|
|
Post by YAKMAN is ICHIBAN on Aug 15, 2013 20:25:54 GMT -5
They all have redeeming qualities, IMHO.
For Into Darkness, that is mostly Benedict Cumberbatch. He OWNS the screen when he is on.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Aug 15, 2013 20:38:31 GMT -5
But Starfleet doesn't normally act like a military/naval organization. Hence why you see high-ranking Starfleet officers are parts of initial grounding parties, and why they take civilian women and children into unexplored, potentially hostile environments. Weapons, rules and regulations, missions and battles seems like military to me. Hey I want to fly the ship. What did you study at the academy? Thermodynamics? Ok your the pilot. And you missed the point. Do you think there are military organizations that carry untrained civilians, including women and children, into combat zones, like they do (and defend doing despite how often they take serious damage) in TNG? And make sure their highest ranking officers are the first targets in the line of fire like every time a commanding officer beamed planet side? Because that's SOP in Starfleet, if we're going to criticize them because Uhura got a transfer in the reboot, we have a long way to go with the levels of military bull-shittery that they pull the non-reboot universe. Starfleet ain't standard navy, man. It never was. It's a navy in a utopian universe where people seem to flaunt what would be standard military procedures all of the time. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2013 21:49:10 GMT -5
Weapons, rules and regulations, missions and battles seems like military to me. Hey I want to fly the ship. What did you study at the academy? Thermodynamics? Ok your the pilot. And you missed the point. Do you think there are military organizations that carry untrained civilians, including women and children, into combat zones, like they do (and defend doing despite how often they take serious damage) in TNG? And make sure their highest ranking officers are the first targets in the line of fire like every time a commanding officer beamed planet side? Because that's SOP in Starfleet, if we're going to criticize them because Uhura got a transfer in the reboot, we have a long way to go with the levels of military bull-shittery that they pull the non-reboot universe. Starfleet ain't standard navy, man. It never was. It's a navy in a utopian universe where people seem to flaunt what would be standard military procedures all of the time. If you say so. I guess in a utopian universe there are no rules. Just make it up as we go along. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Aug 15, 2013 22:15:08 GMT -5
And you missed the point. Do you think there are military organizations that carry untrained civilians, including women and children, into combat zones, like they do (and defend doing despite how often they take serious damage) in TNG? And make sure their highest ranking officers are the first targets in the line of fire like every time a commanding officer beamed planet side? Because that's SOP in Starfleet, if we're going to criticize them because Uhura got a transfer in the reboot, we have a long way to go with the levels of military bull-shittery that they pull the non-reboot universe. Starfleet ain't standard navy, man. It never was. It's a navy in a utopian universe where people seem to flaunt what would be standard military procedures all of the time. If you say so. I guess in a utopian universe there are no rules. Just make it up as we go along. You pretty much have to, because a lot of it makes no sense at all if you don't give it wiggle room. |
|
|
|
Post by -Lithium- on Aug 15, 2013 22:15:46 GMT -5
Nope.
|
|
|
|
Post by A Platypus Rave is Correct on Aug 15, 2013 22:40:21 GMT -5
If you say so. I guess in a utopian universe there are no rules. Just make it up as we go along. You pretty much have to, because a lot of it makes no sense at all if you don't give it wiggle room. Well just look how little they followed their own prime directive  |
|
|
|
Post by BorneAgain on Aug 15, 2013 22:47:53 GMT -5
You pretty much have to, because a lot of it makes no sense at all if you don't give it wiggle room. Well just look how little they followed their own prime directive I honestly have a much bigger problem for when they follow the prime directive even when it leads to mass amounts of innocent native people dying. (I'm looking at you Voyager and f***ing Enterprise) |
|
|
|
Post by A Platypus Rave is Correct on Aug 15, 2013 22:50:32 GMT -5
Well just look how little they followed their own prime directive I honestly have a much bigger problem for when they follow the prime directive even when it leads to mass amounts of innocent native people dying. (I'm looking at you Voyager and f***ing Enterprise) I don't have a problem with them interfering... I just always find it funny when they bring it up... despite blatantly ignoring it constantly. |
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Attack Tribble on Aug 16, 2013 2:05:42 GMT -5
I remember hating NEMESIS quite a bit at the time, mainly because of the development near the end. But it's aged to be more watchable. I just really enjoyed INSURRECTION a lot, and am proud of that. Nemesis had a few decent moments, but really suffered from Data's Spock/Wrath of Khan sacrifice, and Stuart Baird's directing. He's openly admitted he can't stand Star Trek and did it as a paycheque, and it shows. They should have kept Jonathan Frakes as director. Insurrection would have made an excellent episode, but simply was not a strong enough story or script to carry a major motion picture. Plus, we'd gone from "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one" to denying the entire galaxy a cure for all disease and doubling lifespans for the sake of not relocating 600 settlers not native to the planet in question. But Starfleet doesn't normally act like a military/naval organization. Hence why you see high-ranking Starfleet officers are parts of initial grounding parties, and why they take civilian women and children into unexplored, potentially hostile environments. Weapons, rules and regulations, missions and battles seems like military to me. Hey I want to fly the ship. What did you study at the academy? Thermodynamics? Ok your the pilot. The main driving force of the plot of Into Darkness was Admiral Marcus wanting to militarise Starfleet, which at that point was primarily a science-and-exploration organisation with only limited peacekeeping responsibilities, which he felt would be unprepared for war with the Klingons. The USS Vengeance was obviously a military-only ship, built soley for battle. |
|
|
|
Post by celticjobber on Aug 16, 2013 2:23:32 GMT -5
I was never a big fan of the original Star Trek, but I really enjoyed the 2009 reboot and Into The Darkness.
|
|
|
|
Post by YAKMAN is ICHIBAN on Aug 16, 2013 15:03:57 GMT -5
His Star Wars reviews get more notice, but the reviews of the Star Trek TNG films on Red Letter Media are great.
|
|
|
|
Post by mysterydriver on Aug 16, 2013 16:37:55 GMT -5
It's not hard to see why they came to that conclusion considering #1 on the list. {Spoiler}Considering the end of Into Darkness is just a horrifically done parody of Wrath of Khan that essentially insults any fan of a logical Spock by turning him into the Kirk role for a downright stupid reversal of fortunes that is too A.D.D. to even wait for another movie to finish up on. It's a wink-wink "Remember this? Eh? EH?" that is bound to tick off people who overly obsess to major degrees on this stuff. I can see why a group think collection of fans would bash the thing like a snake on St. Paddy's day. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2013 17:47:15 GMT -5
To add on, the best reasoning I can think of, since there really isn't any given in the OP is that it was more a generic action movie than anything Star Trek.
Not to say you can't have action in Star Trek, but from other people who I'd feel really got Star Trek and kinda from me who grew up on Next Generation and Deep Space 9, it shouldn't be so...generic-summer-action-blockbustery? People talk up First Contact even that wasn't a generic action movie. So, I get it.
Not to mention Abrams doesn't even like Star Trek.
That's very obvious in what he does with the franchise. I can tell he doesn't really get it.
Sure, people will turn out to see a Space Opera Action Movie, but...eh...
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Aug 16, 2013 18:07:07 GMT -5
To add on, the best reasoning I can think of, since there really isn't any given in the OP is that it was more a generic action movie than anything Star Trek. Not to say you can't have action in Star Trek, but from other people who I'd feel really got Star Trek and kinda from me who grew up on Next Generation and Deep Space 9, it shouldn't be so...generic-summer-action-blockbustery? People talk up First Contact even that wasn't a generic action movie. So, I get it. Not to mention Abrams doesn't even like Star Trek. That's very obvious in what he does with the franchise. I can tell he doesn't really get it. Sure, people will turn out to see a Space Opera Action Movie, but...eh... I could see people who have problem with the reboots based on that, but I really don't think that's the case here. The reboot was ranked much higher than ID, and it was as much a popcorn flick as ID was. I mean, I do agree, the reboots completely and totally lack the sense of exploration and scope that Star Trek had before then, but I don't see how you'd criticize ID for that and give the first a free pass. MD had a good point about how the movie was essentially a poor man's Wrath of Khan, but I don't think you should judge the movie solely based on that. On it's own, I don't think it's the biggest bastardization of core Star Trek principles that we've seen in the movies and at the very least it was entertaining. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2013 12:12:56 GMT -5
|
|
The OP
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
changed his name
Posts: 15,785 
|
Post by The OP on Aug 21, 2013 12:17:58 GMT -5
I haven't seen the new movie yet, but his reasoning makes no sense. Star Trek isn't like an indie band that's now making it big, it's been a huge entertainment property for over 30 years. That's not a good analogy at all. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Aug 21, 2013 12:51:33 GMT -5
I haven't seen the new movie yet, but his reasoning makes no sense. Star Trek isn't like an indie band that's now making it big, it's been a huge entertainment property for over 30 years. That's not a good analogy at all. I see his point, but I don't really agree with it. It's been a well known name, but Star Trek was never a non-niche property. It wasn't an action series, it was a fairly slow-paced sci-fi series that was always more focused on thought than flair, compared to Star Wars. Abrams widened the audience significantly, so it's no longer the niche badge of geek honor that it was to know who Sulu was. But, where I think he misses the point is that to widen it, Abrams basically changed the focus from being a slow-paced, thought focused series into a summer action flick. So it'd be more like an indie band that makes it big by changing their style to make it more palatable. But even then, they seemed like like '09 just fine. |
|
The OP
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
changed his name
Posts: 15,785
|
Post by The OP on Aug 21, 2013 13:03:46 GMT -5
Yeah, that's the thing. If it was that they would have rejected the first movie too. I have seen that one and I thought it was good, the only thing is I would have picked a hammier actor to play Kirk. I don't know if the guy who plays him now could ever have a really epic "KHANNNNN!" type moment. It kinda takes away a lot of what was fun about the character in my opinion. On the other hand, the new Spock is excellent.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rumble McSkirmish on Aug 21, 2013 21:48:46 GMT -5
Saw it recently, and to be honest I didn't think it was as good as the previous one. They just went waaaaaaay too overboard with the references to Star Trek II, but to say it was a worse movie then The Motion Picture, Generations, Insurrection, Nemesis or even The Final Frontier...not by a long shot.
|
|
