The Official Red Room Bitch About Star Trek Into Darkness Thread! (SPOILERS)

Maybe some of us finally got over that pretension? There's plenty of mindless action in TOS, just poorly executed and within the constraints of the time it was made. ST09 admittedly does draw on the same heroic cycle trope as, well, just about every mythic saga. Of course, we only had to deal with Kid Kirk for as long as it took to get the chase scene out of the way rather than an entire movie.

That was exactly the right answer. Damn, man... just when I feel like it's safe to abandon all hope, somebody has just exactly the right answer.

"Luv this thread! Luv'n every minute of it. I love you guys!

Now ...

IF the movie disappoints, in that event, DON'T look at me. JJ! Yeah. Look at JJ!"

Opinions of the U.S.S. Vengeance ^ ?

Imo it's a little frustrating, in a U.S.S. Grissom kind of way.

U.S.S. Grissom

The Vengeance has that hole in the middle of its saucer section & the Grissom has the saucer & engine room/shuttle bay totally separated. Aspects of these ships I find frustrating.

It looks like the toe-headed mutant bastard child that would result if the JJPrise fucked a Borg Cube. In other words, ugly as a baboon's asshole.

I will probably never understand why the creative team behind this fucking train-wreck parody of Star Trek can't come up with a ship that doesn't look like chicken-fried shit.

Let me guess, that's Justin Hammer, Corporate Slime.

Looks like it's made of Lego's.

Who are you to decide what is "good" for other people??

If someone thinks it's good...to them it's good. Why should you take issue with that just because you disagree? People have different tastes and standards and trying to argue opinions as facts in a case like this is a fool's errand.

Art is subjective and always will be.

I'm not a fan. Too 24th century for my taste...and I didn't really like them there either.

Plus, I find the name obvious and sort of childish. It's so boring when writers name ships to reflect the villany of some character as if it, too, is a villian.

I think it looks like another big scary ship designed by John Eves.

There's this thing called film analysis, which is an extension of story analysis, which is where the "good" or "bad" is derived from. There is nothing there saying you're a bad person for liking a bad movie, or even that you have bad taste. Hell, I actually like the first two Starship Troopers movies.

No, it just means that they got enjoyment out of it. That is an entirely separate issue from if the movie is objectively good or not.

Because it's a bad movie, that's why.

Which is why people pay other people money for them to critique their work, right? Sorry, but this isn't kindergarten finger painting - there is such a thing as objective film analysis.

WTFugly 24th Century to boot!

Talk about going overboard in the Baddy Dept I hope it turns out the evil Harrison supervillain renamed the ship Vengeance.

Perhaps... but what about the Defiant? I suspect reflecting it being heroic and all was involved in that naming decision.

Otherwise, both names have a history in the Royal Navy, but not the USN.

From the name Reliant?

The image is dark, tough to make out much detail, but it looks like it fits in the Star Trek universe.

Keep the tears coming....

You know, people are correct that Star Trek has always had a very pulpy sci-fi setting. That requires suspension of disbelief for all sorts of impossible technologies and so forth. But there's still the scope for telling good stories within that framework. TOS was primarily a series of morality tales. That has been jettisoned at this point in favour of action sequences. The telling of decent stories has become secondary.

Action is fine, but it's not everything, and you aren't a "hater" if you'd prefer something more.

I thought the story for the last one was good. It was certainly much better than Nemesis, Insurrection, Generations, The Final Frontier and the Motion Picture. Lets' face it, Star Trek has made some pretty bad movies.

And once again.

WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES THAT MAKE!!!!

I'm sorry but I was responding to ANOTHER poster who brought up story. Can I help you?

Your minimal ability to comprehend might understand this:

How do crappy stories in OTHER Star Trek movies make it better to have a crappy story for the two Abramsverse movies?

Anything is better than Nemesis. And yeah, the movies are a mixed bunch (though I disagree with your assessment of TMP) but story-wise, it was very poor, basically just a means to link the major set-pieces together.

Your minimal ability to comprehend the fact that you are in the minoity on Star Trek 2009 might make it impossible for you to understand but here it goes:

I thought the story for the last one was good. Plus, the second one hasn't even been released yet so how do you know it isn't any good? Did you get a sneek peek?

It looks like a Galaxy and a Sovereign had a kinky 3-way with an Autobot.

You and a lot of people are wrong about the 2009 movie.

And hundreds of thousands of people have seen the movie and described it.

I don't need to visit a sewage treatment plant to know its full of crap.

My goodness. Now I know why you people here love this guy

You would if everyone else knows that isn't a sewage treatmant plant.

More than 50 million Americans were wrong about President Obama.

Twice.

Why is it hard to believe that 5 million Americans have been wrong about the Abramsverse Star Trek movies?

Twice.

FTFY

Gee, you don't suppose it's named Vengence because of TWoK, do you? Nah, couldn't be, that'd be way too on the nose and corny for Abrams Trek.