• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Star Trek Into Darkness: 86% at RT.com (Post reviews here!)

Page 14 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
I really enjoyed the movie, but honestly think JJ Abrams needs to ditch Lindelof and get a real writer. I'd love to watch better Star Trek movies with this cast, with original stories.
 
I believe they wanted to show how Kirk was just being Kirk. Saw nothing wrong with the scene. Funny how it's ok to show people getting sucked into space, thousands of people dying left and right but show one underwear scene and shit hits the fan...
 
NikolaeVarius said:
Only needs a bit more abs definition.
Click to expand...

Not to go all ATOT-"pointy elbows!" but what is that line at her armpit? Surgery scar? Oddly prominent vein?

Buttzilla said:
I believe they wanted to show how Kirk was just being Kirk. Saw nothing wrong with the scene. Funny how it's ok to show people getting sucked into space, thousands of people dying left and right but show one underwear scene and shit hits the fan...
Click to expand...

Villain attacks, people die: That stuff was part of the story's narrative. This wasn't. That's the very definition of "gratuitous." It just happened when they were talking about unrelated stuff.
 
Last edited:
I finally saw it last night, only to come away disappointed. By now most of the high notes have been hit; the movie was betrayed by a poor plot and too much cribbing of characters and scenes from the old movies.
 
Whine, whine, whine.

Some people won't be happy until they stop making Star Trek movies because they don't meet their standard of what it should be.

Yeah, it has plot holes. Yeah, stuff doesn't make sense.

It is, however, two hours of enjoyable movie watching.

The fact is that today a movie like The Wrath of Khan would have people screaming about how it needed more action.
 
techs said:
Whine, whine, whine.

Some people won't be happy until they stop making Star Trek movies because they don't meet their standard of what it should be.

Yeah, it has plot holes. Yeah, stuff doesn't make sense.

It is, however, two hours of enjoyable movie watching.

The fact is that today a movie like The Wrath of Khan would have people screaming about how it needed more action.
Click to expand...

Today people are screaming at people replying to 3 month old posts 😛
 
techs said:
Whine, whine, whine.

Some people won't be happy until they stop making Star Trek movies because they don't meet their standard of what it should be.

Yeah, it has plot holes. Yeah, stuff doesn't make sense.

It is, however, two hours of enjoyable movie watching.

The fact is that today a movie like The Wrath of Khan would have people screaming about how it needed more action.
Click to expand...

Fritzo said:
Today people are screaming at people replying to 3 month old posts 😛
Click to expand...

I just saw the movie.
 
This thread is relevant today because the movie is now available on iTunes. $19.99 in HD, or you can bundle it with the first ST for $24.99. Not available to rent yet though.
 
Kadarin said:
This thread is relevant today because the movie is now available on iTunes. $19.99 in HD, or you can bundle it with the first ST for $24.99. Not available to rent yet though.
Click to expand...

They're doing the digital release three weeks before the discs are sold.
 
TXHokie said:
And what's up with carrying a flipup communicator around, u know the phone watch, wearable tech, and google glass is just around the corner.
Click to expand...
Because they can destroy a city with the flipup which is probably a combo communicator/weapon. And it'll take just another few months or so to add it to the smaller wearable tech.

I did see the movie on Amazon and I should probably say this is a SPOILER alert below but I didn't take the realigning the core scene very seriously. It was like a little man going in and fixing something. Not that Kirk is physically a little guy. It's the expression I meant for something slighty silly. Like they had a little man kicking and kicking away at the tilted core peice until it aligned with the straight piece.

Concerning another scene why would hitting Khan with a small solid piece of metal stun him or slow him down at all?

Oh pfft it's a revived thread. But it just came out on Amazon video around today or yesterday I think.
 
Last edited:
After 5 television series and hundreds of episodes and then 10 movies it was time to reboot the franchise.

If you haven't had enough of the original series than I'm pretty sure nothing would satisfy you. People should stop being disappointed its not the same as the original universe. There was no way two new movies would have been made if they continued the previous universe.

Star Trek Nemesis grossed 67 million at the box office and cost 60 million to make. The studio lost a lot of money on it. Star Trek 2009 cost 150 million and did 385 million in box office and the studio made money and therefore made a second movie.

As far as I am concerned the old universe was played out and the new one needs to be judged on its own. I like that they have kept a lot of the old universe ideas in the new one and pay homage to it regulary.

Congrats to Jar Jar Abrams.
 
techs said:
After 5 television series and hundreds of episodes and then 10 movies it was time to reboot the franchise.

If you haven't had enough of the original series than I'm pretty sure nothing would satisfy you. People should stop being disappointed its not the same as the original universe. There was no way two new movies would have been made if they continued the previous universe.

Star Trek Nemesis grossed 67 million at the box office and cost 60 million to make. The studio lost a lot of money on it. Star Trek 2009 cost 150 million and did 385 million in box office and the studio made money and therefore made a second movie.

As far as I am concerned the old universe was played out and the new one needs to be judged on its own. I like that they have kept a lot of the old universe ideas in the new one and pay homage to it regulary.

Congrats to Jar Jar Abrams.
Click to expand...

Your post does not address me. I loved the 2009 film and wanted the reboot to continue as a franchise.

I hated the 2013 film and want Damon Lindeloff to experience public shame and humiliation.
 
Finally saw it this afternoon. It was "OK", but one part REALLY bugged the hell out of me.

The Who Wants to be a Millionare scene when current Spock "dials a friend" to future Spock

That REALLY boiled my green blood.
 
Last edited:
NFS4 said:
Finally saw it this afternoon. It was "OK", but one part REALLY bugged the hell out of me.

The Who Wants to be a Millionare scene when current Spock "dials a friend" to future Spock

That REALLY boiled my green blood.
Click to expand...

Dude. It was such a cop out.

You want to have Spock in the first movie as a bridge between the two timelines, fine. Made sense. Now we just need to forget about him. You're already doing what is basically the most well known Star Trek plot and fucking it up, did you really have to bring old Spock in to it as well?

I'm actually pretty happy JJA is moving on to Star Wars. He's an admitted Star Wars fan and in sure he'll do right by it. It's time to let someone who's a Star Trek fan do Star Trek.
 
Last edited:
techs said:
After 5 television series and hundreds of episodes and then 10 movies it was time to reboot the franchise.

If you haven't had enough of the original series than I'm pretty sure nothing would satisfy you. People should stop being disappointed its not the same as the original universe. There was no way two new movies would have been made if they continued the previous universe.

Star Trek Nemesis grossed 67 million at the box office and cost 60 million to make. The studio lost a lot of money on it. Star Trek 2009 cost 150 million and did 385 million in box office and the studio made money and therefore made a second movie.

As far as I am concerned the old universe was played out and the new one needs to be judged on its own. I like that they have kept a lot of the old universe ideas in the new one and pay homage to it regulary.

Congrats to Jar Jar Abrams.
Click to expand...

Because jumping forward in time would be difficult, right? Nah, lets just fuck up the past and call it star trek even though it barely is at this point!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top