@RobbyBevard:
I'm standing by my stance of I absolutely hated the first one and all the stupid and plotholes in it, and will not be seeing this one.
Everyone else enjoy it though.
If you hated the first one, you will absolutely loath this one.
This movie was a piece of shit. I'm not a Trekkie and I was offended by how much they shamelessly exploited Star Trek. I have literally never left a movie theater so angry before.
shrug I think trying to associate this in any way with the original Star Trek is a mistake. It's a complete re-imagining. And a summer blockbuster. You have to be able to accept that if you're going to see this. I thoroughly enjoyed the first one and I will probably see Into Darkness soon.
@Thousand:
If you hated the first one, you will absolutely loath this one.
Yeah it was basically the exact same thing as the last movie in tone and style
I was basically apathetic
I just remember grimacing really hard when You Know Who screams You Know What like god that was awkward
I thought the first one was alright as I walked in with the expectation of Starship Troopers with more starship scenes than a Star Trek movie. It's sort of a guilty pleasure that an audience like me is a hardcore Trekkie's largest offender.
@The:
Yeah it was basically the exact same thing as the last movie in tone and style
I was basically apathetic
I just remember grimacing really hard when You Know Who screams You Know What like god that was awkward
It was way worse than the first one. At least the first one had likable characters and some fun to it.
This one was trying so hard to be dramatic, the characters were being complete bitches to each other, the writing was horrendously bad (even for popcorn films, there are limits), like nonsensical plot threads that didn't go anywhere, plotholes galore, stupidly overly indulgent action scenes that shatter any form of suspension of disbelief.
And when it got to THAT scene, I was infuriated, I was literally throwing my popcorn at the screen. It's a good thing there were only a couple of people at my showing.
The first one's plotholes were way worse than the ones in this film.
shrug I think trying to associate this in any way with the original Star Trek is a mistake.
Other than the fact the titles, characters, and worldbuilding are taken whole cloth from the old? And the entire output of the franchise is dedicated to this particular version of the product?
Or that when all is said and done it'll be pretty much the only representation Trek has for a solid decade?
It's a complete re-imagining.
Then why not just call it something new if its entirely new?
And a summer blockbuster.
I hear that argument all the time and its awful. "Its fun if you turn your brain off" "It's ____ franchise, what did you expect?" "It's fine while you watch it." "It's a summer blockbuster."
It's stupid and an asinine excuse and I hate it when anyone uses it to defend a movie being stupid but full of explosions, as if Jaws, Alien, Terminator, the first two star wars films, most Bond films, Jurassic Park, Dark Knight, etc. etc. didn't exist. (And I don't even like Jurassic Park or Dark Knight)
Especially horrible when asked about something like Transformers or G.I. Joe or Ninja Turtles, and asked "What did you expect based off an 80's cartoon?" when I can respond with "Beast Wars, Armada, Prime, the 80's comics, and Iron Man." Other iterations from teh same franchise that are smart, with good characters and decent plots. (Or in Iron Man's case, Robert Downey Jr. throwing in his charisma to balance out the robot action.)
It's even worse when applied to Trek which has ALWAYS been considered a smart show.
You can stretch credibility without being dumb or insulting or lacking in internal cohesion. But when you absolutely have to stop thinking about it in order to go with the flow and enjoy it? When it absolutely won't hold up to a second viewing? When the characters all act like idiots and the explosions and CGI are more important than the character, the intent of the story being told?
Character, thoughtful exploration of the human condition, examinations of our times and issues? Generally being intelligent? WHILE having the occasional action set piece? (Yes, trek has had more than a few duds. It's also had about 1000 episodes and 10 movies, but it has a decent average overall.)
haha I forgot how much robby hates Abrams Star Trek
on a half detour, "turn off your brain" is a wacky phrase to me because it implies that critically evaluating or thinking about an experience has some limiting factor and does not actually increase enjoyment or understanding of something.
it seems unfair to have fun action movies and act like they're "stupid" and can't be thought about, like there's this fictituous dichotomy between "high art" movies and "low art" movies. i love watching goofy hong kong action flicks and intensely thinking about how my fun is being derived from all these different on-screen elements
Shatner/Kirk is a horrible captain. Just throwing that out there. Take it in.
@The:
haha I forgot how much robby hates Abrams Star Trek
on a half detour, "turn off your brain" is a wacky phrase to me because it implies that critically evaluating or thinking about an experience has some limiting factor and does not actually increase enjoyment or understanding of something.
it seems unfair to have fun action movies and act like they're "stupid" and can't be thought about, like there's this fictituous dichotomy between "high art" movies and "low art" movies. i love watching goofy hong kong action flicks and intensely thinking about how my fun is being derived from all these different on-screen elements
I agree for the most part.
But anyone could have gleaned as much from FS 101.
I'm not sure where the whole "turn-your-brain off = summer blockbuster" thing is coming from, but I would say that I definitely know the difference between a movie that favors style over substance, than one that has little or more of both. Honestly I never got the impression that the first movie over-weighed one over the other until I saw the outrage in online communities. Not there's any reason to disagree(I'm not a hardcore fan, or an avid movie goer), but I can't say that these opinions affected whatever kind of enjoyment I got. It certainly wasn't a non-stop incomprehensible action fest like Transformers tend to be. And the writing didn't strike me as cheesy like many action movies or parodies or action movies.
I dunno. It seems a bit insulting that one can say I only enjoyed the movie because I lacked a brain or common sense.
So, screw that high horse of an opinion.
@The:
haha I forgot how much robby hates Abrams Star Trek
I don't really. I never think about it except when it's brought up, and I've only seen it the once. (And saw about two minutes of it again on tv the other day. Just in time for the giant hands allergy scene. Lovely.)
The "it's just a summer blockbuster" mentality bugs me way more than any one specific movie.
I dunno. It seems a bit insulting that one can say I only enjoyed the movie because I lacked a brain or common sense.
So, screw that high horse of an opinion.
I enjoyed the G.I. Joe movie. I saw it for free and with a receptive audience and had a good time. "It was fun for what it was." a one time thrill ride.
Could not watch it a second time. And it could have been far better as much of the other source material shows. Depth, layers, characterization, real world tech, sensible plot, interesting villains, etc. Things that other iterations of the franchise (especially the comic) have shown it easily able to do.
It's not that a movie shouldn't be allowed to be about big explosions… it's when its an excuse in and of itself that tosses out the possibility of having a good action movie that is also a good movie in all its other merits.
I love me some Jackie Chan. You go to see those for Jackie's personality and some kung fu and stunts, anything else they bring to the table is gravy. He's done so many films that they're a genre unto themselves. But some of them are better than others. They have better story, better comedy, better stunts, better overall package and are totally rewatchable and hold up to repeats, while others... don't. Drunken Master 2 is superior to The Tuxedo in every way. I will tell anyone to watch DM2, while I'll actively tell them not to waste time on Tuxedo. When I go to see a Jackie film, I hope for something closer to to one end of the spectrum than the other... but I'm still going to see a Jackie Chan film. I expect certain things from it. If I go in and there isn't any kung fu or stunts, and Jackie is playing a completely unlikeable jerk with no redeeming qualities that frowns all the time, I'm not getting a Jackie Chan film despite that being in the billing.
Ahnuld's entire career is based around his pure charisma, but Terminator 1 and 2, Total Recall, are better movies all around than say, The Sixth Day, and they don't make the excuse of "Just a summer blockbuster." Twins is a great comedy film with a lot of heart to it, Junior is not.
I'm not saying every sci-fi movie needs to be 2001 or Blade Runner, but not everything should be Independance Day either. There's absolutely an entertaining middle ground in there that a lot of movies (and games and books) hit, that's doesn't rely on the catchall of "just a summer blockbuster."
"What did you want from Tansformers?" "I wanted what Iron Man gave me a few months later." "What do you want from Star Trek?" "Something approaching the ideas and quality most of the films and tv franchises managed fairly consistently."
(And I'll be the first to agree Trek ran off course with its last two movies, and most of Voyager and Enterprise... so there was a multi-year lull of not-good material there... but even the fans stopped watching that stuff, NO ONE liked that! But that's more the people that were in charge's fault than the franchise itself.)
I have an interesting experience with Star Trek in that the first Abrams Star Trek movie was the very first piece of Star Trek media I ever saw. I liked it, but I haven't seen it again since. And, since then, as I've made it well-known on this forum, I've finally decided to sit down and watch/catch-up on all the old Star Trek series. And yes, in retrospect I can see that Abrams Star Trek is quite different from the original Star Trek in tone and style. But as I said, I haven't seen the first Abram film since, so I really don't know what I would think of it on a second viewing, now that I have the proper context.
In any case, I'm going to see this film tomorrow, and it'll be quite interesting to see what I think of it, now that I've seen all of TOS, most of TNG, and have just started on DS9.
Oh yeah, and "Turn your brain off"? You mean the very thing that allows me to discern between what's good and what's bad? Yeah, no, fuck you.
Hated the term "turn off your brain". Sorry but that is not how to enjoy the movie, to enjoy the movie is when you do it right
I like the movie "The Fifth Element." (Don't love it, but I like it just fine.)
Would I have liked it if it was "Star Trek: The Fifth Element?" or "Star Wars: The Fifth Element"? Probably not, it didn't have the qualities I expect from either franchise. If it had been "Dr. Who: The Fifth Element?" Actually, that tone is about right and I would have been fine with that.
Would I like it if it was "Die Hard 5: In Space." …maybe?
But mostly I liked it as it's own thing.
If J.J's Trek was "J.J. Abrams Star Tracks"? Well, I probably still wouldn't like it because I had more problems with the actual movie than with it being a reboot or using old characters. But...
You don't need to turn off your brain to have fun with this movie. I did not and i had a lot of fun with it. IMO it's a difference between a dumb "brains off" summer blockbuster like Transformers and light action movie like Star Trek.
I should say i was never a fan of Star Trek. I watched a few movies, saw some episodes of the original Series and Deep Space Nine or something when i was younger but i was never really interested in the universe. Of course when you watch television you just gain a general knowledge of Star Trek so i actually got a lot of references.
I'd say if you liked the first Abrams Star Trek movie you will probably like this one too. Personally, i think Into Darkness is even a tiny bit better. For one it had a villain that isn't a complete bore. Cumberbatch was just as awesome as you would imagine.
@RobbyBevard:
Other than the fact the titles, characters, and worldbuilding are taken whole cloth from the old? And the entire output of the franchise is dedicated to this particular version of the product?
Or that when all is said and done it'll be pretty much the only representation Trek has for a solid decade?
Then why not just call it something new if its entirely new?
It could have been something entirely new and different. It's not like you couldn't put a different skin on everything and call it Intergalactic Expedition or something. But it does borrow the characters and universe. Presumably because the source material did provide a degree of inspiration, and I'm sure it didn't hurt sales. It doesn't affect me much either way. It's just a new movie to me either way. It may insult the source material in your eyes, and it wouldn't be the first nor tenth time that happens to something I enjoy either, but it's up to you to let that completely destroy your ability to otherwise be entertained. If you dislike the movie for reasons completely divorced from the fact that it is unfaithful to "canon" Star Trek, that's another issue.
@RobbyBevard:
I hear that argument all the time and its awful. "Its fun if you turn your brain off" "It's ____ franchise, what did you expect?" "It's fine while you watch it." "It's a summer blockbuster."
It's stupid and an asinine excuse and I hate it when anyone uses it to defend a movie being stupid but full of explosions, as if Jaws, Alien, Terminator, the first two star wars films, most Bond films, Jurassic Park, Dark Knight, etc. etc. didn't exist. (And I don't even like Jurassic Park or Dark Knight)
Most of your rant here has nothing to do with what I was saying. "What did you expect from ___ franchise?" is not the same as "what did you expect from ___ genre?" Even then, that's not exactly what I'm saying. I am pointing out the disparity between the genre of this movie and style of the series (and even earlier movies). And the genre here is "big summer action movie." If you go in expecting anything other than way too much action, then your expectations are wrong. You are free to feel upset about this, especially if you are not a big fan of such movies. You're also free to be upset if you think that even for that genre, the movie is crap. But again, it's good to be able to distance yourself from the issue of old vs. new and evaluate something for its individual merits. Though I'm sorry if as a fan you wish they'd reboot the series in a different way.
