Star Trek Into Darkness [Archive]

Henry Gale

05-16-2013, 10:31 PM

Really enjoyed it. As much as the first, even. Which is to say quite a bit, but still not exactly a hundred percent over-the-moon, "definitely reached full potential" kind of satisfaction. When the '09 film ended, all I could feel was, "ah man, now that everything's in place, I can't wait to see where they take crew next time!", and that's the case here again. I guess with the TV shows they have the opportunities to do less dramatically game-altering storylines more often, but here we've gotten two in a row, which is fine, but it leaves me wanting more in ways most other comparatively well-crafted summer fare doesn't.

I saw it in IMAX, and the open frame bits that they shot natively, particularly with almost every space exterior designed to expand to it, is pretty stunning stuff. At first I was disappointed that it was all having to be retrofitted to 3D along with the rest of it, but once it got going I remained impressed with everything I was seeing since this is probably the best initial-release post-conversion I've seen.

But it wasn't all eye candy-based thrills. Even though I was spoiled on the most significant bits against my will, Abrams' craft, the strength of the characters, the universe, and the emotional momentum of the film still let those slightly less surprised pieces hit me much more than I'd anticipated.

Once more people have seen it I can probably jump into some more significant, annoyingly spoiler-concealed debates on it. But for now, I gotta say, I definitely liked it. It's got spunk, I tell ya. Zeal too!

***1/2

Wryan

05-16-2013, 11:33 PM

I saw it in IMAX, and the open frame bits that they shot natively, particularly with almost every space exterior designed to expand to it, is pretty stunning stuff. At first I was disappointed that it was all having to be retrofitted to 3D along with the rest of it, but once it got going I remained impressed with everything I was seeing since this is probably the best initial-release post-conversion I've seen.

I don't really want to see it in 3D, but I'd have to in order to see it in IMAX. Is it worth it, you think?

Henry Gale

05-17-2013, 01:06 AM

I don't really want to see it in 3D, but I'd have to in order to see it in IMAX. Is it worth it, you think?

I mean, a lot of it for me was finding some way of making up never finding the time to catch up with Nolan's Dark Knight sequels on the IMAX screen, and in that way I was pretty satisfied with it as a substitute. But do I think a lot of your decision should depend on how much you mind or embrace 3D, which here it is technically faked, thought shot on film with the conversion in mind. Again, I'd say it might be the best post-conversion for a new release I've seen, but I also just saw The Great Gatsby in 3D a couple of days ago and between the two there's no comparison in how much more immersive and cleanly rendered Gatsby was having been so deftly, natively shot. Having said that, I think IMAX 3D is a generally much better looking 3D projection system than Real-D and whatnot, so whatever wasn't perfect in the 3D itself, I was still completely enthralled by the look of the film projected spectacularly on film, even for the blown-up majority of it.

I also used a free movie admission for it, which otherwise would've cost a full 20 bucks, so not sure I would've jumped at it as quickly otherwise. But under the circumstances I did see it, and for those apparently 30 minutes in IMAX (which to me felt more around 20 of actual scenes, though I guess with a lot of establishing shots and CG space stuff it does adds up), it is pretty awe-inspiring, and a lot of it takes up so much of the frame that I'm not sure even a potential 16x9 Blu-ray cropping (a la Dark Knight, not like Ghost Protocol where it's matted it to the rest of the film's 2:35:1) will be able to fully capture what's going on in a lot of the compositions.

Bottom line: Acceptable 3D, particularly strong for a post-coversion job, but pretty fantastic only-IMAX-capable imagery underneath it.

Wryan

05-17-2013, 02:55 AM

More comprehensive than I was expecting, but thanks. :)

Henry Gale

05-17-2013, 03:22 AM

Yup, just about every angle I could conceive of covering.

(And no one ever needed to discuss IMAX 3D again.)

Watashi

05-17-2013, 07:31 AM

This movie just made me want to rewatch Wrath of Khan.

Sxottlan

05-17-2013, 08:39 AM

Oh boy. I'm kind of torn here.

Lots in here--> So basically this is Wrath of Khan with some elements of The Undiscovered Country. Know what else tried that? Nemesis. At least this is better than that movie even if it's not as good as the '09 film.

The '09 movie had the benefit of feeling startlingly fresh for what it was trying to do. I was just glad they didn't screw it up. I was worried that they wouldn't be able to make lightning strike twice. This was mostly a hit, but with a disappointing final third and an anti-climatic ending.

This plays a lot more like fan fiction. My fan fiction. I've thought way too long (more than a decade) on a story involving a secret Section 31 dreadnaught, even down to the minimal crew. Damn you screenwriters. At least I know now not to paint my ship black, something I've long debated, because it looked kind of dumb here. And at least the name of my ship (the Ares) makes more sense than the Vengeance. Vengeance against what? Okay, I'm being petty.

If any of you ever read the Trek books, there was a brief series called "Myriad Universes." The stories would each take place in an alternate universe based on a "What if?" question. I dutifully bought and read all of those books, but I found myself not really caring about any of the stories and quickly forgot what they were even about, although one ("The Sorrows of Empire") is admittedly a masterpiece. The problem was, why should I care about these stories when they're not taking place in the "real" Trek universe? I feel like I could ultimately have that same situation with this alternate universe. If these movies can generate a new generation of fans, I'm all for it. I want this movie to do well, but I feel somewhat removed from this.

The emotional distance may have more to do with the pacing, the plot and its many holes. I really got on board with this film early on, especially when it seemed like the movie was doing a switcheroo with the villain and Kirk and Khan had to team up. But then the movie decided that no, we need to make this a straight up remake of Wrath of Khan. But with roles reversed! How clever! This must mean something. Bob Orci posting in a Trekmovie.com thread had to point to a fan's theory as why the scene was done this way. I'm thinking, couldn't you convey that a little better and with a scene that isn't just a straight up rip-off of TWOK? There's nothing clever here. Emotional? Yes. Did I fall for it? Yeah, but it's hollow. You may think you're being clever or paying tribute, but that is not remotely what I took away from the scene. And then the movie just pulls its punch. For a movie called Into Darkness (dumb title that has absolutely nothing to do with the story), everything is pretty much the same at the end as it is at the beginning. Pike is the only real casualty.

I don't know if the Abrams team feels like it has to continue the obfuscation and misdirection they're known for from the days of Lost, but the misdirection in the plot and the marketing was just unnecessary. And yet while they went out of their way not to say much about the villain, I was baffled at how the trailers and ads did not leave much to the imagination. Pretty much saw it all and yet was cut in such a way to make you think the Enterprise is lost. Frankly, that would have been interesting. Actually killing Kirk would have been a brave punch to the gut. But nah.

This is one of those reviews where I then try to back track and convince you that in general I enjoy the film. Up until the ending. And usually if I don't much care for an ending, over time I eventually come to not care about the rest of the film. We'll see if that's what happens here.

The action itself was fine. The crew playing Preservers with the primitive species in the opening was very well done. Kirk getting demoted (all the way back to the Academy?) for that stunt felt right. I loved the ambiguity with Harrison's motives. Was he doing the wrong things for the right reasons? I loved the effects and the attention to detail. The scene in Admiral Marcus' office with the model ships and mentioning Section 31 gets my inner geek fired up. The trip to the Klingon home world was cool. Cumberbatch was great and surprisingly the crew member to shine the most may have been Scotty. Simon Pegg was really good here. I wonder which shot Edgar Wright directed? I'm assuming something with Pegg. That steadicam shot into the club?

Thirdmango

05-17-2013, 03:26 PM

I'm a whore for Star Trek and I loved it oh so very much.

Skitch

05-17-2013, 08:31 PM

I'm a whore for Star Trek and I loved it oh so very much.

Thats my kind of review!

Wryan

05-17-2013, 09:12 PM

A few corny moments aside, I had a lot of fun with this. Cumberbatch was enjoyable to watch. I thought the reconfiguring of the Khan story was done reasonably well. We could talk about the whitewashing, but with a Mexican man playing the Indian before, did they care much then, either? Does it matter? Maybe with a white Übermensch, they were going for something else? They called him Superman....but I'm not really feeling too cut up about it. Lot of good humor for such a "dark" story. Weller's great.

Sxottlan

05-17-2013, 11:38 PM

Did a mod add spoiler code to my last post? I didn't add it. I thought we could go without spoilers if we want to given this is a thread for people who have seen it? Or is there a one week spoiler code period?

I had only put the majority of my post in spoiler text just because I had written a lot.

Henry Gale

05-18-2013, 12:54 AM

I know I visit these threads to gauge the thoughts of people here pretty often. Unless I see some sort of specified warning outside of a spoiler box, I assume things are being discussed with the same ambiguity as a typical review.

Barty

05-18-2013, 06:08 AM

The best moment of the whole thing was Uhura speaking Klingon. Hot.

Actually, one aspect that needs more love is Bruce Greenwood's commanding presence even in his few scenes. Fantastic performance and loved all his moments.

Barty

05-18-2013, 06:12 AM

Also, Giacchino's villian theme is a fantastic piece of ominous and dramatic scoring.

Izzy Black

05-19-2013, 03:34 AM

wigwam

05-19-2013, 08:58 AM

Raiders

05-19-2013, 02:47 PM

Enjoyed this flick. Totally like the concept of this film as fan-fiction. It's a meta concept film for a postmodern age where a genuinely original Star Trek film simply could never survive the harsh scrutiny of fandom, and if you need anything in order to be a successful artist in the digital age, it's authenticity and credibility, something a would-be remake of a Sci-Fi classic certainly can't live without. You just can't top something that is now legendary - mythic even - upheld by a legion of followers hell-bent on continuing its legacy but cynical about any new incarnation of it, so Abrams plays another game; deconstruct history and wedge open a space of pure pop-culture that anyone can freely enter.

Maybe minor spoilers in general...

Yeah, basically my reaction. If you need any other evidence that this is just a piece of fan fiction, look no further than McCoy using Khan's blood on a lifeless Tribble.

I think it was a good way to get this story out of the way, because nobody can doubt the fans wanted to see these things covered in the new saga. I was skeptical, and still somewhat sad to see this series feel the need to look back instead of forward, but yet again I hold out hope given the real emphasis on the "five year mission" at the end. Maybe the next film will actually focus on that now that this is out of the way.

Fezzik

05-19-2013, 08:03 PM

A couple misgivings aside, I really enjoyed this. Cumberbatch was fantastic, and I surprised at how much I liked the role-reversal at the end.

But I'd be remiss if I failed to mention that I burst out into almost uncontrollable giggles near the end when Spock broke into that run. Watching his little haircut flop around in the breeze made him look like Moe Howard doing cosplay.

Wryan

05-20-2013, 03:24 AM

I think it was a good way to get this story out of the way, because nobody can doubt the fans wanted to see these things covered in the new saga. I was skeptical, and still somewhat sad to see this series feel the need to look back instead of forward, but yet again I hold out hope given the real emphasis on the "five year mission" at the end. Maybe the next film will actually focus on that now that this is out of the way.

And maybe everyone will come back fifteen years from now.

Pop Trash

05-20-2013, 05:25 AM

This was...really boring. Does this mean by the fourth Abrams "Star Trek" movie the crew will come back to 2017 San Francisco and deal with hipsters and start-up companies? :rolleyes:

Morris Schæffer

05-20-2013, 07:32 AM

71 million opening weekend. This definitely underperformed despite all signs having pointed in the opposite direction. Seems iron man and gatsby had too big a leftover hold than in 2009 when it was wolverine and ghosts of girlfriends past.

Lurch

05-20-2013, 02:06 PM

I know I've never posted much on this forum, but after seeing the movie this weekend I just had to go somewhere to vent.

At the end of the previous Star Trek movie Abrams and crew cleverly set up the premise of this new cast existing in a parallel universe from the original series, and therefore the possibilities of fresh new adventures was exciting. Why then are we treated to a pandering and annoying quasi-remake that only insults the existing legacy and the core fans who hold it in such high regard? The first half is a solid action film that expands upon the style set up in the previous film. In the second half, however, Abrams seems to think that he is appealing to the classic Trek geeks by delivering elements that literally steal from previous stories and eventually reverse certain moments while retaining the exact dialogue. The result is cringe inducing and eventually betrays the legacy of Star Trek as well as Abrams own alternate vision. Technically this is a fine production, with great visuals and breathtaking action. That is a left-handed compliment, however, since the film is filled with logical inconsistencies and, as already stated, the ridiculous rehashing of a classic story.
I'm sure this will be one of the most divisive films of the year. There will be those fans who see this as a loving homage to past Trek. Then there will be those longtime fans, like myself, who will see this as a spectacular rip-off. I went in with low expectations and was still disappointed.

Thanks for letting me get that off my chest.

TGM

05-21-2013, 06:50 AM

I enjoyed this movie for the most part, yet I can't disagree at all with any of the negative reactions in this thread. I thought it was good, but nowhere even close to as good as the previous movie. And Cumberbatch was great, but Karl Urban totally stole the show here.

B-side

05-21-2013, 07:49 AM

I don't give a shit about what it does to or with older Star Trek lore. This is not Gene Roddenberry's "Star Trek: The TV Series". It's JJ Abrams' "Star Trek". Stop going in with standards for how strictly or loosely it needs to adhere to the old narratives and formulas. The only reason the Khan narrative exists is to wink at those already familiar with the universe. This isn't the Star Trek of the 60s, or the 80s, or whatever. It's new. It's, as was already said, fan fiction, more or less. It's younger, more bombastic, and not meant to emulate the other iterations. Abrams has to walk a delicate line that both introduces new people to the universe as well as please the mouth-breathers who would send him a letter full of anthrax if he didn't characterize someone properly. It's no wonder films based on TV shows and comic books are rarely very good. Everybody wants the universe to live on, but nobody's completely satisfied with the end result. Even something like The Dark Knight, which comic book geeks generally adore, had people throwing a fucking fit over arbitrary details and whether or not a character played out precisely as had been previously written.

That little rant aside, I enjoyed the film. I didn't care for the trailers, but I do like Abrams, so I held out some hope he'd deliver a worthwhile experience, and he did. This is about on par with the original, but with a much better villain. I'm still not certain Abrams has quite nailed down the direction of more complex and chaotic action sequences, but he does some very nice things elsewhere. Some of the space photography reminded me of Mission to Mars, with the rotating cameras and the crane zooms. Particularly impressive was that long zoom in space that held for several seconds until it had the entire control room in focus through the big window pane looking out. I really dig Abrams' use of lens flares, so I was a bit sad to see them downplayed in this. They're still there, and in fine form, but not quite as abundant as they used to be. The spectrum of colors on display was really neat, and added a visual boost to the experience. It's not great, as it lacks the creativity to really elevate it above a tense and enjoyable theatrical experience, but it's pretty good as is.

Lurch

05-21-2013, 01:17 PM

This is not Gene Roddenberry's "Star Trek: The TV Series". It's JJ Abrams' "Star Trek". This isn't the Star Trek of the 60s, or the 80s, or whatever. It's new.
This is my point entirely. Abrams' intention in the first film was apparently to reinvent these characters for a modern audience, giving them the opportunity to have adventures and explore storylines that would be different and unique to this universe he has created.

