Star Trek - Into Darkness

  • Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and give us your nominations!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
Lightning Lord Rule

Il_Duce Lightning Lord Rule

Lightning Fast
<Charitable Administrator>
11,107
59,366
Really the only thing that really bothered me about the 2009 ST movie was Kirk and Scotty beaming from that icecube onto the Enterprise. Which had gone into warp. Quite a bit earlier than when they beamed out. Putting them a looooooong way away. To give transporters that kind of range opens up all sorts of crazyness. If I can just beam that far, why do I need starships to get around? etc etc.

But really it was just a lazy writing solution to the corner they had painted themselves into, and the movie works best when you don't think too hard about stuff like that, like Basil Exposition said in Austin Powers. /endnerdrant
 
Agraza

Agraza

Registered Hutt
6,890
521
Dumar_sl said:
I'm refusing all invitations to see this piece of shit, which I've already made my friends well aware. If you're a ST or fan of real scifi generally, you should be doing the same. If you're an average mainstream mouthbreather lemming, I'm sure you'll love it.
Click to expand...
Star Trekis"average mainstream mouthbreather" sci-fi. How they fight and what they fight over is horribly anachronistic. The frequent abuse of physics keeps it checked into schlock territory permanently. You're like a hipster with the position that Britney Spears' first album was REAL music, and her new ones are "average mainstream mouthbreather" music.
 
D

Dom_sl

shitlord
266
0
chaos_sl said:
No, it wasn't. It was just a story.
Click to expand...
Eh, I'd have to say it's a bit more than just a story once you look at how it influenced how many people view life, and act in it. Many stories do this however, so ST doesn't deserve some shining holier than thou medal or some shit.
 
iannis

iannis

Musty Nester
31,351
17,657
Star Trek and Star Wars aren't really even science fiction. They're technological fantasies. That doesn't make them bad, or less. It allows them to pull a wizard did it to get out of bad writing though.

There's lots of movies that are actually science fiction and incorporate interesting stories. Like that one that Vigo Aragorn Ghostbusters made. Or that other one that came out around the same time with Michael Cain where the only fertile woman in the entire UK was some 15 year old black girl. Hell, even Gattaca.

Like Fahrenheit 451 was science fiction. The Martian Chronicles were technological fantasy.

Getting up on some high horse about how the new cast is diluting the purity of Trek's science is just re-tar-potatoe
 
D

Dumar_sl

shitlord
3,712
4
Dom_sl said:
Eh, I'd have to say it's a bit more than just a story once you look at how it influenced how many people view life, and act in it. Many stories do this however, so ST doesn't deserve some shining holier than thou medal or some shit.
Click to expand...
You guys don't get it, don't see to the level you should see. It's certainly unique, and it has a unique message that I've never seen before, in any medium (at least when it was released). You can argue about what construes as scifi, but that's not really the point. Up until ST, I've never seen a piece of fiction that had such a glimmering aspiration, raw hope, and positive message about the future of humanity, of all of us. Tell me of another one, in books, movies, or otherwise.

Every piece of space science fiction is almost always wholly the same. It's some ultra fascist, para-militaristic bleak future where the only hope for humanity is xyz, or some type of cowboy-ish western type with ships and mercenaries. ST has always painted a world with a very unique brush, and this brush paints humans that are essentially almost perfect. They've overcome the common vices that we struggle with everyday, from personal vices to societal ones.

All of our issues have been mostly solved in that universe, but the best stories in the ST universe are about how those problems, no matter how close to perfect we get, still try to come to the surface, like that Lessons in Humanity: Habeas Corpus clip I posted. ST was powerful in that it wasn't just social commentary on our society (which the new ST and most new fiction isn't even this) but it sayshow we should aspire to be: what type of person, society, should we aspire to become. To me, that was always the core of Roddenberry's vision. It was never about a scifi story, but an aspiration told through one.

The new ST isn't garbage when you compare it to other garbage released today. It's garbage when you compare to what it should be.
 
Tarrant

Tarrant

<Prior Amod>
15,940
9,332
Dumar you need to get off this "Roddenberry's vision" nut you always toute. You are a self admitted fan of Deep Space nine and that was totally against his vision and his family was pissed over its making. We've been over this before.

Get. The. Fuck. Over. It.

The movies are good, they are entertaining. The last two movies before the reboot sucked so much balls it was silly. You're fucking wrong, get past it and stop shitting up the damn thread with the same post over and over. It would be one thing if you made any valid points, but you don't.

Humanity is perfect? Again, DS9 went totally against that. Yet, you were a fan of that. DS9 showed humans were gritty as fuck and would do anything and even kill innocents in order to carry out an objective. It went out of its way to showcase how flawed humanity actually was at its core.

Your only core argument is not only flawed, it's wrong. Get over it dude.
 
Abefroman

Abefroman

Naxxramas 1.0 Raider
12,594
11,938
I've been a fan of Star Trek but not fanatical about it like most here. Guess this new style doesn't bother me that much. I don't really consider DS9 Star Trek though. That was just a blatant theft of Babylon 5 and didn't really fit in the Star Trek Universe or the Star Trek message.
 
Abefroman

Abefroman

Naxxramas 1.0 Raider
12,594
11,938
Yah tons of original arguments around here. Ill drop it, wouldn't want to get this thread deleted.
 
D

Dumar_sl

shitlord
3,712
4
Tarrant_sl said:
Get. The. Fuck. Over. It.
Click to expand...
Do you know what the problem is? It isn't that they made a new Star Trek. It isn't even the fact they made a new Star Trek that focuses on action. The problem is that it's made so 'genericized' and 'templatized' that it's no different than any other action movie. You could stick the characters from Into Darkness into action_film02 and vice versa, and there would be no difference in the movies. They're all little cardboard cutouts used interchangeably among movies that it doesn't matter who the characters are or what they do. If you wanted to stick the new Kirk in the latest Die Hard, it wouldn't change anything about the movie. Just another generic actor doing generic plot devices with no substance in their doing. There's no differentiation in any of these new films to warrant something being 'good' over something 'bad' - it's all a sea of crap. Most of the audiences are just too apathetic to call it crap.
 
Tarrant

Tarrant

<Prior Amod>
15,940
9,332
Abefroman_sl said:
Yah tons of original arguments around here. Ill drop it, wouldn't want to get this thread deleted.
Click to expand...
rrr_img_22732.jpg


rrr_img_22732.jpg
 
Tarrant

Tarrant

<Prior Amod>
15,940
9,332
Dumar_sl said:
Do you know what the problem is? It isn't that they made a new Star Trek. It isn't even the fact they made a new Star Trek that focuses on action. The problem is that it's made so 'genericized' and 'templatized' that it's no different than any other action movie. You could stick the characters from Into Darkness into action_film02 and vice versa, and there would be no difference in the movies. They're all little cardboard cutouts used interchangeably among movies that it doesn't matter who the characters are or what they do. If you wanted to stick the new Kirk in the latest Die Hard, it wouldn't change anything about the movie. Just another generic actor doing generic plot devices with no substance in their doing. There's no differentiation in any of these new films to warrant something being 'good' over something 'bad' - it's all a sea of crap. Most of the audiences are just too apathetic to call it crap.
Click to expand...
Another poor argument. There was again a lot of action in DS9 and they reused the same scenes in ship combat multiple times in multiple episodes. Talk about cardboard cut out action scenes. Your "They're all little cardboard cutouts used interchangeably among movies" argument is once again totally destroyed by the very examples of material you're trying to compare it too.
 
D

Dumar_sl

shitlord
3,712
4
What? The acting in DS9 completely destroys any of the acting in the latest film. I wasn't talking about the CGI, which even further stresses my point. It's not about the 'ooh shiny colors'.

edit: And thinking about it further, it's more culturally pervasive than just Star Trek. In TNG, DS9, the 'screentime' for a dialog was a lot longer. That is to say, a conversation or exchange happened slower and the screenplay let the explanation go into detail about some why's or how's of whatever the characters were doing. And it was in these longer exchanges that the acting ability of whoever was playing the character shone through, and the obvious example of this is Stewart, delivering monologues on morality and whatever else perfectly.

If you look at new shows and movies in general, this 'dialog screentime' doesn't exist. The transitions are hyper-fast, with only blurbs of conversations on screen. The best example of this I can think of is Newsroom. I LOVED the opening scene, but after 4-5 eps, absolutely loathed this show because they never let a dialog carry through to an end. It was always hyper-fast sarcastic blurb1, 2, 3, end scene. rinse repeat.

EVEN IF the actors in these new movies had any acting ability, the screenwriters are so terrible they couldn't even show it.
 
chaos

chaos

Buzzfeed Editor
17,324
4,839
Dom_sl said:
Eh, I'd have to say it's a bit more than just a story once you look at how it influenced how many people view life, and act in it. Many stories do this however, so ST doesn't deserve some shining holier than thou medal or some shit.
Click to expand...
If that's the case then every story is "more than just a story". If everything is special then nothing is. Every story influences people, inspires people, that is what it is all about. Star Trek is no different than anything else.
 
Tarrant

Tarrant

<Prior Amod>
15,940
9,332
Dumar_sl said:
What? The acting in DS9 completely destroys any of the acting in the latest film. I wasn't talking about the CGI, which even further stresses my point. It's not about the 'ooh shiny colors'.

edit: And thinking about it further, it's more culturally pervasive than just Star Trek. In TNG, DS9, the 'screentime' for a dialog was a lot longer. That is to say, a conversation or exchange happened slower and the screenplay let the explanation go into detail about some why's or how's of whatever the characters were doing. And it was in these longer exchanges that the acting ability of whoever was playing the character shone through, and the obvious example of this is Stewart, delivering monologues on morality and whatever else perfectly.

If you look at new shows and movies in general, this 'dialog screentime' doesn't exist. The transitions are hyper-fast, with only blurbs of conversations on screen. The best example of this I can think of is Newsroom. I LOVED the opening scene, but after 4-5 eps, absolutely loathed this show because they never let a dialog carry through to an end. It was always hyper-fast sarcastic blurb1, 2, 3, end scene. rinse repeat.

EVEN IF the actors in these new movies had any acting ability, the screenwriters are so terrible they couldn't even show it.
Click to expand...
You keep changing your argument. You're silly.

Abefroman_sl said:
Cheer up kid. No need to be so sensitive about moderation diggs,
Click to expand...
I'm not, no need to get all sensitive about bad posting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.