Star Trek Into Darkness

New movies! Old movies! B-movies! Discuss discuss discuss!!!

Re: The Star Trek Sequel That Won't Be Called Star Trek 2

Postby Ribbons on Thu Mar 21, 2013 2:56 pm

Pretty sweet-looking international trailer, although potentially spoiler-iffic. It's hard to tell how much they give away, but if you're trying to go into this thing "pure" I would recommend abstaining, because it seems like they tell you the whole film in broadstrokes.

User avatar
Ribbons
SQUARE PEG
 
Posts: 13860
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:00 am

Re: The Star Trek Sequel That Won't Be Called Star Trek 2

Postby TheBaxter on Thu Mar 21, 2013 3:23 pm

can movie posters be separated at birth?

Star Trek Into Darkenss

Image

Charlie's Angels Into Snarkness

Image
Image
User avatar
TheBaxter
Carlos Danger
 
Posts: 19037
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 5:00 pm

Re: The Star Trek Sequel That Won't Be Called Star Trek 2

Postby so sorry on Thu Mar 21, 2013 4:40 pm

Ribbons wrote:Pretty sweet-looking international trailer, although potentially spoiler-iffic. It's hard to tell how much they give away, but if you're trying to go into this thing "pure" I would recommend abstaining, because it seems like they tell you the whole film in broadstrokes.




Looks like a fun romp. This ain't your father's Star Trek thought, that's for damn sure!

Although I can suspend my disbelief for 95% of this, the notion that the Enterprise fell from space and crash landed in a city/river without exploding into a bazillion pieces made me groan out loud.
User avatar
so sorry
Deacon Blues
 
Posts: 15549
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 11:29 am

Re: The Star Trek Sequel That Won't Be Called Star Trek 2

Postby TheButcher on Wed Apr 17, 2013 8:45 pm

Michael Giacchino Q&A - Talks Star Trek and Star Wars Music
User avatar
TheButcher
ZONE NEWS DIRECTOR
 
Posts: 17418
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:02 am
Location: The Bureau of Sabotage

Re: The Star Trek Sequel That Won't Be Called Star Trek 2

Postby The Leprechaun on Fri Apr 26, 2013 8:29 am

Star Trek 2 looks nice.
Last edited by The Leprechaun on Fri Apr 26, 2013 4:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Dohn't try an' steal me pot o' gold.
The Leprechaun
TOMBOY BEANPOLE
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:19 pm

Re: The Star Trek Sequel That Won't Be Called Star Trek 2

Postby RogueScribner on Fri Apr 26, 2013 2:22 pm

Wow. That sounds really lame if true.
My eye isn't lazy; it's ambidextrous!
User avatar
RogueScribner
The Dork Avenger
 
Posts: 9609
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 3:52 am
Location: Melbourne, FL

Re: The Star Trek Sequel That Won't Be Called Star Trek 2

Postby Pacino86845 on Fri Apr 26, 2013 5:27 pm

The Leprechaun wrote:Star Trek 2 looks nice.


IPAMPILASH!
User avatar
Pacino86845
EGYPTIAN LOVER
 
Posts: 14064
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 5:20 am

Re: The Star Trek Sequel That Won't Be Called Star Trek 2

Postby BuckyO'harre on Fri Apr 26, 2013 9:45 pm

Image
BuckyO'harre
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 3724
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2006 1:14 am

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Postby TheBaxter on Wed May 08, 2013 2:37 pm

i haven't seen the new star trek film yet, but the scene below is already my favorite moment in the film.



Image
Image
User avatar
TheBaxter
Carlos Danger
 
Posts: 19037
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 5:00 pm

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Postby DerLanghaarige on Wed May 08, 2013 5:57 pm

So I just saw it. Don't expect a full review from me before the weekend, but let's just say that I enjoyed it a lot, BUT they pulled some shit in the finale that really made me lose some sympathy. Not enough to ruin the movie, but some serious fanfiction crap.
In case you are scared that the movie is all "dark & brooding": No, it's not. It's definitely not darker than other "dark" TREK movies. I would say it has a similar tone like part 6. And the trailers do not give away the full story! My favourite moment was a big FUCK YOU to the haters of a certain scene in the last movie. And they apparently invested some of the profits from the last movie in a tripod and a steady cam. No amateurish handheld shots this time around. And a lot less lensflare.

That's all for now. I give it 7,5/10. It would have been 8 or maybe even 8,5, without the missteps at the end.
Image
User avatar
DerLanghaarige
Lohman's Wet Shirt
 
Posts: 2558
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 3:00 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Postby minstrel on Wed May 08, 2013 8:43 pm

Wasn't Bonanza just Buck Rogers on quaaludes?
"Everybody is equally shitty and wrong." - Ribbons
User avatar
minstrel
Leader of the Insquirrelgency
 
Posts: 12634
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 2:03 pm
Location: Area 52

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Postby RogueScribner on Wed May 08, 2013 9:35 pm

The more I learn about this movie, the less interested I am. I'm just biding my time until MOS opens...
My eye isn't lazy; it's ambidextrous!
User avatar
RogueScribner
The Dork Avenger
 
Posts: 9609
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 3:52 am
Location: Melbourne, FL

