Hard Light Productions Forums

Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Black Wolf on May 10, 2013, 11:59:20 am

Title: Star Trek Into Darkness [SPOILERS}
Post by: Black Wolf on May 10, 2013, 11:59:20 am
OK, just got back from IMAX - I'm going to use spoiler tags, but read on at your own risk.

Spoiler:
Awesome film. They took one of the best bits from the TV series (Section 31), suggested a not-unrealistic response to the events of the last movie, and integrated the coolest bad guy from the movies remarkably well. The homages were there to the original but they definitely, definitely didn't just do a boring remake of Wrath of Khan. There were so many little details to like in this movie, both new and familiar. I loved that the dreadnaught was clearly based on the Excelsior, and I loved when the Enterprise came up through the clouds, and I loved the Kirk/Spock flip (I did what you would have done)... but I also loved that the new warp core was this massive sprawling device that actually looked like the incredibly complex piece of engineering it would have to be rather than the glowing tube from the series - they've done this all through this movie - everything looks far more like engineered, working technology rather than the seamless techno-magic that they did with TV budgets - they started doing this in the previous movie, but it's pushed out to a to a far greater extent here and I like it.

There were some issues that kept the film from being perfect - there always are. The klingons went down too easy, and the ships shouldn't have been called D-4s - plus their makeup looked weird - IMO faker than the later TNG era Klingons - of course, enterprise is canon in this continuity, so that may have been a deliberate allusion to the virus storyline. And new Spock seems... remarkably poor at controlling his emotions compared to classic Spock. He's less a classic Vulcan and more a sort of super-stoic human - I know that Vulcans are supposed to have these super strong emotions, but they're not supposed to show them except under the most extreme of circumstances. The loss of his planet and entire species - yeah, forgiveable. The death of a close friend... well, frankly, that should be within his range of control. And apparently Quo'nos is only about 5 minutes from Earth now. They could have really amped up the tension of the chase back to earth if it had taken place over the hours or days it should have. Finally, I wasn't too happy about Kirk being so blase about the Prime Directive. That was... unnecessary.

Still, those gripes aside, as someone who's far more of a TNG/DS9 fan than a TOS fan, I found this to be a great action movie, a great Sci Fi movie and a good Star Trek movie. I liked the previous Abrams outing, and in this case the plot was better, the villain was better, and everything felt far more connected and coherent. I also like the real, grounded, technological look the film has. So, go see it (as if you weren't already going to :p).
Title: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness [SPOILERS}
Post by: watsisname on May 10, 2013, 02:34:21 pm
Boooo, we still got another week here in the US. :(

Really looking forward to this one.  RT is also giving it favorable reviews so far.
Title: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness [SPOILERS}
Post by: The E on May 11, 2013, 05:13:50 pm
Just came back from seeing it. It's a rather good and entertaining movie.

Spoiler:
I really liked this one. Cumberbatch and Quinto are, as usual, quite good at what they do, the setpieces are well-shot, the score is beautiful, and the dialogue only occasionally cringeworthy.

That being said, I have the feeling that the writers tried to do too much too soon in this one. The plot takes elements from Wrath of Khan (Duh) and Undiscovered Country and tries to mash them together, but it's not as coherent or snappy as it could have been.
Title: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness [SPOILERS}
Post by: Fury on May 12, 2013, 12:50:04 am
What the hell, I still have to wait almost a month before it comes to theatres here. :(
Title: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness [SPOILERS}
Post by: watsisname on May 12, 2013, 01:10:09 am
I don't understand why we can't have a global release date in this day and age.  I mean seriously, what the hell.
Title: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness [SPOILERS}
Post by: Black Wolf on May 12, 2013, 01:41:13 am
Seems like a weird choice in thus day and age - seems like it'll encourage piracy
Title: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness [SPOILERS}
Post by: General Battuta on May 12, 2013, 10:32:44 am
There's some kind of reason for these staggered releases but I'll be damned if I can remember what it is. I do know there's a concerted effort with this one to increase Star Trek's overseas gross, where the franchise has traditionally been weak.
Title: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness [SPOILERS}
Post by: AdmiralRalwood on May 14, 2013, 11:41:41 pm
I can't give this movie money due to the simple fact that re-casting Khan as a white guy is incredibly racist.
Title: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness [SPOILERS}
Post by: General Battuta on May 14, 2013, 11:42:27 pm
I can't give this movie money due to the simple fact that re-casting Khan as a white guy is incredibly racist.

Honestly I'm pretty sympathetic to this point of view. It's really disappointing that they whitewashed one of the few iconic POC roles in science fiction. But there's always the 'buy a ticket for a different movie, go into a STID theater' trick.
Title: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness [SPOILERS}
Post by: The E on May 15, 2013, 03:39:15 am
Gonna have to go into spoilers here, but I really don't think this is much of an issue.

In this film, Khan (And he has no other name, he never calls himself anything but "Khan", it's only Original!Spock that refers to him as Khan Noonien Singh) is found and reanimated by Section 31 to spearhead a militarization effort, he's given a cover identity and all that.
Let us not forget that in the ST timeline, Khan is a "Worse than Hitler"-type of war criminal, a product of a transhuimanist genetic engineering effort that went so far off the rails that genetic enhancements are a big nono in ST. Why would even Section 31 let someone this recognizable run around?
Title: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness [SPOILERS}
Post by: Black Wolf on May 15, 2013, 04:21:34 am
Gonna have to go into spoilers here, but I really don't think this is much of an issue.

In this film, Khan (And he has no other name, he never calls himself anything but "Khan", it's only Original!Spock that refers to him as Khan Noonien Singh) is found and reanimated by Section 31 to spearhead a militarization effort, he's given a cover identity and all that.
Let us not forget that in the ST timeline, Khan is a "Worse than Hitler"-type of war criminal, a product of a transhuimanist genetic engineering effort that went so far off the rails that genetic enhancements are a big nono in ST. Why would even Section 31 let someone this recognizable run around?

Nobody recognized him in Space Seed either, and there's always the possibilty of surgical manipulation in the ST universe to make him unrecognizable even to those who would. Remember too that the eugenics wars were hundreds of years before ST, and a lot of records were lost - there's a lot of reasons to accept that he could "run around" - especially since I highly doubt he was permitted to move around much outside of Marcus' and Section 31's requirements.
Title: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness [SPOILERS}
Post by: Phantom Hoover on May 15, 2013, 06:30:45 am
I can't give this movie money due to the simple fact that re-casting Khan as a white guy is incredibly racist.

Because casting him with a Mexican actor was so much better?

E: a Mexican actor whose parents were both first-generation Spanish, too. Seems to me he was already pretty Europeanwashed, at least.
Title: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness [SPOILERS}
Post by: AdmiralRalwood on May 15, 2013, 03:09:01 pm
I can't give this movie money due to the simple fact that re-casting Khan as a white guy is incredibly racist.

Because casting him with a Mexican actor was so much better?