@RobbyBevard:
You can stretch credibility without being dumb or insulting or lacking in internal cohesion. But when you absolutely have to stop thinking about it in order to go with the flow and enjoy it? When it absolutely won't hold up to a second viewing? When the characters all act like idiots and the explosions and CGI are more important than the character, the intent of the story being told?
These are valid complaints if you think that as a blockbuster action film the movie failed. I liked it quite a bit, and that's just a difference of opinions. But I think you're blowing it out of proportion because of your initial expectations. Neither of us has even seen Into Darkness though.
@RobbyBevard:
Character, thoughtful exploration of the human condition, examinations of our times and issues? Generally being intelligent? WHILE having the occasional action set piece? (Yes, trek has had more than a few duds. It's also had about 1000 episodes and 10 movies, but it has a decent average overall.)
Some reviews I read said the new movie actually succeeded in this respect far more than the last one, in that it clearly deals with issues of our current times. For what that's worth. It actually is doing pretty well on Metacritic which is surprising.
@The:
haha I forgot how much robby hates Abrams Star Trek
on a half detour, "turn off your brain" is a wacky phrase to me because it implies that critically evaluating or thinking about an experience has some limiting factor and does not actually increase enjoyment or understanding of something.
it seems unfair to have fun action movies and act like they're "stupid" and can't be thought about, like there's this fictituous dichotomy between "high art" movies and "low art" movies. i love watching goofy hong kong action flicks and intensely thinking about how my fun is being derived from all these different on-screen elements
I think it depends on how able you are to ignore the things that don't make sense or whatnot. I have a friend whose suspension of disbelief is just completely shattered as soon as any flawed scientific or technological logic shows up. He'll just spend the rest of the movie thinking about how stupid and wrong everything is. Ignoring stuff like that is what we refer to as "turning off your brain." Its validity as art or entertainment need not factor into this.
when i went to see this movie
i wasn't very full, but i got a lot of popcorn and it was really great
but i was worried eating nothing but popcorn on an empty stomache would make me sick
but i was not sick
i ate a lot of it and it was very good. I gave my popcorn 8/10. it was buttery too, very rich in taste. I gave it 8/10 for good popcorn, especially the texture was a very fine texture. I give this popcorn that i saw watching star trek: into darkness an 8/10
it was a good night and i recommend it
@The:
when i went to see this movie
i wasn't very full, but i got a lot of popcorn and it was really great
but i was worried eating nothing but popcorn on an empty stomache would make me sick
but i was not sick
i ate a lot of it and it was very good. I gave my popcorn 8/10. it was buttery too, very rich in taste. I gave it 8/10 for good popcorn, especially the texture was a very fine texture. I give this popcorn that i saw watching star trek: into darkness an 8/10
it was a good night and i recommend it
Whether or not you intended it, this is an interesting point. Movies are often about more than just what you're watching. If I have decent company and get decent dinner before the movie and snacks during the movie, the movie doesn't have to do a whole lot to keep me satisfied.
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. I don't need to turn off my brain to enjoy it, I can still appreciate it flaws and all. Because it delivers on its promise of fun characters, great action and an uplifting albeit nonsensical story. It lives up to its promises, that's why it's a good comic book movie. Same reason I love Jackie Chan movies. I don't expect a great story, most of them have poor stories, DM2 included. It still has likable Jackie and great fight choreography. I'm not turning my brain off for still enjoying the movie, I'm just appreciating it for what it is, what it's trying to accomplish.
This movie…bland or unlikable characters, horrendously bad writing (to the point that you don't even need to think about the inconsistencies of the story but they stand right out in front of you), overly (to its detriment) indulgent fanservice. I guess the action pieces were well done for the most part but even the final action sequence felt like a step-down compared to what we got earlier in the film and most of them were just so overindulgent and nonsensical.
! I mean a Starship shooting down another during warp speed? Ejecting from one Starship into the other while avoiding all that debris? What?
It's just so…stupid. I should just blindly accept these and look at the pretty lights? Erm, no. Even for a popcorn film, there are standards.
If you dislike the movie for reasons completely divorced from the fact that it is unfaithful to "canon" Star Trek, that's another issue.
