+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 15 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 296

Thread: Star Trek... directed by Quentin Tarantino and rated R?!?

  1. #81
    Discovered Stowaway
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Germany

    Default Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness

    Quote Originally Posted by Thousand Lion-chan View Post
    No one saying this movie has to be masterly written, Iron Man 3 certainly wasn't, but Iron Man 3 had more than just pretty action sequences, it had characters we like, really good comedy, a better structure, a plot that made some semblance of sense.
    LOL, again, I disagree with everything here. Apart from Trevor, I disliked everyone in IM3, the structure was a mess, the story just dragged and I laughed about twice.

  2. #82

    Default Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness

    Quote Originally Posted by Thousand Lion-chan View Post
    Iron Man 3 was riddled with plot holes with a story that mostly made no sense. I still love the movie and it is one of my favorite comic book movies.
    Quote Originally Posted by Foolio View Post
    A lot of action movies don't qualify for that, but they're entertaining if you just don't let your brain linger on things like plot holes and get mad that something doesn't make sense.

    [some other stuff]

    Nobody is saying you should put yourself into a coma so you can enjoy the movie.
    Quote Originally Posted by Thousand Lion-chan View Post
    But... that's exactly what you're saying. I mean I'm struggling to understand your argument here.You should never think during an action film but nobody's saying you shouldn't think?
    I'll just let these quotes speak for themselves. I hope you understand now and feel thoroughly embarrassed; if you don't understand yet then maybe your brain is already in a coma, which would explain everything neatly.
    Last edited by Foolio; May 18th, 2013 at 01:19 AM.

  3. #83
    Aspiring Film Critic TLC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Malta

    Default Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness

    Nu-uh, embarrassed about what? You're the one clearly missing my point. I'm saying you can still love a movie despite its flaws but you can still THINK about the flaws it has and take it as part of the viewing experience to make your judgement on how good the movie was overall and how well it lived up to its promises.

    You're the one saying, "It's a blockbuster, just don't think about anything. But you don't need to put yourself into a coma over it. Wut? lol

  4. #84

    Default Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness

    I don't know how all of my arguments lately have reduced to stupid semantic shit. It's either that people are covering their ass by pretending that what they were trying to say means something different than the words they used to say it, or that people just don't know English.

    I said:

    1) "don't let your brain linger on things like plot holes."

    This means when a plot hole comes up, you don't dwell on it and let your mind focus on that more than on the rest of the movie. This will ruin anyone's viewing experience because they are paying less attention and are less immersed, and this usually happens when that plot hole bothers them a lot.

    2) "[don't] get mad that something doesn't make sense."

    This is pretty goddamned self-explanatory. If it makes you mad when things don't make sense, you are not enjoying the movie. Because you are angry.

    You pretty obviously did neither of the above for Iron Man 3. Therefore you were either able to keep those things off your mind (which is precisely what people are saying), or you didn't have to keep them off your mind because they never bothered you in the first place. Which is to say, not enough to give you a negative experience. Which is obviously a given in this conversation. We are talking about the potential for these things to ruin a viewing experience. If you are fully analyzing these things and it doesn't adversely affect your experience, you aren't one of the people who have to tune out that stuff. It also means you might not be a very deep thinker. Congrats.

  5. #85

    Default Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness

    can someone here actually make a list of some weaknesses in this film and ironman 3. i really like to know.. right now the discussion is too general and more towards personal preferences..

  6. #86
    Aspiring Film Critic TLC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Malta

    Default Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness

    Quote Originally Posted by Foolio View Post
    I don't know how all of my arguments lately have reduced to stupid semantic shit. It's either that people are covering their ass by pretending that what they were trying to say means something different than the words they used to say it, or that people just don't know English.
    Uh huh, speaking of that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Foolio View Post
    I said:

    1) "don't let your brain linger on things like plot holes."

    This means when a plot hole comes up, you don't dwell on it and let your mind focus on that more than on the rest of the movie. This will ruin anyone's viewing experience because they are paying less attention and are less immersed, and this usually happens when that plot hole bothers them a lot.

    2) "[don't] get mad that something doesn't make sense."

    This is pretty goddamned self-explanatory. If it makes you mad when things don't make sense, you are not enjoying the movie. Because you are angry.
    I.e. don't think about it. You're the one playing semantics not me.

    What you seem not to be able to understand is that films are give and take. It's about limits, it's about standards. yes, I can go with the flow to a certain extent but there's a reason movies like Independence Day or Transformers are generally hated. You can be forgiving of a movie for some excessive stupid if it makes up for it in other aspects or if the stupid isn't that stupid. I don't mindlessly ignore every stupid thing that happens just to force myself to enjoy the pretty laser show especially when I'm getting nothing else out of it but some superficial visual effects. I mean never ever think about anything? Then what's the point of watching the movie in the first place?

    There's a difference between going with the flow, which I guess is what you're trying to say, and flat out lobotomizing myself which is pretty much what you're saying. Never think in action movies. Ever. What?

    Quote Originally Posted by Foolio View Post
    You pretty obviously did neither of the above for Iron Man 3. Therefore you were either able to keep those things off your mind (which is precisely what people are saying), or you didn't have to keep them off your mind because they never bothered you in the first place. Which is to say, not enough to give you a negative experience.
    I went with the flow of it sure, it helped that the Iron Man trilogy has always had poor writing so I knew what to expect. The negative wasn't enough to ruin my experience sure. But I still thought about that stuff, it still affected my experience and it affected my overall ranking of the film. But it's not like I didn't think about the negatives, the positives were just that good for me and the positives counted where they needed to count. It's a world of difference from ignoring everything bad and just enjoying the pretty light show like you're saying.

    Quote Originally Posted by Foolio View Post
    Which is obviously a given in this conversation. We are talking about the potential for these things to ruin a viewing experience. If you are fully analyzing these things and it doesn't adversely affect your experience, you aren't one of the people who have to tune out that stuff. It also means you might not be a very deep thinker. Congrats.
    It means when I watch a film, I get what I pay for. I'm not going to endlessly nitpick the flaws of Die Hard. They're there but it's still the greatest action movie ever made for a reason because it's not just explosions. When you watch a film, you have to take it for what it is, what it wants to be, what it wants to accomplish. It doesn't mean I'm a brainless buffoon who never thinks about anything, it's that I'm prioritizing what I want to take from this film based on what it's trying to accomplish. The bad stuff still bugs me but the good stuff is good where it counts. Again, world of difference between that and just going to an action film for explosions.

    I go to an Iron Man film to see Robert Downey Jr to be his charismatic self and some great action scenes, fun characters, funny comedy. I got that. The story was poorly written but it wasn't that poorly written and it was paced and structured well. I went to THIS movie expecting some fun characters, good action scenes, some fun sci-fi. I got unlikable characters continuously bitch-fighting with each other, a horribly, horribly written story that made less than no sense that went beyond inconsistencies and plotholes but kept hitting you with how awful and nonsensical it was, a general lack of funness because of how dark and dramatic the movie tried to be. Good action scenes couldn't make up for that especially since they just got more and more ridiculous as the movie went along (and to top it all off, the final action scene that acted as the climax was a big step down from the action we got earlier in the movie). Give and take, the movie took a lot and gave nothing back.

    But you can go ahead and keep saying it's because I thought about it too hard.

  7. #87
    Discovered Stowaway
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Germany

    Default Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness

    I wonder who was less likable in Into Darkness than Sad Tony, Super Pepper and that annoying kid. I also wonder where the good comedy was you keep talking about.

  8. #88
    Aspiring Film Critic TLC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Malta

    Default Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness

    Quote Originally Posted by Barkworm View Post
    I wonder who was less likable in Into Darkness than Sad Tony, Super Pepper and that annoying kid. I also wonder where the good comedy was you keep talking about.
    I get it, personal opinion, that's fine. It's the attitude of action movies always get a pass because you shouldn't think about them that I'm arguing against.

  9. #89
    is Stolen Silence's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    In a state of mind

    Default Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness

    I don't always agree with TLC, but this movie could've been a lot better. I didn't NOT enjoy it, but there was a lot of unrealized promise.

    Where that comes from, who can say?
    Quote Originally Posted by Wagomu View Post
    There's a great lighthearted vibe around here, because no matter how serious we might get, we're all together because of some magical pirate.

  10. #90

    Default Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness

    Just got back from seeing it.

    Spoiler:
    All in all, I really liked it. Yes, it is true that, just like the last one, it's not really a Star Trek film. It's a sci-fi action movie in Star Trek clothing, but I still they kept true enough to the original concept and characters so that it wasn't really distracting. And for what it was, I think it was executed pretty well. Didn't really have any huge problems with the characters or story, and Cumberbatch was great as Kahn. Pine and Quinto also gave some great performances.

    Now, all that being said, some issues I had with the film:
    - Kirk losing his position as Captain seemed pretty pointless as he got it back 10 minutes later anyway
    - Spock and Uhura's also seemed kinda dumb and pointless, and was started on really shaky grounds
    - Marcus' daughter. Again, really not much of a point to her.
    - Leonard Nimoy cameo was pretty obviously just a Leonardy Nimoy cameo, and really didn't contribute anything to the story.

    So yeah, definitely could have used some polish and maybe a bit more screentime for a few characters, but I still really enjoyed it. If you liked the first Abrams Star Trek, you'll probably like this one. If you didn't like it, then you probably won't like this one either (though Robby, you did complain about major plot problems in the first film, but...I dunno. I couldn't really spot any major plotholes in this one).
    Last edited by Nobodyman; May 18th, 2013 at 11:58 AM.