E: a Mexican actor whose parents were both first-generation Spanish, too. Seems to me he was already pretty Europeanwashed, at least.
I concur that it would have been better to cast an actor actually from India... but there are degrees of wrongness, and you have to admit that "Caucasian" and "Mexican" are two very different degrees of wrongness here.
Title: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness [SPOILERS}
Post by: The E on May 15, 2013, 03:17:46 pm
Actually, no, I don't.

Don't get me wrong, I know that whitewashing is an issue, but honestly? When someone like Cumberbatch puts out a really great performance, I don't care about how he isn't indian enough to portrait a character whose in-universe background is acknowledged to be somewhat sketchy.
Title: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness [SPOILERS}
Post by: Phantom Hoover on May 15, 2013, 03:19:27 pm
By my reckoning he was being played by a 'Caucasian' actor beforehand anyway; or do Spaniards not count as Caucasian? I mean, I understand that there's a problem here, I just think you're being entirely unfair to this film by singling it out as incredibly racist and boycotting it.
Title: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness [SPOILERS}
Post by: General Battuta on May 15, 2013, 03:22:24 pm
A Hispanic actor and a white actor do not face nearly the same difficulty in finding substantial roles in Hollywood. They are not both Caucasian in Hollywood's eyes.

I don't think he's being unfair at all. This is a huge systemic problem in Hollywood and it only goes one way. POC roles are given to white actors, white roles are hardly ever given to POC actors. In the US if you're from a Spanish-speaking country (less so Spain, but still) you are not part of the racial majority.
Title: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness [SPOILERS}
Post by: An4ximandros on May 15, 2013, 03:32:59 pm
 It's not about being Caucassian, it's about being part of the Caucassian Anglo-Saxon master race phylum.

 Seriously? I could understand if there was malignant intent behind the decision to recast Khan, but just because a "Non-Mexican" played the role of a man from Northern India is foolish. If anything, they should have gotten someone from Bollywood to cast Khan.
Title: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness [SPOILERS}
Post by: The E on May 15, 2013, 03:34:04 pm
But here's the thing for me: Benedict Cumberbatch is pretty good in the role. I enjoyed watching him be evil and superhuman. As far as this film is concerned, he was a good choice to play the main antagonist. I do not doubt that there are actors of other, more appropriate skin tones who could do the same job, but none of them were cast for the role. Whether that is an expression of JJ Abrams' or the Hollywood casting system's basic racism is not really relevant to me enjoying Cumberbatch's performance here, and I quite simply do not care enough about these issues, or Trek continuity, in order to do things like buying tickets to one movie and watching this one instead (Not that that would be possible in the cinemas around here anyway).
Title: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness [SPOILERS}
Post by: Al-Rik on May 15, 2013, 03:37:56 pm
I can't give this movie money due to the simple fact that re-casting Khan as a white guy is incredibly racist.

Because casting him with a Mexican actor was so much better?

E: a Mexican actor whose parents were both first-generation Spanish, too. Seems to me he was already pretty Europeanwashed, at least.

Well, Indians (the real ones, not the Native Americans) are Aryans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan#In_Indian.2FSanskrit_literature) too, so  it's not racist to let play a white actor the role of a transgenetic Indian Übermensch. ;)

The Problem with Kahn in that movie is an other one:
He is just an ordinary villain. Even after he gets everything he wants he tries to kill Kirk and the Enterprise - without any good reason.
The Kahn of Space Seed was more ambivalent.
Title: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness [SPOILERS}
Post by: Mongoose on May 15, 2013, 03:45:16 pm
I understand the concerns over white-washing when we're talking about roles where the character's original race is important, or where the story environment suggests that characters should be of a certain race, like that godawful live-action The Last Airbender mess.  But when it comes to Khan, we have a character with an Indian-derived name who was originally played by a Mexican actor, and the character's specific race didn't have any impact at all on who he was, so I don't see how this is an issue.
Title: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness [SPOILERS}
Post by: General Battuta on May 15, 2013, 03:56:43 pm
It's an issue to the extent that this flexibility always runs one way and not the other.
Title: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness [SPOILERS}
Post by: NGTM-1R on May 15, 2013, 03:58:29 pm
Simple thought exercise then.

Who would you actually have play Khan?
Title: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness [SPOILERS}
Post by: General Battuta on May 15, 2013, 04:05:56 pm
You wanna stick with Montalban, Javier Bardem!
Title: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness [SPOILERS}
Post by: Phantom Hoover on May 15, 2013, 04:09:48 pm
isn't he about as old as montalban was in space seed? i mean the main gimmick of a prequel is that everyone has to look younger than they were in the original
Title: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness [SPOILERS}
Post by: AdmiralRalwood on May 15, 2013, 04:49:40 pm
But here's the thing for me: Benedict Cumberbatch is pretty good in the role. I enjoyed watching him be evil and superhuman. As far as this film is concerned, he was a good choice to play the main antagonist. I do not doubt that there are actors of other, more appropriate skin tones who could do the same job, but none of them were cast for the role. Whether that is an expression of JJ Abrams' or the Hollywood casting system's basic racism is not really relevant to me enjoying Cumberbatch's performance here, and I quite simply do not care enough about these issues, or Trek continuity, in order to do things like buying tickets to one movie and watching this one instead (Not that that would be possible in the cinemas around here anyway).
I'm not saying that Benedict Cumberbatch didn't put in a fantastic performance (knowing Cumberbatch, it was probably amazing), but it would have been ridiculously easy to have Benedict Cumberbatch play a genetically-enhanced villain without making it racist, and that would to have simply had him not be Khan. The thing about Khan is that he's supposed to be somebody's idea of a perfect human... and he's not white. That is kind of important.

I was a lot more excited about the movie when they were hinting he was going to be Gary Mitchell (who has the benefit of being white in the original series).
Title: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness [SPOILERS}
Post by: General Battuta on May 15, 2013, 05:02:22 pm
Could've made him Joachim and saved Khan for a sequel!
Title: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness [SPOILERS}
Post by: Phantom Hoover on May 15, 2013, 05:20:05 pm
The thing about Khan is that he's supposed to be somebody's idea of a perfect human... and he's not white.

wow that's actually progressive in an intelligent and non-self-congratulatory way

who came up with khan, it can't have been roddenberry
Title: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness [SPOILERS}
Post by: General Battuta on May 15, 2013, 07:17:41 pm
Khan was originally like an Aryan superman during the script but I believe he was altered during script revisions (before or after casting Montalban I'm not sure).

They originally wanted Benicio Del Toro for STID, I guess he couldn't do it.
Title: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness [SPOILERS}
Post by: Phantom Hoover on May 15, 2013, 07:27:43 pm
so can we accept that, in this case, boycotting the film is probably a disproportionate response given that their first choice was a hispanic actor?
Title: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness [SPOILERS}
Post by: AdmiralRalwood on May 15, 2013, 09:00:12 pm
so can we accept that, in this case, boycotting the film is probably a disproportionate response given that their first choice was a hispanic actor?
I never called for a boycott; I just said that I, personally, can't give this movie money. If that's not a dealbreaker for you, then by all means enjoy it.
Title: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness [SPOILERS}
Post by: jg18 on May 16, 2013, 02:04:51 am
Just saw the movie in an IMAX theater and I'll agree that it's really good. I gave it a 1/2 rating using The Watch Test** which is saying quite a lot for someone who rented the first movie and stopped it sometime after
Spoiler:
the Red Death kills a lot of people and they meet Leonard Nimoy and stuff (the plot just became a mixed-up mess at that point, my opinion of course)

I think I'll stay out of the question on casting choices, though.

