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

Star Trek 2009 and Into Darkness

Report this
Created by: Sora

Sora

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2606

Report this May. 26 2013, 9:09 pm

Personally I like Into Darkness better. They are both great films, but Into Darkness is just incredible! I think New Age Trek is already following the tradition of the even numbered films being better than the odd numbered ones. And that still works whether you view 09 and Into Darkness as film 11 and 12 or film 1 and 2.


Thoughts and opinions?

Kilrahi

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 405

Report this May. 26 2013, 9:42 pm

I was pretty disapointed with 2009's Star Trek.  So much so that I went into this one preparing to hate it but walked out thinking it was a really, really good movie.


The number of things that rubbed me wrong in 2009's is unbearable.  Just to name a few WTFs: Supernovas that threaten galaxies, or Romulan Empires, or Spock being too late to stop it (WTF did he do), or Nero blaming Spock as if he caused it, or Nero going back in time and going genocidal rather than changing the future, or Vulcan blowing up - not saying it didn't make sense but it was too much like blowing Earth up, or Warp Cores that blow you out of black holes . . .


The list goes on and on.  With the new movie, I didn't have a lot on my crap list.  It's hard to think of it.  Plus, the cast was more interesting (Kirk was less of an idiot, Soctty was hilarious, and the villain was freaky).  Action was awesome. 


Totally down with it this time.  Seeing it again tomorrow.

OtakuJo

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 16362

Report this May. 26 2013, 10:17 pm

Good question.


I like Into Darkness best, because it is physically more watchable, and also because the characters are better (at least for the first half of the movie) and the story seems more... "grown up", somehow.


Have you ever danced with a Tribble in the pale moonlight?

Somniac

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 462

Report this May. 27 2013, 2:45 am

I preferred it to 2009 because, as a fan. I felt more included. There were more references I could relate to.


That doesn't mean I want more of the same though.

chator56

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 498

Report this May. 27 2013, 8:34 am

It's just more of the same to me. Great visuals, decent musical score, sloppy writing, good to mediocre acting on both films. Star Trek (2009) seemed more original and more sci-fi, though it did borrow from ST:TMP, TWOK, NEM. Abrams upped the ante on the action and visual eye candy for STID, there seemed to be less errors, plot holes, and inconsistencies. The plot just "modernizes" Khan, post 9-11, making him a terrorist, uses a manhunt storyline, and throws in a conspiracy sub-plot.

Sora

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2606

Report this May. 27 2013, 12:58 pm

Quote: Kilrahi @ May. 26 2013, 9:42 pm

>

>I was pretty disapointed with 2009's Star Trek.  So much so that I went into this one preparing to hate it but walked out thinking it was a really, really good movie.

>The number of things that rubbed me wrong in 2009's is unbearable.  Just to name a few WTFs: Supernovas that threaten galaxies, or Romulan Empires, or Spock being too late to stop it (WTF did he do), or Nero blaming Spock as if he caused it, or Nero going back in time and going genocidal rather than changing the future, or Vulcan blowing up - not saying it didn't make sense but it was too much like blowing Earth up, or Warp Cores that blow you out of black holes . . .

>The list goes on and on.  With the new movie, I didn't have a lot on my crap list.  It's hard to think of it.  Plus, the cast was more interesting (Kirk was less of an idiot, Soctty was hilarious, and the villain was freaky).  Action was awesome. 

>Totally down with it this time.  Seeing it again tomorrow.

>


 


Wow I felt almost the exact same way as you! I was very disappointed with 2009 and in fact I have honestly resented it for the past couple years that people NOW want to go and say how great and wonderful Star Trek is because of this movie, and before they wanted to say Star Trek was crap, when I personally felt like if anything at all was crap it was THAT movie. But Into Darkness really brought Abrams Trek into it's own for me. I like you, also went into the theater expecting to not like it, and I was blown away! Now that being said, I still love Classic Trek best, and consider Abrams Trek more or less a remake, and I have been REALLY into Trek since I was like 9 or 10 and I'm about to be 24 now, so I pretty sure I can safely say that Classic Trek meaning everything 1966-2005 will always be my first love and always be my favorite. Much like how TOS fans felt when TNG began, they loved it too, and continued to support Trek, but TOS was THEIR Trek. So by the same token, the whole original timeline is MY Trek. But new Trek is really awesome too! I am very excited for the 3rd movie!


Live Long and Prosper

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this May. 27 2013, 7:12 pm

I like "Into Darkness" better. 2009 had some amazing magic to it, and from a nostalgia standpoint it really hits the heart of this Trek fan. But, that said, there were some frustrating and eye-rolling things in 2009 that weren't present in "Into Darkness."


Into Darkness took itself more seriously. It had better, more realistic performances by the actors. It took some CONSIDERABLE risks (not all of which I'm extremely happy wiith, by the way) and challenged the fanbase, which I've always appreciated through the history of the franchise (I've always LOVED the risky moves because they were not frequent).


"Into Darkness" was also a better Star Trek movie. Yes, it was still almost TOO fast paced and action-oriented, but it felt way more Trek than 2009 with the inclusion of some relevant allegory, some moral / ethical decisions to be wrestled with, and quick, witty character interactions amongst the main crew.


I think the thing that helps me really love these films is that I remember these are Star Trek MOVIES, not television episodes. And, I for one have always flet that the movies need to be big, adventurous, cool events. And "Into Darkness" delivers on that, in much the same way the pervious film did. I, like Sora, don't get wrapped around the axel too much because I just look at these as ridiculously fun remakes that are designed to gain new blood and interest in the franchise and to allow lots of people to have a fantastic time at the box office. Ultimately, STID delivers that. It is just a fun and engaging movie. No, it's not going to make you think deeply or philosophically about much...but it IS going to allow you to lose yourself in a fun, exciting, and smart space adventure for 2 hours. And that is a gift in my opinion.

JazzTNG

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 108

Report this Jun. 03 2013, 12:09 pm

Star Trek is great but I like Into Darkness more - it's just better in every way: the performances were stronger, the themes were more thoughtful, the style was tigher, the way that the story unfolded was more interesting, the way it twisted "The Wrath of Khan" story around for this alternate timeline was very satisfying, Scotty's bigger role was great and the Khan/Spock showdown at the end did not disappoint.

The only aspect I can consider Star Trek having done better than Into Darkness is the score; and this is only because Giacchino practically rehashed his Trek score rather than get more original with it.


So, five-card stud, nothing wild. And the sky's the limit....

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this Jun. 03 2013, 12:31 pm

Quote: JazzTNG @ Jun. 03 2013, 12:09 pm

>

>Star Trek is great but I like Into Darkness more - it's just better in every way: the performances were stronger, the themes were more thoughtful, the style was tigher, the way that the story unfolded was more interesting, the way it twisted "The Wrath of Khan" story around for this alternate timeline was very satisfying, Scotty's bigger role was great and the Khan/Spock showdown at the end did not disappoint.

The only aspect I can consider Star Trek having done better than Into Darkness is the score; and this is only because Giacchino practically rehashed his Trek score rather than get more original with it.

>


 


I have a lot of the same feelings...right down to the score!


I AM KEE-ROCK!!

wissa

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4022

Report this Jun. 03 2013, 1:13 pm

Into darkness.  '09 was really just attempting to get the gang all together.  Though I think the first 10 minutes of '09 was some of the most powerful trek ever filmed.


We welcome st.com refugees! click on the image

KelisThePoet

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 636

Report this Jun. 03 2013, 3:42 pm

I don't have much to add as I pretty much agree with the general trend of this thread as I understand it, Into Darkness is both stronger and more Trek-ish than Star Trek (2009).  I also agree with a lot of the specific reasons others are giving for preferring the more recent film: less stupid science, more and better characterization, a more serious and thougtful plot.


I find it odd that both detractors and some fans of Into Darkness have mentioned how many references and nods to past Trek were in this movie--because I haven't sat down and done any kind of formal count, but from memory, there were far more nods in Star Trek (2009).  That movie was full of quotes (and to a lesser extent, visual allusions) from original series episodes and original cast movies.  And yet, while I feel Star Trek (2009) did many clever things to self-consciously announce itself as both a remake and a rebirth of original Star Trek; Into Darkness felt so much more like a Trek story in the Trek world to me, in terms of its broader feel and characterization.


One other note: I liked this movie more than the first one because it took itself more seriously, but if I'd heard people saying that about the movie before seeing it, I'd have been worried, because right now, most movies that try to take themselves seriously are dark and gritty and full of angst.  But despite its title, I felt Into Darkness was a more optimistic, hopeful and subtle movie than Star Trek (2009).  It had fewer silly gags and less entertainment for entertainment's sake, but it also had fewer (melo)dramatic calamities and their attendant dark moods.


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”

captain saavik

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 854

Report this Jun. 03 2013, 5:33 pm

Into darkness definitely! 


In my opinion many movies such as Star Trek are better the second time around because they don't have to go through what I call introductions. The same thing happend in Transformers the first one sucked but the second one was amazing. In ST09 some of us Re-met the gang so to speak because we knew who they were, but some newbies to th audience didn't know so the writers still have to go through the intros. However the new villian in STID is amazing IF and only IF one can remove Wrath of Kahn and the whole original series timeline from one's head. If you don't you will dislike this film I have gone to see Into Darkness multiple times and the more I watch the more holes I see because I keep comparing it to Wrath of Kahn especially. 


Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this Jun. 04 2013, 7:49 am

Quote: KelisThePoet @ Jun. 03 2013, 3:42 pm

>

>I don't have much to add as I pretty much agree with the general trend of this thread as I understand it, Into Darkness is both stronger and more Trek-ish than Star Trek (2009).  I also agree with a lot of the specific reasons others are giving for preferring the more recent film: less stupid science, more and better characterization, a more serious and thougtful plot.

>I find it odd that both detractors and some fans of Into Darkness have mentioned how many references and nods to past Trek were in this movie--because I haven't sat down and done any kind of formal count, but from memory, there were far more nods in Star Trek (2009).  That movie was full of quotes (and to a lesser extent, visual allusions) from original series episodes and original cast movies.  And yet, while I feel Star Trek (2009) did many clever things to self-consciously announce itself as both a remake and a rebirth of original Star Trek; Into Darkness felt so much more like a Trek story in the Trek world to me, in terms of its broader feel and characterization.

>One other note: I liked this movie more than the first one because it took itself more seriously, but if I'd heard people saying that about the movie before seeing it, I'd have been worried, because right now, most movies that try to take themselves seriously are dark and gritty and full of angst.  But despite its title, I felt Into Darkness was a more optimistic, hopeful and subtle movie than Star Trek (2009).  It had fewer silly gags and less entertainment for entertainment's sake, but it also had fewer (melo)dramatic calamities and their attendant dark moods.

>


 


This is a really nice take on it. That's pretty much how I felt as well. With a tweak here or there, you could imagine this simply being an early adventure of the "Prime" Enterprise crew.


I think the thing fans can help themselves by remembering or imagining is that the movies are really depictions of the most frantic and action-oriented adventures that the crew has. Obviously there are other adventures that happen in between that are more based on exploration and scientific discovery...but the movies depict the more grand-scale adventures.


That's always helped me.


I AM KEE-ROCK!!

exeter276

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 190

Report this Jun. 05 2013, 11:01 am

I liked them both, but think STID is better.

KelisThePoet

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 636

Report this Jun. 05 2013, 2:14 pm

Quote: Vger23 @ Jun. 04 2013, 7:49 am

>I think the thing fans can help themselves by remembering or imagining is that the movies are really depictions of the most frantic and action-oriented adventures that the crew has. Obviously there are other adventures that happen in between that are more based on exploration and scientific discovery...but the movies depict the more grand-scale adventures.


What did you think of the Nibiru stuff at the beginning of Into Darkness?  I thought it did a good job of suggesting what you are suggesting, that the movie characters are engaged in a variety of activities including those closer to traditional Star Trek exploration, but we don't see it all.  I felt like the opening of Into Darkness on Nibiru could have worked as the conclusion to a Star Trek television episode and could imagine what kind of episode it would be, but for the purposes of a movie, I think the writers were wise not to focus on something like Nibiru, but just use a bit of it to frame and set up a more cinematic adventure--best of both worlds, for me.


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”

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