That its a reboot or a different take on the characters doesn't bother me. For cripes sake, I'm a ninja turtle fan. I think the current Transformers cartoon is the best one they've ever done, in much the way Beast Wars was better than original transformers, liked New Thundercats and Scooby Doo more than the old. Batman Begins was far better than Batman and Robin. I like the new Bond films more than most of the earlier ones, the remake of Ben-Hur is better than the original. The first Planet of the Apes remake sucked, while the newest one is really good. I like Peter Jackson's King Kong, and prefer his LotR movies over the animated one I grew up on. I can play a Mario or Zelda game on any given day.
Reboots and re-imaginings aren't inherently bad, and can often take the best of the original material and enhance it.
I mostly didn't like the movie itself for a wide variety of reasons, mostly involving not liking the characters, overall style of the film, stupidity and giant plotholes that I was seeing even without thinking about it later.
That it also wasn't a good Trek film didn't help, but I hold that against the other Trek films too.
@Thousand:
It's just so…stupid. I should just blindly accept these and look at the pretty lights? Erm, no. Even for a popcorn film, there are standards.
Like I said, not liking a movie because you dislike the genre, or because you think it was poorly executed within that genre, is perfectly valid. Those "standards" are completely subjective though. I think Iron Man 3 was quite entertaining but it was by far the worst Iron Man movie, including The Avengers.
I…like popcorn flicks. My top ten movies have several popcorn flicks including my number one. I don't like THIS movie because it's a poor movie for what it is. Sure, standards are subjective. But they are there. Telling people you should switch off any form of thinking is insulting to those great blockbusters that take the time to invest in things other than flashy explosions.
@Thousand:
Telling people you should switch off any form of thinking is insulting to those great blockbusters that take the time to invest in things other than flashy explosions.
No it isn't. In fact it's a great compliment to an action movie if it remains intelligent while having lots of good action. But Iron Man 3 doesn't even qualify for this and you said it's great. 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 people can't do this but IMO that's their loss, because sometimes it really can be satisfying to just watch cool things happen. You're usually okay given that the movie isn't actually just awful in every way. For example bad acting is bad acting no matter how you look at it (well… I guess if you look at it as comedy it might be okay :P). Nobody is saying you should put yourself into a coma so you can enjoy the movie.
And obviously this doesn't work in every genre. Like if a suspense thriller has a plot hole you're going to be pissed because a movie like that is extremely reliant on a solid story.
TLC bitching about something that isn't a Marvel movie. Why am I not surprised?
Waffles bitching about TLC bitching about something that isn't a Marvel movie. Why am I not surprised?
Seriously, shut up. TLC isn't "bitching", he legitimately (for lack of a better word) has complaints with a film that deliberately chooses style & flashy sequences over characterization & substance.
BTW Benedict Cumberbatch was absolutely incredible. What a menacing villain. Probably the best villain since the Joker. He was that good
Well….I really enjoyed the film. I haven't any exposure of the series before J.J Abrams made these movies though so that may be why. My dad is a huge trekkie and liked it though, I also thought the way Abrams handled the continuity would be good for old fans, but that seems to not be the case. Whatevs though, your loss on a great summer blockbuster.
BTW Benedict Cumberbatch was absolutely incredible. What a menacing villain. Probably the best villain since the Joker. He was that good
See, while I absolutely loved the film, I thought Cumberbatch's role was underdeveloped. He starts off pretty evil, then you get the impression that he's more of an anti hero but in the end he's just evil. I guess it would have helped if they had focused on one villain instead of having two.
@Thousand:
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. I don't need to turn off my brain to enjoy it, I can still appreciate it flaws and all. Because it delivers on its promise of fun characters, great action and an uplifting albeit nonsensical story. It lives up to its promises, that's why it's a good comic book movie.
I kind of get what you're saying but it's interesting to me because what you are criticizing about Into Darkness (illogical plot, unlikable characters) pretty much sums up my problems with IM3. I couldn't get into it because there was pretty much no one I could empathise with and the idiotic story just made my eyes role all the time (BUT the Mandarin thing was glorious).
Then, one day later I watched Star Trek, expecting something similarly stupid and I loved pretty much every second of it. It's fun how people can see things completely differently.
No it isn't. In fact it's a great compliment to an action movie if it remains intelligent while having lots of good action. But Iron Man 3 doesn't even qualify for this and you said it's great. 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 people can't do this but IMO that's their loss, because sometimes it really can be satisfying to just watch cool things happen. You're usually okay given that the movie isn't actually just awful in every way. For example bad acting is bad acting no matter how you look at it (well… I guess if you look at it as comedy it might be okay :P). Nobody is saying you should put yourself into a coma so you can enjoy the movie.
And obviously this doesn't work in every genre. Like if a suspense thriller has a plot hole you're going to be pissed because a movie like that is extremely reliant on a solid story.
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?
No, I will think, thank you very much. That's what makes good action films good. That despite scrutiny, they still hold up well. I can still enjoy a movie despite its flaws but like Robby said, there's a difference between a good Jackie Chan movie like Police Story and a bad one like the Protector. I actually like both but love one more than the other whereas the other one is okay. Both have problems, I can still think about these problems and enjoy the movie, they actually enhance my experience as a film goer because I can appreciate a film while accepting and understanding its deficiencies.
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. This movie was just pretty overly elaborate action sequence after pretty overly elaborate action sequence with the characters having bitchy cat fights in between. Going with the flow is one thing but when a movie expects you to not question every single thing that occurs in the movie because every single thing just doesn't make any sense and it rewards you with nothing more but pretty visual effects and keeps punishing you with badly written characters, poor story-telling and THAT scene? That's not a good movie.
BTW Benedict Cumberbatch was absolutely incredible. What a menacing villain. Probably the best villain since the Joker. He was that good
! The Khan in this movie was horrible. About as lame as Nero in the first villain. Cumberbatch really was trying his best but the character he was given to work with was abysmally written. I was actually interested in his character when I thought they were going to turn him into an anti-hero but nope generic bad guy. and all interest was lost. Doesn't hold a candle to the Joker who had actual character and motivations outside the generic "I want to rule the world". Let alone hold a candle to the original Khan.
@Thousand:
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.
@Thousand:
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.
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.
@Thousand:
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.
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
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:
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.
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.
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..
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.
I said:
- "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.
- "[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?
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.
**@Foolio:
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.**
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 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.
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?
Just got back from seeing it.
! 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:
! 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).
And the lamb lies down on Broadway
Just got back from seeing it.
! 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):
! 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.
'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.
@Thousand:
Text here
Eh, my try and answering some.
! 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.
I know I shouldn't, but…
! @Thousand:
! > 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.
And the lamb lies down on Broadway
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."
Saw it, loved it, as a Trek fan for decades.
! 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
! 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.
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.
I know I shouldn't, but…
! @Nobodyman:
! > 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?
! @Nobodyman:
! > 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?
! @Nobodyman:
! > 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?
! @Nobodyman:
! > 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.
! @Nobodyman:
! > 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.
! @Nobodyman:
! > 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.
! @Nobodyman:
! > 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.
! @Nobodyman:
! > 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.
! @Nobodyman:
! > The power of cameo. But it was all pretty pointless anyway, so whatever.
! Plothole then.
! @Nobodyman:
! > 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?
! @Nobodyman:
! > 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.
! @Nobodyman:
! > 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).
! @Nobodyman:
! > 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.
! @Nobodyman:
! > Also, didn't you previously ask why Marcus would want to use all 72 nukes on the Klingon homeworld?
! Yes, why would he?
! @Nobodyman:
! > 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.
! @Nobodyman:
! > Automatic stabilizers? Science-y wience-y, time-y wime-y.
! Plothole then.
! @Nobodyman:
! > 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.
! @Nobodyman:
! > 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.
! @Nobodyman:
! > 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.
! @Nobodyman:
! > Even if Kirk hadn't listened, Kahn probably had some other contingency plans, as intelligent as he was.
! Now you're just speculating.
! @Nobodyman:
! > 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.
! @Nobodyman:
! > 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?
! @Nobodyman:
! > 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.
! @Nobodyman:
! > 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.
! @Nobodyman:
! > 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.
! @Nobodyman:
! > 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.
! @Nobodyman:
! > All right, I'll give you that.
! Plot hole.
! @Nobodyman:
! > 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?
Saw it, loved it, as a Trek fan for decades.
! 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.
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/
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
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?
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.
! 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).
