Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 05/30/2013 9:12:47 PM PDT by garjog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-30 next last
To: garjog

They should have either gone with Gary Mitchell or used an actual East Indian for the role of Khan.

That’s where they messed up.


2 posted on 05/30/2013 9:14:37 PM PDT by Jonty30 (What Islam and secularism have in common is that they are both death cults)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: garjog

Did any of you like it?


3 posted on 05/30/2013 9:15:11 PM PDT by garjog (Heroes Died. Obama Lied.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: garjog
This is like adding a fourth female Musketeer to please feminist reviewers

At Swords Point is a VERY GOOD movie.

5 posted on 05/30/2013 9:18:52 PM PDT by mountn man (The Pleasure You Get From Life Is Equal To The Attitude You Put Into It)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: garjog

After all the rumors that Cumberbatch, and the not-really denials of the fact, I then knew that Cumberbatch was going to be Khan. It just doesn’t jive. They’ve really messed things up. I was “okay” with the first one, it was fun its own way, but still messed up.

I don’t know, couldn’t they have started fresh, whole new crew? Whole new characters? They just have to hit those touchpoints, and that’s it.

Disappointed. Maybe it’s time to give up on this whole debacle, after all the original Star Trek is a lefty’s wet dream, anyway.

Now, if they can get that Captain Worf Star Trek series they’ve been kicking around, then you might have something...


6 posted on 05/30/2013 9:19:04 PM PDT by Thorliveshere (Tais deau sá taghdedaul!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: garjog
Star Trek Into Darkness in a Nutshell

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFs_fkXVyM0


8 posted on 05/30/2013 9:21:14 PM PDT by KC_Lion (Build the America you want to live in at your address, and keep looking up.-Sarah Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: garjog

A number of the back ground scenes were filmed at LLNL in the NIF facility. Many were superimposed over green screens


9 posted on 05/30/2013 9:21:28 PM PDT by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: garjog

Loved it and am glad I saw it on the big screen. I grew up watching Star Trek.


10 posted on 05/30/2013 9:22:09 PM PDT by Frapster (There you go again...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: garjog
JJ Abrams is an admitted Star Wars fan who was never a fan of Star Trek. That is like giving the keys to a Synagogue to a Nazi. You know he's going to damage the place just for fun.

I hope he dies pennyless in a gutter.

11 posted on 05/30/2013 9:22:28 PM PDT by BigCinBigD (...Was that okay?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: garjog

Nearly went blind from all those lens flares.


12 posted on 05/30/2013 9:24:42 PM PDT by dragonblustar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: garjog

I have enjoyed some of JJ Abrams’ TV shows. Fringe and Lost faded in their later season, IMO, but I enjoyed them mostly. After reviewing his Filmography, I have not liked any of the movies he’s produces/directed. I really wanted to like Super 8, but it lost me at some forgotten point.


13 posted on 05/30/2013 9:28:00 PM PDT by edpc (Wilby 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: garjog

This Kirk is totally unreal. Even giving an artistic liscense to make some changes to the story. Kirk had a reputation as a “walking stack of books” and was known to be a very hard student instructor of lower classmen. He was known to be a “by the books” type of Officer until an incident caused him to re-evaluate that position.

I could say the same for almost all the characters, and it goes beyond one-dimensional directing and acting. It’s like they are trying to make a cartoon rather than a sci-fi movie.


15 posted on 05/30/2013 9:31:18 PM PDT by Hawk1976 (It is better to die in on your feet than it is to live as on your knees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: garjog

I disagree — I found it to be annoyingly disappointing.


16 posted on 05/30/2013 9:31:25 PM PDT by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: garjog
I haven't seen this one yet, but I think you're missing one big plot element from the 2009 movie based on your critique. This Star Trek universe is an alternate one. The people, places, and events are very similar, but they are not the same. Judging it by how well it conforms to the original story is missing the point.
21 posted on 05/30/2013 9:42:43 PM PDT by Sparticus (Tar and feathers for the next dumb@ss Republican that uses the word bipartisanship.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: garjog; a fool in paradise; Slings and Arrows
Is anyone in this edition of the fine masterpiece major entertainment vehicle product ever seen going to the outhouse?


23 posted on 05/30/2013 9:49:40 PM PDT by Revolting cat! (Bad things are wrong! Ice cream is delicious!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: garjog
In the same way this dog's breakfast of a script adds a new female character, an admiral's daughter, as a "second science officer", apparently to add romance to planned sequels and perhaps for gender equity. So, in addition to Kirk, Spock and Bones, we now have a hot blond babe. This is like adding a fourth female Musketeer to please feminist reviewers .

The blonde, while not functional in this movie, actually has a reason to be there in the timeline, so I let that pass. She is Carol Marcus, who will have a fling with Kirk and have a son, and then go off and invent the Genesis device with her son in time for the Wrath of Khan.

28 posted on 05/30/2013 9:58:50 PM PDT by Vince Ferrer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: garjog; a fool in paradise

I won’t see it if Whippie Goldberg’s not in it, and that’s that!


29 posted on 05/30/2013 9:59:08 PM PDT by Revolting cat! (Bad things are wrong! Ice cream is delicious!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: garjog

Here is another problem I just heard on another review. We are told that the frozen dudes in the drones are 300 hundred years old. But, that would mean that they were frozen in 1995.


35 posted on 05/30/2013 10:14:52 PM PDT by garjog (Heroes Died. Obama Lied.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: garjog
It's not a bad movie, but it contradicts the "known facts" of Star Trek.
37 posted on 05/30/2013 10:19:43 PM PDT by TBP (Obama lies, Granny dies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: garjog

I thought it was ok for what it was: mindless popcorn fare. I thought Cumberbatch was a poor choice for Khan, but as Nameless Villian #3, he could have been very good. Many of the things you brought up in the review could be explained away as being part of the alternate reality of Abram’s Star Trek series. Spock’s relationship with Uhura, the fact that it is Adm. Marcus’s team that finds Khan instead of Kirk (there was the line about Starfleet had been seeking more power military assets to counter the Klingon threat). The Hot Blond babe character was Carol Marcus, who would later be the mother of Kirk’s son, David. They would develop the Genesis torpedo on Ceti Alpha 5, where they would meet Khan.
That said, the radiation death scene was copy/paste of the same scene in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. My eyes rolled so far I thought they were going to fall out of my head.
The scene at the beginning where the Enterprise was under water was probably the stupidest thing I have seen in a Star Trek movie since the whales on a Klingon bird of prey.
They were hiding the ship from the native population. Fine. Except for the Earth shattering sonic boom created during entry. Enter else where on the planet and fly to the temple location? A Constitution class starship (which I’m assuming this one still is) was never designed for atmospheric flight. It would have shaken itself apart with the first 1000 miles. They would have had to divert every bit of power from all over the ship the inertial dampers to make it halfway safe. /nerd


41 posted on 05/30/2013 10:41:16 PM PDT by christx30 (Freedom above all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: garjog

I was not real happy with the first one with this bunch that paradoxed the entire history of Star Trek into oblivion with this “alternate reality” crap.

I was kind of hoping they would fix the timeline in this sequel, and get back to doing what they promised to begin with... visiting the early years.

You know the writers don’t have anything left when they start playing with the time line.
These writers are probably responding with “Rodenbury who?”


43 posted on 05/30/2013 11:11:46 PM PDT by Safrguns (PM me if you like to play Minecraft!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-30 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson