Interesting layout. Did you find yourself distract by the breadth of the screen size? The peripheral vision aspect is cool, but I would hate to miss something in the center screen because I focused on the left/right screens for 5 seconds.
Referring more to some of the basic elements... Khan seeking revenge, Kobayashi Maru, Kirk dying (instead of Spock) and getting resurrected, introducing Carol Marcus. Obviously they kept a lot of that in there for the fans of the original cast movies. And in the end, at least it had a plot. If TMP included non-stop action with little character or plot development, it would have been this movie. Instead they had a better cinematography, better screenplay, intrigue, mystery, tangible conflict between characters, hell... even romance. I agree that TMP was/is Trek... and this was far from it (and closer to F&F). I thought it could have been much better if they didn't focus solely on the action sequences and tried to develop the backstory regarding the villian's motive better. Not really sure what the hell you're talking about here... yes, section 31 is the basis for the plot device that actually was more interesting in the last movie than anything from this movie. I think you're a little too emotionally attached to this movie... much like Spock punching Khan.
Is this a lame attempt to be funny? I gave several other reasons why Into Darkness sucked. I think you liked it because "I've heard of that before!"
He was so awesome as Dredd. I really hope Netflix or someone picks that up as a series. If only they had marketed the movie...
Just got back from watching it in 3D at the Drafthouse and thought it far better than I expected. More "classic" Star Trek than the overwrought melodrama of the last one. 8/10
So when you go to a comic book store, they will have the regular titles like Avengers and then a special "Avengers Adventures" comic that's watered down and meant for young children. All of the basic elements of a regular Avengers comic will be in Avengers Adventures, but without any complicated plotting, character development, moral grey areas, subtext, etc.. Anyhow, these movies are not actually Star Trek - they are "Star Trek Adventures". They've been watered down for consumption by a mass audience. And they are okay as a theme park version of Star Trek. But they are not Star Trek. It is possible to enjoy these movies like one enjoys Cool Ranch Dorito tacos, but both are just bastardizations in the end.
Funny you asked, my seat was on the left side of the theater, the angle for the left side of the panel was odd, but still was able to see it full view at the parts shown. During my piss break, I moved to the handicap section row where nobody was sitting in, dead center, and thought it was a better experience. Didn't feel I missed any scenes when it was utilize, it was used at most 45 secs to a minute for each scene. If you do end up trying it, get the middle view as much as possible regardless if it's first or last row. I think they didnt sell tickets first 2-3 rows of the theater and last 2 seats of each side on the stadium seating seats, which is smart on their part to prevent people complaining.
I actually liked Into Darkness a little better. I didn't think the villain's motivation/origin was explained clearly in this one. Still...it was a fun movie. Lot's of good action. Watching it in 3D on a big screen was worth the extra $ for me.
Just watched it myself and was pleasantly surprised. After watching the previews I didn't think it would be very good. It was not as good as 2009 but definitely better than the last one. I enjoyed this one quite a bit.
Lifelong Trek fan and I was very meh about this movie. I thought the story was very weak and thought they wasted Idris Elba. Huge plot hole about that other ship but whatever. It's a mindless scifi action flick but nothing more, if the cast wasn't good it wouldn't be worthwhile at all. The other quibble is that it appears the Enterprise is the only ship in the fleet. They are at a starbase and there isn't a single other starship there......
People like what the like so I'm not going to try and change your mind that it was a good movie. I just want to point out that they did mention at the beginning of the movie that their was another ship currently being outfitted and another still but that they preferred sending the enterprise since it was the most advanced ship available.
And sending the most experienced crew. Which is always the case in star trek, the enterprise is always the only ship. What about ST: Generations. It was the only ship in our own freaking solar system. Even in the show we only see other ships from a huge Federation when something like the Borg come. Not sure what the plot hole is about another federation ship. If scotty can get an old bird of prey to carry a whale through time he can get a Federation ship flying easily.
I'll preface by saying that I've been a Trek fan since I was a kid and I've never really loved the "Kelvin" timeline. Mainly because, like Furious Jam stated, I feel like they've dumbed it down a lot. My wife whose never been a Trek fan, enjoyed the movie because she said it didn't feel like a Trek movie. As for Beyond, I think it's a pretty basic story that wasn't terribly interesting
It was more of a quibble than anything else, never said it was a plot hole. Just Them sending out the Enterprise is fine but Yorktown is massive space station, so I just thought it felt a bit off that there wasn't another starship there at least.
What was the plot hole you mentioned then. I assumed you were talking about the U.S.S. Franklin being able to fly as a plot hole.
I'll spoiler it since it's a late reveal... Spoiler Krall totally forgetting the Franklin was there in the first place when he'd been the captain of the ship. I get they mentioned that he'd been changed but that was a tad silly that the chick was living there all that time and all she needed was a type of holo cover.
