very few "proper" IMAX screens in the UK (the BFI being one of those). Unfortunately they've been diluting the brand by allowing the name to be used be all and sundry.


 
IMAX have really annoyed the theaters that bought in early at high prices.  They took a chance on the format for the promised option of being the only one for a certain number of miles and they got hosed.


----------



## Balbi (May 10, 2013)

stuff_it said:


> Sorry, you're likely to have to keep it in spoiler tags for at least another four days.


 
Only one reaction shot needed


----------



## Reno (May 10, 2013)

Can you stupid fucks start a spoiler thread then if you absolutely can't resist ruining the film for others. And yes, that picture gives it away.


----------



## Balbi (May 10, 2013)

No spoilers there guv, just frustrated fury at stuff_it


----------



## Bungle73 (May 10, 2013)

The BFI is also using a true IMAX 70mm film print, one of only 3 UK cinemas that are doing so!


----------



## stuff_it (May 10, 2013)

Bungle73 said:


> The BFI is also using a true IMAX 70mm film print, one of only 3 UK cinemas that are doing so!


I can't afford to get to any of those theatres, let alone get in.


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (May 10, 2013)

stuff_it said:


> I can't afford to get to any of those theatres, let alone get in.


 
They've all priced me out. The regular theater just discontinued their lower-priced matinee screenings so I'm out. I'll have to wait for it to hit Red Box.


----------



## stuff_it (May 10, 2013)

Yuwipi Woman said:


> They've all priced me out. The regular theater just discontinued their lower-priced matinee screenings so I'm out. I'll have to wait for it to hit Red Box.


I would probably have stumped up the extra £4 if the IMAX here in Brum was ok but looks like it's not worth it.


----------



## Kuso (May 10, 2013)

supposed to be going to see this and iron man 3 on sunday but I can't really wait that long tbh.  I'm thinking if I get finished up in the lab early enough today I might sneak off and see it on my own.  and then not let on on Sunday...


----------



## Lord Camomile (May 10, 2013)

Kuso said:


> supposed to be going to see this and iron man 3 on sunday but I can't really wait that long tbh. I'm thinking if I get finished up in the lab early enough today I might sneak off and see it on my own. and then not let on on Sunday...


Did that double bill last night  I think Iron Man 3 suffered a little bit by going second, just because it's not on the same scale as Star Trek.


----------



## sim667 (May 10, 2013)

I'm trying to decide whether to go to a late night viewing tonight. I hate busy cinemas but it only came out yesterday so I imagine it will be packed


----------



## Kuso (May 10, 2013)

Lord Camomile said:


> Did that double bill last night  I think Iron Man 3 suffered a little bit by going second, just because it's not on the same scale as Star Trek.


 
see, another reason why I wouldn't mind seeing star trek on its own.  didn't know which order to do them in and I think whichever comes second might suffer a bit due to the fact that they're both 2hours n a bit long plus whatever time in between n that


----------



## DexterTCN (May 10, 2013)

Do you think the spoiler will be common news next week?  I'd like to see this without knowing.


----------



## Tankus (May 10, 2013)

Off on the next orange wednesday .....next week ....quite looking forward to it now ....Iron mans for a DVD .... methinks


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (May 10, 2013)

DexterTCN said:


> Do you think the spoiler will be common news next week? I'd like to see this without knowing.


 
Among Trekkies, yes, it will be. I'd rather have not known that there was a big spoiler, but hey-ho.


----------



## stuff_it (May 10, 2013)

Want to go tonight but I can't as I've got wimmens problems (cystitis). Serves me right for kaining it last weekend.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 10, 2013)

stuff_it said:


> Want to go tonight but I can't as I've got wimmens problems (cystitis). Serves me right for kaining it last weekend.


 
Get an aisle seat


----------



## stuff_it (May 10, 2013)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Get an aisle seat


But I'll miss loads.


----------



## Balbi (May 10, 2013)

There's no filler 'Kirk gets chased by cgi snow monsters' in this one either. That bit really bugs me in the first one.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 10, 2013)

stuff_it said:


> But I'll miss loads.


 
Good point.    Wear a nappy


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 10, 2013)

Balbi said:


> There's no filler 'Kirk gets chased by cgi snow monsters' in this one either. That bit really bugs me in the first one.


 
Stop spoiling it for people.  

I was going to say Kirk makes an appearance to annoy those that hate Kirk


----------



## Balbi (May 10, 2013)

I bet it's got that pointy eared guy in too


----------



## stuff_it (May 10, 2013)

Balbi said:


> I bet it's got that pointy eared guy in too


Spoilers! 

Does anyone have a red shirt?


----------



## Balbi (May 10, 2013)

There's fucking spaceships in it


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 10, 2013)

Balbi said:


> I bet it's got that pointy eared guy in too


 
and that Uhura getting off with Scotty.  I was a bit shocked by that to tell you the truth


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 10, 2013)

I'm going to see Iron Man next week.  I hope it's better and there's more giggles.


----------



## RedDragon (May 10, 2013)

*underwhelmed*


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 10, 2013)

RedDragon said:


> *underwhelmed*


 
Same as


----------



## EastEnder (May 10, 2013)

Is it available via torrent yet?


----------



## stuff_it (May 10, 2013)

EastEnder said:


> Is it available via torrent yet?


TBH with these special effects type films it's normally worth waiting for better than a cam job.


----------



## EastEnder (May 10, 2013)

stuff_it said:


> TBH with these special effects type films it's normally worth waiting for better than a cam job.


But I like seeing someone in the front row get up to go to the loo, it makes for that authentic "cinema" feel.


----------



## Reno (May 11, 2013)

Saw it tonight and I'm joining the underwhelmed. I'm more of a Trek than a superhero fan and was hugely looking forward to this but I thought Iron Man 3 was actually more fun. It's not that the film is bad, but it's just nowhere near as good as the last film and a comparatively simple adventure romp. I think that the fact that it is tied in so closely with 



Spoiler



The Wrath of Khan ultimately hurts the film because it comes nowhere near. That's especially the case when it replays the most moving scene in all of Star Trek with the roles reversed, to much lesser effect.


Last time I was still on the fence about Pegg but he seriously got on my tits here in a greatly expanded role. The Cumberbatch was great though.


----------



## Firky (May 11, 2013)

Oh 

I was really looking forward to it too. Not a massive fan of Star Trek films but I really enjoyed the last one, far more than I ever expected to and had high hopes for this one. I liked Cumberbath as Peter in Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy.


----------



## Bungle73 (May 11, 2013)

Firky said:


> Oh
> 
> I was really looking forward to it too. Not a massive fan of Star Trek films but I really enjoyed the last one, far more than I ever expected to and had high hopes for this one. I liked Cumberbath as Peter in Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy.


It's been getting great reviews, and it got 4 out of 5 stars in The Times today; Kate Muir loved it.


----------



## Firky (May 11, 2013)

Bungle73 said:


> It's been getting great reviews, and it got 4 out of 5 stars in The Times today; Kate Muir loved it.


 
I will still watch but three underwhelmed in a row doesn't fill me with confidence. Having said that, I really like Cabin in the Woods and IIRC that got slated here.


----------



## Bungle73 (May 11, 2013)

Firky said:


> I will still watch but three underwhelmed in a row doesn't fill me with confidence. Having said that, I really like Cabin in the Woods and IIRC that got slated here.


I'll watch it whatever because it's Trek. There's been very few which I didn't like.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 11, 2013)

I would probably be more excited about this if the trailers hadn't already shown us everything that happens.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 11, 2013)

Balbi said:


> There's fucking spaceships in it


 
Spaceships fucking? Sounds more like Iain M Banks than Star Trek tbh


----------



## Reno (May 11, 2013)

Firky said:


> I will still watch but three underwhelmed in a row doesn't fill me with confidence. Having said that, I really like Cabin in the Woods and IIRC that got slated here.


 
I loved The Cabin in the Woods.

As to Star Trek, maybe my expectations just were too high after the last film. Or maybe this incarnation of the Star Trek films reverse the trend of the uneven numbered entries of the TOS movies.


----------



## Lord Camomile (May 11, 2013)

One of my overriding thoughts during and after was: "I want Cumberbatch's leather hoody-coat thing". No doubt there'll be some hyper-pricey replica made, but I'm sure I can just gaffa one of my hoodys onto my leather coat, it'll look just the same.


----------



## zenie (May 11, 2013)

I enjoyed it more than the first one. Scottie and Chekov's accents aren't great though.

Loves the Uhura/Spock scenes


----------



## Reno (May 11, 2013)

zenie said:


> I enjoyed it more than the first one. Scottie and Chekov's accents aren't great though.


 
Anton Yelchin who plays Chekov is Russian and can do an authentic Russian accent if he has to. Here he is aiming more for the accent Walter Koenig did in TOS and he is pretty good in getting the balance right. I really like him in the role and thought it was a shame that in this film the "lesser" crew member weren't given much to do. Pegg tries something similar, but unlike Yelchin just ends up sounding like a pub impression. Not sure why they think he is a fan favourite, they should have given Pegg's tasks here to one of the other second bananas.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (May 11, 2013)

Reno said:


> Not sure why they think he is a fan favourite, they should have given Pegg's tasks here to one of the other second bananas.


 
They should have cast Robert Carlyle as Scottie. He doesn't exactly fit the age profile of the rest of the cast, but a chief engineer should be a bit older than the rest, dammit.


----------



## Balbi (May 11, 2013)

I was dead worried about Chekov, when they asked him to put on a red shirt


----------



## zenie (May 11, 2013)

Reno said:


> Anton Yelchin who plays Chekov is Russian and can do an authentic Russian accent if he has to. Here he is aiming more for the accent Walter Koenig did in TOS and he is pretty good in getting the balance right. I really like him in the role and thought it was a shame that in this film the "lesser" crew member weren't given much to do. Pegg tries something similar, but unlike Yelchin just ends up sounding like a pub impression. Not sure why they think he is a fan favourite, they should have given Pegg's tasks here to one of the other second bananas.



It sounds shit  but kind of comedy too....



TheHoodedClaw said:


> They should have cast Robert Carlyle as Scottie. He doesn't exactly fit the age profile of the rest of the cast, but a chief engineer should be a bit older than the rest, dammit.



That would have been brilliant


----------



## Balbi (May 11, 2013)

Already done Begbie in SPAAAAACCCEE though.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (May 11, 2013)

Bungle73 said:


> The BFI is also using a true IMAX 70mm film print, one of only 3 UK cinemas that are doing so!


 
You've mentioned bfi being one of only 3 UK cinemas to do true 70mm imax three times in this thread.

Matt Damon?


----------



## Kanda (May 11, 2013)

SpookyFrank said:


> I would probably be more excited about this if the trailers hadn't already shown us everything that happens.


 
They haven't though...


----------



## DotCommunist (May 11, 2013)

Balbi said:


> Already done Begbie in SPAAAAACCCEE though.


 

cruelly cancelled before we could get the winning line 'Some cunt built this ship and nae cunt gets off till we find out which cunt did it'


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (May 11, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> cruelly cancelled before we could get the winning line 'Some cunt built this ship and nae cunt gets off till we find out which cunt did it'


 

That's the scene that exists only in my (and it seems your) head.


----------



## ruffneck23 (May 11, 2013)

just got back from the bfi imax at waterloo and post film drinks, personally I loved it, there were some really nice little nods to the old days ! want to see it again soon


----------



## Reno (May 12, 2013)

ruffneck23 said:


> just got back from the bfi imax at waterloo and post film drinks, personally I loved it, there were some really nice little nods to the old days ! want to see it again soon


 
Nice little nods ? It piggybacked entirely on an earlier (and I'd say far better) Star Trek installment.


----------



## ruffneck23 (May 12, 2013)

Have to disagree with you , it mirrored that other film , don't get me wrong it was a classic, but Into darkness IMO is better


----------



## Reno (May 12, 2013)

ruffneck23 said:


> Have to disagree with you , it mirrored that other film , don't get me wrong it was a classic, but Into darkness IMO is better


 
Why don't we have a :jaw drops on floor: smiley ? 

It still is a classic, that's what makes classics, they last.


----------



## ruffneck23 (May 12, 2013)

Don't be so dramatic and pick your jaw off the floor, we just have different opinions, and that's wicked , jus what the internets is all about  seeing some other of your posts over the years we have had different views on many different films, doesn't mean I don't respect what you have to say. horses for courses innit


----------



## Reno (May 12, 2013)

No, I need to do a bit more sulking over that one.


----------



## ruffneck23 (May 12, 2013)

oh and totally called it in 



Spoiler



post #4




would put it in spoiler tags but need to go back and put it in spoilers tags if it will let me


----------



## Reno (May 12, 2013)

ruffneck23 said:


> oh and totally called it in post SPOILER
> 
> would put it in spoiler tags but need to go back and put it in spoilers tags if it will let me


 
That was a speculation. This is a spoiler.


----------



## ChrisFilter (May 12, 2013)

Saw it today. Loved the first Abrams one. This was boring, monotonous drivel. Even during the good bits I wanted to check my phone. 

I know it's deliberately and knowingly camp, but this wasn't even cute. Just really, really bad cinema. 

Avoid.


----------



## ruffneck23 (May 12, 2013)

and it wont sorry  , but Reno for you im going to watch the other tomorrow, then I can properly grade it


----------



## ruffneck23 (May 12, 2013)

ChrisFilter said:


> Saw it today. Loved the first Abrams one. This was boring, monotonous drivel. Even during the good bits I wanted to check my phone.
> 
> I know it's deliberately and knowingly camp, but this wasn't even cute. Just really, really bad cinema.
> 
> Avoid.


 
if you want cute,  stick to ewoks and jar jar and wait for the new star wars


----------



## ChrisFilter (May 12, 2013)

Cute was the wrong word. Knowing, perhaps. 

It was just shit.


----------



## ruffneck23 (May 12, 2013)

gutted you didn't enjoy it chris , no scarcasm included 

as I said horses for courses



Spoiler



and tell me you didn't enjoy the klingons or tribbles ?


----------



## Reno (May 12, 2013)

It was just too simple for me. The best Star Trek films have complex plots where several plot lines go on at once. For me it was too straightforward, just another special effects heavy sci-fi action film which mined something that had already been explored to perfection and it didn't really expand on it. 



Spoiler



It just reversed the roles of Kirk and Spock and for me that wasn't nearly as clever as the film seemed to think it was. It eventually morphed into a remake and just went over old territory. Unlike with Spock's death in Wrath of Khan, when Kirk dies here I felt nothing, because the film was so obviously just trying to be clever. I wished it had been Gary Mitchell and Elizabeth Dehner as I initially thought, due to Cumberbatch's total lack of resemblance to Khan and Alice Eve's identical hairstyle to Dehner's.


Maybe it's great if all you want from a film like this is lot's of action and special effects but for me it just wasn't Star Trek.


----------



## CNT36 (May 12, 2013)

Spoiler



Apart from the obvious I think in someways this was more Space Seed with a budget than Wrath of Khan. He was going to kill Kirk because he was in the way. There was a bit of a vendetta against Marcus but that has as much to do with getting hold of his ship. This wasn't the personal vendetta against Kirk which is so central to Wrath of Khan it was Khan being a bit bad and Kirk getting in the way.


----------



## ChrisFilter (May 12, 2013)

I enjoyed Oblivion a lot more. At least it was really stylish and had a real sense of place, despite being another cheese-fest.


----------



## Lord Camomile (May 12, 2013)

Reno said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> It just reversed the roles of Kirk and Spock and for me that wasn't nearly as clever as the film seemed to think it was. It eventually morphed into a remake and just went over old territory. Unlike with Spock's death in Wrath of Khan, when Kirk dies here I felt nothing, because the film was so obviously just trying to be clever. I wished it had been Gary Mitchell and Elizabeth Dehner as I initially thought, due to Cumberbatch's total lack of resemblance to Khan and Alice Eve's identical hairstyle to Dehner's.





Spoiler



For me it didn't work because it was obvious they're not going to let Kirk die, so it had little to no meaning whatsoever (which was further compounded by him being revived by Khan's magic blood - lazy, lazy, lazy). It was also completely undermined because you were thinking "oh, I see, it's like Wrath of Khan but reversed" rather than caring at all about what was actually going on on screen.


----------



## Bungle73 (May 12, 2013)

Hmm, just read the review in the Sunday Times and  he was pretty down on it.


----------



## 19sixtysix (May 12, 2013)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> They should have cast Robert Carlyle as Scottie. He doesn't exactly fit the age profile of the rest of the cast, but a chief engineer should be a bit older than the rest, dammit.


 
It's sort of been done 



Spoiler


----------



## mentalchik (May 13, 2013)

Well i loved it........think you guys worry too much about the smallest details


----------



## Reno (May 13, 2013)

mentalchik said:


> Well i loved it........think you guys worry too much about the smallest details


 
I worried about the film as a whole. I thought it was a bit boring really.


----------



## fractionMan (May 13, 2013)

I enjoyed it so much I've downloaded the original second movie and watched that as well.


----------



## Remus Harbank (May 13, 2013)

To quote the Guardian’s TV Guide from last Saturday – "He [Abrams] just made it really, really good, rescuing Star Trek from sweaty convention halls, making its niche universe universal." That's exactly the issue: It's the sweaty convention halls and the fans that had made Star Trek, and it was always supposed to appeal to a (large) niche, never to every John Doe down the Cineplexx.

 The ST ‘relaunch’ is creatively lame, and has none of the camp and brains the original series, TNG, DS9, and VOY (excluding the unfortunate ‘Enterprise‘) had. I’d argue that ST died with Roddenberry and should be left alone.


----------



## Lord Camomile (May 13, 2013)

Just noticed this on the Cineworld website:







It's not actually very 'Trekky'. No uniforms, nothing to suggest it has anything to do with space - looks more like an action-thriller than sci-fi.


----------



## ruffneck23 (May 13, 2013)

it may not seem like trek until :



Spoiler



tribbles, klingons, section 31, the prime directive , and dont worry youl see lots of uniforms


----------



## tendril (May 13, 2013)

stuff_it said:


> Want to go tonight but I can't as I've got wimmens problems (cystitis). Serves me right for kaining it last weekend.


cystitis is not purely a female problem. men can get it too (my dad was prone)


----------



## tendril (May 13, 2013)

Reno said:


> Why don't we have a :jaw drops on floor: smiley ?
> 
> It still is a classic, that's what makes classics, they last.


