I thought the Spock moment worked pretty well. They've established him as part of their current universe, it would have felt pretty weird if they didn't get a "oh boy, you guys are fucked," moment from Nimoy, I think.
It's kind of sad in retrospect that the last appearance of Leonard Nimoy in a Star Trek product is just as a fanservice cameo though. If it had been in '09 then that was a fitting sendoff.
But then again, that's better than what Doohan got.
0
Options
joshgotroDeviled EggThe Land of REAL CHILIRegistered Userregular
It's kind of sad in retrospect that the last appearance of Leonard Nimoy in a Star Trek product is just as a fanservice cameo though. If it had been in '09 then that was a fitting sendoff.
But then again, that's better than what Doohan got.
What was Doohan's swansong, Generations? I thought he was okay in that. Even if he and Chekhov were second pick.
I mean, Shatner's doing plugs for law firms in my area, I think Nimoy's final role being in a divisive Star Trek movie ain't all that sad, given that he'd already been in three bad Star Trek movies anyways
It's kind of sad in retrospect that the last appearance of Leonard Nimoy in a Star Trek product is just as a fanservice cameo though. If it had been in '09 then that was a fitting sendoff.
But then again, that's better than what Doohan got.
What was Doohan's swansong, Generations? I thought he was okay in that. Even if he and Chekhov were second pick.
It was just so inconsequential in that movie. And the movie itself was bad.
Mostly Relics was a way better sendoff and he shouldn't have come back for anything after that.
+1
Options
The GeekOh-Two Crew, OmeganautRegistered User, ClubPAregular
There are problems with both of the New Treks, and I totally get the "it's not Star Trek enough," but I think people are still really afraid of making Star Trek: the Motion Picture. Now, I actually like TMP, but it is a profoundly weird flick. Basically every Star Trek since then has been an action flick, with the exception of Voyage Home, which, weirdly enough, is basically a comedy. Am I missing one? I think the new Treks maybe lean a bit to hard on the action, but they want Trek to appeal to everyone, And frankly so do I. If they want to try bringing some of the core of Star Trek to the new universe, I'm all for it, but I definitely don't begrudge the tone and ace of the first two New Treks. I do wish they had been a little more clever with the Khan bits, though. The plot really felt like it was doing some bizarre, unhealthy gymnastics to service that tidbit.
But man, what the hell was up with the uniforms in TMP? Especially that huge weird belt buckle thing.
BLM - ACAB
+1
Options
Clint EastwoodMy baby's in there someplaceShe crawled right inRegistered Userregular
People like Karl urban in the new movies? That's really strange to me, he seemed so fucking stiff and his dialogue was unbearable in '09. I've only seen into darkness once and I don't even remember him being in the movie.
There are problems with both of the New Treks, and I totally get the "it's not Star Trek enough," but I think people are still really afraid of making Star Trek: the Motion Picture. Now, I actually like TMP, but it is a profoundly weird flick. Basically every Star Trek since then has been an action flick, with the exception of Voyage Home, which, weirdly enough, is basically a comedy. Am I missing one? I think the new Treks maybe lean a bit to hard on the action, but they want Trek to appeal to everyone, And frankly so do I. If they want to try bringing some of the core of Star Trek to the new universe, I'm all for it, but I definitely don't begrudge the tone and ace of the first two New Treks. I do wish they had been a little more clever with the Khan bits, though. The plot really felt like it was doing some bizarre, unhealthy gymnastics to service that tidbit.
But man, what the hell was up with the uniforms in TMP? Especially that huge weird belt buckle thing.
I thought it was reused from the aborted "Phase 2" tv series attempt (or was that stuff that was folded into TNG? I don't remember anymore)
The biggest problem with Karl Urban as Bones is that he's criminally underused.
In fact, none of the Star Trek movies, not even the original six, seem to care to even try to replicate the Kirk/Spock/McCoy trinity. The closest they got was in Star Trek 5 or as it's known to the fanbase, *clawing my own eyes out*.
