|
Please, if you are not staff, don't answer questions in this thread, even if you think you know the answer. Also, please take complains about bans, question about TL as a site, etc to the Website Feedback Forum. |
Hyrule19186 Posts
On September 27 2013 04:41 3FFA wrote:What happened the last time you tried Macgyvering something? Details please. For Kollin... + Show Spoiler +Macgyvering means to tinker, using items not normally used for this purpose. Example video from the show Macgyver. (Where this term comes from)
I can't watch that. Dammit, Germany.
|
how come sayle has lost his icon?
|
Hyrule19186 Posts
He was caught selling the losers of matches into slavery.
|
On September 27 2013 05:27 tofucake wrote:
He was caught selling the losers of matches into slavery.
To who? Does sziky now run some kind of slave empire?
|
Norway25712 Posts
On September 27 2013 01:26 KadaverBB wrote:I have no idea how you people can enjoy Into Darkness 
Cumberbatch.
Still a shit-tier movie.
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?37055 Posts
On September 27 2013 05:51 KristofferAG wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2013 01:26 KadaverBB wrote:I have no idea how you people can enjoy Into Darkness Cumberbatch. Still a shit-tier movie.
Wait I'm confused. Exactly what makes Star Trek Into Darkness a bad movie? I personally thoroughly enjoyed it. I loved both movies 1 and 2.
|
Lalalaland34498 Posts
It's a very different approach to Star Trek from the original series.
|
United Kingdom14103 Posts
|
the Dagon Knight4010 Posts
My real problem is that, let's be real here, with the exception of The Wrath of Khan I don't think Star Trek has ever really produced good movies. They were interesting enough, but could never do the really fun stuff the series' did. The end result was that the thinky show was watered down with some fairly naff action.
Into Darkness is just the opposite of that. It's a bucket of action movie begging you not to think at all.
I don't think either are bad, I think they just both approached "okay" from really different directions, but I can definitely see why long-time Star Trek fans don't like the new approach.
|
can't really speak for other staff, but what made ITD an average-to-poor movie for me was:
A. It was basically Wrath of Khan but with some 'role reversals' and small changes here and there. For anyone old enough to have watched ST2 it could potentially be pretty boring.
B. Made some pretty egregious choices regarding established lore. Longtime fans would be pretty pissed about this second one. That being said, I can't really sleight the actors as they did a very good job with what they were given.
|
United States7488 Posts
I enjoy the new Star Trek movies, and the original series. I have long given up any hope or expectation for a movie to stay true to any prior lore or existing material; expecting that is just bound to pull out all the things from movies that are not enjoyable. And dammit, I want to enjoy the movies I pay too much to watch! So now I just go in to enjoy what I am about to watch and forget about any of my own preexisting knowledge/bias that could potentially sour my experience. I've found that I've enjoyed movies on the whole a lot more since making that mental switch.
|
On September 27 2013 06:55 SirJolt wrote:
My real problem is that, let's be real here, with the exception of The Wrath of Khan I don't think Star Trek has ever really produced good movies. They were interesting enough, but could never do the really fun stuff the series' did. The end result was that the thinky show was watered down with some fairly naff action.
Into Darkness is just the opposite of that. It's a bucket of action movie begging you not to think at all.
I don't think either are bad, I think they just both approached "okay" from really different directions, but I can definitely see why long-time Star Trek fans don't like the new approach.
First contact?
Why does the Bot always has 3 posts?
|
Canada16217 Posts
On September 27 2013 01:12 Seeker wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2013 01:04 BLinD-RawR wrote:On September 26 2013 16:03 Seeker wrote:On September 26 2013 14:30 Epishade wrote:On September 26 2013 09:58 SirJolt wrote:On September 26 2013 09:56 TimKim0713 wrote:
How do I know the # of posts i have You have one hundred and thirteen posts. How can you tell? True wizard. (Original Message: 739 September 26 2013 15:11) good to see you finally hitting staff. Thanks  Welcome opterown too :D
what part of staff is he? o;
edit: ah he's calender staff now.
|
Germany25657 Posts
I know that the "new" Star Trek is more action based. I am fine with that, obviously I'd rather have the old Star Trek back, but action is okay for me. I just want it to make fucking sense and not be full of plot holes.
Star Trek 8: First Contact is an action movie. It has lots of minor points i can nitpick, but overall it is not a clusterfuck. That is why this movie is good and why Into Darkenss is bad 
I should write a blog about this or somethign lol
|
Norway25712 Posts
On September 27 2013 06:19 Seeker wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2013 05:51 KristofferAG wrote:On September 27 2013 01:26 KadaverBB wrote:I have no idea how you people can enjoy Into Darkness Cumberbatch. Still a shit-tier movie. Wait I'm confused. Exactly what makes Star Trek Into Darkness a bad movie? I personally thoroughly enjoyed it. I loved both movies 1 and 2.
Chris Pine and Karl Urban both did a poor job IMO. On top of that it felt more like a fairly generic action sci-fi with a brand slapped on it to sell more tickets. It was fairly entertaining, but I did get pretty bored after about an hour or so.
|
ALLEYCAT BLUES50601 Posts
On September 27 2013 17:32 KristofferAG wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2013 06:19 Seeker wrote:On September 27 2013 05:51 KristofferAG wrote:On September 27 2013 01:26 KadaverBB wrote:I have no idea how you people can enjoy Into Darkness Cumberbatch. Still a shit-tier movie. Wait I'm confused. Exactly what makes Star Trek Into Darkness a bad movie? I personally thoroughly enjoyed it. I loved both movies 1 and 2. Chris Pine and Karl Urban both did a poor job IMO. On top of that it felt more like a fairly generic action sci-fi with a brand slapped on it to sell more tickets. It was fairly entertaining, but I did get pretty bored after about an hour or so.
you staff too now?
lickypiddy or writer?
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?37055 Posts
On September 27 2013 18:29 BLinD-RawR wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2013 17:32 KristofferAG wrote:On September 27 2013 06:19 Seeker wrote:On September 27 2013 05:51 KristofferAG wrote:On September 27 2013 01:26 KadaverBB wrote:I have no idea how you people can enjoy Into Darkness Cumberbatch. Still a shit-tier movie. Wait I'm confused. Exactly what makes Star Trek Into Darkness a bad movie? I personally thoroughly enjoyed it. I loved both movies 1 and 2. Chris Pine and Karl Urban both did a poor job IMO. On top of that it felt more like a fairly generic action sci-fi with a brand slapped on it to sell more tickets. It was fairly entertaining, but I did get pretty bored after about an hour or so. you staff too now? lickypiddy or writer?
TLPD
|
Canada16217 Posts
On September 27 2013 18:29 BLinD-RawR wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2013 17:32 KristofferAG wrote:On September 27 2013 06:19 Seeker wrote:On September 27 2013 05:51 KristofferAG wrote:On September 27 2013 01:26 KadaverBB wrote:I have no idea how you people can enjoy Into Darkness Cumberbatch. Still a shit-tier movie. Wait I'm confused. Exactly what makes Star Trek Into Darkness a bad movie? I personally thoroughly enjoyed it. I loved both movies 1 and 2. Chris Pine and Karl Urban both did a poor job IMO. On top of that it felt more like a fairly generic action sci-fi with a brand slapped on it to sell more tickets. It was fairly entertaining, but I did get pretty bored after about an hour or so. you staff too now? lickypiddy or writer?
he's been staff for a while now.
|
|
|
Estonia4644 Posts
also people conveniently disguised in puzzle pieces
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