----------



## Lord Camomile (May 13, 2013)

ruffneck23 said:


> it may not seem like trek until :
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oh I've seen it, so I know it does get trekky, it was just interesting that that's not how the poster is presenting it.


----------



## CNT36 (May 13, 2013)

Lord Camomile said:


> Oh I've seen it, so I know it does get trekky, it was just interesting that that's not how the poster is presenting it.


 A bit like Iron Man 3 it was quite different to what I was expecting from the publicity.


----------



## ChrisFilter (May 13, 2013)

mentalchik said:


> Well i loved it........think you guys worry too much about the smallest details



I've never watched any Star Trek other than the first Abrams film, so not fussed about details, just thought it was really boring. Chris Pine is impossible to feel anything for because he's so generic.


----------



## ruffneck23 (May 13, 2013)

yeah , but imo thats the beauty, William Shatner was just as wooden and generic


----------



## mentalchik (May 13, 2013)

ChrisFilter said:


> I've never watched any Star Trek other than the first Abrams film, so not fussed about details, just thought it was really boring. Chris Pine is impossible to feel anything for because he's so generic.


 
Maybe it works better then for the longtime fans ???


----------



## Reno (May 13, 2013)

ruffneck23 said:


> yeah , but imo thats the beauty, William Shatner was just as wooden and generic


 
The last thing you can accuse Shatner of is to be wooden. He is quite the opposite, an actor who has a tendency to wildly overact.

Pine is a pretty good actor and does an excellent job at channelling Shatner's Kirk, while dialling down the theatrics. I don't blame the actors for that scene not working, it just wasn't very well conceived.


----------



## ruffneck23 (May 13, 2013)

ok , I can see what youre saying about wildly over reacting, yet imo thats all he does = wooden


----------



## redsquirrel (May 13, 2013)

ruffneck23 said:


> yeah , but imo thats the beauty, William Shatner was just as wooden and generic


What absolute rubbish. Shatner may be many things but he's neither wooden nor generic.


----------



## ruffneck23 (May 13, 2013)

but admittedly i did do too much acid in the 90's


----------



## ruffneck23 (May 13, 2013)

redsquirrel said:


> What absolute rubbish. Shatner may be many things but he's neither wooden nor generic.


 
in your opinon


----------



## redsquirrel (May 13, 2013)

No. It's precisely because Shatner's acting isn't generic that there are, and can be, loads of jokes/impressions about it. If his acting was simply generic then those jokes wouldn't work.


----------



## Reno (May 13, 2013)

ruffneck23 said:


> ok , I can see what youre saying about wildly over reacting, yet imo thats all he does = wooden


 
You don't seem to understand what "wooden" means when describing a performance and you are doing that "I'm going to re-phrase that slightly which makes me right" thing which never works.


----------



## ruffneck23 (May 13, 2013)

Exactly, sorry man youre totally right, my bad


----------



## stuff_it (May 13, 2013)

ruffneck23 said:


> but admittedly i did do too much acid in the 90's


This is Urban, I think quite a few of us may have done that.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (May 13, 2013)

ruffneck23 said:


> but admittedly i did do too much acid in the 90's


 
Too much LDS, surely?

/bonus points for the reference?


----------



## krtek a houby (May 14, 2013)

Enjoyed it immensely. Even Mrs krtek (not a fan) now wants to watch relevant earlier instalments


----------



## Graymalkin (May 14, 2013)

I don't even really consider myself a trekky though that label might have applied earlier in my life.  I hope I can explain why some fans of star trek have problems with these new movies.  I haven't seen ITD yet but from what I've read my worst fears have been realized.

I sometimes refer to Star trek 2009 as a hipster version of Star trek.  It has the superficial resemblance of star trek and makes plenty of references to the original series and movies but it also makes a lot of glaring and really unnecessary oversights that show that Abrahms either didn't bother to investigate the details of the star trek universe or doesn't care. 

For example:
- star ships are supposed to have an even number of warp nacelles, the Kelvin had one and one of the cadet fleet ships had three
- Starships re built in orbit around mars not on earth. This really shouldn't be hard to grasp since the ships are meant to operate in the vacuum of space, I also notice that the enterprise spends part of ITD while on assignment submerged under water which just further stretches this problem.
-Uhura orders a cardassian drink even though the federation won't encounter them for at least another century
-Starships only have one warp core operational at a time and might have a second one in reserve (voyager) not six!  And if you dump the core you can no longer sustain warp speeds, fuck!
there are other problems but that should suffice to make my point

None of these oversights were necessary, dramatic effect could easily have been achieve another way.  This is something that needs to be understood about trek fans, details matter.  This is not to say that the previous series' were entirely consistent but there was a fairly established set of principles that underpinned the ST universe.  Abrahms has thrown that out in favour of a few gimmicky references.

Now, these problems could be forgiven if ST2009 had been a proper reboot, like Battlestar Galactica.  New universe, new rules, new history etc. and all of this could be forgiven and everyone could enjoy (or not) the new movies on their own terms.  But Abrahms didn't do that, instead he insisted upon using a rather silly time travel plot in order place the new movies firmly within the existing universe.  And then proceeds to genocide the Vulcans.  Now as I understand it this was done as a way to burn the bridge behind them to force a new set of stories upon the characters.  This is where I held out hope, in spite of everything above there was the chance for something new and creative, maybe explore the politics of the federation crumbling in the face of such a calamity and the darker side of interstellar empire.  Just how ruthless are the Klingons or Romulans when war comes their way?  But no, if the spoilers are correct it looks like we're going to rehash the same stories with more pointless eye candy and lens flare. 

So what's the point then?  Why couldn't he just leave the original continuity alone?  That's what frustrates me and I think a lot of other fans. 

JJ is now also in control of star wars.  Try to imagine a similar plot being used in that universe and ask yourself if you'd enjoy it.  Clone emperor Palpatine III travels back in time in a super duper star destroyer (with lots of pointless but really menacing portrusions) and blows up mon calamari before Akbar can be born, or something.


----------



## T & P (May 14, 2013)

Frankly, if Abrams (or anyone else) filmed himself taking a shit on a Lego Death Star and released it as the new Star Wars film, it would still be an improvement on Lucas's prequels.

I understand your frustration as a proper trekkie. As someone who likes ST but is not a purist, I thougth Abrams's reboot was highly enjoyable and a welcome breath of fresh air on a dying franchise. Let's be honest, most of the previous St motion pictures range from mediocre to truly rank, Wrath of Khan excluded of course.


----------



## Reno (May 14, 2013)

I'm not enough of a geek to get annoyed by the minutiae warp core function. Something I did think though when I watched the last film is that JJ Abrams has more of a Star Wars sensibility than a Star Trek one and he said so himself. This film often felt more SW than ST to me. Which is probably good news for Star Wars.


----------



## CNT36 (May 14, 2013)

Graymalkin said:


> I don't even really consider myself a trekky though that label might have applied earlier in my life.  I hope I can explain why some fans of star trek have problems with these new movies.  I haven't seen ITD yet but from what I've read my worst fears have been realized.
> 
> I sometimes refer to Star trek 2009 as a hipster version of Star trek.  It has the superficial resemblance of star trek and makes plenty of references to the original series and movies but it also makes a lot of glaring and really unnecessary oversights that show that Abrahms either didn't bother to investigate the details of the star trek universe or doesn't care.
> 
> ...


If you can find any canon reference to the date of first contact with the Cardassians I'd be surprised. The war was ongoing during the first few seasons of the next generation but first contact could of been much earlier. The intendent (mirror universe Kira) revealed to Bashir that the Terran empire included Bajor before its fall in the twenty third century. Its conceivable that the Federation had also made contact with the Bajorans and their neighbours at this time. Starships have been seen with an odd number of nacelles before including a future version of the Enterprise D in All good things.


----------



## Graymalkin (May 15, 2013)

A long list of inconsistencies
Not all of which are inconsistencies in the strictest sense....http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/inconsistencies/inconsistencies-trekxi.htm

I know you all don't care and I don't _really_ care about the inconsistencies either.  That's what I said, they would be forgivable if something interesting is done with the franchise but I don't see that happening.  I can entirely understand why the new movies areenjoyable but as Reno said, it is a Star wars type plot and that sort of plot works for a glitzy block buster but ST was always based around the TV series' and I don't really see the style of these new movies working that way.


----------



## Meh O'Naise (May 15, 2013)

stuff_it said:


> I may have to IMAX it when I get a chance. It's a tenner though, and I don't know if Cineworld accept non-NUS student ID so it could be more like £12....
> 
> e2a: Fucking cunts. NUS only.


 
The Birmingham Cineworld IMAX isn't real IMAX - Its' a conversion of screen 6. Which was big, but not real IMAX ; its whats referred to derogatorily in the trade as "fakeMAX". They've just slapped on the IMAX logo, put a slightly bigger screen in, and paid IMAX a shedton of cash for the rights to use the name . Me, personally, I've been inside Screen 6 after it's been IMAX'd and looked at it and decided never to see a film there. Screen size isn't proper IMAX. The BFI might get a 70mm print for their IMAX, but not B'ham.

