CodeRedR51
Premium
- 55,315
- United States
Not once did I see a small, friendly alien with a glowing finger.
Again, I enjoyed it just like I enjoy most of JJ's work. Can't wait for Into Darkness and patiently waiting for Cloverfield 2...
Star Trek - Into Darkness | May 15, 2013
- Thread starter CodeRedR51
- 149 comments
- 11,092 views
Not once did I see a small, friendly alien with a glowing finger.
Again, I enjoyed it just like I enjoy most of JJ's work. Can't wait for Into Darkness and patiently waiting for Cloverfield 2...
- 874
- Australia
Official Super Bowl Spot:
CodeRedR51
Premium
- 55,315
- United States
- 7,177
- Lisboa
- FLAT_TWELVE
A new Star Trek movie.
^^^This. Relax, have fun, Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Uhura, Chekhov, Sulu, what more can you want?
Oh, and I wouldn't care a bit if the Villain was Khan again and was found by Kirk in the Botany Bay ... all over again! After all the 3rd world war happened before the "reboot" and the alternative story line begun, so Khan is out there, just waiting to be found in his cryo chamber
Of course, the V'ger vessel is on its way to Earth, reboot or no reboot ... and since we mention it, that cilindric probe should be arriving soon too, it departed to Earth before the reboot ... they'll need the humpback whales OR THE ENTIRE PLANET IS DOOMED! QUICK, MORE MOVIES PLEASE!!!!!
- 5,303
- Riverside, Ca
- GTP_Leonidae_MFT
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
This is why INTO DARKNESS isn't worth your time or your hard-earned money:
You know something is seriously wrong when the dialogue from the trailer can be perfectly cut into footage from another film.
You know something is seriously wrong when the dialogue from the trailer can be perfectly cut into footage from another film.
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
So, by that rationale:
Inception sucks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvcvrnPe0yU
Gran Torino wasn't worth our hard earned money.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TuRbk-00Sw
And The Dark Knight Rises has something seriously wrong with it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NRsPDhyHrc
Actually, it is amazing how many movies we all thought were good turn out to be a waste when you search You Tube for movie mashup.
Of course, that same logic could mean it will be the greatest Trek film ever made.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42uV_BJHPEA
CodeRedR51
Premium
- 55,315
- United States
Prisoner and his personal vendetta against Abrams continues...
- 17,865
- 509
I'm curious how he keeps track of all these vendettas, to be honest.
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
Posting re-cuts of trailers that are intended as parodies does nothing to prove your point.
INTO DARKNESS is pretty much plagiarism of half a dozen different films. Abrams seems to be working on the logic that they are two - or in this case, six - great tastes that taste great together, and so stuck them all in a blender marked "Star Trek".
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
Ditto.
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
Except that this one isn't intended as a parody. It's intended to show that INTO DARKNESS is plagiarism.
I find it funny that you use the screen name "FoolKiller" and your custom title is "Don't be a fool", and yet you're totally willing to pay money to see INTO DARKNESS, which is foolish since you've already seen it - you just know it as a half-dozen other films.
I find it funny that you use the screen name "FoolKiller" and your custom title is "Don't be a fool", and yet you're totally willing to pay money to see INTO DARKNESS, which is foolish since you've already seen it - you just know it as a half-dozen other films.
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
It was in the exact same list of search results as everyone of those other films.
My point went well over your head, as it was designed to show that any movie trailer audio could be dubbed over footage from another film to make it look like it is the same thing, parody or not. The very simple fact is, that unless you have some special access that you won't reveal, you have not seen Into Darkness but appear to crap on it every chance you get.
Attempting to be clever now and assuming what I will and won't be seeing in theaters? Let me break it down for you. I have a family and young child who is active in academic , athletic, and artistic pursuits. I have very little time to go see movies. When I go see a movie it is because someone else asks if I want to go and I happen to have a free few hours. Often that other person is my brother-in-law who has OCD so bad that he cannot handle being in public alone. He thinks Mochael Bay is the greatest director ever and wants to be Tom Cruise, so often the movie we see isn't how I would prefer to spend those few hours in a theater.
But when I did have time and tons of disposable income, I saw nearly every film out. Why? Because I will see every movie once before I start tearing it to shreds based on a trailer. There was a time where I could give you an experienced opinion on every film in theaters, including chick flicks and Fast & Furious films.
From that time I can tell you two things about movies:
1) Trailers either give everything away or completely misrepresent the film altogether. See, trailers are mostly created by the studio marketing teams who wouldn't know story if it was hugging their face.
2) When it comes to nearly every blockbuster:
So, your rants are either completely baseless or the least kept secret in Hollywood. No matter how true your statements may be, I DON'T CARE. Because see, sometimes we like a certain kind of story.
Let me blow your brain for a second. I love Frank Capra films. Even if it's the first time I ever see it I know one thing, it is a Capra film. A lovably innocent guy will be drawn into a situation to be taken advantage of by crooked businessmen or politicians, but, through the miracle of love goodness of the human spirit, it will all work out in the end. Why don't I get tired of a very formulaic thing? Because I enjoy that formula. It's the same reason why Michael Bay makes millions off crap.
