If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Wired)   "Into Darkness is a disappointing and disposable summer movie" Mr. Sulu, take us to Nerdrage 10   (wired.com) divider line 136
    More: Sad, Star Trek, Karl Urban, dress uniforms, Peter Weller, Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman, Damon Lindelof, Benedict Cumberbatch  
•       •       •

5103 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 16 May 2013 at 8:48 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



136 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-16 08:17:58 AM
Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman written screenplay, a foppish British guy playing  [SPOILER], and blinding lens flares, what could possibly go wrong?
 
2013-05-16 08:36:02 AM

Mugato: Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman written screenplay, a foppish British guy playing  [SPOILER], and blinding lens flares, what could possibly go wrong?


Having actually seen the film, the correct answer is "not a goddamn thing".
 
2013-05-16 08:53:55 AM
 
2013-05-16 08:55:08 AM
Please, I saw the movie last night. It was amazing! I am sure Trekkies/Trekkers and everyone else will love it.
 
2013-05-16 08:56:20 AM
Yeah, I'm a lifelong Trekkie and I really enjoyed the film. I especially loved all the little callouts to the previous history, like a model of the NX-01 on Admiral Marcus' desk.
 
2013-05-16 08:57:45 AM

SilentStrider: Mugato: Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman written screenplay, a foppish British guy playing  [SPOILER], and blinding lens flares, what could possibly go wrong?

Having actually seen the film, the correct answer is "not a goddamn thing".


I hope you are right about that. I'll have to wait a couple weeks to form an opinion of my own about this movie... ( don't like packed theaters w/ asshats using their smartphones...)
 
2013-05-16 08:58:27 AM
Having read the other threads this week concerning this movie, I present my prenopsis of this thread.

First Contact sucked. First Contact was brilliant.

TOS was deep, insightful science fiction. TOS was a gross display of 1960's male fantasy.

ST2009 was true to the themes and spirit of the original. ST2009 pissed on the grave of the original.
 
2013-05-16 08:59:33 AM
Don't care, still want to see it.
 
2013-05-16 08:59:34 AM
I really liked the movie. It was better than the first one.
 
2013-05-16 09:00:20 AM

Wellon Dowd: Having read the other threads this week concerning this movie, I present my prenopsis of this thread.

First Contact sucked. First Contact was brilliant.

TOS was deep, insightful science fiction. TOS was a gross display of 1960's male fantasy.

ST2009 was true to the themes and spirit of the original. ST2009 pissed on the grave of the original.


TOS had both of those, and that's what made it awesome, IMHO.
 
2013-05-16 09:04:27 AM
Well critics thought The Shining and the original Psycho wasn't worth watching either..

I'm not saying Into Darkness is going to be on par with the above movies, I'm saying that I put movie critics along the same lines and politicians when it comes to the value of their options.
 
2013-05-16 09:06:43 AM

SilentStrider: Mugato: Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman written screenplay, a foppish British guy playing  [SPOILER], and blinding lens flares, what could possibly go wrong?

Having actually seen the film, the correct answer is "not a goddamn thing".


THIS. It's a fun, action filled movie, with the goddamn Sherlock kicking all kinds of ass, along with some awesome special effects (see it in digital if you can) and a Giacchino score. I got my full entertainment value.

darkedgefan: Please, I saw the movie last night. It was amazing! I am sure Trekkies/Trekkers and everyone else will love it.


Gonna have to go with "Nope" for $200, Alex. Specifically, the scene at the midway point and the last 20 minutes will have hardcore Trekkies' blood turning into steam from rage. If not that, it'll be some arcana about the Prime Directive at the very start. Or the appearance of a tribble.

Grass grows, sun shines, nerds rage. It's a fact of life.
 
2013-05-16 09:08:47 AM

dennysgod: Well critics thought The Shining and the original Psycho wasn't worth watching either..

I'm not saying Into Darkness is going to be on par with the above movies, I'm saying that I put movie critics along the same lines and politicians when it comes to the value of their options.


Well for me, I just take it all with a grain of salt.  That there always has to be one person in opposition of the consensus.  I think when Avengers came out, and it was getting great reviews, one girl was slammed last year because she stated the movie sucked due to zero character development.

I'll read a few reviews, and if I see things along the lines of "too much action"  and "not enough action"  I skim over.  But if I see mentions that the trailors have most of the good stuff, I go in with a lot of skepticism.

/looking forward to watching this at the Drafthouse.
 
2013-05-16 09:13:25 AM
Didn't make it very far before I detected the review of someone who was never going to like it anyway, so I stopped.  Unfortunately, a week ago I stumbled across the big spoiler (I frequent UK sites, but live in the US), so I was pissed off by that.  Unlike this author, though, I don't feel any less inclination to see it, because it looks like an awesome movie.
 
2013-05-16 09:14:39 AM
Disappointing and disposable is how I felt about the second half of Iron Man 3.

/and how my wife felt about me later on that night
 
2013-05-16 09:24:25 AM
Wrong. Saw it last night in IMAX and it was fantastic. Better than the '09 Star Trek, and certainly better than any of TNG Trek movies
 
2013-05-16 09:25:10 AM
My big problem with reviews for the new film is that of them seem to start by saying how great the 2009 film was and really it wasn't that great.

It was an amusing pastiche of the original, with a couple of nice performances, several pretty flat ones, a shiat load shiny and fark all sense to the plot.

So when a critic claims that somehow translated into a great film then I won't trust a damned thing they have to say about the latest one.

I can wait until it's on TV.
 
2013-05-16 09:25:16 AM

chewielouie: Wrong. Saw it last night in IMAX and it was fantastic. Better than the '09 Star Trek, and certainly better than any of TNG Trek movies


To be fair, that's a pretty low bar.
 
2013-05-16 09:26:33 AM

dennysgod: Well critics thought The Shining and the original Psycho wasn't worth watching either..

I'm not saying Into Darkness is going to be on par with the above movies, I'm saying that I put movie critics along the same lines and politicians when it comes to the value of their options.


The reviews are mostly positive. This is just Fark being stupid with it's greenlights again.
 
2013-05-16 09:31:56 AM
Into Darkness was awesome. That is all.
 
2013-05-16 09:36:56 AM

WhippingBoy: To be fair, that's a pretty low bar.


Discounting First Contact, yeah.

Generations... bleh.
Insurrection.... ugh.
Nemesis... wat

But First Contact kicked some ASS.  It wasn't a II or a VI, but it was a lot of fun.
 
2013-05-16 09:38:33 AM
Movie Nerdrage Flow Chart(Nerdrage In Bold):

Movie gets announced -> They'll screw it up -> Cast list is released -> Those guys are terrible. They should have picked ____. -> First trailer comes out -> I guess it looks okay -> Second trailer comes out -> The first trailer was better. Movie will suck -> Opening Night -> The movie was terrible. So many plot holes. Don't waste your money. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go buy another ticket to ensure it was as terrible as I think it was. -> Studio Execs rolling in giant pile of money.
 
2013-05-16 09:38:44 AM
I CAN'T BELIEVE HOW THEY RUINED THE MANDARIN CHARACTER.   I MEAN THE KHAN CHARACTER.  AND SPOCK'S NOSE IS ALL WRONG.
 
2013-05-16 09:41:49 AM
I'll miss Ebert's review of this and upcoming Star Trek movies.

/He was dead on about even numbered Trekkie movies
 
2013-05-16 09:47:15 AM

Raktastic: I'll miss Ebert's review of this and upcoming Star Trek movies.

/He was dead on about even numbered Trekkie movies


Did he give a glowing review for Nemisis? Because that movie was only slightly better than Insurrection, a movie I have only seen once (and as I stated earlier, I'm a lifelong Trekkie).
 
2013-05-16 09:53:37 AM
But if I end up liking it, how can I continue to hate Damon Lindelof like the other cool kids? Oh such a dilemma!

/not Damon's brother, I swear
 
2013-05-16 09:58:32 AM
Can someone explain to me why trek people seem to be bipolar? All the reviews inevitably have something like this one, where the author says 'the movie offers nothing for hard core fans' and then makes a huge giant glaring poit about how he was SO damned distracted by all of the Easter eggs, call outs, scene quotes, etc, that the movie sucked for that too.

Wtf?
 
2013-05-16 10:08:00 AM
So thus far we have the opinions of super fans saying it was awesome. But I think if you went to see it at the late show opening night, you might be a wee bit inclined to feel that way. I have no opinion, other than having been spoiled, and later reading the wiki entry of the plot, that it sounds overly convoluted and perhaps a misstep.
 
2013-05-16 10:08:33 AM
One of THREE people in the theater last night at midnight.

Three.

For a midnight movie premiere.

A midnight Star Trek movie premiere.

In 3-D.

Three.

OK OK the hurricane-sized deluge North Texas got hit with last night MIGHT have had something to do with it.

It was awesome.

And the movie pretty much rocked.
 
2013-05-16 10:11:58 AM

Richard_The_Clown: Raktastic: I'll miss Ebert's review of this and upcoming Star Trek movies.

/He was dead on about even numbered Trekkie movies

Did he give a glowing review for Nemesis? Because that movie was only slightly better than Insurrection, a movie I have only seen once (and as I stated earlier, I'm a lifelong Trekkie).


He did not, just 2 stars. Here is a quote from that review:

I think it is time for "Star Trek" to make a mighty leap forward another 1,000 years into the future, to a time when starships do not look like rides in a 1970s amusement arcade, when aliens do not look like humans with funny foreheads, and when wonder, astonishment and literacy are permitted back into the series. Star Trek was kind of terrific once, but now it is a copy of a copy of a copy.

He gave ST09 2 and a half stars, here's a good summary of that review:

"Star Trek" as a concept has voyaged far beyond science fiction and into the safe waters of space opera, but that doesn't amaze me. The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action. Like so many franchises, it's more concerned with repeating a successful formula than going boldly where no "Star Trek" has gone before.

I hope with this recent movie he got his wish of boldly going where no "Star Trek" has gone before, but sad we won't read about it.
 
2013-05-16 10:14:22 AM

You'd turn it off when I was halfway across: My big problem with reviews for the new film is that of them seem to start by saying how great the 2009 film was and really it wasn't that great.


Your big problem with the reviews of this film is the perception of the last film? Funny you should say that because my big problem with the Mona Lisa is that the Last Supper was lauded as this supposedly great work of art. What a farce.
 
2013-05-16 10:16:03 AM

WhippingBoy: chewielouie: Wrong. Saw it last night in IMAX and it was fantastic. Better than the '09 Star Trek, and certainly better than any of TNG Trek movies

To be fair, that's a pretty low bar.


Fair enough. Ok then, it was better than most Trek movies. I'll place it behind II and IV. And let me add, that all of the nerd rage over what is, and what isn't, Star Trek, is making me enjoy this all the more. JJ Abrams did not ruin Start Trek, he rescued it and I can't wait to see what he does with Star Wars VII.

The Trek nerd war on Fark is some of the funniest shiat I've ever read.

NEVER, has the use of this:

www.truefreethinker.com

been more appropriate.
 
2013-05-16 10:22:01 AM
Just read the Wiki synopsis. I'm there.
 
2013-05-16 10:24:10 AM
Generally aren't all summer blockbusters disposable?  They're an indistinguishable blur of test marketed trademarked catch phrases, stale bromides, predictable archetypes and explosions.
 
2013-05-16 10:29:50 AM
From most of the reviews I've read so far, I'm one of those people who would probably have loved the film under any other guise, but because they put it in the Star Trek franchise and then supposedly did not follow the rules of that universe, I would probably get pretty ticked off at the movie. I hate when someone decides to put a spin on something and then breaks the rules that made it what it was. So, I will probably not see this movie just to save my sanity.
 
2013-05-16 10:31:28 AM

Richard_The_Clown: like a model of the NX-01


I noticed this too. it was a nice touch.
 
2013-05-16 10:44:46 AM
I saw it last Friday. It was pretty enjoyable. I loved Doctor Who's Mickey Smith on the big screen. Science is a bit wonky though. As wonky as the concept of the Genesis device.
 
2013-05-16 10:58:26 AM

Richard_The_Clown: like a model of the NX-01 on Admiral Marcus' desk.

I saw that too.
 
2013-05-16 10:59:23 AM

ManateeGag: Richard_The_Clown: like a model of the NX-01

I noticed this too. it was a nice touch.


Even the Enterprise spaceship from the rec deck in Star Trek the Motion Picture was there.
 
2013-05-16 11:00:48 AM

MayoSlather: You'd turn it off when I was halfway across: My big problem with reviews for the new film is that of them seem to start by saying how great the 2009 film was and really it wasn't that great.

Your big problem with the reviews of this film is the perception of the last film? Funny you should say that because my big problem with the Mona Lisa is that the Last Supper was lauded as this supposedly great work of art. What a farce.


I get you're trying to be sarcastic, but really you're just coming off as slightly dim.

Star Trek 2009 was incredibly flawed. I enjoyed it, but major areas of the film (e.g. the plot) were just a mess.

So when a critic begins their review of the new film by claiming that the last film was "brilliant" or "stunning" I think that counts as a good reason to doubt their judgment.

Your mileage clearly varies.
 
2013-05-16 11:04:40 AM
For those that have seen the movie, I have a few technical questions.

1) How much shaky cam was used?  Seriously, I want to know cause it gives me eye strain and a headache.
2) How much of the action sequences were overly fast and blurry?  Again with the eye strain and headaches.
3) How much lens flare?  This I can deal with, though it's annoying as hell.
 
2013-05-16 11:08:10 AM
It was fun as a summer blockbuster, and the hardcore trekkie fans with us who were determined to decry it as the decline of the series before the movie even started had all their reasons to do just that.

kroonermanblack: Can someone explain to me why trek people seem to be bipolar? All the reviews inevitably have something like this one, where the author says 'the movie offers nothing for hard core fans' and then makes a huge giant glaring poit about how he was SO damned distracted by all of the Easter eggs, call outs, scene quotes, etc, that the movie sucked for that too.

Wtf?


Because fans want everything to be exactly the way it was before, only completely new and different. Pandering to the core fans led to the decades-long decline of the franchise as everyone else ceased to care. I'm pretty sure being not what they wanted makes the fans even happier, because they're allowed to shout and get angry and generally attention whore their displeasure.
 
2013-05-16 11:12:58 AM

You'd turn it off when I was halfway across: Star Trek 2009 was incredibly flawed. I enjoyed it, but major areas of the film (e.g. the plot) were just a mess


God, I hate those enjoyable films that have flaws. Why can't they make an enjoyable film without any? I wish all those other people weren't so dim.
 
2013-05-16 11:23:19 AM
After seeing the movie, I thought it was better than the first one. It had a better plot, and had to deal with more philosophical views than the other. On the other hand it was just a reverse Wrath of Khan sort of remake. I wished they tried to be a little more original like they did with the first movie. It is a good movie, but it will never live up to the movie it tried to copy. Also I really hated how they handled the Klingons in this movie, and I kind of wished they spelled Qo'nos in Klingon. Into Darkness did feel more like a Star Trek movie, but there was something missing from this movie to make me fully love it as a Star Trek movie. It was still a good sci fi movie though.

Spoilers?


No reason for the Enterprise to be underwater. They did it to hid from an alien race, then wtf did you bring the ship down to surface when you could of used a shuttle pod?

No reason for blondie to start undressing like that.

Klingons now pierce their ridges, and look more ingenious than a warrior race.
 
2013-05-16 11:39:50 AM
Nerdrage 10 is impossible without turning us all into lizards.
 
2013-05-16 11:52:13 AM

darkedgefan: Please, I saw the movie last night. It was amazing! I am sure Trekkies/Trekkers and everyone else will love it.


It was ok.  I am still processing what I saw.  The whole move was too referential, obviously.  Lots of little things to nitpick about too, but it was enjoyable enough, but the story was an amalgamation of many previous Star Trek plots so it certainly didn't seem fresh.
 
2013-05-16 11:52:35 AM

demonfaerie: After seeing the movie, I thought it was better than the first one. It had a better plot, and had to deal with more philosophical views than the other. On the other hand it was just a reverse Wrath of Khan sort of remake. I wished they tried to be a little more original like they did with the first movie. It is a good movie, but it will never live up to the movie it tried to copy. Also I really hated how they handled the Klingons in this movie, and I kind of wished they spelled Qo'nos in Klingon. Into Darkness did feel more like a Star Trek movie, but there was something missing from this movie to make me fully love it as a Star Trek movie. It was still a good sci fi movie though.

Spoilers?


No reason for the Enterprise to be underwater. They did it to hid from an alien race, then wtf did you bring the ship down to surface when you could of used a shuttle pod?


Agree with you here, but it did look pretty cool.

No reason for blondie to start undressing like that.

You needed a reason?
 
2013-05-16 11:53:44 AM

PsyLord: For those that have seen the movie, I have a few technical questions.

1) How much shaky cam was used?  Seriously, I want to know cause it gives me eye strain and a headache.
2) How much of the action sequences were overly fast and blurry?  Again with the eye strain and headaches.
3) How much lens flare?  This I can deal with, though it's annoying as hell.


1) Not much.
2) Not much.
3) Infinity.
 
2013-05-16 11:54:53 AM
cdn.bleedingcool.net

Posted for no reason.
 
2013-05-16 11:57:17 AM

MayoSlather: You'd turn it off when I was halfway across: Star Trek 2009 was incredibly flawed. I enjoyed it, but major areas of the film (e.g. the plot) were just a mess

God, I hate those enjoyable films that have flaws. Why can't they make an enjoyable film without any? I wish all those other people weren't so dim.


Daw, you're adorable.

In other news, I think we've found Roberto Orci's Fark handle.
 
Displayed 50 of 136 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report