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Postby ironic name on Fri May 10, 2013 4:03 am

well, the trailers gave me enough of a clue to work out some of the story.
I thought it was pretty predictable, not that that means it wasn't fun, just I saw exactly what was gonna happen next, to the point where when carol marcus is scanning a torpedo and spock questions her, I thought "nows a good time for an explosion". the one thing that surprised me is that it turns out carol didn't sabotaaaj the ship, and she wasn't secretly in love with khan, or a mole sent by her dad.
I can't tell if the writers were going for a twist where in a movie where khan's blood saves 2 living beings and we are supposedly scared kirk is dead, that a suspicious character is a red herring,or if I was somehow seeing the plot beats so far ahead of the writers that I saw stuff that would actually surprise them on their own script.
it's great fun but has a few plot holes, plus I wanted sulu to say OH MYYYY when the old sissy sits on the captain's chair.
correction, the prologue was surprising, and funny.
8 out of 10
Image
Last edited by ironic name on Sun May 12, 2013 11:04 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
ironic name
had cheer sex with Megan Gale
 
Posts: 5695
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 8:53 am

Edgar Wright's STAR TREK 3?

Postby TheButcher on Sat May 11, 2013 6:45 am

User avatar
TheButcher
ZONE NEWS DIRECTOR
 
Posts: 17418
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:02 am
Location: The Bureau of Sabotage

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Postby TheBaxter on Mon May 13, 2013 11:21 am

ironic name wrote:it's great fun but has a few plot holes, plus I wanted sulu to say OH MYYYY when the old sissy sits on the captain's chair.


i happened to be watching ST: Generations last night (the picard/kirk mashup one) and when kirk died i realized that his final words were takei's catchphrase.

Image
User avatar
TheBaxter
Carlos Danger
 
Posts: 19037
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 5:00 pm

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Postby ironic name on Mon May 13, 2013 11:54 am

TheBaxter wrote:
ironic name wrote:it's great fun but has a few plot holes, plus I wanted sulu to say OH MYYYY when the old sissy sits on the captain's chair.


i happened to be watching ST: Generations last night (the picard/kirk mashup one) and when kirk died i realized that his final words were takei's catchphrase.


whoa.
User avatar
ironic name
had cheer sex with Megan Gale
 
Posts: 5695
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 8:53 am

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Postby TheBaxter on Mon May 13, 2013 12:50 pm

ironic name wrote:whoa.


that quote was from a different movie... Bill Kirk and Ted's Excellent Adventure.
Image
User avatar
TheBaxter
Carlos Danger
 
Posts: 19037
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 5:00 pm

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Postby ironic name on Tue May 14, 2013 3:33 am

User avatar
ironic name
had cheer sex with Megan Gale
 
Posts: 5695
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 8:53 am

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Postby RogueScribner on Tue May 14, 2013 10:15 am

H@rry loved the movie, but the things he liked sounded awful to me. And a lot of people who've seen the movie already are calling the movie soulless and stupid in the comments. I had a friend ask me if I was interested in seeing the new Star Trek movie. For the first time ever, I said no.
My eye isn't lazy; it's ambidextrous!
User avatar
RogueScribner
The Dork Avenger
 
Posts: 9609
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 3:52 am
Location: Melbourne, FL

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Postby so sorry on Tue May 14, 2013 10:41 am

RogueScribner wrote:And a lot of people who've seen the movie already are calling the movie soulless and stupid in the comments.


That sounds about right. That said, I'm not sure what anyone could really expect from this film other than flashy action sequences. Which is perfectly fine too. But those expecting a movie with "heart and soul" should surely look elsewhere.
User avatar
so sorry
Deacon Blues
 
Posts: 15549
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 11:29 am

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Postby RogueScribner on Tue May 14, 2013 12:25 pm

Star Trek from its inception was about the human adventure. Abrams only seems interested in sound and fury. I somewhat enjoyed the last movie, but hoped with the wealth of possibilities they had the sequel would be better. Instead, they retread old territory but change things around to suit their revisionist history. That'd be fine if they were actually improving on what came before, but it doesn't sound like they are. I think Abrams will be better suited to Star Wars. It's suits his mentality.
My eye isn't lazy; it's ambidextrous!
User avatar
RogueScribner
The Dork Avenger
 
Posts: 9609
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 3:52 am
Location: Melbourne, FL

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Postby TheBaxter on Tue May 14, 2013 2:45 pm

i hope the third one will be about how the enterprise crew discovers that all those lens flares are actually highly advanced living space beings who have been observing humanity as part of a nefarious plan to destroy humanity. all the haters are gonna feel real stupid when they realize how long jj abrams has been setting up his epic lens flare trek trilogy, even tying it in with seemingly non-related trek properties like Super 8 and Mission Impossible. and that's just the beginning, it will all come to an epic conclusion in the new Star Wars trilogy. if you think patton oswalt's SW pitch was awesome, wait til you see how the lens flare beings tie in with midichlorians and the ancient Sith prophecy about bringing balance to the Flare. chewbacca's severed head will pale in comparison to the scene where a lensflare-possessed Ethan Hunt faces off against the Vulcan-Jedi-Droid hybrid offspring of Princess Leia, Spock, and R2-D2 (it was a threeway), as the evil sith lord Felicity oversees the battle, cackling with glee.
Image
User avatar
TheBaxter
Carlos Danger
 
Posts: 19037
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 5:00 pm

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Postby TheButcher on Thu May 16, 2013 7:51 am

I did not like this movie.
User avatar
TheButcher
ZONE NEWS DIRECTOR
 
Posts: 17418
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:02 am
Location: The Bureau of Sabotage

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Postby so sorry on Thu May 16, 2013 11:59 am

TheButcher wrote:I did not like this movie.