For Christ's sake man, you are accusing a blockbuster sequel in a rebooted blockbuster franchise of being plagiaristic and unoriginal. And the sky is blue. The only thing making it more ridiculous is that you are claiming it is plagiarizing a blockbuster sequel in a rebooted blockbuster franchise.
Why don't you just post once a day, "It's a Hollywood film." it would be equally eye roll worthy and have the exact same meaning.
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
Okay, what if someone watched every Frank Capra film, and took all the best bits from each of them, and mashed them all together? And then, when it came time to present this new film, they never acknowledged Capra's influence - instead, they presented it in a way that suggested it was new and fresh, and let people believe that they were the ones who created the idea. Frank Capra never comes into it, and people who have never heard of Capra believe that this new person has created everything that Capra built his name on.
Because that's what Abrams is doing. I get that Hollywood has never been a breeding ground for originality, but at least most directors try to be original. That's my problem with Abrams: he imitates, and replicates. It's monkey see, monkey do. That might be fine on its own, but Abrams then positions himself as the guy who is ahead of the curve when he's really fallen behind everyone else. The studios buy into it, thinking that he is the guy who "gets" geek culture, as if you can just generalise geeks into a single demographic.
- 17,865
- 509
I'm pretty sure by titling it "Star Trek" they are doing a decent job of referencing, I dunno, Star Trek. 
By all means, please list us the original works he is so blatantly ripping off without crediting, since it is apparent to you from the trailers alone. All I see is, as Foolkiller pointed out, very common themes in a genre being used, and you could pull up damn near any sci-fi action movie and claim the same thing.
By all means, please list us the original works he is so blatantly ripping off without crediting, since it is apparent to you from the trailers alone. All I see is, as Foolkiller pointed out, very common themes in a genre being used, and you could pull up damn near any sci-fi action movie and claim the same thing.
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
Adam Sandler, gotcha. He did admit it with Mr Deeds, but that's kind of blatant. But the fact that Billy Madion and Happy Gilmore were retellings of Mr. A deeds Goes to Town...
Do you know how many ways It's a Wonderful Life has been redone and no one notices just because they remove the Christmas and angels?
You may want to watch some special features on his DVDs. Everything I own of his, from Lost through Super 8, he does whole interview sessions talking about his influences.
And crazy thing about geek culture, we want to see faithful versions of our childhood favorites. But if it is too new, beware fanboy rage.
Maybe you don't get Abrams or geek culture.
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
In Hollywood, almost everything in every movie has already been done at one time or another. Most movies are so predictable it's not even funny. Except for Star Trek of course...it's the best!!!!
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
I find that statment contradictory, given that Abrams first STAR TREK film was hardly a "faithful version" of the original series. And I fail to see how INTO DARKNESS can stand any chance of being faithful, given that it's just a mish-mash of half a dozen other, unrelated films.
I know enough about geek culture to know that it's not one culture. I'll be the first to admit that I'm a huge "Firefly" and SERENITY geek, but under Abrams' definition, that must mean that I like all science fiction. I don't. As much as I love "Firefly" and SERENITY, I generally avoid science fiction as much as I can.
CodeRedR51
Premium
- 55,315
- United States
Seen that. Hated it.
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
You just said that to a Trekkie, Trekker, whatever the geek high council has determined we shall be called - I just say fan. I have all films on Blu-Ray, TOS on Blu-Ray, and growing up my dad had subscribed to the Star Trek fan club so we got two episodes on VHS every month. And, I have been to a Trek convention, where I got to meet George Takei. I have argued who is the best captain (Kirk, duh!), and can explain the difference between the different classes of ships, as well as the different Enterprises. We even have a 3-D Star Trek chess set that my dad keeps setup in a custom built display case at his house. EDIT: Oh, and I have every Hallmark ornament, except the original Enterprise (because my mom said it wouldn't be worth anything).
My dad and I saw it together and walking out we looked at each other and agreed that it was pretty good and didn't screw up any of the important details. That's pretty high praise, considering I knew of Abrams' Star Wars love (because I took the time to read and watch interviews where he did discuss his inspirations, instead of assuming I knew him) and feared it would be more Star Wars than Star Trek. It hit all the important keys and only screwed up on one major point with me (they ignored some of the established physics). There were a few general movie-making and plot issues I like to pick at, but as a lifelong, second-generation Trek fan, it passed the test.
It wasn't like this was the first, or tenth, time Star Trek used time travel to alter events.
And how do you know so much about Into Darkness? Seriously, you know exactly what it is going to be. You say it definitively, as fact. You must have a source. Please, share it with those of us who want to do more than purposely drink piss and complain about the beer.
So why do you care enough to put effort into trashing a film in a genre you generally avoid as much as you can?
And you are right, geek culture is not one culture. I never played D&D hardcore, can't get into MMORPGs, and don't enjoy a Magic or comics enough to waste my Fridays and Wednesdays hanging around shops playing tournaments and screaming about where my latest issue is. But one thing is for sure, when it comes to remaking our childhood favorites, we will band together to loudly bitch and moan, and then circle the block on opening night.
And yes, I've attended a midnight showing or four.
EDIT:
Someone should bookmark this post, because I figure this will be the only time I say this.
PM is right and you are wrong. [/Whedon opinion]
Last edited:
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
Because while I avoid science fiction, that doesn't mean that I won't be drawn into it if I like the premise of something. That's how I got into "Firefly" and SERENITY in the first place. If it happened once, it can happen again - but when people like Abrams are in control, it shuts me out.
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
Again, you admit you don't like Abrams' stuff. Why do you care this much? Did you like his first Trek film? We're you an old school Trek fan?
Or, are you just trolling Abrams threads every chance you get because he raped your dog?
I don't like drifting or NASCAR. I don't participate in those threads because I would be the guy who shows up and says drifting/NASCAR sucks and always has and I can tell by the ad that this next race will really suck.
- 17,865
- 509
So basically, you're a Joss Whedon fan and any other sci-fi you tend to avoid, as you according to your prior posts.
Would you say you ever a fan of Star Trek? Because I'm with Foolkiller on this in that Abrams did just fine with the reboot. Kept enough of the details in the right place (red shirt woo) and added enough "shiney" to pull in new fans.
As for geek culture, I'd say it was fine as well. And was a D&D player, Magic: The Gathering tournament player, Warhammar 40k player, long time video game fan, reader of a great of sci-fi (classic to new) and have sat through more awkward sci-fi than most. Firefly was great, Serenity was great, but certainly not the best Sci-Fi to exist, and hardly original as well.
So, honestly, can you please tell us what sources Abrams is so clearly copying that, out of what I guess is spite, you go out of your way to talk about?
- 87,432
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
See, I like the quasi-scientific "consistency" of Trek and... after a third viewing I really hated newtrek.
Let's ignore the fact Stargate nailed black hole physics regarding relativistic time dilation and Newtrek just gibbered at it (Nero would have had some trouble responding if he were that close to the event horizon of one) and go at some of the gnarlier parts.
First there's a type of black hole you can travel through time if you go into it (this occurs twice), but another type that destroys you (this also occurs twice)... Both are generated the same way, by a completely unexplained McGuffin called "red matter" - the quantity of which doesn't seem to matter, but boy howdy is Spock's ship significantly overstocked with it for his mission. Kay.
Which reminds me, how is opening a black hole in a star supposed to save a planet in the star's system from the star going supernova? If anything it'll accelerate the nova effect (see Stargate again - they really aced black holes. Got an award for it too) and then kill the star and everything else in the system. Quite quickly - though that relativistic time dilation means it'd look quite slow.
So, having travelled back through time using a friendly black hole, you emerge in a "lightning storm in space". Then, 20-odd years later, you're seen again in a "lightning storm in space" - that's what clues Kirk up to the ambush - just through hanging about. No black hole to emerge from and cause this lightning storm... so... bad Earth connection on the Narada or something?
Incidentally, Picard's Star Fleet develops weapons to defend against the Borg in 8 years and Janeway's develops armour to defend against them in 20 (and weapons to fight Species 8472 on their own, on the fly, with a single Borg drone in a week), but Pike's can't come up with a defence against a (130 year advanced) mining ship's torpedoes in two decades? There were enough surviving Kelvin shuttlecraft to bring back sensor data...
I only really had one script issue. Nimoy's Spock is usually quite erudite and efficient with his language, but he sees fit to remind us - Kirk - of the danger of his story several times within the mind meld. I was open-mouthed at "And then the unthinkable happened... the star went nova". Oh, that thing that was going to happen that you were off to stop and you've told us about four times in this mind meld already? And why did he need "our fastest ship" anyway? And what qualifies as "fastest", only Voyager was pretty damned nippy at Warp 9.97 and old tech by the time of old Spock's original timeline story in newtrek...
All that aside, the nods to Trek were great. Just enough original stuff to keep certain dates, names and locations consistent and subtle changes to reflect the change in timeline. The casting was good - great in the case of Karl Urban - and, ignoring the lens flare, the effects didn't interfere despite being a heavy part of the film (Trek's always needed a significant quantity of visual effects and TNG set a benchmark for them being completely unobtrusive that all other Trek has followed in the footsteps of). Except the slow motion red matter sequence. That was dog eggs.
And my favourite Trek actors I've met are Alexander Siddig (we discussed why he changed his screen name; it was quite obvious) and Brent Spiner (we talked about Threshold for twenty minutes).
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
- 17,865
- 509
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
Are you aware that "Star Trek" is a television and film series? There were novels, but most of them were not canonical.
Neverthless, trying to make me look like an idiot doesn't actually do anything for your argument, which I'm assuming is that the new STAR TREK is in line with the original material. Which it isn't, because Gene Roddenberry tried to explain the science of the universe he created, where as Abrams simply tried to distract the audience from the plot holes by blowing something up.
- 11,660
- GTP_Orido
Trailer 3 :
