Star Trek Into Darkness: 5/16/13, IMAX-5/15/13

[Renegade7]

If anything, JJ did a great job of keeping his suprises "suprises" up until the final release. I really enjoyed this movie, and there's no doubt about the setup for future films, which I look forward to as well.

I really like the original series as well, and my dad actually had a couple of the original movies on VHS back in the day. I cannot understand being so much of a nerd that you have to nitpick this movie to death to the point you don't even enjoy it.

[big#44]

I had no idea Peter Weller was going to be in this movie, and without spoiling anything I thought he did pretty good.

[Jumbo]

Reading some of you guys lately, something might be off with my normally infallible movie-meter.

I mentioned liking IM 3 more than I thought I should have (even the second time) in that thread, and here I was even more psyched for this one based on the media, and while I sure like the movie, I was disappointed---mainly in the lack of space/ship v. ship battles (true). :pfft:.

I'll see it again, soon.

[88Comrade2000]

Saw it for the third time in 4 days today.

One thing JJ did with his reboot of the Trek franchise was actually make Trek really feel like a movie. The 10 movies with the TOS and TNG cast were basically just an extension of the TV shows on the big screen.

The 2 movies JJ has done are movies. I was reading somewhere that one of JJ's plans was to have a full spectrum of Trek- sort of what they are going to do for Star Wars and that included a new Trek show. Alas, too many companies owns the rights to different portions of the Trek franchise so that won't happen. In fact, that displeasure may have played in part why JJ agreed to Star Wars when that became available.

Found the article on where it discusses what I just said:

http://screenrant.com/jj-abrams-star-trek-tv-show-rights-star-wars-episode-7/

I think the movie franchise has a bright future. Next movie is probably going to have Klingons.

I do hope a new Trek TV series gets launches at some point.

[MEANDWARF]

Just saw this flick. Pretty awesome.

Star Trek 3 in 2016.

[Chachie]

What a ride. The chemistry between Chris Pine and Zac Quinto is fantastic. The first installment was awesome and the sequel has delivered in spades. Multiple moments in this film where the theater audience applauded.

[Burgold]

That was a lot of fun. Good, silly, action, clever and bad jokes, and enough in-jokes to keep ya satisfied. My inner-nerd is happy.

[88Comrade2000]

Just saw this flick. Pretty awesome.

Star Trek 3 in 2016.

You know 2016 will be the 50th anniversary of the show. James Bond turned 50 last year and Dr. Who turns fifty on 11/23/13- the day after the 50th anniversary of the Kennedy assassination.

I would like to at least see some of remaining actors appear in the next movie. Not as their characters of course but just have small cameos in a scene.

[No_Pressure]

Saw it for the third time in 4 days today.

One thing JJ did with his reboot of the Trek franchise was actually make Trek really feel like a movie. The 10 movies with the TOS and TNG cast were basically just an extension of the TV shows on the big screen.

I don't think that certain older Star Trek movies were not real movies, they were just a different genre that doesn't appeal to many people. Disregarding the TNG movies which are all horrendous and don't pay proper tribute to the television show, I'd like to point out that a film such as Star Trek: The Motion Picture was a long, bland, boring, science fiction movie. Its purpose was not to excite the audience, and its entertainment value, as with most Star Trek and true science fiction, was in whether or not it got you to think deeply about ethics or the future of humanity or our nature as a species, or some other topic that most people wouldn't necessarily consider fun and exciting to think about.

Star Trek was science fiction in the truest definition of the genre. Not action, not fantasy, not comedy, not romance. Though science fiction does not to be totally devoid of all of these elements they are not ones which should drive a proper science fiction story.

With that said, here are my minor and petty complaints: (ALL OF WHICH ARE SPOILERS AND CAN BE HIGHLIGHTED IN BLACK TEXT, PLEASE DON'T QUOTE IT IF YOU REPLY)

-Khan's poorly explained magic-blood was set up at the beginning and was overly obvious as some later plot device.

-The idea of Star Fleet militarizing is laughable within the actual Star Trek universe, and there was zero mention of or presence of the Federation in this movie or what their bureaucratic reactions would have been to events such as a massive explosion on a founding member's planet, an assassination plot against their top leadership, and a fugitive threatening to pull not just star fleet, but all of their allies, into a war with the Klingons. Where was that reality? It was not there. Because it didn't serve the action plots.

-Why did Spock blow up a ship orbiting Earth as his only resort? Why was it such a fantastically clever thing to do? You know what would have happened in the TV show? Spock would have set the ship to self-destruct with all of Benny Crumblystache's eugenics people on board. Maybe not but why wouldn't they mention eugenics either? Did they think the audience was too stupid to figure that one out?

-Why don't phasers work the way they're supposed to? Don't tell me its a new universe so they can do whatever, since the only thing that changed was Kirk's dad was killed and Vulcan was bloweded up. If Khan was shot with a full power phaser in the TV show he would have disintegrated before everyone's eyes. Instead they shoot neon rubber bullets all over the place and we listen to them plink off of everything.

-Why is the audience treated like a bunch of ****ing babies? Remember Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan? If you don't then you had no idea what the whole radiation room scene was about, but I digress: in The Wrath of Khan, the movie took a huge risk because, admittedly, they had no idea if they were going to be able to make Star Trek 3. Spock is killed saving the ship at the climax of the film, there is little hint as to what will bring him back to life if a new movie is made, and there is a sad funeral and he's launched into the newly formed planet. End of movie, and two years before anybody knows what the hell happened to Spock. As I was sitting in the theater I was hoping to god that they had enough balls to leave Kirk dead until the next film. Nope. No no no. Spock gets all mad which, Vulcan being blown up in his past or not, Spock wouldn't do because it's boring- more on that in a second- and he goes off to punch the bad guy. Then 5 minutes later Kirk is back to life and joking around! Hooray.

-Spock's character is boring. Not because he's emotionless, but because he is no longer emotionless. The thing which made the Nimoy character great was the fact that in the face of impossible situations, great emotional difficulty, etc, Spock was always cool, collected, and coming up with some clever plan to save the day. Spock doesn't get into pointless fist fights just because he can, he doesn't give the bad guy 1,000 extra hits, he doesn't have blood lust. Spock wins with intelligence and logical reasoning. He's a diplomat who is good at science. I wish his entire thing in the movie hadn't been "yell Khan's name and then punch him later because he killeded my fwend!"

-All "glass" in the Star Trek universe is transparent aluminum. This is mentioned in Star Trek IV. The helmet mask on Kirk wouldn't be capable of cracking. It would in reality be made of transparent metal. It would either be dented, pierced, or scratched, but it wouldn't crack like glass.

Conclusion:

Clearly many of my observations are arguable or petty and I know that. I understand what this film and the rest of its series is and what its about. I'm saddened that actual "boring" sci-fi is dead and gone forever in favor of a more dumbed down, widely appealing film. Evaluating this movie as an action film, it is excellent. The visuals are top notch, the camera gets a bit jittery for me at times and FOR THE LOVE OF ****ING GOD JJ GET RID OF THE ****ING LENS FLARES but other than that its masterfully made for the audience it is trying to target. I wouldn't say I was not entertained in the least by this movie, and I certainly wasn't expecting a calm and thought provoking episode with a long scene where Captain Kirk and some Admiral get into a deep philosophic debate over the ethics behind the prime directive before agreeing to disagree after masterfully giving their opinions like statesmen. I dunno. I'm not a trekkie, I'm far from it, and I ****ing hate the TNG movies along with large portions of Deep Space 9 episodes and even larger portions of Voyager.

I just like canon to be handled properly, and what J.J. Abrams is doing is giving us a Star Trek movie that isn't actually Star Trek at all, but it has enough references back to TOS and TNG that I literally heard trekkies giddy with excitement making odd noises in the theater when such nods occurred. The super duper fans are happy because Captain Kirk said "Set phasers to stun" like Shatner's Kirk did that one time, and the regular moviegoer who doesn't really understand or like what Star Trek was supposed to really be about are thoroughly entertained. I suppose I should let those groups be happy, but ffs- I know what the TV shows were trying to do, and their vision of humanity was such that we moved beyond the kind of jock revenge petty **** that we see not only Kirk doing (yes, yes timeline change, blah blah) but others around him who were unaffected by the timeline change for the most part but who have totally different characters.

Oh well. The transporters look cool. Too bad they conveniently didn't work in every conceivable scenario where they would have easily fixed some problem that instead needed to be fixed by an action scene. ****.