+8
Options
WeaverWho are you?What do you want?Registered Userregular
My little brother saw Into Darkness without ever seeing Wrath of Khan. He liked it, and he got fucking invested when the KHAAAAAAAAN happened.
It's this kind of thing that makes me think back to the Onion video of Star Trek fans complaining that the new movie isn't unentertaining enough.
That video pissed me off because a lot of fans of the show had legitimate complaints about the movies not being what they wanted and that got boiled down to "dumb nerds are dumb for liking things that other people don't". The Onion is better than that.
+6
Options
TrippyJingMoses supposes his toeses are roses.But Moses supposes erroneously.Registered Userregular
edited November 2015
I dunno, as a not-hardcore Trekkie, most of the negative feedback I saw from them fell into the category of "this movie sucks because it's not what we wanted, 0/10", which doesn't seem very legitimate at all.
My little brother saw Into Darkness without ever seeing Wrath of Khan. He liked it, and he got fucking invested when the KHAAAAAAAAN happened.
It's this kind of thing that makes me think back to the Onion video of Star Trek fans complaining that the new movie isn't unentertaining enough.
That video pissed me off because a lot of fans of the show had legitimate complaints about the movies not being what they wanted and that got boiled down to "dumb nerds are dumb for liking things that other people don't". The Onion is better than that.
yeah that's horseshit!
my favorite Trek movie is First Contact and there's no way you can say that's a boring movie
Yeah my problems with Into Darkness don't come from any kind of Trek fandom, I've been a casual observer of the series at best. I just didn't think it was a very good or cohesive story.
+8
Options
joshgotroDeviled EggThe Land of REAL CHILIRegistered Userregular
There are problems with both of the New Treks, and I totally get the "it's not Star Trek enough," but I think people are still really afraid of making Star Trek: the Motion Picture. Now, I actually like TMP, but it is a profoundly weird flick. Basically every Star Trek since then has been an action flick, with the exception of Voyage Home, which, weirdly enough, is basically a comedy. Am I missing one? I think the new Treks maybe lean a bit to hard on the action, but they want Trek to appeal to everyone, And frankly so do I. If they want to try bringing some of the core of Star Trek to the new universe, I'm all for it, but I definitely don't begrudge the tone and ace of the first two New Treks. I do wish they had been a little more clever with the Khan bits, though. The plot really felt like it was doing some bizarre, unhealthy gymnastics to service that tidbit.
But man, what the hell was up with the uniforms in TMP? Especially that huge weird belt buckle thing.
My little brother saw Into Darkness without ever seeing Wrath of Khan. He liked it, and he got fucking invested when the KHAAAAAAAAN happened.
It's this kind of thing that makes me think back to the Onion video of Star Trek fans complaining that the new movie isn't unentertaining enough.
I mean, I personally really hated Zachary Quinto's take for that scene. He sold revenge and anger in 09 and he really didn't deliver it for me in that scene. In general, I liked the core idea of flipping the roles, but it felt kind of shoehorned in along with Khan himself. I just didn't care for the execution, I think it had problems that are there regardless of what you thought about Star Trek 2.
I dunno, as a not-hardcore Trekkie, most of the negative feedback I saw from them fell into the category of "this movie sucks because it's not what we wanted, 0/10", which doesn't seem very legitimate at all.
How is "this movie isn't what I expected or wanted" not a legitimate complaint? "This isn't what I wanted it to be" is, like, the most legitimate reason to not like something.
I can't wait to see the nuTrek version of The Voyage Home
cause you know that fucking probe is still on its way!
this will never happen
they call spock and he's all "that probe is the most dangerous adversary we ever faced" "but you said the same about khan" "go get some whales already, sheesh"
I dunno, as a not-hardcore Trekkie, most of the negative feedback I saw from them fell into the category of "this movie sucks because it's not what we wanted, 0/10", which doesn't seem very legitimate at all.
How is "this movie isn't what I expected or wanted" not a legitimate complaint? "This isn't what I wanted it to be" is, like, the most legitimate reason to not like something.
Eeeeeeh.
It's a real thing that you can overlook the merits of something if you're focused on what your expectations were and how it didn't live up to them.
It's fair to say that your disappointment can outweigh whatever enjoyment you might have gotten out of something but generally you really should try to approach a piece of art on its own terms.
I dunno, as a not-hardcore Trekkie, most of the negative feedback I saw from them fell into the category of "this movie sucks because it's not what we wanted, 0/10", which doesn't seem very legitimate at all.
How is "this movie isn't what I expected or wanted" not a legitimate complaint? "This isn't what I wanted it to be" is, like, the most legitimate reason to not like something.
Eeeeeeh.
It's a real thing that you can overlook the merits of something if you're focused on what your expectations were and how it didn't live up to them.
It's fair to say that your disappointment can outweigh whatever enjoyment you might have gotten out of something but generally you really should try to approach a piece of art on its own terms.
If something bills itself as Star Trek, I think it's fair to hold it to a certain set of expectations. If I go to a movie called The Fast and the Furious and it's a bottle drama that doesn't feature cars at all, it doesn't matter how good of a bottle drama it is--it set expectations it didn't meet.
My little brother saw Into Darkness without ever seeing Wrath of Khan. He liked it, and he got fucking invested when the KHAAAAAAAAN happened.
It's this kind of thing that makes me think back to the Onion video of Star Trek fans complaining that the new movie isn't unentertaining enough.
That video pissed me off because a lot of fans of the show had legitimate complaints about the movies not being what they wanted and that got boiled down to "dumb nerds are dumb for liking things that other people don't". The Onion is better than that.
That might be taking their video a bit too literally. Making satire of something doesn't mean you think the opposite is true.
Also it's "dumb nerds are dumb for getting angry because they dislike something other people like." A small difference, but not unimportant. I agree with you though, there are legitimate complaints with the new movies.
I dunno, as a not-hardcore Trekkie, most of the negative feedback I saw from them fell into the category of "this movie sucks because it's not what we wanted, 0/10", which doesn't seem very legitimate at all.
How is "this movie isn't what I expected or wanted" not a legitimate complaint? "This isn't what I wanted it to be" is, like, the most legitimate reason to not like something.
Eeeeeeh.
It's a real thing that you can overlook the merits of something if you're focused on what your expectations were and how it didn't live up to them.
It's fair to say that your disappointment can outweigh whatever enjoyment you might have gotten out of something but generally you really should try to approach a piece of art on its own terms.
If something bills itself as Star Trek, I think it's fair to hold it to a certain set of expectations. If I go to a movie called The Fast and the Furious and it's a bottle drama that doesn't feature cars at all, it doesn't matter how good of a bottle drama it is--it set expectations it didn't meet.
The movies broke those expectations long before the 09 release, though
I dunno, as a not-hardcore Trekkie, most of the negative feedback I saw from them fell into the category of "this movie sucks because it's not what we wanted, 0/10", which doesn't seem very legitimate at all.
How is "this movie isn't what I expected or wanted" not a legitimate complaint? "This isn't what I wanted it to be" is, like, the most legitimate reason to not like something.
Eeeeeeh.
It's a real thing that you can overlook the merits of something if you're focused on what your expectations were and how it didn't live up to them.
It's fair to say that your disappointment can outweigh whatever enjoyment you might have gotten out of something but generally you really should try to approach a piece of art on its own terms.
If something bills itself as Star Trek, I think it's fair to hold it to a certain set of expectations. If I go to a movie called The Fast and the Furious and it's a bottle drama that doesn't feature cars at all, it doesn't matter how good of a bottle drama it is--it set expectations it didn't meet.
