NewlyRetired
Footballguy
The new Star Trek movie opens this Friday and is doing very well with the reviewers running at a very solid 94% on Rotten Tomatoes after 47 reviews counted.
Why do you think that?Best Buy has a deal with several Trek Boy Rays that are $8 and come with an $8 voucher to Beyond.
Even if you already have them, might as well get them and give away.
Looking forward to Beyond
I have a bad feeling this may be the last new Trek movie.
They are already in pre development for number 4. JJ was just interviewed and he said they are discussing different ideas for how to handle Anton's death in real life and said they won't recast the roll as one of the choices for number 4.I have a bad feeling this may be the last new Trek movie.
Oh, I didn't know that. Fears assuaged!They are already in pre development for number 4. JJ was just interviewed and he said they are discussing different ideas for how to handle Anton's death in real life and said they won't recast the roll as one of the choices for number 4.
Pine and Quinto signed new deals late last year to continue with the franchise.
As long as this does not bomb, I think number 4 in 2019ish is an almost certainty.
Not only that, but relieved, too.Oh, I didn't know that. Fears assuaged!
I recommend seeing it in IMAX 3D if you're a big fan of the series.Definitely seeing this on the theatrical big screen.
Yeah, pretty big fan of the series, wasn't planning on seeing in IMAX, but also a 3D fan, so perhaps I will, thanks for the rec.I recommend seeing it in IMAX 3D if you're a big fan of the series.
I understand your complaint but you have to acknowledge the difference between a 120 minute movie and a TV series like TOS that had 3555 minutes. You can take your time and make things clear in a TV series slowly episode after episode. It is much more difficult to take that level of time in a movie without destroying any sort of flow in the movie.We'll go see it as I have certainly enjoyed all of the in-jokes and action elements, but it isn't really Star Trek, which is why I'm glad it's in a different timeline/universe than the TV shows (including the new one, they've indicated). I love them both, but one key difference between Star Trek and Star Wars is this: on TOS at least, every control and display on the bridge was important and had a specific function (this was also the case in Star Trek II). However, no one has ever indicated what any button in the cockpit of the Falcon (except the hyperdrive activator) does. The Abramsverse Trek movies are like the former, with the bridge of the E appearing more like an Apple store than anything previously shown on TV or in the movies.
Still fun, though. Glad it's getting good reviews.
No they weren't. 90% of that stuff was just made up BS. Just look at the way Chekov or Sulu bang their hands on the controls anytime they go somewhere. Or half the bull#### Spock did at his console.We'll go see it as I have certainly enjoyed all of the in-jokes and action elements, but it isn't really Star Trek, which is why I'm glad it's in a different timeline/universe than the TV shows (including the new one, they've indicated). I love them both, but one key difference between Star Trek and Star Wars is this: on TOS at least, every control and display on the bridge was important and had a specific function (this was also the case in Star Trek II). However, no one has ever indicated what any button in the cockpit of the Falcon (except the hyperdrive activator) does. The Abramsverse Trek movies are like the former, with the bridge of the E appearing more like an Apple store than anything previously shown on TV or in the movies.
Still fun, though. Glad it's getting good reviews.
Not at all. Wrath of Khan (the real one) had extensive scenes of total Enterprise-pr0n. The Kobayashi Maru sequence, the entire sequence on the bridge from the detection of the Reliant to Scotty arriving on the bridge holding his nephew, and then the Mutara Nebula scene all had *incredible* detail on the bridge (and as a bonus, there were Reliant bridge scenes as well). By contrast, the Abramsverse movies have thus far treated the bridge like a white-colored, blindingly-lit afterthought, with lens flares and guys selling iPads in the background, and no detail whatsoever to what anyone is doing. Spock and Uhura barely ever even sit down.I understand your complaint but you have to acknowledge the difference between a 120 minute movie and a TV series like TOS that had 3555 minutes. You can take your time and make things clear in a TV series slowly episode after episode. It is much more difficult to take that level of time in a movie without destroying any sort of flow in the movie.
The actors didn't necessarily use the buttons correctly (and so what if they did?), but many of them (including at the communications console and at the library computer station) were actually labeled, and the screens at the consoles surrounding the captain's chair had written detail on them that can now be seen on the remastered DVDs and BluRay. But it's not just a question of what the buttons did or what the displays indicated; it's dialogue explaining that, for example, the vampire cloud in "Obsession" would not be stopped by the deflectors. The cat-and-mouse game between the E and the Klingon ship in "Friday's Child." The amazing technical details discussed on BOTH ships in "The Doomsday Machine." Just three examples right off the top of my head. None of this goes on in the Abramsverse. And that's fine. I'm just sorry to see it become more like Star Wars in that respect. Star Wars does Star Wars just fine.No they weren't. 90% of that stuff was just made up BS. Just look at the way Chekov or Sulu bang their hands on the controls anytime they go somewhere. Or half the bull#### Spock did at his console.
Again though, movie vs TV show. Compare apples to apples. The TOS movies had no more detail than what's offered in the new ones.The actors didn't necessarily use the buttons correctly (and so what if they did?), but many of them (including at the communications console and at the library computer station) were actually labeled, and the screens at the consoles surrounding the captain's chair had written detail on them that can now be seen on the remastered DVDs and BluRay. But it's not just a question of what the buttons did or what the displays indicated; it's dialogue explaining that, for example, the vampire cloud in "Obsession" would not be stopped by the deflectors. The cat-and-mouse game between the E and the Klingon ship in "Friday's Child." The amazing technical details discussed on BOTH ships in "The Doomsday Machine." Just three examples right off the top of my head. None of this goes on in the Abramsverse. And that's fine. I'm just sorry to see it become more like Star Wars in that respect. Star Wars does Star Wars just fine.
Wrath of Khan sure did. See my post above. Don't see how anyone can argue that for a second.Again though, movie vs TV show. Compare apples to apples. The TOS movies had no more detail than what's offered in the new ones.
I enjoy all version of Star Trek, but the bold is how I feel about these recent movies. They aren't Star Trek movies, they are Action Movies in the Star Trek universe.bcdjr1 said:I liked what they did with the first movie because it was about resetting the universe. Into Darkness was a bit too heavy on the fan service for my tastes. And I'm not excited about this one at all. Star Trek wasn't meant to be something like Star Wars or some sort of space action thing. It was supposed to be somerhing more cerebral. Exploration into the unknown and how humanity dealt with discovering new cultures and strange phenomena. The reboots are making it more like that joke Army slogan: "travel to new places, meet new and interesting people and kill them!" with a bit of "blow #### up" thrown in for good measure.
none of those scenes explained how they used every button on the bridge which is what you originally claimed.Not at all. Wrath of Khan (the real one) had extensive scenes of total Enterprise-pr0n. The Kobayashi Maru sequence, the entire sequence on the bridge from the detection of the Reliant to Scotty arriving on the bridge holding his nephew, and then the Mutara Nebula scene all had *incredible* detail on the bridge (and as a bonus, there were Reliant bridge scenes as well). By contrast, the Abramsverse movies have thus far treated the bridge like a white-colored, blindingly-lit afterthought, with lens flares and guys selling iPads in the background, and no detail whatsoever to what anyone is doing. Spock and Uhura barely ever even sit down.
I love that too. Would have been so cool if they had changed that display. I know they were very worried about audience confusion, which is why they had Khan dispense with the "battle stations" lighting.I still need someone to explain to me why the schematic of the Reliant that we see a display of on the bridge doesn't look like Reliant.
Did they change the design?
Sure, that's exactly what I said. Nice chatting with ya about this.none of those scenes explained how they used every button on the bridge which is what you originally claimed.
?Sure, that's exactly what I said.
Well what was Star trek II, III, IV, V, VI...when was it not like this?I enjoy all version of Star Trek, but the bold is how I feel about these recent movies. They aren't Star Trek movies, they are Action Movies in the Star Trek universe.
Oh they all have action in them, I just feel those were more story driven (not saying all great stories) with action, as opposed to action with a background story.Well what was Star trek II, III, IV, V, VI...when was it not like this?I enjoy all version of Star Trek, but the bold is how I feel about these recent movies. They aren't Star Trek movies, they are Action Movies in the Star Trek universe.
You're letting nostalgia cloud your memory. 2 was your basic revenge outsmart the bad guy plot. 3 was a pretty big mess. 4 was essentially a long episode. 5 was awful. 6 was good but again a paint by numbers murder mystery.Oh they all have action in them, I just feel those were more story driven (not saying all great stories) with action, as opposed to action with a background story.
Enterprise crashes on an alien planet. Crew is captured. Hot alien babe. Some nameless bad guy who's ### Kirk has to kick. It's not Shakespeare but again, there's as much story as the first 2. In fact, it might be the first if the new ones to branch out in a non safe direction.The 1st reboot felt plenty trekkie to me. It was story with action not the other way around. The 2nd was moving more towards the action direction, but was still as much a story as Wrath of Kahn was.
The trailers in both of those reflected that. They were story driven, serious slow orchestral music, etc. The 3rd trailer is rap music and car chases while they advertise "from the director of Fast and Furious". Not sure if that means the movie will be the same but there was essentially nothing about story in any of the trailers.
5 is kinda bad. I remember seeing it at the $1 theater.You're letting nostalgia cloud your memory. 2 was your basic revenge outsmart the bad guy plot. 3 was a pretty big mess. 4 was essentially a long episode. 5 was awful. 6 was good but again a paint by numbers murder mystery.
5 is maybe worse than 1.5 is kinda bad. I remember seeing it at the $1 theater.
Definitely worse than 1. It was 9 years later and the effects looked worse.5 is maybe worse than 1.
You're letting nostalgia cloud your memory. 2 was your basic revenge outsmart the bad guy plot. 3 was a pretty big mess. 4 was essentially a long episode. 5 was awful. 6 was good but again a paint by numbers murder mystery.
2 was MUCH more than that.You're letting nostalgia cloud your memory. 2 was your basic revenge outsmart the bad guy plot. 3 was a pretty big mess. 4 was essentially a long episode. 5 was awful. 6 was good but again a paint by numbers murder mystery.
Gotta love autocorrect! Spock with sister wives on a "mission" overseas.I liked 4, when Spock did a little too much LDS.
Talk about too much LDS.Gotta love autocorrect! Spock with sister wives on a "mission" overseas.
Have not seen any spoilers, but one review I read said his motivations are revealed fairly late in the film (this particular reviewer said it was too late to really matter beyond "I am the bad guy"), not sure if there is a wink-wink tie-in with the original series in any way.Any word/leaks about Idris Elba's character? Just noticed him in recent previews and his character seems bitter toward Starfleet. Maybe we're getting a Heart of Darkness-style story, like Coppola did with Apocalypse Now?