Knows Paul Bunyan
Posted 28 April 2013 - 05:16 PM
And its quite favorable.
http://www.totalfilm...k-into-darkness
I saw it posted on Metacritic.com http://www.metacriti...k-into-darkness
Giving it a score of 80 out of the box.
We should see more reviews start to filter in over the next couple of weeks.
If I don't have it, It's on preorder.
Posted 28 April 2013 - 06:54 PM
Sweet !!!
I can stop I just don't want to.
Posted 28 April 2013 - 07:05 PM
I CANT WAIT. Why am I yelling?
Will work for toys.
Posted 28 April 2013 - 11:19 PM
The first review was in almost a week ago! I've read several reviews since then,with and without spoilers. It's been pretty mixed. So far,if the spoilers are true,I'm kinda disappointed. But I'll judge for myself when I see the movie next week.
J-R!
Knows Paul Bunyan
Posted 29 April 2013 - 04:04 PM
ah. ok, well, its the 1st review I saw attached to meta critic, which vets their critics a bit more than other sites. I hadn't seen others but I guess its already opened in Australia. I thought it opened in the U.S. in two weeks...
Dances with Toys
Posted 29 April 2013 - 05:49 PM
From the IGN review:
Ultimately, it solidifies a franchise reborn. It just risks - a tiny bit more this time - isolating the fan base that loved it so much in the first place. The question is, with a new generation poised to love these characters for years to come...does that matter any more?
It's no secret I felt isolated the first time...I can't say I'm not expecting to feel the same way again so this wording does not bode well for me. I guess that makes me irrelevant. :shrug:
Will work for toys.
Posted 29 April 2013 - 11:21 PM
Yeah,opens in the US on May 15th. Well,sneak peek showings or whatever,lol! But I'm seeing it in the UK next week and then New York on the 15th,since I happen to be there that weekend and already booked a ticket when I actually WAS superexcited for this movie,lol! Luckily there's two other movies I'm superexcited about later this year so that's fine. Still hoping the spoilers are fake though,lol! I'm sure if my expectations are low enough I'll enjoy this one too.
J-R!
It's not a disease it's a hobby.
Posted 29 April 2013 - 11:45 PM
If the spoilers you've seen are the same ones I've seen man, then they're not (I have an Aussie friend over Xbox Live who's seen it, and who confirmed it all for me).
Also, there's two/three of us who're 'isolated' - therefore, we're not. 
Knows Paul Bunyan
Posted 30 April 2013 - 04:06 AM
From the IGN review:
It's no secret I felt isolated the first time...I can't say I'm not expecting to feel the same way again so this wording does not bode well for me. I guess that makes me irrelevant. :shrug:
Yes the Troi figures hair worries me.
Posted 02 May 2013 - 12:31 PM
From the IGN review:
It's no secret I felt isolated the first time...I can't say I'm not expecting to feel the same way again so this wording does not bode well for me.
Jay K can make that three/four of us who feel isolated; I have a feeling that those numbers will likely increase after people see the movie. As much as I hate to admit this, I'm fully expecting another flash–in–the–pan here in the same sense that Trek XI was. (Trek XI did really well at the box office, but was forgotten before the end of the year, and I have a feeling that could be the case again.) The IGN review doesn't do anything to make me feel better about STID either; Abrams' Trek already feels like "'Bayformers' in the 23rd Century," and it sounds like that's exactly what we're getting more of, and it's exactly what I didn't like the first time around. If I wanted to see Bayformers, I'd watch Bayformers, not Trek.
Also not boding well for us is the fact that IGN usually tends to rate up or down based on what they believe public perception will be; they gave the film an 8.0, but based on what they wrote, it sounds like they're being optimistic. Remember, "you can't spell 'ignorant' without IGN" isn't a running joke for no reason. It's probably a good idea to keep an eye out for Bill Wine's review in The New York Times, not only is it rare for him to give anything high marks, but he's particularly critical of Trek movies in particular, although he did give Trek XI high marks. (I swear, there's an "H" missing from his last name.) If he gives STID anything above two stars, it's probably not going to be terrible.
Uh oh. Not good for me either I guess. I was talking to a friend of mine and our consensus was that we find JJ overrated. However, if it gets a very favorable set of reviews and scores high, ill see it in the theaters, or I'll wait till it hits red box.
It's my understanding that once JJ pulled his head out of his black hole, the decision was made to shoot a significant portion of the film on actual IMAX 3D cameras. (As opposed to doing a post–conversion from 35mm.) If that's the case, it might be worth seeing the film in theaters just for the technical stuff, even if the plot and non–technical aspects suck. Of course, this is assuming that you have an IMAX theater in your area, or at least a 3D–equipped theater of some sort. If the film was indeed shot natively with IMAX 3D cameras, it might actually be worth the extra cash to see the 3D version on the big screen. Normally I'd discourage this, but that's because most films are post–converted to 3D instead of being shot natively on 3D cameras. (The Avengers, I'm glaring at you.) As much as I dislike the direction it sounds like JJ is taking Trek in, I do have to give him credit for not jumping on the 3D bandwagon in '09, and initially trying to resist 3D for STID. It wouldn't surprise me if the use of native IMAX 3D cameras was something that Abrams himself personally insisted upon, especially given his public stance against post–conversion 3D.
Oh and Gothneo, I wouldn't say that JJ is overrated so much as I'd say that JJ's take on Trek is overrated. I honestly think that he'll be a perfect fit for Star Wars for the very reasons I dislike his handling of Star Trek. I've been cautiously optimistic about this film ever since it was delayed, but that optimism is admittedly dwindling; delayed Trek is almost always a disaster, and the criticisms that are being leveled against STID aren't really inconsistent with those leveled against prevoiusly delayed Trek movies. (Trek XI wasn't "delayed" in the traditional sense; it was completed on time, but the release date was delayed so that it would open in the summer. I'm talking about Trek films that are actually delayed during production ending in disaster.)
If you need proof that JJ's team really doesn't "get" Trek, take a look at the name that they've given one of the new ships in this movie. Let's just say it should really have the prefix of I.S.S. rather than U.S.S., and it really encapsulates what I dislike about the JJ–verse.
Guest_1701_*
Posted 02 May 2013 - 03:54 PM
Did anyone expect Star Trek: The Next Generation to be hugely popular with fans of the classic crew back in the 80's? Not at all yet that series reinvigorated the franchise and brought in an entirely new fan-base, of which I'm sure many of us were brought up on.
I think what we have here is a matter of history repeating itself. What TNG did for Star Trek was broaden it's appeal and entice an entirely new fanbase whilst keeping a number of original fans willing to accept change and this is exactly what is happening now...
Fans of Star Trek have a choice and it's the same choice fans faced in 1987, do they follow the next generation or do they accept that this Star Trek isn't their Star Trek and move on. There will always be those fans who will only like Star Trek when it's done a certain way and whenever someone new comes along with a new idea and with their own creative visions of what in this case Star Trek means to them, there's outrage and thats wrong, whilst fans have a right to love this franchise, we must all realise that as a creative property, Star Trek has to embrace change and continue to reinvent itself as it did in 1987 with TNG and as it did in 2009 with JJ Abrams.
It makes no sense what so ever to say JJ Abrams doesn't get Star Trek. Star Trek isn't just one thing anymore, it's a 47 year tapestry of rich stories that work best when they relate to the world we live in today and say what you will about the irrelevant things like the size of the ship or the acting but JJ Abrams has certainly embraced that essential quality of Star Trek, to tell stories about our wold today within the fantasy 23rd Century, making Star Trek relevant again to The Next Generation.
Certainly all the reviews I've seen from most of the major UK critics have been hugely positive so as a Next Generation era Trekkie, I'm hugely looking forward to this new chapter in Star Trek.
Dances with Toys
Posted 02 May 2013 - 05:11 PM
Did anyone expect Star Trek: The Next Generation to be hugely popular with fans of the classic crew back in the 80's? Not at all yet that series reinvigorated the franchise and brought in an entirely new fan-base, of which I'm sure many of us were brought up on.
I think what we have here is a matter of history repeating itself. What TNG did for Star Trek was broaden it's appeal and entice an entirely new fanbase whilst keeping a number of original fans willing to accept change and this is exactly what is happening now...
What you are doing is comparing apples to oranges, or perhaps more like apples to rocks. I think we can all agree that the essence of Trek has always been best captured in the TV medium and not the films. As special effects spectacles, the films must cast a wider net to draw in larger audiences to justify the expenses. As such they tend to follow your typical hero, villain, actionactionaction pattern. The weighty philosophical stuff and the ambiguous morality stuff and the deep character development stuff always takes a back seat to meeting the wider audience's sensibilities.
