J.J. Abrams' Star Trek Into Darkness

[toylion]

In my opinion, I loved the movie and will buy the Blu-ray.

So you're all WRONG! WRONG!

I already saw it twice.

 

[JAWS]

In my opinion we should have to preface everything we say at any time with in my opinion and those opinions should not be based on facts but rather on opinions of other opinions.

However, even when you say IMO you can get a rash of crap for having an opinion so I say all movies should get 5 star ratings along with hugs and kisses.

 

[Deckard]

I'm going to change my rating for The Star War : Into Darkness to a smiley burnt into a confused jew's forehead.

 

[JAWS]

I'm going to change my rating for The Star Wars : Into Darkness to a smiley burnt into a confused jew's forehead.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[tomandshell]

In my Opinion Niltusk's opinion about Deckard's Opinion would be much more valid if Deckard's Opinion was a different opinion about STID. But since, In My opinion, Deckard's Opinion was pretty much spot on, Niltusk Opinion is just wrong, in my opinion.

In my opinion, tomorrow is Thursday. But that's just my opinion.

 

[CollectorNC]

Thats all your opinion, the fact that you think that your opinion holds merit due to the "concepts" you've identified to form said opinion is just lack of insight on your part. Doesn't matter if you consider yourself a fine movie purveyor or a paid reviewer or just someone who goes to the movies with family or friends, each of those "opinions" is no better than another and different people will identify with each. But lack of insight of understanding that and claiming that "someone elses system of rating is less than yours because it doesn't meet your make believe criteria" really does make you ignorant. Just like you trying to invalidate someone elses ratings for not adhering to yours. More ignorance.

Plot holes are plot holes man. If the story doesn't answer questions, changes characterization, etc., that's not opinion. Anyone can see it. Some just don't want to admit to having seen it or maybe aren't even aware. It's like goofs in movies, inconsistencies. Blood stain on one sleeve in one scene, the other in another scene. All of this is not opinion, it's actually there. The opinion is whether to admit to it or not.

 

[CollectorNC]

Some are nitpicking it apart like a 1/6 figure.

Well I knew they'd nitpick the film when they announced they were making 3 out of a small book. I actually like the extended backstory they are creating.

 

[CollectorNC]

In my opinion the film was not very good but I will buy the Blu ray anyways

Yeah me too. I enjoyed and it's a good movie, just not a good Star Trek movie. My opinion of course.

 

[JAWS]

Yeah me too. I enjoyed and it's a good movie, just not a good Star Trek movie. My opinion of course.

Basically how I feel. If the film just spent 15 min to allow the characters to interact more I would have enjoyed much more. Star Trek is all about the characters and I felt that they were ignored for in favor of non stop action.

 

[CollectorNC]

Basically how I feel. If the film just spent 15 min to allow the characters to interact more I would have enjoyed much more. Star Trek is all about the characters and I felt that they were ignored for in favor of non stop action.

Yeah, my wife, who's not even a ST fan could notice that. It was more about the special effects and less about story. In the good old days before CGI, they had practical effects that didn't take away from the story, but enhanced it. I admire certain directors minimal use of CGI like Nolan in Batman.

 

[screamingmetal]

So far I have really liked everything JJ Abrams has directed.
If there's anything that's amiss on STID, blame it on the geniuses behind the Hercules Legendary Journeys writing team of Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci.

 

[Niltusk]

So far I have really liked everything JJ Abrams has directed.
If there's anything that's amiss on STID, blame it on the geniuses behind the Hercules Legendary Journeys writing team of Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci.

What a way to put that into perspective.

 

[CollectorNC]

Well in fairness, I have no real problem with the direction or acting. So Lindelof, Orci and Kurtzman should take the blame, though I can't believe Abrams doesn't have some say on the script. But three guys writing a movie over a couple years, it's easy to see how things were going all over the place.

 

[drdandalek]

Ok. I finally went to see this last night(my wife and I usually wait for poverty) but I had to go see this. That was freakin awesome! I grew up with the original cast(showing my age) and these JJ Abrams movies are as good as any of my old Trekkie shows or movies. The new take on Khan was great! With the ending, I can definitely see a return later on. Cumberbatch was brilliant. And throwing in all the classic references like Carol Marcus, red shirts, etc make the movies not only a fun watch but a nerd's dream of references. I truly liked the first Abrams movie but this one struck a chord with me. Now I'm going to have to build these figures to my wife's dismay. Btw, there is an awesome thread by Spenser that has both Classic Trek and Abrams Trek. That's my starting point.

 

[CollectorNC]

Excellent points and an interesting read, particularly the part about the Enterprise under water.

https://www.aintitcool.com/node/62867

 

[abake]

Excellent points and an interesting read, particularly the part about the Enterprise under water.

https://www.aintitcool.com/node/62867

I read the first paragraph and it immediately made me feel the guy has a entire black hole up his butt hole...

Seriously, getting worked up over what is probably some insider joke? Shame on the director and writers for defiling the legacy? I'll read on, but he really does seem to have serious issues.

 

[abake]

It was a fun and interesting read, and I'm sure the man has his math right, but I still think he's trying real hard not to like the movie.

 

[karamazov80]

I'm late to this party, but just saw this movie tonight. I enjoyed it. I think it came a bit off the rails toward the end, and was a bit anti-climactic, but in general I thought it was an effective action movie with good performances. Kinda hoped they would set up the Genesis Planet for part 3, but it did feel like the kind of movie that wanted to wrap everything up in a nice bow (which is fine, but it isn't all that Star Trek like in the sense of the original shows. . .which I'll get to in a minute), so I knew they were somehow going to solve this problem before the movie ended.

Having said all that, I was a big Star Trek:TNG fan in the early-mid '90s. Since then, I've kinda turned away from the franchise. I LOVED the first Abrams Trek film. But since then, I have been getting more and more into the '90s Trek shows, watching TNG again and the incredibly awesome Deep Space Nine (which I never watched much back in the day). Watching another Abrams Trek film following this paints the films in a different light, and I really do feel the way that CollectorNC does now. This was a fun film, but it was not in the spirit of those great Trek shows I referenced. Star Trek always had action, but the essence of the show was about more than trying to string together action sequences. It was about exploring an idealistic future for man, and how really interesting characters (like Picard, Data, Quark, Worf, and Sisko) dealt with situations we can relate to, but are still fantastic and appeal to our imaginations. The drama trumped everything else. This also applied to the original Trek and the films it spawned. Now Star Trek has foregone that in the pursuit of action and excitement, and as a result it really just isn't the same beast. It's good for the medium of film, but. . .it's not Star Trek as I really love it.

If this happens with Star Wars, I'll probably feel similarly. But the Trek franchise was stale and this injected it with some life. Though not an ideal solution, Star Wars could really use some of the same. Abrams makes good movies and a good pseudo-Star Trek or Star Wars film is better than no film, or worse, putrid/mediocre films like the Star Wars prequels. So, bring them on.

 

[CollectorNC]

I'm late to this party, but just saw this movie tonight. I enjoyed it. I think it came a bit off the rails toward the end, and was a bit anti-climactic, but in general I thought it was an effective action movie with good performances. Kinda hoped they would set up the Genesis Planet for part 3, but it did feel like the kind of movie that wanted to wrap everything up in a nice bow (which is fine, but it isn't all that Star Trek like in the sense of the original shows. . .which I'll get to in a minute), so I knew they were somehow going to solve this problem before the movie ended.

Having said all that, I was a big Star Trek:TNG fan in the early-mid '90s. Since then, I've kinda turned away from the franchise. I LOVED the first Abrams Trek film. But since then, I have been getting more and more into the '90s Trek shows, watching TNG again and the incredibly awesome Deep Space Nine (which I never watched much back in the day). Watching another Abrams Trek film following this paints the films in a different light, and I really do feel the way that CollectorNC does now. This was a fun film, but it was not in the spirit of those great Trek shows I referenced. Star Trek always had action, but the essence of the show was about more than trying to string together action sequences. It was about exploring an idealistic future for man, and how really interesting characters (like Picard, Data, Quark, Worf, and Sisko) dealt with situations we can relate to, but are still fantastic and appeal to our imaginations. The drama trumped everything else. This also applied to the original Trek and the films it spawned. Now Star Trek has foregone that in the pursuit of action and excitement, and as a result it really just isn't the same beast. It's good for the medium of film, but. . .it's not Star Trek as I really love it.

If this happens with Star Wars, I'll probably feel similarly. But the Trek franchise was stale and this injected it with some life. Though not an ideal solution, Star Wars could really use some of the same. Abrams makes good movies and a good pseudo-Star Trek or Star Wars film is better than no film, or worse, putrid/mediocre films like the Star Wars prequels. So, bring them on.

Star Wars, though, thrived on the action, with a redemption theme playing throughout the films, so I think Abrams will be fine with that. Star Trek always appealed to me on a deeper level as I guess I felt they were trying to develop stories around current events. Star Wars was always a sci-fi fairy tale to me, with great action and characters, but they weren't trying to confront current social issues. Not all Treks (films or shows) are great or do a good job with it, but there was always a sense of them trying to stick to what Roddenberry had created. The new films just seem to lack substance, but do have great visuals. But then again, so do most video games these days.

 

[Ra88]

Saw it yesterday too. I found the reboot really enjoyable and wanted to see more of the universe they had created, but this movie pretty much killed all of that. Enormous waste of my time, and I really wanted to love it. Only bright side of the entire thing was Benedict Cumberbatch, but even he was diminished with the terrible inconsistency of his character. Big, fat meh.