Star Trek: Into Darkness
-
- Captain
- Posts: 2948
- Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2017 7:43 pm
Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness
He didn't start a war, and only cost them a new, powerful starship and a few tens of thousands of civilian lives. I can't say why he's a captain; this being Starfleet, Kirk should be an admiral.
- BridgeConsoleMasher
- Overlord
- Posts: 11637
- Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2018 6:18 am
Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness
So you just kinda sat through the entire movie after the pre-titles screen ended, in some apathetic state, neither here nor there?CrypticMirror wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 12:20 am Into Darkness lost me when they started with something that Futurama had already parodied, the underwater spaceship.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4RLOo6bchU
When you start off the movie with something that even Futurama flags up as being dumb, then -unless it is an intentional comedy- there is no coming back from that. Then the movie pressed onwards into Zapp Brannigan territory. If they'd called this a Futurama movie and replaced Spock with Kif, then it might have had a chnce.
..What mirror universe?
- CrypticMirror
- Captain
- Posts: 926
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 2:15 am
Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness
The remote was on the other sofa; what do you want me to do, stand up? Walk across the room? You're being silly, now.BridgeConsoleMasher wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 12:47 amCrypticMirror wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 12:20 am Into Darkness lost me when they started with something that Futurama had already parodied, the underwater spaceship.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4RLOo6bchU
When you start off the movie with something that even Futurama flags up as being dumb, then -unless it is an intentional comedy- there is no coming back from that. Then the movie pressed onwards into Zapp Brannigan territory. If they'd called this a Futurama movie and replaced Spock with Kif, then it might have had a chnce.
So you just kinda sat through the entire movie after the pre-titles screen ended, in some apathetic state, neither here nor there?
- BridgeConsoleMasher
- Overlord
- Posts: 11637
- Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2018 6:18 am
Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness
Maybe take a nap?CrypticMirror wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 1:41 amThe remote was on the other sofa; what do you want me to do, stand up? Walk across the room? You're being silly, now.BridgeConsoleMasher wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 12:47 amCrypticMirror wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 12:20 am Into Darkness lost me when they started with something that Futurama had already parodied, the underwater spaceship.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4RLOo6bchU
When you start off the movie with something that even Futurama flags up as being dumb, then -unless it is an intentional comedy- there is no coming back from that. Then the movie pressed onwards into Zapp Brannigan territory. If they'd called this a Futurama movie and replaced Spock with Kif, then it might have had a chnce.
So you just kinda sat through the entire movie after the pre-titles screen ended, in some apathetic state, neither here nor there?
..What mirror universe?
- CrypticMirror
- Captain
- Posts: 926
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 2:15 am
Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness
I was too tired from my previous nap to take a new one.BridgeConsoleMasher wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 2:23 amMaybe take a nap?CrypticMirror wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 1:41 amThe remote was on the other sofa; what do you want me to do, stand up? Walk across the room? You're being silly, now.BridgeConsoleMasher wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 12:47 amCrypticMirror wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 12:20 am Into Darkness lost me when they started with something that Futurama had already parodied, the underwater spaceship.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4RLOo6bchU
When you start off the movie with something that even Futurama flags up as being dumb, then -unless it is an intentional comedy- there is no coming back from that. Then the movie pressed onwards into Zapp Brannigan territory. If they'd called this a Futurama movie and replaced Spock with Kif, then it might have had a chnce.
So you just kinda sat through the entire movie after the pre-titles screen ended, in some apathetic state, neither here nor there?
Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness
It actually shows the exact opposite as per both real world and star trek examples. I mean didn't real Kirk have a quote about the value of an officer? NuKirk Sacrificing himself when there were other options is a really stupid move and says everything about how unfit he is to lead. Guess the Bridge Officer's Test headn't been invented yet.bronnt wrote: ↑Sat Jan 05, 2019 6:59 pm Did nobody care that Kirk is still a screw-up and continued to prove he was a screw-up in everything he did? Spock and Scotty were the two who saved the day, aside from Kirk's suicide mission to realign the reactor-which shows he's heroic but says nothing about whether he's captain material.
Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness
I'm just catching up on this review today. I liked the first ST movie well enough, but like Chuck I didn't really like this one. I kinda-sorta dug the homages when I watched it, but It just didn't have enough substance. There wasn't enough background between Kirk and Spock for a death of either of them to have meaning. What they should have done, instead of re-doing Wrath of Khan, is re-do Space Seed. Kept Khan as a morally grey character, had him help Kirk in uncovering a plot by Admiral Marcus to bring war to the federation, then placed Khan and his people on seti alpha 5. They had the potential for something here, but they didn't really use that potential at all.
Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness
I dunno. Given how much of a screwed-up headcase he is, NuKirk sacrificing himself leaves Spock in charge. So the person he chose was one of the few people whose death would actually improve the Enterprise command structure. Brilliant choice, really; I'd take NuSpock to captain over NuKirk any day.TrueMetis wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 11:43 pmIt actually shows the exact opposite as per both real world and star trek examples. I mean didn't real Kirk have a quote about the value of an officer? NuKirk Sacrificing himself when there were other options is a really stupid move and says everything about how unfit he is to lead. Guess the Bridge Officer's Test headn't been invented yet.
- Karha of Honor
- Captain
- Posts: 3168
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 8:46 pm
Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness
How about not remaking an existing Star Trek episode?cambiata wrote: ↑Mon Jan 07, 2019 8:30 pm I'm just catching up on this review today. I liked the first ST movie well enough, but like Chuck I didn't really like this one. I kinda-sorta dug the homages when I watched it, but It just didn't have enough substance. There wasn't enough background between Kirk and Spock for a death of either of them to have meaning. What they should have done, instead of re-doing Wrath of Khan, is re-do Space Seed. Kept Khan as a morally grey character, had him help Kirk in uncovering a plot by Admiral Marcus to bring war to the federation, then placed Khan and his people on seti alpha 5. They had the potential for something here, but they didn't really use that potential at all.
- Makeshift Python
- Captain
- Posts: 1599
- Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 2:37 pm
Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness
The idea of Khan actually being an ally was the only real novel idea this film had going for and at least for me a justification for bringing back an iconic character. Maybe end it like "Space Seed" where Khan is reunited with his people and Kirk gives them an uninhabited world to make their own. Kirk turning against Khan is such a terrible contrivance, done just so Khan would have some beef with Kirk and the crew.