Care to explain? Or at least link to an article that shares your review? 8-)
User avatar
so sorry
Deacon Blues
 
Posts: 15549
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 11:29 am

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Postby Fievel on Thu May 16, 2013 3:19 pm

TheButcher wrote:I did not like this movie.


Newsbots become sentient.
Newsbots get.... opinions.......
Newsbots must be DESTROYED!!!!!!
:twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:
Achievement Unlocked: TOTAL DOMINATION (Win a Werewolf Game without losing a single player on your team)
User avatar
Fievel
Mouse Of The House
 
Posts: 12118
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 2:07 pm
Location: White Lake, MI

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Postby TheButcher on Thu May 16, 2013 8:55 pm

so sorry wrote:
TheButcher wrote:I did not like this movie.



Care to explain? Or at least link to an article that shares your review? 8-)

Collider's STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS Review
Matt Goldberg wrote:When I saw Abrams’ Star Trek back in 2009, I enjoyed it, but I also hadn’t seen The Original Series, and had only seen Wrath of Khan one time many years before. Since then, I’ve cultivated a serious appreciation for Star Trek. I don’t think the original series is perfect, but I admire its spirit and its values. I also recognize Wrath of Khan as a classic movie that can appeal to fans and non-fans alike. Abrams’ sequel thinks it can achieve that same level of admiration if it simply copies the memorable moments for the 1982 film.


The Playlist:
5 Things You Might Not Know About 'Star Trek Into Darkness'
Drew Taylor wrote:When Abrams came aboard the original "Star Trek" reboot, there were a whole galaxy's worth of ideas that he wanted to cram into the movie that ended up not making it in. Thankfully, that's what "Star Trek Into Darkness" is for, acting as a kind of dumping ground for ideas developed but not utilized.


NY POST:
Star Trek Into Darkness' is lost in space
Lou Lumenick wrote:‘Why would a Starfleet admiral ask a 300-year-old frozen man for help?’’ asks Captain Kirk in his latest adventure — and, after sitting through two-plus hours of the mind-numbing “Star Trek Into Darkness,’’ damned if I could tell you why.


The New York TImes:
Kirk and Spock, in Their Roughhousing Days
A. O. SCOTT wrote:The good people at Paramount have asked me not to say too much about the plot, so I won’t, except to note that it is pretty dumb and sometimes needlessly muddled.
User avatar
TheButcher
ZONE NEWS DIRECTOR
 
Posts: 17418
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:02 am
Location: The Bureau of Sabotage

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Postby so sorry on Thu May 16, 2013 9:29 pm

Well played sir
User avatar
so sorry
Deacon Blues
 
Posts: 15549
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 11:29 am

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Postby travis-dane on Fri May 17, 2013 6:55 am

I was very entertained by this movie, but as with the first new Trek movie, I see it not as an sequel to the old films. If you can seperate old Trek from new Trek, you will be fine, if not then stay away from this, it will only piss you off.
-
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs!
Image
User avatar
travis-dane
100% OLEG!
 
Posts: 5418
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 8:19 am
Location: DTVille

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Postby so sorry on Fri May 17, 2013 8:40 am

travis-dane wrote:If you can seperate old Trek from new Trek, you will be fine, if not then stay away from this, it will only piss you off.


Tru dat.
User avatar
so sorry
Deacon Blues
 
Posts: 15549
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 11:29 am

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Postby DerLanghaarige on Sat May 18, 2013 9:44 am

But in all fairness, It's not like the writers try to seperate their movie from the old TREK either, with the surprise cameo of old Spock and the unintentional hilarious remake of one of the most popular scenes from the classic movies.
Image
User avatar
DerLanghaarige
Lohman's Wet Shirt
 
Posts: 2558
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 3:00 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Postby travis-dane on Sat May 18, 2013 12:01 pm

DerLanghaarige wrote:But in all fairness, It's not like the writers try to seperate their movie from the old TREK either, with the surprise cameo of old Spock and the unintentional hilarious remake of one of the most popular scenes from the classic movies.


Which does not mean that I dont have to seperate the movies, if I would not do it, the new Trek movie would be utter shit. If you start comparing Wrath to Darkness, your head will explode. The new Trek is one of the dumbest movies I have seen in a long time, but it gets outright insulting if you think about the "source" material they had.
-
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs!
Image
User avatar
travis-dane
100% OLEG!
 
Posts: 5418
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 8:19 am
Location: DTVille

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Postby Ribbons on Sat May 18, 2013 5:25 pm

I liked it, but I wasn't bowled over by it, not to sound like the spoiled fanboy. It's certainly better-written than the last Star Trek, and almost every shot is a wonder to behold (besides for everything on Kronos, which looks like an abandoned nightclub full of rocks). Still it felt inconsequential, to me. The stakes didn't seem big enough, the characters weren't pushed far enough, and even though redshirts die left and right, there's very little "darkness" to be found here, despite the title's claims. I know that's the way Abrams & Co. want to keep this series -- light and breezy -- but even for all that, there are similar popcorn-munchers like Iron Man 3 that seemed more complete. I think at least part of it can be blamed on the proud Bad Robot tradition of unnecessary plot twists. Why, for example, did Khan have to hide his identity despite the fact that nobody knew who he was? It's that kind of self-consciousness that's a double-edged sword for Into Darkness; they try to subvert audience expectations, and it works sometimes, but it also harms the story. It also lifts shamelessly from a couple very recent blockbusters, most obviously The Dark Knight and, in one particular action sequence, Inception.

