Star Trek: Into Darkness - Pre-Discussion

[SamuraiEchidna]

looks like Star Trek vs Terrorists...

...And once I've boldly gone where no man has gone before, then you have my permission to die.
:laugh:

 

[Skyknight]

This has gotten a rather scathing review over on AICN (and they don't pull any punches on the spoilers)

 

[KingRanger]

This has gotten a rather scathing review over on AICN (and they don't pull any punches on the spoilers)

I wonder how many people won't see it simply because of bad reviews.

 

[Skyknight]

This comment on AICN made me laugh

so in this timeline the even numbered films suck?

 

[Galaxian]

Loved the first one, have high hopes for this one.

 

[Tom Constantine]

Removed the spoiler. Thanks for that Skyknight.

 

[Herman the German]

So far, I haven't had much incentive to watch this one. It seems to be more of the same as the last movie -- a good science-fiction movie but not a very good Star Trek movie. =\

 

[KingRanger]

So far, I haven't had much incentive to watch this one. It seems to be more of the same as the last movie -- a good science-fiction movie but not a very good Star Trek movie. =\

I would bet if the first movie had all that TNG tencho babble that "It's not a good trek movie" stuff.. Wouldn't even be said. Star Trek is the ship, the characters, etc. So what exactly did the first Trek do that made it not be a good "Trek movie". I have watched every movie. I have seen every series start to finish, and I have read a lot of the books. The 2009 Trek was amazing. It was a great Trek movie, and a great scifi movie.

 

[Herman the German]

It's not about the techno-babble, but the characterizations seem kind of off (even with the alternate reality changes in mind), the focus was too much on action, there is not enough "exploring what's out there" stuff but more "shoot that thing" and… I'unno, it just rubs me the wrong way.

That, and some more nitpicky things like the false use of Stardates or such childishly not-sci-fi terms like "Red Matter". :B Ketchup is red matter, too, does that mean I get to implode a planet with ketchup? =B

 

[KingRanger]

It's not about the techno-babble, but the characterizations seem kind of off (even with the alternate reality changes in mind), the focus was too much on action, there is not enough "exploring what's out there" stuff but more "shoot that thing" and… I'unno, it just rubs me the wrong way.

That, and some more nitpicky things like the false use of Stardates or such childishly not-sci-fi terms like "Red Matter". :B Ketchup is red matter, too, does that mean I get to implode a planet with ketchup? =B

I think the characterizations are very good. Kirk's had to be changed slightly because of the death of his father which didn't happen outside that new time line. I am fine with the action focus. IMO, there has been enough long winded stuff in Trek.