**The Watch TestTM is a nice alternative to the usual star-based scale for rating movies. It just assumes you're wearing a watch. The score starts at zero. While watching the movie, you add 1 point for every time you look at your watch and 1/2 point for every time you really want to look at your watch but don't. The score is just the sum. Zero is a perfect score, and there's no upper bound on the score for a bad movie.
Title: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness [SPOILERS}
Post by: watsisname on May 16, 2013, 11:19:51 am
Just got back from an IMAX showing.

It was pretty spectacular.  Some "argh" moments, to be sure, but overall I enjoyed it even better than the first.

Had to divert power away from the part of my brain that knows orbital mechanics, though. :S  FULL POWER TO EYE-CANDY, WHEEEE
Title: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness [SPOILERS}
Post by: Suongadon on May 16, 2013, 12:13:50 pm
**The Watch TestTM

Does wishing your watch could fire a laser to smite the ****bags sitting two rows ahead who can't shut the **** up count? I might have to give the movie a 200 if so and that'd be pretty depressing.

Movie itself: a bit more 'meh' than good. Everyone saying it was so great makes me feel like I'm missing something.
Title: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness [SPOILERS}
Post by: StarSlayer on May 16, 2013, 12:18:21 pm
**The Watch TestTM is a nice alternative to the usual star-based scale for rating movies. It just assumes you're wearing a watch. The score starts at zero. While watching the movie, you add 1 point for every time you look at your watch and 1/2 point for every time you really want to look at your watch but don't. The score is just the sum. Zero is a perfect score, and there's no upper bound on the score for a bad movie.

That test seems to grade how boring a film is rather than providing a metric for how good it is.  Plenty of bad movies will slip through the cracks of that test.  The Room for example is a tour de force in awful, but could potentially score really well in your test because it's like watching a train wreck unfold.  Granted it provides no lower bound on the other hand its upper bound is capped at "It kept my ADD at bay." 
Title: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness [SPOILERS}
Post by: Phantom Hoover on May 16, 2013, 12:19:12 pm
Just got back from an IMAX showing.

It was pretty spectacular.  Some "argh" moments, to be sure, but overall I enjoyed it even better than the first.

Had to divert power away from the part of my brain that knows orbital mechanics, though. :S  FULL POWER TO EYE-CANDY, WHEEEE

the most important part of learning orbital mechanics is learning how to forget about orbital mechanics when watching scifi
Title: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness [SPOILERS}
Post by: watsisname on May 16, 2013, 01:25:44 pm
Quote
The Room

OH HAI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRASDyUCI4s)
Title: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness [SPOILERS}
Post by: NGTM-1R on May 16, 2013, 02:58:24 pm
Actually worth the extra money to see in 3D, unlike Iron Man 3.

Also, some poor bastard got credited as "Enterprise Redshirt".
Title: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness [SPOILERS}
Post by: Scourge of Ages on May 16, 2013, 03:35:22 pm
Just saw it this morning, and I'd like to say it was pretty good.

Well I'd like to, because I can't think of anything wrong with the movie. But still, I'm feeling a little disappointed in it. I just feel like it was missing something, something that I can't put my finger on.

So far, after a few hours thinking about it, it seems to just lack any of the tension that made Wrath of Khan a classic. And it also lacked any sort of battle of wits, like you would expect from Khan, somebody who's super-strong but also super-humanly smart.

Warning: Spoilers not in spoiler tags for readability

Tension: "Oh man, Sulu is totally showing his whole hand, and stating over a communication channel aimed at the Klingon home world that there's a Federation ship, prepared to fire Federation weapons, at Klingon sovereign territory, where there happen to be high-ranking Federation officers. That can't possibly be a good idea." Oh, it didn't matter.
Tension: "The Enterprise is dead in space because sabotage! Will the dreadnaught blow it up?" No, the warp drive was repaired. "But will it actually work well enough to escape???" Yep, works just fine.
Tension: "Oh carp the Enterprise is getting blown to pieces!" But we've already established that the Admiral's daughter is on board and can diffuse the situation, and Scotty is on board the dreadnaught and can diffuse that.
Tension: "Khan never planned to spare anybody! He's going to kill everyone now that he recovered his crew!" Not likely, since we already figured out EXACTLY what Spock did a few minutes ago. They diffused the tension before it even showed up.
Tension: "All that damage knocked the warp core out of alignment, we're going to dieeeeeee!" Nope, not if you've ever seen a science fiction movie before. I wonder, which of the only two people in a position to fix the ship will heroically fix the ship?
Tension: "Well Kirk's dead. Dang." Nope! Khan has magic blood that will probably bring things back to life. Hey check out that tribble.

Potential: "I bet Khan had a really good reason for shooting up all those high-ranking command crews." Nope, it was 'cause he was mad.
Potential: "Well, at least he's going to have an awesome plan for escaping/enacting the next phase of his 'screw everything up' thing." Nope, magically beamed away to Qo'noS.
Potential: "I'm sure he at least had a great reason for beaming into the heart of the Klingon Empire. To start a galaxy-breaking war? He has some sort of alliance with the Klingons to bring death to his enemies?" Nope. Not at all. Might as well have been deep space.
Potential: "Ah, I see. His whole plan all along was to steal the dreadnaught and rescue his people!" But how could he have possibly known that the admiral would load up all 72 of them onto the Enterprise, that Kirk would try to apprehend him instead of using the long-range torpedoes that Khan himself helped build, and that the admiral would personally command the dreadnaught to come secretly blow up the evidence.
Potential: "Oh yeah, here we go. The Enterprise and the dreadnaught are crippled, no weapons, no engines. Now we get into the battle of wits and mind games. First person to fire a shot or escape wins. Yes." Oh they're just getting sucked down to Earth (which I should mention is a lot further away than The Moon at this point).
Potential: "Khan's alive and the dreadnaught is moving! Of course! Here's our chance for a final showdown!" Nope, he's ramming San Francisco because he just really dislikes that city.
Potential: "Well at least it's the Enterprise's chance for some cool move or sacrifice to save thousands of lives on the surface." Nope, just dodge and watch the ship crash.
Potential: "Oh man, Spock is pissed. Will he be able to defeat Khan in a protracted hand-to-hand battle, or will there finally be some sort of battle of wits???" Ok, protracted hand-to-hand battle. Can't complain I guess.


Oh look, I put my finger on it. Go me. Sorry for the long spoilers.
Title: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness [SPOILERS}
Post by: jg18 on May 17, 2013, 12:45:29 am
**The Watch TestTM is a nice alternative to the usual star-based scale for rating movies. It just assumes you're wearing a watch. The score starts at zero. While watching the movie, you add 1 point for every time you look at your watch and 1/2 point for every time you really want to look at your watch but don't. The score is just the sum. Zero is a perfect score, and there's no upper bound on the score for a bad movie.

That test seems to grade how boring a film is rather than providing a metric for how good it is.  Plenty of bad movies will slip through the cracks of that test.  The Room for example is a tour de force in awful, but could potentially score really well in your test because it's like watching a train wreck unfold.  Granted it provides no lower bound on the other hand its upper bound is capped at "It kept my ADD at bay." 

Depends on how you define "good" in the context of movies. I define it as "entertaining". If I'm not checking my watch, that's a good sign that I find the movie entertaining. If I'm constantly checking my watch, that means I can't wait for it to end. (Keep in mind that I rented the first Abrams Star Trek movie and couldn't even sit through the whole thing.) It sounds like The Room is arguably entertaining and thus would probably score low, although I suspect that its watch test score would be much higher on the second viewing, since watching the same unfolding train wreck repeatedly sounds pretty dull. Maybe you need multiple viewings to get an accurate value? Or there are just movies worth watching exactly once and others worth watching more than once? Incidentally, I'm seeing it again with my co-workers tomorrow (it was with other people yesterday), so we'll see what score it gets then.

Moving back on-topic: Yeah, Scourge, I can see the movie had a bunch of flaws and shortcomings that I ignored while watching it. I really need to get around to watching the original movies.
Title: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness [SPOILERS}
Post by: Axem on May 18, 2013, 10:59:07 pm
I quite enjoyed the movie. While the first was quite messy in my opinion, trying to establish all the characters and establish a new timeline; this one was much more enjoyable and started to show that sort of Star Trek idealism that was found in the series.

My only problems were: Did it really need to be Khan? Like AdmiralRalwood said, it could have been someone else, and I would have been just fine with that. I sort of get within the context they brought him back, but I don't know how well a 300-year old man can help design new weapons and ships... ("George Washington, help us defeat the Nazis! They have tanks and airplanes!" "What's an airplane? Can you shoot at it with a musket?")

And I think by using Khan, it almost invites criticism on how the movie wasn't The Wrath of Khan. But I did enjoy the flipped scenarios between Kirk and Spock, its sort of slightly redeemed with that.

Also everything in this new Star Trek universe is like 5 minutes away from each other. Someone transported from Earth to Kronos? No problem. Warp there and back in no time. It just really decreases the scale of the universe and makes everything seem less grand.

Still, the meat of the movie was very delicious.
Title: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness [SPOILERS}
Post by: An4ximandros on May 18, 2013, 11:19:59 pm
 They realized that Trek ships move at the speed of plot, so they maxed out the convenient speed drives. :P
Title: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness [SPOILERS}
Post by: Axem on May 18, 2013, 11:34:44 pm
And despite having speeds that can get from Kronos to Earth in under a minute, there always seems to be a startling lack of non-Enterprise ships at any given point. :p
Title: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness [SPOILERS}
Post by: NGTM-1R on May 19, 2013, 03:06:55 am
Warp speeds work much more like hyperspace, here...
Title: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness [SPOILERS}
Post by: Phantom Hoover on May 19, 2013, 05:37:09 am
They always worked like hyperspace; Trek has never been consistent with its hand waving.
Title: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness [SPOILERS}
Post by: General Battuta on May 19, 2013, 08:08:39 pm
This was a decent movie that really squandered two excellent antagonists.
Title: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness [SPOILERS}
Post by: NGTM-1R on May 19, 2013, 09:18:09 pm
This was a decent movie that really squandered two excellent antagonists.

Alex Cross squandered an antagonist.

This movie simply could have used them better.
Title: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness [SPOILERS}
Post by: StarSlayer on June 09, 2013, 12:06:37 am
Finally got to see it at IMAX with my friends, enjoyed it a lot. 

"Then the holy 1701 touched the old gods of The Mountain and they were smote."

That's going to be an awesome ****ing religion.

Though I do hope the next installment pits the Enterprise against something that doesn't totally outclass her, the latest two outings she's gotten her ass handed to her.
Title: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness [SPOILERS}
Post by: mjn.mixael on June 09, 2013, 12:26:44 am
It's not a Star Trek movie if they don't trash the Enterprise...
Title: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness [SPOILERS}
Post by: esarai on June 09, 2013, 12:27:05 am
I can't wait until the Nibirians finally develop warp capability, the Federation is all "'sup?" and their immediate response is '...you mother f**kers.'
Title: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness [SPOILERS}
Post by: NGTM-1R on June 09, 2013, 12:52:28 am
Though I do hope the next installment pits the Enterprise against something that doesn't totally outclass her, the latest two outings she's gotten her ass handed to her.

I think the only series to give the ship a proper chance to stretch its legs was DS9, where the Defiant got a few "I was made to kill BORG, resistance only makes me harder *pewpewpew*" moments.
Title: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness [SPOILERS}
Post by: StarSlayer on June 09, 2013, 01:37:19 am
I dunno, she's already pretty homely compared to the TMP 1701, it would be nice if they'd at least let her give as good as she gets next time.  It so bad my girlfriend actually made the observation, between being giddy about how much she liked the film, that this Enterprise gets busted up all the time.
Title: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness [SPOILERS}
Post by: Luis Dias on June 11, 2013, 05:39:34 pm
You wanna stick with Montalban, Javier Bardem!

Because that guy ain't caucasian and successful. /S

Really, this whole shebang about Khan being whitewashed is the most irritating, obnoxious hollywood ****fest that has crossed my eyes for the past month.

That's mostly because the *only* redeeming quality of ST:ID *IS* Cumberbatch.

But not all - really, the "whitewashing" discussion ought to be interesting, yet it is not. The true fact is that this ain't your granddaddy's Star Trek. Roddenberry's Star Trek was always about crossing really outlandish boundaries of social norms. A Black Woman as the fourth-in-command inside the Federation flagship! A Russian helm! An alien second in command! Next, a bald guy in command (and French!) because "no one in the 24th century will give a damn if you are bald or not"! A frakkin android as a commander inside your own flagship! A Woman as captain!

You would think that coming into the 21st century, new "frontiers" could be crossed? No. J.J. doesn't give a **** about social revolutions and a vision for the future. He wants an adventchur in spaace with lazors and "punch-its" and warpships and Xplosions and ****.

Or I am being too grumpy. He *did* place two hot furries having sex with Kirk after all. Real social revolution right there.

That's the real victim here. Without this soul, Star Trek ain't anymore itself, people feel it and then say stupid things like "Ahh, yeah Cumberbatch was badly cast COZ HE'S WHITE". Really. Is that the problem here? Because I can write a wall of text comparing this ****fest of a movie with the original one to which this tries to pay homage to. I'll spare you the wall, just bear with me for a paragraph or two.

The original movie had multiple layers of thematics that were pervasive in the entire movie that danced between each other, collated several different scales of problems and made sense of them all together, tying themselves amazingly well at the end. Spock gives the book A Tale of two cities as a birthday present to Kirk, a middle-age-crisis man who is unsure what to do with his life, but the words in that book will be the most important lesson. The "sci-fi-problem" in the movie is a weapon that is a creation device. Brilliant connundrum, philosophically fascinating, which at the same time marks the endgame with Khan and the rebirth of Kirk's soul symbolized by the terraforming by the Genesis device. Its destructive power symbolized Khan's dark want of revenge, Moby Dick and so on and so on.

What to make of this new charade of a flick? Is there even anything to read in it other than click-BOOM bazziiiin, ZUT, punch it!,letsgo,WARP, OMGITSKHANwithBASSVOICE!splash,TREASON!Laz0rBEAMrocktRUNRUNRUN Win!! ?

Any motif? Any symbolism at all? Isn't the new not-really-a-sacrifice in the end NOW WITH A TWIST! just tasteless? I mean really, now they are not even allowed to die in present-day films?

I didn't like this one movie. One. Bit. And I couldn't care less about what race is Cumberbatch, FFS.

PS: You know, now that I think of it, it has another redeeming quality: it understands its complete camp-****ty quality and dares to cast Robocop as the main antagonist. I was always waiting for ED-209 to come up and shoot everyone up and turn the movie into something at least true to its material.
Title: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness [SPOILERS}
Post by: Phantom Hoover on June 11, 2013, 06:06:12 pm
wait wait wait, do you actually think ~roddenberry's vision~ was actually worth giving a **** about
Title: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness [SPOILERS}
Post by: Luis Dias on June 11, 2013, 06:17:25 pm
No of course not, it's much better to have a rollercoaster hollywood laz0r ****fest of nothingness on screen. At least brains do not run the risk from usage overheating.
Title: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness [SPOILERS}
Post by: NGTM-1R on June 11, 2013, 06:23:56 pm
No of course not, it's much better to have a rollercoaster hollywood laz0r ****fest of nothingness on screen. At least brains do not run the risk from usage overheating.

I direct you to DS9 for Trek without Roddenberry's vision.

More seriously the man was a hack and the only reason NextGen lasted as long as it did was they quietly removed him from any creative control sometime in Season 2.
Title: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness [SPOILERS}
Post by: Phantom Hoover on June 11, 2013, 06:34:32 pm
No of course not, it's much better to have a rollercoaster hollywood laz0r ****fest of nothingness on screen. At least brains do not run the risk from usage overheating.

ahahahaha

roddenberry's vision had **** all to do with intelligent thought and everything to do with loudly validating himself and his ideals by writing a world where they were never seriously challenged
Title: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness [SPOILERS}
Post by: Luis Dias on June 11, 2013, 06:36:58 pm
Forget Roddenberry. The man was crazy, but at least he was something. Yeah, I'd prefer a crazy film that bombed to this piece of nothingness, but then again TWOK wasn't Roddenberry's and it was good (I have some complaints about it, but that's another story).

Thing is, this movie never accomplishes anything that it proposes. It begins ideas and then botches them on and on and on, as if it's written as a really bad quality series, nevermind a movie. Subtlety? Ah! Big Bad Man is Mad and has a Big Bad Black Ship With Lots'o Guns and Big Bad Robocop at the helm. The lack of tragic elements in this movie is astonishing, specially considering how much potential it had on them. Not one ideological struggle. Not even caracther build-up: Uhura's anger at Spock is entirely due to miscommunication, Spock was actually even more emotional than she even thought was possible, not less!

My thoughts are really incoherent and I apologize for it. But I honestly feel one could make a thesis on how obscene this movie plays in ideological terms. In a nutshell, drama and tragedy are substituted by adrenaline shots.

PS: REALLY, I do think I'm on to something here. Because it is *not* indifferent that a team that made a killing by doing a series while hiding they had nothing in its core at all then goes to make this thing. It's like professional magicians.
Title: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness [SPOILERS}
Post by: General Battuta on June 11, 2013, 07:05:50 pm
Yeah, I kinda feel the same way, though I've had a hard time putting my finger on it. It's like the film constantly sets up potentially smart interesting scenes and then does the dumbest possible things with them.
Title: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness [SPOILERS}
Post by: An4ximandros on June 11, 2013, 07:16:37 pm
 I believe this guy really nails the film's problems: http://sfdebris.com/videos/special/intodarkness.asp
Title: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness [SPOILERS}
Post by: Scourge of Ages on June 11, 2013, 07:57:03 pm
Yeah, I kinda feel the same way, though I've had a hard time putting my finger on it. It's like the film constantly sets up potentially smart interesting scenes and then does the dumbest possible things with them.

Aye, same here. Also what Luis said, most of it.
Title: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness [SPOILERS}
Post by: BloodEagle on June 11, 2013, 08:03:00 pm
http://redlettermedia.com/half-in-the-bag-star-trek-into-darkness/

http://redlettermedia.com/mr-plinkett-star-trek-into-reference/

For those unaware.
Title: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness [SPOILERS}
Post by: Scourge of Ages on June 11, 2013, 10:29:29 pm
*gasp!* Plinkett did STiD!
Title: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness [SPOILERS}
Post by: Luis Dias on June 11, 2013, 10:46:55 pm
It's half in the bag... not exactly "Plinkett"...
Title: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness [SPOILERS}
Post by: Scourge of Ages on June 12, 2013, 01:30:21 am
Aye, after I watched Plinkett's bit, I learned that it wasn't a full review, just a sort of list of the parallels the film tried. I'll watch the HitB later.
Title: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness [SPOILERS}
Post by: MP-Ryan on June 16, 2013, 11:46:36 pm
Wife and I went to it today.

I hear what the more critical among you are saying, but I can't say I agree with most of it - frankly, Abrams' ST movies have been the most entertaining (and yet sufficiently nostalgic) of the entire run of ST movies to date.  I say this as someone who has watched damn close to every episode of Trek shows ever made.  Frankly, I think this was actually better than the original Trek II in terms of overall plot.  And the most notorious problem with Trek movies - abysmal pacing and technobabble - is entirely absent in these latest films.

Cumberbatch was brilliant in the role; and while perhaps they could have changed the name, there were some convenient tie-ins with alt-universe Spock (which set up the Spock-Kirk reversal that was brilliantly executed) which would have been missed were the character name changed.  As for the fact that he's white - I don't think it really matters in the larger scale of the movie.

The reproduction/reversal of the Kirk-Spock dialog after the warp core repair was excellent.  Bonus points to whomever wrote that in.  Ditto for including the core characters of the episode 2-4 arc from the originals (except Saavik, wtf).  For a non-Trek fan (like my wife) these films are both accessible and enjoyable - she's liked both immensely.  For a Trek fan like me, there are constant parallels with the original films that make this believable as an alternate universe, and those parallels are tied in in a logical way, rather than hacked together.  I think Abrams managed to strike a pretty good balance between those elements.

There were a few things here and there that irked me slightly, but the general feeling I had coming out of the theatre (and the 3D was totally worth it for this movie) was one of satisfaction.  I'm happy to say I consider that one of the best Trek films ever made, arguably better than "Wrath of Khan" in several ways.

Best of all:  no remake of "Search for Spock" will now ever be made, and that is frickin' fantastic news.
Title: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness [SPOILERS}
Post by: MP-Ryan on June 16, 2013, 11:50:53 pm
*gasp!* Plinkett did STiD!

People find that irritating atrocity entertaining?  I had to shut Plinkett off after about 30 seconds, it's that bad.  I realize it's a character, but as voices go that's one that make me reach for the off-switch or a shotgun, whichever's closest :P
Title: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness [SPOILERS}
Post by: Luis Dias on June 17, 2013, 04:27:00 am
Wife and I went to it today.

I hear what the more critical among you are saying, but I can't say I agree with most of it - frankly, Abrams' ST movies have been the most entertaining (and yet sufficiently nostalgic) of the entire run of ST movies to date.  I say this as someone who has watched damn close to every episode of Trek shows ever made.  Frankly, I think this was actually better than the original Trek II in terms of overall plot.  And the most notorious problem with Trek movies - abysmal pacing and technobabble - is entirely absent in these latest films.

Cumberbatch was brilliant in the role; and while perhaps they could have changed the name, there were some convenient tie-ins with alt-universe Spock (which set up the Spock-Kirk reversal that was brilliantly executed) which would have been missed were the character name changed.  As for the fact that he's white - I don't think it really matters in the larger scale of the movie.

The reproduction/reversal of the Kirk-Spock dialog after the warp core repair was excellent.  Bonus points to whomever wrote that in.  Ditto for including the core characters of the episode 2-4 arc from the originals (except Saavik, wtf).  For a non-Trek fan (like my wife) these films are both accessible and enjoyable - she's liked both immensely.  For a Trek fan like me, there are constant parallels with the original films that make this believable as an alternate universe, and those parallels are tied in in a logical way, rather than hacked together.  I think Abrams managed to strike a pretty good balance between those elements.

There were a few things here and there that irked me slightly, but the general feeling I had coming out of the theatre (and the 3D was totally worth it for this movie) was one of satisfaction.  I'm happy to say I consider that one of the best Trek films ever made, arguably better than "Wrath of Khan" in several ways.

Best of all:  no remake of "Search for Spock" will now ever be made, and that is frickin' fantastic news.

I just gotta reply to this insane list of wrongness!

First to get the obvious out of the way:

YES, ST2 and probably all the other ST movies were filled with "boredom" (not so much technobabble, that were the series), and I would dare say more eggregious things than that (the obsession with Kirk in ST2 really puts me off in that movie).

Having said that, all the rest is terribad. I'll start with the easiest bit. No, this star trek has not a better plot than Khan, I dare you to summarize the plot in a representative fashion, without convoluting yourself up. You can't. The plot is basically a set-piece after set-piece with emotional and adrenaline connections between them (I can't get out of my head the innumerous "runs" characters do just to make ST "not a bore", Scotty is the worst offender here), without any hint of a overall thematic more sophisticated than "Hey zis is boom boom ships laz00rs and KHAAAN" joyride. I have the temerity to think that movies should aspire more than being a rollercoaster filled with one-liners and emotional quickies. This is the movie equivalent to the current "soundbyte" and marketing politics, the equivalent of current autotune's musical industry. There is no character arc anywhere. There is no logic in Khan's actions, nor motive.  There is no sense in general Marcus' actions anywhere, Spock is now an angst teenager who conceals emotions and Uhura gets mad at him for not wanting to jeopardize an entire ship for it. Kronos is a wasteland. There is *no story at all*.

Star Trek II at least *had* a story. And it was a good story with good concepts all interwoven and linked together. The concept of a "no-win scenario", the growing up of middle-aged Kirk into the acceptance that there *are* "no-win scenarios", through the sacrifice of a friend. The death of a world and its rebirth, paralleling the death of Spock and the appearance of a son. The Moby-Dick-like obsession of a deranged intelligent man against Kirk. And it all fits together.

I really can't make any attempt to "fit" anything in STiD without evolving an headache of frustration.

The reversal of Spock and Kirk's last scene is the ultimate sign of how the movies have grown so much in flair and degenerated so much in courage and content. If they were genuinely interested in making the reversal, then yes, you should have Kirk killed in the movie. But at no moment I was really "afraid" of having this character killed. "Yeah, they're gonna revive them..." and so they did. ST II's final sacrificial moment was a amazing moment and this one is just sad in how empty it is. It's like decaffeinated coffee all over the movie, disguised with lots of CGI, camera-shake and Scotty's runs.
Title: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness [SPOILERS}
Post by: The E on June 17, 2013, 04:31:29 am
I liked STID. Probably more than I should have, given its flaws.

But then, it's an Abrams film, right? Expecting any more sophistication out of one of those is as futile as expecting deep insights from Michael Bay. I knew what I was getting into when I bought the ticket, and I wasn't disappointed with what I got.
Title: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness [SPOILERS}
Post by: Luis Dias on June 17, 2013, 04:38:15 am
That's probably the most optimistic take on the movie one can have without discarding reality.

Although it scares me quite a lot regarding SW VII.
Title: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness [SPOILERS}
Post by: NGTM-1R on June 17, 2013, 04:42:06 am
Ironically, Luis just offered the best defense of the movie in the thread by so rabidly attacking it. "I CAN'T FIGURE OUT KHAN'S MOTIVE"

He spelled it out for you, son. If you can miss that...

Title: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness [SPOILERS}
Post by: Luis Dias on June 17, 2013, 05:14:58 am
I'm not your son, NG, and your sarcasm about "best defense" coupled with a mistake of mine was unnecessary from you. But you are right, Khan's motives are spelled out. Too bad that the movie makes the whole schtick surrounding his frozen crew so unnecessarily convoluted, I can't still makes head over tails when was Khan working for Marcus or against Marcus. Was he trying to kill Marcus in that shootout, or just giving him the excuse he needed to arrange his war against the Klingons? If the first, why go to Kronos? And so on.

Title: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness [SPOILERS}
Post by: NGTM-1R on June 17, 2013, 05:41:58 am
I'm not your son, NG, and your sarcasm about "best defense" coupled with a mistake of mine was unnecessary from you.

No, it was completely necessary, because people do that sort of thing all the time and that kind of bull**** annoys me a great deal. Half the criticism I saw leveled at the last Tron was of that variety. It betrays a lack of effort and attention, one that's basically at the center of all the criticism you've made.

And also, it's not sarcasm.

Your efforts here are another example; Khan was never working for Marcus within the confines of the movie. The bombing's target is directed at Marcus' efforts and it is not one that could be easily used to create or justify a casus belli. (Blowing up a library is bad, but this is not the sort of 9/11-esque attack that will provoke the Federation into a war or produce widespread support in the Federation for taking actions that could provoke a war.) Assuming from any point forward that his actions are directly serving Marcus, rather than being opportunistically exploited by Marcus, is effectively creating your own conspiracy theory.

Why run to Qu'onos? Where else would the Federation hesitate to follow? Marcus is lucky to have an emotionally overwrought and made-a-career-of-breaking-the-rules Jim Kirk to try and save his plan, you don't get that lucky twice, so off he sends Kirk (nice callback to the first movie/role reversal). This hinges on Kirk's relationship with Pike clouding his judgement and his inexperience and lack of caution as a commanding officer to start the war.
Title: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness [SPOILERS}
Post by: NGTM-1R on June 17, 2013, 05:49:03 am
I should note there's plenty of legitimate criticism to be made about this movie, and it's been done inside this thread (Scourge for example). But people coming at the plot of movies typically do so because they weren't paying attention these days, and that annoys the hell out of me.
Title: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness [SPOILERS}
Post by: Luis Dias on June 17, 2013, 08:43:22 am
You're too easily annoyed by people who do not make any money at producing a series of words. It may be well true that I haven't analysed sufficiently in rigor all these things that irritate me in the movie, cross-checked them and so on, and you are also more than entitled to say "you are not right here and there". But why the constant sarcasm against a coffee-table level discussion?

Also, your justifications regarding Kronos do not satisfy me. They still reek of "lets glue this stuff here despite it having next to zero relevance to anything at all". If anything it shows Khan to be stupid (or impossibly genius, killing Marcus will get his people back, on the off-chance that Marcus will load a ship with his own 72 weapons, on the off-chance the captain of that ship has more scruples than Marcus himself... talk about batman gambits), and Klingons to be overtly allowing in their borders.
Title: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness [SPOILERS}
Post by: MP-Ryan on June 17, 2013, 10:01:06 am
Oh, Luis, you're funny :P

Having said that, all the rest is terribad. I'll start with the easiest bit. No, this star trek has not a better plot than Khan, I dare you to summarize the plot in a representative fashion, without convoluting yourself up. You can't.

On the contrary.  After the movie was over, I was telling my wife about "Wrath of Khan" and managed to summarize that movie and the motivations of its characters in about 3 sentences.  No way I could manage that with Into Darkness.

Quote
The plot is basically a set-piece after set-piece with emotional and adrenaline connections between them (I can't get out of my head the innumerous "runs" characters do just to make ST "not a bore", Scotty is the worst offender here), without any hint of a overall thematic more sophisticated than "Hey zis is boom boom ships laz00rs and KHAAAN" joyride. I have the temerity to think that movies should aspire more than being a rollercoaster filled with one-liners and emotional quickies. This is the movie equivalent to the current "soundbyte" and marketing politics, the equivalent of current autotune's musical industry.

Really?  You don't think there's a connecting theme to this movie?  I think you need to watch it again.  Like NGTM-1R said, you apparently missed the majority of the content.

Quote
There is no character arc anywhere. There is no logic in Khan's actions, nor motive.  There is no sense in general Marcus' actions anywhere, Spock is now an angst teenager who conceals emotions and Uhura gets mad at him for not wanting to jeopardize an entire ship for it. Kronos is a wasteland. There is *no story at all*.

Bull****.  Kirk and Spock both go through character arcs, Marcus' actions are spelled out for you from the moment you first meet the man, and Khan's motives are also laid out for you, although his ultimate goals and background remain a mystery to the audience (an acceptable mystery at that).  There is quite a bit of story packed into this movie amidst the action.

Quote
Star Trek II at least *had* a story. And it was a good story with good concepts all interwoven and linked together. The concept of a "no-win scenario", the growing up of middle-aged Kirk into the acceptance that there *are* "no-win scenarios", through the sacrifice of a friend. The death of a world and its rebirth, paralleling the death of Spock and the appearance of a son. The Moby-Dick-like obsession of a deranged intelligent man against Kirk. And it all fits together.

Star Trek II is among the most over-rated movies ever made.  Allow me to summarize the plot for you:
1.  Genetically-advanced madman wants revenge on Kirk for actions which occurred ENTIRELY off-screen during the original series.
2.  Said madman takes over Federation starship.
3.  Kirk, full of bravado, walks straight into a trap and learns some humility.
4.  Technobabble hand-waving about Genesis device goes here.
5.  Kirk learns his lesson when his friend Spock dies...
6.  ...oh wait, Spock didn't really die anyway.

Wrath of Khan's plot really wasn't that good.  It gets a lot of nostalgia and rose-coloured glasses treatment by Trek fans, but on its own its a medicore movie at best filled with a lot of technobabble, a lot of egotistical focus on Kirk that is ultimately wasted, and a lot of boredom in between.  It is by far the best of the ST movies made before Abrams' reboot, but that isn't saying much... in general, the ST films have been poor substitutes for what made the actual series' so great.

Quote
The reversal of Spock and Kirk's last scene is the ultimate sign of how the movies have grown so much in flair and degenerated so much in courage and content. If they were genuinely interested in making the reversal, then yes, you should have Kirk killed in the movie. But at no moment I was really "afraid" of having this character killed. "Yeah, they're gonna revive them..." and so they did. ST II's final sacrificial moment was a amazing moment and this one is just sad in how empty it is. It's like decaffeinated coffee all over the movie, disguised with lots of CGI, camera-shake and Scotty's runs.

That reversal was perhaps the best moment in any remake film I've seen, not just Trek.  It did so many things - it pulled in Trek fans who've seen Wrath of Khan because the dialogue was entirely replicated; it connected these alternate universes in an interesting way that shows, despite history being entirely altered, there are some events that are so important that they will still occur, albeit with slight differences; it allowed both Kirk and Spock's characters to finish their developmental arc (Spock's character did not experience a change in Wrath of Khan).

While I agree that the tension could have been heightened - the foreshadowing concerning Khan's regenerative abilities would have been sufficient from the beginning without the resurrected Tribble - it also could have been seen as a deux ex machina device had it just been pulled out at the end again.  Killing Kirk entirely really wasn't an option.

STID missed some opportunities in a few places - I thought those 72 torpedoes were going to turn out to be Genesis devices like in the original movies, which could have made Khan's actions on Earth redemptive by preventing the annihilation of the Klingon homeworld - in general I still stand by my previous assertion that the Abrams' movies are actually the best of the Trek movies yet made (mostly because all the others are genuinely medicore to bad films that are not accessible to newcomers).

In general, I think Axem's page 2 assessment is bang-on.
Title: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness [SPOILERS}
Post by: Luis Dias on June 17, 2013, 10:35:25 am
On the contrary.  After the movie was over, I was telling my wife about "Wrath of Khan" and managed to summarize that movie and the motivations of its characters in about 3 sentences.  No way I could manage that with Into Darkness.

But that's a *compliment* to TWOK, not a *problem*. The fact that you are unable to do so about STiD is *precisely* what I was deriding. In fact you could summarize TWOK as "about life and death from the viewpoint of someone going through a middle-age crisis". If you check every good movie, you *will* be able to make such a kind of a succint summary.

And of course you won't be able to do so in STiD!!

Quote
Really?  You don't think there's a connecting theme to this movie?  I think you need to watch it again.  Like NGTM-1R said, you apparently missed the majority of the content.

Perhaps I do. I have apparently missed it. Anything beyond vague references about how the Federation is going through its own post 9/11, anything beyond some vague "happenings" in friendshipland between Kirk, Spock et al, terrorism and biogenetics... all is somewhat vaguely there I guess. But it never goes anywhere.

Quote
Star Trek II is among the most over-rated movies ever made.  Allow me to summarize the plot for you:
1.  Genetically-advanced madman wants revenge on Kirk for actions which occurred ENTIRELY off-screen during the original series.
2.  Said madman takes over Federation starship.
3.  Kirk, full of bravado, walks straight into a trap and learns some humility.
4.  Technobabble hand-waving about Genesis device goes here.
5.  Kirk learns his lesson when his friend Spock dies...
6.  ...oh wait, Spock didn't really die anyway.

Wrath of Khan's plot really wasn't that good.  It gets a lot of nostalgia and rose-coloured glasses treatment by Trek fans, but on its own its a medicore movie at best filled with a lot of technobabble, a lot of egotistical focus on Kirk that is ultimately wasted, and a lot of boredom in between.  It is by far the best of the ST movies made before Abrams' reboot, but that isn't saying much... in general, the ST films have been poor substitutes for what made the actual series' so great.

I'd say despite the film itself (which is a bore and I get angry at Kirk too many times), the story is indeed the best one ST has yet pulled so far. You missed the entire point of the movie. The movie is all about life and death and its portrayal is made by the character arcs, the plot devices, the metaphysical allegories, etc. The movie tries to ask this question to the viewers, How should we deal with death?, and to do so, they pull off amazingly good concepts, ideas and plot points to cover that question with very different answers or problems about it:

1. The no-win scenario: the notion that there are things in life that are just unwinnable, like death itself. In Kirk's words, "How we deal with death is at least as important as how we deal with life";
2. The unwillingness of Kirk to accept this "I don't believe in no-win scenarios";
3. The death drive of Khan which "tasks" Kirk on this issue;
4. Khan chooses death, Kirk life.
5. Spock redoes "A tale of two cities" (the book he gave as a present to him before) and sacrifices himself to save his friends.
6. The metaphysical allegory of the Genesis Device. That which destroys life, also creates it. Khan blows it to destroy Kirk, kills Spock in the process and ends up having created a whole new planet and saving Kirk's "soul" from himself.

Quote
That reversal was perhaps the best moment in any remake film I've seen, not just Trek.  It did so many things - it pulled in Trek fans who've seen Wrath of Khan because the dialogue was entirely replicated; it connected these alternate universes in an interesting way that shows, despite history being entirely altered, there are some events that are so important that they will still occur, albeit with slight differences; it allowed both Kirk and Spock's characters to finish their developmental arc (Spock's character did not experience a change in Wrath of Khan).

Spock's character in TWOK wasn't in need of change, Kirk was (The whole movie is about Kirk). Spock's character *didn't* change in STiD at all. What did he learn in that scene? To be absolutely angry at Khan? But he had already gone through that in ST (2009). I repeat, the homage was like drinking decaffeinated coffee. In TWOK Spock absolutely died (let's forget its sequel for a moment). In his death, Kirk learns a harsh but necessary lesson: despite not believing in "no-win scenarios" they do occur. What does Spock learn here? To emote? Really.

Quote
in general I still stand by my previous assertion that the Abrams' movies are actually the best of the Trek movies yet made (mostly because all the others are genuinely medicore to bad films that are not accessible to newcomers).

They are more accessible. That is not a criteria that I care at all though.
Title: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness [SPOILERS}
Post by: swashmebuckle on June 17, 2013, 12:06:48 pm
I hope they get out of reboot mode and try to do something more original with the next movie. Trek's setting can be used for such variety. I just really felt like I was being played down to throughout with all the rehashing.

Sulu and Scotty go to White Castle

Shatner presents King Lear ft. Bones

12 Angry Bajorans
Title: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness [SPOILERS}
Post by: Scourge of Ages on June 17, 2013, 12:07:55 pm
People find that irritating atrocity entertaining?  I had to shut Plinkett off after about 30 seconds, it's that bad.  I realize it's a character, but as voices go that's one that make me reach for the off-switch or a shotgun, whichever's closest :P

Well, yeah. Once you can get past the voice, the cat jokes, and the hooker sub-plot (weird sentence there), his videos on the Star Wars Prequels are the best thought-out, most comprehensive, and deepest reviews of the disasters they were.

With apologies, STiD shares a lot of similarities with the SW Prequels. They're flashy and entertaining, they reference the original(s) quite a bit, but under even a little scrutiny, they just fall apart on a story level.

But at least the dialogue in StiD is good. And I won't even attempt to claim that it wasn't entertaining, it just left me wanting a lot more.

The E compared JJ Abrams to Michael Bay, and I think that's rather unfair. People do expect some level of though-provokingness from JJ. Sure, Lost fell apart toward the end, but it had a story full of mystery and intrigue the first couple of seasons. Fringe was supposed to be really good. Cloverfield and Super 8 were not great, but they were internally consistant. I'm just saying I expected more than a Michael Bay-esque 'splosion fest from JJ.

Preemptive EDIT: Wait, looking at his imdb page (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0009190/), I see he also executive produced Revolution. I should have known better.  :nono:

Actual EDIT:
I hope they get out of reboot mode and try to do something more original with the next movie. Trek's setting can be used for such variety. I just really felt like I was being played down to throughout with all the rehashing.

I hope so too.
Title: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness [SPOILERS}
Post by: Akalabeth Angel on June 21, 2013, 02:43:12 pm
I saw it a few weeks ago, the movie is . . . a bit rubbish quite frankly.

Nice visuals certainly but didn't care for a lot of things.

Why does warping from Kronos to Earth take 20 seconds? How are they able to get within visual range of Kronos without being detected?

I mean, a person literally has to turn off the part of their  brain that knows anything about Star Trek for this movie.

Then they need to turn off the other part of the brain that knows anything about science.


The first movie had flaws too, but I could over look them. This one . . . ugh.

I'm glad Abrams isn't in the chair for the third movie. His fantasy setting would work better in Star Wars where they've already got magic and other nonsense and where adding emotion to say, a Jedi, is a good thing. The Jedi in the prequels were boring. Spock as spock was never boring. Didn't need to get this emotional.


And I don't know what they're smoking and I don't know if they're trying to bring on nostalgia but, the end of the film wasn't fan service, it wasn't nostalgia, it was just parody. When you take one of the most important moments in star trek, give it a super predictable outcome, quote it word for word and expect people to care? I don't get how anyone thought that was a great idea.

Ho hum.

Honestly. I saw Oblivion earlier this year, and thought it was a bit meh. But after seeing Iron Man and Star Trek, Oblivion is my favourite of the three and that's suprising.