Star Trek Into Darkness

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

    Originally posted by Biohazard View Post
    Looks better with every trailer.
    All I know so far is that they'll be 2x more free falling from high places in this film and 4x more lens flares.

    Abrams is a good director and I'm a big Star Trek fan, but I can already see the beginning of the end for the franchise. All the spinoffs and films have utterly exhausted the source material. And the freshness we got from Abrams? He'll be taking it with him when shooting Star Wars 7, 8 and 9 (And likely 10,11 and 12). It looks like Star Trek has run its course.

    You know what makes a hit? A sense of wonder. When all you can do is just gawk at screen in awe. There was a strong sense of it in LOTR, Avatar, Inception and none whatsoever in John Carter, Battleship, Jack the Giant Slayer. It's sad, but Star Trek doesn't give me that sensation anymore.
    I'm never wrong. Reality is just stubborn.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

      I can see my point went clear over a few heads.

      Maybe I should roll it on the ground next time.

      Yeah, the futuristic space craft which features technologies that do not exist in our reality and that which you understand nothing about being unable to leave the planet is a dealbreaker, but sending 99% of all police in the city into one small subterranean chamber for no strategical purpose and with no means of escape and no contingency plan whatsoever makes total sense.

      People these days...
      Last edited by Biohazard; 03-10-2013, 07:42 PM.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

        Originally posted by Biohazard View Post
        I can see my point went clear over a few heads.

        Maybe I should roll it on the ground next time.

        Yeah, the futuristic space craft which features technologies that do not exist in our reality and that which you understand nothing about being unable to leave the planet is a dealbreaker...
        And you seemed to have missed my point.

        But, hey, you keep writing as if science is magic. Maybe one day you can be the next Abrams.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

          Originally posted by Richmond Weems View Post
          "Yeah, in the first Star Trek I did, my Kirk didn't actually win any fight or battle, but c'mon! there was a huge giant monster on an ice planet, nevermind how it got that big on a planet with no other form of animal or vegetation anywhere on that thing".
          .
          One word: wampas.

          http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Wampa

          "People who work in Hollywood are the ones who didn't quit." -- Lawrence Kasdan

          Please visit my website and blog: www.lauridonahue.com.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

            What I like about Abrams is that he understands the importance of spectacle in cinema. Where he is weak though is that it's mostly show with little substance. By contrast someone like James Cameron would do the same thing but in a way that is more plausible, and if it's smart and fun, well then that's the gold standard.

            All the same, these trailers look very slick, it would be great if the films were smarter, but then if it were slick and smart it would literally have nothing to do with Star Trek at all.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

              Originally posted by Richmond Weems View Post
              But, hey, you keep writing as if science is magic.
              And you keep writing as if all people were brain-dead retards.

              PS: Oh, I understand your point. The space craft that features advanced futuristic technologies far beyond what we know and have here on Earth in 2013 is somehow unable to get into outer space.

              Got it.
              Last edited by Biohazard; 03-11-2013, 10:47 AM.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

                Originally posted by Captain Jack Sparrow View Post
                All the same, these trailers look very slick, it would be great if the films were smarter, but then if it were slick and smart it would literally have nothing to do with Star Trek at all.
                Good point. I concede the argument.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

                  Originally posted by LauriD View Post
                  I'm not a big STAR WARS fan, either. Reason #72 of why I'm divorced.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

                    This is all very entertaining, but I'm still confused by something:


                    Who is this malodorous Trekkie, and what is it of his that the theater is full of???



                    *ducks, runs*

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

                      looks like someone sat in a room and asked; "what is the best sequel of all time?" they all said dark knight. everyone agreed to "go dark" and have some super villain with a plan to get caught, because that's just how every villain does it these days.
                      the problem is that when men go in a room together to brainstorm ideas, nothing really original ever comes out of it. ever. not that it was ever supposed to be anything subliminally great. they know it will make money, and they'll move on.

                      the idea is taking an established franchise and make it michael bay style. people love that, because it's a change of pace, it's something new. the problem is that it's not star trek anymore. just like the last two die hard films isn't die hard.

                      anyway, looking forward to it

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

                        Originally posted by Bananos View Post
                        looks like someone sat in a room and asked; "what is the best sequel of all time?" they all said dark knight.
                        Must have been a padded room.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

                          Originally posted by Biohazard View Post
                          Must have been a padded room.
                          what do you mean?



                          (spoilers)
                          anyway it is pretty clear to me now what the main storyline is. it is also a variation from the dark knight.
                          from the trailers you can see that the villain has a problem with the federation and that family is important to him; "what would you do for your family?". given the focus on "the prime directive", which is in this case the rules of not interferring with primitive cultures, the villain wants revenge for something the federation has done to his family; which is not interferring when his family on some planet were killed. so now he wants the federation to beg for intervention when he threatens their very existence.
                          in dark knight the joker is a terrorist who, even though his motivations are unclear, wants society to reflect on their meaningless/relative laws. or something thereof.
                          just like the theme of "into darkness".

                          but was that a british flag in the trailer? certainly countries does not exist in star trek? but who cares about lore when you have this super villain that will only stop when the good guys realize their mistakes (which is never, because he just don't get it, he lacks empathy and the meaning of love and having friends. for all his skills he is pathetic and he knows it. the only way for him to win is to remove all those things from society).

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

                            Originally posted by Bananos View Post
                            in dark knight the joker is a terrorist who, even though his motivations are unclear, wants society to reflect on their meaningless/relative laws. or something thereof.
                            just like the theme of "into darkness".
                            Joker just loves chaos. He *is* chaos. He is devoid of any humanly understandable motivations in The Dark Knight, which is a part of the reason why he is so fascinating.

                            It's hard to judge yet who the villain is, and what he wants, in Star Trek 2. But it would seem safe to say, that he does have some kind of understandable, human motivation. He's not just causing chaos. It seems to me that he wants something specific, and is willing to do anything to get it.

                            I don't see any kind of real connection to The Dark Knight.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

                              Originally posted by Bananos View Post
                              looks like someone sat in a room and asked a bunch of 14 to 23 year olds "what is the best sequel of all time?" they all said dark knight.
                              Fixed for ya.
                              M.A.G.A.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

                                Originally posted by tuukka View Post
                                Joker just loves chaos. He *is* chaos. He is devoid of any humanly understandable motivations in The Dark Knight, which is a part of the reason why he is so fascinating.

                                It's hard to judge yet who the villain is, and what he wants, in Star Trek 2. But it would seem safe to say, that he does have some kind of understandable, human motivation. He's not just causing chaos. It seems to me that he wants something specific, and is willing to do anything to get it.

                                I don't see any kind of real connection to The Dark Knight.
                                you must be kidding me? no connection? i'm sorry but your analysis of the joker is not very good. the theme is that of order vs chaos, where society is represented as order. joker is a terrorist, whose purpose is to shake things up. representing chaos. batman is the ultimate protector of order. the message is that you need both, or else society falls into fascism or anarchy. ultimately batman understands this, as he can only work if he is something apart from the police and society.

                                as for star trek, the connection is the nature of the prime directive, where the law is being questioned and tried by both villain and hero. how far can the federation uphold their dogmatic laws and regulations? while the villain in star trek has a more clear(and humane) motivation than the joker, his philosophy is the same. it's not really that important, because it's about the principle. that he has lost his family, or family members because of the federation not interferring, looks obvious. his mission is the same as the joker's; to make the federation re-think their rigid principles.. it's just that his reasoning is explained where the joker is not. he is not the same character as the joker personality wise, but he serves the same purpose.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X