› ›

Star Trek (1966 - present)

1…1011131516…85

Comments

  • Dalton12Dalton12
    Posts: 1,107
    BOX OFFICE: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS Opens With A Disappointing $70.1 Million Weekend
    Read more at http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/JoshWildingNewsAndReviews/news/?a=79933#1ebr9yFrlY5AbQSl.99
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,355
    No problem, it'll still do well in everywhere that isn't the US.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,480
    Ah it is sad isn't that, that an opening weekend at $70.1 million is considered a disappointment.

    I do look forward to seeing this one.
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    edited May 2013 Posts: 5,767
    bondsum wrote:
    According to @boldfinger I've included spoilers in my comments below so I've covered up part of it. Jeezus, I think these spoiler hunters are like modern day conspiracists, they see them in everything. But for you only @boldy...
    Very kind of you, but I was actually thinking of people who haven´t seen the film.
    And with spoilers I was actually more referring to the part you didn´t put inside spoiler tags, for obvious reasons...
    Just ignore me if I get on your nerves ;-).
  • BounineBounine
    edited May 2013 Posts: 2,599
    So does the new Star Trek film lack emotional resonance? Is there some good character movement in it?

    This reviewer didn't seem to think it was much like the originals:

    http://www.themarysue.com/star-trek-into-darkness-review/

    I'll have to check it out myself but maybe another director could be a good thing. Four years is too long to wait between films anyway.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Bounine wrote:
    So does the new Star Trek film lack emotional resonance? Is there some good character movement in it?

    It's packed full of emotions. I teared up several times. Though this might be a spoiler so I'll hide it in case.
    I don't think I've ever seen so characters in a movie cry.

  • BounineBounine
    Posts: 2,599
    That reviewer and the people who posted underneath didn't seem to think much of it at all.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Bounine wrote:
    That reviewer and the people who posted underneath didn't seem to think much of it at all.
    Who knows, maybe they aren't fans.
  • BounineBounine
    edited May 2013 Posts: 2,599
    Do you think it's similar to the originals? I mean the original films. It would be too much to ask for the film to be wholly reminiscent of the original 60's series.
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    Posts: 5,767
    Bounine wrote:
    Do you think it's similar to the originals? I mean the original films. It would be too much to ask for the film to be wholly reminiscent of the original 60's series.
    It´s more similar to a sped-up version of the original 60s series than to the original films.

  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    edited May 2013 Posts: 16,351
    Bounine wrote:
    Do you think it's similar to the originals? I mean the original films. It would be too much to ask for the film to be wholly reminiscent of the original 60's series.

    It felt like the best of The Original Series rolled up into one beautiful package. In my opinion, this was probably closest to the original series we've seen in a long time. I can't praise the cast enough! While in ST 2009, everybody was getting into there roles, in Into Darkness, they were the characters we saw in The Original Series. Kirk was commanding and strong willed. Spock was starting to embrace his human side. Bones was charming with his wild metaphors and I'm a doctor not a you get the point. :) Into Darkness to me, had the heart and soul of the Original Series, while bringing in new ideas and twists to things we've seen in the show. If you didn't like ST2009, chances are, you'll enjoy this film. I sure did. :)

    Oh and I was dressed to impress when I saw the movie. ;)
    944171_523709074333715_1267181232_n.jpg
  • Dalton12Dalton12
    Posts: 1,107
    I'm a devoted Star Trek fan and have seen every episode of every series, all seasons, plus all Star Trek movies, multiple times. Star Trek into darkness was absolutely enthralling and was just as good as JJ Abrams' last one. (I believe Abrams has produced one of the best Star Trek movies.)
  • BounineBounine
    Posts: 2,599
    Bounine wrote:
    Do you think it's more like the originals?