[88Comrade2000]

I just like canon to be handled properly, and what J.J. Abrams is doing is giving us a Star Trek movie that isn't actually Star Trek at all, but it has enough references back to TOS and TNG that I literally heard trekkies giddy with excitement making odd noises in the theater when such nods occurred. The super duper fans are happy because Captain Kirk said "Set phasers to stun" like Shatner's Kirk did that one time, and the regular moviegoer who doesn't really understand or like what Star Trek was supposed to really be about are thoroughly entertained. I suppose I should let those groups be happy, but ffs- I know what the TV shows were trying to do, and their vision of humanity was such that we moved beyond the kind of jock revenge petty **** that we see not only Kirk doing (yes, yes timeline change, blah blah) but others around him who were unaffected by the timeline change for the most part but who have totally different characters.

.

This Trek is basically an alternative universe to the original series. Canon is out the window. Yeah, JJ probably put those scenes in as a nod to the fans of the TOS and it's movies. The events that take place in this Trek might be similar in some ways like this movie but different in other ways. I read one sight where they said if we get to a Star Trek 4 or 5 we could see the Borg or Q.

The old franchise was dead and frankly overexposed itself with the last 2 series. They did that timeline split so that they could create a new timeline and not have to be tied to the original.

If you are hung on canon- that canon died in 1991 with the last movie with the entire original cast. Every show and movie since has deviated from the TOS canon.

[No_Pressure]

This Trek is basically an alternative universe to the original series. Canon is out the window. Yeah, JJ probably put those scenes in as a nod to the fans of the TOS and it's movies. The events that take place in this Trek might be similar in some ways like this movie but different in other ways. I read one sight where they said if we get to a Star Trek 4 or 5 we could see the Borg or Q.

The old franchise was dead and frankly overexposed itself with the last 2 series. They did that timeline split so that they could create a new timeline and not have to be tied to the original.

If you are hung on canon- that canon died in 1991 with the last movie with the entire original cast. Every show and movie since has deviated from the TOS canon.

The timeline shift wasn't an event that changes literally the entire universe. I understand they want to be different and look different, but the event that took place basically changed Captain Kirk and Spock and that's about it. I don't know why phasers suddenly don't work the same way and the ship's engine room is now an industrial oil refinery/brewery, or why other characters are so completely different, not just from how XXX actor played them, but from their fundamental qualities. I'm not complaining that Chris Pine isn't speaking in some stupid vocal rhythm or that Quinto isn't doing his best Leonard Nimoy impersonation. I'm not complaining about tiny superficial things- the bridge looks pretty neat, the ship design looks neat, the warp speed visuals look neat. I'm complaining about little things: when they go to warp away from the neutral zone, they mention that they're "at warp" and that the other ship cannot possibly catch up to them. There is no mention to warp factors being differences in speed, which is something that has been an element of Star Trek since the original, and unlike what you're saying, was part of TNG canon and onwards. If the other ship could travel at warp 9 and the Enterprise can only go 5,6,whatever then it makes perfect sense that the other ship will catch up to them, I don't know why this surprises anyone on board. I don't see how a guy going back in time and killing Kirk's dad has created an alternate timeline where they no longer measure warp speed at increasing intervals of velocity. It's tiny and it's nit-picking, but I just wish they hadn't totally ignored the parameters of the universe they're dealing with. I feel like I'm watching a Star Trek movie made by a bunch of casual fans of the series and movies who mainly remember the more pop cultery things and put them into films to appease the giddy trekkies. Why did there have to be a tribble on board? Because it made nerds mess up their pants.

[Burgold]

The phaser thing didn't bother me if it's the scene you were talking about because I assume that it was set to stun. There were folks that could resist stunning in the series. I actually liked the way they used the neck pinch As for the ship's engineering... I figure this is at least ten years before Kirk was supposed to get the Enterprise. Change is possible. And a whole lot can change politically, socially, and interpersonally when someone commits genocide and blows up an entire homeworld as they did with Vulcan in the first movie. That's sure to create huge ripples within Starfleet and everywhere else and could easily mess even with Spock's head.

[88Comrade2000]

It's just a movie. Even during the TOS movies and subsequent series didn't stick to all the technical details.

JJ brought a dead franchise back to life and exposed it to a new generation. If there is a new series one day, more people might be willing to check it now. I don't mean a new TV version of TOS per se but a new series in the TREK universe.

If all those minute details mean that much too you; then all I can say is avoid watching any more Trek. Accept the fact the Trek you loved is long gone. Did the TOS movies pay attention to every detail of the TOS series; I doubt it.

