Star Trek: The Franchise

[wilbert]

I'm old enough to have watched the original series as a kid. In reruns in 1972 on channel 11 in Seattle, at 6pm. I loved that show. Those shows consisted of middle-aged white guys in too small pajama tops standing around awkwardly while some guy in a styrofoam hat menaced them.

This movie could have been saved with more go-go boots and the dialogue "You humans have surprised us. We did not expect kindness from such primative people". Spock is supposed to raise his eyebrow and say "Fascinating, Jim. For all their intellect these aliens relied on emotion, rather than logic, to choose a course of action" THen Bones says " of couse they did, you pointy eared potato." Man, that was a good show.

[Deleted]

May 27, 2013 22:26:41 GMT -4 bklynred said:

It's all a matter of opinion, I guess. I consider myself fairly intelligent and certainly didn't think the plots were dumb or stupid. It's probably not fair to pass judgment on an entire audience. We all have our own opinions...

It is not letting me thumbs up this so I will give it a .

Spoilers ahead! Read at your own risk!


Although I have been a fan for close to thirty years now, I think that JJ had to make some changes and modernize Trek. It was militaristic, but that was debated on-screen. It is why Scotty quit - because he disagreed with the sanctioned vigilante justice. I don't think that we will exist in a perfect utopia in the future, there will be people like Admiral Peter Weller who will still wage misguided war. The Undiscovered Country touched on that too, so I do not see how this film veered too far off from the original films. I am trying to envision a different Trek film with less action and I am afraid that it will fall into the same pitfalls of the original series of movies (the original Movie 1 was a snore) and some of the TNG movies - which was that they were boring at times. I know that some fans have been mad that JJ was thumbing his nose at the Prime Directive, but they took Kirk's ship for violating it! That is a pretty serious consequence.

[alpierce]

I never said there shouldn't be more action. No one wants to watch a bunch of old white guys stand around debating the prime directive (which was borne out of the viet-nam conflict, and was actually done in a TNG episode). But it is like watching a car race through 100 red lights where no one gets hurt and there are no accidents in midtown manhatten during rush hour. It is simply unbelievable. I guess my roller coaster movie is just a little different is all.

May 28, 2013 9:50:26 GMT -4 @borokat said:

May 27, 2013 22:26:41 GMT -4 bklynred said:

It's all a matter of opinion, I guess. I consider myself fairly intelligent and certainly didn't think the plots were dumb or stupid. It's probably not fair to pass judgment on an entire audience. We all have our own opinions...

It is not letting me thumbs up this so I will give it a .

Spoilers ahead! Read at your own risk!


Although I have been a fan for close to thirty years now, I think that JJ had to make some changes and modernize Trek. It was militaristic, but that was debated on-screen. It is why Scotty quit - because he disagreed with the sanctioned vigilante justice. I don't think that we will exist in a perfect utopia in the future, there will be people like Admiral Peter Weller who will still wage misguided war. The Undiscovered Country touched on that too, so I do not see how this film veered too far off from the original films. I am trying to envision a different Trek film with less action and I am afraid that it will fall into the same pitfalls of the original series of movies (the original Movie 1 was a snore) and some of the TNG movies - which was that they were boring at times. I know that some fans have been mad that JJ was thumbing his nose at the Prime Directive, but they took Kirk's ship for violating it! That is a pretty serious consequence.

I think they were mad because of the lack of intelligence of the franchise as a whole since the reboot. Star trek IV (for example) may have been tongue in cheek, but the film did make a statement - Save the whales.

[petitesuite]

I have to admit, all I have to contribute to this conversation is that the movie was even better the second time. Yeah. *twiddles thumbs*

[chonies]

I'm normally opposed to 3-D movies, but I think I'm going to try to see it that format.

[bklynred]

I saw Into Darkness in 3D (I balked but it was my friend's first experience with it). I don't think it's critical for the viewing though. I think I probably did jump a bit more with the glasses on, and I was in a theater with reclining seats that also had this movement to match the action, so it was pretty cool.

[Deleted]

I saw it 3D the first time and 2D the second time, and I don't think it lost anything in 2D.

[jmart]

I've seen in twice as well. Loved it!

[Deleted]

I have seen it twice-took the almost-nine-year-old yesterday and am now trying to talk him into being Spock for Halloween.

[bklynred]

I was surprised to find out Quinto had to shave his eyebrows for eight months while filming, when it's the thick eyebrows that makes him look so Spock-like to begin with. It's rare to have such perfect casting of a character, I remember getting the Spock vibe back when he was Sylar.