    Wow. The comments below on that review I pasted weren't anything to write home about but people here seem to rave on the film. I've seen every episode of the original series from the 60's and all the films with the same characters from this era but I'm not really interested in the spinoffs. They just don't do it for me. A "sped up version" of the original 60's series sounds pretty good. It is a pity that contemporary Hollywood films have to be so damn fast paced these days as the general audience seem to have developed shorter attentions spans, but hey, it's the most one can hope for in this day and age I guess.

  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    edited May 2013 Posts: 7,314
    Bounine wrote:
    A "sped up version" of the original 60's series sounds pretty good. It is a pity that contemporary Hollywood films have to be so damn fast paced these days as the general audience seem to have developed shorter attentions spans, but hey, it's the most one can hope for in this day and age I guess.
    This is why a lot of people have problems with JJ's Trek. They are obviously trying to appeal to a more mainstream audience with these new films. The same mainstream audience that thought that Star Trek was lame and boring and only for nerds. So they have dumbed it down a bit in order to make it more "exciting".
    I have not seen Into Darkness yet. I enjoyed Star Trek 2009 for what it was. The franchise sorely needed a pick-me-up and this fun and energetic movie proved that Trek was still a viable commodity. I knew that the next one needed to be different though. A great Star Trek episode/film makes you think. It has layers and depth. I fear this is not what we are ever going to get with Abrams.
    I also can't believe they ripped off Wrath of Khan. How disappointing.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    It's not so much a ripoff as Homage.
  • SandySandy Somewhere in Europe
    Posts: 4,012
    I said it before and I will say it again: it's great! I loved it, left the theater with a smile on my face. At a certain time there were people crying, including a friend of mine. It had humour, it had action, it had drama, it had romance, it had Cumberbatch... I could go on. One of the best films I have seen in recent times.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    edited May 2013 Posts: 12,480
    Cumberbatch alone - especially after me reading rave reviews of him in this - would make me see this film.

    P.S. Nice outfit, @Murdock! A true fan for sure.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Thank you @4EverBonded. :\">
  • timmertimmer
    Posts: 4,622
    I caught Into Darkness on AVX/real3d presentation. I can honestly say this was probably the best cinema experience of my life. The big screen, big surround sound, real 3d presentation of this film is something to behold. It's well worth the extra cash. I felt like I was in outer space, along with the characters. Again I marvel at how well the original series was re-cast.. All 7 of the main characters again are bang-on. Spock and Bones are especially, eerily close to the originals.
    This re-boot I think is one of the great cinema achievements of all time. The movie looks gorgeous. I love the new-look Star Fleet uniforms, which are based on the original series look, but with better looking fabric.
    Pine isn't Shatner but he's close enough.
    And the way this films ends is wonderful, and this isn't really a spoiler
    the film sets up the Enterprise crew for the 5 year mission, that we saw featured on the TV series. We get the familiar voice-over, the music. It's the original seriesbeing relaunched. The two-film intro of the crew is complete. It's time to get exploring. I look forward to many more movies

  • Dalton12Dalton12
    Posts: 1,107
    BOX OFFICE: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS Finally Crosses $100 Million In North America
    Read more at http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/JoshWildingNewsAndReviews/news/?a=80142#dxmAAgqJFsw6TzYo.99
  • bondsumbondsum
    Posts: 3,333
    Is ATTACK THE BLOCK Director Joe Cornish In The Running To Helm STAR TREK 3? While he's apparently just one of many names being considered at this early stage, Attack the Block director and Ant-Man writer Joe Cornish is the first director to be linked to the third instalment in the Star Trek franchise which J.J. Abrams will be unable to helm due to his Star Wars commitments.

    http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/JoshWildingNewsAndReviews/news/?a=80169
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    If Abrams can't do it, then I suggest Brad Bird.
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    edited May 2013 Posts: 5,767
    Murdock wrote:
    If Abrams can't do it, then I suggest Brad Bird.
    Who just turned down Star Wars for his own project.
    Or because he wants to be free to do Trek \:D/ ??
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    boldfinger wrote:
    Murdock wrote:
    If Abrams can't do it, then I suggest Brad Bird.
    Who just turned down Star Wars for his own project.
    Or because he wants to be free to do Trek \:D/ ??

