Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid ideas
https://bbs.stardestroyer.net/
Startrek advance ticket purchases are a head of Wolverines so far.Big Orange wrote:I do get the nagging feeling that this movie will be this year's Speed Racer in terms of box office performance, even if it is not terrible per se, it is going against Wolverine: Origin, and judging from the trailers and what we're shown of the villain it generally seems a lot like Nemesis.
Of course they are: there are still huge numbers of devoted Star Trek fans out there, and the advance marketing for this film has been very well conducted.Aeolus wrote:Startrek advance ticket purchases are a head of Wolverines so far.Big Orange wrote:I do get the nagging feeling that this movie will be this year's Speed Racer in terms of box office performance, even if it is not terrible per se, it is going against Wolverine: Origin, and judging from the trailers and what we're shown of the villain it generally seems a lot like Nemesis.
Being on IMAX is probably helping Trek's ticket sales, too.Aeolus wrote:Startrek advance ticket purchases are a head of Wolverines so far.Big Orange wrote:I do get the nagging feeling that this movie will be this year's Speed Racer in terms of box office performance, even if it is not terrible per se, it is going against Wolverine: Origin, and judging from the trailers and what we're shown of the villain it generally seems a lot like Nemesis.
What the fuck happened to IMAX? It used to be that IMAX theatres were always a sight to behold. Nowadays, there's goddamned IMAX mini-theatres in every major multiplex, and they're pitiful little things compared to the old giant-screen IMAX theatres.General Zod wrote:Being on IMAX is probably helping Trek's ticket sales, too.Aeolus wrote:Startrek advance ticket purchases are a head of Wolverines so far.Big Orange wrote:I do get the nagging feeling that this movie will be this year's Speed Racer in terms of box office performance, even if it is not terrible per se, it is going against Wolverine: Origin, and judging from the trailers and what we're shown of the villain it generally seems a lot like Nemesis.
Watered down versions of the projectors became cheap enough. Which is a shame, because IMAXs like the one at the Carnegie Science Center, the three story tall massive high resolution domes that you practically had to be strapped into so that the sound system didn't launch you like a football were an experience, even if the CSC OmnIMAX was used mostly for nature documentaries until they decided to start showing popular films for supplimentary income.Darth Wong wrote:What the fuck happened to IMAX? It used to be that IMAX theatres were always a sight to behold. Nowadays, there's goddamned IMAX mini-theatres in every major multiplex, and they're pitiful little things compared to the old giant-screen IMAX theatres.
I haven't noticed that, but then again there's only two IMAX theaters here in Denver.Darth Wong wrote: What the fuck happened to IMAX? It used to be that IMAX theatres were always a sight to behold. Nowadays, there's goddamned IMAX mini-theatres in every major multiplex, and they're pitiful little things compared to the old giant-screen IMAX theatres.
I understand your concerns completely. All I can say is that I personally liked it a great deal.Darth Wong wrote:Of course they are: there are still huge numbers of devoted Star Trek fans out there, and the advance marketing for this film has been very well conducted.Aeolus wrote:Startrek advance ticket purchases are a head of Wolverines so far.Big Orange wrote:I do get the nagging feeling that this movie will be this year's Speed Racer in terms of box office performance, even if it is not terrible per se, it is going against Wolverine: Origin, and judging from the trailers and what we're shown of the villain it generally seems a lot like Nemesis.
As I said before, I am cautiously optimistic. Rebecca has always rejected post-Kirk Star Trek, and she's excited to see a Kirk prequel too, so we'll probably see it. But I'm just afraid that they will lapse into shopworn cliches.
I wouldn't call it negative, but it does highlight some useful bits for once.Worlds Spanner wrote:I think this IGN review counts as negative, or at least mixed: http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/973/973956p1.html
So the supporting cast isn't getting much time or overly impressive, but that's not a massive issue. It's what sequels were made for.So Abrams hit the jackpot with Pine and Quinto, but what about the supporting characters? Zoe Saldana's Uhura is ridiculously beautiful but also thoughtful and emotive, with her relationship with Spock both touching and surprising. John Cho's Sulu and Anton Yelchin's Chekov are really caricatures and only given a few scenes, whilst Karl Urban's "Bones" McCoy and Simon Pegg's Scotty are actually rather disappointing. You never felt Bones was Kirk's best mate, whilst Pegg retreats into his trademark buffoonish shtick, only with an unconvincing Scottish accent.
I missed it in the flood of reviews that didn't say a whole lot.Bounty wrote:That review was posted three pages ago.
And I could have said "I think the IGN review back in post number X was somewhat negative" or I could have just relinked to it, which I did. Why is that a problem?Bounty wrote:That review was posted three pages ago.
JoBlo: 9.5/10 wrote:As much as it surprised me, I think watching this re-envisioned tale has me longing to look back at some of the earlier films and the series itself. While Abrams story pumps up the action and the effects, it doesn’t lose sight of the strong characters who make this world rich and complete. I must admit, and I don’t normally say this, but I one-hundred percent want a sequel. I really want to see this continued. If this doesn’t jump start the franchise, I don’t know what possibly could.
There's also a video review at At The Movies... but no Ebert yet.New York Magazine wrote:If you care about this universe (and I do, damn it), you won’t sit passively through J.J. Abrams’s restart Trek. You’ll marvel at the smarts and wince at the senselessness. You’ll nitpick it to death and thrill to it anyway.
I expect Ebert'll weigh in once it's in theaters proper, if his timing with the Wolverine movie is any indication.Bounty wrote:With 22 reviews counted the movie still stands at 100% at Rottentomatoes. Looks like the mainstream reviews are now coming in:
There's also a video review at At The Movies... but no Ebert yet.New York Magazine wrote:If you care about this universe (and I do, damn it), you won’t sit passively through J.J. Abrams’s restart Trek. You’ll marvel at the smarts and wince at the senselessness. You’ll nitpick it to death and thrill to it anyway.
Boston Globe: four stars, 'best prequel ever' wrote:About two-thirds of the way into the ridiculously satisfying new "Star Trek" movie, opening Thursday, there comes a brief shot of the crew on the bridge of the Federation Starship Enterprise. The film has been picking up familiar names as it goes, but you suddenly realize with a jolt that everyone, at last, is here: young, hopeful versions of Captain James T. Kirk (Chris Pine) and Mr. Spock (Zachary Quinto), communications officer Uhura (Zoe Saldana) and pilot Sulu (John Cho), Bones (Karl Urban) and Chekhov (Anton Yelchin) and Scotty (Simon Pegg).
It's a throwaway image, yet you feel the final pieces of the puzzle snap into place with a witty and intensely fond reverence. I just about wept with joy, and I'm not even a Trekkie.
DVDTalk, five stars wrote:120 minutes of unrelenting goose bumps.
An artistic blood transfusion of immaculate execution, the new "Star Trek" boldly goes straight to the senses, providing a full-throated rush of operatic sci-fi, cleverly conceived characterizations, and a swarm of franchise homages and surprises that take incredible care of the brand name's impossible 44-year-long pop culture reign, while forging firm new ground for those who couldn't tell Kirk from Spock with a gun to their head.
That's not the funniest part.
Exactly. The reporters on this piece seemed to be living in their own little ironic world.
and has nothing more to say other than "I can say that it's definitely worth seeing".