The movies broke those expectations long before the 09 release, though
I don't disagree. I had plenty of complaints about previous movies too. Doesn't make the complaint any less valid, just because they keep doing it wrong.
+1
Options
TrippyJingMoses supposes his toeses are roses.But Moses supposes erroneously.Registered Userregular
I really feel like those expectations arose from rose-colored glasses, though.
0
Options
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
edited November 2015
My issue with Into Darkness was that it was a remake of a great movie, but the original is just better in so many ways.
EDIT: I mean, I had problems with a lot of particular scenes and story-beats, but it really didn't feel like it used the whole aspect of Khan well.
Munkus Beaver on
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
Posts
But then again, that's better than what Doohan got.
He was a descendant of Hitler though...
Whoever wrote it had in mind that there were two whole generations of people removed from Wrath of Khan. Hopefully.
Wait seriously? I don't know anymore.
Trapcard.jpg
What was Doohan's swansong, Generations? I thought he was okay in that. Even if he and Chekhov were second pick.
It was just so inconsequential in that movie. And the movie itself was bad.
Mostly Relics was a way better sendoff and he shouldn't have come back for anything after that.
But man, what the hell was up with the uniforms in TMP? Especially that huge weird belt buckle thing.
I thought it was reused from the aborted "Phase 2" tv series attempt (or was that stuff that was folded into TNG? I don't remember anymore)
John Noble as President Steward of the Federation, please.
In fact, none of the Star Trek movies, not even the original six, seem to care to even try to replicate the Kirk/Spock/McCoy trinity. The closest they got was in Star Trek 5 or as it's known to the fanbase, *clawing my own eyes out*.
It's this kind of thing that makes me think back to the Onion video of Star Trek fans complaining that the new movie isn't unentertaining enough.
That video pissed me off because a lot of fans of the show had legitimate complaints about the movies not being what they wanted and that got boiled down to "dumb nerds are dumb for liking things that other people don't". The Onion is better than that.
yeah that's horseshit!
my favorite Trek movie is First Contact and there's no way you can say that's a boring movie
then, nooope. we need magic blood, we need it now, and the only way to get it is a fistfight on top of a speeding train
Costuming for that film was completely bizarre.
I mean, I personally really hated Zachary Quinto's take for that scene. He sold revenge and anger in 09 and he really didn't deliver it for me in that scene. In general, I liked the core idea of flipping the roles, but it felt kind of shoehorned in along with Khan himself. I just didn't care for the execution, I think it had problems that are there regardless of what you thought about Star Trek 2.
cause you know that fucking probe is still on its way!
Now I want it.
How is "this movie isn't what I expected or wanted" not a legitimate complaint? "This isn't what I wanted it to be" is, like, the most legitimate reason to not like something.
they call spock and he's all "that probe is the most dangerous adversary we ever faced" "but you said the same about khan" "go get some whales already, sheesh"
It's a real thing that you can overlook the merits of something if you're focused on what your expectations were and how it didn't live up to them.
It's fair to say that your disappointment can outweigh whatever enjoyment you might have gotten out of something but generally you really should try to approach a piece of art on its own terms.
If something bills itself as Star Trek, I think it's fair to hold it to a certain set of expectations. If I go to a movie called The Fast and the Furious and it's a bottle drama that doesn't feature cars at all, it doesn't matter how good of a bottle drama it is--it set expectations it didn't meet.
That might be taking their video a bit too literally. Making satire of something doesn't mean you think the opposite is true.
Also it's "dumb nerds are dumb for getting angry because they dislike something other people like." A small difference, but not unimportant. I agree with you though, there are legitimate complaints with the new movies.
The movies broke those expectations long before the 09 release, though
I don't disagree. I had plenty of complaints about previous movies too. Doesn't make the complaint any less valid, just because they keep doing it wrong.
EDIT: I mean, I had problems with a lot of particular scenes and story-beats, but it really didn't feel like it used the whole aspect of Khan well.