Only reason Millenium point decided not to continue to use the IMAX name was cost. Birmingham mail reported that when it opened, they paid IMAX £1million - ie £100,000 a year, or about two grand a week - to use the brand for a decade and be IMAX certifed. (At 10 quid a head, thats 200 people a week alone just to pay for that brand name).

At the end of the 10 years , the owners looked at the books and discovered they had lost money for 8 out of the last 10 years ; the only two where they had even barely broke even was 2008-2009, with the screenings of Avatar. So they decided to refit, and relaunch as giantscreen cinema. Though not IMAX branded, its comparable to - if not better - than it was as the IMAX, due to better projectors.

I've seen it 2D already - If I do plan on going to a 3D screening in Brum, it'd be there.Should be cheaper than cineworld too. If you haven't already gone, that is.

*switches Film geek mode off*


E2A: I've possibly repeated what others have said, looking at discussion of screen sizes etc. etc.


----------



## golightly (May 15, 2013)

Graymalkin said:


> Now, these problems could be forgiven if ST2009 had been a proper reboot, like Battlestar Galactica. New universe, new rules, new history etc. and all of this could be forgiven and everyone could enjoy (or not) the new movies on their own terms. But Abrahms didn't do that, instead he insisted upon using a rather silly time travel plot in order place the new movies firmly within the existing universe.


 
I saw this yesterday and knew virtually nothing about the plot so I had few expectations but... 



Spoiler



When Benedict Cumberbatch was revealed to be Khan I wasn't surprised but I did feel that he was mis-cast. All of the characters are reasonable analogues of the originals (apart from Pegg), but Camberbatch is nothing like Khan. A decent villain, but not Khan.


----------



## Remus Harbank (May 15, 2013)

Can't wait til Abrams remakes/hashes Star Trek IV, only this time the crew land in hipster San Francisco anno 2016 and eat ironic food and instead of humpback whales save Grumpy Cat from extinction.


----------



## Crispy (May 15, 2013)

golightly said:


> I saw this yesterday and knew virtually nothing about the plot so I had few expectations. When sopiler....


 
I lready knew, but spoiler that maybe?


----------



## golightly (May 15, 2013)

Crispy said:


> I lready knew, but spoiler that maybe?


 
indeed.


----------



## Reno (May 15, 2013)

I quite like this review in Salon:

http://www.salon.com/2013/05/15/star_trek_into_darkness_who_made_j_j_abrams_the_sci_fi_god/


----------



## Tankus (May 15, 2013)

ChrisFilter said:


> I enjoyed Oblivion a lot more. At least it was really stylish and had a real sense of place, despite being another cheese-fest.


Just seen the 3d one.......I thought that oblivion was better too...I think it may have been the long panning shots from a distance.......less is more ........trek felt a bit crammed

Quite surprised how old the audience was too..........not the usual bunch of orange Wednesdayers


----------



## DexterTCN (May 15, 2013)

My daughter's taking me to see this for my birthday, is it worth seeing in 3D?


----------



## Meh O'Naise (May 15, 2013)

Tankus said:


> Just seen the 3d one.......I thought that oblivion was better too...I think it may have been the long panning shots from a distance.......less is more ........trek felt a bit crammed


 
I felt the same > Oblivion reminded me - in a  good way - of something that was closer to pure sci-fi than space opera.

Into Darkness had a entire alternate timeline of possibilities and goes back to recycling existing  iconic villains and entire storylines - nay, whole scenes - from other trek movies and episodes. (Insurrection, Undiscovered Country, Wrath Of Khan) into a patchwork style "Greatest Hits of Star Trek" . Felt very reductive and unambitious to me.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 15, 2013)

Reno said:


> I'm not enough of a geek to get annoyed by the minutiae warp core function. Something I did think though when I watched the last film is that JJ Abrams has more of a Star Wars sensibility than a Star Trek one and he said so himself. This film often felt more SW than ST to me. Which is probably good news for Star Wars.


Yes, that was my problem with his 2009 film (not seen the new one yet), it was basically just an action film set in the ST universe. I don't think he captured the sci-fi/drama aspects that were present in the series.

That Salon review is pretty much spot on IMO.


----------



## Tankus (May 16, 2013)

DexterTCN said:


> My daughter's taking me to see this for my birthday, is it worth seeing in 3D?


Didn't really notice it after a while........so possibly not


----------



## Kanda (May 16, 2013)

IMAX 3D was pretty good I thought


----------



## spacemonkey (May 16, 2013)

I just came back from watching it on IMAX 3D. Just in terms of the visuals I thought the wide shots/shots of space were amazing. But I hate the close up dialogue in 3d, their faces are so huge and 'in _your_ face' that I couldn't concentrate on what they were saying. 

Quite enjoyed the film - 6/10.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (May 16, 2013)

I enjoyed that, but then I do like dumb action flicks. On the positive side, I really like the regular crew cast (particularly Quinto's Spock - he's clearly different to the original one due to losing Vulcan, and better for it imo), and Cumberbatch was immense in all his scenes. On the negative, well, there's a few gaping plot holes surrounding things like communications and 



Spoiler



how many phaser shots it takes to take Cumberbatch's character down


, but meh, who cares.

7/10


----------



## DexterTCN (May 17, 2013)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> I enjoyed that, but then I do like dumb action flicks. On the positive side, I really like the regular crew cast (particularly Quinto's Spock - he's clearly different to the original one due to losing Vulcan, and better for it imo), and Cumberbatch was immense in all his scenes. On the negative, well, there's a few gaping plot holes surrounding things like communications and....... but meh, who cares.
> 
> 7/10


spoiler


----------



## Meh O'Naise (May 17, 2013)

Only spoilers in there is for a film that came out over four years ago, and available on every high street for peanuts. Hardly spoilers then.


----------



## DexterTCN (May 17, 2013)

Meh O'Naise said:


> Only spoilers in there is for a film that came out over four years ago, and available on every high street for peanuts. Hardly spoilers then.


We still have a spoiler convention.

I doubt you had it 4 years ago.


----------



## Meh O'Naise (May 17, 2013)

DexterTCN said:


> We still have a spoiler convention.
> 
> I doubt you had it 4 years ago.


 
The spoiler I was referring to "losing vulcan" . Came out in the UK on 8 May 2009 - four years ago. Hence what I said was accurate.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (May 17, 2013)

DexterTCN said:


> spoiler


 
What spoiler? That Vulcan got destroyed in the first reboot movie that came out four years ago? C'mon.


----------



## DexterTCN (May 17, 2013)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> What spoiler? That Vulcan got destroyed in the first reboot movie that came out four years ago? C'mon.


How about reading meh's post that I quoted...but look at the bit I missed out and replaced with '....' ?


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (May 17, 2013)

DexterTCN said:


> How about reading meh's post that I quoted...but look at the bit I missed out and replaced with '....' ?


 
Ah, see what you mean. Will edit.


----------



## DexterTCN (May 17, 2013)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Ah, see what you mean. Will edit.


Oh...it was you?

lol


----------



## DexterTCN (May 17, 2013)

Meh O'Naise said:


> The spoiler I was referring to "losing vulcan" . Came out in the UK on 8 May 2009 - four years ago. Hence what I said was accurate.


Accurate apart from the spoiler about the new film, that is.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (May 17, 2013)

DexterTCN said:


> Oh...it was you?
> 
> lol


 
I don't think any of us has covered ourselves in glory here


----------



## DexterTCN (May 18, 2013)

Right...off to see this in an hour....my daughter's taking me to see it for my birthday.

Although I get the feeling I'm just getting to tag along.


----------



## DexterTCN (May 18, 2013)

Well that was very enjoyable.  Nice mentions for Harry Mudd, the Gorn, Nurse Chappell and lots of other STOS stuff... and of course you know who.   Better than the previous one.


----------



## RedDragon (May 18, 2013)

I kind of wished I'd seen the 3d version.


----------



## Crispy (May 18, 2013)

I thought it was great fun 
It's not REAL STAR TREK, but there's already plenty of that quite frankly


----------



## Meh O'Naise (May 19, 2013)

RedDragon said:


> I kind of wished I'd seen the 3d version.


 
Why?

It was NOT shot in 3D, and It was NOT shot using 3D cameras. They used IMAX camera for certain, ground based scenes. NOT 3D. What you have there then, is a 3D post-conversion rather than a natural 3D experience ; as in, its fake3D. (Ie not a true 3D image, but a digitally, artificially created 3D).

Thats why I didn't see it in 3D - the director didn't shoot in 3D, and thus, does the 3D have an artistic reason...or a commercial reason? JJ Can bleat on about post conversion being really good, but if that were the case, he would have shot it in 3D. Post conversion is about one thing - getting money out of punters. Squeezing them dry with an extra bolt on effect. I am a consumer, not a cash machine to be milked. 

I refuse to see 3D movies that are post-conversion.


----------



## Reno (May 19, 2013)

Meh O'Naise said:


> Why?
> 
> It was NOT shot in 3D, and It was NOT shot using 3D cameras. They used IMAX camera for certain, ground based scenes. NOT 3D. What you have there then, is a 3D post-conversion rather than a natural 3D experience ; as in, its fake3D. (Ie not a true 3D image, but a digitally, artificially created 3D).
> 
> ...