  11. #91
    Aspiring Film Critic TLC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Malta

    Default Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness

    Quote Originally Posted by Nobodyman View Post
    Just got back from seeing it.

    Spoiler:
    All in all, I really liked it. Yes, it is true that, just like the last one, it's not really a Star Trek film. It's a sci-fi action movie in Star Trek clothing, but I still they kept true enough to the original concept and characters so that it wasn't really distracting. And for what it was, I think it was executed pretty well. Didn't really have any huge problems with the characters or story, and Cumberbatch played an amazing. Pine and Quinto also gave some great performances.

    Now, all that being said, some issues I had with the film:
    - Kirk losing his position as Captain seemed pretty pointless as he got it back 10 minutes later anyway
    - Spock and Uhura's also seemed kinda dumb and pointless, and was started on really shaky grounds
    - Marcus' daughter. Again, really not much of a point to her.
    - Leonard Nimoy cameo was pretty obviously just a Leonardy Nimoy cameo, and really didn't contribute anything to the story.

    So yeah, definitely could have used some polish and maybe a bit more screentime for a few characters, but I still really enjoyed it. If you liked the first Abrams Star Trek, you'll probably like this one. If you didn't like it, then you probably won't like this one either (though Robby, you did complain about major plot problems in the first film, but...I dunno. I couldn't really spot any major plotholes in this one).
    List of major plot holes (not in any particular order but as they come to me):

    Spoiler:
    So Khan put his people in nukes outfitted with cryogenic chambers to "smuggle" them somehow but was discovered. And the Admiral guy never noticed these guys in the torpedos or bothered to inspect them and he just decided to send all 72 of the nukes to start a war with the Klingon empire when one would have sufficed. How did Khan know that his people were still in the nukes?

    How the hell did Khan teleport from Earth to Kronos, to a completely different quadrant, who teleported him, why did he go there? How did the Admiral know he would go there so he could start his war with Klingon (which never led anywhere).

    What the hell was with that opening scene? Why did Kirk and Bones steal some scroll that didn't seem important. Why did they need to send a guy to put the ice bomb in the volcano, why didn't they just teleport the bomb and let it blow up? Why did Spock care about the Prime Directive when it came to being spotted by natives but not when it came to interfering with the planet's destiny in the first place?

    Where the fuck did future Spock come from?

    Why did Khan help Kirk in the debris field when it would have suited his needs to just let him die there?

    How did a guy that beat an army of Klingons by himself get his ass kicked by a Vulcan?

    Why was Khan stupid enough to blindly teleport a bunch of nukes into his ship and just assume that there wouldn't have been a trap? Yes, I'm counting it as a plothole because it was that stupid. 72 nukes were blown up, these things were stated to be able to level a planet and it barely damaged the ship when all of them were detonated.

    No security on the Admiral Starship except when convenient to the plot.

    The Starship just stops abruptly in warp drive and the laws of inertia go out the window.

    A laser battle in warp drive.

    An entire army of Klingons were wiped out, this has no repercussions with the Klingon empire (also don't say it will be in the sequel).

    What was Khan's ultimate plan exactly? To steal the super hi-tech starship? How did he know Kirk would listen to him? He could have just killed him or handed him in which would have been the smart thing to do.

    Is there no accountability in the Federation? Admirals can authorize covert missions and send all the nukes of the organisation without any repercussions? Theyc an just take super high tech Starships without explaining themselves?

    How can you teleport between ships? I thought that was impossible if the shields are up. If this was possible, why didn't teleport Khan? You have to nkow where the eprson is? Couldn't you just detect him with your scanners? Also, assuming that you can avoid the teleportation by hiding from the scanners somehow, why Kirk just wave the Admiral's daughter in front of his face?

    You can teleport down but you can't teleport up? They abuse this shit twice in the same scene movie.

    So Scotty just went to Jupiter somehow in a ship by himself not equipped with a Warp drive, and just snuck in, no access codes or anything?

    So there's a giant starship battle in the Federation's in the Earth's orbit and no one sends a Starship to investigate? Also what happened to allt hose Starships surrounding Earth at the beginning of the movie? Did they decide to take a break?


    These are at the top of my head after a day when I watched the film. I distinctly remember being slapped in the face with the bad writing every minute though so there are more.
    Last edited by TLC; May 18th, 2013 at 12:23 PM. Reason: You welcome.

  12. #92
    The Devil's best friend.
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    N/A

    Default Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness

    'I don't give a shit about Trek and I didn't care for the 09 film but I am going to see this with my girl and I wanted to point out that screenwriting is more important then directing IMO so if you have any gripes with film writing/story wise then blame Abrams writers for that . Alex Kurtzman or Orci and of course the infamous Prometheus writer David Lindelof. I'm willing to bet money that if there were some good sci-fi novelist to actually do a great amount of screenplay credit then this film would be much better received. In fact, Trek's best writing came from unconventional choices for writers--expert sci-fi novelists who were not TV writers.