The only reason the Khan narrative exists is to wink at those already familiar with the universe.
The problem is that the entire movie rests upon this narrative. It isn't just a wink. Everything revolves around it. I have no problem with little references and asides to remind us of Star Trek past, but if you're going to reinvent the wheel have the confidence to make it something really special and not feel the need to keep reminding us of what has happened before. It invites comparison and underscores the original intent of this, supposedly, new vision.

Mr. McGibblets

05-21-2013, 01:27 PM

I don't give a shit about what it does to or with older Star Trek lore.

The movie itself exists primarily as it stands in comparison and contrast to older Star Trek lore. To (angrily) dismiss that is to dismiss most of the content of the film.

B-side

05-21-2013, 01:34 PM

This is my point entirely. Abrams' intention in the first film was apparently to reinvent these characters for a modern audience, giving them the opportunity to have adventures and explore storylines that would be different and unique to this universe he has created.

And he has. This isn't the same Khan narrative, and these aren't the same people, nor is this the same mounting of the universe.

The problem is that the entire movie rests upon this narrative. It isn't just a wink. Everything revolves around it. I have no problem with little references and asides to remind us of Star Trek past, but if you're going to reinvent the wheel have the confidence to make it something really special and not feel the need to keep reminding us of what has happened before. It invites comparison and underscores the original intent of this, supposedly, new vision.

But it's not the same narrative, and it exists on an entirely different timeline. Re-covering a historic and widely regarded narrative in the Star Trek universe is hardly the same as "reminding us of what has happened before." The outcomes are entirely different, and the means to which this is accomplished is different. I should note that I've not seen the show or any of the previous movies before Abrams' first one. My buddy told me how this movie's Khan narrative differed from the original. It's not unfair to compare them. It is, however, unreasonable to insist he completely ignore the previous lore while still trying to retain the hardcore fanbase. People love the Khan narrative, so he revived it and played it out in his own way with his own cast and his own directorial vision.

B-side

05-21-2013, 01:43 PM

The movie itself exists primarily as it stands in comparison and contrast to older Star Trek lore. To (angrily) dismiss that is to dismiss most of the content of the film.

It exists as a sovereign entity. It is its own film. There is a vague world of Star Trek, and Abrams is merely playing around in it. Abrams does not intend to continue the same legacy of the TV series or the previous films. It is a fictional world with no definitive outlines, and Abrams is merely taking a shot at utilizing this world for some more modern filmmaking. Being intimate with the original series, or the movies, is neither a requirement nor an excuse to let your fanboy impulses take over and give you the power to decide what is or isn't acceptable Star Trek fiction. You didn't conceive the universe or its various implications, so just sit back and allow those with the means to play in that world do so without feeling the need to judge it by an arbitrary rubric of highly subjective rules of conduct. It's one thing to critique the film, or even how it approaches the Khan narrative by itself, but my broader point is with those who walk into a film with a set of bullet point criterion a new adaptation must adhere to lest it blaspheme the holy name of Gene Roddenberry. Take it as it is, not what you wanted it to be or what it might've been had someone else done it.

Lurch

05-21-2013, 01:53 PM

I should note that I've not seen the show or any of the previous movies before Abrams' first one.
I believe this is where the difference in one's appreciation for the film will playout. I find it perfectly reasonable that someone unfamiliar with the tv series or its movie follow ups would enjoy this film because they bring no baggage with them and have no real point of reference. For them this is a new adventure. I'm sure even some familiar with previous stories will not be bothered and will embrace Abrams' 'affectionate' nod to past Trek.
But I have followed Trek for a long time, and while I had some reservations about certain changes made in Abrams' first film, I was impressed with its cleverness and the prospect of seeing these characters presented in a fresh format. This is why I, personally, am disappointed. I did not want to see another Khan adventure. If they were going to dig up and old adversary, there are 79 episodes of the original series to choose from. I can think of at least 5 characters that could have been made into an interesting story. I understand that Khan's popularity is why this was the route they took, but for me it was the easy way out and resulted in a grand special effects action-adventure film with lazy storytelling.

B-side

05-21-2013, 01:57 PM

Also, just to clarify, my original post wasn't directed toward anyone in particular. It was more of an irritated tangent related to trends I notice among those who view new adaptations, be it a remake of a previous film, a film adapted from a TV series, a film adapted from a book, etc. There is little room for creative freedom or reinterpretation among those who enter a movie with a set of demands.

Mr. McGibblets

05-21-2013, 02:42 PM

It exists as a sovereign entity. It is its own film. .

Rewording edit:The film may stand on its own for people who haven't seen Wrath of Khan, but it can't for people who have seen it.

but my broader point is with those who walk into a film with a set of bullet point criterion a new adaptation must adhere to lest it blaspheme the holy name of Gene Roddenberry.

Who are you arguing this with?

Watashi

05-21-2013, 04:07 PM

It may be its own film, but it's still a terribly written one.

Irish

05-21-2013, 04:19 PM

lest it blaspheme the holy name of Gene Roddenberry. Take it as it is, not what you wanted it to be or what it might've been had someone else done it.

The problem is Abrams is trying to have his cake and eat it too. He wants a mainstream audience, but then bends over backwards to pander to lifelong fans.

There's nothing wrong with doing a new iteration of Star Trek. There's already been four versions past Roddenberry's vision. But Abrams hasn't created a new version. He's very cynically manipulated an old one and, outside shiny F/X, brought nothing else to the table.

Rowland

05-21-2013, 04:21 PM

The best scene was the one where Simon Pegg had to huff it back and forth across that massive hangar.

Winston*

05-21-2013, 07:47 PM

The best scene was the one where Simon Pegg had to huff it back and forth across that massive hangar.

Yup.

Pop Trash

05-22-2013, 03:49 AM

http://io9.com/star-trek-into-darkness-the-spoiler-faq-508927844

B-side

05-22-2013, 04:31 AM

Rewording edit:The film may stand on its own for people who haven't seen Wrath of Khan, but it can't for people who have seen it.

No reason why not. I've seen narratives involving hitmen on their last job, but I still judge each new incarnation of that narrative on its own merits. Same principle applies here, especially when the narrative has been changed as much as it has.

Who are you arguing this with?

Considering you, Lurch and Irish have all chosen to respond, then I guess you guys may fall into that category.

B-side

05-22-2013, 04:33 AM

The problem is Abrams is trying to have his cake and eat it too. He wants a mainstream audience, but then bends over backwards to pander to lifelong fans.

There's nothing wrong with doing a new iteration of Star Trek. There's already been four versions past Roddenberry's vision. But Abrams hasn't created a new version. He's very cynically manipulated an old one and, outside shiny F/X, brought nothing else to the table.

Would you expect him to throw away the old lore altogether? Because I guarantee he'd lose a substantial amount of viewers if he chose to do so. This is Abrams' universe, and like fan fiction, it exists alongside, and interacts with, the old fiction.

Irish

05-22-2013, 04:51 AM

Would you expect him to throw away the old lore altogether? Because I guarantee he'd lose a substantial amount of viewers if he chose to do so.

Not with this franchise. Star Trek is one of the few properties out there that has continually reinvented itself over the course of its history. There's an enormous difference between the original series and "Deep Space Nine," for instance.

There was no compelling, story based reason to "reboot" the original characters in these movies and then jettison most everything else.

B-side

05-22-2013, 05:00 AM

The most compelling reason is probably that more people regard the original series as the pinnacle of what's been accomplished with it. That and the second movie. Seems like a pretty compelling reason to me.

Milky Joe

05-22-2013, 05:04 AM

Uh, yeah, pretty sure Kirk and Spock and Scotty and McCoy are iconic cultural stalwarts, characters that everyone and their mother knows, even if they have never seen a single one of the films. Nobody outside of Trekkies give even a tenth of a shit about any of the characters in DS9 or Voyager.

Irish

05-22-2013, 05:26 AM

The most compelling reason is probably that more people regard the original series as the pinnacle of what's been accomplished with it.

And we're back to "cynical manipulation." (I think it's debatable that the original series is regarded as any sort of pinnacle, especially since the core audience of these films are millennials who grew up with Jean Luc Picard and "Next Generation.")

Potato, Poe-tah-toe?

B-side

05-22-2013, 05:50 AM

Irish

05-22-2013, 06:19 AM

This.

Ah. Then you've both missed my point.

Mr. McGibblets

05-22-2013, 11:24 AM

No reason why not. I've seen narratives involving hitmen on their last job, but I still judge each new incarnation of that narrative on its own merits. Same principle applies here, especially when the narrative has been changed as much as it has.

That is not the same thing at all. It's not a similar story; it's a movie that constantly references another movie. It's like saying Body Double is a movie that stands on its own without having seen Rear Window or Vertigo.

Mr. McGibblets

05-22-2013, 11:26 AM

Considering you, Lurch and Irish have all chosen to respond, then I guess you guys may fall into that category.

I could not possibly care less if the film hit specific criteria or blasphemed Gene Rodenberry. I care about how much Into Darkness references Star Trek lore because I think it hurts the 2013 film.

B-side

05-22-2013, 11:45 AM

That is not the same thing at all. It's not a similar story; it's a movie that constantly references another movie. It's like saying Body Double is a movie that stands on its own without having seen Rear Window or Vertigo.

I haven't seen Body Double, but considering De Palma is known for homages and references, it's not exactly new information. I guarantee you 100% you've not seen every film he's used as inspiration or paid specific homage to. The Khan narrative is just that; a narrative. It can be twisted, manipulated and altered at will. Take the basic components and they can be applied anywhere.

B-side

05-22-2013, 11:47 AM

I could not possibly care less if the film hit specific criteria or blasphemed Gene Rodenberry. I care about how much Into Darkness references Star Trek lore because I think it hurts the 2013 film.

The very fact that it references anything at all should not in any way be considered detrimental. You can criticize the film itself, and how the Khan narrative plays out in the realm of this particular film all you want, but don't apply senseless criterion of loyalty or lack thereof.

Mr. McGibblets

05-22-2013, 11:53 AM

The Khan narrative is just that; a narrative. It can be twisted, manipulated and altered at will. Take the basic components and they can be applied anywhere.

The narrative is not the only thing referenced. Scenes are visually referenced. Dialogue is both repeated directly and repeated in altered form. Entire scenes are copied and redone.

Mr. McGibblets

05-22-2013, 11:55 AM

The very fact that it references anything at all should not in any way be considered detrimental. You can criticize the film itself, and how the Khan narrative plays out in the realm of this particular film all you want, but don't apply senseless criterion of loyalty or lack thereof.

Films don't exist in a vacuum. One can criticize a film for more than what appears on the screen during the running time.

Also: "loyalty?" You have pre-decided that you're arguing with people demanding loyalty, but not one of my posts is about that.

B-side

05-22-2013, 11:56 AM

The narrative is not the only thing referenced. Scenes are visually referenced. Dialogue is both repeated directly and repeated in altered form. Entire scenes are copied and redone.

You're making my case for me. It's different. It's altered. It's redone. It's largely the same broad narrative concept, but not the same execution. How is this different than my previous hitman analogy?

B-side

05-22-2013, 11:57 AM

Films don't exist in a vacuum. One can criticize a film for more than what appears on the screen during the running time.

You could, but you'd just be needlessly dragging along anecdotal nonsense into what should be a review of the art itself.

Mr. McGibblets

05-22-2013, 11:58 AM

You're making my case for me. It's different. It's altered. It's redone. It's largely the same broad narrative concept, but not the same execution. How is this different than my previous hitman analogy?

It's altered in a very specific way to play on the original film. Roles are reversed. The same dialogue comes out of different peoples mouths. I think you probably don't realize how closely linked the films are.

Mr. McGibblets

05-22-2013, 12:05 PM

You could, but you'd just be needlessly dragging along anecdotal nonsense into what should be a review of the art itself.

Critiquing how this film references Wrath of Khan is not anecdotal.

B-side

05-22-2013, 12:08 PM

It's altered in a very specific way to play on the original film. Roles are reversed. The same dialogue comes out of different peoples mouths. I think you probably don't realize how closely linked the films are.

My point is that a reference is not good standing for criticism. Judge the film on its own merits. There's plenty to critique about the film as a sovereign entity without resorting to petty jabs at its rehashing of an old storyline. The very fact that it rehashes an old storyline is not problematic in and of itself. That is the issue. I defer to my hitman analogy.

B-side

05-22-2013, 12:11 PM

Critiquing how this film references Wrath of Khan is not anecdotal.

It kinda is. As I've said it is not necessary, nor necessarily advantageous, to have seen Wrath of Khan in order to appreciate the film. I haven't seen it, and I enjoyed the film. I was informed of the parallels with the original afterward and felt no less satisfaction in my experience.

Mr. McGibblets

05-22-2013, 12:17 PM

There's plenty to critique about the film as a sovereign entity without resorting to petty jabs at its rehashing of an old storyline. The very fact that it rehashes an old storyline is not problematic in and of itself. That is the issue.

It's not the rehashing of the storyline that I find problematic. It's how specific references are made within the framework of the storyline. You are defending against a criticism that isn't being made.

Mr. McGibblets

05-22-2013, 12:18 PM

It kinda is. As I've said it is not necessary, nor necessarily advantageous, to have seen Wrath of Khan in order to appreciate the film. I haven't seen it, and I enjoyed the film. I was informed of the parallels with the original afterward and felt no less satisfaction in my experience.

This movie is a different movie for people who have and have not seen Wrath of Khan. I can't have the experience of seeing Into Darkness without having seen WoK. My experience (and that of a large portion of people seeing this film) is that of the two movies and how they relate to one anther.

edit to add: One of my first thoughts on seeing this was that it would be a much better movie if I'd never seen WoK.

Raiders

05-22-2013, 01:06 PM

I think it is better because I have seen WoK. Then again, I appreciate it purely as a piece of fan fiction which recalls the initial Khan storyline (I assume spoilers are out at this point) and parallels it in a way that works for new fans (the death scene is effective on par with the original) as well as continuing the sense that even in a new timeline, filmic history does inevitably repeat itself (i.e., the entire crew is together anyway, the Kobayashi Maru, etc.). I can see it as "lazy" but it really did work for me. If I hadn't seen it, I probably would have rolled my eyes at the whole thing with the fake-out death, reversed merely minutes later. It would have seen like silly drama with the miracle blood rescue. But having seen WoK, instead it played like a tribute that I think was somewhat forced on Abrams and co. as this villain was going to have to be addressed and so, they played it as geeky as possible. I enjoyed it.

What this film doesn't have is a moment anywhere near Kirk's farewell speech from the WoK, which is one of the best emotional moments in any film. Gets me every time.

Lurch

05-22-2013, 02:05 PM

All right. Let’s set aside the whole Khan debate for a moment. What about the complete lack of logic in certain scenes that serve only to set up big special effects moments, or to further Star Trek references?

Just a few-

1. The opening scene where the Enterprise is parked on the bottom of an ocean so that a primitive society that is barely (and I paraphrase) “beyond the invention of the wheel” won’t see them. Are you telling me that this society would be able to spot the Enterprise in orbit? In the story meetings someone said, “Let’s have the Enterprise under water and rise up. It will look cool.”, and then built a scene around that. It did look cool, but made no sense.
2. In today’s world our country has the capability of shooting down a missile within minutes of its launch. However, two hundred years in the future our planet is unable to detect a large out of control starship and destroy or divert it prior to entering our atmosphere.
3. There are 72 frozen bodies aboard the Enterprise, all with the same genetic advancements as Khan, yet Khan is the only one whose blood can save Kirk.
4. Back to the issue of the Khan narrative. Why is it necessary, in the context of the movie, to keep Khan’s identity a secret and refer to him by another name? If only a few of the big brass at Starfleet know of Khan’s existence, then why change his name? This is movie manipulation at its worst. It exists only as a marketing ploy to present a mystery so the audience would hopefully be wowed by the fact that this is Khan. For those unfamiliar with Khan, it has no dramatic impact. For those who are familiar with Khan, it is simply a Star Trek geek moment, or an eye-rolling disappointment.

