J.J. Abrams' Star Trek Into Darkness

[Niltusk]

Celtic....

You're going to drown in the river of Trekkie crying in this thread.

 

[a-dev]

Celtic....

You're going to drown in the river of Trekkie crying in this thread.

You too will be assimilated.

 

[Niltusk]

You too will be assimilated.

Thats what this movie needed, was some Borg.

I don't know how it fits into the new Universe, but I want the third movie to have borg... and Data... and a Gorn. Then I will be happy.

 

[CelticPredator]

Why do Treksters even care about THIS franchise? It has nothing to do with them.

 

[FQRizzo]

I'm not a trekeester. I'm just a fan of the 2009 movie. Just sayin.

 

[CelticPredator]

I was reversing on A-Dev. The first movie is great. That's why I care about this Trek.

 

[a-dev]

I was reversing on A-Dev. The first movie is great. That's why I care about this Trek.

Your reversal is irrelevant. You will adapt to service the original Trekkie collective

No, not in a sexual way.

 

[CelticPredator]

I got Shatner's sig, and look at him in the eye. I think i've adapted nicely.

 

[Wanderer]

Why? He's one of the best blockbuster directors today. He'll do perfectly fine.

And if he ****s with the canon...so what? Star Wars is horrible now. The whole series can use a good shake up.

Horrible between episodes 1-3 but that aside, we can still watch 4-6 and forget about them...if he ****s about with 7 and possibly 8&9, that'll be a hard pill to swallow :/

But yeah, my gripes with the star trek reboot films aside, he's still a class director and they're not bad movies he just f'd about with cannon a bit too much for my liking.

 

[CelticPredator]

I can't forget about the horribleness because the REAL movies are not made available for me to purchase.

Harmy's be dammed. I want official copies!

 

[shockwave]

I guess we would (our time) have detected a starship or two near our moon prior to falling to Earth.

Also regarding other Fed-ships were to intercept both Ent & Ven that would have ended the movie a lot faster as someone mentioned.

And a little bit of ST: Nem was used in ID.

Good ol 23rd century tech...

 

[thecapn]

What you guys have to realize is that the old Trek shows we grew up on had both...they had character, and morality, and ethics plays, and action, and adventure, and exploring the unknown. But they also (usually) were pretty grounded in scientific theory, and they had employees whose entire jobs were to make sure that the stories fit within the greater, established rules of the Trek universe. That way, even those nerds among us who do care about such things are appeased, lol.

That said, this stuff happened before, too. Biggest one was the last episode of TNG. If you actually pay attention, the whole damn plot falls apart...the premise hinges on an "anti-time" anomaly that is created in the future and gets bigger the farther into the past it goes, and it eventually prevents life from starting on Earth. Well, Picard in the future goes to find it, and it's not there. But then he figures out how it works, goes back, and sees the anomaly forming. Wait...what? It should've already been there the first time, and he should have witnessed it DISAPPEARING.

I'm sure if we had the interwebs back then like we do today, people would've ripped that one a new one. But in time, the great characters, story, and adventure overweighs that blip and people view it as a great episode. The same thing will happen with ID over time. I still think it was an excellent movie, I grin from ear to ear when I hear the overture starting and see that Paramount logo. I still think Cumberbatch did a great job, I love the crew (I still don't really care for the way they portray Scotty, though it was much better this time around). I'll buy it on Blu-ray and watch it a dozen more times before the next one comes out.

It would've been nice, though, if they'd had some Trek science advisor proof the script. There's a guy named Andre Bormanis who did that on the series. Call him in, have him check it, pay him a few bucks, and fix some of the more glaring issues, and I think they would've been better off. That's all

 

[CollectorNC]

Science was really the least of the problems with it. Still was an enjoyable movie, but then again I liked Prometheus.

 

[The Ween]

Finally got to see this today! AWESOME!!!!

 

[The Ween]

Why couldn't this movie be fun and smart...you know, like the first one?

It was for me.

As someone who has seen every single OST and STNG a lot more than once, and all the other series at least once, this movie fits right in with all the rest and I can only hope that it doesn't take another 4 years to get the next one.

 

[SnakeDoctor]

It was for me.

As someone who has seen every single OST and STNG a lot more than once, and all the other series at least once, this movie fits right in with all the rest and I can only hope that it doesn't take another 4 years to get the next one.

Agreed. And, I've seen most all of Trek -- TV and Movie.

People looking for a reason to dislike something will almost always find one. If me (a longtime Trekkie) and my wife (who couldn't care less) both liked it ... there's enough there for anyone.

SnakeDoc

 

[The Iron Koob]

As a newcomer to this series (saw 2009) I thought the movie was ***** of fun. The spaceships and the sound effects, it was like being in a ride. I didn't care for the khan blood twist as I saw it coming when McCoy first mentioned he was tooling around with that animal. So when Kirk had his issue, I wasn't moved at all. That's my only gripe. I didn't hate on the Marcus chick because I thought she was going to be a villian right from the start, so the character had at least two dimensions for me. Some other people didn't like her. But other than that, how can anyone deny the movie was fun? I had a great time. Wish I had time to see it again in theatres.

 

[CollectorNC]

Agreed. And, I've seen most all of Trek -- TV and Movie.

People looking for a reason to dislike something will almost always find one. If me (a longtime Trekkie) and my wife (who couldn't care less) both liked it ... there's enough there for anyone.

SnakeDoc

No reason to look for stuff to dislike when it's so blatant. In fairness to Abrams, there were plenty of Star Trek episodes over the years that were just as filled with plot holes, but Abrams has a much bigger canvas, so they are a lot more noticeable. I guess some go into a theater and just don't care, ask no questions. I, for the life of me, have yet to hear any explanation as to why the Enterprise had to be under water, because there is none. Also, I'd like to see someone debate this Star Trek is really like Gene Roddenberry's.

 

[Adolfo]

No reason to look for stuff to dislike when it's so blatant. In fairness to Abrams, there were plenty of Star Trek episodes over the years that were just as filled with plot holes, but Abrams has a much bigger canvas, so they are a lot more noticeable. I guess some go into a theater and just don't care, ask no questions. I, for the life of me, have yet to hear any explanation as to why the Enterprise had to be under water, because there is none. Also, I'd like to see someone debate this Star Trek is really like Gene Roddenberry's.

Enterprise under water?...that's an easy one...because it looked cooler for the big screen than an Enterprise in space

 

[CollectorNC]

Enterprise under water?...that's an easy one...because it looked cooler for the big screen than an Enterprise in space

Which makes absolutely no sense, contributes nothing to the story.