 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regarding the ploy at the beginning of the film, where the Enterprise is hiding under water -- has the filmgoing audience of today really sunk that far down the IQ ladder as to accept this nonsense? Is the general public that mentally impaired now?
Even if the ship were built to also function as a submarine, which is insanely wasteful from an engineering standpoint, isn't it obvious to everyone with a pulse that a starship could hide from the pre-literate natives just by being up in space?
And why did they need a manned shuttlecraft to deliver a device into a volcano? To say nothing of Spock going into the volcano personally! Don't we have unmanned drones today that can already take on missions like that?
My worst fear is that this film accurately reflects the younger generation's intellectual level.
|
|
|
|
|
|
why not just beam the device into the volcano?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'll trot out that Richard Schickel quote again--"We have arrived at a point where people would rather subject themselves to the pain of failed art than wholeheartedly embrace a good piece of entertainment.
(Jesus, what a bunch of misanthropes.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'll trot out that Richard Schickel quote again--"We have arrived at a point where people would rather subject themselves to the pain of failed art than wholeheartedly embrace a good piece of entertainment.
You suggest one wholeheartedly embrace a good piece of entertainment. The point people here are making is: this movie is not a good piece of entertainment. In my book, "good entertainment" isn't just mindless, although I enjoy that kind of movie at times, too. In the case of a STAR TREK movie, one expects better of that entertainment - that it explore its themes intelligently, that the entertainment is organic to the story, not made for its own sake, and that its characters follow some sense of who they are (or who they're going against) in their arc. Not to mention, the idiocy of how the Khan character comes to the story, what the character looks like, etc. Even with an altered timeline, those events happened long before the timeline split, which means we're now faced with a very pedestrian way of looking at time travel, and not even creative at that.
Good entertainment should be "good" first and "entertainment" second. And as much as it pains me (I've been a Trek fan for over 40 years and really enjoyed the 2009 film), this film is a bloody mess.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My, everyone does seem to have gotten up on the wrong side of the tree today.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
May 22, 2013 - 3:01 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Khan
(Member)
|
I'll trot out that Richard Schickel quote again--"We have arrived at a point where people would rather subject themselves to the pain of failed art than wholeheartedly embrace a good piece of entertainment.
You suggest one wholeheartedly embrace a good piece of entertainment. The point people here are making is: this movie is not a good piece of entertainment. In my book, "good entertainment" isn't just mindless, although I enjoy that kind of movie at times, too. In the case of a STAR TREK movie, one expects better of that entertainment - that it explore its themes intelligently, that the entertainment is organic to the story, not made for its own sake, and that its characters follow some sense of who they are (or who they're going against) in their arc. Not to mention, the idiocy of how the Khan character comes to the story, what the character looks like, etc. Even with an altered timeline, those events happened long before the timeline split, which means we're now faced with a very pedestrian way of looking at time travel, and not even creative at that.
Good entertainment should be "good" first and "entertainment" second. And as much as it pains me (I've been a Trek fan for over 40 years and really enjoyed the 2009 film), this film is a bloody mess.
Are you sure that you watched the movie? They explained the reasoning what you call "idiocy" just fine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good Gawds! Just looked up the 2009 movie and Hemsworth DID play George Kirk in the first movie. So clean cut and dressed up I never recognized it was the same actor!!!!!
Captain of the USS Kelvin . . . for fifteen minutes, give or take. George's solution for the Kobayashi Maru Scenario does not go down too well with son - James T. Which begs the question - how would James T. have done it?
my BIGGEST beef with the new STAR TREK series is just this:
KIRK is not a BORN leader and is constantly told he needs to LEARN yet he never does and it always works out with him doing things his way and with blind luck!
Pike even calls him out on this and the only act we see is him "dying" for his crew which he doomed to death 10 mins prior before Scotty saved the day!
I wished that the first film had not had Pike leave the Enterprise and that the whole movie was Kirk learning about leadership from Pike; sadly it was not to be and even in the second film this is again touched and was almost a reality until they kill Pike off.
Another problem I have with BOTH films is that everything happens for a duration of TEN minutes...whatever problem or dramatic moment of tension occurs it all takes place in the span of TEN minutes like
Kirk violates the Prime Directive and loses the Enterprise only to be put on as First Officer and then regains it after Pikes death where they to Kronos where they are in danger only to be saved by John Harrison...etc etc.
I understand the Hollywood rule of every 20 mins have an action beat but my goodness!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, it's nice to know that two of my favorite people here also like the film.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
May 23, 2013 - 7:15 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Ado
(Member)
|
Well, this is pretty harsh
MOVIE REVIEW: Latest in Star Trek series is heartless
by Ealasaid A. Haas
Posted: 05/22/2013 02:17:33 PM PDT
Updated: 05/22/2013 02:17:33 PM PDT
There's a lot to like about the new Star Trek movie, "Star Trek: Into Darkness." It has a great cast, incredible special effects and thrilling action. Unfortunately, it also has an incredibly badly-written villain, a storyline that should be fine but somehow falls apart, and it completely fails to embody the underlying themes of the "Star Trek" canon. If you just want eyecandy, it's fine, but if you have strong opinions about "Star Trek," you should probably either skip this one or bring a flask of your favorite fortifying beverage.
The story relies heavily (a little too heavily, for my taste) on several sudden reveals, so I won't discuss it in too much depth here other than to say that it revolves around a villainous fellow (Benedict Cumberbatch) who does bad things and then is pursued by the U.S.S. Enterprise and her crew, whom we met in the first film.
This kind of movie lives or dies on the merits of its villain. For example, "The Dark Knight" is a movie with a ludicrous premise, a plot full of holes, and a fair amount of silliness but the late Heath Ledger was so arresting as the Joker that it was very easy to overlook all that. Unfortunately, "Star Trek: Into Darkness" does not have a villain even close to that good. Cumberbatch's character is by turns a sympathetic antihero, a scheming psychopath, a crazed terrorist and a cardboard cutout whose job is to express no emotion while executing amazing fight choreography, depending on what the script calls for.
It's not the actor's fault Cumberbatch is very talented and has the physicality the role demands. The script is what falls short. To make things worse (at the risk of giving away one of the "twists"), this villain is someone from the old Star Trek canon, someone born before the timeline split that gave us this strange new "Star Trek" world É someone who originally was not white. There are good reasons to be cautious about having a character be both a savage terrorist and a person of color, but "Iron Man 3" handled it incredibly cleverly, so clearly it can be done. Abrams' decision to whitewash this character and completely change not only his appearance but his characterization is not only nonsensical, it's cowardly.
Another flaw in the film is its attempt to be both Nolan-level gritty and a "Star Trek" story. Even at its darkest, "Star Trek" has always been about the spirit of cooperation, about diplomacy, about hope. You can't shoehorn that into the kind of bleak, gray-and-chrome cinematic schema that's all the rage right now. Or rather, if you can, this isn't how you do it. Abrams' tacked-on happy ending looks and feels a lot like Star Trek is supposed to, but that's only the last five minutes.
It's a shame, because there's so much good stuff in this movie. Plenty of it doesn't really belong in a "Star Trek" piece, but it's still awesome. There's a really long, drawn-out (and somewhat brutal) fight atop what appear to be flying transport vehicles. Cumberbatch gets to use his deep voice to very good, creepy effect on several occasions. We get to see the awesome Uhura (Zoe Saldana) speak Klingon, which is really cool. There are heaps of references to the original series for folks to chuckle at. The special effects are gorgeous, although I was disappointed that the bad guy's ship is really cool looking and we only get to see it lit very dimly. I wanted a good look at the thing.
But those are all of secondary importance compared to things like character and tone. I didn't have high expectations for "Star Trek: Into Darkness," but even those weren't met except by the surface things that are of secondary importance. If the things of primary importance aren't there, all the secondary amazingness is empty spectacle.
This is a "Star Trek" movie with no heart and a movie with no heart is not "Star Trek."
http://www.mercurynews.com/milpitas/ci_23300773/movie-review-latest-star-trek-series-is-heartless
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Star Trek is not The Dean Martin Variety Hour, but after a few comic bits in Star Trek III: The Search For Spock were well received, we've been subjected to enough "bits" to make a horse puke.
Trying to shoehorn the third-rate comedy material with Christopher Nolan-esque treachery and heroism leaves a very bad taste in one's mouth. As it has for the better part of three decades now.
I suppose the two most hapless "fan segments" in the world must be those of the Dallas Cowboys and Star Trek. No matter how mediocre the product is, we keep lining up at the gates.
Don't forget, this thread requires "Highly Concentrated" kneejerk sentiments. Stick to it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