I’m the first to admit that Star Trek has a history of making logical and technical errors that one can easily pick apart. But the combination of all these elements, in addition to the 45 minute homage to Wrath of Khan, left me underwhelmed.
For the next movie I guess I will put my brain on hold and blot out as much Star Trek history as possible, because I’m almost certain we may see another alternate universe with an evil Kirk who has a beard, or a tribble story where Spock gets buried in a mound of tribbles which are then transported by Chekov to a Borg ship where they are assimilated and then lead the Enterprise back in time where Uhura must stop a young idealistic activist from helping Iraq take over the world.

B-side

05-22-2013, 02:18 PM

I'm not going to touch this one. The only thing that annoys me more than fanboyism is the absurd application of real world logic to pieces of fiction.

TGM

05-22-2013, 07:02 PM

My full review. (http://cwiddop.blogspot.com/2013/05/star-trek-into-darkness.html)

slqrick

05-23-2013, 02:33 AM

Seeing it this weekend, haven't read anything in the thread. My only question is: is the IMAX 3D worth it? I wish I could've seen it in IMAX only but it seems to be my only choice. I'd rather watch it in 2D unless I'm swayed.

Kurosawa Fan

05-25-2013, 12:02 PM

I only have a vague, patchwork knowledge of Star Trek prior to the Abrams films. I haven't seen any of the original films aside from the humpback whale one when I was really young. As such, I don't really care about this ongoing debate of what Abrams did with the Khan story and how he's altering the Star Trek mythos. However one might regard the original product and the changes being made, what's most important here is that Star Trek: Into Darkness is a silly, unimaginative film; a film so formulaic I could have dozed off for an hour and woke up again feeling like I hadn't missed a thing. It's fun at times largely due to the cast and the witty dialogue (although Karl Urban can go away and never come back), but that fun is always quickly killed by corny fan service (even someone as unfamiliar as myself knows "KHAAAAAAAAN!!" and "Damn it Jim, I'm a doctor not a ________") and the dull, predictable narrative. The movie feels 30 minutes longer than it is, and ends 15 minutes after it should. Even Cumberbatch, whom I love, didn't really impress. Massively disappointing.

B-side

05-25-2013, 01:30 PM

I can't say I share the Karl Urban enthusiasm either. But I did think Cumberbatch was really good.

Mysterious Dude

05-25-2013, 03:27 PM

Karl Urban was terrible. He sounded like he was doing an impression on SNL.

Henry Gale

05-26-2013, 12:11 AM

Urban's Bones coming in with exactly the same agitated, over-the-top candor every time a new development was run by him almost felt like an intentional running gag to me. Or, I like to think of it that way since it made everyone I saw it with (and a significant portion of the audience) erupt into prolonged laughter every time it happened.

"Dammit, Kirk! Are you outta your corn-fed mind?!"

Raiders

05-26-2013, 02:00 AM

Urban was great in the first, probably my favorite performance in that one. Here, he was relegated to looking baffled and shouting classicly-framed lines from the character. It wasn't really his fault. They intentioally pitched the character at that level this time.

Duncan

05-28-2013, 09:23 PM

Duncan

05-28-2013, 09:27 PM

Although I will say that the silly fist fight near the end and basically everything after was pretty poor.

Also, my girlfriend, who has literally never seen a single Star Trek episode or movie, asked me about "the whole teleporting thing" afterwards and why one guy could transport but another couldn't, and it got me thinking about how often that's used as a crutch in the film. There's too much movement, there's too much debris, shields are up, no now they're down, too much movement again, oh it's the radiation, etc. Pretty weak.

megladon8

05-29-2013, 12:42 AM

Far from perfect but Jen and I had great fun with this.

I can't help but think the exact same, shot-for-shot film would have been significantly less without Cumberbatch, who steals the show. It kind of felt like "The Itchy, Scratchy and Poochie" show - every scene Cumberbatch isn't in, the other characters just stand around going "where's Poochie...er, I mean, Benedict?"

Funny that Abrams talked about toning down the lens flare, because this movie was flare-a-licious.

Some of the best, most photorealistic sci-fi effects I've seen since Minority Report. While imperfectly executed from a dramatic standpoint, the fist-fight between Cumberbatch and Spock on the tops of the flying cars looked phenomenal, technically.

The yelling of "KHAAAAN!" was stupid and should have never happened.

I very much hope that the third movie digresses from "let's tell the stories from the first movies, but with a modern twist!"

The death was manipulative and cheapened by the 30-seconds-later resurrection.

megladon8

05-29-2013, 02:54 AM

Oh and I'm no scientician, but how did the Enterprise fall to Earth from the moon?

Fezzik

05-29-2013, 04:23 PM

Oh and I'm no scientician, but how did the Enterprise fall to Earth from the moon?

For the same reason that Tony Stark fell back to Earth through a wormhole. Come on, man! Get with the program! God!

Sxottlan

06-08-2013, 07:23 AM

So I've done my fan duty and seen this a number of times. At least the third time today was a free ticket (Regal Crown Card carrier since whenever).

Man is this just a frustrating experience. Probably the most frustrating of all Trek films. Honestly, I like this movie. Right up until Kirk, Scotty and Khan storm the Vengeance's bridge. Then it gets unbelievably stupid. Not that there wasn't stupidity before, but it was enjoyable enough to overlook.

But even after three viewings, I just still don't get the wholesale rip-off of scenes from The Wrath of Khan. Still not clever. Congratulations, it's meta and all it does is draw attention to itself. It's like the film reached it's natural conclusion at the three-quarter mark aboard the Vengeance. Then the writers didn't know what to do. Bob Orci has pretty much said on TrekMovie.com that Harrison's background wasn't originally in the script. I figure he caved to the morons who demanded that You-Know-Who make an appearance.

I was kind of astonished at how uneven Chris Pine was in this. His initial conversation with Harrison he just wasn't convincing. Peter Weller gets worse and worse as the movie goes along. A defiant speech he gives towards the end is flat-out bad. This is pretty much a Kirk & Spock flick and everyone else, except maybe Scotty, is left to get scraps. Karl Urban's McCoy is sadly sidelined, reduced to folksy metaphors. Sulu's future captaincy is telegraphed. Uhura spends a high stress undercover voyage picking a fight with her boyfriend in front of everyone. Very unprofessional and I thought reflected poorly on the character. Looks like Spock is going to play the Vulcan genocide card to end any future arguments.

Gotta hit the sack and don't have time to post all my nitpicks tonight, but here's an updated ranking of all the films:

The Wrath of Khan: ****
The Voyage Home: ****
The Motion Picture (Director's Cut): ****
The Undiscovered Country: ***1/2
Star Trek: ***1/2
The Search for Spock: ***
Star Trek Into Darkness: ***
First Contact: **1/2
Generations: **1/2
Nemesis: **
Insurrection: *1/2
The Final Frontier: *

Tomorrow night I'll see TWOK on the big screen. The George Eastman House museum will have a screening. Quite prestigious. :D

Gizmo

06-29-2013, 02:05 AM

Just watched this. Thought it was dumb, but fun. I haven't seen any other Star Trek films except the '09 one and I think Nemesis or something like that. I didn't really get the references, and forgot who half the characters were. I do understand that Kahn was a charcter from Wrath of Kahn, but that's it. I think this one was fun enough to overlook a lot of the predictability and absurdity that was rampant, especially in the 2nd half. Never once was I concerned about the fate of the crew, despite them being in peril pretty much the whole time.

