Pandering fan service, obvious political messages, dumb action, and faulty and broken lore? Sounds like every other Star Trek show and movie ever. This guy takes Star Trek way too seriously.
Here's the thing I find interesting about your post. I agree with you. the action was really good, if a little drawn out in places. I thought the special effects were amazing as well. I also thought that the cast, even Chris Pine, were all rather good in their roles. I even thought the movie was quite a bit of fun. The problem is that none of those things have anything to do with why the movie sucks. The movie is bad because it spends more time on exposition than on character development. Khan is the very definition of one dimensional. He has only one defining characteristic. The fact that the ending was emotionally vapid. All of the meaning behind the scene between Spock and Kirk when it was done in Wrath of Khan mean't something because we understand the deep friendship that both of those two characters had. We also had no reason to think that Spock was going to magically be brought back to life. That movie ended with Spock actually being dead. I know they essentially wrote him coming back to life on in the third movie, but it had no bearing on the second. Another thing as Bob points out is that none of the characters go through any character arcs that weren't already done in the 2009 film. I could go on, but I don't want to be here all night.AldUK said:Bob is my favourite Escapist feature producer and I watch escape to the movies every week. 9/10 times I completely agree with you Bob, but not here. ST: Into Darkness is a fantastic film with brilliant action, awesome special effects and a great cast who all do a good job in their roles. I can't help but feel that the negativity is purely because it's not the exact film that 'you' wanted as a Trekkie.
Still a big fan. But you're so wrong here Bob and 9/10 people agree with me based on actual user reviews.
Haha, yeah, that was hilarious. The trailer had to include the two seconds of fanservice from the film (which was the entire duration of the actual scene in the film) to get people to watch it. Obviously the producers and marketing department were aware the film was not good enough to sell on its own merits.Strife2GFAQs said:Ugh...they had to pull that fanservice card, huh? No thanks.
I'm on the other side of the fence. I think Bob gave this movie far more credit than I would have. I haven't seen Iron man 3 yet but for that movie to be worse than this one, Iron man would have to be a blank screen with a picture of a robot, drawn by a five year old, affixed to it by duct tape.Calibanbutcher said:I wouldn't call this a movie "good" either...
This movie is GREAT and I wholeheartedly recommend you go see it now, screw whatever bob says and go watch it.
Why? Because it's fun without being stupid.
It's better than Iron Man 3 in every single way, the action is better, the cinematography is nicer, the climax is better the "twist" is better and if it wasn't for RDJ, this movie would blow Iron Man 3 so far out of the water that Greenpeace would have to bring a semi-truck to get it back in. THis is of course my opinion, so feel free to scream at your screen now about how I am wrong etc.
It's better than Wrath of Khan, it's damn well better than every Star Trek movie that came before it (in MY OPINION, bear in mind, I am not a Star Trek fan, nor did I never watch an episode of the Star Trek series).
Hell, I liked it better than most of the Marvel movies that came before it, including The Avengers (yeah yeah, I said Jehova, get your beards ready now). (I never read Marvel/DC comics either).
This movie was everything I wanted it to be.
A fun science-fiction action-romp with a likeable cast, great cinematography, a great score, good performances all-around, some throwbacks to the "original" even complete and utter dolts like me can understand and a good plot. Of course, this is far from being on-par with science-fiction classics, such as Moon and "2001", but then again this movie doesn't try to go that route.
(Also, why did Bob need to "critique" this movie and feels that revealing the "twist" is something he has to do, when in his Iron Man 3 review, he tiptoed around it, telling us how great the twist was, when, in all honesty, the "Iron Man Twist" is just as bad, if not worse than this movie's "twist".)
Technological superiority doesn't mean a superior understanding of people and how to deal with them. Otherwise you'd see a million less 'friendzone' threads on here. Imagine if the same brain that lets you put together a computer also lets you fully understand the desired sex.Raesvelg said:The problem with writing super-intelligent characters is that they're not written by super-intelligent authors.Thyunda said:They did it because things look different from their perspective. Obviously.
Having character perspectives is great, don't get me wrong. Khan flips out and attacks the Enterprise after the torpedoes blow because he assumes that his people were still inside, since that's what he would have done, given that he is just a wee bit of a spiteful bastard and not particularly concerned with the lives of his enemies. That's his perspective, and it's fitting that he makes that particular oversight.
But basic reasoning shouldn't be subject to perspective, particularly when you're dealing with someone who is supposed to be intelligent enough on his own to create new technologies decades in advance of the existing ones, and to do so in a scant few years starting from three centuries behind. It's not a question of perspective when characters make obvious mistakes that they should not have made in character.
It's just lazy writing. Obviously.
Khan's an interpersonal and political genius too. He really is better at "everything". Still has weaknesses, of course, but it remains a plot hole.Thyunda said:Technological superiority doesn't mean a superior understanding of people and how to deal with them. Otherwise you'd see a million less 'friendzone' threads on here. Imagine if the same brain that lets you put together a computer also lets you fully understand the desired sex.
And I don't see Khan's girlfriend anywhere nearby.
Wait I forgot, how did we conclude that he didn't discern the motivations of the Admiral?Raesvelg said:Khan's an interpersonal and political genius too. He really is better at "everything". Still has weaknesses, of course, but it remains a plot hole.Thyunda said:Technological superiority doesn't mean a superior understanding of people and how to deal with them. Otherwise you'd see a million less 'friendzone' threads on here. Imagine if the same brain that lets you put together a computer also lets you fully understand the desired sex.
And I don't see Khan's girlfriend anywhere nearby.
As for girlfriends... in TOS, Khan seduces one of the Enterprise crew so thoroughly in a scant handful of hours that she follows him into permanent exile at the end of the episode. So yeah. Khan's got game.
Even leaving out material from TOS, however, it's pretty clear that Khan knew he'd be betrayed by Kirk, whom he'd only known for a few minutes. Yet for some reason he can't discern the motivations of the Admiral that he's known for years.
Lazy writing.
The part where he hid on Kronos. We've been over this.Thyunda said:Wait I forgot, how did we conclude that he didn't discern the motivations of the Admiral?