STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS Reviews: An Enterprising Film Sure To Energize Fans!

Become a member of the CGSociety

Connect, Share, and Learn with our Large Growing CG Art Community. It's Free!

THREAD CLOSED
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 05 May 2013   #61
I saw it last night and liked it. It's a lot less flawed than Iron Man 3. Character motivations in this movie are explained by deep emotional reactions. I think Scotty and McCoy are the only ones that don't turn on the water works to explain their actions.

By the end the movie the only thing I really questioned was Cumberbatch's character lack of resourcefulness given his capabilities, what he knows, and who he is. Beyond that I think its better than the 1st movie as it opens up a lot of potential material for future movies to tackle.
__________________
Richard Cabrera
Twitter - Flickr
 
Old 05 May 2013   #62
'Trek' does $70.6M but falls short of studio hopes

http://news.yahoo.com/trek-does-70-...-162559030.html

http://insidemovies.ew.com/2013/05/...-into-darkness/
__________________
I will never be a fan of any kind of political correctness: I think it's instant death to creativity." - Mads Mikkelsen
 
Old 05 May 2013   #63
I liked it, but as a movie whole the

[ SPOILER - Click to reveal ]
Spoiler:
Khan thing was spoiled months ago with trailers, of course. So the "big reveal" was hilariously inadequate. Then I was kind of bothered by the lengthy and drawn out, and overly-corny Kirk "death" scene because it was just about the most contrived thing I've ever seen when we'd already heard about Khan's "amazingly regenerative" blood. Although I did enjoy seeing the Tribble? cameo, adorable. :3

Basically the movie didn't hold me in suspense once and I'm still not a fan of a Star Trek movie that makes me hate humanity, but it did have some nice performances here and there and made Khan out to be pretty fearsome. Especially the first introductory beating scene where he just takes it and it almost got unsettling for a PG-13 film.
__________________
www.puppetstring.com
 
Old 05 May 2013   #64
To fast, to dumb, to much action(i don't think action stops for a minute), movie is there just to be a epic spectacle, by showing blue particles in your face, bigger ships, vulcano eruptions, buildings blow up, more buildings blow up, ship crashes...and so many repetitions. I saw few dozen "homage" shots from 2009 movie. Why? And plus, Nicholas Meyer and the writers of "Wrath" should be credited for directing and writing, so much has been copied, destroyed from the original.
It's just...this movie does not offer ANYTHING new, anything original, anything that makes you think for a minute (except how many render layers did they use on the enterprise). Star trek series, almost all of them made you think. Spock never had to punch someone, that's the reason there's that nerve pinch. It was logic and clever thinking that he produced.
As I wrote before, 30 years after original, we fail as the audience, and they fail as storytellers.
 
Old 05 May 2013   #65
Originally Posted by webhead: 'Trek' does $70.6M but falls short of studio hopes

http://news.yahoo.com/trek-does-70-...-162559030.html

http://insidemovies.ew.com/2013/05/...-into-darkness/


There may be some hope for humanity after all.

Quote: It's just...this movie does not offer ANYTHING new, anything original, anything that makes you think for a minute (except how many render layers did they use on the enterprise). Star trek series, almost all of them made you think. Spock never had to punch someone, that's the reason there's that nerve pinch. It was logic and clever thinking that he produced.
As I wrote before, 30 years after original, we fail as the audience, and they fail as storytellers.


Thats what I loved about Spock, he was always so calm and collected(except when it was mating season). Just like Yoda they keep ruining these characters, because they dont understand them. Why change Spock like that, its not Spock.
 
Old 05 May 2013   #66
Originally Posted by Latos: As I wrote before, 30 years after original, we fail as the audience, and they fail as storytellers.


Sorry, but maybe YOU fail as the audience, but please don't tell me i do just because i enjoyed it. yes, it could most definitely have used some quieter bits, but the action was excellent, the story good enough, the acting top notch (esp Kirk and Spock) and the CGI glorious. That said, it wasnt perfect, and could definitely have been a bit slower in places.

Do you guys ever HEAR yourselves? You sound so incredibly pompous.
__________________
www.weliketomakethings.com
 
Old 05 May 2013   #67
Originally Posted by Latos: As I wrote before, 30 years after original, we fail as the audience, and they fail as storytellers.


Sorry, but maybe YOU fail as the audience, but please don't tell me i do just because i enjoyed it. yes, it could most definitely have used some quieter bits, but the action was excellent, the story good enough, the acting top notch (esp Kirk and Spock) and the CGI glorious. That said, it wasnt perfect, and could definitely have been a bit slower in places.

Do you guys ever HEAR yourselves?
__________________
www.weliketomakethings.com
 
Old 05 May 2013   #68
Having never been a fan/seen the originals I thought this movie was brilliant, exactly why I pay to go to the cinema. Top notch action, good story, well acted, loved the sound design and great visual effects. That being said, I probably enjoyed it because I didn't see the apparent recycled story arcs from the previous series/films. For some reason, every single summer blockbuster recently seems to get terribly scrutinized rather than enjoyed....maybe it's just a trend

P.s on a side note, I didn't noticed as many lens flairs as usual.
__________________

 
Old 05 May 2013   #69
Originally Posted by thethule: Sorry, but maybe YOU fail as the audience, but please don't tell me i do just because i enjoyed it. yes, it could most definitely have used some quieter bits, but the action was excellent, the story good enough, the acting top notch (esp Kirk and Spock) and the CGI glorious. That said, it wasnt perfect, and could definitely have been a bit slower in places.

Do you guys ever HEAR yourselves? You sound so incredibly pompous.


Look, if you take a movie that's made 30 years ago, that had solid writing, solid character development and story structure, and compare it to this movie, it just fails on so many levels. Wrath of Khan is not a special movie, but action that's in there is slower, but more intense, Kirk and Khan playing chess and deliver some good dialog. It's not a david vs goliat, small ship vs big ship. I was pumped to see this new movie, but i was so bored seeing action set pieces, one after another. When you go and watch star wars that's what you expect(and I love SW), but not in this series of movies. And that's what I was referring to, because stupid (for a lack of a better word) cg extravaganza is almost every other movie these days.

Last edited by Latos : 05 May 2013 at 08:26 PM.
 
Old 05 May 2013   #70
I didn't like they gave everything away in the plot rather quickly, but otherwise fun movie
 
Old 05 May 2013   #71
I liked the movie and yes the fx are great but its a prime example of a story falling short, yet again. And vfx being the only reason to see the movie, not its acting or directing or script. Im judging it as a package.

I felt it tried to have more depth than say, Avatar, but it didnt make it.

Spoilers ahead.

The main villain wasnt built up enough. He just did something bad, got chased, then he did something good, then he did something bad again. Thrilling but no back story and i honestly couldnt care less abut him or his crew/people. We had no flashbacks, no base to build on in terms of an emotional package. He just kind of is, so heres what hes doing.

The other thing that bothered me was the overly long intro with the volcano thing. Way too much time wasted on a plot that basically was made up for Kirk to lose command, but not really. The other thing that bothered me was just that. He lost the ship, got kicked back into school mode and the next day hes 2nd in command overnight because his mentor felt like speaking up to defend him, even though he agreed to the decision to send him into school mode again. It felt like we lost about 3-6 months out of the plot story line right there.

Another thing that was bothersome was the extremely badly forced accents. The russian one was terrible the entire time and sounds nothing like an actual russian accent, and Scotty was trying so hard to be scottish it took me out of the movie entirely during his lines. Its on par with the batman voice from Dark Knight for me in terms of annoyance.

Regardless, fun movie, but the little to no buildup to the villains background made me not care at all about the story because, hey, the good guy always wins in the end, and maybe thats the problem with every movie out in the last 10 or so years in terms of scifi or fantasy.
 
Old 05 May 2013   #72
Originally Posted by thethule: Sorry, but maybe YOU fail as the audience, but please don't tell me i do just because i enjoyed it. yes, it could most definitely have used some quieter bits, but the action was excellent, the story good enough, the acting top notch (esp Kirk and Spock) and the CGI glorious. That said, it wasnt perfect, and could definitely have been a bit slower in places.

Do you guys ever HEAR yourselves? You sound so incredibly pompous.


How's what the other poster said any different from somebody explaining why they like good healthy food that happens to also taste great, and in so doing also explain why they think McDonald's McFood is for McShit?

It's not pompous to have standards or to be articulate in expressing them. But judging people in that way is clearly one of those 'eye of the beholder' things.
__________________
"achievement is its own reward -- pride obscures it."

- Major Garland Briggs
TWIN PEAKS
 
Old 05 May 2013   #73
Originally Posted by trevanian: How's what the other poster said any different from somebody explaining why they like good healthy food that happens to also taste great, and in so doing also explain why they think McDonald's McFood is for McShit?

It's not pompous to have standards or to be articulate in expressing them. But judging people in that way is clearly one of those 'eye of the beholder' things.


Well, to me at least, saying "we fail as an audience" sounds pompous.


Originally Posted by trevanian: It's not pompous to have standards
__________________
www.weliketomakethings.com
 
Old 05 May 2013   #74
Originally Posted by evolucian: I liked the movie and yes the fx are great but its a prime example of a story falling short, yet again. And vfx being the only reason to see the movie, not its acting or directing or script. Im judging it as a package.

I felt it tried to have more depth than say, Avatar, but it didnt make it.

Spoilers ahead.

The main villain wasnt built up enough. He just did something bad, got chased, then he did something good, then he did something bad again. Thrilling but no back story and i honestly couldnt care less abut him or his crew/people. We had no flashbacks, no base to build on in terms of an emotional package. He just kind of is, so heres what hes doing.

The other thing that bothered me was the overly long intro with the volcano thing. Way too much time wasted on a plot that basically was made up for Kirk to lose command, but not really. The other thing that bothered me was just that. He lost the ship, got kicked back into school mode and the next day hes 2nd in command overnight because his mentor felt like speaking up to defend him, even though he agreed to the decision to send him into school mode again. It felt like we lost about 3-6 months out of the plot story line right there.

Another thing that was bothersome was the extremely badly forced accents. The russian one was terrible the entire time and sounds nothing like an actual russian accent, and Scotty was trying so hard to be scottish it took me out of the movie entirely during his lines. Its on par with the batman voice from Dark Knight for me in terms of annoyance.

Regardless, fun movie, but the little to no buildup to the villains background made me not care at all about the story because, hey, the good guy always wins in the end, and maybe thats the problem with every movie out in the last 10 or so years in terms of scifi or fantasy.


One thing to remember: SPOILERS


We already know about Khan. That's the point. They didn't really need to do that much intro to him since the fact that he is Khan is the big suprise
__________________
www.weliketomakethings.com
 
Old 05 May 2013   #75
Originally Posted by thethule: One thing to remember: SPOILERS


We already know about Khan. That's the point. They didn't really need to do that much intro to him since the fact that he is Khan is the big suprise


We're not supposed to know about Khan, tho.
 
Thread Closed share thread



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright 2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 02:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.