MadMan

07-20-2013, 10:26 AM

I was entertained and I liked this movie, but I'm not sure future viewings will be all that kind to it. Where as I've seen the 2009 film a few more times since and still like it a lot.

And yes midway through I did think to myself "I liked this movie better when it was called Wrath of Khan" but eh whatever. Oh and I'm sorry but cultists....I mean, Trekkies-creep me out a little.

Skitch

08-03-2013, 02:09 AM

A ton of positive, almost completely undone by unbelievably lazy writing. Really annoyed how MUCH of a remake this was. Seriously, a weekend with a bag of weed and Wrath Of Khan on repeat is how I imagined they wrote this script. Really annoying because if they would've actually wrote a few parts instead of rehashing them (namely Kirk's death and resurrection, the Khan reveal scene that had zero impact, and Spock's lame KHAAAAANN!), this would have been a more effective re-imagining. Sure, we're going along on the premise that is an alternate timeline universe so I can buy than they would have a run-in with Mr. Harrison, but that all those moments would recycle is just too much to swallow. And did I mention its seriously LAZY writing? Because it is.

Thumbs up, I enjoyed it, but it could have been quite a bit better. A misstep for the series, and I hope they completely go another direction for the next entry.

Qrazy

08-23-2013, 02:27 PM

This was tolerable until Scotty showed up on the other ship then it just became unrelenting dog shit for the rest of it's run time. Terrible.

D_Davis

08-23-2013, 04:41 PM

The Wrath of Khan: ****
The Voyage Home: ****
The Motion Picture (Director's Cut): ****
The Undiscovered Country: ***1/2
Star Trek: ***1/2
The Search for Spock: ***
Star Trek Into Darkness: ***
First Contact: **1/2
Generations: **1/2
Nemesis: **
Insurrection: *1/2
The Final Frontier: *

You rate First Contact really low. Not only do I think that it's the best Star Trek film, but I also think it's one of the best SF movies I've ever seen. A total classic of the genre, I wish there were more SF films that good.

Dukefrukem

08-28-2013, 02:03 PM

You rate First Contact really low. Not only do I think that it's the best Star Trek film, but I also think it's one of the best SF movies I've ever seen. A total classic of the genre, I wish there were more SF films that good.

Holy crap I thought I would always be in the miniority there. 100% Agree with DD on this.

Also, if anyone is willing,

$15 will get you Star Trek Into Darkness Digital Copy on Amazon. Same as a movie ticket (for me) and you get to keep it.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00E5Q1LTY/ref=nav_sap_aiv

Dukefrukem

08-28-2013, 02:10 PM

For the hell of it, I just found my rankings after I watched them back in 2009.

Star Trek: First Contact - 90
Star Trek - 88
Star Trek: Nemesis - 85
Star Trek: Insurrection - 82
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country - 80
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan - 75
Star Trek III: The Search for Spock - 75
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home - 72
Star Trek: Generations - 55
Star Trek V: The Final Frontier - 41
Star Trek: The Motion Picture - 33

Raiders

08-28-2013, 02:28 PM

Star Trek: Nemesis - 85
Star Trek: Insurrection - 82
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country - 80
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan - 75

Pretentious.

Fezzik

08-28-2013, 02:46 PM

Star Trek V: The Final Frontier - 41
Star Trek: The Motion Picture - 33

I have to admit, seeing FF as anything but the worst Star Trek film kind of threw me for a loop. I actually think its one of the worst films I've ever seen. Motion Picture wasn't great by any stretch, but in my opinion, FF was mind-numbing.

I'll take a flyer on this too:

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan - ****
Star Trek: First Contact - ****
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country - *** 1/2
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home - *** 1/2
Star Trek - *** 1/2
Star Trek III: The Search for Spock - ***
Star Trek Into Darkness - ** 1/2
Star Trek: Generations - ** 1/2
Star Trek: The Motion Picture - ** 1/2
Star Trek: Nemesis - **
Star Trek: Insurrection - **
Star Trek V: The Final Frontier - Oh God, Why?

Dukefrukem

08-28-2013, 03:46 PM

Awww you don't like the Borg?

D_Davis

08-28-2013, 04:28 PM

I saw Wrath a couple of years ago, and it had not aged well. There are good moments, but its legendary status eludes me.

Fezzik

08-28-2013, 04:42 PM

Awww you don't like the Borg?

I love the Borg. I think they're one of the greatest sci-fi villain races ever created.

But that Reliant-Enterprise fight in the Nebula will always stick with me. I think thats a phenomenal sequence, and thats what really puts RoK atop FC for me.

number8

08-29-2013, 04:15 AM

This is absurd. (http://www.thedigitalbits.com/columns/my-two-cents/082813_1415)

Yes… the seven featurettes listed in the press release are basically everything you get on the disc, aside from the usual DVD copy, Digital Copy, UltraViolet copy, Xerox copy and what not. The featurettes amount to about 42 minutes of EPK-style behind the scenes material. There’s no commentary, no deleted scenes, no trailers… which would be bad enough.

Except…

It turns out that more extras were created for this release – more featurettes and even an audio commentary with director J.J. Abrams and members of his crew. None of it is available on the wide release Blu-ray or Blu-ray 3D SKUs. The commentary can only be found as an iTunes “extra” download. And those extra featurettes? Some are on a Target bonus disc. Some are on a Best Buy bonus disc. And some are only available via CinemaNow and VUDU downloads.

That’s right: More than half of the special features created for Star Trek Into Darkness were used by Paramount’s marketing team as retailer exclusives.

Morris Schæffer

08-29-2013, 05:14 AM

I have to admit, seeing FF as anything but the worst Star Trek film kind of threw me for a loop. I actually think its one of the worst films I've ever seen. Motion Picture wasn't great by any stretch, but in my opinion, FF was mind-numbing.

I'll take a flyer on this too:

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan - ****
Star Trek: First Contact - ****
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country - *** 1/2
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home - *** 1/2
Star Trek - *** 1/2
Star Trek III: The Search for Spock - ***
Star Trek Into Darkness - ** 1/2
Star Trek: Generations - ** 1/2
Star Trek: The Motion Picture - ** 1/2
Star Trek: Nemesis - **
Star Trek: Insurrection - **
Star Trek V: The Final Frontier - Oh God, Why?

Pretty close to my sentiments except I find the first one lethargic, not bad, but quite dull although you're close to mediocre also with the rating. The new movies really need to find the balls to bury the past.

Dukefrukem

08-29-2013, 12:43 PM

This is absurd. (http://www.thedigitalbits.com/columns/my-two-cents/082813_1415)

They'll be another Blu-ray down the road with it all. Probably a timed exclusive thing.

This movie was disappointing btw.

Are they going to do this time travel thing in all the new Trek's going forward?

And am I the only one who was distracted by all the lens flares? I thought JJ said he was cutting down on them this time around??

Raiders

08-29-2013, 01:58 PM

Are they going to do this time travel thing in all the new Trek's going forward?

What do you mean? There was no time travel in this one.

Dukefrukem

08-29-2013, 02:26 PM

What do you mean? There was no time travel in this one.

Just having it incredibly convenient for Young Spock to contact Old Spock? And then break every rule he laid out in the first movie?

Lazlo

08-29-2013, 02:30 PM

Just having it incredibly convenient for Young Spock to contact Old Spock? And then break every rule he laid out in the first movie?

Old Spock lives in their timeline now. He's not still time traveling.

Dukefrukem

08-29-2013, 02:41 PM

Old Spock: "Well I know I told you I would never disclose any information about my timeline... but since you asked nicely...."

Henry Gale

08-29-2013, 06:41 PM

This is absurd. (http://www.thedigitalbits.com/columns/my-two-cents/082813_1415)

Not to mention all the Blu-rays and DVD's presentations of the movie are hard-matted to 2:39:1, BUT a iTunes/Digital Copy exclusive interactive Abrams pop-up commentary properly opens all the IMAX shots to 1:78:1.

So if you really want to see the IMAX footage come close to resembling its theatrical ratio at home, you have to watch a digital copy where the cast and crew talk over it both audibly and visually.

Scar

08-30-2013, 12:19 AM

Had a good time with this, logic be damned.

Cringed at the 'KHAAAAAAAAN' moment, but overall it was an entertaining experience. I was half expecting them to call that Dreadnought Excelsior.

Dukefrukem

08-30-2013, 02:08 PM

Had a good time with this, logic be damned.

Cringed at the 'KHAAAAAAAAN' moment, but overall it was an entertaining experience. I was half expecting them to call that Dreadnought Excelsior.

Man are you right that a cringe-worthy moment. Talk about JJ trying to cram so much Star Trek cannon into 1 movie. We want to surprise people with Khan, we want to get the Klingons in there, we want to get Nimoy in there... what else can we throw in? Reference to Sulu taking the chair, the hand against the glass, "Damn it Jim I'm a doctor not a torpedo engineer"... Ugh just dreadful cheesy dialog. Lowering my rating after letting this movie sink in.

I'm fearful of the Star Wars film.

Skitch

08-30-2013, 09:19 PM

I'm fearful of the Star Wars film.

I agree with you on STID, but I'm not fearful for SW too much. That's an actual sequel whereas this is a remake.

Neclord

08-30-2013, 10:26 PM

I feel like the Abrams criticism re: the screenplay is misplaced. I think he did a good enough job with a script that was just far too much rehashing, and I put that blame firmly on Orci, Kurtzman, and proven franchise-hinderer Lindelof. Lindelof was the one who pushed for Khan too, so I'll hazard a guess and say he encouraged the others' worst instincts.

Star Wars VII, on the other hand, has Michael Arndt, who has a much less embarrassing track record, if a smaller track record all together.

Irish

08-31-2013, 02:47 PM

Wow this was bad. Like fan fiction bad. Like written and performed by high school kids bad. It felt like a generic actioner with a "Star Trek" sticker slapped on it, and that the people who wrote this learned about the franchise from skimming a couple of Wikipedia pages.

Surprised Abrams was so bankrupt that he had to go back to the Nimoy well again for a little deus ex. I didn't think he'd be that stupid.

This was so sci-fi shallow it could have easily been a "Bourne" or "Mission Impossible" film. Swap around the character names and change the locations from Earth and the Klingon home world to North Korea and Fuckuistan and you're half way there.

The closest this got to science fiction was a $2 tribble prop and talk about "magic blood" in the dialogue. Considering where "Star Trek" began 50 years ago, Jesus, that's sad.

PS: Any "Star Wars" fan who sees this should be shitting bricks right about now. I can't even imagine how Abrams is going to fuck that franchise up.

Watashi

08-31-2013, 04:13 PM

PS: Any "Star Wars" fan who sees this should be shitting bricks right about now. I can't even imagine how Abrams is going to fuck that franchise up.

You're saying this if Star Wars hasn't been fucked up before.

Gizmo

08-31-2013, 10:56 PM

You're saying this if Star Wars hasn't been fucked up before.

He's saying it as if I cared a lick about Star Trek and know what was fucked up in this franchise by him.

Irish

09-01-2013, 07:27 AM

You're saying this if Star Wars hasn't been fucked up before.

Fair point. "Star Wars" was fucked, in different ways, but I don't think Lucas every really violated the spirit of his franchise. He just told bad, convoluted, awkward stories.

What Abrams did with "Into Darkness" was different. He slapped "Star Trek" trappings onto a generic actioner. He displayed limited-to-no understanding of the franchise or its characters.

But worse, even if you forget "Star Trek," this movie fails as mass-market science fiction.

He's saying it as if I cared a lick about Star Trek and know what was fucked up in this franchise by him.

Jesus. Maybe you should stick with Michael Bay, where you're comfortable. What exactly is it you're trying to argue here?

Dukefrukem

09-19-2013, 06:39 PM

Probably the best one yet, which I know isn't saying much, but it points out a lot of BS in this movie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REOjxvQPQNQ

Dukefrukem

10-10-2013, 12:07 PM

Bwhahahaha

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4N15J4ibej8

Grouchy

11-06-2013, 09:14 PM

Those two videos have it about right. I'm an unusual audience for this because I'm practically Star Trek-illiterate. I think I only saw about two episodes of the original series and First Contact. Still, this was rubbish. Completely loses momentum after Khan takes over the ship, when it should do the opposite.

number8

11-27-2013, 12:32 AM

lolwut, they didn't even update Khan's origin. Why is there a British super soldier with an Indian name from the 20th century?

What is this movie. I regret complaining that the first movie had no social commentary. Apparently that egged Orci to respond by putting in his truther conspiracies into the plot.

Old Spock chiming in was the worst thing ever. The Spaceballs comparison has been made, but this is obviously worse because at least in Spaceballs they learned something by fast forwarding. Quinto Spock learned jack shit from Old Spock other than Khan's surname.

Henry Gale

11-27-2013, 02:35 PM

LOTSA SPOILERS (with bonus significant re-write ideas no one asked for)

For a lot of reasons you point out, I've felt both since the summer and then even more by re-watching it a couple of weeks ago that a more fitting ending would have been to somehow reveal at the end that Cumberbatch was never actually Khan all along and that he ultimately used his position to ascend to a power he wanted to . If you're going to change the story's re-awakening of this crew from everyone to just one person, why not put a twist on it? Why wouldn't "Harrison" suddenly want to make everyone believe he was his leader and not simply one of 70-something cohorts?

The movie fills itself so much involving characters driven by delusions of grandeur in dire circumstances, trapped by its inevitable consequences, but everyone manages to pull through one way or another using personal connections and impersonating other roles to achieve ulterior motives. The key difference would end up being that the Enterprise crew always did this with pure intentions and transparency, where Weller, Cumberbatch, etc. used such tactics to gain ultimate power through destruction and covert methods. Maybe Star Trek shouldn't be that black and white, but as it is, making Khan the character he is here certainly turns some of those overall thematics a bit murky.

Kirk battles with the hopelessness of his leadership three times: Pike's death (and his loss of guidance), the Deadnaught nearly obliterates the Enterprise and he accepts defeat (before Scotty saving his ass), and of course his sacrifice through his (ultimately uncertain) death. Khan always takes on the challenges put before him for his own preservation for the sake of his crew, eventually letting the perceived loss of all of them revoke all necessary empathy to cooperate with anyone, leading to this story's destructive climax and his self-preservation becoming an outward action of anger, essentially the inversion of Kirk's ending here.

As awkward as it could have been, and I know it sounds like a wacky idea that's not actually embedded into the storytelling of the rest of the film, but I think designing that shot of him re-frozen at the end to to be changed to pan past the rest of his crew to eventually slow to the unmistakably profile of Montalban's incarnation in one of the pods would have been a way to attempt to pay respect to the original timeline and fans while mostly keeping things the same for anyone that's going into this generation fresh likely not paying any mind to it. The duality continues!

But as it is, he is Khan, aaaaand it's still a bit odd to say.

MadMan

11-27-2013, 06:09 PM

I realized that my review of this film that I posted in the Corrie actually is telling me my rating for this film is probably at least ten points too high. Not that it matters.

However even a generic Star Trek ripoff of Wraith of Khan is better than most of Michael Bay's output. So there is that.

