We'll all be waiting when you change your mind about the movie.
No, "we all" won't. I don't expect or want anyone to "change their mind" about a movie. Whether you love it or hate it, everyone is equally "right", and no "change of mind" is necessary.
We'll all be waiting when you change your mind about the movie.
No, "we all" won't. I don't expect or want anyone to "change their mind" about a movie. Whether you love it or hate it, everyone is equally "right", and no "change of mind" is necessary.
Yeah, that's all well and good... I'm just commenting on the massive knee-jerk reaction people are having about this movie, over a 1:33 trailer that really didn't show anything, and making gross overreactions that even Justin Lin and Simon Pegg are calling unfair.
Once the movie is out, then it will be time to pass judgement, good or bad. If one still chooses to not see the movie, yet pass judgement... okay, I certainly can't force anyone to see it. It is foolish, though, to write something off completely without having any basis to do so, IMO. I also think that a great many people will still go and see the movie, and I am hopeful that a great many of the naysayers will have their foot in their mouth.
Any fan of Star Trek should want the franchise to succeed. I want Beyond to succeed. I want the new series to succeed.
As you can see, the success of these movies is obviously *not* dependent on a few hard core people on this forum or others changing their minds. If someone wants to hate these movies, that is completely fine with me. As the above links show, the vast majority of people like them.
As you can see, the success of these movies is obviously *not* dependent on a few hard core people on this forum or others changing their minds. If someone wants to hate these movies, that is completely fine with me. As the above links show, the vast majority of people like them.
Sure... but disagreement is at the heart of the Internet, LOL.
It's okay for discussion to lead to debate... I'd draw the line at personal attacks, personally, but there's nothing wrong with debating the issue. Would that lead to someone changing their mind? Likely not... the only thing that would change someone's mind is actually seeing the movie.
Doesn't mean one should stop making the case for it!
And the good news is, this reboot franchise *is* succeeding:
Source: IMDB
Star Trek 2009 opening (US): ~75 million
Star Trek Into Darkness opening (US): ~70 million (just 5 mil up from the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles reboot, 20 million less than the second Amazing Spider-man, and 24 million less than Guardians of the Galaxy)
Star Trek 2009 gross earnings: 257 million
Star Trek Into Darkness Gross: 229 million
Star Trek 2009 IMDB rating: 8.0
Star Trek Into Darkness IMDB rating: 7.8
Now of course it wouldn't do to plot a trend based merely on two points but you, in particular, have to ask yourself just what do you count as "succeeding?" Still existing? Sure, and it'll probably take quite a few more Into Darkness style movies before the series becomes unprofitable enough to terminate. But keep in mind that TWoK nearly doubled TMP's gross earnings and was able to keep that high momentum going through two well performing (compared to TMP) direct sequels and a prime-universe TV relaunch.
What do we have from the reboot "franchise?" just a few action movies which are becoming increasingly known for being just that. Like them? Sure, people may but consider what we had before. And consider that according to this very simple, two-point view of public opinion fewer people among those who have seen and rated these movies are liking the reboots and fewer people are going to see them. The drop is small, but it is noticeable.
It'll still be a success as long as there are more reboots being made, but is that all you're really interested in? Just how long this thing will last? I'd earnestly like something that stands up better over the long term (ie. are intrinsically better movies, see. the JJ interview posted a bit back) and we might just have that with Beyond if our lord and savior, the almighty Pegg is to believed (all franchises have their ups and downs) but taking the reboots as an unqualified success is pushing it just a bit.
Post edited by duncanidaho11 on
Bipedal mammal and senior Foundry author.
Notable missions: Apex [AEI], Gemini [SSF], Trident [AEI], Evolution's Smile [SSF], Transcendence
Looking for something new to play? I've started building Foundry missions again in visual novel form!
And the good news is, this reboot franchise *is* succeeding:
Source: IMDB
Many people consider Trek 2, 3, and 4 to be a trilogy of sorts. Viewing them from that perspective, Khan had the best ratings, Search made less money and had lower ratings, while Voyage made the most money and had the second best ratings. I would not be surprised at all of the reboot franchise carries that same trend. ST09 has better ratings and made more money that ID. I'm willing to bet that Beyond will make the most money, and may get better ratings than ID. But we'll see!
Many people consider Trek 2, 3, and 4 to be a trilogy of sorts. Viewing them from that perspective, Khan had the best ratings, Search made less money and had lower ratings, while Voyage made the most money and had the second best ratings. I would not be surprised at all of the reboot franchise carries that same trend. ST09 has better ratings and made more money that ID. I'm willing to bet that Beyond will make the most money, and may get better ratings than ID. But we'll see!
That's quite likely.
I can't quite say though how ST:2009 and Beyond will probably compare. The Abrams interview I mentioned from a few pages ago listed off some of the same general complaints I made about ID and they seemed particular to how things took shape in that production. Assuming things go better (and through iteration/experience in the production team that's easy enough to assume) and if it can sell itself well then Beyond has a great chance and outperforming ID. Will it do better than 2009? Perhaps, that's a tough one to call (that was a fine movie with strong interest from the original reboot), but things are going to get more interesting here with three (and likely eventually more) data points to work with.
Bipedal mammal and senior Foundry author.
Notable missions: Apex [AEI], Gemini [SSF], Trident [AEI], Evolution's Smile [SSF], Transcendence
Looking for something new to play? I've started building Foundry missions again in visual novel form!
Able to project charm, arrogance, and menace and make it believable? Check. Maybe they could have found someone else who could have channelled Ricardo Montalban, but Cumberbatch wasn't a bad choice as an actor.
Even if he isn't playing the same character,Cumberbatch far outstripped Montalban with the character. He portrayed a fully realised superman with moods and emotions that went far beyond the insanity based revenge of Montalban in TWOK.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Even if he isn't playing the same character,Cumberbatch far outstripped Montalban with the character. He portrayed a fully realised superman with moods and emotions that went far beyond the insanity based revenge of Montalban in TWOK.
I wouldn't go quite that far. Cumberbatch is ok in the film. It's a shame the story/script weren't better. I'd like to have seen what he could have done with better material.
People tend to over exaggerate Montalban's performance in TWOK simply because they really like the film. The character is 2D and arguably a backwards steep from 'Space Seed', the only improvement I found was the lack of brown-face in TWOK.
I understood everything Harrison did and why, I hated him and sympathised with him at the appropriate moments. I saw him as a genius and as a physical threat. Khan has nothing to him but revenge, misplaced revenge as it was Khan who accepted the challenge of making a life on Ceti Alpha in the first place.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
People tend to over exaggerate Montalban's performance in TWOK simply because they really like the film
How do you know they don't just really like his performance? Someone else's opinion of his performance is not "exaggeration" just because you don't happen to share it, anymore than your opinion of BC's performance is "exaggeration".
An expression of parts of a performance that are actually absent goes beyond an opinion.
It's not to say I disliked his profomance I enjoyed it a lot and TWOK is still my 3rd favourite of the films, narrowly edging out Into Darkness.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
I find it hit hilarious the TWOK trailer is nothing but Enterprise vs Reliant fighting with some overlay of Khan vs Kirk. If Khan would have built a civilization out of Ceti Alpha V and then the planet went to hell, I would be go Khan, Kirk's a Jerk. However, despite TWOK should really be about the Federation building a superweapon (the Klingons were right), it was a very 80s revenge plot action movie set in Trek. I sympathized with Harrison; I really didn't care if TWOK Khan lived or died. Simon Pegg has come out to say that the trailer doesn't even touch what is actually in film and doesn't like it.
I find it hit hilarious the TWOK trailer is nothing but Enterprise vs Reliant fighting with some overlay of Khan vs Kirk. If Khan would have built a civilization out of Ceti Alpha V and then the planet went to hell, I would be go Khan, Kirk's a Jerk. However, despite TWOK should really be about the Federation building a superweapon (the Klingons were right), it was a very 80s revenge plot action movie set in Trek. I sympathized with Harrison; I really didn't care if TWOK Khan lived or died. Simon Pegg has come out to say that the trailer doesn't even touch what is actually in film and doesn't like it.
Maybe even funnier is that TWOK does not actually have any "depth" in its story telling - it's a story about Khan being angry at his fate and taking revenge, and Kirk stopping him violently. There are no hidden character depths or complex motivations in there. And the solution in the end isn't anything particular enlightened either.
The lack of such things serves always as a great reason to critique a movie, but the truth is that it's not always required.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
It is foolish, though, to write something off completely without having any basis to do so, IMO.
I've seen both JJ Trek films and felt both movies stunk on ice. I don't see anything in this trailer that makes me think this one will be any different. That's my basis for saying I won't go see it.
And, you can totally say that.
Abrams is not directing, though, and Orci/Kurtzman/Lindelof are not writing this film (still wondering why Orci is getting a credit in this film, though)... so, aside from the actors and a few of the stylistic carryovers... this could be a very different film.
Let me put it this way... I could say the following about The Force Awakens:
That movie looks AWFUL... another bad guy in a black mask? Seriously? He sounds like Bane impersonating James Earl Jones! And where the hell is [character X]?! Is he dead?! Did they kill him off?! I bet that freaking movie ends with [character X] dying... I refuse to see it!
Now, all I have seen about The Force Awakens are the trailers... no other spoilers. Those conclusions were drawn from the trailers alone. While Lucas isn't directing TFA, a ton of people from Lucasfilm are still involved in the film... plus, perhaps as a Star Wars fan, I have three fairly recent movies to base my opinion on.
How fair am I being to The Force Awakens? How accurate is my opinion, even?
(To be clear, I have no idea what happens in The Force Awakens, LOL... I absolutely want to see it, I think it looks fantastic, and spoiler-free reviews sound promising.)
Just to throw in my own 2 cents... TWOK was and is probably my favorite of all Star Trek movies. In comparison, "Into Darkness"... well... doesn't compare.
In regard to the respective performances as Khan, Cumberbatch nailed the intensity but probably due to the plot he was given to work with he didn't display the charisma that Montalban did in either of his turns as Khan.
That said, the running fight between Spock and Khan in ID was completely enjoyable. It was the closest thing to two superhumans duking it out in Star Trek as we'll ever get. That movie did have its moments.
But few things on screen have ever thrilled me more than seeing the Enterprise come up behind Khan's ship in the nebula cloud. Or touched me as deeply as Kirk and Spock separated by that wall with Spock dying and declaring their friendship. The like scene in ID was but a pale imitation.
I just don't expect Star Trek movies to rise to the level of TWOK. And if they do approach that, I am gratified. I don't expect Beyond to even come close... but I do expect it to raise the bar for the JJ-verse and if it does that I will be happy.
People tend to over exaggerate Montalban's performance in TWOK simply because they really like the film
How do you know they don't just really like his performance? Someone else's opinion of his performance is not "exaggeration" just because you don't happen to share it, anymore than your opinion of BC's performance is "exaggeration".
A bit like how there are so many Boba Fett fanboys, when all he ever really did in the original trilogy was 'stand around and look menacing', before getting his TRIBBLE handed to him by a half-trained farm-boy, then sent crashing into Jabba's sailbarge courtessy of an unintentional lucky hit from a blind-man... On screen, Boba didn't do anything to earn the adoration his fans give him, beyond some stange mystique, which was then expanded into badassery in the EU...
People tend to over exaggerate Montalban's performance in TWOK simply because they really like the film
How do you know they don't just really like his performance? Someone else's opinion of his performance is not "exaggeration" just because you don't happen to share it, anymore than your opinion of BC's performance is "exaggeration".
A bit like how there are so many Boba Fett fanboys, when all he ever really did in the original trilogy was 'stand around and look menacing', before getting his TRIBBLE handed to him by a half-trained farm-boy, then sent crashing into Jabba's sailbarge courtessy of an unintentional lucky hit from a blind-man... On screen, Boba didn't do anything to earn the adoration his fans give him, beyond some stange mystique, which was then expanded into badassery in the EU...
We are talking about 2 completely different things. You are saying that Boba Fett's fandom is disproportionate to his on screen time/actions. And I agree. However the *quality* of Ricardo Montalban's performance is completely subjective. One person may love it, while another may not. Neither is right or wrong. Exaggerating something that there is a small amount of has nothing to do with exaggerating a subjective performance.
People tend to over exaggerate Montalban's performance in TWOK simply because they really like the film
How do you know they don't just really like his performance? Someone else's opinion of his performance is not "exaggeration" just because you don't happen to share it, anymore than your opinion of BC's performance is "exaggeration".
A bit like how there are so many Boba Fett fanboys, when all he ever really did in the original trilogy was 'stand around and look menacing', before getting his TRIBBLE handed to him by a half-trained farm-boy, then sent crashing into Jabba's sailbarge courtessy of an unintentional lucky hit from a blind-man... On screen, Boba didn't do anything to earn the adoration his fans give him, beyond some stange mystique, which was then expanded into badassery in the EU...
We are talking about 2 completely different things. You are saying that Boba Fett's fandom is disproportionate to his on screen time/actions. And I agree. However the *quality* of Ricardo Montalban's performance is completely subjective. One person may love it, while another may not. Neither is right or wrong. Exaggerating something that there is a small amount of has nothing to do with exaggerating a subjective performance.
I agree absolutely, I just feel the same can be said for Jeremy Bullock's performance... Some say it's brilliantly understated, and I'd actually agree with that. It's a completely subjective thing, but something which has been latched onto and elevated by fandom, beyond what the source material truly shows
People tend to over exaggerate Montalban's performance in TWOK simply because they really like the film
How do you know they don't just really like his performance? Someone else's opinion of his performance is not "exaggeration" just because you don't happen to share it, anymore than your opinion of BC's performance is "exaggeration".
A bit like how there are so many Boba Fett fanboys, when all he ever really did in the original trilogy was 'stand around and look menacing', before getting his TRIBBLE handed to him by a half-trained farm-boy, then sent crashing into Jabba's sailbarge courtessy of an unintentional lucky hit from a blind-man... On screen, Boba didn't do anything to earn the adoration his fans give him, beyond some stange mystique, which was then expanded into badassery in the EU...
We are talking about 2 completely different things. You are saying that Boba Fett's fandom is disproportionate to his on screen time/actions. And I agree. However the *quality* of Ricardo Montalban's performance is completely subjective. One person may love it, while another may not. Neither is right or wrong. Exaggerating something that there is a small amount of has nothing to do with exaggerating a subjective performance.
I agree absolutely, I just feel the same can be said for Jeremy Bullock's performance... Some say it's brilliantly understated, and I'd actually agree with that. It's a completely subjective thing, but something which has been latched onto and elevated by fandom, beyond what the source material truly shows
I'll be honest: I've never heard anyone praise his "performance". What I have seen, many times, are people try to explain how the actions of the character(hiding in the asteroid field in the movie + all of the EU material) make the character awesome. But no, I've honestly never heard anyone praising the "performance" of the actor in the costume.
If Montalban had been chewing the scenery any harder, they could have bypassed Craft Services altogether. The real reason he and Shatner were never on the same sound stage at the same time while filming TWoK was because between the two of them there wouldn't have been a backdrop left without teeth-marks all over it.
Just to throw in my own 2 cents... TWOK was and is probably my favorite of all Star Trek movies. In comparison, "Into Darkness"... well... doesn't compare.
In regard to the respective performances as Khan, Cumberbatch nailed the intensity but probably due to the plot he was given to work with he didn't display the charisma that Montalban did in either of his turns as Khan.
That said, the running fight between Spock and Khan in ID was completely enjoyable. It was the closest thing to two superhumans duking it out in Star Trek as we'll ever get. That movie did have its moments.
Hmm... we did have a few scenes in TNG with Data fighting Borg... which weren't very exciting. Then there was the scene with Mitchell fighting Dehner in the TOS pilot episode... but that was all special effects, and not very good ones.
Regarding the differences in performance between Cumberbatch and Montalban, it's also worth considering that each of their characters had very different experiences since being unfrozen. Montalban's spent X amount of time marooned on a planet that suffered a cataclysm and saw his people slowly die(very cool story here). Cumberbatch was blackmailed into working for Marcus, and for a much shorter amount of time than Prime Khan was marooned. I actually think Montalban's character went slightly insane due to his experiences.
Comments
No, "we all" won't. I don't expect or want anyone to "change their mind" about a movie. Whether you love it or hate it, everyone is equally "right", and no "change of mind" is necessary.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
I thought Funny Or Die had outdone themselves. Oh my god.
The Iowa DMV must lock their doors on sight.
Yeah, that's all well and good... I'm just commenting on the massive knee-jerk reaction people are having about this movie, over a 1:33 trailer that really didn't show anything, and making gross overreactions that even Justin Lin and Simon Pegg are calling unfair.
Once the movie is out, then it will be time to pass judgement, good or bad. If one still chooses to not see the movie, yet pass judgement... okay, I certainly can't force anyone to see it. It is foolish, though, to write something off completely without having any basis to do so, IMO. I also think that a great many people will still go and see the movie, and I am hopeful that a great many of the naysayers will have their foot in their mouth.
Any fan of Star Trek should want the franchise to succeed. I want Beyond to succeed. I want the new series to succeed.
I do too. And the good news is, this reboot franchise *is* succeeding:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_11/
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_into_darkness/
As you can see, the success of these movies is obviously *not* dependent on a few hard core people on this forum or others changing their minds. If someone wants to hate these movies, that is completely fine with me. As the above links show, the vast majority of people like them.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Sure... but disagreement is at the heart of the Internet, LOL.
It's okay for discussion to lead to debate... I'd draw the line at personal attacks, personally, but there's nothing wrong with debating the issue. Would that lead to someone changing their mind? Likely not... the only thing that would change someone's mind is actually seeing the movie.
Doesn't mean one should stop making the case for it!
Star Trek 2009 opening (US): ~75 million
Star Trek Into Darkness opening (US): ~70 million (just 5 mil up from the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles reboot, 20 million less than the second Amazing Spider-man, and 24 million less than Guardians of the Galaxy)
Star Trek 2009 gross earnings: 257 million
Star Trek Into Darkness Gross: 229 million
Star Trek 2009 IMDB rating: 8.0
Star Trek Into Darkness IMDB rating: 7.8
Now of course it wouldn't do to plot a trend based merely on two points but you, in particular, have to ask yourself just what do you count as "succeeding?" Still existing? Sure, and it'll probably take quite a few more Into Darkness style movies before the series becomes unprofitable enough to terminate. But keep in mind that TWoK nearly doubled TMP's gross earnings and was able to keep that high momentum going through two well performing (compared to TMP) direct sequels and a prime-universe TV relaunch.
What do we have from the reboot "franchise?" just a few action movies which are becoming increasingly known for being just that. Like them? Sure, people may but consider what we had before. And consider that according to this very simple, two-point view of public opinion fewer people among those who have seen and rated these movies are liking the reboots and fewer people are going to see them. The drop is small, but it is noticeable.
It'll still be a success as long as there are more reboots being made, but is that all you're really interested in? Just how long this thing will last? I'd earnestly like something that stands up better over the long term (ie. are intrinsically better movies, see. the JJ interview posted a bit back) and we might just have that with Beyond if our lord and savior, the almighty Pegg is to believed (all franchises have their ups and downs) but taking the reboots as an unqualified success is pushing it just a bit.
Notable missions: Apex [AEI], Gemini [SSF], Trident [AEI], Evolution's Smile [SSF], Transcendence
Looking for something new to play? I've started building Foundry missions again in visual novel form!
Many people consider Trek 2, 3, and 4 to be a trilogy of sorts. Viewing them from that perspective, Khan had the best ratings, Search made less money and had lower ratings, while Voyage made the most money and had the second best ratings. I would not be surprised at all of the reboot franchise carries that same trend. ST09 has better ratings and made more money that ID. I'm willing to bet that Beyond will make the most money, and may get better ratings than ID. But we'll see!
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
That's quite likely.
I can't quite say though how ST:2009 and Beyond will probably compare. The Abrams interview I mentioned from a few pages ago listed off some of the same general complaints I made about ID and they seemed particular to how things took shape in that production. Assuming things go better (and through iteration/experience in the production team that's easy enough to assume) and if it can sell itself well then Beyond has a great chance and outperforming ID. Will it do better than 2009? Perhaps, that's a tough one to call (that was a fine movie with strong interest from the original reboot), but things are going to get more interesting here with three (and likely eventually more) data points to work with.
Notable missions: Apex [AEI], Gemini [SSF], Trident [AEI], Evolution's Smile [SSF], Transcendence
Looking for something new to play? I've started building Foundry missions again in visual novel form!
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
People tend to over exaggerate Montalban's performance in TWOK simply because they really like the film. The character is 2D and arguably a backwards steep from 'Space Seed', the only improvement I found was the lack of brown-face in TWOK.
I understood everything Harrison did and why, I hated him and sympathised with him at the appropriate moments. I saw him as a genius and as a physical threat. Khan has nothing to him but revenge, misplaced revenge as it was Khan who accepted the challenge of making a life on Ceti Alpha in the first place.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
How do you know they don't just really like his performance? Someone else's opinion of his performance is not "exaggeration" just because you don't happen to share it, anymore than your opinion of BC's performance is "exaggeration".
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
It's not to say I disliked his profomance I enjoyed it a lot and TWOK is still my 3rd favourite of the films, narrowly edging out Into Darkness.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
The lack of such things serves always as a great reason to critique a movie, but the truth is that it's not always required.
And, you can totally say that.
Abrams is not directing, though, and Orci/Kurtzman/Lindelof are not writing this film (still wondering why Orci is getting a credit in this film, though)... so, aside from the actors and a few of the stylistic carryovers... this could be a very different film.
Let me put it this way... I could say the following about The Force Awakens:
That movie looks AWFUL... another bad guy in a black mask? Seriously? He sounds like Bane impersonating James Earl Jones! And where the hell is [character X]?! Is he dead?! Did they kill him off?! I bet that freaking movie ends with [character X] dying... I refuse to see it!
Now, all I have seen about The Force Awakens are the trailers... no other spoilers. Those conclusions were drawn from the trailers alone. While Lucas isn't directing TFA, a ton of people from Lucasfilm are still involved in the film... plus, perhaps as a Star Wars fan, I have three fairly recent movies to base my opinion on.
How fair am I being to The Force Awakens? How accurate is my opinion, even?
(To be clear, I have no idea what happens in The Force Awakens, LOL... I absolutely want to see it, I think it looks fantastic, and spoiler-free reviews sound promising.)
In regard to the respective performances as Khan, Cumberbatch nailed the intensity but probably due to the plot he was given to work with he didn't display the charisma that Montalban did in either of his turns as Khan.
That said, the running fight between Spock and Khan in ID was completely enjoyable. It was the closest thing to two superhumans duking it out in Star Trek as we'll ever get. That movie did have its moments.
But few things on screen have ever thrilled me more than seeing the Enterprise come up behind Khan's ship in the nebula cloud. Or touched me as deeply as Kirk and Spock separated by that wall with Spock dying and declaring their friendship. The like scene in ID was but a pale imitation.
I just don't expect Star Trek movies to rise to the level of TWOK. And if they do approach that, I am gratified. I don't expect Beyond to even come close... but I do expect it to raise the bar for the JJ-verse and if it does that I will be happy.
We are talking about 2 completely different things. You are saying that Boba Fett's fandom is disproportionate to his on screen time/actions. And I agree. However the *quality* of Ricardo Montalban's performance is completely subjective. One person may love it, while another may not. Neither is right or wrong. Exaggerating something that there is a small amount of has nothing to do with exaggerating a subjective performance.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
I'll be honest: I've never heard anyone praise his "performance". What I have seen, many times, are people try to explain how the actions of the character(hiding in the asteroid field in the movie + all of the EU material) make the character awesome. But no, I've honestly never heard anyone praising the "performance" of the actor in the costume.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
My character Tsin'xing
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
I really enjoyed that
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
My character Tsin'xing