Even though it mashes together a much wider ranger of sources into an awkward blend? It doesn't make it the straighter adaptation to adapt from the widest spectrum.

I felt that Thor's focus largely on Kirby's ideas and designs was what made it the straightest, there were changes but it felt like it was lifted right out of his comics.

I never knew where I was one moment to the next was Cap.

Am I the only one who sees the Trailer for Epic and thinks "When did they make a sequel for Ferngully?"?

I'm watching a crapton of DC's animated movies. They're pretty fun, and they remind me why I disliked The Dark Knight.

Finally got around to seeing Into Darkness and it was...okay.

It was beautiful to look at, the action was epic and Cumberbatch was by far the best part of the film but I would have liked more quieter character moments because it was basically a two hour long action scene and it got exhausting.

Oh and yeah, the Captain Kirk of Into Darkness is an insult to the original character. Painting Kirk as not just hot headed but flat out retarded getting people killed and his ass beat in a repeated cycle throughout the two hours. As a fan of the original series this really annoyed me.

As a huge fan of the original series, and all of the films, including Final Frontier, I disagree with you. If there's one problem with Kirk in the original series, it's that he's always right, and his mistakes never have any cost. Does he even do anything that can be called a mistake in TOS?

One of the reasons Wrath of Khan is the best film is we see him make mistakes and it costs people their lives. He does act flat out retarded when Reliant approaches Enterprise while not responding to hails, so he doesn't raise shields and people die. Scotty's nephew dies. Seeing him have to deal with that through the film is what makes him a human being. In fact, you could say that the damage to the ship that ultimately cause Spock's death is due to Kirk's mistakes. In Into Darkness he's just younger and far less experienced when making mistakes, which is what being young is supposed to be for. I think the filmmakers and the cast have done excellent jobs at respecting the original crew and fans, and at the same time, made their own personal touches.

Star Trek Into Darkness was amazing!

I thought everything was fantastic. It won't displace Wrath of Khan as my favorite Star Trek film, but it does displace Undiscovered Country as my second favorite. The action was great, and I think the character moments were worthwhile and interesting. Cumberbatch was great, but so was Admiral Marcus and Pike and everybody. I have no complaints at all.


And since my wife was sick last night and couldn't go (I saw it with my cousin), I get to go see it again next week sometime, with her.

Kirk was a product of his time, PineKirk is just rubbish. I'd rather a character who never makes a mistake, than a character who never gets anything right. Everything that actually went okay in Into Darkness was when other people were in the Captains chair or when other people had to bail Kirk out. There is a big difference between a hot headed, in experienced younger Kirk and someone who needs a bib because he's dribbling down himself.

The character moments, you mean all two of them?

And Cumberbatch was my favourite because he is basically the only thing that really works in the film, as everything about him is told through facial expressions and explosions which is all the film is made up of.

I rewatched Star Trek (2009) to get caught up on the story for when I see Into Darkness,and I gotta say I really like it.It's a good film to kind of pass the torch to the actor for the next generation while keeping the characters from the old generation.

:eyebrow

I don't think you saw the same movie I did.

Name a moment in the film where Kirk's plans worked without also getting himself beaten into the floor and killing half his crew in the process. Those moments also don't count if most of the plan was conceived by Scotty, Bones or Spock.

You can't name one because PineKirk is rubbish.

The space jump.
Rescuing Spock at the beginning.
Capturing Harrison.
If I kept thinking about it, I think I could come up with more.
Oh, after the space jump, the entire sequence up to them beaming back to the Enterprise.

Also, there were more than two character moments.
Kirk and Pine being dressed down.
Kirk, Spock, and Pine at that one moment.
Kirk, Spock, Uhura in the shuttlecraft.
Kirk and Spock on at least 2, maybe 3 different occasions.

It's okay for you not to like it, I'm not trying to persuade you to like it, but I do think you should be a little more fair in your reasons for disliking it, and not dismiss everything out of hand because it's not like the original series (which is kinda what it sounds like you're doing).

Without Harrison Kirk would have died during the space jump.

Look at the absolute mess the rescue made, although okay I'll give you that one because it's Spock's fault.

Spock was the reason they captured Harrison.

And you mean when they go across the ship? And where Harrison ends up beating the absolute crap out of everyone? And then it's Spock who ends up taking the ship out?

Everything with Kirk, Spock and Spock and Urura played out in the background, only coming to the forefront for melodrama.

