ThoseDeafMutes
Member
I'm rewatching the Star Trek 2009 SFDebris review in anticipation.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Star Trek into Darkness |OT| Not very tired at all
- Thread starter The Librarian
- Start date
- Status
I'm rewatching the Star Trek 2009 SFDebris review in anticipation.
The Librarian
Banned
Ooh! I should do this!
Well that comes after! And then the Plinkett review too
GameplayWhore
Member
Both Plinkett reviews?
The Librarian
Banned
Phasers > whatever laser blob things they have in ST09 and STiD.
Plus there were phasers:
I guess Starfleet upgraded the whole fleet to phaser cannons in the new universe when they redesigned their ships to be more battle worthy.
The Librarian
Banned
Gold is an awesome color. I think it looked better when the Defiant was shooting it because it has that flat frontal design.
Plus there were phasers:
I guess Starfleet upgraded the whole fleet to phaser cannons in the new universe when they redesigned their ships to be more battle worthy.
Those looked pretty wimpy compared to the phasers from the old universe. By the way, who came up with phasers? The word is so cool in its weirdness. What's the difference between a laser and a phaser?
No argument there, the Defiant was a damn sexy ship for so many reasons.
Well for what it's worth, I believe the phasers on the Kelvin are the earliest canon usage of them on a federation starship in the Star Trek timeline, so it can make sense that they're weaker.
And according to memory alpha:
Hydrogen Bluebird
Member
Based on some reviews, looks like this is not as good as Trek 2009 
I dunno, people just might not be as pleasantly surprised by this one. I would imagine people who liked the first one will enjoy Into Darkness quite a bit. To be honest, I don't remember the previous movie all that well, so I'll probably rent it tonight.Based on some reviews, looks like this is not as good as Trek 2009
GameplayWhore
Member
While we're complaining about phasers, I wanted to chime in with the opinion that hand phasers that disintegrate on the highest setting is a lot cooler (and feel much more "futuristic") than the hand phasers that essentially kill like bullets we've been getting since the '90s.
XiaNaphryz
LATIN, MATRIPEDICABUS, DO YOU SPEAK IT
I never liked that effect myself - at the highest setting they should disintegrate through a person and leave a gaping hole where the phaser goes through, not magically envelop the target to completely disintegrate them. Of course, that would also mean a lot of collateral damage as the high powered phaser goes through the target and hits something behind it. Then again, Star Trek physics aren't always consistent.
I never liked that effect myself - at the highest setting they should disintegrate through a person and leave a gaping hole where the phaser goes through, not magically envelop the target to completely disintegrate them. Of course, that would also mean a lot of collateral damage as the high powered phaser goes through the target and hits something behind it. Then again, Star Trek physics aren't always consistent.
Pretty sure they've left gaping holes in people before.
XiaNaphryz
LATIN, MATRIPEDICABUS, DO YOU SPEAK IT
Yeah, but aren't those on lower power settings?
The Librarian
Banned
I never liked that effect myself - at the highest setting they should disintegrate through a person and leave a gaping hole where the phaser goes through, not magically envelop the target to completely disintegrate them. Of course, that would also mean a lot of collateral damage as the high powered phaser goes through the target and hits something behind it. Then again, Star Trek physics aren't always consistent.
Star Trek physics are best physics.
"Set phasers to 'leave gaping holes in people'."
GameplayWhore
Member
I think it's always been "fielder's choice", so to speak. The effect depends on how the writer and director want it to look, and they're dependent on what the effects team are capable of.
Your point that it is incredibly unrealistic is very valid. I just feel that with how handheld weapons technology has improved in the last century, there should be more improvement in the next two or three. Or maybe it's one of the fantasy aesthetics I can live with despite needing to wrestle with suspension of disbelief (as with FTL travel, transporters, anomalae that fundamentally violate physics being commonplace, nebulae that are thick enough that you can't see in them, holodecks, replicators, time travel, that thing that prevents people from turning into a monoatomic paste on the back side of a space ship when it goes to high sublight speeds, and the notion that future humans will choose synthehol over the real thing).
Based on some reviews, looks like this is not as good as Trek 2009
Giving how unbearably stupid the second half of 09 is, that is troubling.
The Librarian
Banned
The breakdown is going to be really interesting to me. I wonder, of those who have seen the movie, including average folk and reviewers, SPOILERS
have seen The Wrath of Khan. If I had to guess, most of the people who like it will not have seen TWok, while most of the people who hate will have seen TWoK.
I'm quite sure there was a TNG episode where someone gets a hole shot through their chest at the end, I just can't remember which one.
The Librarian
Banned
Watching Part 1 SFDebris' review of ST09. Forgot how hilarious this was. "Instead, they ignore the question and ask about Spock, but the captain has no idea who he is. Guess he didn't watch the show much. Which would make him qualified to direct this film apparently. Wow. Did I put that in the script? Damn. Even I'm surprised at how cruel that remark was."
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
I can say that if you're a big old-time Trekkie, this movie will probably piss you off a great deal. If you're looking at it solely as a sequel to the first Abrams film like I was, then it's pretty damn great.
What If I'm both?
The Librarian
Banned
I spoilered for those sensitive:
Probably depends on how much you want them to do something original, and if you like the execution of the lack of creativity that's in the movie.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
It will depend on how much nitpicks get in the way of things for you. There are some contrivances in this film that will piss off a lot of Trekkies and immediately make them hate this film, but if you can just look at this film as a standalone sequel, then they're easy to overlook in favor of everything else.
Cool, I loved Star Trek 2009 and The Avengers and TDKR so I think I have a fair tolerance for contrivances. Can't wait til next week.
Meh, As a kid I used to watch the shows every week and read the technical manuals until I had every starship class memorized so I'd say I'm a bit of a trekkie. While I wish the new movieverse had that kind of technical and scientific foundation that made past treks, I'm perfectly happy enjoying the new stuff for what it is.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
True. But this film feels a little like Abrams and the writers saying "Ah well, fuck 'em. Let's have some fun!"
Yeah if you loved the 2009 Trek, you'll love this.
The Librarian
Banned
Just because someone is a Trekkie doesn't mean they don't have good reasons to dislike the film, if they do dislike the film, as was the case with ST09.
Same. Love the tv shows (watched TOS, TNG entirely currently on s4 of DS9) and some of the old movies like First Contact and TWoK. But I don't get offended at some of the changes in tone and the emphasis on action like in ST2009. This is a brand new universe anyway, the franchise was pretty much dead and ST2009 revived it and made it relevant for modern audiences, that along deserve props. And I'm highly tolerant of plot contrivances, after all I love The Dark Knight trilogy so the plot at least in ST2009 didnt bother me that much. .
I just seriously don't get the hate for AbramsTrek.
Sure I respect your opinion and of anyone else that dislike the films, but you just go out of your way to express your disdain for AbramsTrek every single time to you there's nothing good about these movies. It's like if I go to the gaming side and post constantly in a thread about a game I hate, always expressing that I hate the shit out of it.
Well, the last time we got a non-action based Star Trek movie that was any good was twenty two years ago. And the last time we got a good episode of Star Trek was eight years ago.
I'd much rather take a few fluffy fun action movies than the alternative, which let's face it, would be nothing.
I'd much rather take a few fluffy fun action movies than the alternative, which let's face it, would be nothing.
Yup, I'd give my left nut for a new Star Trek series. I can see it following the Doctor Who formula with less episodes per season.
Also, I forgot how bang on the Plinkett review of ST2009 was.
Orci and Kurtzman have talked about the possibility of a new tv series, but only once they finish up these 3 films.
Mgoblue201
Won't stop picking the right nation
The worst critique against Abrams is that he deliberately works with subpar scripts (and given how much autonomy Abrams currently exercises over Star Trek, that is to a large degree his own fault). But that is not a critique against Abrams as a director. His visual storytelling is far, far above anything that has ever been done before in Star Trek, with the possible exception of Robert Wise (who I believe is the only academy winner to actually direct an episode or movie). Even Nicholas Meyer doesn't quite compare in terms of visual ingenuity.
Do you like this more than 2009 Trek? Cause I fucking loved 2009 Trek.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
I think it's on par right now. It definitely feels like a T2 sort-of sequel where it retreads a lot of what worked in the first film and expands the scope. Ask me again after I go for a second screening tomorrow.
I think you you loved the 09 Trek, you'll love this.
Sounds just like the kind of movie I want to see this summer!
I am Trekkie but loved the first one and expect to love this, I am not delusional and think TNG era Trek would at all work in a modern film. AbramsTrek is exactly what Trek needs to be right now. He updated for current times while bringing back what made the franchise great originally before it got bogged down by endless tv shows that pandered only to the hardcore Trekkie. Nobody but hardcore Trekkies cared about DS9, Voyager, & Enterprise. It was a extremely insular franchise that non-Trekkies were completely left out of. A franchise more defined by the crazies who go to conventions and dress up in Star Fleet uniforms than for high quality fun sci-fi with pop culture acceptance. If you were a Trekkie the mid 90's through the early 00's were great, if you weren't the franchise was a nerdy joke.
Franchises that tend to get obsessed with trying to please the hardcore fans or appealing to them primarily never end up well. If the movie pisses off some Trekkies all the better. I wouldn't want to see a movie that makes all the hardcore Trekkies happy. It may be good Star Trek but it wouldn't be a good summer movie that I could go with and enjoy with my non-Trekkie friends.
Not all Trekkies are crazy and unwilling to accept the awesome fun that is AbramsTrek.
Auron_Kale
Member
Sounds good to me. I have no issues separating old Trek with ST2009's version and I adored ST2009.
Also... Hit Rear Admiral status in the App. Not sure how I feel about that lol.
Eh, I'm pretty sure most Trekkies were not terribly fond of any Trek post-DS9.
Franchises that tend to get obsessed with capturing the mass market - and especially those who hate sci-fi - can turn out shitty too.
Lots of false dichotomies being thrown around here. Not everything has to be Trekkie wank material or an Orci/Kurtzman/Lindelof contrivance/nostalgia bait fest.
It can be argued it swung to far in that direction but it is pretty obvious it needed a shift to the mass market. Trek was effectively dead in 2005. Enterprise had awful ratings and was cancelled and Nemesis bombed.
I'm not arguing with that. The franchise imploded and needed some new blood.
I just wish we had some writers a cut above "hack."
- Status