Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(Deadline)   It's official: JJ Abrams has selected his protege, Roberto Orci, who has no experience directing movies, to direct Star Trek III: The Search for Lensflare   (deadline.com ) divider line
    More: Followup, Roberto Orci, J.J. Abrams, Star Trek, lens flares, Skydance Productions, David Goyer, name-dropping, Fred Willard  
•       •       •

732 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 14 May 2014 at 11:33 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2014-05-14 11:37:47 AM  
I've enjoyed the Abramsverse Trek.
 
2014-05-14 11:41:12 AM  
At this point, lensflare jokes are far more retarded than JJ's lensflare.
 
2014-05-14 11:41:39 AM  
 
2014-05-14 11:43:11 AM  

NEPAman: I've enjoyed the Abramsverse Trek.


I have, but that lens flare shiat is really, REALLY ridiculous. He seems to have tamed it a little for Into Darkness, but if there isn't an actual light source shining into the lens, it's the equivalent of somebody who just discovered Photoshop a month ago and just discovered filters yesterday.

As for Subby's butthurt, this guy has written and produced tons of stuff, and everybody has to have a 'first' movie.
 
2014-05-14 11:44:38 AM  
The guy did bring us Jack of All Trades, so I'm willing to give him a chance.
 
2014-05-14 11:46:31 AM  
I can't wait to see him melt down when people don't understand his genius. The Red Letter Media guys (of the Mr. Plinkett reviews) recently pointed out that Kurtzman/Orci don't understand how to tell stories or pace movies; they just make a bunch of stuff happen to string together what they think will be cool action sequences. It's unfortunate that moviegoing audiences are so un-discerning that these two writers are so highly bankable.

(Say what you will about Star Trek - I think the reboots are godawful dreck that no one would care about if they didn't include popular characters from a classic franchise -- but Kurtzman/Orci also wrote the recently panned Amazing Spider-Man 2 and  Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, one of the worst, most incomprehensible blockbusters of the last decade.)

/But it could be worse. Abrams could have put Damon Lindelof in charge of Star Trek.
 
2014-05-14 11:47:36 AM  

Infernalist: At this point, lensflare jokes are far more retarded than JJ's lensflare.


Yup.

The lens flare well ran dry the first time it was used.
 
2014-05-14 11:48:18 AM  

Mikey1969: NEPAman: I've enjoyed the Abramsverse Trek.

I have, but that lens flare shiat is really, REALLY ridiculous. He seems to have tamed it a little for Into Darkness, but if there isn't an actual light source shining into the lens, it's the equivalent of somebody who just discovered Photoshop a month ago and just discovered filters yesterday.

As for Subby's butthurt, this guy has written and produced tons of stuff, and everybody has to have a 'first' movie.


Yea take a look at all that 'stuff' he's been involved in, and it's not great stuff.  has some of it made money?  Yes, but I'm willing to blame that on the stupidity of the moviegoing public more than his 'genius'.
 
2014-05-14 11:49:01 AM  
They've done a good job kicking the ST films into strong popularity again and getting the grosses up.  Glad they did it, as the previous formula was failing badly.  A top 3 scifi property shouldn't be critically and/or financially floundering in 3 out of 4 films.

Now that they've created a pretty solid new fanbase and established their visual and adventure style, I'd like to see them move to a more challenging plot.  Maybe they can actually tackle a cloak and dagger Romulan War era piece, or something similar.  Bring an intellectual or challenging edge to it.  Keep a lot of the flash, but go a little more complex on the plot and character development.

They've got a good style going, I think.  But their writing needs to come up about 5 to 8 years of maturity (not for money purposes - they're killing there, but for intellectual value).  Probably not going to happen, but I can hope.
 
2014-05-14 11:49:01 AM  

secularsage: I can't wait to see him melt down when people don't understand his genius. The Red Letter Media guys (of the Mr. Plinkett reviews) recently pointed out that Kurtzman/Orci don't understand how to tell stories or pace movies; they just make a bunch of stuff happen to string together what they think will be cool action sequences. It's unfortunate that moviegoing audiences are so un-discerning that these two writers are so highly bankable.

(Say what you will about Star Trek - I think the reboots are godawful dreck that no one would care about if they didn't include popular characters from a classic franchise -- but Kurtzman/Orci also wrote the recently panned Amazing Spider-Man 2 and  Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, one of the worst, most incomprehensible blockbusters of the last decade.)

/But it could be worse. Abrams could have put Damon Lindelof in charge of Star Trek.


I'm still nervous he'll be lurking in the shadows of Star Wars.
 
2014-05-14 11:49:58 AM  
God it takes so little to make people feel smart. Lensflare! See, now I'm a professional DP and a film critic!

Go complain about the photography in Dora the Explorer, you stale, repeating cretins.

/not even that big a fan of star trek
//just so effing tired of one-note internet experts.
 
2014-05-14 11:50:24 AM  
Just goes to show Abrams never cared about Star Trek.
 
2014-05-14 11:54:37 AM  
I like lens flare.

Space is quite bright near a light source... Like the SUN.

Haters gonna hate.
 
2014-05-14 11:54:53 AM  
Lens flare schlems flare, just hold the farking camera steady for longer than 5 seconds and I'll be happy.
 
2014-05-14 11:55:01 AM  

quo vadimus: God it takes so little to make people feel smart. Lensflare! See, now I'm a professional DP and a film critic!

Go complain about the photography in Dora the Explorer, you stale, repeating cretins.

/not even that big a fan of star trek
//just so effing tired of one-note internet experts.


They have a definite point. Les Flare is caused when light cuts across the image in the lens and reflects between the optics in the lens. Someone's shooting a scene where the sun or another bright light source is shining into the lens? Fine, that's where lens flare comes from. Two people are just standing there talking, nobody moving, and the camera static as well? Then lens flare doesn't work, is a distraction, and is a mark of someone who doesn't know what they are doing and thinks more tricks='better'.
 
2014-05-14 11:55:25 AM  
Isn't Orci the one who believes aliens were responsible for 9/11.
 
2014-05-14 11:58:35 AM  
so the villain this time will be Zod?
 
2014-05-14 12:00:10 PM  
It will be shiny, and it will be forgettable.
 
2014-05-14 12:00:28 PM  

Khellendros: A top 3 scifi property shouldn't be critically and/or financially floundering in 3 out of 4 films.


Is Trek a top 3 scifi property?  Star Wars would be.  What else would be?  Aliens?  Avatar?  The Matrix?  Back to the Future?  Terminator? Tron?  Would Iron Man count as sci fi?  Other Marvel films?  Prometheus outgrossed Star Trek, despite costing less.

Star Trek has never been a huge cash cow.  It still isn't, even with the reboot.  It does okay, but pales compared to others.  I would say top 3 is a reach.
 
2014-05-14 12:01:24 PM  
AH-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! LENS FLARE!! That's BRILLIANT, SUBBY!
Hey, while we're at it, got any more fresh jokes? Anything about the movie Gigli or Nancy Kerrigan?

/JJ did EXACTLY what he was supposed to do. Get butts into seats.
//really enjoyed the first two
///fark your childhood. Spock once mind-melded with a robot.
 
2014-05-14 12:01:47 PM  

Khellendros: They've done a good job kicking the ST films into strong popularity again and getting the grosses up.  Glad they did it, as the previous formula was failing badly.  A top 3 scifi property shouldn't be critically and/or financially floundering in 3 out of 4 films.

Now that they've created a pretty solid new fanbase and established their visual and adventure style, I'd like to see them move to a more challenging plot.  Maybe they can actually tackle a cloak and dagger Romulan War era piece, or something similar.  Bring an intellectual or challenging edge to it.  Keep a lot of the flash, but go a little more complex on the plot and character development.

They've got a good style going, I think.  But their writing needs to come up about 5 to 8 years of maturity (not for money purposes - they're killing there, but for intellectual value).  Probably not going to happen, but I can hope.


That's as good a suggestion as any I've seen. I'd like to see Kirk treated as less of a fail-upward DB from here on out, too.
 
2014-05-14 12:04:03 PM  

Khellendros: They've done a good job kicking the ST films into strong popularity again and getting the grosses up.  Glad they did it, as the previous formula was failing badly.  A top 3 scifi property shouldn't be critically and/or financially floundering in 3 out of 4 films.

Now that they've created a pretty solid new fanbase and established their visual and adventure style, I'd like to see them move to a more challenging plot.  Maybe they can actually tackle a cloak and dagger Romulan War era piece, or something similar.  Bring an intellectual or challenging edge to it.  Keep a lot of the flash, but go a little more complex on the plot and character development.

