SimplyScripts Discussion Board
Blog Home - Produced Movie Script Library - TV Scripts - Unproduced Scripts - Contact - Site Map
ScriptSearch
Welcome, Guest.
It is September 15th, 2019, 8:18pm
Please login or register.
Was Portal Recent Posts Home Help Calendar Search Register Login
If you wish to join this discussion board, please send me a message. Please do read the guidelines that govern behavior on the discussion board. It will make for a much more pleasant experience for everyone. A word about SimplyScripts and Censorship


Scripts Studios are posting for award consideration
The August/September Challenge has begun!

Short Script of the Day | Featured Script of the Month | Featured Short Scripts Available for Production | Submit Your Script

How do I get my film's link and banner here?
All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
Forum Login
Username: Create a new Account
Password:     Forgot Password

SimplyScripts Screenwriting Discussion Board    Reviews    Movie, Television and DVD Reviews  ›  Star Trek Into Darkness Moderators: Nixon
Users Browsing Forum
No Members and 2 Guests

 Pages: 1, 2 : All
Recommend Print
  Author    Star Trek Into Darkness  (currently 3172 views)
jwent6688
Posted: May 19th, 2013, 11:21am Report to Moderator
Old Timer


Wherever I go, there Jwent.

Posts
1744
Posts Per Day
0.44
Suprised not to see a thread for this yet. I saw this Friday at 5pm. I was one of only four people in the theater. Wtf? Makes me wonder how this will do. Certainly won't touch Iron Man 3's opening weekend numbers.

There's few characters like Downey Jr's Tony Stark and I saw IM3 last weekend. Star Trek Into Darkness is a better story in every way IMO. This was a fast paced film. Almost too fast if you believe that. They throw so many twists at you along the way, a few you will see coming, most you wont. I only say too fast because some of the best parts are some of the simple interactions between crew members.

I'm not a Trekkie, more of a Star Wars fan, but I don't ever remember a Star Trek so dark. The main reason is the true Villain in this. I'm gonna lay down one major spoiler...


MAJOR SPOILER

The villain goes by a different name and you won't find it in the previews, but it is Kahn. He's 300 years old, super human and of higher intelligence. Kirk is no match for him physically or mentally. Most importantly, Kahn's motives are totally believable and he is one savage motherfucker. INtelligently written. He makes the movie.

END SPOILER

Other than that, I'm not going to spoil anything. I highly recommend it. IT's not without questionable actions by our heroes to propel the story, but I certainly enjoyed the ride. I only saw it in 2D, but I wish I would've seen it in 3D now. Gotta be worth the extra dough.

James


Logged
Private Message
_ghostwriters
Posted: May 19th, 2013, 6:03pm Report to Moderator
Regular


I am a writer first and a critic second.

Location
"On the road to Rome."
Posts
905
Posts Per Day
0.24
When I first checked out the trailer - I wasn't really interesting in seeing this one, but I did.  Overall I thought it was good.  Some bravura action scenes, and some  decent comical moments.  I will admit, Pine looked more like a Starship Captain this time around.

I wouldn't call it a popcorn movie, but it was fun nevertheless.  Having said that... I thought the first one was better.

Ghost


A-CAROLING FOR CHRISTMAS

GHOSTS OF APPALOOSA

RISE OF THE AMAZONS

THE SLEEPING TIGER

THE TIME GUARDIAN

"When I dive... I go deep, only to surface the hub when necessary."

Logged
Private Message Reply: 1 - 18
DarrenJamesSeeley
Posted: May 19th, 2013, 9:33pm Report to Moderator
Old Timer



Location
Michigan.USA
Posts
1392
Posts Per Day
0.42
A decent film, I was kind of disappointed in the choice of villian going in, but Cumberbatch did a great job--and afterword I said to myself, well, if Batman has a Joker, Holmes his Moriaty, it's only fair Kirk has Khan.

Effects are great, it was a better story than I thought it would be.... I liked it but didn't love it. However there is something in the film which happens too frequently and it's something I utterly dispise in movies. That's winking to the audience with all the "callbacks" to Wrath Of Khan and other Trek lore. Either you are having a clean slate or you aren't. It's a good film overall, but not "great".