    Well he did Mission: Impossible Ghost Protocol when Abrams couldn't direct, so Bird would be the obvious choice. :-bd
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited May 2013 Posts: 13,355
    Abrams didn't want to direct that one and Cruise likes someone different for every film anyway. I agree, Bird would be great if Abrams says no.
  • timmertimmer
    edited May 2013 Posts: 4,622
    I am glad that Abrams has made it so big and dragged Lindeloff along with him. Reason:
    Lost, I think is the smartest TV show every made, and Lost, launched by Abrams, was Lindeloff's big coming out, along with fellow show-runner Carlton Cuse.
  • BounineBounine
    edited May 2013 Posts: 2,599
    timmer wrote:
    I caught Into Darkness on AVX/real3d presentation. I can honestly say this was probably the best cinema experience of my life. The big screen, big surround sound, real 3d presentation of this film is something to behold. It's well worth the extra cash. I felt like I was in outer space, along with the characters. Again I marvel at how well the original series was re-cast.. All 7 of the main characters again are bang-on. Spock and Bones are especially, eerily close to the originals.
    This re-boot I think is one of the great cinema achievements of all time. The movie looks gorgeous. I love the new-look Star Fleet uniforms, which are based on the original series look, but with better looking fabric.
    Pine isn't Shatner but he's close enough.
    And the way this films ends is wonderful, and this isn't really a spoiler
    the film sets up the Enterprise crew for the 5 year mission, that we saw featured on the TV series. We get the familiar voice-over, the music. It's the original seriesbeing relaunched. The two-film intro of the crew is complete. It's time to get exploring. I look forward to many more movies

    Do you think Star Trek is actually worth seeing in 3D as opposed to 2D?

    I saw a film in 4DX the other day and my chair was rocking around everywhere. I had water squirted in my face, wind was blown on me, and the smell of the sea sprayed out of my seat etc. Not really my kind of thing but it was worth the experience just once. :) Won't be seeing Star Trek in 4D but if it really is worth checking out in 3D instead of just going for the standard 2D then maybe I will. What are people's thoughts? I've never really been overwhelmed with other cinematic features I've seen in 3D.
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    Posts: 5,767
    The only film that convinced me in 3D was Scorsese´s Hugo Cabret. I saw STID two times, and both times avoided 3D, so I can´t really say. On Iron Man 3 the 3D bothered me a lot. But I guess the scenes in space in ST always look good in 3D.
    One thing I can say for sure: STID did look very good in 2D ;-).
  • Dalton12Dalton12
    Posts: 1,107
    POLL: Who Should Be Hired To Direct STAR TREK 3?
    Read more at http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/BatFreak/news/?a=80226#TIr6FPpHAch8jJd0.99
  • timmertimmer
    edited May 2013 Posts: 4,622
    Bounine wrote:
    Do you think Star Trek is actually worth seeing in 3D as opposed to 2D?

    I saw a film in 4DX the other day and my chair was rocking around everywhere. I had water squirted in my face, wind was blown on me, and the smell of the sea sprayed out of my seat etc. Not really my kind of thing but it was worth the experience just once. :) Won't be seeing Star Trek in 4D but if it really is worth checking out in 3D instead of just going for the standard 2D then maybe I will. What are people's thoughts? I've never really been overwhelmed with other cinematic features I've seen in 3D.
    :)) 4d. Surely you jest. That just sounds uncomfortable.
    Trek, yes is worth the extra 3d, and Ultra AVX, which is surround sound and a bigger screen.
    You will feel engrossed in the film, almost surrounded by it.
    I think the rip-off days of 3d might be coming to a close. In the post Avatar days, there was a lot of dissapointing 3d rushed into cinemas, but I think the big budget films by now have caught up with what Cameron did so well with Avatar.
    3d I think is finally safe, and not a complete waste of cash.
Sign In or Register to comment.