I liked the dynamic between the characters, though. It's a minor miracle that they were able to work in so many references to contemporary life and still have it feel like a self-contained world. Everybody is faced with tough choices, beginning with an unfortunate Starfleet employee with a dying daughter, and they don't always make the right ones. And some of them don't get much screentime, but the Enterprise regulars are all given a moment (or several) that develops their character in interesting ways ...well, except for poor Chekhov.
User avatar
Ribbons
SQUARE PEG
 
Posts: 13860
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:00 am

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Postby RogueScribner on Sat May 18, 2013 9:17 pm

i think it's telling that some friends of mine who have (at best) had passing interest in "classic Trek" and are huge Star Wars fans really liked the new movie. I guess if you don't bring any baggage to the theater, you'll have a good time. As a long time Trek fan, I don't think I can help but bring that baggage with me. Oh well.
My eye isn't lazy; it's ambidextrous!
User avatar
RogueScribner
The Dork Avenger
 
Posts: 9609
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 3:52 am
Location: Melbourne, FL

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Postby Lord Voldemoo on Sun May 19, 2013 1:29 am

SPOILERS! I'M NOT SPOILER TEXTING SO SRSLY IF YOU DON'T WANT SPOILERS STOP READING

RogueScribner wrote:i think it's telling that some friends of mine who have (at best) had passing interest in "classic Trek" and are huge Star Wars fans really liked the new movie. I guess if you don't bring any baggage to the theater, you'll have a good time. As a long time Trek fan, I don't think I can help but bring that baggage with me. Oh well.


I would classify myself as having a passing interest in Trek and a huge Star Wars nerd, but I didn't really like the film. I will say though, like many of those having a passing interest in Trek, I do absolutely love Wrath of Khan. I hate people who have to compare everything to what has come before. Movies aren't usually as good as the book. Sequels may lose some of the charm of the original. Remakes may not always be faithful. I really do like to view these things on their own merits and as a result Abrams' first Star Trek was one of my 2 or 3 favorite genre flicks of that year. I usually try not to compare...but.....

I challenge anyone who enjoys Wrath of Khan not to compare that film to this one. There are incredibly deliberate and in your face parallels drawn very purposefully. The comparison is begging to be made. And this film suffers as a result.

Cumberbatch is fine. Not amazing. Fine. His Khan is, to me not particularly interesting. Montalban is cheesy and chews the scenery but he's interesting! Cumberbatch's Khan may be more menacing, but ultimately pales in comparison.

The plot is dumb. There are a couple of references to a super secret organization within Starfleet called Section 31 which DS9 fans may remember. It was pretty throwaway though, it felt like an attempt by Abrams and Co to connect the viewer to the broader Trek universe. The challenge is that it never feels like Abrams and Co really CARE that much about the broader Trek universe. Concepts are touched on then brushed aside. The plot is unnecessarily clunky. The motivations of the characters and their machinations are unclear (at least to me). More so, I guess, on Weller's side than on Khan's, but still.

Scenes from WoK are essentially copied (in mirror universe form). But unlike the source material they are derived from, there is no sense of weight to the scenes. It's light with no heat. This isn't really the actors' faults. Pine is fine, and I thought that Quinto was quite good. But by drawing so closely on much-loved material, you'd better be knocking it out of the fucking park. This was more like, at best, a bunt single.

Kirk's "death" had 1/1000th of the weight of Spock's from WoK. Part of the reason for that is that I didn't buy the love, respect and brotherhood between Kirk and Spock here like I did in WoK. I think the primary reason for that is that Shatner and Nimoy had years and years to develop the relationship. Here, Pine and Quinto's characters really only started getting along like 5 minutes ago. The scene between them carries much less weight as a result. It also lost a MASSIVE amount because i just knew they wouldn't keep Kirk dead. The farking Tribble was a dead giveaway. Drama without consequence isn't dramatic. Yes, I know they brought Spock back but at least they took a whole movie doing it (and Kirk lost his son in the process). This felt way too easy.

It's beautiful. I watched on IMAX and I'm glad I did. Some truly amazing shots. Lens flare for me was less noticeable except for a few particular shots, but maybe I"m just tuning it out now. heh. Another thing I liked, and 99% of people who dislike this film will cite this as a bad moment, but I liked it: Quinto's KHANNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN. :D Logically, it should bother me. If not meant to be a little tongue in cheek it's unintentionally funny...and if meant to be tongue in cheek it's very poorly placed in the film (during a very serious scene)...but somehow it just brought a smile to my face. Whatever, my likes and dislikes don't always have to make sense.

Pine was solid. Quinto was the best part of the movie for me...except that Saldana and Alice Eve are hot. Simon Pegg is really funny. Cho and Yelchin are non-existent. Urban's McCoy felt underused to me here. It's funny...he walks such a fine line between playing the character and playing DeForest Kelley playing the character. I like it...but I can see how others wouldn't. This shouldn't surprise anyone who saw the first film though. Love him or hate him, McCoy didn't have that much to do here.

People note that it's soulless and regret the loss of the Trek depth. They actually make head fakes in that direction though, they're just not very successful. The Section 31 stuff hearkens back to the security vs. freedom issues that were considered successfully in DS9, and the debate between Spock and Kirk on things like the Prime Directive and the morality of eliminating a target without trial go all the way back to Roddenberry. So those who say that Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman don't even try to hit those notes are, I think, being a little unfair. They just don't do it very successfully.

In short, I mostly like the cast. I like Abrams' eye for action. Orci and Kurtzman are Orci and Kurtzman...the writing is, at it's very very best, never more than mediocre. But where this film really fails for me is in the comparison. I really liked the first film because (with a couple of relatively minor exceptions) it didn't beg the comparison. It was it's own thing. And it's more believable as it's own thing when it's not actively "re-imagining" pre-existing material. Here, they went for it. It was gutsy. I give them some credit for that. But to me it ultimately failed.

This is mostly a bitch. And I know I sound like a Trekkie. But it is worth seeing. If you are going to see it...spend the extra $15 and see it on IMAX if you can. If you're going to watch it anyway you should watch it in a format that emphasizes its best attributes: beautiful scenery and effects. (and girls)
Image
User avatar
Lord Voldemoo
He Who Shall Not Be Milked
 
Posts: 17641
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 1:18 pm
Location: Pasture next to the Red Barn

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Postby SilentBobX on Sun May 19, 2013 9:42 am

Saw this last night and I must say it definitely lived up to expectations(or at least mine), energetic, entertaining, pretty to look at, and action filled. Great FX and performances, especially from Karl Urban, who is wearing the mantle of Dr. McCoy so well that I'm sure DeForest Kelley would approve. It had its problems to be sure, and I have to say, I laughed so hard(unintentionally) at so much of the film, I could never be a Trekkie(this is a good thing I'm sure)


What I liked:

Karl Urban, Zachary Quinto, and Benedict Cumberbatch.

Kirk and Spock's escape from Planet Twizzler in the opening sequence.

Capt. Pike's death and Nimoy's cameo

The Klingons, no wussyworfs here, altho they were little more than cannon fodder for Cumberbatch

Peter Weller. Man needs more roles, good or bad guy, STAT.


What I didn't like:

The almost note-perfect remake of the entire scene from Wrath Of Khan but with Kirk and Spock reversed

Spock yelling 'Khaaaan!' REALLY? I couldn't help but laugh

Yes, he's Khan

I hate to say it, but too much was anti-climactic and I saw from a mile away like Using the super-blood to revive Kirk once we saw McCoy use it to revive a tribble and the 72 torpedoes which I already had guessed housed Khan's followers

I'm sure many Trekkies will like to nitpick but it wasn't a bad film by any stretch, but I have to say the story was a bit lazy if they cribbed so damn much from Wrath of Khan

Mahalo
Image
User avatar
SilentBobX
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 1751
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 4:21 pm
Location: Nashville, TN

Re: JJ's STAR TREK 3?

Postby TheButcher on Fri May 24, 2013 3:03 pm

User avatar
TheButcher
ZONE NEWS DIRECTOR
 
Posts: 17418
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:02 am
Location: The Bureau of Sabotage

Re: JJ's STAR TREK 3?

Postby Fievel on Fri May 24, 2013 3:35 pm



Good gawd the main site gentlemen must be too busy cleaning their pants to post this news themselves.
Achievement Unlocked: TOTAL DOMINATION (Win a Werewolf Game without losing a single player on your team)
User avatar
Fievel
Mouse Of The House
 
Posts: 12118
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 2:07 pm
Location: White Lake, MI

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Postby justcheckin on Sun Jun 09, 2013 6:25 pm

Just saw this a few nights ago and loved it. I'm an old school trekkie but love the reboot. I'm sure there are things that could be better or different but I enjoyed it anyway. It was entertaining and nostalgic and that is what I wanted from it, a good time!
User avatar
justcheckin
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2751
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:37 am
Location: Down the street, take a left.

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Postby Peven on Tue Jun 11, 2013 7:08 am

Lord Voldemoo wrote:SPOILERS! I'M NOT SPOILER TEXTING SO SRSLY IF YOU DON'T WANT SPOILERS STOP READING

RogueScribner wrote:i think it's telling that some friends of mine who have (at best) had passing interest in "classic Trek" and are huge Star Wars fans really liked the new movie. I guess if you don't bring any baggage to the theater, you'll have a good time. As a long time Trek fan, I don't think I can help but bring that baggage with me. Oh well.


I would classify myself as having a passing interest in Trek and a huge Star Wars nerd, but I didn't really like the film. I will say though, like many of those having a passing interest in Trek, I do absolutely love Wrath of Khan. I hate people who have to compare everything to what has come before. Movies aren't usually as good as the book. Sequels may lose some of the charm of the original. Remakes may not always be faithful. I really do like to view these things on their own merits and as a result Abrams' first Star Trek was one of my 2 or 3 favorite genre flicks of that year. I usually try not to compare...but.....

I challenge anyone who enjoys Wrath of Khan not to compare that film to this one. There are incredibly deliberate and in your face parallels drawn very purposefully. The comparison is begging to be made. And this film suffers as a result.

Cumberbatch is fine. Not amazing. Fine. His Khan is, to me not particularly interesting. Montalban is cheesy and chews the scenery but he's interesting! Cumberbatch's Khan may be more menacing, but ultimately pales in comparison.

The plot is dumb. There are a couple of references to a super secret organization within Starfleet called Section 31 which DS9 fans may remember. It was pretty throwaway though, it felt like an attempt by Abrams and Co to connect the viewer to the broader Trek universe. The challenge is that it never feels like Abrams and Co really CARE that much about the broader Trek universe. Concepts are touched on then brushed aside. The plot is unnecessarily clunky. The motivations of the characters and their machinations are unclear (at least to me). More so, I guess, on Weller's side than on Khan's, but still.

Scenes from WoK are essentially copied (in mirror universe form). But unlike the source material they are derived from, there is no sense of weight to the scenes. It's light with no heat. This isn't really the actors' faults. Pine is fine, and I thought that Quinto was quite good. But by drawing so closely on much-loved material, you'd better be knocking it out of the fucking park. This was more like, at best, a bunt single.

Kirk's "death" had 1/1000th of the weight of Spock's from WoK. Part of the reason for that is that I didn't buy the love, respect and brotherhood between Kirk and Spock here like I did in WoK. I think the primary reason for that is that Shatner and Nimoy had years and years to develop the relationship. Here, Pine and Quinto's characters really only started getting along like 5 minutes ago. The scene between them carries much less weight as a result. It also lost a MASSIVE amount because i just knew they wouldn't keep Kirk dead. The farking Tribble was a dead giveaway. Drama without consequence isn't dramatic. Yes, I know they brought Spock back but at least they took a whole movie doing it (and Kirk lost his son in the process). This felt way too easy.

It's beautiful. I watched on IMAX and I'm glad I did. Some truly amazing shots. Lens flare for me was less noticeable except for a few particular shots, but maybe I"m just tuning it out now. heh. Another thing I liked, and 99% of people who dislike this film will cite this as a bad moment, but I liked it: Quinto's KHANNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN. :D Logically, it should bother me. If not meant to be a little tongue in cheek it's unintentionally funny...and if meant to be tongue in cheek it's very poorly placed in the film (during a very serious scene)...but somehow it just brought a smile to my face. Whatever, my likes and dislikes don't always have to make sense.

Pine was solid. Quinto was the best part of the movie for me...except that Saldana and Alice Eve are hot. Simon Pegg is really funny. Cho and Yelchin are non-existent. Urban's McCoy felt underused to me here. It's funny...he walks such a fine line between playing the character and playing DeForest Kelley playing the character. I like it...but I can see how others wouldn't. This shouldn't surprise anyone who saw the first film though. Love him or hate him, McCoy didn't have that much to do here.

People note that it's soulless and regret the loss of the Trek depth. They actually make head fakes in that direction though, they're just not very successful. The Section 31 stuff hearkens back to the security vs. freedom issues that were considered successfully in DS9, and the debate between Spock and Kirk on things like the Prime Directive and the morality of eliminating a target without trial go all the way back to Roddenberry. So those who say that Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman don't even try to hit those notes are, I think, being a little unfair. They just don't do it very successfully.

In short, I mostly like the cast. I like Abrams' eye for action. Orci and Kurtzman are Orci and Kurtzman...the writing is, at it's very very best, never more than mediocre. But where this film really fails for me is in the comparison. I really liked the first film because (with a couple of relatively minor exceptions) it didn't beg the comparison. It was it's own thing. And it's more believable as it's own thing when it's not actively "re-imagining" pre-existing material. Here, they went for it. It was gutsy. I give them some credit for that. But to me it ultimately failed.

This is mostly a bitch. And I know I sound like a Trekkie. But it is worth seeing. If you are going to see it...spend the extra $15 and see it on IMAX if you can. If you're going to watch it anyway you should watch it in a format that emphasizes its best attributes: beautiful scenery and effects. (and girls)


I wholeheartedly disagree that the movie feels like Abrams and Co don't really care about Star Trek, just the opposite. I thought the way they wove elements of the past Treks and this new timeline showed a real appreciation for Star Trek and the whole movie felt like it was made by fans of the material, it had the right....spirit. Abrams is to Star Trek as Whedon is to The Avengers
Image

perversely contrarian since 2005
Peven
Is This Real Life?
 
Posts: 14547
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:45 am
Location: Group W bench

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Postby Fievel on Tue Jun 11, 2013 12:14 pm

Peven wrote:Abrams is to Star Trek as Whedon is to The Avengers


Except Whedon brought a brand new story to the screen for audiences to see for the first time.

I completely echo Moo's complaints. I thought Cumberbatch was a great villain (as an actor). But to completely retread Khan..... Yes, we saw it at a new angle, which was great. But then the mirror death came, and the KHAAAAAAN came, and it was just too much. Those bits really pissed away a lot of what I enjoyed about the earlier parts of the film. Had they went with a new angle for an ending, it could have been so much better. It was still enjoyable, but could have been great.
Achievement Unlocked: TOTAL DOMINATION (Win a Werewolf Game without losing a single player on your team)
User avatar
Fievel
Mouse Of The House
 
Posts: 12118
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 2:07 pm
Location: White Lake, MI

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Postby so sorry on Fri Jun 14, 2013 1:07 pm

Copernicus and his scientific review of ST:Into Darkness

I have no idea why this article just got posted yesterday considering the movie is done and gone from the theaters. Nevertheless, as geeky and rediculous it is to dissect a Star Trek movie based on real world physics, I do still enjoy Copernicus' reviews. But something is definetly off in this review. Usually he gives these movies a pass as far as plot and story, focusing on the reality of science. This review is downright angry, for the terrible science of the movie, as well as writing and character motivations etc. I don't recall ever reading his reviews that are curse-laden. He's downright pissed! Its pretty hilarious actually.
User avatar
so sorry
Deacon Blues
 
Posts: 15549
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 11:29 am

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Postby Peven on Sun Jun 16, 2013 2:13 pm

Fievel wrote:
Peven wrote:Abrams is to Star Trek as Whedon is to The Avengers


Except Whedon brought a brand new story to the screen for audiences to see for the first time.

I completely echo Moo's complaints. I thought Cumberbatch was a great villain (as an actor). But to completely retread Khan..... Yes, we saw it at a new angle, which was great. But then the mirror death came, and the KHAAAAAAN came, and it was just too much. Those bits really pissed away a lot of what I enjoyed about the earlier parts of the film. Had they went with a new angle for an ending, it could have been so much better. It was still enjoyable, but could have been great.


same ending?? I am sorry but I swore that Spock didn't die this time. and if I am not mistaken Khan was not killed in this movie. and I guess I forgot about Uhura and Spock's romantic relationship in the WoK? another thing I must have missed in WoK was when they returned to Earth, or Sulu finding his sense of worth, or any number of aspects in Into Darkness that made it its own original story. just look at where the end of the movie finds the characters compared to WoK, TOTALLY different. tell me, what characters in The Avengers were original? what aspect of the story was brand new and hasn't already happened at some time in the Marvel history? earth had never been attacked? Banner never struggled with his inner monster before? Captain America never felt out of place/time? has there never been discourse among the Avengers? all these things and many more were established elements that Whedon reshuffled, to great effect, just the way Abrams took existing ingredients and made them into his own movie that stands on its own.
Image

perversely contrarian since 2005
Peven
Is This Real Life?
 
Posts: 14547
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:45 am
Location: Group W bench

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Postby Ribbons on Sun Jun 16, 2013 3:12 pm

so sorry wrote:Copernicus and his scientific review of ST:Into Darkness

I have no idea why this article just got posted yesterday considering the movie is done and gone from the theaters. Nevertheless, as geeky and rediculous it is to dissect a Star Trek movie based on real world physics, I do still enjoy Copernicus' reviews. But something is definetly off in this review. Usually he gives these movies a pass as far as plot and story, focusing on the reality of science. This review is downright angry, for the terrible science of the movie, as well as writing and character motivations etc. I don't recall ever reading his reviews that are curse-laden. He's downright pissed! Its pretty hilarious actually.


Hell hath no fury like a Trekkie scorned.

I have not seen Wrath of Khan (which I know is heresy in some geek circles), so whether Into Darkness apes that film too much is probably not for me to say. Hearing the description of the climax, it does sound uncomfortably, ridiculously similar, only Kirk and Spock are on opposite sides of the wall. But it never once felt forced to me. All of the emotional beats were earned, even the cheesy "KHAAAAAAAN!" line. If you think that they just shoehorned it in there, watch literally any scene involving Kirk and Spock before that.

Also, The Avengers borrows heavily from their first story arc way back in the '60s (where Loki "befuddles" the Hulk), as well as The Ultimates 2. So it's not exactly the best example of originality.
User avatar
Ribbons
SQUARE PEG
 
Posts: 13860
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:00 am

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Postby Fievel on Sun Jun 16, 2013 3:20 pm

Peven wrote:
Fievel wrote:
Peven wrote:Abrams is to Star Trek as Whedon is to The Avengers


Except Whedon brought a brand new story to the screen for audiences to see for the first time.

I completely echo Moo's complaints. I thought Cumberbatch was a great villain (as an actor). But to completely retread Khan..... Yes, we saw it at a new angle, which was great. But then the mirror death came, and the KHAAAAAAN came, and it was just too much. Those bits really pissed away a lot of what I enjoyed about the earlier parts of the film. Had they went with a new angle for an ending, it could have been so much better. It was still enjoyable, but could have been great.


same ending?? I am sorry but I swore that Spock didn't die this time. and if I am not mistaken Khan was not killed in this movie. and I guess I forgot about Uhura and Spock's romantic relationship in the WoK? another thing I must have missed in WoK was when they returned to Earth, or Sulu finding his sense of worth, or any number of aspects in Into Darkness that made it its own original story. just look at where the end of the movie finds the characters compared to WoK, TOTALLY different. tell me, what characters in The Avengers were original? what aspect of the story was brand new and hasn't already happened at some time in the Marvel history? earth had never been attacked? Banner never struggled with his inner monster before? Captain America never felt out of place/time? has there never been discourse among the Avengers? all these things and many more were established elements that Whedon reshuffled, to great effect, just the way Abrams took existing ingredients and made them into his own movie that stands on its own.


A different ending:
The USS Vengeance was completed too quickly and suffers a major electrical malfunction before it can cripple the Enterprise. Khan is forced to bargain with Spock and beam everyone back to the Enterprise, where he hopes to free his crew from the torpedo pods. During a lengthy monologue on the bridge, Sulu, unprovoked, stabs Khan in the back of the neck. The entire crew of the Enterprise quickly joins in the fracas. Khan is quickly eviscerated, intestines scattered abound. Spock, in a moment of barbaric humanity, mounts Uhura from behind (in uniform, of course). Bones enters the room and starts spraying champagne around in slow motion. Kirk just observes the entire scene from his chair with a wry smile.

Would that have been so hard?

But no. We have Spock & Kirk professing their bro-love for each other, one dies of extreme radiation poisoning, and is eventually brought back through ridiculous circumstances - for the second time now. If Kirk would have just been sick and not died, my eye-rolling would not have been so severe.

As for Whedon......
Peven wrote:tell me, what characters in The Avengers were original? what aspect of the story was brand new and hasn't already happened at some time in the Marvel history? earth had never been attacked? Banner never struggled with his inner monster before? Captain America never felt out of place/time? has there never been discourse among the Avengers? all these things and many more were established elements that Whedon reshuffled, to great effect, just the way Abrams took existing ingredients and made them into his own movie that stands on its own.


There has never been an Avengers movie. Ever.
Abrams copied chunks of a previous Star Trek movie.
Those are two glaring differences right there between the two properties.

Now, Whedon may have adapted from some existing comic stories for his work in The Avengers. But that's his job - to either adapt existing stories for the screen or write new stories. Abrams had 79 episodes of the original series that he could have pulled stories from, or he could have gone with an original story with his new alternate timeline. But instead he went with Part 2 of the existing movie franchise. And although 95% of it might have been different, that 5% was important enough detract from the rest of the film.
Achievement Unlocked: TOTAL DOMINATION (Win a Werewolf Game without losing a single player on your team)
User avatar
Fievel
Mouse Of The House
 
Posts: 12118
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 2:07 pm
Location: White Lake, MI

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Postby Ribbons on Sun Jun 16, 2013 10:36 pm

Fievel wrote:A different ending:
The USS Vengeance was completed too quickly and suffers a major electrical malfunction before it can cripple the Enterprise. Khan is forced to bargain with Spock and beam everyone back to the Enterprise, where he hopes to free his crew from the torpedo pods. During a lengthy monologue on the bridge, Sulu, unprovoked, stabs Khan in the back of the neck. The entire crew of the Enterprise quickly joins in the fracas. Khan is quickly eviscerated, intestines scattered abound. Spock, in a moment of barbaric humanity, mounts Uhura from behind (in uniform, of course). Bones enters the room and starts spraying champagne around in slow motion. Kirk just observes the entire scene from his chair with a wry smile.

Would that have been so hard?


Hey, you've got to save something for the sequel
User avatar
Ribbons
SQUARE PEG
 
Posts: 13860
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:00 am

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Postby TheButcher on Sun Jun 30, 2013 3:21 am

Ribbons wrote:
Fievel wrote:A different ending:
The USS Vengeance was completed too quickly and suffers a major electrical malfunction before it can cripple the Enterprise. Khan is forced to bargain with Spock and beam everyone back to the Enterprise, where he hopes to free his crew from the torpedo pods. During a lengthy monologue on the bridge, Sulu, unprovoked, stabs Khan in the back of the neck. The entire crew of the Enterprise quickly joins in the fracas. Khan is quickly eviscerated, intestines scattered abound. Spock, in a moment of barbaric humanity, mounts Uhura from behind (in uniform, of course). Bones enters the room and starts spraying champagne around in slow motion. Kirk just observes the entire scene from his chair with a wry smile.

Would that have been so hard?


Hey, you've got to save something for the sequel

Star Trek 3: Attack of the Clones of Khan!!!
User avatar
TheButcher
ZONE NEWS DIRECTOR
 
Posts: 17418
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:02 am
Location: The Bureau of Sabotage

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Postby Fried Gold on Mon Jul 01, 2013 1:10 pm

While you're in the moment watching it, it feels quite good.

But if at any time after you stop and think about anything that happened, it's quite easy to pick the thing to pieces. There are a few too many of Chekov's guns (pun half intended) left dangling out obviously in front of you.

The thing I still find strange is that, given they've set this universe up to be different to the old shows and films and they effectively have a fresh sandbox for the characters in which to play, it seemed like they want to retread so much from the old movies. I know not everyone has seen the old material, or has any interest, but the writers clearly have and I wonder why they feel the need to cover old ground (even with the slight twists).
User avatar
Fried Gold
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 13930
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 12:28 pm
Location: ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Postby justcheckin on Wed Jul 03, 2013 9:36 pm

I really liked it too... but I think that they are covering old ground to show both a parallel and shifting of character traits as well as covering all the old ground at once. It took the old series 2 movies to kill Khan and bring Spock back to life and then another to restore Spock to his former self and they would really be mad to revisit that whale plot. Khan is an easy 'earth' made adversary to use to get everyone in the right position for whatever new thing awaits (which looks to me like Klingons). You have to also remember that this reboot doesn't have a tv show with character development to jump from, it's a parallel timeline with new actors.
User avatar
justcheckin
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2751
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:37 am
Location: Down the street, take a left.

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Postby Ribbons on Wed Jul 03, 2013 10:07 pm

The stated reason for Khanning it up in the sequel was that, if they didn't, everybody would be wondering where Khan was, and expecting them to do Khan, and asking them when they were going to get to Khan, and where was Khan already, etc. I don't really agree with all that, and even if it were true they could just tell the more annoying fans to go suck it, but there it is anyway.
User avatar
Ribbons
SQUARE PEG
 
Posts: 13860
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:00 am

Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Postby Fried Gold on Thu Jul 04, 2013 9:10 am

Ribbons wrote:The stated reason for Khanning it up in the sequel was that, if they didn't, everybody would be wondering where Khan was, and expecting them to do Khan, and asking them when they were going to get to Khan, and where was Khan already, etc. I don't really agree with all that, and even if it were true they could just tell the more annoying fans to go suck it, but there it is anyway.

You mean like how some fans have been constantly asking and expecting to see Mudd/that Romulan guy/that Klingon General/V'Ger/Gary Mitchell/Talosians/Balok/The Tholians/The Doomsday Machine ?

None of those showed up.
User avatar
Fried Gold
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 13930
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 12:28 pm
Location: ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░

PreviousNext

Return to Movie Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests