I think the whole point of argument depends on your understanding and your interpretaion of what true definition of Bond character is. Sure Spectre was the most Bond film, if your aim is to represent the character from Moore or Brosnan era. And yeah it's also true that for average person the definition of Bond is charming, cheeky, slightly comedic spy with mouthfull of one liners and gadgets.

Things might have changed with Craig's outings, but still I think few people think of Bond as Fleming imagined it. For me Bond is above average spy, with dry sense of humour and while slightly snobbish with high English manners; with weaknesses towards women, alchohol, fast cars and gambling. He is white, child of Scottish father and Swiss mother (that's why he should be always played by white actor, no matter how much I love and admire Idris as an actor - imo of course, I don't want to start old argument anew). He is and should be representation of bygone era, remnant of old British imperial power. That's why I think Skyfall was good, not only because of all the throwbacks, but because of asking all those questions about his place in modern world (silly plot aside). And Casino Royale was best at capturing tone and style of Fleming's Bond novels (and is my favourite movie in series).

Also CR has great humour, I don't know why people don't see that, and it's the exact type of dry humour that is suitable for Bond. Just like Nolan's movies have some great humourous moments, but some people don't acknowledge that. Take Inception for example ("I bought an airlane", "This Ariadne would be a kick", Arhur kiss scene, paradox scene), it's subtle humour but it works much better imo when movies don't throw it directly into your face. Something probably wrong with me, but I find movies by Guy Ritchie, Edgar Wright, Matt Vaughn and Shane Black more funny than 98% of Hollywood comedy movies.

This film is boring from the get go. It has Kirk just wandering around and even he doesn't know what to do. And guess what, while he gets something to do, it's nothing that leaves any impression. Same goes for every other character. So after you've seen it, it's as if you just watched nothing. It's just bad on every level. JJ's Star Trek films were Star Wars in disguise but at least they were watchable and especially the first one conveyed some emotion, and imo the second one as well. I guess it's for the best Trek is returning to TV.

I really don't understand why Into Darkness has a worse reputation than Beyond. Not that Beyond is bad or anything, it's just as a story Into Darkness works better than Beyond does.

Master Virgo wrote:Now if I want to make a case for why Into Darkness is a better film than Beyond, I would try to compare the antagonists of the two films and how the stakes feel to be a lot higher in the former, or the fact that it has an emotionally charged payoff that involves the relationship between the two main characters for which there has been a compelling build up, and then I try to get into specifics of why each one of those is the case. That's the kind of stuff that we should talk about if we want to compare the two, and not how each one has remained loyal to what Roddenberry originally had in mind, when he created TOS. That kind of talk is good for fun fact and not a whole lot else.£

Couldn't have said it better myself. To me the criticisms of Abrams Trek not being about exploration is like criticizing The Dark Knight Trilogy for not having Batman be the worlds greatest detective. It's true but it in no way effects the quality of the movies.

I try to judge a movie based off of what it does, not based off of what the source material does. And movies can still be great while doing something completely different from the source material, like The Shinning.

ArmandFancypants wrote:Khan finds a new way to interpret Roddenberry's world, i.e. the "discovery" is internal, but the film is still about human nature and edification and an actual journey.

You can judge the films on those basic metrics, sure, but if you had an adaptation of Hamlet that basically had the script, plot developments, and characters of Raiders of the Lost Ark you would question why the label of Hamlet had been slapped on it. But those metrics are so... prosaic. The basic fact of the matter is that Trek is at home on television, and the whole point is that it's not meant to stagger through basic action genre tropes.

Why not? It's a different take man. Hamlet survived as an animated musical with talking animals and a happy ending and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's books worked beautifully as fun action films, although I guess you don't really agree with this last part. Point is, this whole "let's remain true to the source material as much as possible" thing is so boring. Potter films started to soar only when they began to differ from the books.

Sure, Star Trek was built around the whole idea of human's sense of wonder and fascination for discovering the unknown. But what ultimately made it connect with people, were the characters and that sort of bond that was formed between them throughout their adventures.

Now you can argue that Abrams really didn't get the supporting characters right at all. But the main trio always seemed to be on the right path to reach the desirable point. (Admittedly in Beyond two of them fulfil on that promise and are pretty much almost there, in what is one of the very few qualities the film has) So saying Abrams didn't get anything right about Trek is not really fair.£

Just gave this another go. I was not nearly as bored with this movie as I was the first time around, but there were points where I did feel the impulse to doze off. The entire first act just feels so plodding and takes it's sweet little time to set itself up. It's not that the story is boring because I understand how the script got a greenlight. It just decides to present all its new-found plot revelations in such an incredibly unexciting way. That is until the crew come back together and that's when I started to feel some semblance of joy.

I loved how it sets up Kirk's arc; the repetitive nature of his position of captain, giving the same orders, wearing the exact same uniform everyday. As you start to see that theme span throughout the movie and feed itself into the third act, the movie finally becomes riveting to watch. Star Trek Beyond certainly has ambitions, but only half of them feel reached.

In the end we can all agree that Star Trek V is the worst one and that Wrath of Khan is the best one and that everything else falls in the middle, right?

Batfan175 wrote:In the end we can all agree that Star Trek V is the worst one and that Wrath of Khan is the best one and that everything else falls in the middle, right?

Solid contribution

Batfan175 wrote:In the end we can all agree that Star Trek V is the worst one and that Wrath of Khan is the best one and that everything else falls in the middle, right?

I don't know, can we?