They've got a good style going, I think.  But their writing needs to come up about 5 to 8 years of maturity (not for money purposes - they're killing there, but for intellectual value).  Probably not going to happen, but I can hope.


This excellent post will be largely ignored in favor of comments regarding lens flare.

Thank you for your patience.

Your_Huckleberry: That's as good a suggestion as any I've seen. I'd like to see Kirk treated as less of a fail-upward DB from here on out, too.


Also this.
 
2014-05-14 12:09:08 PM  

born_yesterday: It will be shiny, and it will be forgettable.


On purpose I guess. The filmmakers (Abrams and friends) know they could do better but I guess they justify it to themselves by thinking it's their job to appeal to the broad casual movie goer. It's probably why the third act of Into Darkness goes off the rails so badly.
 
2014-05-14 12:09:30 PM  

Zombie DJ: AH-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! LENS FLARE!! That's BRILLIANT, SUBBY!
Hey, while we're at it, got any more fresh jokes? Anything about the movie Gigli or Nancy Kerrigan?

/JJ did EXACTLY what he was supposed to do. Get butts into seats.
//really enjoyed the first two
///fark your childhood. Spock once mind-melded with a robot.



blog.kelkoo.es


www.thefunturret.com

And my personal favorite:

http://www.geeksofdoom.com/GoD/img/2012/05/2012-05-12-st-tos-2.jpg  (image won't link)

Even DeForest Kelley knows how farking stupid this was.
 
2014-05-14 12:16:02 PM  
It seems JJ Abrams has passed the Star Trek director's lensflare on to Roberto Orci


the daily 'JJ Abrams / Robert Orci lensflare' thread?

never understood the "repeat" tag; same story, different headlines = not a repeat. different story, similar headline = repeat. same story, days apart = not a repeat. same story submitted days apart with similar headline = repeat. confusing.
 
2014-05-14 12:17:14 PM  
I like how butt flared people get when people make lens flare jokes about Abrams.
 
2014-05-14 12:18:49 PM  
This is what the trek movies looked like to me.

www.geekybytes.org


It's not "old" if there is a risk it will happen again.

*get off of my lawn
 
2014-05-14 12:19:03 PM  
I thought the two movies were okay but I really don't understand the plot of the first movie.  I just can't wrap my head around it.
 
2014-05-14 12:20:12 PM  

mjbok: Khellendros: A top 3 scifi property shouldn't be critically and/or financially floundering in 3 out of 4 films.

Is Trek a top 3 scifi property?  Star Wars would be.  What else would be?  Aliens?  Avatar?  The Matrix?  Back to the Future?  Terminator? Tron?  Would Iron Man count as sci fi?  Other Marvel films?  Prometheus outgrossed Star Trek, despite costing less.

Star Trek has never been a huge cash cow.  It still isn't, even with the reboot.  It does okay, but pales compared to others.  I would say top 3 is a reach.


I say "top 3" in a combination of popularity, endurance, recognition, pop culture penetration, etc - not just cash.  It's also been a solid historical earner, even with its "downs" at different times, especially if you combine movies, books, television, merchandise, and rights.  Star Trek, Star Wars, and pick your other flavor.  That's why I say "top 3", to avoid worrying about whichever other property is peaking at that moment, or might win in a few select categories.

Marvel is moving up, but I wouldn't really call them sci-fi.  Prometheus was one movie, and while it out earned the competition, it was limited in appeal, duration, merchandising, etc.  Combining with all the other Alien movies, maybe.  Even then, it's a much smaller scale than ST when you include the adjacent media (books, television).

In short - I put it as a top 3 IP, not top 3 movie gross.
 
2014-05-14 12:21:01 PM  

Decillion: born_yesterday: It will be shiny, and it will be forgettable.

On purpose I guess. The filmmakers (Abrams and friends) know they could do better but I guess they justify it to themselves by thinking it's their job to appeal to the broad casual movie goer. It's probably why the third act of Into Darkness goes off the rails so badly.


Wait, that movie was on rails at one point? I guess I was distracted by all the pretty things and explosions that I totally forgot it wasn't making any sense.
 
2014-05-14 12:24:27 PM  

Beeblebrox: I thought the two movies were okay but I really don't understand the plot of the first movie.  I just can't wrap my head around it.


The sun of Romulus is going to blow up. Spock wants to use the mcguffin to prevent that from happening. He is too late and this makes Nero angry. The mcguffin makes a time machine and sucks them back in the past. Nero is driven by revenge and waits for Spock so he can make Spock feel pain. He destroys Vulcan and wants to do the same to earth. The enterprise stops him.
 
2014-05-14 12:25:01 PM  
What about "Star Trek IV: The Failed Search for Stedicam"
 
2014-05-14 12:27:04 PM  
I watched the 2009 Star Trek recently with an objective to just be subjective and impartial about it. It's actually a solid film. I enjoyed watching it, and thought it was pretty fun.

The Trekkie in me hates that Kirk is merely just a "lucky douchebag" rather than "Starship Captain Batman" as portrayed by Shatner, but they seemed to have set it up as he could eventually become that version. And Uhura is just a biatch now. Everyone else was great as their characters. Though whoever is playing Sarek had big shoes to fill. Nobody could ever match the presence of Mark Leonard. This guy is kind of forgettable.

Then, I popped in Into Darkness. Who was this movie for? Abrams didn't care about trek fans, but he basically remakes Wrath of Khan. Why? For who? People who already don't like Star Trek aren't going to care. People who do, we already know how they felt. So I guess this movie was for people who have "kind of heard about Star Trek?"

I sat there watching, trying to be objective this time around, and while it is visually beautiful, it just seems a very odd film in that it doesn't know who its target audience is, so it just throws up everything it could think of onto the screen to see what sticks.

I liked Cumberbatch as Khan, though. He seemed more sympathetic. And way more dangerous.
 
2014-05-14 12:27:26 PM  

Beeblebrox: I thought the two movies were okay but I really don't understand the plot of the first movie.  I just can't wrap my head around it.


Here is an even shorter version.

Nero is angry that his world got blown up and he wants everyone, especially Spock, to pay for his loss.

If you can't understand that plot how can you understand the 2nd one? Actually, a better question is, what do you think the plot of the 2nd one was?
 
2014-05-14 12:27:55 PM  

Empty H: Beeblebrox: I thought the two movies were okay but I really don't understand the plot of the first movie.  I just can't wrap my head around it.

The sun of Romulus is going to blow up. Spock wants to use the mcguffin to prevent that from happening. He is too late and this makes Nero angry. The mcguffin makes a time machine and sucks them back in the past. Nero is driven by revenge and waits for Spock so he can make Spock feel pain. He destroys Vulcan and wants to do the same to earth. The enterprise stops him.


Couldn't he use the time machine to save his planet from the past?
 
2014-05-14 12:29:31 PM  

ThatBillmanGuy: I watched the 2009 Star Trek recently with an objective to just be subjective and impartial about it. It's actually a solid film. I enjoyed watching it, and thought it was pretty fun.

The Trekkie in me hates that Kirk is merely just a "lucky douchebag" rather than "Starship Captain Batman" as portrayed by Shatner, but they seemed to have set it up as he could eventually become that version. And Uhura is just a biatch now. Everyone else was great as their characters. Though whoever is playing Sarek had big shoes to fill. Nobody could ever match the presence of Mark Leonard. This guy is kind of forgettable.

Then, I popped in Into Darkness. Who was this movie for? Abrams didn't care about trek fans, but he basically remakes Wrath of Khan. Why? For who? People who already don't like Star Trek aren't going to care. People who do, we already know how they felt. So I guess this movie was for people who have "kind of heard about Star Trek?"

I sat there watching, trying to be objective this time around, and while it is visually beautiful, it just seems a very odd film in that it doesn't know who its target audience is, so it just throws up everything it could think of onto the screen to see what sticks.

I liked Cumberbatch as Khan, though. He seemed more sympathetic. And way more dangerous.


This. Completely this.

Even during the first part of Into Darkness where kirk is getting the enterprise taken away from him was good. I thought they were going to show him grow as a character and learn how to be a good leader. I was horribly wrong.
 
2014-05-14 12:30:23 PM  

born_yesterday: Couldn't he use the time machine to save his planet from the past?



Well I guess SOMEONE hasn't heard of the Grandfather Paradox
 
2014-05-14 12:30:27 PM  

Empty H: Beeblebrox: I thought the two movies were okay but I really don't understand the plot of the first movie.  I just can't wrap my head around it.

Here is an even shorter version.

Nero is angry that his world got blown up and he wants everyone, especially Spock, to pay for his loss.


I understand that this is what happened in the movie but why?  Why was Nero angry at Spock and the Federation for trying to save Romulus?  Why did the Romulan Empire do nothing?  It made as much sense as a Wookie living on Endor.

If you can't understand that plot how can you understand the 2nd one? Actually, a better question is, what do you think the plot of the 2nd one was?

I don't know.  Is it pertinent to my original question?  I didn't understand the plot of the first movie before the second came out.  Is that where my confusion lies?
 
2014-05-14 12:32:07 PM  

born_yesterday: Empty H: Beeblebrox: I thought the two movies were okay but I really don't understand the plot of the first movie.  I just can't wrap my head around it.

The sun of Romulus is going to blow up. Spock wants to use the mcguffin to prevent that from happening. He is too late and this makes Nero angry. The mcguffin makes a time machine and sucks them back in the past. Nero is driven by revenge and waits for Spock so he can make Spock feel pain. He destroys Vulcan and wants to do the same to earth. The enterprise stops him.

Couldn't he use the time machine to save his planet from the past?


That is why time travel in trek is something I have never liked. It leaves questions like that open. How do we also not know that part of Nero's ship went back in time (from the end of the movie)

To better answer your question, I just assumed since Spock was captured as soon as he went back in time he didn't have time to figure out how to repeat the experiment.
 
2014-05-14 12:36:12 PM  

Beeblebrox: Empty H: Beeblebrox: I thought the two movies were okay but I really don't understand the plot of the first movie.  I just can't wrap my head around it.

Here is an even shorter version.

Nero is angry that his world got blown up and he wants everyone, especially Spock, to pay for his loss.

I understand that this is what happened in the movie but why?  Why was Nero angry at Spock and the Federation for trying to save Romulus?  Why did the Romulan Empire do nothing?  It made as much sense as a Wookie living on Endor.

If you can't understand that plot how can you understand the 2nd one? Actually, a better question is, what do you think the plot of the 2nd one was?

I don't know.  Is it pertinent to my original question?  I didn't understand the plot of the first movie before the second came out.  Is that where my confusion lies?


Your original comment led me to believe you couldn't understand the Boobies but completely understood the 2nd movies plot. It seems I was mistaken.

As for Nero, he just lost his entire people. His logic may be impaired. If your races sworn enemy shows up just as your race is destroyed, you are going to want vengeance on your sworn enemy.

Also, the Romulon science council did not think the sun was actually going to explode (real world note: they don't explode like that) so they dismissed it as propaganda spread by the enemy.
 
2014-05-14 12:40:24 PM  

Empty H: Beeblebrox: Empty H: Beeblebrox: I thought the two movies were okay but I really don't understand the plot of the first movie.  I just can't wrap my head around it.

Here is an even shorter version.

Nero is angry that his world got blown up and he wants everyone, especially Spock, to pay for his loss.

I understand that this is what happened in the movie but why?  Why was Nero angry at Spock and the Federation for trying to save Romulus?  Why did the Romulan Empire do nothing?  It made as much sense as a Wookie living on Endor.

If you can't understand that plot how can you understand the 2nd one? Actually, a better question is, what do you think the plot of the 2nd one was?

I don't know.  Is it pertinent to my original question?  I didn't understand the plot of the first movie before the second came out.  Is that where my confusion lies?

Your original comment led me to believe you couldn't understand the Boobies but completely understood the 2nd movies plot. It seems I was mistaken.

As for Nero, he just lost his entire people. His logic may be impaired. If your races sworn enemy shows up just as your race is destroyed, you are going to want vengeance on your sworn enemy.


And that's what I just can't wrap my head around.  They didn't make Nero out to be crazy but that's the only explanation for his wanting vengeance.  The movie was okay, I just can't understand his motivation, which is, in essence, the plot of the movie.  Oh well, I don't watch those movies for well defined plots anyway.
 
2014-05-14 12:41:21 PM  
Beeblebrox:

Nero is angry that his world got blown up and he wants everyone, especially Spock, to pay for his loss.

I understand that this is what happened in the movie but why?  Why was Nero angry at Spock and the Federation for trying to save Romulus?  Why did the Romulan Empire do nothing?  It made as much sense as a Wookie living on Endor.


The 'why' is lame. That's why something feels off about the movie. Nero is simply being irrational. It's a real thing that people do but for a movie it's a lousy villain motivation. If Spock made a moral choice that doomed Romulus but saved another group of people then Nero's anger becomes more relatable. "Why save them and not my family?"

Spock's only sin in the movie is being to late despite his best efforts, which his ship has detailed records of. Nero should rage at the moment maybe, but after 30 years? Come on. AND his crew feels the same way? Sigh.
 
2014-05-14 12:43:43 PM  

Mikey1969: quo vadimus: God it takes so little to make people feel smart. Lensflare! See, now I'm a professional DP and a film critic!

Go complain about the photography in Dora the Explorer, you stale, repeating cretins.

/not even that big a fan of star trek
//just so effing tired of one-note internet experts.

They have a definite point. Les Flare is caused when light cuts across the image in the lens blah blah blah blah blah.



Aaaaaaand point demonstrated beautifully.
 
2014-05-14 12:44:17 PM  

Decillion: Beeblebrox:

Nero is angry that his world got blown up and he wants everyone, especially Spock, to pay for his loss.

I understand that this is what happened in the movie but why?  Why was Nero angry at Spock and the Federation for trying to save Romulus?  Why did the Romulan Empire do nothing?  It made as much sense as a Wookie living on Endor.

The 'why' is lame. That's why something feels off about the movie. Nero is simply being irrational. It's a real thing that people do but for a movie it's a lousy villain motivation. If Spock made a moral choice that doomed Romulus but saved another group of people then Nero's anger becomes more relatable. "Why save them and not my family?"

Spock's only sin in the movie is being to late despite his best efforts, which his ship has detailed records of. Nero should rage at the moment maybe, but after 30 years? Come on. AND his crew feels the same way? Sigh.


Hey, not disagreeing, just providing the reason. I still think it is a better plot than the 2nd one.
 
2014-05-14 12:46:21 PM  

Beeblebrox: Empty H: Beeblebrox: Empty H: Beeblebrox: I thought the two movies were okay but I really don't understand the plot of the first movie.  I just can't wrap my head around it.

Here is an even shorter version.

Nero is angry that his world got blown up and he wants everyone, especially Spock, to pay for his loss.

I understand that this is what happened in the movie but why?  Why was Nero angry at Spock and the Federation for trying to save Romulus?  Why did the Romulan Empire do nothing?  It made as much sense as a Wookie living on Endor.

If you can't understand that plot how can you understand the 2nd one? Actually, a better question is, what do you think the plot of the 2nd one was?

I don't know.  Is it pertinent to my original question?  I didn't understand the plot of the first movie before the second came out.  Is that where my confusion lies?

Your original comment led me to believe you couldn't understand the Boobies but completely understood the 2nd movies plot. It seems I was mistaken.

As for Nero, he just lost his entire people. His logic may be impaired. If your races sworn enemy shows up just as your race is destroyed, you are going to want vengeance on your sworn enemy.

And that's what I just can't wrap my head around.  They didn't make Nero out to be crazy but that's the only explanation for his wanting vengeance.  The movie was okay, I just can't understand his motivation, which is, in essence, the plot of the movie.  Oh well, I don't watch those movies for well defined plots anyway.


My thought is they sat down at the table and said:

"We need to go back in time and change some major things bit still have all the major players. Go!"

They came up with the plot and everything after that.
 
2014-05-14 12:46:54 PM  

born_yesterday: Empty H: Beeblebrox: I thought the two movies were okay but I really don't understand the plot of the first movie.  I just can't wrap my head around it.

The sun of Romulus is going to blow up. Spock wants to use the mcguffin to prevent that from happening. He is too late and this makes Nero angry. The mcguffin makes a time machine and sucks them back in the past. Nero is driven by revenge and waits for Spock so he can make Spock feel pain. He destroys Vulcan and wants to do the same to earth. The enterprise stops him.

Couldn't he use the time machine to save his planet from the past?


Time Machine is not the right word here. "Alternate Dimension (which happens to be in the past compared to normal ST universe).
 
2014-05-14 12:47:09 PM  

Decillion: Beeblebrox:

Nero is angry that his world got blown up and he wants everyone, especially Spock, to pay for his loss.

I understand that this is what happened in the movie but why?  Why was Nero angry at Spock and the Federation for trying to save Romulus?  Why did the Romulan Empire do nothing?  It made as much sense as a Wookie living on Endor.

The 'why' is lame. That's why something feels off about the movie. Nero is simply being irrational. It's a real thing that people do but for a movie it's a lousy villain motivation. If Spock made a moral choice that doomed Romulus but saved another group of people then Nero's anger becomes more relatable. "Why save them and not my family?"

Spock's only sin in the movie is being to late despite his best efforts, which his ship has detailed records of. Nero should rage at the moment maybe, but after 30 years? Come on. AND his crew feels the same way? Sigh.


Thank you!  You've just put your finger on my problem with the plot far better than I was able to.

As for the second movie, yeah the plot is a mess.  And I guess I'm the only one who doesn't care for Cumberbatch.  I had no idea who he was when I saw the movie and he just looks goofy.  This is the guy people fawn over?  He reminds me of the Social Network guy.
 
2014-05-14 12:52:16 PM  

Beeblebrox: Decillion: Beeblebrox:

Nero is angry that his world got blown up and he wants everyone, especially Spock, to pay for his loss.

I understand that this is what happened in the movie but why?  Why was Nero angry at Spock and the Federation for trying to save Romulus?  Why did the Romulan Empire do nothing?  It made as much sense as a Wookie living on Endor.

The 'why' is lame. That's why something feels off about the movie. Nero is simply being irrational. It's a real thing that people do but for a movie it's a lousy villain motivation. If Spock made a moral choice that doomed Romulus but saved another group of people then Nero's anger becomes more relatable. "Why save them and not my family?"

Spock's only sin in the movie is being to late despite his best efforts, which his ship has detailed records of. Nero should rage at the moment maybe, but after 30 years? Come on. AND his crew feels the same way? Sigh.

Thank you!  You've just put your finger on my problem with the plot far better than I was able to.

As for the second movie, yeah the plot is a mess.  And I guess I'm the only one who doesn't care for Cumberbatch.  I had no idea who he was when I saw the movie and he just looks goofy.  This is the guy people fawn over?  He reminds me of the Social Network guy.


I hadn't seen Sherlock until after I saw Into Darkness. But I liked him as Khan (aside from the magic superblood that apparently we had the technology to engineer in the 20th century, yet never ever tried to develop again by the 23rd century) even though he's about as Sikh-looking as Weird Al Yankovic.
 
2014-05-14 12:53:38 PM  
Orci and Kurtzman are good at writing cartoons. They should really stick to that.
 
2014-05-14 12:54:05 PM  

ThatBillmanGuy: Beeblebrox: Decillion: Beeblebrox:

Nero is angry that his world got blown up and he wants everyone, especially Spock, to pay for his loss.

I understand that this is what happened in the movie but why?  Why was Nero angry at Spock and the Federation for trying to save Romulus?  Why did the Romulan Empire do nothing?  It made as much sense as a Wookie living on Endor.

The 'why' is lame. That's why something feels off about the movie. Nero is simply being irrational. It's a real thing that people do but for a movie it's a lousy villain motivation. If Spock made a moral choice that doomed Romulus but saved another group of people then Nero's anger becomes more relatable. "Why save them and not my family?"

Spock's only sin in the movie is being to late despite his best efforts, which his ship has detailed records of. Nero should rage at the moment maybe, but after 30 years? Come on. AND his crew feels the same way? Sigh.

Thank you!  You've just put your finger on my problem with the plot far better than I was able to.

As for the second movie, yeah the plot is a mess.  And I guess I'm the only one who doesn't care for Cumberbatch.  I had no idea who he was when I saw the movie and he just looks goofy.  This is the guy people fawn over?  He reminds me of the Social Network guy.

I hadn't seen Sherlock until after I saw Into Darkness. But I liked him as Khan (aside from the magic superblood that apparently we had the technology to engineer in the 20th century, yet never ever tried to develop again by the 23rd century) even though he's about as Sikh-looking as Weird Al Yankovic.


Although, seriously, why did he have to BE Khan at all? He could have been a completely new character that had nothing to do with that story arc, or one of Khan's followers that they woke up instead of Khan.
 
Displayed 50 of 99 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report