"I know you want to work for Mo Fuzz. And Mo Fuzz wants you to. But first, I'm going to need to you do something for me... on spec." - Mo Fuzz, Tapeheads, 1988
my scripts on ss : http://www.simplyscripts.net/cgi-bin/Blah/Blah.pl?m-1095531482/s-45/#num48
The Art!http://www.simplyscripts.net/cgi-bin/Blah/Blah.pl?b-knowyou/m-1190561532/s-105/#num106
Logged Offline
Site Private Message AIM YIM Reply: 2 - 18
Penoyer79
Posted: May 20th, 2013, 1:12am Report to Moderator
Regular


Chaos isn't a pit, it's a ladder.

Location
Atwater, CA
Posts
620
Posts Per Day
0.18


I'm a born and bread Trek fan. the first movies I ever saw in the theater were Return of the Jedi and The Search for Spock back in '83 when i was just 3 years old. and i remember these experiences very well.

I grew up on William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy's Star Trek from the 60's thanks my dad. growing up we collected the Original Series episodes on VHS... i know the show by the back of hand... though im hardly your garden variety trekkie

i enjoyed this movie as much as the last one.... and find JJ's take on the show to be a very honorable reboot - which says a lot considering how much i have invested in the original crew.

given that JJ didn't even like Star Trek before taking on the project.... I personally cant wait to see what he does with Star Wars...to which he is a die hard fan of
Logged
Private Message Reply: 3 - 18
albinopenguin
Posted: May 21st, 2013, 4:40pm Report to Moderator
Regular


I got dipping sticks.

Location
Los Angeles
Posts
794
Posts Per Day
0.20
The first big Summer movie worth watching in the theaters.

In fact, the bigger the theater the better. See this one in Imax 3D for sure. Looks spectacular and overall slick as f uck.

Better than the first one? Probably not. But just by a hair.

I actually liked the story. It was simple. And that's what JJ needs to do. Craft simple stories instead of playing "What's in the box?" Now I can't really comment on the twist (since I'm not a Star Trek fan) but it worked for me. The ending seemed a little too "bait and switch" for me, but whatever. I'm willing to overlook it.

My definition of a popcorn flick. Tons of action, Simon Pegg, and a dash of boobies (which the writers are getting a ton of flack for).

Just ignore the lens flare.


Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 4 - 18
DanBall
Posted: May 23rd, 2013, 4:27pm Report to Moderator
Been around a while


It's okay with me.

Location
Columbus, IN
Posts
306
Posts Per Day
0.12
As a moviegoer, I thought the film was pretty awesome and entertaining. Once it started, it didn't really stop for two hours.

SPOILERS

As a Trekkie, I hated it. It confirmed my fears that JJ's not just trying to reconcile Star Trek with non-Trekkies, but he's not trying to make Star Trek at all. When I first heard the rumors about Khan as the villain, that's when the cringing began. Then, I got slightly more excited when JJ & Co. said he wasn't the villain. But they never said who it was and the rumor never completely went away. When I saw the movie, I learned why.

The first two acts were kinda interesting. They spun a new version of "Space Seed": Starfleet plans to use Khan to defeat the Klingons, but that plan backfires and Starfleet tries to fix/cover it up by leaving no witnesses. That's when it lost me. They got carried away with the call backs to Wrath of Khan and lost the meaning of the original film and their own. It just felt like lazy writing in a lot of ways.

For one, the way the writers turned the tables with Kirk and Spock says a lot about their mentality toward the franchise. There's two ways they botched it: the relationship between Kirk and Spock itself and the way Spock reacts to Kirk's death. The relationship they have in TWoK was forged over several decades. They also expressed their affection for each other in simpler ways. Instead of saving the other from an active volcano, they gave each other birthday presents that had meaning (and not just for the characters, but the movie as a whole). In ITD, the more dramatic expressions of friendship (the volcano rescue) don't really seem to translate into lighter, more tender moments between the characters because there's so much action taking place. By the end, when Kirk dies, Spock's emotional display of affection for his colleague seems a bit coerced.

This reaction, too, is problematic. The premise was great: what happens when a Vulcan loses his best friend? Had the answer involved Spock Prime, who nearly achieved kohlinahr (purging of all emotion) just a film prior to TWOK, we could've had an extremely good storyline. However, New Spock lost what little control of his emotions and what little grasp of logic he had and beat the tar out of the enemy. Ultimately, this was a more human reaction to loss, which we'd already seen with Kirk in the original TWOK. Since the writers are presenting a more palatable/emotional Spock following the loss of his homeworld, they shot themselves in the foot by not allowing themselves to explore their premise's full potential.

Don't get me started on Khan's blood! Worst deus ex machina EVER. The Search for Spock wasn't much better, but it put more effort into it and deserves more praise.

Overall, I'm disappointed with the state the franchise is in. Our culture seems to be embracing all things geeky/nerdy, but somehow Star Trek--the source of much of our geekiness/nerdiness--isn't allowed to be its geeky/nerdy self. It must conform to be a cash cow like Star Wars, rather than a less profitable franchise like BSG or Doctor Who. I don't mind that Star Trek has more action these days. I just wish it played by Gene Roddenberry's rules, not George Lucas's or JJ Abrams's.


"I remember a time of chaos. Ruined dreams. This wasted land. But most of all, I remember The Road Warrior. The man we called 'Max'."

THE PINBALL WARRIOR (scifi, WIP, ~30 pg.)
A STAND AGAINST EVIL (short, 9 pg.)
Logged Offline
Site Private Message Reply: 5 - 18
jwent6688
Posted: May 23rd, 2013, 5:19pm Report to Moderator
Old Timer


Wherever I go, there Jwent.

Posts
1744
Posts Per Day
0.44
Hey DB, I've already proclaimed that I'm not a Trekkie. I think what they did with this film was to allow it to grow up with its audience. We want darker, heavier stories as we grow older. This isn't the Star Trek I watched during Saturday morning breakfast.

I see you take issue with Spock's emotions. I thought that was one of the best parts and a character arc for him. He is half human, no? It's got to show through sometimes.

I thought this film was great and I hope JJ takes Star Wars down a similarly dark path. As I said, I'm no Trekkie but I respect the franchise. From an outside point of view I thought they did a fantastic job.

James


Logged
Private Message Reply: 6 - 18
DanBall
Posted: May 23rd, 2013, 6:22pm Report to Moderator
Been around a while


It's okay with me.

Location
Columbus, IN
Posts
306
Posts Per Day
0.12

Quoted from jwent6688
Hey DB, I've already proclaimed that I'm not a Trekkie. I think what they did with this film was to allow it to grow up with its audience. We want darker, heavier stories as we grow older. This isn't the Star Trek I watched during Saturday morning breakfast.


Actually, I think JJ took a less mature approach. The 60s Star Trek was a bit lighter than his take on it, but it doesn't come as close to being as dark or heavy as Deep Space Nine. DS9 makes JJ's movie look as nonsensical as anything from Michael Bay or Rob Cohen. And most of it was by Battlestar's Ron D. Moore. If it weren't for DS9, BSG wouldn't be BSG. If you've seen BSG, surely you'd agree it's better than JJ's Trek.


Quoted Text
I see you take issue with Spock's emotions. I thought that was one of the best parts and a character arc for him. He is half human, no? It's got to show through sometimes.


With New Spock, we're not getting a true half-Vulcan because he's so emotionally-compromised all the time. What's the point of having Spock act human when the rest of the crew is human? The character was originally designed as a contrast to the rest of the crew, as the only alien on board. This is totally lost on the Abrams writers, because they think it's sexier to portray the human angle, forgetting we already get that from the rest of the crew.

If you take the more logical, less emotional Spock Prime and kill his best friend, you've got a more interesting story on your hands. Will he or won't he snap? Chances are, he won't--which is more unusual, since most humans and most movies would. So if he doesn't snap, what does he do? He channels his powerful emotions into some supercharged logic and reasons his way toward a solution.

If they wanted to do Trek their way and not the way it's been done before, they should've created a new crew or totally broken from tradition. Either Spock's cold and logical and occasionally human or he's more human than the rest or most of the crew. What they're doing now doesn't work as Star Trek and it barely works as good storytelling. Too bad witty dialogue and fun action sequences are burying these issues.


Quoted Text
I thought this film was great and I hope JJ takes Star Wars down a similarly dark path. As I said, I'm no Trekkie but I respect the franchise. From an outside point of view I thought they did a fantastic job.


Ironically, I wholly agree with this paragraph. I think JJ's approach is more at home with Star Wars. And ITD's great for outsiders, because they don't know what they're missing with the old stuff. That's also what's not-so-great.


"I remember a time of chaos. Ruined dreams. This wasted land. But most of all, I remember The Road Warrior. The man we called 'Max'."

THE PINBALL WARRIOR (scifi, WIP, ~30 pg.)
A STAND AGAINST EVIL (short, 9 pg.)

Revision History (2 edits; 1 reasons shown)
DanBall  -  May 23rd, 2013, 6:35pm
Logged Offline
Site Private Message Reply: 7 - 18
DarrenJamesSeeley
Posted: May 24th, 2013, 1:25am Report to Moderator
Old Timer



Location
Michigan.USA
Posts
1392
Posts Per Day
0.42
Just as long as JJ leaves out the Lens flares in Star Wars,  Dan


Quoted Text
Don't get me started on Khan's blood! Worst deus ex machina EVER. The Search for Spock wasn't much better, but it put more effort into it and deserves more praise.


I understood the context of the scene. It also ticked me off a little. I let it slide because it's something worth seeing in the next film post Mr. Lens Flare. But see, while it is fitting that after "creative thinking" on the Kobiashi test Kirk wants to 'cheat death'. In the new film he learns to accept it so long as he saves  the lives of his crew (and also Khans, to be technical) so whether he wanted to or not, he cheated death.

So what I would have done is this: the weakest link in the film is Alice Eve as Carol. WORTHLESS and only there to make sure Jim Kirk never sleeps with two tailed alien women again.  Or was it one? Who cares. In any case...if it is established that Admiral Marcus found Khan and used him for bio-engineering weapons and such...why not bring in his daughter to replicate Khan's blood for healing/longivity purposes?

New and improved Genesis project. Give Kirk a shot, cells reboot.
No tribble, no trouble. The character has something to do other than show what she got from Victorias Secret (by the way, why is Carol speaking in a British accent? They don't even try to hide it)

What I hope is that if the third film comes out three years from now, they have a great op to really start from scratch. Afdter all, TOS only lasted three seasons. That's three years out of a five year mission, right?



"I know you want to work for Mo Fuzz. And Mo Fuzz wants you to. But first, I'm going to need to you do something for me... on spec." - Mo Fuzz, Tapeheads, 1988
my scripts on ss : http://www.simplyscripts.net/cgi-bin/Blah/Blah.pl?m-1095531482/s-45/#num48
The Art!http://www.simplyscripts.net/cgi-bin/Blah/Blah.pl?b-knowyou/m-1190561532/s-105/#num106
Logged Offline
Site Private Message AIM YIM Reply: 8 - 18
DanBall
Posted: May 24th, 2013, 12:18pm Report to Moderator
Been around a while


It's okay with me.

Location
Columbus, IN
Posts
306
Posts Per Day
0.12
The problem with the reboot is that it didn't originate as a TV series, where we're familiar with these characters. This isn't a continuation of the TV series or a precursor to it. This is the same characters in a completely new universe (well, it's supposed to be new, no thanks to ITD). As a result, new introductions are in order and new bonds have to be formed between the audience and the characters and the characters amongst themselves. However, the writers are only doing this halfway. Some relationships are starting fresh, others have a new spin on them, and others are using the TV show as the basis--which is breaking the rules of the reboot.

Scott Collura at IGN said it best. ITD is like a meme of Star Trek, rather than being Star Trek.


"I remember a time of chaos. Ruined dreams. This wasted land. But most of all, I remember The Road Warrior. The man we called 'Max'."

THE PINBALL WARRIOR (scifi, WIP, ~30 pg.)
A STAND AGAINST EVIL (short, 9 pg.)
Logged Offline
Site Private Message Reply: 9 - 18
Heretic
Posted: May 29th, 2013, 7:51pm Report to Moderator
Old Timer



Location
Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada
Posts
1716
Posts Per Day
0.31
Another slick-looking, remarkably boring pile of proof that J.J. Abrams will never top the brainless mediocrity of MI:III. I'd call him the new Michael Bay, except Bay has some original ideas -- about the closest you can accuse Abrams of getting to those is those dumbass retail scanners on the Enterprise bridge.

The movie's problem is bigger than the fact that it so blatantly wants to be a globe-trotting "kill-the-terrorist" flick...the movie that it wants to be sucks, anyway. And its juxtaposition with Star Trek elements makes it all the worse. The dedication to post-9/11 vets at the end of the film is a crock of shit, and the fact that Pine jock-jaws his way through some monologue about how revenge isn't the answer doesn't mean anything in a film that wants us to love the act of revenge. It's a "tricky issue" because we "understand Khan's motivations" but in the end, we're still rooting for the 'Mericans to hunt down 'em goddamn terrorists hiding in a land of faceless, base, brutal exotics with inferior technology (worst f***ing "Klingons" ever, by the way).

Why is Khan white? Did I miss that?

As much as I love television and the way Abrams shoots his features like a show (that's sarcasm), I really don't need to go to a theatre and watch a movie where the camera is two damn inches from the actors' faces at all times. I understand Abram's focus group's ideal viewer is hovering somewhere just above death by ADD, but I strongly believe pretty much anyone is actually capable of watching a conversation in a nicely-composed 2-shot without CUs to remind them how AWESOME everything is. Likewise the pacing. Likewise the characters...imagine if there had been someone/thing to care about in the movie!

Peter Weller was far and away the best part of the flick. Somehow he even managed to deliver Kurtzman/Orci/Lindelof's utterly uninteresting dialogue with a touch of class.

Why are there references to Star Trek in this movie? Are we supposed to LOL because we saw Nurse Chapel or a tribble in a meme once? Are we supposed to be shocked because in the process of bastardizing one of cinema's great moments, Into Darkness flipped which character died (in a way that displays an utter lack of comprehension of the source material)? Are we supposed to be excited by Carol Marcus, or annoyed because she's English, even though either way the character's a useless idiot like all the rest?

The first was a pretty tight little paint-by-numbers, probably better than average in the predictable-plot set, and this one's more or less the same. Given current standards, it's inoffensive, though deeply, deeply boring. It turns out the Inception BWAAAAAMM is kinda more exciting if it's accentuating a plot where someone does something interesting. Like most current blockbusters, there's a tinge of desperation in there somewhere -- please remain pacified by the booming bass and colourful imagery, please! I have nothing else to give!!

A testament to contradiction: childish but unimaginative, grand but uncaptivating, fast-paced but boring, current but irrelevant. An utter failure on the part of everyone this side of Weller and the cine and art teams.

And a special shout-out to my woman Zoe Saldana for bringing to life an Uhura who's about 20% less progressive than her 47-year-old source. Despite the fact that, y'know, the original Uhura debuted around the time James Meredith was getting shot for having the audacity to walk from Tennessee to Mississippi. "You brought me here to speak Klingon...let me speak Klingon!" Go f*** yourself.

Abrams is a friggin' hack. Just wanted to get that in one more time.

...so all in all, I didn't much enjoy it


Logged Offline
Site Private Message Reply: 10 - 18
DanBall
Posted: May 31st, 2013, 4:20pm Report to Moderator
Been around a while


It's okay with me.

Location
Columbus, IN
Posts
306
Posts Per Day
0.12
I heard a working title was "Wrath of Bizarro Khan."


"I remember a time of chaos. Ruined dreams. This wasted land. But most of all, I remember The Road Warrior. The man we called 'Max'."

THE PINBALL WARRIOR (scifi, WIP, ~30 pg.)
A STAND AGAINST EVIL (short, 9 pg.)
Logged Offline
Site Private Message Reply: 11 - 18
DarrenJamesSeeley
Posted: May 31st, 2013, 10:05pm Report to Moderator
Old Timer



Location
Michigan.USA
Posts
1392
Posts Per Day
0.42
After hearing the hundreth fanny complaint over the casting of Cumberbatch as Khan this past week...I started to wonder if the ST folks used the wrong character after all. Cumberbatch actually, from a few angles,bares a passing resemblance not to Montalban, but Judson Scott, who played Khan's right hand man in Wrath Of Khan.

The more I think it over, the more I think it should have been Joachim. Wouldn't that have been nuts! AND he manipulates Marcus and McCoy into opening KHAN'S torpedo.

BTW, I been reading some behind the scenes stuff.  Reason for Cumberbatch not being the same ethic bg as the character was due to being PC.


"I know you want to work for Mo Fuzz. And Mo Fuzz wants you to. But first, I'm going to need to you do something for me... on spec." - Mo Fuzz, Tapeheads, 1988
my scripts on ss : http://www.simplyscripts.net/cgi-bin/Blah/Blah.pl?m-1095531482/s-45/#num48
The Art!http://www.simplyscripts.net/cgi-bin/Blah/Blah.pl?b-knowyou/m-1190561532/s-105/#num106
Logged Offline
Site Private Message AIM YIM Reply: 12 - 18
Heretic
Posted: May 31st, 2013, 11:48pm Report to Moderator
Old Timer



Location
Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada
Posts
1716
Posts Per Day
0.31

Quoted from DarrenJamesSeeley
The more I think it over, the more I think it should have been Joachim. Wouldn't that have been nuts! AND he manipulates Marcus and McCoy into opening KHAN'S torpedo.

BTW, I been reading some behind the scenes stuff.  Reason for Cumberbatch not being the same ethic bg as the character was due to being PC.


That's a kickass idea! Woulda been neat.

Hah! Good ol' PC-ness. It's funny that it was determined that the most PC decision was to keep the name Singh and give the part to a Caucasian.

On a related trivia note, Khan was originally supposed to be Nordic...


Logged Offline
Site Private Message Reply: 13 - 18
Electric Dreamer
Posted: June 1st, 2013, 9:04am Report to Moderator
Old Timer


Taking a long vacation from the holidays.

Location
Los Angeles
Posts
2836
Posts Per Day
0.86
This review REALLY lays out how Abrams subverts the original mythology...
Hitting Star Trek points like a laundry list for some meme.

http://collider.com/star-trek-into-darkness-review/

E.D.


LATEST NEWS

CineVita Films
is producing a short based on my new feature!

A list of my scripts can be found here.
Logged
Private Message Reply: 14 - 18
DanBall
Posted: June 1st, 2013, 10:24am Report to Moderator
Been around a while


It's okay with me.

Location
Columbus, IN
Posts
306
Posts Per Day
0.12
I like that review. I like it that Andy Probert (designer of the Enterprise-D) was the first to comment on it.


"I remember a time of chaos. Ruined dreams. This wasted land. But most of all, I remember The Road Warrior. The man we called 'Max'."

THE PINBALL WARRIOR (scifi, WIP, ~30 pg.)
A STAND AGAINST EVIL (short, 9 pg.)
Logged Offline
Site Private Message Reply: 15 - 18
bert
Posted: June 1st, 2013, 11:08am Report to Moderator
God of the SimplyScriptsVerse


Buy the ticket, take the ride

Location
That's me in the corner
Posts
4516
Posts Per Day
0.86
Random thoughts from somebody who grew up on the original series:

  • This is a good film, and I still managed to enjoy it despite its flaws
  • It is "faithful" to the source material only on a superficial level, and reviewers are correct when they complain this film does not "get" the deeper things going on in TOS
  • Spock hooking up with Uhura is still the bar-none, stupidest thing they have done with this reboot, and undermines everything we know about Spock.  I am surprised more folks do not seem to have a problem with this angle.
  • Quinto is great, and could really own Spock on his own terms if only the new writers would stop jettisoning all the elements that made Spock so intriguing in the first place.
  • The reversal of the classic death scene from WoK is a perfect example of the problem.  Spock cries?  Really?  And then cries out in rage?  These writers have no grasp of the Spock character.  As much as I was willing to like this film, that scene was a real face-palm moment.
  • The new Scotty is fantastic.  I can buy into Simon Pegg completely.  I do not think I have read a single negative for his character.  But please lose the idiotic whatever-that-is-supposed-to-be sidekick they give him.  This ain't Star Wars, OK?
  • Benedict Cumberbatch.  My feelings toward his character were skewed by the fact that I am already a big fan of his work.  My kid got me watching the BBC Sherlock series, and if you have not checked it out, you should.  It streams on Netflix, and is a fantastic interpretation.  Anyways, I was already predisposed to like him in the role, and I thought he was a great villain.  No complaints here.
  • The Klingons were useless.  Why bother?  A cheap call-out that felt like they were just ticking off boxes to please the fans, and they got it completely wrong anyway.
  • The inclusion of the tribble is also a stupid call-out, and exposes the ignorance of the writers.  Any fan even remotely familiar with TOS would understand why they would never even have a tribble on the ship in the first place.
  • Spock prime.  OK, even if it is a little silly, I will be happy with that call-out in any form I can get it.  Big grin through the whole scene, even if I did not understand WTF was going on and how it was even possible.

Bottom Line:

Whoever cast the reboot did a great job.  Really.  From Kirk on down, the actors they have in place seem up to the task.

What concerns me is that TOS is so old by now, there are no writers left in "young" Hollywood who really understand what made Trek so special in the first place.  If only they would dig a little deeper into the writer pool and get some "old blood" on board, you know?  Some true, old-school fans.  I think it would really help in their efforts to "please everybody."

Anyway, I will watch the next one because I love the series, and this is probably as good as it is likely going to get.


Hey, it's my tiny, little IMDb!
Logged
Private Message Reply: 16 - 18
DarrenJamesSeeley
Posted: June 1st, 2013, 11:49am Report to Moderator
Old Timer



Location
Michigan.USA
Posts
1392
Posts Per Day
0.42

Quoted from Heretic


That's a kickass idea! Woulda been neat.
.


I been discussing it with some other on-line pals who have both liked, loved or hated the film (most fall in the former two areas) and they all think I'm on to something.
The more I think about it, if they (the writers/director) used Joachim instead many
of the nitpicking criticisms would be erased. I responded to the ED link to collider as well, but here are the talking points:


Quoted Text


1- Add a surprise that would justify the "denial" that Khan was being used. Sure, "Khan" might be a bigger name to sell tix, I agree BUT Khan wasn't a focal point in the marketing at least in name. It could have been Joachim and you wouldn't lose anything in marketing. Not if all you had was "Cumberbatch as John Harrison"

2- Joachim, for the most part, is a clean slate. There would be few, if any, hangups about the character's ethnic background. There is an unfair but common criticism among ST fans regarding Cumberbatch as Khan (ethnic background) but...could that be said about Joachim? Not so much. In addition, you have the best of both worlds. On one hand, the character is from Wrath Of Khan/Space Seed but at the same time is also a *unique* villain for an altered timeline.

3- The "threat" of Khan's awakening could be used..You could still make call outs to Space Seed and/or Wrath Of Khan if you wanted.


And yet everything else would remain the same except for..."KHAAAAAAAN!"
Which would not be required (as if it was in the first place) Hell, Joachim could even claim to bre Khan to divert attention away from the true Khan. They awaken the real Khan.  

hahahahahaha



"I know you want to work for Mo Fuzz. And Mo Fuzz wants you to. But first, I'm going to need to you do something for me... on spec." - Mo Fuzz, Tapeheads, 1988
my scripts on ss : http://www.simplyscripts.net/cgi-bin/Blah/Blah.pl?m-1095531482/s-45/#num48
The Art!http://www.simplyscripts.net/cgi-bin/Blah/Blah.pl?b-knowyou/m-1190561532/s-105/#num106
Logged Offline
Site Private Message AIM YIM Reply: 17 - 18
DarrenJamesSeeley
Posted: June 1st, 2013, 12:01pm Report to Moderator
Old Timer



Location
Michigan.USA
Posts
1392
Posts Per Day
0.42

Quoted from bert

The inclusion of the tribble is also a stupid call-out, and exposes the ignorance of the writers.  Any fan even remotely familiar with TOS would understand why they would never even have a tribble on the ship in the first place.



At least we know what the third movie is about....don't we?


"I know you want to work for Mo Fuzz. And Mo Fuzz wants you to. But first, I'm going to need to you do something for me... on spec." - Mo Fuzz, Tapeheads, 1988
my scripts on ss : http://www.simplyscripts.net/cgi-bin/Blah/Blah.pl?m-1095531482/s-45/#num48
The Art!http://www.simplyscripts.net/cgi-bin/Blah/Blah.pl?b-knowyou/m-1190561532/s-105/#num106
Logged Offline
Site Private Message AIM YIM Reply: 18 - 18
 Pages: 1, 2 : All
Recommend Print

Locked Board Board Index    Movie, Television and DVD Reviews  [ previous | next ] Switch to:
Was Portal Recent Posts Home Help Calendar Search Register Login

Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post polls
You may not post attachments
HTML is on
Blah Code is on
Smilies are on


Powered by E-Blah Platinum 9.71B © 2001-2006