And I disliked the film because it was underwhelming, I liked 2009 much much better.

That's not the point. The point is it was Kirk's plan and it worked. You can't expect one person to plan something and pull it off by himself. The reason you have a team is so they can help each other make it work. Just because shit happens and Kirk needed help doesn't make him " someone who needs a bib because he's dribbling down himself", which is one of the comments I object to.

Howso? Because he told Kirk to reconsider the order? It was still Kirk's decision and plan.

Again, Harrison wasn't alone in the assault, maybe he did more than the others, but he may not have been able to handle on his own either. Yes, he had his own plans, that Kirk was ill-prepared to deal with, but again, he shouldn't be perfect, or unbeatable. Someone who never loses or makes a mistake is boring, unrealistic and not somethign we can relate to. Of course we want our heroes to be better than us, so we have something to aspire to, but we also have to be able to relate to them somewhat, so we can see that we can go from what we are, to what they are.

That's fine, and is easier for me to process and accept, rather than saying PineKirk is rubbish, since I think the movies do a fine job at showing he's clever, yet flawed, and this one, showing that he can recognize his flaws and work on improving them. He can accept he needs help from his crew. He learns the ARE his family, and not only should he protect them, but he should rely on their talents to complement his, and support his shortcomings.

No but my point is without Harrison Kirk's plan would have failed and he would have died, the plan itself was flawed in the first place. Needing teamwork to make the plan succeed is different than needing Harrison to hold Kirk's hand to stop him smashing into debris.

Kirk would have just fired the missiles if it wasn't for Spock, Spock needed to kick sense into the Captain, the original Kirk was no Sherlock Holmes but he wasn't that reliant on Spock's logic.

Once again, making your hero failable is fine, making your hero useless and kicking him around the floor for two hours is something else entirely.

I think 2009 did PineKirk way more justice, he was just as hotheaded and brash there but his plans actually succeeded more often than they failed and it was a team effort, rather than the crew kind of sighing and then pointing Kirk in the right direction.

In case anyone just jumped in, huge SPOILER WARNING for Star Trek Into Darkness.

New Kirk is not rubbish. He makes pretty much the same mistakes as every other captain in Star Trek history. Need I remind you how Shatner's Kirk got his crew severely endangered every single movie. And it is incorrect to say the original Kirk did not rely that much on Spock, every single movie in the original had Spock saving the day except the third one, which was when he was missing. At least most of the time, it was Spock's thinking that prevailed. Most importantly, in Wrath of Khan, which this movie builds of, it was Spock's "two-dimensional thinking" observation that helped win the battle.

Into Darkness is essentially a modern Wrath of Khan, a movie that saw Shatner's Kirk fail so drastically that he had to rethink his confidence and his methods. This movie is the same, both are essentially teaching Kirk the true meaning of being captain. In fact, this bit of character development was the whole point, otherwise Pike wouldn't say these to set up the story:

Also remember Spock's words which, while meant for Spock originally, apply to Kirk in this movie since he never learned that lesson in the 2009 movie:

Breaking down the captain in a situation that gives him no alternative, no way out is a recurring plot point in Star Trek, we've seen it with Picard and other captains. Bonus points if the mess was the result of some bad decisions by the captain in the first place.

Last weekend I saw Iron Man 3. Very good, better than 2 but the first one is still my favorite (tied for Best Standalone Marvel Hero film with Cap).

Tonight, I'm re-watching "ParaNorman," which is a FANTASTIC film that I encourage everyone to watch and is thankfully now on Netflix Instant streaming. :D

Whelp, I know what I'm watching tonight!

I guess the big difference is we had three seasons and a movie before we saw the grave cost it took to take down Kahn, it was also a continuation from a story in the show with considerably greater amount of establishment, therefore we had enough of Kirk's success to feel thrilled by Kirk's incredible failure. It was in senses a grandiose character arc.

Here we've only had one film, and one rescue at the start of Into Darkness, before PineKirk is getting everyone killed and getting himself smashed into the floor.

Being in such a condense space not only gave less time to show PineKirk succeed but magnified how regularly he failed.

Hmm that is a good point, a lot of Kirk's experience is implied because they don't have a TV show to build off. It's a minor problem with series that are restricted to movies, where character development is given only mere 2-4 hours rather than the 20-60+ a TV series gives. It's a shame that every Trek captain has had a series to build off except New Kirk.

I still don't agree with you but I believe it's due to the priorities we place and how we see things. I saw evidence of Kirk's genius in the 2009 movie and his great command then. I assumed his continued adventures on the Enterprise before Into Darkness were equally well-commanded. I'm willing to accept the movie telling me that Kirk is a great captain by implying it, but I can see now how someone might look at it different. STILL disagree, but well, to each his own.

It also doesn't help that Into Darkness is basically 99% action, there are basically no character arcs, except retreads from the first film and most of the most interesting aspects characterwise happen off screen. They could have pulled it off in two movies, maybe. but it seems Abrams was unwilling to be anyone other than Michael Bay and it's a shame.

I never thought I'd get bored of action this good but I did when action scenes were used to bridge the next action scene. How am I supposed to be convinced by all the melodrama in the third act or even care about Harrison's twist when there is about fifteen minutes worth of character stuff in a near two and a half hour long movie?

2009 was better for Kirk, it was better for the whole cast, because not every scene was an action scene, there were actual character moments and character arcs.

Aw are we still going to continue to argue again? :lol

First of all, what do you mean by character moments and character arcs? I want to be on the same page first.

EDIT: I also think this discussion should be taken elsewhere. What do you think about a separate thread or in private discussion?

2009 was a great version of Star Trek,and Into Darkness probably has too much action in it,but you have to understand that this is the beginning of a completely new version of Star Trek.Sure same characters,but different beginning.PineKirk Just became Captain at the end of the 2009 film,so by the time Into Darkness starts he probably has what,a year or two under him.He's still a rookie,and will make mistakes...alot of them.But that's what,in turn,will make him a great Captain.I bet there will be alot more of these movies just because they are doing so well in the box office.


Anyways,I myself am waiting for Man of Steel and Pacific Rim.Both look so good.

Watched The Last Stand with my cousin last night.

it was fun and exciting, and violent and quite an enjoyable flick. Great cast, I liked everybody in it.

I think most surprising is how much depth the film had, it had a lot more plot...and actual characters...compared to the films it was allegedly throwing back too. As both a film fan, and a fan of 80s action films, I adored this film.

I was watching Toy Story 3, the only movie that has made me cry.

I'm watching Star Trek (2009). It's on the dark side of the Internet and I was a bit terrified of the site, but I'm over it. I like it so far, but I do think Kirk's father was a bit of a jerk for leaving his family without a father; I feel the same way about Spock marooning Kirk on an ice world.

Watched The Prestige earlier. I caught a bit of it when it was on TV once and had to track it down, this was just after christmas...

Anyway, glad I finally got around to watching it properly. Neat film full of nice little twists.

So I just watched a loose shlock adaptation of High Plains Drifter called 'The Wraith' and it was fucking terrible. The 80s are my favourite decade of cinema, I love so bad it's good movies but this was just...cheap and boring. The Crow then ripped them off like a decade later and did the whole thing way better.

Went to see Into Darkness today. Was alright, Action felt a little too forced and it was incredibly predictable. Could be my film degree thats tainted me though.

Overall, it was good but I won't be rushing out to see it again or buy the Blu Ray.

Just got back from Star Trek Into Darkness and I really did enjoy it. I somehow managed to avoid learning anything about he film's plot, so I didn't know what to expect. But it delivered pretty well for me.

After all the excitement with Star Trek Into Darkness, I went out and got myself a blu-ray of The Wrath of Khan, a movie I haven't watched in quite a while. This rewatch reconfirmed my belief that it really is the best Star Trek movie. Wrath of Khan has everything that makes a good Star Trek movie, exciting action, great camaraderie, deep characterization and heart.

Man of Steel - 9/10

I loved it. You'll probably have more fun watching Superman 1 and 2, as Gene Hackman, Ned Beatty and Terence Stamp's performances are awesome/over the top. But Man of Steel was awesome.

Great acting, great character moments for many of them, great action. The suit even looked blue, which has been my big problem with it in stills, but it's definitely blue.

Clark was great, Zod was great. Definitely the best Lois we've seen in a live action film, though I have never, nor will ever care about her really, there's nothing to complain about her.

The Clark/Lois romance was not there at all, that I could see, but suddenly they're kissing at the end of the film. What? I didn't get that, but it's not a big deal to me, either. There were a few fun easter eggs that I saw that I liked. There was one scene that suddenly felt like TF Dark of the Moon, and I didn't care for that part of it, but all in all, a really solid film, ranking right up close to Superman 1 & 2 for me.

Recommend!

I'm also here to praise Man of Steel, it isn't really that great from a storytelling or acting standpoint with the opening third that sets the scene being extremely clunky and poorly managed but once that gets out of the way...my GOD THE WIN.

I also went to see Man of Steel. I remember as we were driving to the theater, my dad and my friend (the only other people who went to see it with me) scoffed at the idea of Superman being dark, even after I pointed out the example of Batman. They were incredibly wrong.

I went in wary of Russell Crowe (I've never heard a good thing about him), but choosing him as Jor-El was an incredibly intelligent decision. Seriously, I want him to voice my GPS.

I was surprised to see just how much of the movie took place in the battle for Earth. However, I think it worked for the movie; they managed to show Clark's back-story and elaborate on his character, as well as show us his struggle and the struggle of the battle.

Additionally, the line, "I was raised in Kansas—I'm about as American as they get!" made me proud to be a Kansan boy.

This is the best Superman movie I have seen to date, and I cannot wait for the sequel. I know I'm only half of the consensus, but what I'm hearing out of most of the complaints is that Man of Steel isn't as fun as the other movies. It's not supposed to be about a man running around in a cape and brightly colored spandex; it's the story of the last survivor of an alien world that has been gifted with amazing abilities who must find his place in our world.

That line about America is also hilarious because Cavill is a British actor.

The one thing I don't get about Man of Steel is how people they say it is 'too dark' or 'not fun' or whatever the fuck else. Did we watch the same movie? It was like live action Dragonball Z.

Sure if you think of the collateral then I guess millions probably did die and Superman did effectively cause genocide and kill someone which he never does but it was also a 12a and the film never seemed to ever take pleasure in the carnage happening to the people, it just wanted to show two guys punch each other through buildings and can't the critics get their heads out of their asses long enough to just fucking enjoy themselves?

There seems to be a major discrepancy between the critics and the average moviegoer regarding Man of Steel. What do you guys make of it?

In my opinion if you like how Nolan's Batman reinvented the superhero on screen, steer clear of Man of Steel. If you loved The Avengers, deffo go see Man of Steel. If a narrative is as important to you as action...why are you here? If you want great characters, steer clear of Man of Steel.

Narrative is important though. For me personally, above all, I like to see an exploration of the characters. Why Superman is the Big Blue Boy Scout he is, what stops him from being insane and conquering the world, why a literal demigod would prefer an ordinary farm life or a desk job at a newspaper company.

But, for the record, Avengers is my favorite superhero movie, and Thor is my second favorite Marvel superhero movie so I don't know if that gets me any points. :D

If that is what you are looking for, then Man of Steel does not provide.

Nolan and Goyer want a pretentious character study, Snyder wants explosions and as Snyder is on the helm of the project he is practically scrambling over the plot to get to the fighting.

A majority of the story is told through artsy fartsy flashbacks and although there is a LOT of exposition it's crammed in a very small space to get it out of the way, in this odd fashion of explaining everything at length but in a rushed fashion to such extent that it both no longer makes sense or really means anything.

I really don't know if I plan to see it in cinemas. Eventually, definitely, but not sure if it's worth the price of admission (which is pretty darn high here).

Action doesn't have to conflict with characterization, though. Avengers was action-packed, but it gave each of the characters enough character moments to be satisfying and ultimately taught Iron Man a great lesson. Star Trek Into Darkness was accused of being all spectacle, but it sneaked in great moments for all the main crew too. Those were amazing movies in my eyes.

I don't believe Man of Steel is totally devoid of characterization as the history of Superman is dripped in character. Still, I haven't watched it yet.

I'd say it's worth it, just for the fighting.

You see since I've been waiting for a DBZ style superhero smackdown like in the comics to make it to the big screen, I could largely let the hugely artificial CGI explosions distract me in Man of Steel by how bad it was as an actual film.

It gets most of the set up out of the way as quickly (and as clunkily) as possible and most of the Supermanness of it functions more like cameos and audience nods than story beats with fighting taking up the majority of the run time.

Both the Avengers and Into Darkness didn't provide action good enough for me to look past their faults. Call me inconsistent or contradictory if you want but if you see the action in this film, you'll know what I mean.