DescentBB

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2697668/?ref_=nm_flmg_prd_4

Huh! Abrams is at the helm so we'll see.
Interesting!

Dang, if it's based on portal 2 I really need to go play it.

Portal 2 has most of the story, so I'd figure if you're going to make a screenplay, it'll draw heavily from that.

I'm not sure what to think about Abrams being involved though.

Why? Are you not a fan? He's done pretty well with everything I've seen so far.

...lol.. we won't mention Cloverfield...oh wait.. I just did.

cloverfield over into darkness, seriously?

Those where good. Y'all would ★■◆● about anything

Isaac wrote:Dang, if it's based on portal 2 I really need to go play it.

Yeah, you do. Portal two is a must play. Totally worth the 20 bucks.

Hell, it was totally worth the $50 I paid to pre-order it.

Portal 2 was an ok movie.

Portal (1) was a great video game.

Only because Portal 2 was easier to beat.

I thought it had a better story line than Portal 1 however.

Portal was very heard compared to Portal 2 but P2 was much more enjoyable.

It's mainly the Star Trek movies, yeah. They were passable, mass-market appeal, good characters - but the stories weren't fantastic. Particularly the second one, which was trying so hard to echo Wrath of Khan that it killed suspension of disbelief for anyone that had seen it. One parallel is just "hah, funny that", but when every iconic scene is copied and reversed, that kind of thing wouldn't just happen.

Though, sure, it's possible that not all of this is JJ Abrams' fault.

Sirius wrote:...Particularly the second one, which was trying so hard to echo Wrath of Khan that it killed suspension of disbelief for anyone that had seen it.

Or anyone who'd just heard of it. I literally invented a theory about what I thought a minor plot element could be, as a joke... I turned out not only to be right but my minor point was the driving force of the entire plot.
And I had not seen the Wrath of Kahn ever.

Was still fun to watch but after that I couldn't watch it as a serious movie. At least I got to be right.

Sirius wrote:It's mainly the Star Trek movies, yeah. They were passable, mass-market appeal, good characters - but the stories weren't fantastic. Particularly the second one, which was trying so hard to echo Wrath of Khan that it killed suspension of disbelief for anyone that had seen it. One parallel is just "hah, funny that", but when every iconic scene is copied and reversed, that kind of thing wouldn't just happen.

Though, sure, it's possible that not all of this is JJ Abrams' fault.

First of all, your nostalgia glasses are on a bit too tight. The quality of acting and story is really no different. If anything it's better, because the bar was never set as you might think it was.

every iconic scene is copied and reversed

That was cool! If they didn't do stuff like that, what's the point of an alternate timeline? They should do that to some degree in every film, here on out.

Son, I'm am not mad. Just a little disappointed.

Star Trek movies have seldom if ever been great in the storyline department, no. These ones didn't get better, though. Unless there's some reason for the weird deja-vu (and if there was it wasn't explained), then those kinds of tricks just don't work. They remind you that you're watching a contrived work of fiction rather than anything that you can get into.

There is no problem with the acting, at least that I could pick up on. I don't usually see big-budget Hollywood films blow it with casting, though.

The main concern as it relates to Portal is that... Hollywood sci-fi is good at the popcorn, not so much at anything actually intelligent. I can't think of anything that would make them egregiously wreck in the Portal IP off the top of my head, but it doesn't stop me feeling uneasy about it.

Sirius wrote:Star Trek movies have seldom if ever been great in the storyline department, no. These ones didn't get better, though. Unless there's some reason for the weird deja-vu (and if there was it wasn't explained), then those kinds of tricks just don't work.

Of course there is! You've either forgotten or don't know that these are basically part of a big time travel series. Spock and that other alien ship went back in time and changed everything by doing things out of order. Spock's home world being destroyed (edit: apparently that never happened before, so that's an even bigger change) and Kirk's father dying early being the two big ones. The time line has been changed.

Yes, but why would time-travel magically cause Kirk and Spock to switch roles?

(spoilers incoming for anyone that hasn't watched the movie, excuse me)

We went back to earlier in the timeline courtesy of the "reset". Things changed, but other things remained the same. So Khan hadn't been taken care of yet, and needed to.

That makes sense.

The thing that doesn't make sense to me is how this played out in a series of scenes that mirrored what happened in the "other" timeline but for completely different reasons and with roles changed. Spock doing the "KHAAAAAN" thing is plausible in isolation, because well, things happen.

But when you had Kirk take the trip to the reactor (Spock did it in WoK), take a fatal dose of radiation, come back and also do that hand-to-the-glass thing - and the dialogue lines were practically copy-pasted but spoken by different characters - that's just... why would that happen? Why would the scene look so uncannily like Wrath of Khan that it's not just statistically improbable, but effectively impossible, for it to happen by coincidence? Is there some unseen force causing this kind of symmetry?

It's called the writer/producer thought it would be cute. This is fiction. That's the only reason. Just like using so much lens flare that the ship looked like a flying I-store.
Abrams loves cheese. He's mentioned that in more than one of his interviews.

Yeah, I had a feeling of that, but it's one of those things that's so obvious it really grates. If I spent much time critically thinking about what I'm seeing in a movie it'd be hard to enjoy anything, but it's hard to overlook something that tries to be noticed.

While looking around last night I did come across a theory that "the timeline is trying to heal itself", but I don't know whether that comes from official sources or just some fan conjecture. I can't recall it coming up during the movies themselves.

Sirius wrote:Yes, but why would time-travel magically cause Kirk and Spock to switch roles?

First of all, it makes more sense for the captain of the ship to die for his crew, which is what Kirk's father did in the previous film and what Kirk tried to do earlier, when trying to bargain his life, for the safety of his own crew. If anything, this makes more sense than Spock doing something like that, because it's Kirk's legacy.

Sirius wrote: (spoilers incoming for anyone that hasn't watched the movie, excuse me)

We went back to earlier in the timeline courtesy of the "reset". Things changed, but other things remained the same. So Khan hadn't been taken care of yet, and needed to.

That makes sense.

The thing that doesn't make sense to me is how this played out in a series of scenes that mirrored what happened in the "other" timeline but for completely different reasons and with roles changed. Spock doing the "KHAAAAAN" thing is plausible in isolation, because well, things happen.

But when you had Kirk take the trip to the reactor (Spock did it in WoK), take a fatal dose of radiation, come back and also do that hand-to-the-glass thing - and the dialogue lines were practically copy-pasted but spoken by different characters - that's just... why would that happen? Why would the scene look so uncannily like Wrath of Khan that it's not just statistically improbable, but effectively impossible, for it to happen by coincidence? Is there some unseen force causing this kind of symmetry?

The logic behind why their roles seem so perfectly switched leads to the fact that either one of them would have gone to the reactor. It might be that no matter how many times you redo it, either one of them would have gone to the reactor. The changing factor could be who was closer. Kirk being a symbol of bravery and Spock being one of logic.

People that know each other really well, who can finish the other's sentences, might say similar things if their situations are switched. On top of that, the context is different. Spock calls Kirk his friend, because they're old friends that have been through decades of adventure. Kirk calls Spock his friend, because they're new friends and he didn't want to die without him knowing that. So the symmetry is coincidental. And if that sounds like bull★■◆●, read on.

Anyone that accuses a space fantasy of not being logical is kind of hitting easy target. This can be done with every Star Trek film. To say that this film isn't living up to the Star Trek standard is almost a cop-out in regards to rationalizing the story. So if you're not prepared to rationalize everything in a particular fantasy, asking others on the net to do it for you is kind of like asking others to make you lunch then refusing to eat it.

And while I'm on my high horse, let me just point that I'm doing the exact same thing you're doing with a different scifi. So I'm a hypocrite to some degree. Prometheus made me rage because it was illogical and I refuse to rationalize anything in that crap fest. It's the worst film I've ever seen because they just give the middle finger to the original Alien movie.

So, basically, everything I'm accusing you of, I admit I'm guilty of doing.

Sirius wrote:It's mainly the Star Trek movies, yeah. They were passable, mass-market appeal, good characters - but the stories weren't fantastic. Particularly the second one, which was trying so hard to echo Wrath of Khan that it killed suspension of disbelief for anyone that had seen it. One parallel is just "hah, funny that", but when every iconic scene is copied and reversed, that kind of thing wouldn't just happen.

Though, sure, it's possible that not all of this is JJ Abrams' fault.

Aaaaaaaaaand he's doing the next Star Wars. I wonder how he'll mess up that classic?

tunnelcat wrote:Aaaaaaaaaand he's doing the next Star Wars. I wonder how he'll mess up that classic?

Anything he does will be a step up from episode 1 to 3.... He could have a storm trooper washing dishes for 90 minutes and it would be a step-up.

True. I was referring to episodes 4 - 6. Those are the most memorable and best ones. I think that Lucas had some sort of brain fart when he did 1 - 3.

I'm just going to leave it at modern directors and writers just don't "get" Star Trek.

They say it is a action flick, when the most memorable and popular Star Trek episodes I remember have no action at all. (ST: City on the Edge of Forever, TNG: Inner Light)

Isaac wrote:He could have a storm trooper washing dishes for 90 minutes and it would be a step-up.

Want this movie made.
I never got a chance to see the original series, but off the top of my head one of the best TNG episodes was The Drumhead, which was had very little in the way of action and a lot in the way of intelligent commentary on the world. But on the other fork of the tail, I liked a lot of the TNG episodes.

Krom wrote:I'm just going to leave it at modern directors and writers just don't "get" Star Trek.

They say it is a action flick, when the most memorable and popular Star Trek episodes I remember have no action at all. (ST: City on the Edge of Forever, TNG: Inner Light)

I love the twilight zone. So I too love space twilight zone. The last two movies don't have to be that good. They just need to be better than the average startrek movie or episode, and given the amount of drama and action, that's what we got.

Alter-Fox wrote:

Isaac wrote:He could have a storm trooper washing dishes for 90 minutes and it would be a step-up.

Want this movie made.

I got a youtube channel. We can make this happen!

Alter-Fox wrote:I never got a chance to see the original series, but off the top of my head one of the best TNG episodes was The Drumhead, which was had very little in the way of action and a lot in the way of intelligent commentary on the world. But on the other fork of the tail, I liked a lot of the TNG episodes.

It's on netflix! I think you're in Canada, so I don't know what's available on Canadian Netflix

tunnelcat wrote:True. I was referring to episodes 4 - 6. Those are the most memorable and best ones. I think that Lucas had some sort of brain fart when he did 1 - 3.

As I understand it Episode 5 wasn't written by Lucas nor directed by him. He was never much of a write imo.

Lucas was still not thinking when he let those scripts get past him. All three were trash.

Krom wrote:I'm just going to leave it at modern directors and writers just don't "get" Star Trek.

They say it is a action flick, when the most memorable and popular Star Trek episodes I remember have no action at all. (ST: City on the Edge of Forever, TNG: Inner Light)

Pretty much. Abrams's films were fun popcorn action flicks, and the casting was terrific, but they just...weren't Trek. Not the Trek I know and love.

Krom wrote:I'm just going to leave it at modern directors and writers just don't "get" Star Trek.

They say it is a action flick, when the most memorable and popular Star Trek episodes I remember have no action at all. (ST: City on the Edge of Forever, TNG: Inner Light)

Dammit, where's that "Like x100" button?

Krom wrote:I'm just going to leave it at modern directors and writers just don't "get" Star Trek.

They say it is a action flick, when the most memorable and popular Star Trek episodes I remember have no action at all. (ST: City on the Edge of Forever, TNG: Inner Light)

DS9: Sacrifice of Angels
TOS: Mirror, Mirror (also ENT: In a Mirror, Darkly)
TNG: All Good Things
TOS: Balance of Terror
TNG: Yesterday's Enterprise
TOS: The Devil in the Dark
TNG: Best of Both Worlds

there's quite a mix. Some episodes are very heavy on the action. Some are almost entirely dialogue. That's the beauty of Trek.

Lothar wrote: there's quite a mix. Some episodes are very heavy on the action. Some are almost entirely dialogue. That's the beauty of Trek.

Someone I agree with. Finally.

by the way, I really enjoyed both Abrams flicks. Neither of them were on the level of Undiscovered Country (which, by the way, had plenty of action!) but they were both better than the odd-numbered cluster and Nemesis.

Exactly! Maybe I'm a "glass is half full" guy, but I'm really happy that the new trek movies are fun and exciting. If "fun and exciting" are the average when it comes to star trek, the new films have hit their intended mark.

Lothar wrote:...
there's quite a mix. Some episodes are very heavy on the action...

But none of those you mentioned was really primarily an action/effects episode (i.e. action-oriented, with a supporting storyline). I always found Trek (particularly the series episodes, not as much the films) as primarily about storyline, with supporting effects/action.

Sure, I enjoyed each Abrams film to some extent. They're entertaining, but I see them as a fully separate thing, somewhat like the way Lego took the Star Wars universe and did its own thing in a completely different genre.

Abrams movies were mostly inoffensive and dumb, which doesn't make them bad, but it doesn't make them great either. The Undiscovered Country was a great movie with a fair chunk of action, but the action was integrated into the plot much better than in Abrams works.

Abrams does action because blowing up stuff and shaking the camera a lot while people run and fight each other while the screen is half covered in lens flares is "entertaining", not because it is particularly good storytelling.

Those are some high quality nostalgia glasses. Can't afford those on my budget.

tunnelcat wrote:True. I was referring to episodes 4 - 6. Those are the most memorable and best ones. I think that Lucas had some sort of brain fart when he did 1 - 3.

The main difference between the original trilogy and the prequels was that during the original trilogy, Lucas had people around him who were willing to challenge him when stuff was just plain stupid. As Star Wars became more successful and Lucas became more powerful, people became less willing to challenge him. This is evident in ROTJ by the Ewoks very existence.

During the prequels, no one was willing to challenge him, so Lucas got everything he wanted, which is why they're so mind bogglingly dumb. Also all the changes he made to the originals over the years. So many of them are head scratchers.

If you look at behind the scenes stuff on the prequels, you'll see Lucas surrounded by an army of yes-men who were smiling and nodding at his every inane and idiotic suggestion and comment. During the original trilogy, you would have arguments with staff and the actors, and that conflict ultimately lead to much better cinematic product.

One good thing is that when Disney announced sequels is that it became known that Lucas had submitted his ideas for episode 7 and Disney basically said "oh hell no" to all of it and went in a better direction. And while I mourn the loss of the Expanded Universe, in the long run I think it's ultimately a lot better for the franchise that Lucas is no longer in control.

Interesting Avder. I'd not heard that. ..but it is encouraging.

Honestly though, my fan-dom (?) for both Star Wars and Star Trek died of years and years ago. Horrible writing with Star Wars killed it with Ep 6 for me. Never looked back and Star Trek? ,,meh.. you can only do time travel so much...After "Whales", as my wife used to call it (The Journey Home) I was pretty much done with Star Trek. I enjoyed Enterprise a bit ...of what I saw of it and that wasn't much.. but meh.

My take on the two new Star Trek. ..eh.. they were entertaining. They had some good lines and were ok for what they were... but again.. time line break BS.

and At Isaac. No nostalgia here. I can't stand to back and watch a lot of this stuff. The melodrama is so thick it's embarrassing to call it professional acting. Same goes for Babylon 5. It's far better to remember watching those than actually go back and watch them. >_<