[Burgold]

When I talked to the Star Trek consultant and script doctor for the Prism he said pretty much the same thing, Redskns2000. He said, this is undoubtedly Star Trek even if it strays a bit from some of the history and arc or even if the character ages are a bit off.

I don't think he was involved in this one, but he has pitched in on several of the series working on continuity issues.

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

No Pressure - During the one scene your were referring to, they said set phasers to stun. Then at the end, they had to have them set to stun, so they could take him alive, even though they didnt say its stun.

Also, your dislike for Spoc showing emotion, nothing wrong with that. We are dealing with the younger version of the characters, like 15-20 years prior to the start of the old franchise. And since Spoc is part human, he does have a side that can feel/show emotion. Perhaps as he got older, his vulcan side took over completely allowing him to shut out the emotional portion of his human side?

I loved both movies and Im by far a Treckie. My wife hates Star Trek with a passion, but she loved both movies. So much in fact that she told me she wanted to see this one over Iron Man 3 and thought it was fantastic.

[DarkLadyRaven]

No Pressure - During the one scene your were referring to, they said set phasers to stun. Then at the end, they had to have them set to stun, so they could take him alive, even though they didnt say its stun.

Also, your dislike for Spoc showing emotion, nothing wrong with that. We are dealing with the younger version of the characters, like 15-20 years prior to the start of the old franchise. And since Spoc is part human, he does have a side that can feel/show emotion. Perhaps as he got older, his vulcan side took over completely allowing him to shut out the emotional portion of his human side?

Why are people acting like Amok Time never happened in TOS ? Spok showed GREAT emotion great back when.People are complaining about the ship going underwater which has been seen before on Star Trek Voyager with a shuttle the Delta Flyer.

My only problem with the movie is that the Citizens if San Fran caught Spiderman 3 bystander syndrome. WTF crap like the last act should have every citizen running for their life not going about their day as if nothing happened

[Momma There Goes That Man]

No Pressure - During the one scene your were referring to, they said set phasers to stun. Then at the end, they had to have them set to stun, so they could take him alive, even though they didnt say its stun.

Also, your dislike for Spoc showing emotion, nothing wrong with that. We are dealing with the younger version of the characters, like 15-20 years prior to the start of the old franchise. And since Spoc is part human, he does have a side that can feel/show emotion. Perhaps as he got older, his vulcan side took over completely allowing him to shut out the emotional portion of his human side?

I loved both movies and Im by far a Treckie. My wife hates Star Trek with a passion, but she loved both movies. So much in fact that she told me she wanted to see this one over Iron Man 3 and thought it was fantastic.

I always thought there was an underlying theme in TOS that Spock did and had plenty of emotions but he always just chose to ignore them especially when Kirk would joke or call him out on it. He didn't show necessarily or give in to these emotions in TOS. I liked how they played that conflict in his upbringing in the last movie and I think it would make sense to continue until he gets older and reaches the point where he does sort of block it all as he reaches TOS level Spock.

[The Sisko]

Just watched the movie. I didn't much like the first one but this one was pretty good. I think there was better character development this time around and the effects were excellent. If you haven't seen it yet, spring for the extra $$ to see it in IMAX - well worth it IMHO.

That said, I agree with No Pressure that it's really an action film, not sci-fi. However I long ago accepted that true sci-fi as a film genre is probably dead. The pace is just too slow for most folks nowadays. My other gripe is that they basically just rehashed an old Trek story. Though they likely set up the sequel about the villian in this story, I really hope they don't go that route. There are enough backstories from the series to make several more fresh, new movies without rehashing stuff we've already seen.

[88Comrade2000]

Canon, who really follows that these days.

Dr. Who, if you caught Saturday's Series 7 finale just unleashed a major to hell with the canon of the modern show or did they?

The is apparently an unknown doctor that will be in the 50th anniversary special- rampant speculation on just which doctor he is.

[No_Pressure]

I HAVE WHAT MAY BE CONSIDERED SPOILERS IN THIS POST. PLEASE DON'T READ IT IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE MOVIE.

Yeah, I know, it just bothers me that they change so much- to the extent where it barely resembles Star Trek outside of character names, device names, and some visuals. We're not getting Star Trek in the spirit of what Gene Roddenberry was attempting to do, and we haven't been getting that since Rick Berman decided to make TNG movies. There was a lot of philosophy and conscience in Star Trek and it's used in the new films as a minor prop to move along an action plot. Again, I'm not expressing surprise here, and I'm not saying that it's a poorly made film or that it's not enjoyable. This latest movie is very well made and it's an exciting movie to watch. I can accept a lot of changes from the alternate timeline, but at a certain point it feels dumbed down just enough to not really be Star Trek anymore, but a high octane action-adventure film which uses the name Star Trek and a bunch of its canon (though clearly not the important pieces that would inconvenience adding all those action scenes) but which doesn't have the soul of a Star Trek film.

Again, I said this before in my blacked out parts, but if they really had some balls they would have pulled a "Wrath of Khan" and left a certain character dead and the franchise in some uncertainty which was to be answered in the next film. The scene in the Wrath of Khan where Spock dies is extremely sad, and so is his funeral and the feeling of finality surrounding it. When "XXXXXXX Character" dies in Into Darkness, they're brought back for smiles and high fives less than 10 minutes later. The emotion of the death scene was nowhere near Wrath of Khan as a result, and the emotional pacing was thrown out the window. In a properly paced movie such as Wrath of Khan, at the climax of the film, the Enterprise manages to outmaneuver Khan's ship and critically wound him. Khan activates the Genesis machine and the Enterprise will not escape destruction without warp drive. Spock goes down to engineering and risks his life to save the crew. The Enterprise blasts out of the nebula in front of a massive shock wave and barely escapes. The elation of their daring escape is then met with the sadness of Spock's death. He dies, and then there is a funeral, and the film ends on an uncertain note.

It's the proper rising action-climax-falling action arc. Comedies are supposed to have happy endings. Science Fiction doesn't necessarily and Star Trek 2 did not have a happy ending, while still being a completely brilliant film.

In Into Darkness, the ship is in danger, XXXXXXX goes to save the ship at the cost of his own life, the ship is saved, and then another action scene commences where Khan must be stopped. Then after that action scene XXXXX has been magically brought back to life and there is some bland speech at the end about how great Star Fleet needs to be. A sad scene is followed up by action. An unresolved question is quickly covered up with a massive and poorly explained plot band-aid, and then the movie ends. I just think they could have taken a greater risk and had much higher rewards both with this film and in their next one.

[Burgold]

Kinda disagree. This movie felt very Star Trek with Kirk's womanizing, Spock's logic v emotion wrestling match and the ship falling apart at a crucial juncture only to be saved by wit. It even made sense that bc of Spock's earlier conversation he'd choose the tactic he did.

What was missing was the morality play. The original series was a about that much more than sf. SF was the trappings, philosophy was its core.

[No_Pressure]

Kinda disagree. This movie felt very Star Trek with Kirk's womanizing, Spock's logic v emotion wrestling match and the ship falling apart at a crucial juncture only to be saved by wit. It even made sense that bc of Spock's earlier conversation he'd choose the tactic he did.

What was missing was the morality play. The original series was a about that much more than sf. SF was the trappings, philosophy was its core.

Because of the timeline shift and the differences in the characters, all of these former traits (Kirk womanizing, Spock vs. emotion) have been hyper emphasized for the purpose of fitting it into an action film. Kirk was a womanizer for sure, but did he ever appear to be a sleaze or super-bro before? Hell, Riker was a trillion times the sleazeball that Kirk ever appeared to be. Spock's battle vs. emotions wasn't nearly the struggle it appears to be in the reboot, and its obviously because of the loss of his mother and planet. As I said, I can accept that these characters will be different, but I don't see them as being similar to the original much at all.

As for the morality, yes. That has been missing from each of these. Nobody who is making an incredibly expensive blockbuster action packed space action/adventure film wants to have even a 5 minute long scene where characters are discussing philosophy, morals, and their personal convictions. That was something which wasn't let through as frequently as Roddenberry wanted in TOS (at least what I've learned from what I've read) but they managed to get those moral dilemmas through subtly in many of the plots while appeasing studio execs. In TNG it was of course packed with that stuff once Roddenberry and his trusted friends who took over the show when he passed away, was given the freedom to do so. It was much more of a cerebral show, and cerebral is not a word I'd use to describe these reboots.

They're still fun, they're still good movies, but I wish they had been a little bit more true to the spirit of the series.

[Koolblue13]

I saw this yesterday. First movie I've been to in years. I will say that it's the first 3D movie that I thought was actually well done in 3D. They are usually unwatchable IMO.

As far as the movie itself, it was okay. If I missed the second half, I wouldn't have noticed. It looked cool. I had too high of hopes after the first one I think.

I give it a "meh".