TexasCHLforum.com

Saw Star Trek Into Darkness last night.

Enjoyed it very much. Excellent new villain. Sets and special effects are markedly better than first Star Trek reboot. San Fransisco is much better looking than first movie. With this movie you have lost the introducing the characters which was such a big part of the first movie, but that is replaced with a much better plot and villain.

Saw it in Imax 3d. I was a little woosie afterwards. It really added to the experience.

Mild Spoiler from hear on.

This if you remember this the alternate universe Star Trek. People are the same, but things are slightly different since in the normal universe (old Star Trek) Romulans did not travel back in time and kill Kirk's dad and destroy Vulcan. (First movie) This now continues into the second movie. Thus things or people from the old movies and TV series can occur in the new movie only differently since it is an alternate universe. In the first movie we were introduced to Romulans. I won't write any more, but you can figure out who is introduced briefly here. I will mention there is a new character introduced which should give old trekkies some reason to cheer. Carol Marcus. She is played by a totally hot blond Alice Eve, go ahead google her picture.

From what I could tell the plan is for a lot of these movies in the future.

I saw it Wed in IMAX 3d and it was definately a great movie. The possible set up for the next movie looks interesting, already looking forward to it.

I liked it much better than Iron Man 3, and it stomps all the other Star Trek movies. Kudos to JJ Abrams. This gives me faith that he might restore Star Wars to its rightful awesomeness :)

definitely agree, i was not really fond of iron man 3 to be honest. this star trek will set the bar for all other summer movies. ill probably see it again.

philip964 wrote: San Fransisco is much better looking than first movie.

How's that --is it gone?

VMI77 wrote:

philip964 wrote: San Fransisco is much better looking than first movie.

How's that --is it gone?

Joke aside. San Fransisco in the all the previous Star Trek movies is pictured as a '70's imagined futuristic city even the last movie sort of showed it as a hokie utopian city with the Golden Gate Bridge in the background. This movie has a much more edgy San Fransisco and Star Fleed Academy with lots of references to Lord Norman Foster. Here more correctly San Fransisco and London are shown with old buildings mixed with the new.

VMI77 wrote:

philip964 wrote: San Fransisco is much better looking than first movie.

How's that --is it gone?

I wholeheartedly disagree except on the Alice Eve part. Also Its good to see peter Weller in a movie. There is no logical correlation between events and time. Bombs that are set to explode in 30 Seconds, exploded only when convenient for the plot. It takes me longer to go to Walmart then it did for them to penetrated deep enemy space, execute extraordinary rendition and go back to earth. Transporter work ionly in a way to bring us to the next action sequence otherwise they won't work because of interferance or because walking at a brisk pace will ruin lock on, when in the last movie they transported 2 people falling at terminal velocity. The villain knows more than the hero which is expected. But at times he also seems to know more than the damn writers. Which is hallmark of JJ Abrams. It had the same anti bush(Obama) war message. Every movie that wants to seem deep whips out, at least in Ironman 3 it made sense, the eugenic war and Klingon empire are never really explained. Why Do Klingons want A war? Because hey, Someone has to, otherwise there would be no threat of war for our movie. I enjoyed it as a pretty and dumb action flick, but its does not hold up against Wrath of Khan

gringo pistolero wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

philip964 wrote: San Fransisco is much better looking than first movie.

How's that --is it gone?

[ Image ]

KHAN!!!

---Possible spoilers in this post---
I had a princess bride moment when one character was "mostly dead"... I personally feel they combined the plot from "Wrath of Khan" and "Insurrection" and added a tiny bit of "Search for Spock" but overall it all meshed together better than I thought.

sjfcontrol wrote:

gringo pistolero wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

philip964 wrote: San Fransisco is much better looking than first movie.

How's that --is it gone?

[ Image ]

KHAN!!!

I had seen the movie. But really guys, it is out three days and you are posting this stuff? "Teacher, I know, I know...pick me!"

Dragonfighter wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:

gringo pistolero wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

philip964 wrote: San Fransisco is much better looking than first movie.

How's that --is it gone?

[ Image ]

KHAN!!!

I had seen the movie. But really guys, it is out three days and you are posting this stuff? "Teacher, I know, I know...pick me!"

I haven't seen the movie -- just reacted to the picture of Kirk. I presume Shatner is not in the movie.

I was thinking about the transporter issue and remembering back to the original series. There were several times where not only did the transporter didn't work, but also their communicators if it made things more suspenseful to the plot.

The ONLY thing that I was disappointed in was the lack of development of the bad-guy character (I don't want to give anything away).

I got the impression that the writers sub-consciously relied on Trekkies to remember the original TV-series and already understand why the bad-guy had such a nasty-reputation in the first place.
Other than that, the movie was a vast improvement over the last one in the new franchise.

Oh, BTW. The bad-guy transported all the way to Chronos from Earth? Get serious. Transporters have a limited range in every Star Trek show that I saw...

Purplehood wrote: Oh, BTW. The bad-guy transported all the way to Chronos from Earth? Get serious. Transporters have a limited range in every Star Trek show that I saw...

Trans-warp beaming. Remember, Star Fleet confiscated Cdr. Scott's formula and he had access to it.