    Just my two cents is all. Feel free to disagree.

  13. #93

    Default Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness

    Quote Originally Posted by Thousand Lion-chan View Post
    Text here
    Eh, my try and answering some.
    Spoiler:
    1. Marcus wanted all 72 nukes fired to kill Khan and all of the crew. That would've wiped them all out. The admiral knew what Khan was doing with the missiles, so he let him finish building the missiles in order to execute his plan to kill them all.
    2. Didn't Scotty say Khan developed a teleporter for himself? Like one he could activate from far away. Khan's a technical genius were told, so it's believable.
    3. Kirk and McCoy stole the scroll to distract that natives while Spock used a smaller ship under the ash's cover. Kirk and McCoy merely wanted all attention on them so Spock would definitely go unnoticed. As you know that failed though. Spock was never seen, his cover was perfect. As for the bomb, it probably had to be activated on the spot to work.
    4. The first film established that future Spock couldn't return to his time so he would act as a Vulcan ambassador. Basically he's just flying the black and got a phone call for a cameo. I'm happy he didn't have to save the day like last time.
    5. Khan wanted to get captured. He had a plan to get all his people back and this was his assumption to best execute it.
    6. Yeah, that was weird. I'd say Spock was ultimately able to knock him out after he was stun-shot multiple times. One shot from Scotty only lasted mere seconds, so more plus someone punching you probably extended that long enough to get him in the cryotube.
    7. Khan was a victim of tunnel vision. To him the Enterprise was in no shape to do anything. He didn't think they would activate the bombs, he just knew he was able to get what he wanted. Again, tunnel vision. A lot of villains make this their demise.
    8. The ship was built with 'minimal crew' needed. Marcus just took what would be necessary. He didn't plan for an all-out battle, just to pick Khan up and get out of there leaving the Enterprise to be destroyed by the Klingons.
    9. Yeah, that bothered me. However the original show always had the ship just stop out of warp drive. So, give that the 'ol sci-fi excuse.
    10. Again, weird, but lasers are the speed of light so I guess it was okay. Plus just ramming them would've damaged his ship a lot too at those speeds. Like I said that was weird too.
    11. Wait for the sequel. Kidding, you'd think the Klingons would've acted much more quickly to the threat of Star Fleet. Though it is mentioned that it would probably lead to a war, so they may have been gearing up everything to battle at the time. However you'd think at least a few outside ships would've pursued.
    12. He was able to manipulate Kirk into getting what he wanted. He just wanted the ship and his crew and he planned to leave; to then return and kill everyone with an army of Khans. He could've killed Kirk at anytime but he wanted to make sure he'd get his crew back, which did backfire. Tunnel vision.
    13. Marcus (and Kirk by extension) acted in a time of emergency. Spock noted that what they were doing was against regulation. Marcus' plan was to get Khan, the villain, and convince everyone that war would've came regardless and that the end (getting Khan) justified the means (starting the war).
    14. Not touching this one. Teleportation is weird to think about. I'd just say if they could do it, they would've.
    15. They couldn't teleport Spock/Khan at the end because they were constantly moving. They need to be still to get an exact location to beam up. As for the first time I'd wager Spock was too far to reach and the lava was throwing the sensors off. Unless you're refering to another time...?
    16. Scotty was using a Federation ship and just got in line with everyone else. It was comical.
    17. That weirded me out to. They should've included a scene where Marcus ordered the other ships to stand down. Other wise the Federation would've naturally acted.


    I like the sequel enough. It was much more action focused and I liked Scotty's increased role.
    Follow me on Twitter: @JustinianFlynn

  14. #94

    Default Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness

    I know I shouldn't, but...

    Spoiler:
    Quote Originally Posted by Thousand Lion-chan View Post
    So Khan put his people in nukes outfitted with cryogenic chambers to "smuggle" them somehow but was discovered. And the Admiral guy never noticed these guys in the torpedos or bothered to inspect them and he just decided to send all 72 of the nukes to start a war with the Klingon empire when one would have sufficed.
    I'll have to rewatch it since I think I missed a few plot points there, but I think it makes sense that Marcus would use all 72 nukes, considering how war-mongering and power-hungry he was.

    How did Khan know that his people were still in the nukes?
    Why wouldn't they still be in the nukes?

    How the hell did Khan teleport from Earth to Kronos, to a completely different quadrant, who teleported him, why did he go there?
    I'm assuming Kahn teleported himself? And, as it was explained, he went there because it's the one place the Federation couldn't go.

    But I will grant that teleportation thing was pretty convenient and probably should've been followed up on, but it's not really integral to the story.

    How did the Admiral know he would go there so he could start his war with Klingon (which never led anywhere).
    He didn't know. Kirk was the one who discovered that Kahn went there.