Stay Puft

01-08-2014, 12:56 AM

This is the dumbest fucking movie I've seen in a long time. Good grief.

I want to live in an alternate timeline where Orci & Kurtzman don't write movies.
Lindelof, too, while we're at it.

Dead & Messed Up

05-18-2014, 09:48 PM

I didn't hate this, but it's a Potemkin narrative, scenes literally falling into the sand once they've occurred, the creative team pulling us along from moment to moment, so eager to show us sights of great urgency, little real emotion, and zero import. What a shame to have such a fine performance by Cumberbatch reduced to fist-fights atop floating whatever-things. What a shame to avoid granting arcs to legitimately good actors like...

Simon Pegg, whose moral objection early on feels thematically important and ceases to matter halfway through the film (in truth, it's mostly a functional way to have someone who can unlock the mystery of the Fleet's Evil Renegade Crew).

John Cho, who sits in the captain's chair, leaves the captain's chair, and says a captain's chair sure feels purty.

And especially Zoe Saldana. Hers is just about the worst, her sole moment of active narrative involvement squandered by bickering with her paramour. The effort to diversify with a second female crew member in Alice Eve is completely negated by (a) the obnoxious bra-and-panties moment and (b) her complete lack of involvement after watching her father's head crushed and getting her limbs broken.

There's a beat at the end where Spock is told they can't locate Khan so they'll teleport him down to search for him, and the second Spock lands, he turns and sees Khan, in the middle of a city erupting in chaos.

Giacchino's score is lovely.

The Wrath of Khan theft at the end with the irradiation chamber doohicky is simultaneously the best scene in the film and dismal. It's the best because, for once, the film slows down, stops cross-cutting, allows people to not bark orders whilst running. It's a complete scene that builds and crests and fades with emotion. Even given its shallow derivation, the scene works. But then Spock lets out with that embarrassing "Khan" shout, and then Kirk's just fine thank you very much, and why the fuck did we even bother? I'm not in love with the original films, but when Spock died in Wrath, they let him die, and they spent another entire movie working on bringing him back, which gave his death more legitimacy. Yes, he was resurrected, but it sure as hell wasn't easy. Here, give it ten minutes, and Kirk, the guy who was all too eager to completely subvert Fleet philosophy and risk interstellar war to settle a grudge, who completely disregarded the Prime Directive, who spent the film learning that, yes, he should give fucks about the people he works with, is the one speeching and imparting a higher philosophy onto us. Get bent, hero.

You know what, screw it. I didn't like this movie.

Neclord

05-19-2014, 06:01 AM

Eh, I softened to it the second go. The plot is extremely contrived and exists mainly to get the crew from location to location, but I enjoy the actors and Abrams' craft. Maybe I've just given up, maybe I just don't have it in me to feel very negative anymore. Just bring Trek back to TV, I beg of you.

Dead & Messed Up

05-19-2014, 06:58 AM

I agree on the actors, I agree on Abrams' craft. I just really, really wish they were put to better use. It's a bummer if the best Trek can aspire to these days is a hangout sitcom.

Henry Gale

05-19-2014, 07:00 AM

Just bring Trek back to TV, I beg of you.

Yeah, the cast is too good to only bring together for a two hours every 3-4 years. The older films all worked so well because of the stories we got from the same crews before and between each big screen outing, but everything we have from the new group will always be forced to be so big and status-quo-shifting as long as they're designed as summer tentpoles.

Plus, I'm not sure anyone aside from Pine, Pegg and maybe Yelchin would really be against settling into a steady TV gig, especially such a high profile one that's worked varying degrees of wonders for them. If Saldana is willing to do a Rosemary's Baby miniseries (and later fit more Trek around her Avatar sequels schedules), Karl Urban can star in (the now cancelled) Almost Human, Zachary Quinto can come and go from American Horror Story, and Jon Cho's new show with Karen Gillan doesn't last (seriously, how does the guy have a fairly high-profile movie career but always seems relegated to small television roles?), I don't see why everyone else couldn't join for at least for a limited series every once in a while.

It'd be mutually beneficial to the quality of the universe with both mediums. The TV side can focus on the characters dealing with shorter, relatively low stakes missions and develop everyone and the world of the ongoing series in a more naturally thorough way, and then the movies can continue to pit them against obstacles necessary of bigger budgets and more understandably heightened life-and-death drama, instead of that being how we now associate everything these characters go through on the Enterprise.

number8

05-19-2014, 03:47 PM

(seriously, how does the guy have a fairly high-profile movie career but always seems relegated to small television roles?)

To be blunt? He's asian.

slqrick

05-19-2014, 08:40 PM

To be blunt? He's asian.

Yep.

Neclord

05-20-2014, 12:59 AM

John Cho is great, I'd love to see him in more stuff.

MadMan

05-20-2014, 09:22 AM

John Cho is great, I'd love to see him in more stuff.Oh yeah.

Irish

05-20-2014, 10:13 PM

Just bring Trek back to TV, I beg of you.

As a long time fan, I have to say: God no. Trek is dead. The culture that produced two of the better incarnations (the original and TNG) is also dead.

Besides that, after so many planets and so many aliens with prosthetics on their noses, what else can possibly said about the Trek universe? The imaginative forces that brought Trek to the small screen have been strip mined over the years. After awhile you're left with a bunch of sweaty writers in a dim, windowless room trying to figure out how to shoe horn another Borg story into Enterprise. No thanks.

Neclord

05-21-2014, 01:10 AM

But I like fun space adventure.

Dead & Messed Up

05-21-2014, 04:03 AM

BSG, for better or for worse, was our generation's Star Trek.

Neclord

05-21-2014, 05:28 AM

Mostly for the best, I'd say.

Henry Gale

05-21-2014, 11:55 PM

To be blunt? He's asian.

Siiigh, I hear you, I just really wish it wasn't the case. It just seems like if anyone in the last ten years would have a good shot of standing out and breaking through non-martial arts-adept barriers to be a leading man with the opportunity to be in just as many middle-of-the-road roles in TV and movies as white dudes, I'd say it'd be him.

Someone needs to be passionate enough to put together the most pitch-able big studio project imaginable and just force casting of people like him and whatever other super-talented visible minorities to play roles in a story that barely makes reference to that fact. Watching Sung Kang in Bullet to the Head and having most of his scenes as Stallone's partner having Sly throw hacky stereotype names and jokes at him is the sort of depressing thing I can't believe can still happen. (Apparently it was originally going to be Tom Jane is Kang's role, but once he dropped out and replaced, the filmmakers' idea of adapting the script to Kang was calling him "Kato" and "Oddjob"...)

Maybe Marvel can just piss of fans but make me very happy by casting an Asian dude as Doctor Strange or someone.

Dukefrukem

07-21-2016, 12:54 AM

I re-watched this to prepare for tomorrow night. It's still a terrible terrible movie.

Here is just a list of things that pissed me off while watching it.

Continuity Issues:
The existence of an off-planetary transporter where in the previous scene they couldn't teleport from underwater to a volcano that was a mile away, but somehow Khan is able to teleport to the Klingon System
The existence of an off-planetary cell phone where Kirk is able to call Scotty at a bar on Earth when he's in the Klingon system. I dont ever want to see or hear "we lost contact / can't reach him we are out of range" talk ever again.
The existence of blood that brings people back to life. They cured death!
Old Spock made a big deal about not revealing anything from his timeline because of space time continuum stuff but Spock contacting Old Spock because script needed it.
Lens Flares

Lame Fan Service:
Screaming Khan
Spock/Kirk switch-a-roo in the radiation chamber
Fucking Lens Flares

Distracting Bullshit:
Alice Eve randomly getting undressed for Kirk which is just an excuse to show her boobs
Failed Bechdel test for Uhura who essentially is only in this movie to complain about Spock
God damn there are so many fucking Lens Flares