What TNG did, with its more ponderous and less emotional characters, its unconventional sense of conflict (none between main characters), its increased frequency of hard sci-fi plots, etc, was actually to make Star Trek more Star Trek than TOS often was, IMO. In an era where TOS had already pioneered the territory of television sci-fi, TNG had an easier time of delivering a "cerebral" type of programming than it did by no fault of its own.
What these new movies are doing, and really what Trek movies have always done with just a few exceptions, is falling back on your cookie cutter action movie model. As much as I like seeing variations on a theme, with all of the superhero films, Star Wars films, Star Trek films, Oblivions, Bonds, etc, etc, how many times do we really need to see the same thing over and over? Ohhh, but it's fun to see it happen in the Trek universe, right? Meh. I've seen it happen before enough for my tastes. There were 10 other movies, each one beloved by me 10 times more than ST09. I like to see a variety of stories in the Trek universe, not the same one over and over.
The "new fan base" you speak of will lean more toward people who like blockbuster action spectacles, and less toward people who look for true science fiction. That's the complete opposite of the fan base that grew out of TNG.
You seem to understand, in the Select thread, we didn't love Picard because he fired a phaser and was a fast talker, we loved Picard because he had the patience to break communication barriers when his universal translator was broken...to live an entire lifetime as another man to learn about an alien culture...to repeatedly resist a Cardassian brainwashing with all of his mental and physical strength. These plots, you put them in a movie, and suddenly "BOO, THAT MOVIE WAS JUST LIKE AN EPISODE" (see also: Insurrection). Nope, the movie has to be an action spectacle with all the tropes or people aren't happy.
Knows Paul Bunyan
Posted 02 May 2013 - 05:21 PM
JJ has yet to actually tell a story about our world framed in 23rd century fantasy. What he did is re-boot and reintroduce us to the TOS crew. I get that. I actually think this movie will frame something about our world and times into that based on the reviews thus far. What I'm worried about is that it won't be fresh, but will be fairly derivative, however, thats only speculation until I can actually see it and I need to wait and judge on actual content.
I was gonna write more, but heck Whirlygig pretty much summed up anything else so I can just "Like" it now!
I can stop I just don't want to.
Posted 02 May 2013 - 08:56 PM
From the IGN review:
It's no secret I felt isolated the first time...I can't say I'm not expecting to feel the same way again so this wording does not bode well for me. I guess that makes me irrelevant. :shrug:
Your opinion is right in your eyes and thats all that matters. I can have both Treks and Im happy. That also does not mean that I have some issues here and there that I dont like. I hope that you do get some enjoyment out of it.
Guest_1701_*
Posted 03 May 2013 - 11:37 AM
What you are doing is comparing apples to oranges, or perhaps more like apples to rocks. I think we can all agree that the essence of Trek has always been best captured in the TV medium and not the films. As special effects spectacles, the films must cast a wider net to draw in larger audiences to justify the expenses. As such they tend to follow your typical hero, villain, actionactionaction pattern. The weighty philosophical stuff and the ambiguous morality stuff and the deep character development stuff always takes a back seat to meeting the wider audience's sensibilities.[/quote]
What TNG did, with its more ponderous and less emotional characters, its unconventional sense of conflict (none between main characters), its increased frequency of hard sci-fi plots, etc, was actually to make Star Trek more Star Trek than TOS often was, IMO. In an era where TOS had already pioneered the territory of television sci-fi, TNG had an easier time of delivering a "cerebral" type of programming than it did by no fault of its own.
What these new movies are doing, and really what Trek movies have always done with just a few exceptions, is falling back on your cookie cutter action movie model. As much as I like seeing variations on a theme, with all of the superhero films, Star Wars films, Star Trek films, Oblivions, Bonds, etc, etc, how many times do we really need to see the same thing over and over? Ohhh, but it's fun to see it happen in the Trek universe, right? Meh. I've seen it happen before enough for my tastes. There were 10 other movies, each one beloved by me 10 times more than ST09. I like to see a variety of stories in the Trek universe, not the same one over and over.
The "new fan base" you speak of will lean more toward people who like blockbuster action spectacles, and less toward people who look for true science fiction. That's the complete opposite of the fan base that grew out of TNG.
You seem to understand, in the Select thread, we didn't love Picard because he fired a phaser and was a fast talker, we loved Picard because he had the patience to break communication barriers when his universal translator was broken...to live an entire lifetime as another man to learn about an alien culture...to repeatedly resist a Cardassian brainwashing with all of his mental and physical strength. These plots, you put them in a movie, and suddenly "BOO, THAT MOVIE WAS JUST LIKE AN EPISODE" (see also: Insurrection). Nope, the movie has to be an action spectacle with all the tropes or people aren't happy.
I don't disagree with your summery on the differences between TOS and TNG in fact that's exactly my point but I'm really not talking about the specific merits of each show, I'm talking about how different they were to each other and how the fans didn't like change from Kirk to Picard but in the end, many fans embraced it and it was that change that served up 18 years of continuous Star Trek and brought in an entirely new generation of fan.
Creative decisions aside for the moment because everyone has their own tastes and opinions, we all know these new Treks are wildly different from what has come before within Star Trek and this here is where my point lays: The kind of criticism levelled at Abrams is no different from the level of criticism levelled at Roddenberry himself for doing a Star Trek without Kirk and Spock and look at just how popular Star Trek became during Picard's reign.
I do very much understand who Picard was and I still think that Picard Select is a load of crap but we're not talking about merchandise and we're not talking about the same Kirk or the same Spock, these to me are iconic characters but by name only and this is the beauty of what Abrams and co have done. How Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto et al. the iconic characters is totally new and fresh and I very much see this not as a retelling of Shatner's Kirk or Spock, but characters that are as different as Stewart's Picard is to Shatner's Kirk.
But we have fans yelling this isn't Star Trek! Or this is an insult to fans and it's all really very very ridiculous because, WHAT IS STAR TREK? It's so many things now that it can't just be summed up as one thing or the other, it's such a vast and limitless franchise and universe. We currently have a NEW take on Trek, just as TNG was a new take on Trek, where Star Trek goes after JJ Abrams is anyone's guess but that too is something awesome because it will undoubtably change once again.
This is what I love about Star Trek though and I don't understand why more fans just can't embrace the changes because Star Trek has ALWAYS been a universe that is full of endless possibilities, there's no right or wrong way to tell a Star Trek story as long as people find it relevant to them. Trek is many things to many people and Star Trek is at its best when it embraces infinite diversity in infinite combinations... Which is exactly what it's doing right this very moment with the 2009 movie and Star Trek Into Darkness.
The most important thing the new movies have proved, is that Star Trek fans are there, loving every minute of every or certain aspects of Star Trek in their own unique and personal way either for the first time or by rediscovering Star Trek or by being a loyal fan since childhood in huge numbers.
Knows Paul Bunyan
Posted 03 May 2013 - 06:06 PM
I can stop I just don't want to.
Posted 03 May 2013 - 08:50 PM
Dont laugh,but I enjoy most of the Star Wars prequels. To me theres more good then bad.
Will work for toys.
Posted 04 May 2013 - 12:18 AM
Knows Paul Bunyan
Posted 04 May 2013 - 04:53 AM
Agreed bgiles! and... I actually really really like Karl Urban's Dr. McCoy. In fact, I'd say Urban's made a fan of me on more than one occasion. Another example of super-hero genre movie, that I actually like, is Urban's Judge Dredd. Again, its no award winner, but Urban does Dredd right, and compared to the campy Stalone version its gold!
Dont laugh,but I enjoy most of the Star Wars prequels. To me theres more good then bad.
They got progressively better, but critics rate TPM as racist due to the perceived stereotyped characters like Jar Jar, Watto, and Nute Gunray.
IMO, there was one good movie between TPM and AOTC. ROTS I thought was a solid effort.
Owner
Posted 04 May 2013 - 08:31 AM
I am old enough to remember
The Motion Picture will kill Star Trek
The next Generation will kill Star Trek
Deep Space Nine will kill Star Trek (They don't even have a ship)
Voyager will kill Star trek
Enterprise will kill Star Trek (it was not one dimes worth worse then TNG in the first three years)
Star Trek is like a cockroach, it can't be killed.
I'd say if you want a Star Trek like the good old days, you need to cut the budget back to 50 Mil to make one. Then the write and director would be forced to have people just stand around and talk about the moral recourse's, on about 5 sets with very limited effects. 
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
Community Forum Software by IP.Board 3.4.4
Licensed to: Trektoy.com & Trekfigures.com
