Star Trek Into Darkness Official Synopsis Comments - Mania.com



COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

Showing items 71 - 80 of 96
<<  <  5 6 7 8 9 10 >  >>  
Kaziklu 11/29/2012 4:38:03 PM

 Karas1 it was a plot device, it was a crap piece of writing, and even more so for Spock.

But in fairness I hate almost everything Abrams has ever had his hand in.. Fringe being the exception.

There were tons of better ways to do this with out shitting on Trek. 

Episode One was better. 

karas1 11/29/2012 8:28:34 PM

Wish, I agree that casting was great.  The actors looked like younger versions of the originals and the acting was fine.  Zachary Quinto nailed Spock and I liked all the others except Checkov.  Since I liked that actor in other roles I don't think it was his fault.

The biggest problem with the movie was the script.  The script sucked and I had issues with the interior design of the Enterprise and the design (interior and exterior) of the Romulan ship.  Other than that the movie was fine.

But without a good script you can't have a good movie.  Everything comes down to that.

VermithraxPejorative 11/29/2012 8:37:03 PM

I dunno what all the hub-bub is about with Abrams Trek. I mean, before that movie came out, Star Trek was DEAD, DONE, FINISHED! Interest was gone, AT BEST, and the idea of ANOTHER Next Generation fiasco like Nemesis or Insurrection  just didn't sit well with many people at that point.

All this BS bickering over "plot holes" and "flashy FX" is just so much fan boy(girl) WHINING! Get over yourselves, people!

Abrams Star Trek did one thing: It REVIVED a DEAD FRANCHISE! Sure, it may not have been PERFECT, but none of the previous Trek Movies ever were, either. Personally, I enjoyed it, and I consider myself a Trekkie/er, being I like TOS and TNG! Abrams movie brought a sense of FUN back and took the last dying gasps of a franchise and put a little much needed adrenaline into the fading cardiac pulse that was the heart of Start Trek, and it didn't take itself so frakkin' SERIOUS! I have seen so many of you PRAISE the crapfest that is Star Trek IV and you have the GAUL to slam Abrams Star Trek? Oh, give me a break. You people can be so ridiculous at times.

 

Just so you know, I USED to be known as EagleManiac. I changed names to get a fresh perspective on this site, post without preconceptions of my like s and dislikes, and I see nothing changes. People while, bitch, moan and bicker about some of the most STUPID crap!

I can't WAIT for Star Trek Into Darkness! Those complaining or whining, oh well! Don't see it! Won't bother Abrams one bit!

 

Wiseguy 11/30/2012 4:45:08 AM

Ah Vermithrax but now you have outed yourself. Good to see you around buddy. So you've taken the name of one of the most badass dragons in movie history....nay.....THE most badass dragon in movie history in one of the most badass dragon movie in history....nay....THE most badass dragon movie in history :-) LOVE me some DRAGONSLAYER. Can't wait for it to be remade and no that's not a joke. Such an overlooked gem of a film. It still holds up today for the most part
 

DarthoftheDead 11/30/2012 4:59:06 AM

 I've brought this point up before and now it would seem like a good time to bring it up again.....

Where was Star Trek gonna go that we have'nt seen before?

Answer: Action/Adventure.

Were there plot hole's? Of course. Most movie's come with them.

Could the script have been better? Of course. Batman&Robin, anybody?

IMO, abrams did a good job in reviving a franchise that was dead in the water.

I would much rather watch Abrams Star Trek, then let's say, TDKR.

Can we all agree on that, at least, lol?

jackwagon 11/30/2012 7:25:54 AM

DarthoftheDead,

Did you really say you'd rather watch Star Trek 2009 than The Dark Knight Rises?  I hope you were joking.

I LIKED Star Trek 2009, but I would most certainly rewatch The Dark Knight Rises over it.

It's also a well-known fact that the film was heavily affected by the writers' strike, so they had to start shooting with a largely unfinished script.  I'm sure if time was a luxury everyone could afford, Abrams and co would have done significant rewrites to fix flaws within the film.  Unfortunately, they had to stick with what they had in hand.

Having said that, I agree that Star Trek needed a kick in the seat of its pants.  Abrams did that.  I recall something Jonathan Frakes said about where Star Trek should go following Insurrection, and his words were that it should be a balls to the wall action film.  He was right.  There is a time and place for epic space battles in Star Trek, and we've gotten them in a few of the films (Wrath of Khan, Undiscovered Country, Nemesis, etc).  

You're right - Star Trek was dead in the water after Nemesis and Enterprise wrapped up.  Paramount didn't know exactly where the franchise should go, except that they needed a route that would excite average filmgoers while also respecting the core fan base.  

What I'm saying - and I think Kara will agree with me on this - is that Star Trek can allow for great action and special effects, but also be about storytelling.  If it wasn't, we wouldn't have gotten Wrath of Khan, Undiscovered Country, First Contact, and all of Deep Space Nine.  That's what I want from Star Trek Into Darkness: a film with awesome action and a great story with deep characters.  I don't think I'm asking for or expecting too much.

 

karas1 11/30/2012 7:35:49 AM

First, Star Trek has ALWAYS been action/adventure.  TOS never lacked for fistfights, phaser battles or starships firing photon torpedos at eachother.  But that wasn't ALL it was about.  There were also interesting ideas and socially relevant commentary.  There was characterization and, dare I say it, subtelty.

Was some of the acting hammy and the FX laughable by present standards?  Yes.  But it was revolutionary for it's time and still speaks to us today.  Which is why it spawned a slew of movies, new series and a cartoon.

I have never understood the arguement that because something else was worse then that makes the flaws in the project under discussion OK.  Was Batman and Robin a worse movie than Star Trek?  Yes.  Was Spock's Brain stupid?  Yes.  But so what?  If you're going to spend millions of dollars on a movie should you settle for "better than Batman and Robin"?  No.  You should go for City on the Edge of Forever script quality.  You should emulate the best of ST rather than settling for not being quite as bad as the worst.

DarthoftheDead 11/30/2012 9:39:32 AM

 @jackwagon - Sorry, Dude, what I meant to say was "Avatar".

DarthoftheDead 11/30/2012 9:50:04 AM

 @karas - Hey! Spock's brain was'nt stupid! How dare you call yourself  a Star Trek fan.....hmmpphh!

 

J/k, karas...all I'm trying to say is Abram's Star Trek wasnt THAT bad, IMO, if you feel otherwise, go nut's.....

I'm just glad it was as good as it is, unlike lets say, "Final Frontier" or "Insurrection" or how about "Attack of the Clone's", while these movies can be said to be entertaining, they just dont do it for me.

Higgy 11/30/2012 11:04:50 AM

Comparing Batman and Robin to Star Trek?  LOL...so you're saying they were the same caliber?  Ok so we agree they both sucked?  LOL

Sorry just teasing you.

<<  <  5 6 7 8 9 10 >  >>  

ADD A COMMENT

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Please click here to login.