 
Post-conversion has improved by leaps and bounds in the last few years, the recent 3D re-release of Jurassic Park looked spectacular. Both a native 3D image and an artificial one are illusions and by now there isn't that much difference between them, if the conversion is done with care. Star Trek in IMAX 3D looked very good. If you refuse to watch post-converted 3D films, how can you judge how the technology is progressing and then advise others against it ?

And please don't kid yourself that other blockbusters, even those shot natively in 3D, aren't about "getting money out of punters" and that they are all about artistic integrity. I'm not sure how much Drive Angry had to be 3D.


----------



## Balbi (May 19, 2013)

I missed the Harry Mudd reference


----------



## mentalchik (May 19, 2013)

Balbi said:


> I missed the Harry Mudd reference


me too


----------



## Firky (May 19, 2013)

Graymalkin said:


> I don't even really consider myself a trekky though that label might have applied earlier in my life. I hope I can explain why some fans of star trek have problems with these new movies. I haven't seen ITD yet but from what I've read my worst fears have been realized.
> 
> ---8<---


 
I appreciate why that may annoy you, the TV adaptation of GoT annoys me with some of the changes they've made but I can't say in the case of GoT it stops me from being entertained or enjoying the TV series. The same goes with Star Trek, I am not really that bothered that a lot of the details you mention are absent - in fact I don't really care to be honest as I am not a Trekky but I don't think that it stops it from being enjoyable (I really liked the last ST and I am looking forward this one... with a bit of anticipation).


----------



## DexterTCN (May 19, 2013)

Balbi said:


> I missed the Harry Mudd reference


 


Spoiler



When Kirk, Spock, Uhura are going to go down to the Klngon planet someone says 'take the trade ship we took off Mudd last month'


 
I'm pretty sure.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (May 19, 2013)

Well, as someone who likes all the self referential bollocks (I fear this makes me more post modern than I'd like to be ), I thought it was bloody great! As Crispy says, not really Star Trek (certainly more action movie than thoughtful sic-fi) and I admit the plot was utterly ridiculous , but it certainly kept my attention and a playful suspension of disbelief.


----------



## T & P (May 19, 2013)

I fucking hate 3D. I can only hope it is eventually relegated to kid's movies and documentaries.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 19, 2013)

T & P said:
			
		

> I fucking hate 3D. I can only hope it is eventually relegated to kid's movies and documentaries.



Not documentaries.


----------



## stuff_it (May 19, 2013)

Still can't do it. Spend so much on prescriptions this week now I can't afford.


----------



## Reno (May 19, 2013)

danny la rouge said:


> Not documentaries.


 
3D has been used well for the Werner Herzog cave documentary and the Pina Bausch one by Wim Wenders.

Maybe the current incarnation of 3D will lose in popularity again, but the industry seems very determined to push this. I'm pretty sure there will come a day when almost everything will be shot in 3D, though it will have to be a technology that doesn't require glasses. Then there will be the occasional nostalgic film, ala The Artist that will be shot flat and they will give it the Oscar because it's such a novelty.


----------



## Meh O'Naise (May 19, 2013)

Reno said:


> Post-conversion has improved by leaps and bounds in the last few years, the recent 3D re-release of Jurassic Park looked spectacular. Both a native 3D image and an artificial one are illusions and by now there isn't that much difference between them, if the conversion is done with care. Star Trek in IMAX 3D looked very good. If you refuse to watch post-converted 3D films, how can you judge how the technology is progressing and then advise others against it ?
> 
> And please don't kid yourself that other blockbusters, even those shot natively in 3D, aren't about "getting money out of punters" and that they are all about artistic integrity. I'm not sure how much Drive Angry had to be 3D.


 
Ticket price for a 2D movie? £7.80 outside of London. Now add in a 3D premium = £2.10 (for cineworld, for example). Add in the cost of glasses = £11. So thats an additional 33% on the ticket price.

Cost of post conversion? I once heard a figure of $10-$15million added up. (I think this was for Episode 1:The Phantom Menace, which was a terrible conversion). So, add that onto the budget and then think you're going to reap an additional 33% of revenue at the box office. On a film which cost you $100m to make, thats a no brainer.

I have however seen a wide variety of 3D films - both post conversions and natively shot, and would argue that post conversions are far, far inferior. (Post Conversions I've seen about 5 or 6. Yes, including Titanic. )

Drive Angry? Didn't need to be in 3D, god no ; its a guilty pleasure up there with Piranha 3d or Bad Boys II for me. Totally empty, but designed solely to entertain, and thats all. Neither Did "Ghost Rider :Spirit Of Vengeance" or "Silent Hill Revelation" (rubbish films both of them, but at least the 3D masked how bad the CGI were) .

Certain films it works - Tron Legacy, for example, where the 3D was incredible effective. But is that live action, or is it essential digital animation with live action characters? I'd argue the latter for Tron legacy.

The reissues of Toy Story and Toy Story 2, the 3D was again fantastic. But why? because there is nothing real in the image - essentially, to make it a 3D movie, they have to re-render from the original digital files and thus, it should in theory be relatively simple and straightforward. I have no problem with animated films being in 3D because those films are never ever going to be anything resembling the real, actual world.Everything there is artificial - there's not a single frame of reality in there.

Which is why I feel 3D does not work for normal, live action. Your brain already has depth perception, and can translate what is - effectively - a 2D image into distances and locations. Then putting on a set of 3D glasses makes it little more than like watching a movie come to life with fuzzy felts. Of course, specs above specs isn't good for me either.

(Only animated movie I didn't like in 3D was Avatar - lets face it, its animated given thats its mo cap and very little was real - which I loathed in a 3D IMAX showing. hated it)

Sadly - the hidden truth about 3D is that they are a revenue protection device.
i) Higher ticket prices
ii) To prevent piracy online. You can't do a cam copy of a 3D movie, or a telecine. It is an image that exists solely once you put the glasses on. And in doing so, as people can't get stuff for free, they will have to go to the movies, or wait a few months until a retail release gets pirated online.


----------



## Reno (May 19, 2013)

I'm perfectly aware that 3D is both a revenue protection device and an extra income. Hollywood in greedy shocker ! Unlike you I'm not bothered by it, because blockbuster films are all about making lots of money already. I'm not sure why I would draw the line somewhere, especially as those are not the films I feel particularly passionate about these days. I don't have to pay extra for the 3D films I see and if I had to, I would skip the 3D for some. Actually if I didn't go to see most films at BAFTA, where I pay a membership fee rather than for individual films, I would skip most of the 3D blockbusters till they come out on DVD or the telly where I would then see them flat. But that's not because of the 3D.

I neither have particularly strong feelings for or against 3D. I think it can work, even in live action, but that's a matter of taste. I just saw The Great Gatsby where the 3D was spectacular and it was almost the only good thing about the film. I don't mind the slightly tacky carnival quality of 3D and I'm not bothered about it not looking quite real. It reminds me of when I was a kid and was all excited about my dad taking me to a 3D festival where they played the likes of Creature from the Black Lagoon and It Came From Outer Space with green/red glasses.


----------



## mentalchik (May 19, 2013)

ticket price for a 2D film outside of London £8.40  in Northampton !


----------



## stuff_it (May 19, 2013)

Reno said:


> 3D has been used well for the Werner Herzog cave documentary and the Pina Bausch one by Wim Wenders.
> 
> Maybe the current incarnation of 3D will lose in popularity again, but the industry seems very determined to push this. I'm pretty sure there will come a day when almost everything will be shot in 3D, though it will have to be a technology that doesn't require glasses. Then there will be the occasional nostalgic film, ala The Artist that will be shot flat and they will give it the Oscar because it's such a novelty.


I don't think it will be massively popular until holographic projectors are widespread tbh.


----------



## Reno (May 19, 2013)

stuff_it said:


> I don't think it will be massively popular until holographic projectors are widespread tbh.


 
Holographic projection is one way and then there already are TV sets that offer 3D without glasses. As most blockbusters get shown in 3D now, it's more mainstream than it ever was. 3D used to be the reserve for the odd novelty film and B-movies.


----------



## RedDragon (May 19, 2013)

Meh O'Naise said:


> Why?
> 
> It was NOT shot in 3D, and It was NOT shot using 3D cameras.


Because it may have stopped me from looking at my watch  other than Cumberbatch and Quinto's performances I was left feeling underwhelmed.


----------



## Meh O'Naise (May 19, 2013)

RedDragon said:


> Because it may have stopped me from looking at my watch  other than Cumberbatch and Quinto's performances I was left feeling underwhelmed.


 
GP,WM. Quinto is the best thing in that film ; Cumberbatch was - how can I put this - a perfect choice, but not for that Character name.


----------



## RedDragon (May 19, 2013)

And the bikini shot was straight from the stone age.


----------



## Meh O'Naise (May 19, 2013)

RedDragon said:


> And the bikini shot was straight from the stone age.


I didn't check to see if Victoria's Secret was in the sponsorship deals though. Maybe I should. Utterly needless. Unless of course, they might be foreshadowing the fact that Kirk And Marcus bone later on and have sproglets. However, that being in the prime timeline - rather than the alternate - gawd only knows what will happen.Except me getting confused with all this time travel shit.


----------



## colacubes (May 19, 2013)

I really enjoyed it. 3D was inconsequential imho. But the only film where I've thought 3D was worth it was Life of Pi. Every other film I"ve seen it in has been pointless.

I *heart* Benedict Cumberbatch


----------



## CNT36 (May 19, 2013)

colacubes said:


> I really enjoyed it.  3D was inconsequential imho.  But the only film where I've thought 3D was worth it was Life of Pi.  Every other film I"ve seen it in has been pointless.
> 
> I *heart* Spoiler


Sort it out.


----------



## DexterTCN (May 19, 2013)

A couple of people have mentioned the underwear shot of whatshername.  I don't want to take issue but there was a half-naked shot of Kirk much earlier.   Same difference....TOS always had semi-nudity all over the place.


----------



## DexterTCN (May 19, 2013)

colacubes said:


> I really enjoyed it. 3D was inconsequential imho. But the only film where I've thought 3D was worth it was Life of Pi. Every other film I"ve seen it in has been pointless.
> 
> I *heart* ....


Spoiler.   And CNT36  (sorry guys)


----------



## stuff_it (May 19, 2013)

Reno said:


> Holographic projection is one way and then there already are TV sets that offer 3D without glasses. As most blockbusters get shown in 3D now, it's more mainstream than it ever was. 3D used to be the reserve for the odd novelty film and B-movies.


I won't really be happy until I cam play COD: Attack on couch mountain.


----------



## thriller (May 20, 2013)

watched the 3d version yesterday. It's an ok film, but nothing that isn't worth waiting for either as a download or dvd. The end was just had a massive laughable plot hole. 



Spoiler



if they did not Khan's blood. they had 72 frozen supermen. Anyone of their blood could have been used on Kirk. Also, they bought Kirk back from the dead. This means they have cure for death. But that big point didn't seem to matter to Bones


----------



## danny la rouge (May 20, 2013)

stuff_it said:


> Still can't do it. Spend so much on prescriptions this week now I can't afford.


Move to Scotland.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 20, 2013)

Reno said:


> 3D has been used well for the Werner Herzog cave documentary and the Pina Bausch one by Wim Wenders.
> 
> Maybe the current incarnation of 3D will lose in popularity again, but the industry seems very determined to push this. I'm pretty sure there will come a day when almost everything will be shot in 3D, though it will have to be a technology that doesn't require glasses. Then there will be the occasional nostalgic film, ala The Artist that will be shot flat and they will give it the Oscar because it's such a novelty.


It was a plea:  Not documentaries, please.  

If they ever come up with a 3-D technology that I can use without getting a headache, I'll reconsider.  In the meantime, though, the advantages are only slight,and are vastly outweighed by the disadvantages.


----------



## colacubes (May 20, 2013)

CNT36 said:


> Sort it out.





DexterTCN said:


> Spoiler. And CNT36 (sorry guys)


 

Oops sorry - have edited


----------



## Meh O'Naise (May 20, 2013)

danny la rouge said:


> Move to Scotland.


 
Whilst I'd like free prescriptions, its not worth moving to Scotland for. IMHO.


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 20, 2013)

Overall I liked it, but I was properly angry when they ripped off the radiation death scene. It could have been much worse with Lindelof involved. The next one has to have alien baddies.


----------



## Crispy (May 20, 2013)

It was just the right side of cheesy for me, that bit. Although they shouldn't have had new spock try to out-KAAAAAAN Shatner. Can't be done.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 20, 2013)

Meh O'Naise said:


> Whilst I'd like free prescriptions, its not worth moving to Scotland for. IMHO.


The pies?


----------



## Meh O'Naise (May 20, 2013)

danny la rouge said:


> The pies?


 
No, not the pies either. I'd go for the weather.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 20, 2013)

Meh O'Naise said:


> No, not the pies either. I'd go for the weather.


You're barking.


----------



## stuff_it (May 20, 2013)

If I could afford it I'd move like a shot, even though I'm veggie.


----------



## Bungle73 (May 22, 2013)

Just saw it today, I thought it was great, and Cumbertach was excellent.  The 3D I thought was excellent.  I didn't even realise it was post-production 3D.  I've never like the idea before, but after having seen this I might be convinced. The IMAX scenes certainly made one feel like one was in the movie.



Graymalkin said:


> I don't even really consider myself a trekky though that label might have applied earlier in my life. I hope I can explain why some fans of star trek have problems with these new movies. I haven't seen ITD yet but from what I've read my worst fears have been realized.
> 
> I sometimes refer to Star trek 2009 as a hipster version of Star trek. It has the superficial resemblance of star trek and makes plenty of references to the original series and movies but it also makes a lot of glaring and really unnecessary oversights that show that Abrahms either didn't bother to investigate the details of the star trek universe or doesn't care.
> 
> ...


Tri-nacelled starships are nothing new:


----------



## Graymalkin (May 22, 2013)

Yes, I know, though that ship isn't considered canon, it was Q's creation.  The only other classes that had odd numbered nacelles were blasted out wrecks at Wolf 359 and were never seen again.


----------



## Meh O'Naise (May 23, 2013)

Graymalkin said:


> So what's the point then? Why couldn't he just leave the original continuity alone? That's what frustrates me and I think a lot of other fans


 
I'm with you on this.


----------



## captainmission (May 23, 2013)

I saw it this evening and it was utter utter cock.

I will now engage in some lengthy fan boy rambling about why its shit.




Spoiler



- dead people still have blood in them. It's fine to kill khan
- high tech warp core fixed by kicking it
- parking a ship under the sea a mile away from a temple is not a good way to hide
- why does the evil ship retract its guns after shooting the enterpise out of warp? why does it even have retractable guns?
- best place for a top secret? jupiter. it's not like you can see it with a telescope or anything
- when escaping a scene of mass destruction why not steal a coat? It'll unneccasryily draw attention to you, restrict your movement and make you look like what you looked like when you did the previous terrorist attacks. But at least you'll look dashing.
- a man who resurrects a warlord, threatens to kill all his comrades so he can design a warship to engage in an unprovoked war needs said warlord to teach him about 'savagery'
- why are there cars? you have teleporters?
-why are there spaceships you have teleporters that reach QonoS? teleport a nuke to Qonos. It'll save you having resurrecting said warlord.
-star fleets chain of command seemingly based entirely on nepotism
- Senior starfleet admiral and intelligence chief sharing most of his classfied projects with his daughter
- why said daughter wasn't arrested when revealed to have faked her way on to ship on a secret mission. or after the warp core broke. or after it turn out her dad was a villain.
- gravity doesn't work like that
- closing sequence features a white dwarf smaller than the planet that orbit it
- the consoling power of stuffed rabbits does not deplete over time. Parents with sick child (a child who has been sick long enough so that they no longer maintain a constant vigil over her) bring a replacement stuffed rabbit as the other has become worn.
- Khan crashes the evil ship in to san fransico knocking down 10's of skyscrapers. That's tens of thousands of people. You should have killed khan.
-oh he's frozen now every things ok
-if you sending  you top ship off for 5 years when on the brink of war at least have an idea where to explore. don't just leave it to the helm to pick a random direction
- kirk sexually harrasses nurse chaple to the extent she flees to the other end of the federation and then forgets who she is.
- having carol wallace being 'welcomed to the family' bringing up painful memories of that time her father engaged in treason before having his head crushed in front of her is not a good tone to end a move on.
- best way to get into a top secret space base is to nonchalantly slip into the space line of all the space workers as they drive to space work.
- starfleet only has two ships anywhere near earth. One of them is a secret.
- scanners so good they can scan both the position and momentum of every electron in a person's body across the distance of earth from QonoS but can't find a tubby scottish man on a largely empty ship.
- spock mind rapes a dying pike


----------



## Meh O'Naise (May 24, 2013)

captainmission said:


> I saw it this evening and it was utter utter cock. I will now engage in some lengthy fan boy rambling about why its shit.


 
Did you see the io9 article on this? Between that and your post, pretty much summed up why i dislike it.


----------



## ska invita (May 24, 2013)

mentalchik said:


> ticket price for a 2D film outside of London £8.40 in Northampton !


peckhamplex all tickets all day £4.99 , 3D £5.99 http://www.peckhamplex.com/
popcorn is a fiver though


----------



## captainmission (May 24, 2013)

Meh O'Naise said:


> Did you see the io9 article on this? Between that and your post, pretty much summed up why i dislike it.


 
i've just read it today. Turns out the same guy that wrote this wrote prometheus. It has the same lazy inattention to detail that eventually turns in to an avalanche of dumb.


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Jun 3, 2013)

I finally saw this last weekend. I was a bit disappointed. It seemed pretty dull.

The acting was subpar. Even Cumberbach was flat and I expected better after seeing his Sherlock series. The only possible exception was Quinto.

It was also sadly lacking in Moby Dick quotes. If you're going to have a Khan episode, Moby Dick references are not optional.

Overall, it reminded me more of a Transformers movie than it did Star Trek.


----------



## Meh O'Naise (Jun 3, 2013)

Quinto owns the movie. pegg is a pastiche of himself. urban is perfect but underused. 

Was very disappointed - I could list many other Trek movies and episodes it lifts flagrantly and wholesale. That said, I'm off to watch it again in 2D this week, see if the disappointment remains.  The Excessive Lensflare really did suck, tho


----------



## DexterTCN (Jun 4, 2013)

Quinto certainly seems to be a better actor than Pine but I've hardly seen either of them. Quinto in Heroes (one and a half seasons then turned it off) and Pine in that shite This Means War, and I get him mixed up with Chris Evans, and I get mixed up with Chris Evans too.


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Jun 4, 2013)

The other thing that occurs to me is why did they cast Cumberbach as Khan?  He couldn't be further from the type.  He'd have made a good Section 31 villain, but Khan?  No.  I'd have rather seen an actor unknown in Hollywood, but closer to type.  I've seen enough Bollywood to suspect they'd have had a good selection of actors up to the task.


----------



## Meh O'Naise (Jun 4, 2013)

Yuwipi Woman said:


> The other thing that occurs to me is why did they cast Cumberbach as Khan? He couldn't be further from the type. He'd have made a good Section 31 villain, but Khan? No. I'd have rather seen an actor unknown in Hollywood, but closer to type. I've seen enough Bollywood to suspect they'd have had a good selection of actors up to the task.


 
Its "Lets get a hot 'new' star in to bring in Box Office, give us cred, and say we gave him a breakthrough role". Thing is - according to the interviews ive heard -the character being Khan was introduced fairly late into the story process , pre first draft but post scriptment, basically. So they took a character they had already written and envisioned, and made that Character INTO Khan, rather than being intended to be Khan from the very outset. The character was never meant to be Khan, he was retrofitted into Khan.

A good character, a fine casting choice, but the wrong character name. Had it been Gary Mitchell, i would have understood better - and that was who Karl urban intitally said it was too. Once again, the scriptwriters just shoehorned something in for fan recognition and brand awareness - and I see through that.


----------



## Reno (Jun 4, 2013)

^ Interesting, that kind of makes sense.


----------



## Meh O'Naise (Jun 4, 2013)

Reno said:


> ^ Interesting, that kind of makes sense.


 
 It was in either the empire spoiler podcast #2, or the ScreenRant podcast ; one of the two. They are halfhour ish long interviews with the writers Orci  + Kurtzman & Lindelhof. The empire one explains a lot which isn't in the film - ie Praxis. Its a sign of bad writing, to be honest - You shouldn't really need to listen to a podcast to get such major info, when it can be answered in 10 seconds of dialogue, For gawds sake. .


----------



## Bungle73 (Jun 4, 2013)

Define "type"?  In TOS Khan was supposed be an Indian Sikh, but Montalban was Mexican.


----------



## Reno (Jun 4, 2013)

Meh O'Naise said:


> It was in either the empire spoiler podcast #2, or the ScreenRant podcast ; one of the two. They are halfhour ish long interviews with the writers Orci + Kurtzman & Lindelhof. The empire one explains a lot which isn't in the film - ie Praxis. Its a sign of bad writing, to be honest - You shouldn't really need to listen to a podcast to get such major info, when it can be answered in 10 seconds of dialogue, For gawds sake. .


 
I listen to a few film podcasts, quite enjoy them, but haven't listened to those in a while. Lindelhof gets a lot of flak from fanboys, but he comes across as fairly likeable in interviews and while it may sound like passing the buck, from what he lets slip, he often gets blamed for ideas that directors have suggested.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jun 4, 2013)

Spoiler



KHAAAAAAN!


 
Nicely done.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jun 4, 2013)

They should dump Pegg, he's fucking awful in this, his accent is a complete joke and he has none of the Scotty in the same way the blokes that do Spock and Bones have of the original performances...


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Jun 4, 2013)

Bungle73 said:


> Define "type"? In TOS Khan was supposed be an Indian Sikh, but Montalban was Mexican.


 
I'm proposing the radical notion that an Indian Sikh might best be played by an Indian Sikh or at least someone a bit closer than a pasty white guy.


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Jun 4, 2013)

Meh O'Naise said:


> Its "Lets get a hot 'new' star in to bring in Box Office, give us cred, and say we gave him a breakthrough role". Thing is - according to the interviews ive heard -the character being Khan was introduced fairly late into the story process , pre first draft but post scriptment, basically. So they took a character they had already written and envisioned, and made that Character INTO Khan, rather than being intended to be Khan from the very outset. The character was never meant to be Khan, he was retrofitted into Khan.
> 
> A good character, a fine casting choice, but the wrong character name. Had it been Gary Mitchell, i would have understood better - and that was who Karl urban intitally said it was too. Once again, the scriptwriters just shoehorned something in for fan recognition and brand awareness - and I see through that.


 
That makes all to much sense, or at least the facsimile that Hollywood makes decisions with.


----------



## Bungle73 (Jun 4, 2013)

Yuwipi Woman said:


> I'm proposing the radical notion that an Indian Sikh might best be played by an Indian Sikh or at least someone a bit closer than a pasty white guy.


Yes, but a) this is an "alternate" time-line so who says what race he has to be, and b) Montalban wasn't Indian either, like I said.


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Jun 4, 2013)

Bungle73 said:


> Yes, but a) this is an "alternate" time-line so who says what race he has to be, and b) Montalban wasn't Indian either, like I said.


 
a) I'll buy that, but the character wouldn't be named "Khan" in that case.

b) Montalban had some requisite sex appeal. Cumberbach is the "master race" as envisioned by fanboys who've never allowed the sun to hit their skin.

There's a long tradition of whites playing non-white characters.  Do we really need to be doing that in 2013?


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jun 4, 2013)

Yuwipi Woman said:


> I'm proposing the radical notion that an Indian Sikh might best be played by an Indian Sikh or at least someone a bit closer than a pasty white guy.


 

Heh you obviously don't know many Sikhs. They tend to be lighter skinned. Plus Khan is genetically modified so why would he appear as ethnically correct as a stereotype suggest?


----------



## rover07 (Jun 4, 2013)

Great special effects and interesting plot up until they arrived on Kronos.

Then they just rehashed Wrath of Khan. 

The scene where Kirk dies was so bad I literally couldn't watch it. What was the point?

How about you make a NEW FUCKING MOVIE.


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Jun 4, 2013)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Heh you obviously don't know many Sikhs. They tend to be lighter skinned. Plus Khan is genetically modified so why would he appear as ethnically correct as a stereotype suggest?


 
At the risk of being racist, unless they're coding the master race suited for Ice Planet Zero, scientists manipulating DNA to create the "Master Race" are unlikely to grab genes for skin that white. It's maladaptive for anywhere near the equator unless it was included purely for genetic diversity.

I'm sorry, I still don't see why they have to get an English guy to play an Indian. Once in while you'd think they could widen their casting a little. There's Bollywood actors who have a long resume and huge box office track record.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jun 4, 2013)

This is a genuine question born out of ignorance: where does it come from that the character of Kahn is Indian? I'm just thinking that if it's just from the name then a) it's Star Trek, so peoples have got all kinds of crazy names that don't follow the same conventions as real life and b) he could have married into it  (or whatever, y'know, I'm just saying simply having the name "Kahn" doesn't inherently imply being of a certain ethnic background)


----------



## Meh O'Naise (Jun 4, 2013)

Bungle73 said:


> Yes, but a) this is an "alternate" time-line so who says what race he has to be, and b) Montalban wasn't Indian either, like I said.


 
In the original timeline, Khan was a genetically engineered super-human who was expelled from Earth after becoming prince of half of the planet in the Eugenics Wars ; the SS Botnay Bay from which he was rescued in TOS was launched in 1995 as a generation sleeper-style ship. (Even with an Ickean level of conspiracy, i think we might have noticed that, even in the middle of the great Britpop wars of that summer). 

Nero's change in timelines in ST 2009 obviously wouldn't have affected ANY of that as he didn't go that far back in time - The year for the ST2009 was something like 2257.

But NONE of this existing canonical stuff is referenced in into Darkness.

Therefore, KHAAAAAN! (TM) shouldn't look any different at all when refound and re-thawed out in THIS new Abramsverse timeline.

But he does. Which is part of my beef with the Abramsverse - its obviously an entirely new timeline even before Nero goes back. Which makes all these fanboy references they throw in utter toshwank. As for the name "Khan Noonien Singh", Roddenberry mashed up the surnames of three people he knew, and Noonien is apparently Chinese Asian rather than Indian subcontinent in original. So utterly inconsistent even in the Roddenberryverse.

Roddenberryverse,Abramsverse......sighs. I've wasted my life. *changes avatar to Comic Book Guy*


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Jun 4, 2013)

Meh O'Naise said:


> Roddenberryverse,Abramsverse......sighs. I've wasted my life. *changes avatar to Comic Book Guy*


 
Me too. It shows how sad my life is that I consider this even worth arguing about. I think its time for me to go home and work on my cosplay costume now.


----------



## Meh O'Naise (Jun 4, 2013)

Lord Camomile said:


> This is a genuine question born out of ignorance: where does it come from that the character of Kahn is Indian?)


 
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Khan_Noonien_Singh

Is probably the best source for the original timeline. There's an awful lot of extended universe stuff (ie novels, etc), all of which you might as well throw in the bin now.


----------



## Meh O'Naise (Jun 4, 2013)

Yuwipi Woman said:


> Me too. It shows how sad my life is that I consider this even worth arguing about. I think its time for me to go hone and work on my cosplay costume now.


 
Here I am, 40-somethingish *cough splutter*  birthday approaching, and I'm spending my life on the internet debating Star Trek fan fiction. I could be out meeting people, enjoying the weather, instead. But no, here I am, pressing F5 on the nekkid urbz thread instead.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jun 4, 2013)

Meh O'Naise said:


> http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Khan_Noonien_Singh
> 
> Is probably the best source for the original timeline. There's an awful lot of extended universe stuff (ie novels, etc), all of which you might as well throw in the bin now.


Huh, cheers  That write up is... pretty thorough


----------



## Meh O'Naise (Jun 4, 2013)

Lord Camomile said:


> Huh, cheers  That write up is... pretty thorough


 
 Sad thing is, I didn't have to google it to remember the trek wiki was called memory-alpha. I knew it already. *facepalms*


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jun 4, 2013)

Hey, we've all got our interests. Most people geek out about something or other


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 5, 2013)

I would like a time machine so I can go back and find the first director to come up with that 'swinging the camera really quickly round three people as they're talking so the audience feels too seasick to listen to the dialogue' shot and kick him in the nuts before he has a chance.

Generally the way the film was made reminded me of the Star Wars prequels. It replaces proper sets and model shots with endless nauseating CGI silliness that it's impossible to give a shit about. Nothing stays still long enough for you to get a good look at it, no scene is long enough to generate any atmosphere or suspense. I realise this is how most hollywood blockbusters are made these days, but when we've got to the point where people can use CGI to create basically anything they can thing of and make it look convincing then the only way to stand out from the crowd is with old fashioned shit like proper writing, directing and acting.

I'm not a huge fan of star trek (except DS9 obviously) but it's sad to see something so well loved turned into just another load of sparkly set pieces haphazardly strung together with a reverse-engineered plot.

And how come starfleet's ships can now travel anywhere in the galaxy in a matter of minutes? What happened to the actual 'trekking through the stars' bit of star trek? Did Abrams not even bother to read the_ title_ of his cash cow before he started milking?


----------



## krtek a houby (Jun 5, 2013)

Yuwipi Woman said:


> a) I'll buy that, but the character wouldn't be named "Khan" in that case.
> 
> b) Montalban had some requisite sex appeal. Cumberbach is the "master race" as envisioned by fanboys who've never allowed the sun to hit their skin.
> 
> *There's a long tradition of whites playing non-white characters. Do we really need to be doing that in 2013*?


 
Which reminds me, during the showing of "Cloud Atlas" I attended, there were sniggers when Doona Bae appeared as Tilda Ewing but none when Jim Sturgess appeared as Hae Joo Chang...


----------



## stuff_it (Jun 5, 2013)

After a few of the sketcy reviews on here and seeing some garms I wanted I ended up watching this online last night. It was good but tbf not epic enough for the £8 + snacks that seeing it at the pictures would have cost me. 

I'm sure I will get better value for money enjoyment out of the new clothes I ended up putting the money towards.


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Jun 5, 2013)

krtek a houby said:


> Which reminds me, during the showing of "Cloud Atlas" I attended, there were sniggers when Doona Bae appeared as Tilda Ewing but none when Jim Sturgess appeared as Hae Joo Chang...


 
Can't say I've seen it.  I'm unlikely to see this as well:


----------



## Stigmata (Jun 5, 2013)

SpookyFrank said:


> Generally the way the film was made reminded me of the Star Wars prequels. It replaces proper sets and model shots with endless nauseating CGI silliness that it's impossible to give a shit about.


 
One of the things I actually like about the new Trek films is that at least most of the sets are real, it's not entirely bluescreen like Star Wars.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Jun 5, 2013)

krtek a houby said:


> Which reminds me, during the showing of "Cloud Atlas" I attended, there were sniggers when Doona Bae appeared as Tilda Ewing but none when Jim Sturgess appeared as Hae Joo Chang...


 
I wish they had just left off with the make up throughout. One of the points seemed to be that we saw the same faces throughout, it was more distracting to see them try so hard to change their nationality. What if they had started blacking up?

. . . and how come Doona Bae never grows up?


----------



## Meh O'Naise (Jun 5, 2013)

SpookyFrank said:


> I would like a time machine so I can go back and find the first director to come up with that 'swinging the camera really quickly round three people as they're talking so the audience feels too seasick to listen to the dialogue' shot and kick him in the nuts before he has a chance.


 
I think its the first time you can find such a 'swingy around' shot originates to the famous shot in Bad Boys I ; Apparently Bruckheimer said _"We need a shot for the trailer"  _So Michael bay did that 360 degree reaction shot of The Fresh prince and Martin Lawrence at the end of the day. Appeared in every trailer, all the marketing campaign. before you know it, everyone's ripping it off ; but this time, adding in dialogue instead. 

Other thing a lot of people don't take into account is why this happens ; its how directors are brought up. A lot of directors come from TV, where the budgets are much less. So how do you cover the lack of budget? Well, you don't build a massive set for a start off. And who needs a massive set, when you can instead do HUGE close ups on the actors faces? 

Lots of the major-ish directors coming through come from TV backgrounds, where they have to work fast, cheap, and quickly. Greengrass who did two of the Bourne movies started off in documentaries before doing TV, JJ Abrams directed a shedton of Alias and Lost, Rob Bowman who did X-Files movie + Reign of Fire did a metric fuckload of Trek episodes. Michael Mann similarly ; there's many other examples. Look at old episodes of BSG, NCIS, CSI, The Wire and you'll find a lot of film directors in there - such as film directors who take whatever work they can get in whatever medium they can get financed in -. Examples: Ernest Dickerson, Mikael Solomon, Clark Johnson, Rod Lurie, Kevin Hooks, hell even Stephen Hopkins who did the Lost In Space movie. And Rob Zombie  even did an episode of CSI:Miami apparently.

And in there, there's also  a lot of new talent only two hit movies away from never working in TV again, soon to be snapped up as A-list directors. (Greengrass, the couple doing Thor:The New World, JJ Abrams, Antony Hemingway). In terms of UK Directors ; Paul Guigan,   Danny Boyle, Tom Hooper, Stephen Frears....



SpookyFrank said:


> And how come starfleet's ships can now travel anywhere in the galaxy in a matter of minutes? What happened to the actual 'trekking through the stars' bit of star trek? Did Abrams not even bother to read the_ title_ of his cash cow before he started milking?


 
I think its called "The first law of dramatic requirements". ie, the plot calls for it, so  fuck the physics, lets just do it.


----------



## Meh O'Naise (Jun 5, 2013)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> I wish they had just left off with the make up throughout. One of the points seemed to be that we saw the same faces throughout, it was more distracting to see them try so hard to change their nationality.


 
Is there a seperate Cloud Atlas thread, by the way? Becuase if not, I'll go into why I think they did it here. massive spoiler tags though.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 5, 2013)

Meh O'Naise said:


> Is there a seperate Cloud Atlas thread, by the way? Becuase if not, I'll go into why I think they did it here. massive spoiler tags though.


 
Yer 'tis.


----------



## Meh O'Naise (Jun 5, 2013)

SpookyFrank said:


> Yer 'tis.


I'll read it and then give Suplex my thoughts....


----------



## Nine Bob Note (Sep 9, 2013)

Well, finally seen it. Good, but not as good as the last one, and not good Trek.



> "He [Abrams] just made it really, really good, rescuing Star Trek from sweaty convention halls, making its niche universe universal."



Aint it the truth. The box office returns may be great, but all the cheapo shops round here are still full of all the merch the fans didn't bother picking up last time.

TBH, I'm happy for this to exist, but only as a seperate canon. I'll even take all the Khan stuff (didn't know about this - I've studiously avoided all trek talk up until last night) even if he's played by a posh white guy. As for the other characters, well I thought it was even more the Spock and Kirk show than the last one. Quinto is really good, but Kirk/Pine I don't care about. Pegg's Scotty I do not like, but I'd blame that on the writers. I just don't get who he is or why he's there. Is he even proper Starfleet (I forget from the last one) or did he just turn up on the day?  Also, his dodgy barnet looks like something Walter Koenig would gladly tie on with a chin strap. Less Sulu and Chekov too, which is a shame as I really enjoyed them both in the previous film, especially Yelchin who I'd say is as perfectly cast as Quinto, and he's adorable, comedy accent and all. Why they made him chief engineer though... I'm sure that would have pleased the other engineers. Uhura, McCoy whatever.

I am not AT ALL happy with the section 31 references, Shatner/Picard/Sisko universe canon or not. S31 is a highly secretive and tiny organisation. They do not have offices, let alone huge assembly halls underneath London where they design and construct starships and torpedoes. Their existance is not bandied about between just anyone, and they don't wear jaunty fucking hats to work. Besides, S31 is a like a special treat for us Niners. Those who hate DS9 can just about go and watch Data and Doctor Bev tapdancing instead.



> And how come starfleet's ships can now travel anywhere in the galaxy in a matter of minutes? What happened to the actual 'trekking through the stars' bit of star trek? Did Abrams not even bother to read the_ title_ of his cash cow before he started milking?



Hardly the first time Trek has done that. Journeying from Kazon space to the alpha quadrant may have taken Janeway seventy years (less the effects of transwarp coils, Q, Lt Torres' Marvellous Inventions etc...), but Picard used to hop between Earth, Vulcan and Kronos as if he were catching a bus down the shops.


----------



## Santino (Jan 6, 2014)

Saw this over Christmas, utter gash.


----------

