Kuuso on 2/6/2013 at 14:09
Baz Luhrman is a horrible director that creates vapid music videos. Can't see how Gatsby can be anything different with Jay-Z et al on the soundtrack to start with.
Renault on 2/6/2013 at 14:47
When I heard about the hip hop soundtrack and the fact that text is displayed on-screen periodically throughout the movie, my decision was made on this one. The fact that it's in 3D for some bizarre reason just sealed it. Note to director: this is a classic novel, not an MTV production.
Fafhrd on 2/6/2013 at 18:45
But it's a classic novel about the hollow decadence of the Roaring Twenties. Luhrmann's over the top style is kind of perfect for it.
Morte on 6/6/2013 at 18:59
Star Trek into Darkness left me with a newfound appreciation for the plotting, clear stakes, well-defined goals and dramatic weight of The Fast and The Furious 6.
Scots Taffer on 7/6/2013 at 01:55
hahahaha it's so true, but I didn't care
Gatsby was so-so. The 3D was unnecessary for the story but worked well for such a visual director. The leads were a bit strained with the script, which lacks contemporary relevance (imo), and the hip-hop soundtrack totally worked, so there.
froghawk on 8/6/2013 at 20:29
Quote Posted by Morte
Star Trek into Darkness left me with a newfound appreciation for the plotting, clear stakes, well-defined goals and dramatic weight of The Fast and The Furious 6.
I thought it was a pretty clever use of the source material. With that said, Nemesis (which came out only two movies ago) was already basically a TNG remake of The Wrath of Khan, and it was awful... did we really need another remake of the same film, especially so soon after the first? But then, I think TWoK is highly overrated and definitely not one of the better ST films, so I found Into Darkness to more entertaining than its source since it was basically just a string of gags and plays on the original. All the things you mention aren't necessary since it's basically a big, silly, overbudgeted joke (which is no worse in quality or coherence than your average ST film, most of which were actually quite bad).
Morte on 9/6/2013 at 19:01
Well, the shiny explosions certainly are competently assembled, and it's got a really good cast, so I can understand how people can enjoy it on a first watch just for the surface stuff.
Wrath of Khan isn't just a good Star Trek movie, is a really good movie, and Into Darkness' riffs on it were almost offensive in how unearned and silly they were. It's the kind of movie that thinks fanservice is an acceptable substitute for story.
froghawk on 10/6/2013 at 13:46
The only reason The Wrath of Khan is considered so much better than The Motion Picture is its focus on camaraderie and cast interaction. It's bogged down by the same pacing problems and juvenile philosophizing as the first film. It has a boring villain with mirky motivations (even moreso if you watch the episode it's based on, which makes little sense in context with the film) and a completely uninteresting revenge plot. I don't see it as being a good film in any sense whatsoever - ST or otherwise. Maybe it seems good if you really care about the characters, which I never have in ST, but even if you do care, the big shocker at the end can't possibly have any impact when watching the film today since they instantly negated it with the next film (which was even more awful).
I maintain that The Voyage Home was the first decent ST film. The whole film franchise is silly and generally filled with illogical plotlines, leaps of faith, lots of filler, and nonsense moralizing/philosophizing. Into Darkness just maintains the level of stupidity usually associated with the series. You're absolutely right when you say "It's the kind of movie that thinks fanservice is an acceptable substitute for story", but that's a perfect description of the first Abrams film, as well. It was purely driven by audience nostalgia and fanservice, and it was also quite silly and rather incoherent. Into Darkness is basically on the same level in my eyes - if you like what you saw in the previous film, you'll get more of the same here.
Renault on 10/6/2013 at 13:55
Quote Posted by froghawk
It's bogged down by the same pacing problems and juvenile philosophizing as the first film. It has a boring villain with mirky motivations (even moreso if you want the episode it's based on, which makes little sense in context with the film) and a completely uninteresting revenge plot.
This is pretty much the complete opposite of any review or opinion I've ever read about Wrath of Khan, critic/fan or otherwise. Boring villain? Uninteresting revenge plot? Mirky motivations?
Thirith on 10/6/2013 at 13:57
Quote Posted by Morte
Into Darkness' riffs on it were almost offensive in how unearned and silly they were.It's the kind of movie that thinks fanservice is an acceptable substitute for story.
I agree 100% with this when it comes to the scene preceding "KHAAAAAAAN!!!", but other than that, which scenes did you feel were unearned riffs on
WoK?
