ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

Star Trek Into Darkness Reviews

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this May. 16 2013, 7:04 pm

So,


 


SPOILERS- READ AT OWN RISK 


 


I saw STID on Wednesday night with my wife and a few other couples who like Trek. It was the 3D IMAX premier, and the theater was packed with Trek fans. There's nothing like opening night for a Star Trek movie...especially now that the franchise is up and cranking again.


Let's talk in general about the film first. Quite honestly, I was really surprised that it was as good as it was. I enjoyed the 2009 movie a great deal, but it wasn't my favorite Star Trek movie. It was probably in the top "half" of the franchise films though. I thought it was very well done and it surely would re-energize the Star Trek franchise, but it wasn't exactly what I would have done if it were left to me. Luckily, that doesn't make me a raving lunatic, nor does it mean that I automatically must hate it. Into Darkness surprised me because it was, in my opinion, a much better film than the first (and the first was pretty good). I think it took itself more seriously than the first film, and the intensity was a bit higher. But, at the same time, it MASTERFULLY wove in some wonderful character interactions, humor, drama and relevant allegory all while moving at a brisk action-oriented pace. 


One of the things I love about the new film franchise is that it has gone back to proving that Star Trek can still be smart and have relevant things to say without hurling them at us in a 7-minute speech taking place in the ready room. Into Darkness accomplishes that very well...again in many ways better than the 2009 film.


I think, from a general audience and casual fan perspective, this is going to be a damn near-perfect film. It really has everytihing you'd want in a fun, relevant blockbuster...and I'm convinced the box office numbers will reflect that.


Let's get into some specifics now:


 


PLOT / THEMES (Score- 9/10):


In my opinion, the plot is fairly tight for a Star Trek movie. It has it's holes and quesiton marks, but then again so do all Star Trek movies...so I can't be a hypocrite and hold that against this one. That said, there's probably  FEWER holes or contrivances than in the classics like TWOK or TUC. The themes and structure are very Star Trek oriented. The Prime Directive plays a big piece in this movie, and sets the wheels in motion for what is to come. There is also a great Classic Trek allegory to the plot, relevant to post 9/11 politics and attitudes that is in the best style of the approach used in the best TOS episodes (subtle allegory, not preachy holier-than-thou speeches and so on). I also like how the movie continues to explore the importance of fatherhood / father figures and family and the importance they can play in our lives. Very worthy of classic Trek.


MAIN CHARACTERS (Score- 10/10):


I believe that the fans who were put-off by nuKirk don't get it. I hope that after seeing this movie, they will. nuKirk is a very different Kirk than the guy we grew to know and love in TOS. He's NOT that same hero. He's a man who grew up without a father and without a lot of parental guidance. He's also 10 years younger when we first met him in the 2009 film. Now, we really get to see his journey toward that Kirk we love take shape. To me, a journey is far more intersting than just presenting us with a prefect hero. Into Darkness is really about Kirk's journey. Second (but not a distant second) is the further development of the Kirk/Spock friendship. Again, this is handled really well here. There are still sparks (although this time they seem more realistic and justified) of conflict that fly, but we also see the development of the brotherhood we'll come to love. Quinto is a good Spock...and he really does a fine job here. There's more for Bones McCoy to do, but not much more. It's a shame, becuase Karl Urban is fantastic and Bones is probably my favorite TOS character. I'd love for them to focus MUCH more on the trio next movie rather than just Kirk and Spock.


Uhura is still strong and confident...and still with Spock. This isn't nearly as jarring as it was in the 2009 movie, and I've come to somewhat like it now. It still seems a little weird, and I would not miss it if that plot point mysteriously vanished next movie...but it doesn't bother me either. Sulu is Sulu...Checkov is Checkov (although he had probably the least to do). The biggest relief was Scotty. Scotty is still funny, but he's not "played for laughs" nearly as much. Also, more than before, he's a very integral part of the story here. He comes off much more true to character in this film.


OTHER CHARACTERS (Score- 9/10):


So John Harrison is really menacing, manipulative and is a great threat. He's also revealed (boy was I WRONG) to be none other than Khan Noonian Singh. Benedict Cumberbatch played it so right, and with such authority though...that I loved it. I loved the twists. I loved trying to figure out, even up to the last scenes, if he was REALLY evil or if he was going to turn out to be a good guy. Masterful.


Admiral Bennett is also very good. He's really the "true villian" of the story...but both he and Khan are so complex that neither of them are really evil. They both overshadow Nero tremendously in terms of their motivation and depth. Bennett represents the fear and paranoia of the post-Vulcan era...a perfect example of a man who will go too far to do what he thinks is necessary.


Admiral Christopher Pike again serves as the emotional conscience and center for the film, as well as the father figure for a developing and maturing Kirk. Watching his death is shocking and gut-wrenching...knowing what he meant to Kirk in this universe. Pike essentially "saved" Kirk from a meaningless, wasteful life. Now he's gone and it really shapes Kirk's maturity in an amazing and welcome way.


Carol Marcus was an intersting addition, but she wasn't really essential to the plot. That's not to say that she was a waste..but I think she is more of a "hanging thread" for the next film than anything else. 


SPECIAL EFFECTS (score- 10/10)


Not much to say here. The movie looks absolutely brilliant. 


PRODUCTION DESIGN (score- 6/10)


I'm not really a fan of the production design of either of these films. The Enterprise is growing more on me now...but I still don't think she's as iconic as the TOS or movie versions. The interior of the Enterprise is better this time around, and you see lots more of the insides of the ship, giving her more scope and realism than in 2009. I just don't really dig the "look" of the props, interiors, and ships. They're not horrible..but they don't inspire me either.


SCORE (score- 7/10)


The music is pretty solid, but not inspiring. I think this soundtrack is weaker than the last film. There is nothing that compares to the intimacy of Spock's theme in that movie, nor to the emotional power of the track as George Kirk sacrifices himself. Notihng really stuck out. Not bad...but fairly unmemorable.


NERDVISION (score- 8/10)


So, putting my Trek nerd / nit-pick / howdarethey hat for a moment, this section basically explores things that fans will feel challenged by, and either "love" or hate with every fiber of their being. First, I absolutely loved what they did with the Khan / Harrison thing. I loved that they weaved Section 31 into the film (even though I swore up and down they wouldn't do that...haha!) and I really enjoyed being manipulated right along with Kirk. I think a lot of fans will b!tch about Kahn not being Indiain (but I guess it was okay that he was a Mexican originally...ok), and there are a lot of others who will whine about re-hasing an old villian. But, the interesting thing is that this is NOT either of that same Khan. This Khan has lived in our time for a while and has been used and manipulated for evil purposes. So, it's hard to track with wherther he is an ally or an enemy for a while, and it's done masterfully.


I think the dramatic climax of the movie (which, by the way, completely had me shocked and surprised) is what most fans will either love or absolutely hate. I for one loved it...but it was a VERY fine line they walked because they were treading on some extremely sacred ground. EXTREME SPOILER ALERT: Kirk "dies" in a fascinatingly-done role reversal with Spock, in nearly an exact recreation of the TWOK death scene. I loved it, but I was a hair away from hating it. I think I got my head wrapped around it by accepting that there are still some things that "align" in each universe, and the presence of Khan, Marcus, Kirk and Spock all kind of lended themselves to this unexplained reversal. There's an underlying theme of "reversal" between Kirk and Spock throughout the movie actually that alludes to this ("What would Spock have done" and "I did what you would have done"). 


On top of that, there's other great nods to Trek canon that I find respectful and welcoming...and even thought they missed the mark a couple of times...it was never bad and I appreciated the attempts. 


RESPECTING THE FANS (score 9/10)


For the most part, it amazed me how much improved this movie was from the last one in terms of things that the fans "rightfully" complained about. 


1. There was no more gratuitous, meaningless action. No Scotty in the water pipes. No Kirk vs. the Ice Crab. There was tons of action and adventure, but it was all there in direct service of the plot...and not tacked on unnaturally like some of the scenes in the 2009 film. 


2. There was comedy...perhaps as much as in 2009, but it was much more character-driven and appropriate and much less juvenile and slapstick. It was funny like Star Trek IV...not cringe-worthy like Star Trek V and Insurrection.


3. There was far less reliance on bad science. Yes, there were plenty of points where suspension of disbelief must carry you though a scene...but there's no "a blackhole will take you back in time" issue standing out like a sore thumb. 


4. As mentioned before, Kirk's arrogance and cavalier attitude is actually an integral part of the film...not just there to be fun and entertaining. This was a great and welcome improvement.


5. There were lots of nods to the fans...almost too many. The pan across all the ships in Marcus's office. The tribble. The Prime Directive. The referneces to common dilogue (McCoy metaphors, etc). 


 


So, overall, I have to say that this was an outstanding and entertaining movie (in general) and a very good Star Trek film (specifically). Was it the best? I don't think so. I still have a place in my heart for the first 3 TOS movies. But...it's in positon to challenge. It had heart while not being lame, it had warmth without being gooey, and it had depth and smarts without being boring and pretentious. 


OVERALL RATING: 9/10


Place in ranking:


1. TWOK 


2. TSFS


3. STID 


4. TMP


5. 2009


6. FC 


7. TFF 


8. TUC 


9. NEM 


10. TVH


11. GEN


12. INS

littlefuzz4

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 13

Report this May. 16 2013, 9:03 pm

(Spoiler)  If young Kirk can be brought back to life in Star Trek Into Darkness (2013) and Khan rejuvenated, why not bring back William Shatner in the next Star Trek movie and bring old Kirk back to life?  This way older Spock's (Leonard Nimoy) time travel journey is not in vein and older Kirk can become alive again. They could have a scene with Leonard Nimoy and William Shatner together again.


God willing all the original surviving Star Trek cast members will stay healthy and well for the 50th Anniversary of Star Trek in 2016.

Utopia Planetia

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 88

Report this May. 17 2013, 4:13 am

I think this movie is a net plus.

First, the bad.

1. Zachary Quinto. Dude was bad in heroes, and is awful as Spock. Having Nimoy in the view screen (or window overlaid with video projection on it? hahahah) scene with him just points up how weak an actor he is. He comes from the loathful post-next generation Tuvok/T'Pol school of portraying vulcans as hyper-precocious children, stunted to the point of savantism. Quinto's Spock is little more than a punching bag for this obnoxious, loser of a Kirk character, and a blank background on which to lather the writers' Zoe Saldana jack-off fantasies. That's mostly the writers' faults, but Quinto certainly offers no respite.

2. Red Squad. That's what this movie is. We've had original series movies and next generation movies. We'll likely never get far more deserving deep space nine movies, or voyager or enterprise movies. But instead we get two hours of whiny teenager star fleet academy star trek. I hate red squad, and I hate academy episodes. This is one long academy episode.

3. The acting. Lots of it is bad (Quinto, Cho, Saldana, and Cumberbatch for instance), much of it mediocre (Pine, Greenwood, Urban, Weller, and Eve), and little of it compelling (Yelchin and Pegg are both pretty good).

4. The writing. It's dismal. Full of gimmicks, bad (sometimes star trek fan-mocking) jokes, and angular, sophomoric dialogue. And the director compounds the problem by rendering especially early scenes with well-known, over-used, schlocky 'excitement' devices. In sum, it's an unmoving story -- a poor remake of deep space nine's Homefront/Paradise Lost.


Now, the good.

1. The futurism is back. When I've read some here insist that star trek 2009 critics' 'it's not star trek' argument is weak because those critics never define what star trek is, it's always read to me as disingenuous. All star trek fans know what star trek is. Star trek is futurism, theoretical physics, and utopianism. Almost everything else has been known to change, but take away those three elements, and star trek's animating force disappears. The movies have always been short on the third, but the 2009 movie gave short shrift to even the second and first.

Not so for into darkness. With the exceptions of a few notable scenes, there's no doubt we're in the future here. And everywhere you turn in this movie, there's some design element that loudly points up some theoretical technological leap. All the futuristic wonder and otherworldly-fantasy that draw viewers to star trek and turned readers here into lifelong fans is on rich, opulent display here. It was beautiful and I loved it.

2. The uniforms. Another design element. When new series have been proposed in recent years, often early among the leaks have been the planned uniforms. And star trek fans eat it up eagerly because we know the uniforms are a tell-tell sign of what kind of star trek we're getting. One of the popular threads in recent weeks here has been, 'What's Your Favorite Uniform?' The uniforms are an encapsulation of the futurism/theoretical physics/utopianism requisites. It's more than clear in this movie that the designers and director get it and, more, love it, because they give us way more uniforms than necessary or warranted, and they do it so very beautifully.

On the costume front, there are a few outfits that aren't futuristic and jar the viewer out of suspension of disbelief. But they are comparatively few and easily forgiven, since the others are so well done.

3. The aliens. A third design element. Yes, the klingons are odd, and unnecessary. They should've just given that species here a new name, because as far I noticed, the klingon plot point was not at all integral to the story. It's only value was name dropping and an easy, lazy explanation for the, 'you could start a war' divergence, which itself was even trivialized and quickly forgotten. But what they did to the klingons, while unnecessary, looked amazing. So too the aliens in the opening chase scene and several of the enterprise, starfleet headquarters, kirk bedroom, and bar scene extras. Almost all the aliens looked so very cool. I would love, love to see several of them in the next series, and would be more than forgiving if they kept the klingon re-design, making for a third incarnation of the species and giving an opportunity for another exploration of the facial-feature changing virus mentioned in deep space nine and discussed in-depth in enterprise.

That said, there are a few aliens that lack subtlety and elegance and remind the viewer more of star wars than star trek. This, along with the dieing girl's parents' bedroom and much of the architecture design is jarring, and in the latter cases seem to be attempts to root the movie in our contemporary times and so draw in the unfamiliar, non-star trek fan audience. Maybe it'll help -- I don't know. But to their credit, the director and designers balance them very well against star trek design values, giving preference to the futurism designs.

In another thread that asked whether this movie would inspire and engage the imaginations of millions and generations the way earlier star trek series did, I said I guess no. I was wrong. This movie is so plush, and so opulent, and so beautiful, and so rich in futurism and theoretical technology that I feel confident any new series borrowing from or even based in its design ethos will have the basis it needs to do what earlier star trek series have done: excite wonder and imagination world-wide, point the way forward for near- and medium-term technologies, and sooth viewers' war-weary, corruption-weary, contempt-weary souls by showing us the possibilities of a future more perfect, more rational, more decent, more courteous, and more content. Not all that was on display here -- not by a long shot. And I don't wish for this director or these writers or these actors to be involved in the next series -- the best of their work here is mediocre, as I said above. But what this movie will do very successfully, I think, is create the space in the market, conceptually (that is, at paramount and cbs), and in the minds of unfamiliar viewers for good, even great new star trek television. I think all star trek fans will be very happy about that in the end.

jayson.deare

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6

Report this May. 17 2013, 3:08 pm

As an old fan I did see ST2009 which I enjoyed and was able to suspensd some disbelief as to some of the bad science etc in name of restarting a franchise. I will use my thoughts of new movie to try an explain what I feel a lot of old fans are thinking I just saw ST:ITD and the movie was ok but I hate to say it, it wasn't good. it's just more of the same stuff that we get shoveled our way every year by Hollywood. While Into Darkness was an enjoyable thrill ride there's just enough wrong with it for me to be glad that Abrams may be moving on two Star Wars or very sorry.

I could go on like a Fanboy about the things that irritate me and are utterly ignored by writers some that really make no logical sense but since I am a fan I will only list 4

1.) Transwarp Beaming please for the love of God get rid of this beaming across the galaxy BS who the hell needs a Starship when you can just beam on over

2.) No sense of Actual time passing at all even if it's just simulated or even remotely speed up. We warp from Quo'Nos to Earth in seconds just no...

3.) Why did they redesign the Klingons the new ones look like some Dessert thugs with the Piercings doesn't make sense also would not have been affected by Time Travel
4.) The promoting and demoting of anyone at random I mean common....

I think Star Trek needs some fresh blood again, I liked how we allude to the five year missions but I just felt that the heart of Star Trek was taken away and replaced with insert any Generic Action Movie here. The cast I love the idea of the reboot I love. While 2009 had a few plot holes I felt it was a stronger story and the whole time travel alternate reality thing can explain it away. I loved the first sequence of the movie it felt like I was watching some fun Star Trek Again, the morality of everything and Kirk changing his mind about the orders was very well done as well.

What i miss is the heart of Start Trek and the larger ramifications. Star Trek 6 we have politics, betrayal, friendship, action and in the end a new beginning. It was really something to see. I just hope that being out on this 5 year mission while give us something more than just a 2.5 hour action movie that can almost be done with "insert character name here" and not Kirk Spock, McCoy and the crew of the U.S.S Enterprise 1701.

I am pretty sure I could come up with a better story than this one in 5 minutes. In fact I will write a few plot points of one down. Based on the TOS Episode Arena more commonly known as the one with the Gorn

1.) Enterprise receives a distress signal and arrives on a decimated colony, the citizens that survive don't know why they were attacked.

2.) During the investigation the Enterprise and the planet are attacked by an unknown race the Gorn with Captain Kirk being taken prisoner

3.) The Gorn Captain challenges Kirk to a fight in an Arena, During the fight Kirk tries to better Understand the Gorn and why they attacked the Colony taken a cue from Into Darkness enter section 31

4.) After a short battle the Enterprise recovers Kirk who then sues to make a temporary alliance with the Gorn

5.) The Enterprise and the Gorn go after a rogue element of Starfleet Section 31 that is taken preventative action against a potentially hostile race with their dreadnought (Enter U.S.S Vengeance)

6.) Enterprise saves the day while forging a new alliance for the United Federation of Planets.

