ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

Into Darkness: Not only a great Star Trek movie, but also a great movie overall!

Bangtuff

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4

Report this May. 18 2013, 10:25 am


To begin, I should admit that I have been a Star Trek fan for a long time now.  I also have a film degree and have studied and made films for many years.  I saw Star Trek Into Darkness last night, and it made me laugh, cry, and shout for joy!  Yes, the action scenes are exciting, but what really makes this film great is the emotional depth of the characters and their interactions.  For those of you who are wary of seeing this film because it may not be exactly like previous episodes or films, I argue that you give it a chance. Yes, the stories are different, but our protagonists are the characters that we have come to know and love over the years.  If you go to this film, and support the Trek series, we can be sure that we will have the opportunity to join these beloved characters as they travel where no one has gone before for many more years to come.


 

PrincessBarbara

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 8

Report this May. 18 2013, 2:39 pm

Did you watch the movie?  I think that Abrams has gone too far and I don't care to see Star Trek being destroyed by his lack of vision, originality and lack of understanding of the concept of the Star Trek universe any longer. There was no character development in this film......this was not Star Trek.  Join me in lobbying Paramount to turn the reins of Star Trek over to Jonathan Frakes and Ronald D. Moore.  These two gentlemen have proven themselves worthy in the World of Trek and SiFi.

Bangtuff

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4

Report this May. 18 2013, 3:28 pm

While Frakes' First Contact was good, it was nothing like the Next Generation television series.  Ronald D. Moore cowrote Generations... enough said.

teacherdan

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1

Report this May. 18 2013, 7:51 pm

J.J. Abrams has done two things for the Star Trek franchise:  Made money for Paramount and added fans.  People complaining about the "new" Star Trek should remember that money drives this business.  If you want to see more Star Trek, Star Trek is going to have to make money.


 


PrincessBarbara

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 8

Report this May. 18 2013, 10:50 pm

Obviously money is the driving force for Abrams.  Star Trek IS GENE RODDENBERRY and his vision has endured for 47 years to date.  I will forego any more Trek movies from JJ, secure in the knowledge that those true to Trek will provide us with quality in one form or another.  The revival of Enterprise is all ready under way. And even more powerful than money are the true Trek fans who will not sit by and allow Star Trek to fade into obscurity. It comes down to how you feel:  is Star Trek simply an entertainment franchise or a life style?

Kornula

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1676

Report this May. 19 2013, 3:46 am

Initally, Star Wars was believed to have lost money.  One producer kept the Fox Board from totally axing the film.


Hollowwood is in the $$ making buisness.. however, they make poor decisions on what they think might make money.


 


Plus, if money is the only driving force, we are in a sad state of living.

wissa

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4022

Report this May. 19 2013, 7:07 am

Quote: Kornula @ May. 19 2013, 3:46 am

>

>Initally, Star Wars was believed to have lost money.  One producer kept the Fox Board from totally axing the film.

>Hollowwood is in the $$ making buisness.. however, they make poor decisions on what they think might make money.

>Plus, if money is the only driving force, we are in a sad state of living.

>


Money has always been the driving force in hollywood.


We welcome st.com refugees! click on the image

wissa

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4022

Report this May. 19 2013, 7:11 am

Quote: PrincessBarbara @ May. 18 2013, 2:39 pm

>

> Did you watch the movie?  I think that Abrams has gone too far and I don't care to see Star Trek being destroyed by his lack of vision, originality and lack of understanding of the concept of the Star Trek universe any longer. There was no character development in this film......this was not Star Trek.  Join me in lobbying Paramount to turn the reins of Star Trek over to Jonathan Frakes and Ronald D. Moore.  These two gentlemen have proven themselves worthy in the World of Trek and SiFi.

>


I'm curious to know how you think that might play out.  What kind of movie do you think they would make?  Tng movies were not very successful.  I suspect even if there was a different director (and I've read the next movie could have a different one) the new trek universe would remain on the same path.  After all, Abrams didn't actually write the movie. 


