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

NCC-1864

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 60

Report this Sep. 27 2013, 10:01 am

After watching this movie twice in theaters and twice on Bluray, there are things that I would have changed to make Star Trek Into Darkness better.


 


1. Why Khan: although Cumberbatch was a cold and convincing villan who showed the combat abilities of Khan, I still regret that he IS Khan. Now, he does not detract from the mythos of Khan at all, and I am thankful that they didnt have one Moby Dick quote from him so that he was a carbon copy of TWOK Khan. But did he really have to be Khan? Now, Khan is THE adversary for the TOS crew and it is logical to have him...but either cast someone who looks like Khan (because that seemed important for all the other NewTrek actors) or give him his natural hair color and make him Joachim or just another equally as menacing Augment (or an angry Gary Mitchell for being marooned or something like that). As I said, he does not detract, but he could have been so much more. This leads to my second thought:


 


2. Centralize the Villain: Not using Cumberbatch as the main villain the whole time was dissapointing...still showed he was BA against the Klingons, but we needed more action like that and to not have the "Surrender to your opponents" thing that has been overloaded on screen since The Dark Knight.


 


3. Fix the Plot : I felt (and especially after 4 viewings) that I could explain the plot in detail and vaguely and still make sense of it. Were there errors? of Course....its a movie, what did you expect? I tolerated most of these holes, but some I could not stand (Scotty on his communicator to Kirk, incredible Warp back to Earth, How Khan knew about the Harewoods, how did the Enterprise get underwater on Nibiru without being seen or heard, etc.)...still, it was a fun movie


 


4. Well Since it was Khan, MARKET IT! :  The commentary for Star Trek 2009 said that they writers almost put a teaser of the Botany Bay at the end...Why not do that? It was rather obvious (well I thought for a time it might be Gary Mitchell but it became crystal clear with the trailers it was Khan) who the antagonist would be, so they should have marketed it as "He is returning" to try to reach out to fans  and to also give casual moviegoers the chance to watch TWOK and Space Seed to find the rich history of Khan. 


 


5. Stop the Uhura madness: Its a movie and "needs a relationship" in it...I get that...but make it mature and a little reserved...Uhura was cool in ST2009 and was degraded to a whiney teenager in STID...fixthat...


 


6. Star Trek:Vengeance : I think this would have been a better title, who cares if it "gave the ship name up"...they already ruined the suprise of the Vengeance in the trailers (which I think was not the best idea)...speaking of which, the trailers revealed a little too much


 


7. If you were going to kill Kirk, go the whole Nine Yards: Now I dont mean to keep Kirk dead forever, but (and I hate to say this) but pull a STIII and have him be dead until the next movie. Spock should have lost to Khan and Khan should have escaped so that the third movie could have been an ending to a cliffhanger: Kirk is dead, Khan escapes, and War with the Klingons is inevitable. 


 


All in all, I still enjoy the movie as some escapist fun and a good installment into Star Trek. I look forward to seeing the Third movie in someone else's directoral hands to see what he or she can bring to the franchise


 


Agree or Disagree with any of these points? What changes would you have made to improve this movie?


 


Dammit Jim I'm a trekkie, not a doctor!

moonbeam6612

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 27

Report this Sep. 29 2013, 1:02 pm

I whole-heartedly agree with your number 3. (The communicator, the transwarp thing.) I think it would have been possible to make a good movie without those. 


And the Uhura-Spock relationship is unnecessary.


 


 

C.Dreiser

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6

Report this Sep. 29 2013, 2:57 pm

2) Khan was indeed the villain throughout the entire movie. It simply wasn't entirely clear that this was the case. Ulterior motives abound with this rendition of Khan. The initial explosion at the archives was just to get the lead Fedaration officers to conviene in one location so they could be killed entirely at once. Assisting the Enterprise crew served only to provide a vessel, in both a literal and figurative sense, with which to get rid of Marcus, free his crew and possibly to commandeer the USS Vengeance and this is the reason he surrendered.



Though Marcus opposed the Enterprises crew and wished to destroy them, believe it or not, it could be argued he was acting in the best interest of the Fedaration. In destroying Enterprise, he may have appeased the Klingons by convincing them the breach into their territory was not in line with the Fedaration's wishes, thus reducing the consequences of the event or quelling the situation entirely. By the way, this Klingon response, or lack there of, is a significant plot hole that could be added to your list of plot related observations...



3) with which I agree.
How did Enterprise get underwater at all? Since when have Starfleet capital ships had sub-oceanic ability?

NCC-1864

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 60

Report this Sep. 30 2013, 1:11 pm

Quote: C.Dreiser @ Sep. 29 2013, 2:57 pm

>

>2) Khan was indeed the villain throughout the entire movie. It simply wasn't entirely clear that this was the case. Alterior motives abound with this rendition of Khan. The initial explosion at the archives was just to get the lead Fedaration officers to conviene in one location so they could be killed entirely at once. Assisting the Enterprise crew served only to provide a vessel, in both a literal and figurative sense, with which to get rid of Marcus, free his crew and possibly to commandeer the USS Vengeance and this is the reason he surrendered.

>
Though Marcus opposed the Enterprises crew and wished to destroy them, believe it or not, it could be argued he was acting in the best interest of the Fedaration. In destroying Enterprise, he may have appeased the Klingons by convincing them the breach into their territory was not in line with the Fedaration's wishes, thus reducing the consequences of the event or quelling the situation entirely. By the way, this Klingon response, or lack there of, is a significant plot hole that could be added to your list of plot related observations...

>

>


 


In regards to number 2, I meant more Khan based action against the Enterprise as opposed to like the two shots he fired before the missiles detonated....I loved the Marcus 'plot twist' as it made the movie a little deep but I would have loved a full-out Khan/Klingon movie as well....and the Klingons definitely would have been a little more responding....after one year (because the Federation is still at peace in Kirk's ending speech) the Klingons still havent done anything(that we know of).


Dammit Jim I'm a trekkie, not a doctor!

JamesMason

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 9

Report this Oct. 01 2013, 12:19 pm

Please, no more wasteful Star Trek movies (remember the Simpsons mockery - 'Star Trek XII: So Very Tired'). :-|

USS Sith

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 9

Report this Oct. 11 2013, 6:42 am

Some valid points here, I actually liked the fact that Khan was not the central villain; he had TWOK to shine. Cleverly in this film, Khan is really a pawn of the main villain and he represents the 'darkness' (forgive the pun) that Starfleet has embraced.  Marcus I thought was a great villain by peverting Starfleet and attemtping to start war with the Klingons.  I loved the throw away reference to Section 31, that explains everyhting that would be going on behind the scenes at Starfleet HQ.


 


As for point 3, yes there are a few annoying plot holes (sadly this happens a lot in movies these days!).  Getting back from Kronos really quickly annoyed me more than anything.  The other apparent plot hole is that only Khan's blood can save Kirk as opposed to the other augments.  However, in theory, as the orignial Khan did not have this ability, it seems plausible to me that since working for Starfleet intelligence, Khan in fact enhanced his blood.  They could have easily inserted a line to cover this.


The communciation to Scotty is misrepresnted in the film as originally there was a scene where the bridge patched Scotty through to Kirk; this was cut.  It doesnt bother me that much, the bridge could feasibly patch through to Kirk's communicator.


Point 5 totally agree, the Uhura-Spock thing just does not work.  I did not like it in the 2009 film either.  I think that both films seriously demean the integrity of Uhura's character.  How is it that a communciations officer does not understand why her Vulcan boyfriend cant emote???? Fail.  They need to cut this out in future. 


On the whole, I think the plot in this film was actually very good and at its core it was very consistent with a classic Trek story, social commentray, ethics, human nature etc.  It was much better than the 2009 film which just had too many pointelss sequences and implausible events, but that is for another thread.


"You are an imperfect being created by an imperfect being." Borg proverb

duderanch18237

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1102

Report this Oct. 12 2013, 11:12 am

I for some reason couldn't post a new topic so I'll post here since it's about STID, and to a greater extent, the franchise in general. Please comment.

I'm a 27 year old fan, and grew up on TNG. The Star Trek franchise is in disarray and dying.

When ST 2009 came out I was excited. As a TNG fan I felt INS and NEM were huge letdowns. JJ and co promised to breathe life into the franchise. And then I saw 2009. It was a heaping pile of crap. No story, no plot, pointless action scene to pointless action scene. No pacing. How could Nimoy sign off on this I thought? I'll address that later - hint - he's a fraud and a hack who sold out, and STID proves it.

I threw my hands up in defeat when I saw long time Trek fans, mainly over 40 years old love it. And then it all made sense. These guys haven't seen their childhood heroes in 20+  years. Their pathetic fanboyism propelled 2009 to critical acclaim (which I may add, as the years go on is critically viewed worse and worse). At the time I wrote a review on this board and was told to basically shut up by all of them. Rudely as well. All these old men needed was Nimoy's blessing, and the rest didn't matter. The movie was awful, the villain's motives unsensical. Who cares - LOOK IT'S KIRK OMG LOOK IT'S SPOCK OMG! I ended up giving this film a "pass" as many of the older fellows said "Well they have to set up the characters." Fine - onto STID.

And then STID came out. The previews looked promising, as did the villain. And then I saw it. I watched in disbelief as JJ Abrams bastardized the TWOK script, lied to our faces about Khan, and once again inserted pointless action scene after pointless action scene. What happened to fresh and new JJ? Isn't that why you came onto this? If you look at his resume, the only thing he's capable of is stealing other people's work and putting his spin on it. But this is the sad part - from a stand alone movie standpoint, this film was once again terrible, but BETTER than ST 2009. But I watched the same 40 year old losers who told me to shut up before critically pan this film and tear it apart with pathetic remarks like "KHAN'S SUPPOSED TO BE INDIAN." Now it's my turn to tell you to shut up - that's the least of this film's problems. The story was once again bad, but actually made a bit more sense than 2009. This reaffirms my "new and fresh" theory. These fanboys gave 2009 a pass because it was the first. Only when JJ and co completely showed how useless they were with this film did they turn on him. And Leonard Nimoy - I thought you said you would only be in films if it served a purpose to the story. Your cameo was pathetic, and reeked of an old man wanting more money. That's fine, but stop with your holier than thou attitude about being some critical film analyst - you're not, you're a fraud and a sellout.

And here we are today. Roberto Orci has told fans to F off, JJ has jumped ship first chance he had to do something else because he didn't care about this in the first place, and has even resorted to blaming VIDEOGAME sales for the reason STID did poorly. In 15 years time once the trilogy is complete, this franchise will be forgotten and dead. And you can thank the idiotic fanboys who COULD have told JJ and co how bad the first film was, but didn't because they were fooled by their own emotions.

Star Trek is in disarray, and dying. I will see the new film first week as I always have, but will not have high expectations. Heck, maybe the new director may actually be able to tell a good STORY - something that has been sorely lacking from these reboots.


"They invade our space, and we fall back. They assimilate entire worlds, and we fall back. Not again. The line must be drawn here - this far, no farther! And I will make them pay for what they've done."

NCC-1864

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 60

Report this Oct. 14 2013, 3:26 pm

I agree that the trekkie purists who ripped on the Khan as an Indian part came off badly but I respectfully disagree with your analysis of ST2009...It has a very high rating on Rotten Tomatoes (95% I believe even after 4 years) and is a very fun movie...is it as deep as TMP or as exciting as TWOK or as funny as STIV or socially relevant as STVI? No...was it a fun movie that helped revive Trek with some pomp and circumstance? Yes. They are not Star Trek movies but they are good movies....STID had a trek air to it and I actually thought the plotline that really didnt make sense was the first 10 minutes...the rest was rather decent (note I said 'decent', not 'great'-as I pointed out some of its flaws)


I would have enjoyed 2009 whether Nimoy was in it or not...I feel that I am more of a 'trekker' than a 'trekkie' and I definitely see and ackowledge the flaws of STID and ST09 as well as every other Star Trek thing that has ever existed, but I love them all anyway and I still have rather high hopes for NewTrek III.


Bottom line, Trek will never be the blockbuster movie franchise like Batman or Iron Man or the Avengers that TPTB want...let Star Wars and Marvel rule the bigscreen while trek overtakes the small screen. We have seen with shows like Breaking Bad and Arrested Development- Television can be incredibly popular. Trek belongs on TV and always will...thats where the best storytelling is...


Dammit Jim I'm a trekkie, not a doctor!

EmpokNorStationManager

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2034

Report this Oct. 15 2013, 6:16 am

Quote: NCC-1864 @ Sep. 27 2013, 10:01 am

>

>1. Why Khan: although Cumberbatch was a cold and convincing villan who showed the combat abilities of Khan, I still regret that he IS Khan. Now, he does not detract from the mythos of Khan at all, and I am thankful that they didnt have one Moby Dick quote from him so that he was a carbon copy of TWOK Khan. But did he really have to be Khan? Now, Khan is THE adversary for the TOS crew and it is logical to have him...but either cast someone who looks like Khan (because that seemed important for all the other NewTrek actors) or give him his natural hair color and make him Joachim or just another equally as menacing Augment (or an angry Gary Mitchell for being marooned or something like that). As I said, he does not detract, but he could have been so much more. This leads to my second thought:

>


 


I think this was a blatent attempt to pull old trekkies like myself back into the fold.  Not saying I need alot of prodding, however by introducing characters/villians from the main timeline you certainly pique the interest of those of us in the old guard...  wanting to see how a new take on Khan would look.  I agree that Cumberbacht was a very good villain, however I'm not sure he was the best choice for Khan either...  for crying out loud his name is Khan Noonian Singh...  a little more middle eastern than someone of British descent...


That is all.... Empok Nor Station Manager

EmpokNorStationManager

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2034

Report this Oct. 15 2013, 6:19 am

[quote]


5. Stop the Uhura madness: Its a movie and "needs a relationship" in it...I get that...but make it mature and a little reserved...Uhura was cool in ST2009 and was degraded to a whiney teenager in STID...fixthat...


[/quote]


 


Couldn't agree more with you.  If you look at the original movies, there was no mention of anything other than a platonic working relationship between the crew-mates.  I think that is one thing they should've maintained...  albiet it sure does set it apart from the standard timeline...  nothing says "I'm not in Kansas anymore" like having Spock make out with Uhura on the transporter pad....  


That is all.... Empok Nor Station Manager

EmpokNorStationManager

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2034

Report this Oct. 15 2013, 6:27 am

Quote: NCC-1864 @ Sep. 27 2013, 10:01 am

>

>7. If you were going to kill Kirk, go the whole Nine Yards: Now I dont mean to keep Kirk dead forever, but (and I hate to say this) but pull a STIII and have him be dead until the next movie. Spock should have lost to Khan and Khan should have escaped so that the third movie could have been an ending to a cliffhanger: Kirk is dead, Khan escapes, and War with the Klingons is inevitable. 

>


I'd say if you're going to do that then just do a remake of TWOK.  It's not a remake, it's a very close cousin of the standard timeline.  Some likenesses some differences....  I think killing Kirk the same way and having it span to the next movie would've been a mistake.    


That is all.... Empok Nor Station Manager

TrekFan1964

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 61

Report this Nov. 15 2013, 10:22 pm

The start of Star Trek: Into Darkness could have been made into a decent movie, then they forget about all of it and give us a very badly written "reimagined" Khan remake.  JJ Abrams had no intention of making a "new and improved" Star Trek film, as much of the film demonstrated.  This was about getting as much money out of the franchise as possible and making himself look like he cared what the Star Trek fans wanted.  Star Trek has not been the same since the last TNG film.  Will there be a third Star Trek film with yje new actors?  Unknown, as the owners of the franchise may have gone too far off with the last film for many fans to consider another attempt.  I for one would much rather have a new Star Trek TV show that is well done. 

EvilTree

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 50

Report this Nov. 17 2013, 11:06 am

I agree with number 1 mostly because I always imagined Cumberbatch as playing Q, he would have made an awesome Q.


Hey world, I'm here to comment on the message boards and keep my eyes open in case a new Star Trek series shows up.

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: 22123magic

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