[BloodEagle]

http://redlettermedia.com/half-in-the-bag-star-trek-into-darkness/

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

For those unaware.

[Scourge of Ages]

*gasp!* Plinkett did STiD!

[Luis Dias]

It's half in the bag... not exactly "Plinkett"...

[Scourge of Ages]

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.

[MP-Ryan]

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.

[MP-Ryan]

*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

[Luis Dias]

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.

[The E]

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.

[Luis Dias]

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.

[NGTM-1R]

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...

[Luis Dias]

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.

[NGTM-1R]

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.

[NGTM-1R]

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.

[Luis Dias]

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.

[MP-Ryan]

Oh, Luis, you're funny

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Luis Dias]

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!!

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.

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.

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.

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.

[swashmebuckle]

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

[Scourge of Ages]

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

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, I see he also executive produced Revolution. I should have known better. 

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.

[Akalabeth Angel]

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.