 


and seriously, you didn't see ancy character development in this film?  you didn't notice any social commentary?


We welcome st.com refugees! click on the image

Vicsage

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 465

Report this May. 19 2013, 7:39 am

First off, I liked the movie, but it looks like from the numbers it will be an underperformer at the box office.  They had hoped for $100 million, will be lucky to get $80, less than half Ironman's.  Wouldn't be surprised if John Carter ends up gettng bigger world-wide numbers (I loved John Carter).   Why is it underperforming?  I think for 2 reasons.  First, ST has done so many stories throughout the years, I think people think nothing original is possible.  Reason #2.  Why in Gods name do you release an american show in Europe and around the world first, before opening in the US.  ST have never done that well overseas, and with the internet all the surprises  are revealed before the movie is released in its strongest market.  I was able to read the plot at least a week before it was released here.  If I hated how it sounded, I may not have gone to see it.  They did the same thing with Ironman and released it overseas first.  At least Marvel comics movies do very well overseas, but I'll bet they lost the shot to break the $200 million opening in the US by doing so.  I even know of people who claim to have seen downloads of the movie over the internet a week before it was released.  Stupid marketing.


No response must mean you all agree.

S'slee

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4

Report this May. 19 2013, 8:23 am

JJ Abrams restored Star Trek.  It was dying.  He took Roddenberry's vision to an entire new level.  I commend him for his effort on a job well done with the film.  I hope he continues to keep at it and possibly re-do the entire original series in some fashion.  This is the best Star Trek we have ever seen.  JJ Abrams is the great bird of the galaxy for sure, he earned that title.

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this May. 19 2013, 8:32 am

Calling JJ Abrams "The Great Bird Of The Galaxy" is pretty much Trek sacrilege,  no matter if you support NuTrek or not. 


That title is reserved for Gene Roddenberry alone.  


It is meant to honor what he created and the legacy he left us.  JJ Abrams has not accomplished a fraction of what Roddenberry did.  

Bangtuff

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4

Report this May. 19 2013, 8:37 am

Before someone argues that JJ Abrams is only in it for money, remember that Roddenberry wrote unused lyrics for Alexander Courage's original Star Trek theme just so he could get half the royalties (money) for use of the song.

Vicsage

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 465

Report this May. 19 2013, 11:01 am

Movies doing worse than I thought it would.  $70 million for the weekend, total of about $83 domestic so far.  Lucky to make it to $180 million domestic.  Probably $120 foreign.  Maybe squeeze out $300 million total.  Cost close to $200 million.  Throw in marketing (who shouldn't get a dime IMO).  This may be the last ST movie for some time.


No response must mean you all agree.

ttrek42

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 8

Report this May. 19 2013, 3:12 pm

Maybe the reason the movie revenue is sub-par is JJ's disregard of the franchises continuity. Many true Trek fans will not see the new film due to his handling of this issue in the first movie. He could have achieved his goal of a "reboot" without destroying the original  timeline. Due to his lack of understanding of the StarTrek franchise., he failed to recognize this opportunity. He could still fix it, but I doubt he will.  Like many fans, i will wait for HBO. I won't pay JJ.  

CountJohn

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 177

Report this May. 19 2013, 5:12 pm

Quote: Vicsage @ May. 19 2013, 11:01 am

>

>Movies doing worse than I thought it would.  $70 million for the weekend, total of about $83 domestic so far.  Lucky to make it to $180 million domestic.  Probably $120 foreign.  Maybe squeeze out $300 million total.  Cost close to $200 million.  Throw in marketing (who shouldn't get a dime IMO).  This may be the last ST movie for some time.

>


Oh please, I didn't think much of the movie, but let's not play the "making up reasons why a movie is flopping even though it's making a crap-load of money" game, that for some reason people love to play on message boards.

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: JOYOFVGR

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum