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

WkdYngMan

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3951

Report this May. 23 2013, 12:19 am

Loved it.  Thought it was better than the 09 film.


 


Only a couple of quibbles... not sure I would have used Khan.  Cumberbatch was an EXCELLENT choice to portrait the villain but he could have kept as John Harrison and then the end could of had a Khan connection elsewhere.


 


Also I'm not sure about the Kirk death scene.  It was well done but not sure it really contributed to the story.  It would have been like if Kirk and McCoy was rescued from Rura Penthe, and on their way to the peace conference Kirk caught a cold and had to stay in sickbay for a couple of days, and then was back at em.  It was kind of like "Ahh, okay."

E!!i

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 24

Report this May. 23 2013, 3:59 am

I don't really have a review like you all who wrote some novels about it but I can say that I love the movie. Watched it on May 9 & 10 and yesterday I watched the original version in English and it was even better! Cause in German you couldn't hear that awesome dialect from Scotty.

Kilrahi

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 405

Report this May. 23 2013, 8:48 pm

 


I was seriously surprised.  I was really, really, really disappointed by 2009's Star Trek.  What many saw as the savior of Trek I saw as a dumbed down Star Wars with Kirk and Spock, and even worse, full of nonsensical solutions to problems (concussive blasts to get out of a black hole . . . . WTF). 


So I went into this film fully prepared to hate it.  I was entirely surprised when I walked out of the theater and wanted to see it again.  Like the first film, there was tons of action, explosions, etc. etc., but this time I felt like there was genuine character development.  I loved witnessing the growth of the relationship between Kirk and Spock, and I was impressed with the "pauses" in action this time around that gave all of the characters a chance to be something MORE.  Finally, while no film is ever perfect and there are bound to be plot problems, there was nothing as glaringly bad as the first movie (which I could go on and on about).


I had a few issues with the new film.  I am tired of the "giant overpowering starship that kicks the crap out of the Enterprise" arc.  I'd rather see a film again where the starship are more or less on equal footing (ST II, ST III, ST VI).  I also thought this film struggled a bit with the clear attempts at parallels to very specific scenes from a very beloved movie (they just made me recall the originals which felt like they were better done with a more powerful actor).  Finally, it attempted to do the classic Star Trek moral play with current world event issues, but the problem for me was I don’t agree with the side it fell on.  I don’t fault it for that, but I’m used to agreeing most of the time in Star Trek I love.  


Still, overall an awesome movie in my book.  Better than all but one of the TNG films (First Contact feels smarter to me over all, even though I am bitter about what it did to the Borg).  I now think I could live in this new universe for a while and be happy with it.  

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this May. 24 2013, 9:09 am

[quote]


 


I was seriously surprised.  I was really, really, really disappointed by 2009's Star Trek.  What many saw as the savior of Trek I saw as a dumbed down Star Wars with Kirk and Spock, and even worse, full of nonsensical solutions to problems (concussive blasts to get out of a black hole . . . . WTF). 


So I went into this film fully prepared to hate it.  I was entirely surprised when I walked out of the theater and wanted to see it again.  Like the first film, there was tons of action, explosions, etc. etc., but this time I felt like there was genuine character development.  I loved witnessing the growth of the relationship between Kirk and Spock, and I was impressed with the "pauses" in action this time around that gave all of the characters a chance to be something MORE.  Finally, while no film is ever perfect and there are bound to be plot problems, there was nothing as glaringly bad as the first movie (which I could go on and on about).


I had a few issues with the new film.  I am tired of the "giant overpowering starship that kicks the crap out of the Enterprise" arc.  I'd rather see a film again where the starship are more or less on equal footing (ST II, ST III, ST VI).  I also thought this film struggled a bit with the clear attempts at parallels to very specific scenes from a very beloved movie (they just made me recall the originals which felt like they were better done with a more powerful actor).  Finally, it attempted to do the classic Star Trek moral play with current world event issues, but the problem for me was I don’t agree with the side it fell on.  I don’t fault it for that, but I’m used to agreeing most of the time in Star Trek I love.  


Still, overall an awesome movie in my book.  Better than all but one of the TNG films (First Contact feels smarter to me over all, even though I am bitter about what it did to the Borg).  I now think I could live in this new universe for a while and be happy with it.  


[/quote]


Kilrahi-


I like your take on things, because I was pleasantly surprised too. I wasn't "really" disappointed in Star Trek 2009. I had a blast in the theater...and it was wildly entertaining...but there were things that could have been done much better and I think it was silly in places. 


That said, STID is a far better movie and Star Trek film. It's been over a week since I've seen it, and I still feel that way. My biggest complaints are:


 


1. I wish they'd get McCoy into the Kirk-Spock mix a little more. 


2. Transwarp beaming is the most awful plot device (yes, worse than protomatter or malfunctioning holodecks) in the history of Star Trek


That said, it's a great movie, and it's far better Star Trek than anything we've gotten in the theaters since First Contact or since DS9 went off the air. 

crellmoset

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 116

Report this May. 24 2013, 9:59 am

I found the beaming device to be cheap as well but it was better than what's previously been shown in Trek. Emergency transporters that are smaller than tie clips? Transporters that can beam someone from DS9 to a different Cardassian station? Enemy transporters that magically don't care about shields?

At least the way Abrams showed the device made it look like it had room for a battery and miscellaneous internal junk. I just like to think that Khan had setup an elaborate web of relay stations, satellites and maybe even a planted receiving device we didn't see on the Klingon home world.

Ethics are arbitrary.

gav6161

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 78

Report this May. 26 2013, 1:35 am

Great film, not enough marketing.  I want to expand my ceremonial Bat'leth collection.

Corylea

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 10

Report this May. 26 2013, 1:32 pm

I enjoyed the movie very much, while still wishing it were different.  Classic Trek episodes were 50 minutes long; the movie was 132 minutes long.  I think the movie gave us the 50 minutes of Star Trek that we'd have gotten from a normal episode, plus 82 minutes of explosions, chases, and assorted spectacles.  It was fun -- it was a lot of fun -- but it's a pity that the studios think that science fiction must be a big-budget spectacle; I'd love to see some slower, more thoughtful science fiction.

I was a bit annoyed at the big emotional to-do at Kirk's (temporary) death.  When Spock dies at the end of Wrath of Khan, those characters have EARNED their big, emotional to-do by having been together through three seasons of television and two movies.  When Kirk dies partway through Into Darkness, it's only been one and a half movies; he and Spock aren't really friends yet.  We all want them to be friends, and we have memories of their being friends, but these characters are still new to each other; they haven't been through a lot together, the way the Kirk and Spock from the original timeline had been.  All the stuff about their being important to one another felt forced, rather than organic.

And Khan.  There's the problem that a character with an Indian name who was played by a Hispanic actor has now been recast as white.  But even people who are tone-deaf to those nuances should have a problem with Khan.  The character says that he's been brought out of storage because they needed his savagery, yet he sounds colder and more bloodless than Spock.  The actor was great at being a creepy super-human ... but he wasn't Khan. A white guy who out-Spocked Spock just didn't have the right feel for this character, for all that he was an effective creepy superman.

I'm liking Chris Pine as a younger, brasher, less certain Kirk more and more; to me, he really nails the character, especially in the way he moves.  The way he throws himself into the captain's chair, the way he sprawls in it, it all feels like quintessential Kirk.  Quinto's Spock is impressive in many ways, but I find him far less compelling than Nimoy's Spock.

Nimoy's Spock had an air of containment about him, plus an immense dignity and a sense of gravitas.  Okay, this Spock is younger, so he might have less of all of that, but even accounting for that, he still seems like a lightweight, compared to Nimoy's Spock.  I think it's partly his voice -- he has a light, nothing-special voice, unlike Nimoy's interesting voice.  He also just doesn't stand or move with the dignity or containment that Nimoy did.  It's possible that no one could wear those ears well, after Nimoy, I don't know.  And Quinto didn't have the luxury of getting used to the character in the relatively lower-stakes atmosphere of a weekly TV show.  And certainly Nimoy's characterization came with a large personal cost; he got into character so thoroughly that he had trouble taking the character off.  But I wish that Quinto would spend a month thinking about Spock and practicing moving with dignity and containment.  He should feel Vulcan even when he has his back to us, and Quinto isn't there yet.