I know I pulled two elements from the new movie but heck this one seems a lot more like Star Trek with a lot more character to me. Anyhow let's hope the 3rd one finally gets it right I could excuse the first one as a new beginning but not the second....


 


Oh and one last thing how the heck is the Neutral Zone so close to Quo'Nos that you don't need to warp there sigh....

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this May. 17 2013, 6:10 pm

Quote: jayson.deare @ May. 17 2013, 3:08 pm

>

style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19px; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', helvetica, arial, sans-serif; color: #3f4549; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.952941);">As an old fan I did see ST2009 which I enjoyed and was able to suspensd some disbelief as to some of the bad science etc in name of restarting a franchise. I will use my thoughts of new movie to try an explain what I feel a lot of old fans are thinking I just saw ST:ITD and the movie was ok but I hate to say it, it wasn't good. it's just more of the same stuff that we get shoveled our way every year by Hollywood. While Into Darkness was an enjoyable thrill ride there's just enough wrong with it for me to be glad that Abrams may be moving on two Star Wars or very sorry.

I could go on like a Fanboy about the things that irritate me and are utterly ignored by writers some that really make no logical sense but since I am a fan I will only list 4

1.) Transwarp Beaming please for the love of God get rid of this beaming across the galaxy BS who the hell needs a Starship when you can just beam on over

2.) No sense of Actual time passing at all even if it's just simulated or even remotely speed up. We warp from Quo'Nos to Earth in seconds just no...

3.) Why did they redesign the Klingons the new ones look like some Dessert thugs with the Piercings doesn't make sense also would not have been affected by Time Travel
4.) The promoting and demoting of anyone at random I mean common....

I think Star Trek needs some fresh blood again, I liked how we allude to the five year missions but I just felt that the heart of Star Trek was taken away and replaced with insert any Generic Action Movie here. The cast I love the idea of the reboot I love. While 2009 had a few plot holes I felt it was a stronger story and the whole time travel alternate reality thing can explain it away. I loved the first sequence of the movie it felt like I was watching some fun Star Trek Again, the morality of everything and Kirk changing his mind about the orders was very well done as well.

What i miss is the heart of Start Trek and the larger ramifications. Star Trek 6 we have politics, betrayal, friendship, action and in the end a new beginning. It was really something to see. I just hope that being out on this 5 year mission while give us something more than just a 2.5 hour action movie that can almost be done with "insert character name here" and not Kirk Spock, McCoy and the crew of the U.S.S Enterprise 1701.

I am pretty sure I could come up with a better story than this one in 5 minutes. In fact I will write a few plot points of one down. Based on the TOS Episode Arena more commonly known as the one with the Gorn

1.) Enterprise receives a distress signal and arrives on a decimated colony, the citizens that survive don't know why they were attacked.

2.) During the investigation the Enterprise and the planet are attacked by an unknown race the Gorn with Captain Kirk being taken prisoner

3.) The Gorn Captain challenges Kirk to a fight in an Arena, During the fight Kirk tries to better Understand the Gorn and why they attacked the Colony taken a cue from Into Darkness enter section 31

4.) After a short battle the Enterprise recovers Kirk who then sues to make a temporary alliance with the Gorn

5.) The Enterprise and the Gorn go after a rogue element of Starfleet Section 31 that is taken preventative action against a potentially hostile race with their dreadnought (Enter U.S.S Vengeance)

6.) Enterprise saves the day while forging a new alliance for the United Federation of Planets.

I know I pulled two elements from the new movie but heck this one seems a lot more like Star Trek with a lot more character to me. Anyhow let's hope the 3rd one finally gets it right I could excuse the first one as a new beginning but not the second....

style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19px; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', helvetica, arial, sans-serif; color: #3f4549; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.952941);"> 

style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19px; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', helvetica, arial, sans-serif; color: #3f4549; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.952941);">Oh and one last thing how the heck is the Neutral Zone so close to Quo'Nos that you don't need to warp there sigh....

>


 


Im sorry you didn't enjoy it. That's a bummer. 


A couple of quick comments:


1. Your story idea is really no better than the basic premise of the film. Its not bad, but it's certainly not better. Sounds like "Arena" redone. No character arc for Kirks growth and no arc for furthering the Spock relationship. 


2. There were hardly ever any "larger ramifications" in Star Trek.Particularly not in TOS or TNG. 


3. You praise TUC in one line and then bash how the Enterprise gets to the Neutral Zone too quickly in STID a few lines later. Did you watch TUC? They basically do the exact same thing in that movie. In fact the Enterprise never even goes to warp in TUC on the way there or escorting the KRONOS ONE back. it's ridiculous. Let's hold everyone to the same standard. 


4. Wholeheartedly agree about transwarp beaming. It's awful. I was hoping they'd move away and forget it ever happened. Good call on that one!


I AM KEE-ROCK!!

OneDamnMinuteAdmiral

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1401

Report this May. 17 2013, 6:43 pm

As much as I enjoyed the film I wish they hadn't retold TWOK/Space Seed, and Cumberbatch being Khan wasn't really necessary, that is to say he could have been anyone from Capt. Garth to just some new character from Section 31. Take away the frozen crew of the Botany Bay and he just becomes another augment that Section 31 could have made and it backfired on them.


Rehashing the engineering death scene yet in reverse wasn't really needed either although I got what purpose it served. If Mr. Abrams wanted to reboot the universe to not be tied down to all that Trek history why go out and retread a movie that's already been done? I get using characters from the show but there were many more in the series that could have been fleshed out and been fresh.


I suppose though its not different than A Superman movie with General Zod or Lex Luthor (both been done, and now redone).


Having said all that I still really enjoyed the movie and found it to be entertaining, which I guess makes me odd. It's Star Trek, its back, and it will go in the collection along side all my other Trek films.


 


I will say this though, having Khan with more workable knowledge of Starfleet and the Federation makes him even more dangerous than before if he ever gets revived.


Are you sure it isn't time for a colorful metaphor?

Vicsage

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 465

Report this May. 17 2013, 7:17 pm

Liked the movie, but 2 complaints.  Urban is a better actor, he does not need to just parrot old DeForrest Kelly lines from previous shows.  In the first movie most of his dialog was original, here it seemed most were lines McCoy was famous for saying.   Second complaint, security in the Federation stinks.  Scotty can get aboard a black-op station with a simple shuttle craft.  2 starship can battle near the orbit of the moon and no one sees or sends out other ships.  I also heard that Harry Mudd was suppose to be mentioned.  Was He?  I missed it. 


No response must mean you all agree.

OneDamnMinuteAdmiral

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1401

Report this May. 17 2013, 7:26 pm

Quote: Vicsage @ May. 17 2013, 7:17 pm

>

>I also heard that Harry Mudd was suppose to be mentioned.  Was He?  I missed it. 

>


Well Sulu told the shuttle bay to prep the ship they got from the "Mudd Incident". but they never say Harry, in the comic I think Mudd is a woman.


Are you sure it isn't time for a colorful metaphor?

pb03

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 56

Report this May. 17 2013, 8:22 pm

Usually I'm one for writing too much in blogs and even thru emails. I've been told its quite annoying me writing a novel, so to sum it all down: I enjoyed the film & quite entertained! Still think The Wrath of Khan is by far the best for the original series movies, but the new story is exciting.

CaptainMaxOf4

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4

Report this May. 17 2013, 10:32 pm

I've written about elsewhere, so all I want to say I loved Into Darkness and I think its probably te best Trek film next to Wrath of Khan


"I'm not Picard!"

Marsroute66

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1

Report this May. 18 2013, 12:52 am

Space: the final frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise. Its five-year mission: to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before.


That is the opening for the original series and embodies the, heart, the core, the Spirit of Star Trek.  THIS SPIRIT IS COMPLETELY ABSENT IN THE NEW FILM.


I love action like the next guy. But I can go to a Tom Cruise movie for that. I go to ST to see the embodiment of the above quote.  JJ Abrams and his crew have COMPLETELY MISSED THE POINT OF STAR TREK.


Risk! Risk is our business. -Captain James T. Kirk

Somniac

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 462

Report this May. 18 2013, 2:33 am

What I liked:


The art direction.


The effects. They were terrific.


The plot. OK some holes but I didn’t mind.


Cumberbatch. Could have been a bit more built though. Maybe Khan didn’t do so many steroids in Nu timeline.


The set pieces:


Enterprise rising from the ocean although I felt cheated by not seeing her actually fully emerge and fly. (maybe an FX problem?)


Marcus’ ship crashing although again truncated so no satisfying conclusion to the sequence. I.e. ship coming to a stop. I guess it’s supposed to leave us wanting more but I just found it frustrating. Great sequence though.


The references to Prime Trek. Fun and enjoyable and above all inclusive.


The mirrored death scene. I thought it worked really well. maybe it was because at last I had something that really resonnated with me on an emotional level. I felt the past was getting some respect.


What I didn’t like:


Betrayal of Roddenberrys ideal of multi racial future. Hardly any African American actors in major roles. This became much more apparent to me when I watched TSFS the day after, in which there are loads of major roles (Admirals etc) for African Americans.


As above but for women.


Carol Marcus resurrected as a character because of her future sexual relationship to Kirk.


“New” Vulcan dropped in out of nowhere. A compromise I thought was clumsy and unnecessary.


If Vulcan is gone, let it be gone.  JJ bottled it.


The pace: Too slow in the first half. Too fast in the second.


 No epic quality.


No sense of the majesty and wonder of travel in space.


Pegg as Scotty.  I could see the wheels turning.


His little mate.


The music video/ad unsteady-cam style of shooting. So old hat. Hill Street Blues was a long time ago.


Upsum:


Trek is now a SF movie to meld with all the others instead of something special.


 


What other people think of you is none of your business.

PrincessBarbara

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 8

Report this May. 18 2013, 10:51 am

I was at the 5/15/13 showing, and actually looking forward to the movie. As a life long Trekker at the age of 12 in 1966, I had some real concerns when Abrams took over the franchise in 2009.  When I saw Star Trek for the first time I was honestly very angry and felt that it was a violation of Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek. To be fair, I went back and saw the movie a few more times (ok-7 in total) and was finally able to channel my inner Roddenberry.  STID is a whole different matter. I AM PLAIN APPALLED AND ANGRY!  The story was weak and disjointed. I hated the "big reveal" of Harrison as Kahn and feel that with all the ways that Abrams could have gone with this film to destroy an iconic villian and the relationship between Kirk and Kahn and Kirk and Spock is unforgivable. One liners do not replace witty dialogue and where was the development between the core characters, the hallmark of Star Trek past?  I don't like what Abrams did with the Klingons. I went to the Paramount Facebook page and begged them to turn the reins of Star Trek over to Jonathan Frakes and Ronald D Moore. Let JJ concentrate on destroying the Star Wars franchise. I can't wait to see what the Star Wars devotees do when Abrams messes with their baby. And for the record, I didn't think that 3D enhanced the movie, but I guess in order to compete in today's film market you must go with the flow.  I thought that Iron Man 3 was a far superior film...especially having Tony Stark return to his genious roots and the character development of both Tony and Pepper as individuals and as a couple.  Kudos to Stan Lee and Marvel.

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this May. 18 2013, 11:04 am

Quote:

I went to the Paramount Facebook page and begged them to turn the reins of Star Trek over to Jonathan Frakes and Ronald D Moore.


 


I think I'd prefer Michael Dorn, somehow. I love me some Frakes and Moore, but I think the fact that Dorn was a Trekkie from the beginning would help.

KelisThePoet

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 636

Report this May. 18 2013, 12:26 pm

I quite loved Into Darkness.


I remember my reaction to Star Trek (2009).  I felt like something had been restored to the franchise that had been lost with Enterprise: namely, fun--and along with fun, if I may be permitted to wax sentimental, a bit of hope and joy.  I had not seen Nemesis at the time, but when I did see it, I felt like it suffered from the same problems as Enterprise, albeit to a lesser extent.  It was so dark and angsty, which seems to be the way so much of film and television is trending these days.  And then, here came this new Star Trek movie with bright uniforms and shiny interiors and likable heroes.  And if that seems like a superficial reason to praise the movie, well, to me it's not superficial because to me those things capture the optimism of Star Trek's vision.  So given my reaction to the last movie, I was of course looking forward to this one, but given the title Star Trek Into Darkness and some of the movie's media spin, I had my trepidations.


Well, those trepidations proved ill founded.  The movie is filled with colorful, light-drenched shots depicting rich, beautifully textured worlds.  Visually speaking, the only dark scene is Khan's fight with the Klingons, in which a degree of obscurity is necessary to tone down the violence.  The scenes on the USS Vengeance are shot expertly to look like dark environments without actually being obscured from the audience's point of view (in this respect, they were an improvement from the scenes aboard the Narada in the last movie). The characters are, again, our recognizable heroes--note, I'm not trying to say that they are or should be the perfect people of The Next Generation style.  But they're also not like Captain Archer.  Sorry if I sound like I'm using this review to pick on Enterprise.  It's just an easy point of reference representative of a larger trend in entertainment that I don't like.  What I'm trying to say is that these movies don't give us what has already become the cliche of the antihero, the tortured soul in a wicked world, doing evil that some greater good might prevail.


In fact, the opposite.  There is a character in Into Darkness who argues that the ends justify the means, that violence and deception are necessary to protect a way of life.  That character is the movie's chief villain, Admiral Marcus, and Kirk stands in pointed (if nuanced) opposition to him.  For this reason, for me, Into Darkness excells Star Trek (2009).  The characters in Star Trek (2009) did not betray the morals associated with Star Trek and Starfleet, but they weren't really placed in a position to do so.  All they had to do was stop a madman that any sane person would oppose.  Into Darkness is more ethically complex.  It rejects not simple evil, but evil passing as good, and in so doing, it affirms some of the perennial values of Star Trek: peace, avoidance of war, resistance to the militarization of society.  Not all Star Trek movies and episodes address these issues, and not all of them can or should, but this movie is as daring in its social commentary as the most daring original stories, stories like "Balance of Terror," "A Private Little War," "A Taste of Armageddon" and "Errand of Mercy"; the kinds of stories I wondered if I would ever see from Star Trek again.


I fear the above paragraph makes me sound as though my appreciation for this new movie is rigidly ideological.  It's true that I'm captivated by what I consider to be the Star Trek ethos, and while I don't demand that ethos in all of my entertainment, I'm disappointed when I feel that a Star Trek story contradicts those values.  At the same time though, I think Into Darkness is raising a broad moral and social issue, rather than levelling a politicized attak at anyone or anything in particular.  And on a related note, it raises this issue and takes a position without being preachy.  I think the ethical complexity of Into Darkness makes it a superior movie to Star Trek (2009) not just because I think it's fitting for Star Trek to brave this kind of ethical territory, but because it makes the plot more interesting and entertaining and in fact more tight.  Star Trek (2009) was a fun, sprawling world where characters and action sequences popped in and out.  Into Darkness is tightly focused on the ramifications of Marcus' plot and Kirk's growing opposition to it.


The other big perennial theme in Star Trek, exploration, is also treated in Into Darkness.  This is not a movie about exploration, but it is framed by exploration of strange new worlds at the beginning and end of the movie, and the value of exploration is thus subtly juxtaposed against the quite different vision for Starfleet against which Kirk, Scotty and Spock oppose in the heart of the story.


I'll end my reflections with some notes of things I did not like, but even my major criticisms of this movie are qualified.  I really have two major points of criticism.  First, I don't like the increased level of violence in the new movies, but the level of graphic violence was actually toned down in this one from the levels in Star Trek (2009), in my opinion.  Second, I'm resistant to the concept of reusing Khan, just as I was resistant to the concept of reusing Kirk and Spock.  I can really sympathize with those Trek fans who dislike the new movies on that score.  What I don't agree with is the way some Trek fans blame Abrams and his creative team for this derivative approach.  Look at everything coming out of Hollywood right now. Sequels with familiar titles, remakes, reboots, old characters recast--these are the current market trends.  The new Star Trek movies would have been those kinds of movies regardless of who had been hired to make them because right now that's what the industry (and ostensibly the public) wants.  What Abrams and his team did was come up with the specific direction to take the general concept of the reboot, and I think that specific work has been brilliant, clever and respectful of the franchise's past.


Let me limit that argument to Abrams' use of Khan, for the purposes of wrapping up this long post.  I'm not sure I'm glad Abrams used Khan, but the way he used Khan was thoughtful.  He created his own new story for Khan, and he used the material he inherited, Khan's original situation, as a metaphor around which he constructed his story.  Khan is a man from the past in cryogenic suspension, so the story became about awakening humanities old demons in a more figurative sense.  I suspect, though I cannot know, that Abrams and the others created this whole thoughtful story as a way to use Khan, rather than coming up with the story first and realizing Khan would fit in it.  But that's a chicken and egg question, and the result is an awesome movie either way.


Falor was a prosperous merchant who went on a journey to gain greater awareness: Through storms he crossed the Voroth Sea/ To reach the clouded shores of Raal/ Where old T’Para offered truth./ He traveled through the windswept hills/ And crossed the barren Fire Plains/ To find the silent monks of Kir./ Still unfulfilled, he journeyed home/ Told stories of the lessons learned/ And gained true wisdom by the giving. – Falor’s Journey, “Innocence”

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: Drunkin Druid, darmokattanagra

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum