I would have to disagree with the majority, I loved the film.

I'm aware of the failings of story in that we have seen it before, but that is to be expected as we knew we have seen it before, just in a different timeline.

J.J. Abrams was trying to get a new generation of fans to love Star Trek, so he used the favourite bad guys and plot tricks that we all loved first time we saw them, but he wanted to keep the faithful fans entertained, so he gave us some great in-jokes and classic references to drool over.

I prefer this film to the last, simply for the nostalgia aspect and the fact that the new alternate characters are established and we don't need to waste time getting to know them. This one was all action, just a pity we couldn't see half the action due to the lens flare effects.

Disappointment is the correct word to use.

I could write a long review but honestly you could read one of the other thousands of reviews to find all the points I'd make but I will sum up my feelings about Into Darkness in one sentence:

Star Trek (2009) is the much better film.

Disclaimer: I say that still having enjoyed Into Darkness and looking forward to seeing it again.

Disagree alot, i really enjoyed the film. Also i really liked the nods to older films that we have seen.

Unfortunately I have to agree here. I was really disappointed in this one and it sorta felt like the writers couldn't come up with something original, so they decided to slap together a bunch of scenes from previous stories and added a little filler in between.


As always, the special effects were up to par but the storyline was really lacking. This is the first Star Trek movie where I kept wondering when it would end. :(

I think Rod Roddenberry had it right when he said that he felt that the Star Trek franchise belonged on television and not the movies.

I gave up on dating for what seemed like the millionth time, and I met my partner as an online casual hookup lol. Now we live together and are engaged.

So I have a problem with the new movie, and that is that NOTHING original happened in the film.

The scene where That was pulled from the script of Voyager s02e14, Alliances.

The scene in the bar with Kirk and Pike was totally a rehash of the bar scene with them from the last movie. Same as the space jump scene.

Oh, and the hidden identity of the villian, like that really surprised anybody that

The USS Vengance looks way too much like the Ent E for my comfort.

And the whole death scene towards the end, sure props for doing it a different way, but we already had that scene in another trek film.

I could go on and on for pages and pages, but you get the idea.

I feel like the new movie was the worst star trek cinematic letdown ever. I'm sad.

Quote by NicholasJohn16

Don't let the single life get to you! I know it can suck, but keep looking! Or, give up, they always say you meet the one when you give up.

I have to say this is 100% true. I met my hubby of 8 years online. Both of us had signed in to the site to close our accounts and I said F-It one last try and I pinged him with my number. 5 minutes later he called me. 1 day later I invited him to come over and we could go to dinner nearby. He came over only he brought with him Chinese food. We stayed in, watched a movie and that was the beginning of our 6 month dating process that ended with me moving in with him. That was July of 2005.

Quote by NicholasJohn16

I've been reading these and really love them. There hilarious! Though, I don't like how they play Wesley as an idiot.

I interpreted it as him being a little kid, which is an extreme caricature of his roll on the show (similar to how Riker is portrayed as an over-the-top horndog).

So far my favorite is Troi, who is ridiculous both as herself and as Quark.

Glad you all like them! If you follow the author on Twitter, he tweets when he updates.

I am happy to say that i am caught up.

I don't use the word "date" very often. If it's an instance that I am taking someone out and going to pay for their evening then it's a "date" I am treating them to the entertainment and food or whatever. If this results in intimacy so be it but not required for a "date" to happen it can just be me treating them to a day/evening out.

I use the phrase "get together" more often and have and will correct someone if they ask if I am asking them out on a date. I feel that with a "get together" it's more of a joint friendly outing. We're getting together for a day/evening of mutual enjoyment but self pay. The term also makes it easier to keep away from the romantic feeling involved in a "date"

I've been reading these and really love them. There hilarious! Though, I don't like how they play Wesley as an idiot.

I always defined a date as an outing that you take with a romantic interest, but that can rather nebulous. There are a lot of gays that won't use the word "date" even though by any standard, it very well qualifies as one. I think it has either to do with a lot of guys not wanting to commit or not wanting the obligation to turn a guy down after.



Instead of taking a camera with on your date, have you ever asking if there was something you did wrong that bothered them? If they're completely ignoring you, that's probably not possible. If they are still talking to them, open up, tell them you've been on a few dates that haven't gone well, you're looking for some earnest feedback and you won't blame them. Hopefully, they'll bite. I've done it a few times and it's helped.



I don't think the obligation for the ask-er to pay is outdated or about assimilation. I think its a vast improvement over "the guy always pays" in straight culture. Not everyone now a days has the funds to spring for whatever the other person picks to do. Just cause I want to go to the my favorite restaurant doesn't mean my date should be required to pay $35 for a small serving of sushi.

Online dating isn't always the greatest. A lot of guys on the net aren't really looking for any kind of commitment, but rather just a online chat partner and will bail at the first sign of it going anywhere farther. If this is a problem you're having continually, try changing the dating sites you're using. Compatible Partners is pretty good, I think.

Don't let the single life get to you! I know it can suck, but keep looking! Or, give up, they always say you meet the one when you give up.

Yeah, it's pretty ridiculous. Given that the starships in STO don't even approach that amount, and are FAR FAR more functional than the mounts in Neverwinter, I really have to wonder what that pricing is about.

My only current theory is that they're starting high on these things and see how many people bite. If they are getting bought, they'll likely come down in price.

I'm not opposed to cash shops at all(I've dropped at least $50-60 in GW2 since it launched), especially for cosmetic stuff.

I'm just not a fan of selling things like respecs, those enchant guarantees, etc... Plus, some of their stuff is just priced ridiculously. $40 for a mount? I get that it's special or whatever. But...Yikes.

Quote by SiranNataan

If/when they release the bard class, I wonder if it will be more offensively minded, like in LOTRO. If so, I'll probably reroll the elf, since I based him off my old tabletop character and he was a bard originally.

When they make a bard class, we should all just make a cabal of pop diva rip-offs that run around Neverwinter. I'm calling Gaga.

With regard to the cash shop, yeah, most of it's fluff. That said, I'm annoyed that things like 'changing the color of your clothes' and 'remaking your character's body and face' require items per use that cost zen. That seems rather ridiculous.

The last big "subscription model" game left is WoW, and they command large enough numbers to not really need microtransactions to have a long run, thus the cash shop is here to stay in all newer MMOs. As Milmar observes most of the stuff on this cash shop is cosmetic and kind of fluffy and not necessary to the overall game experience. I have spent Zen in STO twice (for the Vesta and some utility unlocks).

ymmv...

The F2P model is the same as in star trek online which means the stuff in the cash shop is essentially fluff that you dont really need, everything in the game content wise is open and there for you and your not massively disadvantaged never spending a penny.
Providing they stick to the model they devised in STO :P

I die occasionally with my halfling rogue--Level 26 with a cleric companion. But my level-10 elf cleric can't even cross the Tower District to start a mission without dying. If/when they release the bard class, I wonder if it will be more offensively minded, like in LOTRO. If so, I'll probably reroll the elf, since I based him off my old tabletop character and he was a bard originally.

I'm not sure if Rogue is OP or not, but I will say that I have never died despite this being my first/only character. Of course, I am only level 15-16... I forget, since I haven't logged in for about a week.

Their cash shop is a real turn off for some reason, and I don't want to invest my time in the game because it will probably only get worse.

Quote by LesleyA

I have only played Cleric and wizard so far to level 32 and 6 respectively so cant really comment on how op or not anybody is (except wizard appears to be rubbish in PvE) but the thing I'd like to know is; When did we have a guild there? Where is it? I'm on Mindflayer by the way.

The guild is on Dragon since that seemed where most of the people were playing. Of course, there are members on the other shards. But as SiranNataan mentioned, Cryptic plans to merge the shards once the game officially releases.

On a not-really-related note, do you get Glory for every PvP match? The reason I ask is that, in 2 of the 3 matches I've done, the reward I get is just equipment. Only once (when I was on a losing team) did it explicitly list Glory as a reward.

I've noticed that too. But I believe that you get some amount of Glory from every PVP match. If you hit I and go to the wealth tab, you should notice an increase after every match.