It sounds like a lot of quibbles, but actually, I loved the movie.  It felt like a blend of Star Trek and summer blockbuster, rather than all Star Trek, but that's more new Trek than we've gotten for awhile, and I'll take it. :-)


 


 


"You must BE the change you want to see in the world" -- Gandhi

warp speed

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 24

Report this May. 26 2013, 1:35 pm

I paid for two tickets for Into Darknes. I was enjoying the movie until I heard the name of the villain and realized it was a redo. The promos for Into Darkness showed the villain but did not mention his name. I believe this was done on purpose to deceive the fans. They should have called the movie "Into Darkness The Wrath of Kahn". Star Trek fans deserve better. Praising a movie out of fear that they won't make anymore is ridiculous. If the producers of Star Trek continue to make reruns I don't want to see them anyway. If they listen to those of us who are not pleased with their shortcuts then there may be a real future for Star Trek. Waiting four more years for another rerun is not encouraging.

moe.ives

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 11

Report this May. 29 2013, 10:03 am

My family and I really enjoyed Into Darkness.


I love the make-up of the Nibiru aliens.  I thought the Klingon looked pretty damned good too.


Karl Urban is wonderful as McCoy.  John Harrison - cold and calculating.


The plot was an interesting twist of a familiar tale.  The game has changed but the players remained the same.  We got to see how this fledgling crew would respond to the challenge.


Lots of great lines and the movie was an emotional rollercoaster.


Did anyone catch the reference to Harry Mudd?  I love the soundtrack.


Kirk's restoration was hinted at throughout the movie - first the girl in hospital, and then the tribble (the Mudd connection again).  I find it plausible from the view of this all being sci-fi.  After all, the Borg brought  Kirk back from the grave.


I believe this movie is a pre-cursor to a major confrontation with the Klingons in the next.

wissa

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4026

Report this May. 29 2013, 10:22 am

Quote:

I was a bit annoyed at the big emotional to-do at Kirk's (temporary) death.  When Spock dies at the end of Wrath of Khan, those characters have EARNED their big, emotional to-do by having been together through three seasons of television and two movies.  When Kirk dies partway through Into Darkness, it's only been one and a half movies; he and Spock aren't really friends yet.  We all want them to be friends, and we have memories of their being friends, but these characters are still new to each other; they haven't been through a lot together, the way the Kirk and Spock from the original timeline had been.  All the stuff about their being important to one another felt forced, rather than organic.


spock may have done the same thing as kirk did in the prime time line but he did it for different reasons.  He didn't do it because he had lost a life long friend he did it because of lost opportunity and because he had been suppressing grief since vulcan blew up.  


We welcome st.com refugees! click on the image

Spectrum67

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 7

Report this May. 29 2013, 10:44 am

I am a long time Star Trek fan, but I'm not so much a fan that I know so much that all the tiny nuances are obvious, nor can I say that I remember all the episodes enough to tie in everything... You could say that although I watched the series in the Sixties, and then again in syndication -- I am a TOS guy with only a little knowledge of the other ST incarnations... TNG is the one I'm most familiar with outside TOS -- I am most familiar with the post TV movies... but again, by no means an expert with the ability to catch and tie in every nod. 


I say that to lead into my main point here... As I posted earlier, we attended STID and left greatly entertained but with mixed feelings overall... and with the belief that ST2009 was a superior product... Since that time we watched 'Space Seed', the Original TV Series episode that introduced Khan, and again 'The Wrath of Khan' -- my personal favorite ST movie... maybe even Sci-Fi Movie -- With this we tied whatever we could into STID... we revisited the Alternate Timeline concept and how it might have effected the Prime Timeline's path... we noted this time not only the obvious twists and turns, but the more subtle ones as well. 


'Space Seed' we found to be so advanced and well done, even with the technological, time and budget limitations... and we refreshed our knowledge of the Original Khan and story plotline... and 'TWOK' we view with added enthusiasm and appreciation... I can honestly say that I can watch that movie over and over again and enjoy it maybe more each and every time... It is an excellently done movie and one that IMO was well ahead of it's time; it is now over thirty years since it was done... The action was more than I remembered and the plot was great... the acting was superb on all fronts, and the story was intelligent and keeps you thinking both backwards and forward. 


I suggest that all who have not done so... since seeing STID... to go back and enjoy 'TWOK' with a renewed and refresh eye and mind... Honesty, you may just like and appreciate J.J. Abrams' latest ST more, as I now do... and you may just fall in love with 'TWOK' all over again. 


I'm really curious where the next movie will go with the new timeline, and a keen appreciation to where Man has gone before.

crellmoset

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 116

Report this May. 29 2013, 10:56 am

I feel like that STID is a pretty good movie. Most of the problems with the movie are the kinds of things that fans have given the various tv series a pass for.

- Transwarp Beaming is admittedly awful. I fix Khan's use of it by saying to myself that he had been to Kronos previously, studied the coordinates and relative movement of the planets and established a specially configured quantum receiver. He could even have set up a chain of transmitters in advance.

- Khan's blood is whacky? Regenerating Kirk over the course of two weeks is so much crazier than injecting a Klingon with a virus and having their forehead melt off in seconds, magic Borg nanites that bring back dead Talaxians, a species that can change Geordi into one of them, magic fruit that grants humans telekinetic powers, Vulcans storing their souls in other species for safekeeping, an extradimensional species masquerading as humans by hiding their DNA inside human DNA, an ancient alien device rewriting huge chunks of the Enterprise into ancient stone city plazas and temples, etc, etc.

- New Spock's dramatic life experiences have obviously caused him to abandon the pointless and borderline self-abuse about having a human side. Still at the end Spock drops the charade of logic and even human sentimentality to show the audience something closer to a Vulcan acting naturally. He's aggressive, flexible, determined, unconcerned with human notions such as fighting dirty and yet still in control. It's not spoken but I even suspect that Spock made the conscious decision to behave that way thinking that would be something Khan didn't believe Spock would do and therefore didn't have any preexisting plans for.

Ethics are arbitrary.

Spectrum67

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 7

Report this May. 29 2013, 10:59 am

Quote: wissa @ May. 29 2013, 10:22 am

Quote: /view_profile/ @

>

> style="color: #6a6a6a; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px;">I was a bit annoyed at the big emotional to-do at Kirk's (temporary) death.  When Spock dies at the end of Wrath of Khan, style="color: #6a6a6a; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px;"> those characters have EARNED their big, emotional to-do by having been together through three seasons of television and two movies.  When Kirk dies partway through Into Darkness, style="color: #6a6a6a; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px;"> it's only been one and a half movies; he and Spock aren't really friends yet.  We all want them to be friends, and we have memories of their being friends, but these characters are still new to each other; they haven't been through a lot together, the way the Kirk and Spock from the original timeline had been.  All the stuff about their being important to one another felt forced, rather than organic.

spock may have done the same thing as kirk did in the prime time line but he did it for different reasons.  He didn't do it because he had lost a life long friend he did it because of lost opportunity and because he had been suppressing grief since vulcan blew up.  


 


I'm confused since IIRC Vulcan was destroyed in ST2009, in the alternate timeline... Also, IMO, both Spock in TWOK, and Kirk now, gave up their lives (temporarily at least) to save the ship and crew and continue what the Federation was ultimately doing... for the needs of the many... and not due to any loss.

crellmoset

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 116

Report this May. 29 2013, 11:12 am

Another point that might go unnoticed is that it does not appear that Khan became aware that his people were not still in the torpedoes. This may be construed as an intentional provocation on Spock's part to drive Khan into a crazed state, impair his judgement, and if the torpedoes did not manage to destroy the dreadnaught to make Khan seek revenge in person. I like to believe that this Spock intended to and probablysucceeded at dealing Khan a severe psychological wound.

Ethics are arbitrary.

wissa

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4026

Report this May. 29 2013, 12:13 pm

Quote: crellmoset @ May. 29 2013, 11:12 am

>Another point that might go unnoticed is that it does not appear that Khan became aware that his people were not still in the torpedoes. This may be construed as an intentional provocation on Spock's part to drive Khan into a crazed state, impair his judgement, and if the torpedoes did not manage to destroy the dreadnaught to make Khan seek revenge in person. I like to believe that this Spock intended to and probablysucceeded at dealing Khan a severe psychological wound.


I think that's unlikely.  Given the big buildup on those torpedoes it's only rational to think that 72 of them would blow up a ship.  Or at least disable it to the point where it was useless.  Spock took the augments out of the torpedoes first because he's not a psychopath.  


We welcome st.com refugees! click on the image

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: 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