|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I truly don't think the OP had malicious intent, but the fact that the title hasn't been changed after multiple complaints does seem a bit callous.
The edit window closes after an hour, and the moderators can't always get to every complaint. (If it has even been flagged.)
lol, people are still up in arms about this?
*shrug*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(If it has even been flagged.)
And there's the crux of the matter. If you think the title of the thread is a spoiler and will ruin the enjoyment of the movie, then flag it for the moderators to deal with. Complaining about it in the thread won't do anything to change the title. Not flagging it means you're ticked off about having something spoiled for you, but really don't care enough to ensure it doesn't happen to other people. (Also makes it hard to be sympathetic to the complaint.)
At the risk of shifting gears back to the actual movie itself ... :)
So far, most reviews and comments from people who have actually seen the movie have been very positive. I'm hoping to see it this weekend!
Indeed! My wife and I, too!
There is a statute of limitation on spoilers. I recently had to discuss something that happened in the penultimate SANDMAN collection, which was released just under twenty years ago, and people were moaning about spoilers. I think at that point you have to get on with things.
That statute of limitations is not minus three weeks, however. The title was posted weeks before the film came out in its major markets, when the producers had expressly asked people not to post spoilers. They'd also done a reasonable job in the last few months of getting people to think that Cumberbatch was actually Gary Mitchell or possibly Kirk's brother. It's not the case that it was a slam-dunk certainty it was Khan.
The OP wasn't being a jerk, but he was being thoughtless for those who wanted to go see the film without being spoiled. No, it's not the end of the world, but it was thoughtless and showed little consideration for fellow posters. I myself actually sought out the spoilers, and was glad for doing so, as they forewarned me that the ending of the film was so terrible I was able to concentrate on the much better opening half of the picture instead, but others chose differently.
Yeah, I don't think it's a spoiler if you can find it out just by looking at the cast list.
How do you look at the cast list before the movie is out and before you go to see it? It's usually at the end of the film.
If you mean those websites which mention the cast of the film, they list (or did, before it came out) Cumberbatch as playing 'John Harrison'.
So yes, it is a spoiler since you can't find it out by looking at the cast list three weeks before the film comes out.
Conversely, if you look at the cast list for Into Darkness, it says
IMDB is user-edited, so that doesn't count. There's actually a spoiler for the current season of GAME OF THRONES on the current season's cast list which has annoyed a few people, because someone decided it'd be great to just shove it on there (actually without confirmation; there's a miniscule but not non-existent chance the character might turn out to be someone else).
If you think the title of the thread is a spoiler and will ruin the enjoyment of the movie, then flag it for the moderators to deal with
I, for one, flagged it on the day it was posted, so it was brought to the moderators' attention some time ago.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I suppose don't be an a@*~~@! is out too then...
Damn you Team America, World Police, and your false trichotomy!
Edit: Wait...is that a spoiler?
Edit2: While you're here suppressing my poetic license Ross, how about a change to the thread title to help resolve the problem once and for all?
Hard for me to say without seeing the movie. Maybe someone who has seen the movie can chime in to confirm that the first 30 minutes of Cumberbatch being on screen involve him saying "my name is Keyser Soze, I'm really not Kahn" and then, when confronted, he laughs and says "Sucka! I am Kahn!" In that case, the thread title seems like a spoiler. But, if everyone is saying "holy cow, it's Kahn" when he first shows up, or he kicks down the door and yells "IT'S KAHHHHHHHHN!!!", I have a hard time thinking of the title of this thread as a spoiler.
With Sebastian's spoiler above, is that more or less of a spoiler than the thread title?
Spoilered, just in case:
If you did watch the original movies, it's slightly a spoiler, but it is also completely expected. I didn't know Cumberbatch was playing Khan (I hadn't looked at this thread), but I knew that the plot was a revision of the original Wrath of Khan, so I was super unsurprised when it was actually Khan.
Edit: Also, it's spelled Khan, not Kahn.
Edit: Also, it's spelled Khan, not Kahn.
Well see, there? It's not a spoiler at all: it's false advertising!
Dyslexia strikes again! Dyslexiaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
:D
The two of them were together in the original series, ( who subsequently was killed in the third movie ).Wait, wait, wait. How does that work?!
Brainfart on my part, sorry. Of course she's the mother of Kirks son in the original timeline.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also loved it. Very well executed.
Watched Wrath of Khan the next day and was amazed at all the little details they warped and referenced for the new one. Very impressive writing.
I'd be more impressed if they took Final Frontier and use that for the basis and actually made it not bad (I actually like Final Frontier but a lot of people don't). I would actually recommend using the animated series episode, "Beyond the Farthest Star" as the basis, but there is obviously similarity between the two (incorporeal being needing a ship to escape).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It was better than I thought it would be...I actually liked that I was spoiled on the Khan reveal, as I would have been more irritated with all of J.J. Abrams denials had I found out during the movie.
Although the magic blood at the end was lame. I didn't for one second believe they would kill off kirk, so the long emotional goodbye there seemed pointless, other than just a nod to Wrath of Khan.
I suspect the same problem that I had with the last Abrams Trek will probably emerge. I enjoyed it while watching it, but a couple of weeks from now I will be hard pressed to remember much about the movie at all.
Minor annoyances:
Why the hell are there no ships around the Klingon or Federation home world? You think both races would invest in some sort of defense grid or at least have ships stationed and monitoring local space. Modern day USA has a better controlled airspace than that present during Federation rule
And really...The federation has no dedicated warships? I get they are peaceful for the most part, but how the hell have they kept from being conquered?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It was better than I thought it would be...I actually liked that I was spoiled on the Khan reveal, as I would have been more irritated with all of J.J. Abrams denials had I found out during the movie.
** spoiler omitted **
The magic blood was lame. But, so was the torpedo tube being fired from space, but somehow surviving entry into a planet's atmosphere and what was probably at least a 200 mph crash into the planet without a scratch.
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
Also, the torpedo argument doesn't really work. Torpedoes are designed to withstand immense heat in combat, so should surve atmospheric entry with ease. Torpedoes also use the same casings as probes, which are designed to fly back and forth, change course, land, carry out surveys etc. They can survive landings with no problem at all.
Part of me wonders though if this will be the last J.J. Abrams Star Trek. He I think has flat out stated he is a bigger fan of Star Wars, and now that he got hooked up to that, I could see him sort of dropping Trek.
** spoiler omitted **** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **** spoiler omitted **
I stand by my assessment, all the bickering and fighting between them gets left behind in that scene. We were already shown what Kirk was willing to do to save Spock (opening scene), now we see how Spock feels when he is unable to save Kirk.
I'm not arguing it's great, or classic, but it's fine. The scene and relationship have their flaws, but they aren't BAD. Compared to a lot of movies, I'd even rate it as good overall as far as a buddy/partner relationship goes.
Those excuses for the torpedo are still flimsy.
Oh, also I was a little miffed at how fast the Earth affected the ship via gravity, when the ship was clearly right next to the moon. It would have taken days, even weeks, for the ship to even be drawn into low Earth orbit.
edit:
Just saw it..
The first hour was actualy pretty darn good. In the second half the action set pieces kinda overtook the story. I actually feel the same about this movie as I feel about Iron Man 3, fine for summer fare but neither makes me want to shell out 3 hours of my time and $25/30 to see again in the theatre.
JJ Abrams is convinced that surprises are what make good movies. I think he might be right, but he is BAD AT MAKING SURPRISES. The twist that Cumberbatch is Khan was the worst kept secret in the world.
Are we talking about Abrams or about M. Night Shyamalan? Trying to hide the Khan reveal over the last several months was pretty hamfisted, true, but I think the reception and reviews underscore that the secrecy was not necessary at all.
In the course of the movie, I thought the balance between surprise and foreshadowing was nicely done.
I saw it yesterday with friends. Enjoyed it greatly. I'll be watching it again in a couple weeks with family.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
** spoiler omitted **
Part of me wonders though if this will be the last J.J. Abrams Star Trek. He I think has flat out stated he is a bigger fan of Star Wars, and now that he got hooked up to that, I could see him sort of dropping Trek.
I read an article over the weekend (no link, sorry) saying that he was frustrated with IP issues between Paramount, CBS, and Bad Robot (um... why would Bad Robot have Star Trek IP?) and was burned out on Trek.
I read an article over the weekend (no link, sorry) saying that he was frustrated with IP issues between Paramount, CBS, and Bad Robot (um... why would Bad Robot have Star Trek IP?) and was burned out on Trek.** spoiler omitted **
Part of me wonders though if this will be the last J.J. Abrams Star Trek. He I think has flat out stated he is a bigger fan of Star Wars, and now that he got hooked up to that, I could see him sort of dropping Trek.
ip issues have killed a great many projects. ...
Saw it and enjoyed it greatly.
Better than the first.
$25/30 to see a movie in the theater? Wow, where do you live???Just saw it..
... $25/30 to see again in the theatre.
If one were actually buying a large drink and a bucket of popcorn from concessions on top of a ticket, that would about ballpark it...or two tickets and a shared box of Junior Mints.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Granted, I haven't spent a dime on concessions since the 90s, but I still glance up at them on occasion to goggle at the prices and remind myself why I smuggle snacks and drinks into movies.
$25/30 to see a movie in the theater? Wow, where do you live???Just saw it..
... $25/30 to see again in the theatre.
13 bucks for a ticket, 13 bucks for a large coke and chilli nachos.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
13 bucks for a ticket, 13 bucks for a large coke and chilli nachos.$25/30 to see a movie in the theater? Wow, where do you live???Just saw it..
... $25/30 to see again in the theatre.
Clearing out the entire row. Priceless.
;D
13 bucks for a ticket, 13 bucks for a large coke and chilli nachos.
Just saw it..
... $25/30 to see again in the theatre.
$25/30 to see a movie in the theater? Wow, where do you live???
So, when I pay $8 to see it and $6 for a coke I should send up a prayer of gratitude for living in the one non-expensive place in California (it can easily be mistaken for one of the hotter more desolate places in Texas...)? Hurrah Bakersfield! Bring on those 100+ degree days, at least the movies are cheap!!!
Granted, I haven't spent a dime on concessions since the 90s, but I still glance up at them on occasion to goggle at the prices and remind myself why I smuggle snacks and drinks into movies.
According to the Cinema Trade they make no profit from seats and have to rely on the food to make any money at all..you can choose whether to believe that or not.
It's pretty common they don't make much on tickets, especially opening weekend tickets. At best, theaters keep 25% of the tickets on opening day, though that is happening less and less. Usually a month into a movie's run, the theater is getting 50-80% of the ticket.
Don't remember the guy's name, but someone who owned a lot of theaters and was fairly successful for a long time had a saying:
"Find a good place to open a popcorn stand and build a movie theater around it."
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
So, is this the right thread to talk about the actual Into Darkness movie?
From a franchise point-of-view, this is the opposite of Wrath of Khan. Wrath was deliberately written as a movie about Jim Kirk, the man who swaggered through every problem he encountered, the man who refused to acknowledge the no-win scenario,finally coming to terms with the consequences of his actions. Over and over again. It's a great movie, but it leaves writers struggling with Kirk as a character afterwards.
Into Darkness is a movie that teaches Jim Kirk that actions don't have consequences, at least not for him.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
So, is this the right thread to talk about the actual Into Darkness movie?
From a franchise point-of-view, this is the opposite of Wrath of Khan. Wrath was deliberately written as a movie about Jim Kirk, the man who swaggered through every problem he encountered, the man who refused to acknowledge the no-win scenario,finally coming to terms with the consequences of his actions. Over and over again. It's a great movie, but it leaves writers struggling with Kirk as a character afterwards.
Into Darkness is a movie that teaches Jim Kirk that actions don't have consequences, at least not for him.
You know? That's an interesting viewpoint. (Both on what to do with Kirk!Prime and how Kirk!Alternate is affected).
From what I'm reading/hearing, it still doesn't get into how <redacted> was found in the alternate timeline?
Aside, I was surprised to find out the blond was Carol Marcus. With that haircut I thought we were going to see Dr. Elizabeth Dehner
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, is this the right thread to talk about the actual Into Darkness movie?
From a franchise point-of-view, this is the opposite of Wrath of Khan. Wrath was deliberately written as a movie about Jim Kirk, the man who swaggered through every problem he encountered, the man who refused to acknowledge the no-win scenario,finally coming to terms with the consequences of his actions. Over and over again. It's a great movie, but it leaves writers struggling with Kirk as a character afterwards.
Into Darkness is a movie that teaches Jim Kirk that actions don't have consequences, at least not for him.
I don't think I'd agree with that assessment. On one hand, it teaches him to listen to the advice of people he trusts. Scotty balks over the torpedoes - Kirk comes to realize he's right. Spock badgers him into rethinking the morality of the mission - Kirk agrees which leads to the exposure of the main plot. In both of those cases, failure to listen leads to or would lead to trouble.
I'd say a lot of people learn that authority and power clearly don't make anyone trustworthy and it's good to have a surprise play at hand.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Granted, I haven't spent a dime on concessions since the 90s, but I still glance up at them on occasion to goggle at the prices and remind myself why I smuggle snacks and drinks into movies.According to the Cinema Trade they make no profit from seats and have to rely on the food to make any money at all..you can choose whether to believe that or not.
What I choose to believe is irrelevant. Paying the same price for a fountain drink as I would for an entire case of the same product is ridiculous.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wow. Just... wow. That was the most unoriginal, uninspired load of drek I've had the misfortune of seeing in quite some time.
C'mon. It was almost embarrassing to watch.
And are they just going to give Spock a ringy-ding each time they run into trouble and get the latest cheat sheet?
I saw this movie 25 years ago - when it was called Wrath of Khan and was (is) ten times better.
(With all that said, it was still better than I thought it would be... McCoy is still the best, and it was nice to see a tad more screen time with Scotty.)
Much like buying a drink at a bar, right?Soda is essentially free. The cost of the actual ingredients (water, corn syrup and trace flavorings) and manufacture is so low that almost all the cost is in the overhead of getting it to you. Much of which is in the overhead of the establishment serving you.
That cost is much higher when someone pours it for you than when you pull a case off the shelf at the supermarket.
The cost comparison between a drink at a bar and a soda at a movie theater isn't even close. I pay for my ticket; I watch the movie. I refuse to pay ridiculous costs just because they can't find a way to make their business viable. Now if they started serving drinks at the theater, then I might put some money down. Some of these recent movies would probably be a lot easier to watch with some spirits to wash them down.