    What the hell was with that opening scene? Why did Kirk and Bones steal some scroll that didn't seem important.
    Yeah, the scroll thing caught me off guard and was kinda random and weird, but how do you know it didn't seem important? We never saw what happened before they started running from the natives.

    Why did they need to send a guy to put the ice bomb in the volcano, why didn't they just teleport the bomb and let it blow up?
    I don't know. Maybe they couldn't? Maybe it would've been destroyed if left unattended in the volcano or maybe the transporter would've messed it up? Science-y wience-y, time-y wime-y?

    Why did Spock care about the Prime Directive when it came to being spotted by natives but not when it came to interfering with the planet's destiny in the first place?
    Because he values life. Saving primitive aliens from death right under their noses is one thing, but actually revealing, which would change their development is another.

    Where the fuck did future Spock come from?
    The power of cameo. But it was all pretty pointless anyway, so whatever.

    Why did Khan help Kirk in the debris field when it would have suited his needs to just let him die there?
    He had to have a bargaining chip. Plus, it doesn't hurt to have help when storming an enemy ship.

    How did a guy that beat an army of Klingons by himself get his ass kicked by a Vulcan?
    He was dual-wielding two huge-ass machine guns when he fought the Klingons. He had just been in a spaceship crash when he fought Spock.

    Why was Khan stupid enough to blindly teleport a bunch of nukes into his ship and just assume that there wouldn't have been a trap? Yes, I'm counting it as a plothole because it was that stupid.
    I'm a little confused on that plot point myself. Were they 72 totally different nukes, or were they the same nukes, but with armed and with the cryo people removed? I had to go to the bathroom and left the theater around that time.

    72 nukes were blown up, these things were stated to be able to level a planet and it barely damaged the ship when all of them were detonated.
    If by "barely damaged" you mean, "caused the ship to crash into the planet" then yes they did.

    Also, didn't you previously ask why Marcus would want to use all 72 nukes on the Klingon homeworld?

    No security on the Admiral Starship except when convenient to the plot.
    They did say the ship was designed to have a minimal crew. Plus, inept security is a staple of action movies.

    The Starship just stops abruptly in warp drive and the laws of inertia go out the window.
    Automatic stabilizers? Science-y wience-y, time-y wime-y.

    A laser battle in warp drive.
    A fail to see why this is a problem.

    An entire army of Klingons were wiped out, this has no repercussions with the Klingon empire (also don't say it will be in the sequel).
    I wouldn't call it an army, so much as I would call it a troop. Plus, as Kirk said, they went out of their way to ensure they left no ties to Star Fleet.

    But I will grant that the Klingon subplot was kinda lame and, again, pretty pointless. Even the Klingon's design was weird.

    What was Khan's ultimate plan exactly? To steal the super hi-tech starship?
    And to get his people back. Yes.

    How did he know Kirk would listen to him?
    He had information that Kirk didn't. Plus, I think I remember a scene where he was testing Kirk's character? Even if Kirk hadn't listened, Kahn probably had some other contingency plans, as intelligent as he was.

    He could have just killed him or handed him in which would have been the smart thing to do.
    You mean when they were on Kronos? Well, then the Enterprise would've just blown his ass up.

    Is there no accountability in the Federation? Admirals can authorize covert missions and send all the nukes of the organisation without any repercussions? Theyc an just take super high tech Starships without explaining themselves?
    I'll have to rewatch that part, but I guess I'll say yes, either that was all approved, or Marcus used his admiral position to pull some strings.

    How can you teleport between ships? I thought that was impossible if the shields are up. If this was possible, why didn't teleport Khan? You have to nkow where the eprson is? Couldn't you just detect him with your scanners? Also, assuming that you can avoid the teleportation by hiding from the scanners somehow, why Kirk just wave the Admiral's daughter in front of his face?
    Ya got me. The mechanics of transporting have always been wonky to me, I'm sure this isn't the first time in the Trek universe the rules have been ignored or forgotten.

    You can teleport down but you can't teleport up? They abuse this shit twice in the same scene movie.
    Well, yeah, you have to have a lock on the person you're teleporting up. In the McCoy and Spock vs. Kahn scenes, they explained why they couldn't get lock (unless you're referring to something else).

    So Scotty just went to Jupiter somehow in a ship by himself not equipped with a Warp drive, and just snuck in, no access codes or anything?
    Was it stated it didn't have a warp drive? Do you need a warp drive to get to Jupiter that fast? (I'm seriously asking) As for him sneaking in, yeah, I guess that's pretty convenient. But the film doesn't necessarily have to explain every little thing and, again, minimal crew.

    So there's a giant starship battle in the Federation's in the Earth's orbit and no one sends a Starship to investigate?
    All right, I'll give you that.

    Also what happened to allt hose Starships surrounding Earth at the beginning of the movie? Did they decide to take a break?
    Huh. Totally missed that.

  15. #95

    Default Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness

    I saw the movie tonight; it was really quite cool. I saw it in IMAX 3D and the 3D was really unnecessary but god that IMAX sound system was so satisfying. Every time they punched into warp it was the most gratifying sound ever.

    I just read TLC's list of plot holes and I'm sorry dude, I'm not wasting another post on you. Almost every one of those had a logical explanation. No offense to autistic people but you remind me of a friend I have who has Asperger's. He is incapable of grasping the big picture or implications in a lot of situations, so debating with him usually ends up with him deflecting the conversation by picking up on small irrelevant details and making them seem important. It's like I'll say "this is an awesome beach with white sand; we should come back" and the reply is "well actually I see a black grain of sand over there so technically I don't think you can collectively call it white sand" and I'm like "shut up and enjoy the beach dude."
    Last edited by Foolio; May 19th, 2013 at 12:02 AM.

  16. #96

    Default Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness

    Saw it, loved it, as a Trek fan for decades.


    Spoiler:
    however, I do have to address the "reverse Khan". The only problem with that is that, because it's become such a meme over time, I couldn't help but burst out laughing when Spock did it. So it kind of turned a somber, sentimental moment into a humorous one, whether intentionally or not.



    Monkeybunch Cumberfart, er, Benedict Cumberbatch did a fantastic job.


    Scotty and Bones totally stole the show, though.

    Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible. - Frank Zappa

  17. #97

    Default Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness

    Quote Originally Posted by CosmicDebris View Post
    Spoiler:
    however, I do have to address the "reverse Khan". The only problem with that is that, because it's become such a meme over time, I couldn't help but burst out laughing when Spock did it. So it kind of turned a somber, sentimental moment into a humorous one, whether intentionally or not.
    I laughed too. I don't think it ruined the moment because the scene was given proper treatment. When you think about how it segued into the next scene you have to assume it was intentional.

  18. #98
    Aspiring Film Critic TLC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Malta

    Default Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness

    I'm only going to adress one of the posts because there's a lot of overlap between them and going massive multiquote on two posts would be too much anyway. I'll try to address some in this post.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nobodyman View Post
    I know I shouldn't, but...
    Spoiler:

    Quote Originally Posted by Nobodyman View Post
    I'll have to rewatch it since I think I missed a few plot points there, but I think it makes sense that Marcus would use all 72 nukes, considering how war-mongering and power-hungry he was.
    First of, the character would be nothing more than a stupid cartoon character if that were the case. He used up ALL his nukes (or at least a disproportionate amount of them) for no reason other than he's war-mongering? What?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nobodyman View Post
    Why wouldn't they still be in the nukes?
    Because Khan was discovered tampering with them? Am I expected to believe that a) they weren't checked for sabotage and b) they were just left there for no reason? And that the Admiral knowingly sent these people in the nukes because fuck it why not? Why didn't he take them all out and kill them? Or put them back into their prison where he had kept them previously before Khan smuggled them?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nobodyman View Post
    I'm assuming Kahn teleported himself? And, as it was explained, he went there because it's the one place the Federation couldn't go.
    How? With what technology? Federation beams are huge things that require a lot of tech to support it? And you can teleport to and from the ships equipped with this beam only. You can't teleport from point A to B only. Was the ship equipped with one of those? Must have been a freakin' Tardis. With a very big range mind you seeing as he teleported from one end of the galaxy to another. And of course he just happens to go to a place convenient to the Admiral's plot? The one place they couldn't go? Give me a break. With how the huge galaxy is and all the different races there are? He could have teleported to a Romulan planet and then the Admiral would have been really fucked because he couldn't exactly nuke them could he?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nobodyman View Post
    But I will grant that teleportation thing was pretty convenient and probably should've been followed up on, but it's not really integral to the story.
    Erm yeah it is, because they abuse the shit out of it in the movie.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nobodyman View Post
    He didn't know. Kirk was the one who discovered that Kahn went there.
    But his entire plan was based on Khan going into Klingon territory. Pretty fucking convenient I have to say.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nobodyman View Post
    Yeah, the scroll thing caught me off guard and was kinda random and weird, but how do you know it didn't seem important? We never saw what happened before they started running from the natives.
    Because it was never addressed after. They just dropped the scroll like it was nothing important. Was it just to distract the natives? Why would they need to do that? Were all the natives just happening to look at the volcano? It's a big ass volcano, I doubt they'd have been able to see the summit. And it was erupting so I doubt they'd want to be anywhere near it. Regardless, just teleport the ice-bomb from outer space. Problem solved.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nobodyman View Post
    I don't know. Maybe they couldn't? Maybe it would've been destroyed if left unattended in the volcano or maybe the transporter would've messed it up? Science-y wience-y, time-y wime-y?
    Uh huh. Please, don't start that timey-wimey bs here. This isn't even complicated time travel. It's simple logic here. You can't just handwave inconsistencies with timeywimey. It barely works for Doctor Who let alone an action movie like this.

    Look I know why, it's because they wanted to have an action scene. But story wise, there's no excuse.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nobodyman View Post
    Because he values life. Saving primitive aliens from death right under their noses is one thing, but actually revealing, which would change their development is another.
    Change their development? They were a bunch of natives who hadn't invented the wheel yet. In a hundred thousand years, none of them would remember this. I think it's freakin' weird that Spock would be such a stickler for this trivial rule but has no problem breaking a much bigger, more fundamental rule. And then backstabs Kirk afterwards.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nobodyman View Post
    The power of cameo. But it was all pretty pointless anyway, so whatever.
    Plothole then.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nobodyman View Post
    He had to have a bargaining chip. Plus, it doesn't hurt to have help when storming an enemy ship.
    He could take out an entire Klingon army singlehandedly. Also he could have just threatened to blow up the Enterprise and they would have given him what they wanted. Really the plothole here is that the movie spent the entire time trying to make Khan come off as an anti-hero but then old Spock shows up out of nowhere, tells us that he was a bad guy in the alternate timeline (something we all already knew) and that's somehow the big reveal to set up his betrayal? Lol wut?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nobodyman View Post
    He was dual-wielding two huge-ass machine guns when he fought the Klingons. He had just been in a spaceship crash when he fought Spock.
    He got wailed on by Kirk a bunch of times to no effect. He took out an entire army guns or no guns. He should have been fine with one pasty Vulcan. And he seemed fine enough for him to sprint kilometers and leap from ship to ship so no he wasn't injured.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nobodyman View Post
    I'm a little confused on that plot point myself. Were they 72 totally different nukes, or were they the same nukes, but with armed and with the cryo people removed? I had to go to the bathroom and left the theater around that time.
    There were 72 nukes and Bones took out the people before detonating them (how he had the freakin time is a plothole unto itself).


    Quote Originally Posted by Nobodyman View Post
    If by "barely damaged" you mean, "caused the ship to crash into the planet" then yes they did.
    Just one of them was said to be enough to level a planet. 72 of them only punched holes in the side not..you know, obliterate the entire ship.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nobodyman View Post
    Also, didn't you previously ask why Marcus would want to use all 72 nukes on the Klingon homeworld?
    Yes, why would he?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nobodyman View Post
    They did say the ship was designed to have a minimal crew. Plus, inept security is a staple of action movies.
    They only popped up when it was convenient for the plot? Also inept secuirity is a staple of badly written action movies.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nobodyman View Post
    Automatic stabilizers? Science-y wience-y, time-y wime-y.
    Plothole then.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nobodyman View Post
    A fail to see why this is a problem.
    I don't even what to get into how it doesn't make any sort of sense and stretched the suspension of disbelief beyond belief. Plus it was really stupid even for this movie. Like how would they aim, aren't the ships going faster than the speed of light? How would the lasers hit each other then? They're going faster than the speed of light, any damage to a ship should have ripped it apart because of the high stress the ship was already experiencing, you at least have debris going at the speed of light. Just no.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nobodyman View Post
    I wouldn't call it an army, so much as I would call it a troop. Plus, as Kirk said, they went out of their way to ensure they left no ties to Star Fleet.

    But I will grant that the Klingon subplot was kinda lame and, again, pretty pointless. Even the Klingon's design was weird.
    It could have been a single Klingon, the Klingon empire would not have taken it lightly. Also enterprise or no, they were humans. And the Klingons had ships with transmitters (which sort of just vanished btw, never saw Khan blow them up or anything). It was just a plot point that was lazily dropped off like a bunch of plot threads in this movie.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nobodyman View Post
    And to get his people back. Yes. He had information that Kirk didn't. Plus, I think I remember a scene where he was testing Kirk's character?
    Information that Kirk had no reason to care about.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nobodyman View Post
    Even if Kirk hadn't listened, Kahn probably had some other contingency plans, as intelligent as he was.
    Now you're just speculating.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nobodyman View Post
    You mean when they were on Kronos? Well, then the Enterprise would've just blown his ass up.
    But Kirk didn't know at that point that the Admiral was a traitor did he so if just decided to blow him up, he'd have been fucked? If he just decided to leave him imprisoned and not talk to him once, he'd have been fucked. Had Kirk been a coward and just handed him to the Admiral no questions asked, he'd have been fucked.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nobodyman View Post
    I'll have to rewatch that part, but I guess I'll say yes, either that was all approved, or Marcus used his admiral position to pull some strings.
    They just approved a super high-tech star ship to be whosked away to God knows where? Is there no accountability in the Federation?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nobodyman View Post
    Ya got me. The mechanics of transporting have always been wonky to me, I'm sure this isn't the first time in the Trek universe the rules have been ignored or forgotten.
    That's still bad writing. And it's not even the sci-fi. Assuming Kirk knew about this, why would he again show off the daughter in front of the Admiral's face where he would just teleport her and thus invalidate he point of using her as a bargaining chip? He could have just transmitted her face from her secret location.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nobodyman View Post
    Well, yeah, you have to have a lock on the person you're teleporting up. In the McCoy and Spock vs. Kahn scenes, they explained why they couldn't get lock (unless you're referring to something else).
    So they can lock on to an area, just not to the person in that area. Uh huh.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nobodyman View Post
    Was it stated it didn't have a warp drive? Do you need a warp drive to get to Jupiter that fast? (I'm seriously asking)
    Only Starships have warp drives. Because you know, they're big and need a lot of juice. I guess Scotty's spaceship was also a Tardis. Jupiter is like a decade away from Earth so yeah.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nobodyman View Post
    As for him sneaking in, yeah, I guess that's pretty convenient. But the film doesn't necessarily have to explain every little thing and, again, minimal crew.
    Lazy writing you mean.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nobodyman View Post
    All right, I'll give you that.
    Plot hole.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nobodyman View Post
    Huh. Totally missed that.
    Plot hole.


    Really, we can argue plot holes all day. But my point is that this movie was just badly written. Plot holes, plot points just dropped at a hat, bad characterization, transparent writing just to get characters in action scenes rather than a legitimate desire to tell a story. The kind of backwards writing where the writers have to have these scenes and instead of working organically towards them, they twist the story to suit their needs no matter how much they need to twist it. But hey, what can we expect from the writer of one of the worst, disappointing sci-fi movies of the last decade?
    Last edited by TLC; May 19th, 2013 at 12:20 AM. Reason: Talking about prometheus btw

  19. #99

    Default Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness

    Quote Originally Posted by CosmicDebris View Post
    Saw it, loved it, as a Trek fan for decades.


    Spoiler:
    however, I do have to address the "reverse Khan". The only problem with that is that, because it's become such a meme over time, I couldn't help but burst out laughing when Spock did it. So it kind of turned a somber, sentimental moment into a humorous one, whether intentionally or not.



    Monkeybunch Cumberfart, er, Benedict Cumberbatch did a fantastic job.


    Scotty and Bones totally stole the show, though.
    Quote Originally Posted by Foolio View Post
    I laughed too. I don't think it ruined the moment because the scene was given proper treatment. When you think about how it segued into the next scene you have to assume it was intentional.
    Okay, so it wasn't just me.

    And I felt bad, because the way the scene was delivered was great.

    But damn it, it hurt to hold it in.


    All in all, as far as Trek movies go, it was pretty good.

    I kinda like the whole "The old Star Trek Universe is still canon and this is an alternate universe" thing.
    if you want to check out my game progress: http://soggybreadgm.tumblr.com/

  20. #100
    Aspiring Film Critic TLC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Malta

    Default Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness

    Quote Originally Posted by Foolio View Post
    I just read TLC's list of plot holes and I'm sorry dude, I'm not wasting another post on you.
    I'm pretty sure you skimmed them very well.

    Almost every one of those had a logical explanation.
    Almost? Uh huh

    Quote Originally Posted by Foolio View Post
    No offense to autistic people but you remind me of a friend I have who has Asperger's.
    I actually do have Aspergers.

    ...

    Now don't you feel like shit?


    Quote Originally Posted by Foolio View Post
    He is incapable of grasping the big picture or implications in a lot of situations, so debating with him usually ends up with him deflecting the conversation by picking up on small irrelevant details and making them seem important. It's like I'll say "this is an awesome beach with white sand; we should come back" and the reply is "well actually I see a black grain of sand over there so technically I don't think you can collectively call it white sand" and I'm like "shut up and enjoy the beach dude."
    Translation: Dude, all those plotholes are totally explainable, totally. But even if they weren't, who cares man, stop thinking about it.

    Let me use your own metaphor for my purposes, this movie was the equivalent of a beach littered with garbage.

    I can go with the flow but when literally every minute, I'm questioning something about the movie and it's giving me nothing back making me focus even more on the plotholes? That's a bad movie. Glad you can just turn your brain off but I like some sort of substance to my movies not just pretty cgi effects.

    Spoiler:
    Also the Khan moment was over self-indulgence in a movie that was already overly self-indulgent. It's bad enough they rip off one of the most iconic death scenes in history, it's bad enough they shamelessly remove any sort of consequences to it but the cherry of the cake is they put in that moment to top it off, a moment that is pretty much a joke in anywhere other than the original Wrath of Khan, that it sapped away any sort of drama the scene had (though not like it had any drama because you knew they were going to shamelessly revive Kirk).

+ Reply to Thread

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

     

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts