Star Trek into Darkness |OT| Not very tired at all

Status
Not open for further replies.
John Carter was the best blockbuster of 2012.

shaq.gif
 
Its like a triple dose rich creamy shit.

First layer is dog shit
Then horse shit
And finally Triceratops Shit

Basically a giant pile of shit!

lol seriously. what a bunch of terrible writers. thank god disney already hired a screenwriter before jj abrams brought his hack squad in for star wars
 
And here we go. Trekkies who don't understand that their 'type of movie' will not only induce comas into 99% of people who will watch it, but will also bomb harder than John Carter (which would be a better movie by comparison).

I think if Star Trek II, IV, or VI causes people to go into comas, they have serious attention span issues. Maybe they should look into medication for it.

I am not very hyped for this.
 
I know I've said this before the buzz for this film is really muted here on GAF. While I don't expect the film to bomb or anything (it's tracking well apparently) there just doesn't seem to be the level of excitement that there was for the first film.

I wonder if the 'darker' tone is perhaps turning off some of the casual fans that the first films brought in or the fact that the film plays like a
remake of Wrath Of Khan
which many aren't responding to.

Even though I wasn't a fan of the first film I will be seeing this ASAP as a hardcore sci-fi and Trek fan and besides I want to be able to wade into the debates about this film on GAF which I suspect are going to be more polarising that the first film.

Benadryl Cucumberpatch kind of killing my interest in this film.

Your awful pun only serves to make your opinion more wrong...., if such a thing were even possible.

*folds arms*
 
Even though I wasn't a fan of the first film I will be seeing this ASAP as a hardcore sci-fi and Trek fan and besides I want to be able to wade into the debates about this film on GAF which I suspect are going to be more polarizing that the first film.

Agreed.
 
I know I've said this before the buzz for this film is really muted here on GAF. While I don't expect the film to bomb or anything (it's tracking well apparently) there just doesn't seem to be the level of excitement that there was for the first film.

I think it's pretty natural and predictable that people are going to be more excited for a reboot of a popular franchise than they are going to be excited for a sequel to that reboot. Excluding of course The Dark Knight, which garnered more buzz than its predecessor simply due to it including the most popular villain of the series delivering an incredible performance.

It also doesn't help that they've been insanely secretive about Into Darkness....to the point where people don't know anything about the film besides the fact that there's some badass and a lot of stuff blows up. If nobody knew that Heath Ledger was the Joker and the trailers for Dark Knight were just a bunch of explosions and vague dialogue, I imagine the buzz there would have been pretty muted as well.
 
I have a question, but its a spoiler I guess so...

Is it really a secret who Cumberbatch is? I mean there is IMDB and everything, or could he be someone different than Khan?
 
Um, yeah, that's definitely a spoiler. The marketing team has kept it deliberately vague because it works with in the movie, and because the character hasn't been revealed it is considered a spoiler. Also (spoilers)
I think one of the reasons they kept it vague is because, if they told everyone who it is, people wouldn't be as hyped.
 
Ruh Roh
But Abrams talked to the New York Times this week and when asked about "Star Trek 3," he was noncommittal about directing a third “Star Trek,” aside from saying that his production company, Bad Robot, would produce it. While there are no specific quotes, clearly an exchange (probably not that pullquote worthy itself) took place over the subject. The NYT writes, "He said it was unlikely that Paramount would wait another four years for such a film, in which case his “Star Wars” schedule would likely conflict with it."
 
You fool. I hope you're happy when Paramount bring Len Wiseman in and Giacchino bails so you can get fucking Marco Beltrami or some shit.
I don't know anything about Len Wiseman, and Giacchino isn't anything special. He can't hold a candle to Jerry Goldsmith, and Dennis McCarthy who composed this.
 

Give it to Rian Johnson.

edit: And I've always been kind of lukewarm about Giacchino's Star Trek score. It wasn't really memorable outside of the first 10 minutes and Enterprising Young Men, which was repeated a bunch of times. Hopefully without the distractions of Up (his superior work in 2009) and LOST he found a way to channel more creative energy into this new film. The score from John Carter last year was pretty great.

This is still the best theme from anything Star Trek related. Dat Goldsmith.
 
I don't know anything about Len Wiseman, and Giacchino isn't anything special. He can't hold a candle to Jerry Goldsmith, and Dennis McCarthy who composed this.

Well why don't they get Goldsmith in? Oh that's right. He's dead.

Giacchino isn't on the level of Bernard Hermann either, but that doesn't really have anything to do with anything.
 
Well why don't they get Goldsmith in? Oh that's right. He's dead.

Giacchino isn't on the level of Bernard Hermann either, but that doesn't really have anything to do with anything.

Just putting his work in perspective. His work isn't anything special, so Star Trek isn't losing anything by him leaving.
 
YAY!!!!!! :) Get it out of that hack's hands. Hopefully Orci and Kurtzman will move on too!

You do realize it will still be an Abrams production right? Not going back to your beloved DS9 or whatever. Trek 3 will be another bad robot production with Pine, Quinto, & Saldana.
 
You do realize it will still be an Abrams production right? Not going back to your beloved DS9 or whatever. Trek 3 will be another bad robot production with Pine, Quinto, & Saldana.

Is there a point you're trying to make here? First thing's first: get competent directors and writers behind new Star Trek movies, whether they be in the new universe or the old universe.
 
Is there a point you're trying to make here? First thing's first: get competent directors and writers behind new Star Trek movies, whether they be in the new universe or the old universe.

You may not like Abrams but the idea that the guy who basically revolutionized the entire tv drama genre in the early 00's is a hack is insanely absurd. And he is revived the Trek franchise after it was left for dead after box-office failures and non-existent tv ratings.

You may not like his work but he has been far too significant of a force and changed the film and tv industry to be a "hack".
 
You may not like Abrams but the idea that the guy who basically revolutionized the entire tv drama genre in the early 00's is a hack is insanely absurd. And he is revived the Trek franchise after it was left for dead after box-office failures and non-existent tv ratings.

Basically revolutionized TV drama? haha
 
Star Trek is more than competently directed. You might not like the direction of the story, but to say it's not competent or even good is some straight up shit.
 
Everything I know about this movie and read it should be very damn good....except for one thing, they do one thing that will be annoying to some because of how outlandish it is. Some might not care or just go with it...but it's the one thing that bothered me about what I read happens.

Aside from that, should be a good viewing experience.

Also everyone knows that Cumberbatch is really another parallel time/reality jumper who is Kirk's brother grown up after Starfleet was destroyed and wrecked from the happenings of said previous movie leaving humanity all but extinct like the Vulcans.

Duh.
 
Basically revolutionized TV drama? haha
The pilot for Lost (which he wrote and directed) was extremely revolutionary and had a huge impact on the entire tv industry.

There is literally no way to deny that.

Star Trek is more than competently directed. You might not like the direction of the story, but to say it's not competent or even good is some straight up shit.

Yep. It's fine to not like Abrams or his films. But he is not a hack. He has his own personal vision and style and has had a big impact on the industry.
 
Don't mind Abrams as much as I mind the trio of godawful writers that seem to follow him wherever he goes.

Orci, Kurtzmann, and Lindelof are among the worse things about Hollywood right now. Thank the Valar that they're not penning the new Star Wars script.
 
Don't mind Abrams as much as I mind the trio of godawful writers that seem to follow him wherever he goes.

Orci, Kurtzmann, and Lindelof are among the worse things about Hollywood right now.

Not wherever he goes! They aren't writing his next movie.
 
Star Trek is more than competently directed. You might not like the direction of the story, but to say it's not competent or even good is some straight up shit.
Competent directing includes story last time I checked.
The pilot for Lost (which he wrote and directed) was extremely revolutionary and had a huge impact on the entire tv industry.

There is literally no way to deny that.
In any of the TV shows I've watched, I've never seen any influence from Lost or have heard how it's impacted the industry in any significant manner. In terms of direction and storytelling, DS9 and B5 were more revolutionary than Lost and served to push the TV medium more. His work is hardly original, and when given the chance to make original work, he doesn't care to.
 
Not wherever he goes! They aren't writing his next movie.

I remember breathing a sigh of relief when I found out that it was Michael Arndt in charge of the script.

Can you even imagine a Star Wars trilogy written by Orci, Kurtzmann, and Lindelof?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom