Star Trek Into Darkness (Blu-Ray)

Can you let me know the subtitles on the disc for the movies?
Since it will get only US release I am quite interested in that.

Well the first film is the same disc as released before and I imagine the Into Darkness film disc will contain the same audio and subtitles as the original release.
 
wow ...... looking at the attachment review of the IMAX scenes vs cropped images .... the cropping is ultra noticeable when you see the two side by side.

So tempted by this, I just love IMAX !
 
I didn't like it much, it's not a patch on the original

Well Im probably not going to bother with the IMAX one because Ive got the limited Heroes steelbook anyway with the 3D. A 3D IMAX one would have been tempting though! Its not great and not as good as the first one but its definitely worthy of an 8/10 for me as it is entertaining!
 
I enjoyed Into Darkness more than the first one ......... just felt more exciting, visually looked superior and really enjoyed the music score.
 
I enjoyed the first one for the novelty value, the second one was OK but it didn't feel at all like Trek.
 
I hope everyone getting excited about this IMAX release likes the film...;)

I seem to remember lots of whingers not long ago? :)
I think it's garbage but oh-so-pretty garbage, with even more pretty garbage viewable in the IMAX version. And I'll buy anything with the Trek name on it, I'm nice like that.
 
I think it's garbage but oh-so-pretty garbage, with even more pretty garbage viewable in the IMAX version. And I'll buy anything with the Trek name on it, I'm nice like that.

Garbage? OK, each to their own. If I thought it was garbage - no matter how pretty - I wouldn't buy it!
 
Like I said, Trek's garbage usually finds its way into my home one way or another. I do own Nemesis as part of the Generations movie boxset, for example. That said, I'll draw the line at Voyager. It's the only Trek series that I've never bought in any way, shape or form.
 
Like I said, Trek's garbage usually finds its way into my home one way or another. I do own Nemesis as part of the Generations movie boxset, for example. That said, I'll draw the line at Voyager. It's the only Trek series that I've never bought in any way, shape or form.

I thought Nemesis was alright really and not as bad as it was made out to be. Is it me or is there a slight similarity to the much better reboot?
 
I thought Nemesis was alright really and not as bad as it was made out to be. Is it me or is there a slight similarity to the much better reboot?

Not you. The villain plot of Nemesis and Star Trek 09 is virtually identical in both films.

Into Darkness is a very cool action film particularly in the first half, and as Geoff says its pretty as a picture. But the story is so vapid and the characters so annoying that it literally falls apart before your very eyes. Captain Jerk's 'im the captain, im not the captain, i am the captain again, no actually spock should the captain' got on my bloody tits and thats just for starters.

Its funny because the Next gen films felt like trek, but not like movies. Into Darkness feels like a movie, but its not trek. The 2009 reboot got the mix just about right- here's hoping they get that balance back for the third film (ditching Lindelof might help!).
 
I am disappointed that only 30 minutes made it in the film despite 50 odd minutes being filmed.
 
Is that 50 mins total all of the footage shot?
I'd imagine quite a few mins of that 50 mins would be multiple takes of the same scenes etc
 
Apparantly 40% of the film length was shot in Imax. I assume they have left bits out.
 
Considering how expensive it is to film in IMAX, that's very poor of J.J. Abrams that they discarded 40% (20mins out of 50mins) of everything they shot.
I remember from The Dark Knight/Rises special features that Nolan meticulously planned his IMAX scenes & there was very little wastage- pretty much everything that was shot in IMAX ended up in the film.
 
Guys, films get cut down. That's just the nature of the beast, I dunno why you're getting so hung up on this '30 minutes' thing. JJ had a rule that the IMAX was used for exterior scenes only (there's no IMAX shots of Samsung TVs on walls in this one!) and there simply isn't that much aside from the opening scene, the Klingon sortie and the big final chase (in space and on land).

Trust me, I wasn't sitting there in the BFI IMAX saying 'there's only 30 minutes of IMAX, what a swizz!', I was too busy letting my jaw hit the floor when the shot of the natives drawing the Enterprise in the dirt dissolves into the real deal, accompanied by Giacchino's triumphant theme tune. As much as I dislike the rest of the movie, that shot gives me goosebumps every time and it was awesome in IMAX.

That's what IMAX is about: using it properly to elicit an emotion, not just throwing **** at a wall and seeing what sticks. I know people love to eulogise about Nolan's use of the format but I've always found it to be a little random (see: Samsung TV quip) and he also frames it very poorly IMO, always keeping the 2.35 extraction first and foremost instead of taking advantage of the height of the frame, which STID did well and Catching Fire did exceptionally well.
 
No, I'm just surprised at how much he binned :p

Everyone goes on about how expensive & difficult it is to film in IMAX & here we have someone binning 40% of what he shot :facepalm:
 
I thought Nemesis was alright really and not as bad as it was made out to be. Is it me or is there a slight similarity to the much better reboot?
Nemesis is pretty much a run through of Wrath of Khan: genetically-engineered madman who has a personal beef with the captain goes on the rampage with a weapon of unspeakable power, leaving a much-loved member of the crew with no logical choice other than to give his own life to save his ship - though not before he'd transferred his consciousness to another.

ST '09 had plenty of Khan callbacks as well, like Pike being tortured with the ear-worm thingies, but it wasn't until STID that the nuTrek crowd finally got it out of their system.

No, I'm just surprised at how much he binned :p

Everyone goes on about how expensive & difficult it is to film in IMAX & here we have someone binning 40% of what he shot :facepalm:
Like I said, that's film for you. EVERY movie like this is a horribly expensive pain in the arse to make, whether they're shooting on an iPhone or 15/70. But it doesn't all end up on-screen, every movie would be 4 hours long otherwise.
 
Considering I have both of the films already and despite wanting to see the Imax scenes, it simply isn't worth it for just 30 minutes for the price they want.
 
Nolan didn't waste his IMAX footage. He said pretty much everything he filmed in IMAX was in the films.
 
That's 'cause Nolan doesn't use a second unit, he shoots everything himself and has complete control over what he's doing. He's fast becoming Warners' new Kubrick. But JJ is not Nolan.
 
That's 'cause Nolan doesn't use a second unit, he shoots everything himself and has complete control over what he's doing. He's fast becoming Warners' new Kubrick. But JJ is not Nolan.
Surely JJ would've shot all of the IMAX scenes himself, considering the high costs etc of those scenes?

Don't you mean Nolan's the new Kubrik, but also the exact opposite of Kubrik? Didn't Kubrik famously do 125 takes of one scene in The Shining? :laugh:
 

The latest video from AVForums

Is 4K Blu-ray Worth It?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom