Star Trek: Into Darkness

[JasonEvans]

My review is short and simple-- Best Star Trek movie ever.

Many sci-fi fans will disagre with me, saying that Wrath of Khan is the best Star Trek gets. I loved Wrath of Khan and thought the twists and turns in that one were better than in this one - the Wrath of Khan script is better than the script in Into Darkness - but the enhanced effects, better actors, and amusing doses of humor barely edge Darkness ahead in my mind. Truly, it is not all that important. The bottom line is that this is an excellent sci-fi film.

Ok, do you want a few more words than "Best ever" about this film? If so, read on.

In many ways, though JJ Abrams has given us brand new storylines with his reboot of the Star Trek universe, he remains shackled to so much of what we recall from the old Star Trek timeline that it lessens his ability to surprise us. Most of the twists that happens in this film, though well plotted and clever, are twists a Star Trek fan can see coming because we know the Star Trek cannon. But I think JJ and his writing team (led by Damon Lindelhoff) understand this so they don't spend too much effort hiding the obvious turns. In the end, it becomes a fun game for Trek fans to listen out for quick shout outs to the old series (Harvey Mudd, Nurse Chappell, and several other iconic characters from the series make passing appearances in the plot) but it does not affect the enjoyment of the film for folks who are brand new to all this. My two sons, 16 and 13, have never seen the older Star Trek movies and have only watched a few episodes of the classic series. Still, they adored this film almost as much as I did, even if they had no idea that the furry thing on Dr. McCoy's desk was a Tribble.

Here are the most important things you need to know:


1) If at all possible, DO NOT GET SPOILED!!! There are some huge spoilers about this film that will greatly affect your enjoyment of it. Go see it quickly, so you can appreciate it in all its unspoiled glory. Do not go to the Wiki page as it contains huge spoilers. Just see it unfiltered... I beg you!

2) I sorta can't believe I am saying this but... it is worth paying to see this one in 3D. There are a number of scenes where the 3D adds to the enjoyment. In particular, the opening 20 minutes are breathtaking in 3D. It is still easy to enjoy in 2D, but if you are someone who thinks about paying a bit extra for the 3D experience, this is a film where it is worthwhile to do so.

3) I would suggest watching Wrath of Khan before seeing this film, if only so you will be able to make comparisons among the two finest films in the Star Trek catalog. Though the second film in JJ's Star Trek does not even begin to follow the same plot as second film in the original Star Trek world, there are some references and moments that will ring more clearly if you have seen Wrath of Khan. If you have not, it is no big deal but I think it is fun to compare them.

A couple more quick hits:

Lindelhoff is often criticized for setting up great stories and then being unable to end them. Not this time. The ending isn't great but it works and makes sense. There are no cringe-inducing "they are all just in purgatory" or "why are they running in a straight line as the spaceship falls on them?" moments. The story hides what it needs to hide until you need to know it and moves along at a brisk pace. There is plenty of action, but never at the expense of good storytelling. The first 2/3rds of the movie are brilliantly plotted and set up something that is both complicated and yet makes sense.

The acting is good and I can't say enough about how great Cumberbatch was as John Harrison. He is menacing and intense the whole time. A lot of what he does is totally over the top, but it works for his character. Chris Pine is fine as Kirk, but I thought Zach Quinto's Spock was especially good, particularly toward the end of the film when the pressure of the situation causes him to show some traces of emotion. Some of the other side actors are good too, though Simon Pegg's Scotty is the one who connects to the audience the most. These movies are still trying to figure out how to make McCoy into a more significant character, a process which may be further hindered because I would imagine that Alice Eve's science officer Carol is going to be a meaningful character moving forward.

If you want to play a fun game, check out how much lens flare JJ Abrams uses on board the Enterprise. It is sorta his signature and I almost laughed out loud a couple times when the entire background was flaring into the camera. The Enterprise bridge is nothing but a series of really bright lights each waiting their turn to flare into the camera eye.

That's about it for now. I could say mountains more but want all of you to enjoy it first. We'll talk about the spoiler-specific details in a few days.

-Jason "Bennedict Cumberbatch is fabulous in this film, his menacing glare makes the movie work!" Evans

[jjasper0729]

I will be taking my son to see this next friday night at IMAX 3D. The previews for it when we went there to see Iron Man 3 looked really good.

[Olympic Fan]

Okay, just got back from Ino Darkness and while I'm not sure I liked it as much as Jason, I thought it was very good -- in the upper third of ST movies. I'm not going into detail -- too early for spoilers.

I wanted to talk about the franchise and the relative value of the movies. I know that Jason mentioned "Wrath of Khan" as the best of the ST films (before this one), but when I went to Rotten Tomatoes, I got this ranking (from the critics):

1. Star Trek (2009) ... 95 percent
2. First Contract ... 92
3. Wrath of Khan ... 91
4. Voyage Home ... 84
5. Undiscovered Country ... 83
6. Search for Spock ... 77
7. Insurrection ... 56
8. Generations ... 48
9. The Motion Picture ... 45
10. Nemesis ... 38
11. Final Frontier ... 21

The fan vote is similar but slightly different:
1. Sar Trek (2009 ) ... 91
2. Wrath of Kahn ... 86
3. First Contact ... 83
4. (Tie) The Voyage Home ... 77
The Undiscovered Country ... 77
6. The Search for Spock ... 61
7. Generations ... 60
8. Nemisis ... 54
9. Insurrection ... 51
10. The Motion Picture ... 47
11. The Final Frontier ... 35

Using the RT formula -- 60 percent is fresh -- you get six fresh films according to the critics ... seven according to the fan vote. Everyone agrees thast the Final Frontier stinks ...

What surprised me was the unanimous choice of the first Abrams Star Trek as the best Trek film. I think that's because it was more of a space opera than the traditional Trek (which is often real science fiction). It appears to people who don't like "ordinary" Trek. I suspect if you polled traditional Trek fans, Wrath of Khan would be rated highest. BTW: Early returns for Into Darkness put it at 88 percent. In that holds up, it will be the No. 4 Trek movie according to the criticvs (haven't seen the fan vote yet).

But beyond that point is the argument that some of the best Star Treks were episodes of the TV series. You could argue that the two-parters were "Movies" -- The Best of Both Words is consistently rated the strongest element in the Trek Universe. I'd rate Yesterday's Enterprise, Inner Light, Relics, City of the Edge of Forever and about a half a dozen DS9 episodes as better as any Trek movie (Beyond the Stars was amazing). A lot of the TV shows are drek, but the best TV episodes are the best things in the universe.

[davekay1971]

Okay, just got back from Ino Darkness and while I'm not sure I liked it as much as Jason, I thought it was very good -- in the upper third of ST movies. I'm not going into detail -- too early for spoilers..

Okay, having read your thoughts, and agreeing with much of what you said about the episodes and their relative quality compared to the movies, I'd be interested to see where you DO rank it among ST movies. In my view, there are a clear top 3 in the movies to date: Star Trek (2009), Wrath of Khan, and First Contact (not necessarily in that order). ST 3, 4, and 6 are a clear step down from those, but still pretty good movies.

Happy to see the good reviews of this movie, and very much looking forward to taking my 14 year old son to see it.

[moonpie23]

saw it this morning.....best star trek ever..........

[Udaman]

Saw it as well today.....it was....in a word...fantastic.

I would agree with JE that it's the best movie made (while also agreeing that Wrath of Khan is a close, close, close 2nd) and for the same reasons - the special effects, the humor, the shout-out to past Star Trek movies.

OK - time to discuss it more.

So - here come Spoilers....


Warning you....


Still warning you....

OK, time to talk.

I thought this movie was everything that Iron Man 3 and Dark Knight Rises were not....i.e. a movie that lived up to it's hype.

Now some of you know, I try to stay 100% spoiler free. I don't watch previews (unless I accidentally do so). I don't read articles until after I've seen the movie. And yet, the other day like an idiot I was reading something about he movie and it mentioned that Khan was in it. Now, I know that right after the first JJ Abrams the discussion came up that Khan might be in the next one, and I thought that he would be....but still, I was mad at myself for having it 100% confirmed before I saw it. But that was the only spoiler that I had. Please don't read stuff about the movie - there are some great parts that simply won't have the impact if you know they are coming.

I really liked almost everything about this movie. Khan was great. The acting was great. The humor was great. Bones, Scott, Sulu, O'Heara....all great. Khan was exactly what a genetically engineered superman would be like - very believable.

My (very minor) nitpicks:

1) I was really hoping that somehow Khan would get put on Siti Alpha 5 again.

2) I didn't think that Khan would turn on them so quickly after taking over the other ship. Maybe it was because Kirk had ordered him to be stunned - hard to tell. But he seemed a bit "too" evil, wheras I always liked that Khan was ambiguous - yeah he's bad, but he has good intentions at least some of the time at least on the surface.

3) There are some plot holes. Why wouldn't Khan just take all his 72 friends by force earlier? Why wouldn't the Admiral just kill all of them?

4) There were some serious destruction in the movie....and it was fun, but it seemed to me that at the end they kind of glossed over that. I mean half the city was destroyed. That's pretty impactful. It would have killed tens of thousands of people.

So that said, I really loved:

The opening scene.

The fight scene between Spock and Khan (just incredible)

The flying through space scene with Khan and Kirk.

Everything on the Enterprise. Everything, but espeically the last 30 minutes with the attacks and the ship falling to Earth.

Bringing back Old Spock and Nimoy, and his "I promised I wouldn't tell you anything....but Khan is a total badass and you can't trust him, and he'll kill you all if he gets the chance."

Loved them flipping the "who sacrifices their life to save the ship" thing with Kirk and Spock from The Wrath of Khan.

OK....I say that....but then again I didn't love it. I enjoyed it immensely. But it does kind of diminish Kirk's character. He was always the Cowboy. Sort of like Tony Stark. He's the guy who doesn't risk his own life, because he never thinks he has to. There's always another way out. In Wrath of Khan he learned that wasn't the case, thanks to Spock. Now he learned it himself....but it's awfully early in his career for that. Again, I get the point....but I just like to think of Kirk as wild and crazy until his later years, when he kind of learns it a little too late. As you can see, I'm mixed on that.....but just a little.

I will definitely go see this movie again with my kids. Definitely. It should make more money than Iron Man 3. It's a much, much better film. I'm not sure if it will....but it should. That aside, if you didn't put this in your top 5, you've lost.

[OZZIE4DUKE]

I didn't read the above post with spoilers. We're going to see it Sunday afternoon - it's supposed to rain here! :cool:

[Jim3k]

to rain on anyone's parade here, particularly Jason Evans's viewpoint. Many of you are far more invested Trekkies than I ever will be and I honor that.

I saw the movie yesterday afternoon in 3-D, per JE's recommendation. I do agree with him that 3-D adds a dimension to the movie that is worth the extra money.

And, to be clear, this is pretty good movie, plot holes and all. Certainly worth seeing as a pure entertainment vehicle. And I don't want to condemn it as being way too fantastic for credibility, give that it is sci-fi, for fun and for quasi-super-hero success. Ultimately, though, the plot is thin. A manhunt--and even Spock, Bones and Scotty rebel at the fact that the quest goes against Star Fleet's First Mandate.

Still, the betrayals provide a decent entertainment and the Spock-Kirk man crush continues to develop.

Finally, the acting was led by Benedict Cumberbatch as Khan. When he's on...he controls the scenes. Pine is pretty good as Kirk and Quinto provides a very good Spock. But Cumberbatch really is the movie's star. [He's been excellent in other things recently, too. TV's new Sherlock Holmes; Tinker Tailor and Warhorse.]

Worth seeing, for sure. Worth accolades as the best? No. But do see it in 3-D for the fight scenes, the over the top transfer and the destruction of San Francisco.

[Olympic Fan]

Saw it as well today.....it was....in a word...fantastic.

I would agree with JE that it's the best movie made (while also agreeing that Wrath of Khan is a close, close, close 2nd) and for the same reasons - the special effects, the humor, the shout-out to past Star Trek movies.

OK - time to discuss it more.

So - here come Spoilers....


Warning you....


Still warning you....

OK, time to talk.

I thought this movie was everything that Iron Man 3 and Dark Knight Rises were not....i.e. a movie that lived up to it's hype.

Now some of you know, I try to stay 100% spoiler free. I don't watch previews (unless I accidentally do so). I don't read articles until after I've seen the movie. And yet, the other day like an idiot I was reading something about he movie and it mentioned that Khan was in it. Now, I know that right after the first JJ Abrams the discussion came up that Khan might be in the next one, and I thought that he would be....but still, I was mad at myself for having it 100% confirmed before I saw it. But that was the only spoiler that I had. Please don't read stuff about the movie - there are some great parts that simply won't have the impact if you know they are coming.

I really liked almost everything about this movie. Khan was great. The acting was great. The humor was great. Bones, Scott, Sulu, O'Heara....all great. Khan was exactly what a genetically engineered superman would be like - very believable.

My (very minor) nitpicks:

1) I was really hoping that somehow Khan would get put on Siti Alpha 5 again.

2) I didn't think that Khan would turn on them so quickly after taking over the other ship. Maybe it was because Kirk had ordered him to be stunned - hard to tell. But he seemed a bit "too" evil, wheras I always liked that Khan was ambiguous - yeah he's bad, but he has good intentions at least some of the time at least on the surface.

3) There are some plot holes. Why wouldn't Khan just take all his 72 friends by force earlier? Why wouldn't the Admiral just kill all of them?

4) There were some serious destruction in the movie....and it was fun, but it seemed to me that at the end they kind of glossed over that. I mean half the city was destroyed. That's pretty impactful. It would have killed tens of thousands of people.

So that said, I really loved:

The opening scene.

The fight scene between Spock and Khan (just incredible)

The flying through space scene with Khan and Kirk.

Everything on the Enterprise. Everything, but espeically the last 30 minutes with the attacks and the ship falling to Earth.

Bringing back Old Spock and Nimoy, and his "I promised I wouldn't tell you anything....but Khan is a total badass and you can't trust him, and he'll kill you all if he gets the chance."

Loved them flipping the "who sacrifices their life to save the ship" thing with Kirk and Spock from The Wrath of Khan.

OK....I say that....but then again I didn't love it. I enjoyed it immensely. But it does kind of diminish Kirk's character. He was always the Cowboy. Sort of like Tony Stark. He's the guy who doesn't risk his own life, because he never thinks he has to. There's always another way out. In Wrath of Khan he learned that wasn't the case, thanks to Spock. Now he learned it himself....but it's awfully early in his career for that. Again, I get the point....but I just like to think of Kirk as wild and crazy until his later years, when he kind of learns it a little too late. As you can see, I'm mixed on that.....but just a little.

I will definitely go see this movie again with my kids. Definitely. It should make more money than Iron Man 3. It's a much, much better film. I'm not sure if it will....but it should. That aside, if you didn't put this in your top 5, you've lost.

Continuing spoilers ....

It's funny, I thought the Spock-Kahn fight scene was one of the absolutely worst moments in the movie.

There was nothing new or extraordinary about it -- just two near-superhuman guys beating the hell out of each other. It was never defined exactly what were either character's physiological limits -- we knew Khan was super-strong, but he could be knocked out by a phaser blast. We know that Spock has greater than human strength -- but how much greater? In the first movie, he loses control and tries to kill Kirk, but doesn't even seriously damage him. In the end, Spock and Khan were just two tough guys beating on each other as they jumped around the flying buses (? dump trucks?). I've seen that fight a million times -- usually on the top of moving trains, but it looked like something out of a Die Hard or James Bond movie (in fact, Skyfall starts with a much better fight on a moving train).

And BTW is anybody else disappointed that the production company flat out lied in its pre-film propaganda? Some months ago, it was widely reported on the net that the villain in this film would be Khan and the Paramont people issued a press release saying that Cumberbach was NOT playing Khan. LIE!

Don't get me wrong. I enjoyed the film. I appreciated the debate over how far obligations of friendship should go. I really appreciated the insight of how far certain powerful people will go to secure security -- even allying with people/governments (and becoming ourselves) as bad as those we fear. Those are the kind of issues that real science fiction explores.

Finally, in regard to the opening sequence -- after watching every Star Trek movie and TV show, am I wrong in saying that "Prime" must have a different meaning in the future than it does now? Has there ever been any directive violated more often and with less cause (in this case, to save the life of one crewman)than the Prime Directive in the Star Trek Universe?

[OZZIE4DUKE]

Nope. Not gonna read that post yet either! :cool:

[Wander]

I liked the movie a lot, but (spoiler alert) I do despise the bringing-people-back-to-life as a plot device in all movies. Even if it's obvious that it has to happen.

[luburch]

My favorite movie of the summer so far. It lived up to my expectations.

[Windsor]

I loved it. We saw it (3D) on Saturday. I thought it was the best Star Trek ever.

I look forward to seeing it again. I am sure there is a great deal I missed.

[OZZIE4DUKE]

Saw it yesterday in 3D! Loved it! Now to read the spoilers :)

[OZZIE4DUKE]

I liked the movie a lot, but (spoiler alert) I do despise the bringing-people-back-to-life as a plot device in all movies. Even if it's obvious that it has to happen.

Yes, and it was also very obvious HOW they were going to do it. Loved, and laughed, at the juxtaposition of rolls. And I started to correctly recite dialog that had yet to be spoken by the characters! It was fun, like watching a baseball game on TV, seeing something that did (or could) happen, saying that to your viewing companion, and then the announcers say the exact same thing. :cool:

[Udaman]

Ozzie - YES!!!! I was really bummed when Spock didn't say, "But he'll die." only to have Scotty say "He's dead already!" They definitely should have put that line in.

[Duvall]

Huh. So none of you were bothered by the fact that large chunks of the movie make no sense?

[JasonEvans]

Huh. So none of you were bothered by the fact that large chunks of the movie make no sense?

I have to admit that the more I reflect on this film, the lesser it gets in my eyes. The back half of the picture, once the main villain is revealed, really falls into extremely lazy scripting with the story following such a familiar and obvious path. A critic friend of mine said someone needs to sue Lindelhoff for plagiarism.

But, the bottom line for me is that I had so much fun watching the film that I didn't really care at the time and I am not sure how much I care now. This is not a great sci-fi film (I watched Serenity again with my kids over the weekend -- now that is an amazing sci-fi flick!), but it is good enough.

-Jason "hey, Duvall, what parts made the least sense to you?" Evans

[OZZIE4DUKE]

Huh. So none of you were bothered by the fact that large chunks of the movie make no sense?

I watch movies to be entertained. I was very entertained by Star Trek! :cool:

I second Jason's question - what parts made no sense? Warp drive travel greater than the speed of light? Teletransportation? Tribbles? :rolleyes:

[Olympic Fan]

I watch movies to be entertained. I was very entertained by Star Trek! :cool:

I second Jason's question - what parts made no sense? Warp drive travel greater than the speed of light? Teletransportation? Tribbles? :rolleyes:

Great response ... reminds me of what director Phil Robinson said when a baseball nerd objected that Joe Jackson (a real-life lefthander) batted right in Field of Dreams.

Anderson told him that there's an even bigger mistake with Shoeless Joe un the film: "The guy's dead!"

Obviously, a film like Star Trek requires a suspension of logic. And while I do have problems with the film (too much emphasis on stale action/special effects ... the back-from-the-dead thing), I didn't see anything senseless about the story line. What bothered you?

[Duvall]

-Jason "hey, Duvall, what parts made the least sense to you?" Evans

Well, several character actions that drove the plot seemed to exist only to drive the plot. Like, why exactly did Khan decide to go to the Klingon homeworld? If he wanted to get revenge on Starfleet, it would have made more sense to stay near Earth. If he wanted to rescue his crew, it would have made more sense to stay near Earth. The only reason for him to go to the Klingon homeworld was to give the movie a reason to go to the Klingon homeworld. Maybe there's some other reason, but the movie never offered one. Also, why would Marcus leave Khan's crew in the torpedoes when he handed them over to the Enterprise, when he could have just as easily disposed of them on Earth? Again, it's just so that they can be discovered in the second act.

You have to expect a certain amount of goofiness in a space opera, but this was just slack plotting.

[The Gordog]

Huh. So none of you were bothered by the fact that large chunks of the movie make no sense?

Saw it Sunday night at the Air & Space Museum in Virginia, in IMAX, but not 3D. That was more than made up for by the fact that they sell beer there: Stella, Star Hill Amber Ale and Bud Light are the choices.

Personally, I loved it. Equal to Wrath of Khan, the reboot Star Trek, and First Contact. The only time I noticed something not making sense was that they could have used blood from any of those frozen crewmates to save Kirk and I could not understand why it was taking them so long to figure that out.

I may see it again in 3D for compairison.

Oh, I chose the Star Hill - a fine brew for sure.

[accfanfrom1970]

Is there anything at the and of the credits to stay for (like in IM3)? Any hint on the next Star Trek movie?

[moonpie23]

i didn't see any.....stayed until the theater lights came back on

[OZZIE4DUKE]

Is there anything at the and of the credits to stay for (like in IM3)? Any hint on the next Star Trek movie?


i didn't see any.....stayed until the theater lights came back on

We stayed too, looking for an Easter egg. Didn't see anything :(

[JasonEvans]

Well, several character actions that drove the plot seemed to exist only to drive the plot. Like, why exactly did Khan decide to go to the Klingon homeworld? If he wanted to get revenge on Starfleet, it would have made more sense to stay near Earth. If he wanted to rescue his crew, it would have made more sense to stay near Earth. The only reason for him to go to the Klingon homeworld was to give the movie a reason to go to the Klingon homeworld. Maybe there's some other reason, but the movie never offered one. Also, why would Marcus leave Khan's crew in the torpedoes when he handed them over to the Enterprise, when he could have just as easily disposed of them on Earth? Again, it's just so that they can be discovered in the second act.

You have to expect a certain amount of goofiness in a space opera, but this was just slack plotting.

I thought that he went to the Klingon planet because it was a place he thought he could be safe from The Federation while he plotted his revenge. Clearly, anywhere in Federation space was not safe so he went to a remote part of non-Federation space... on a planet that the Federation would be least likely to want to explore.

I thought the reason Marcus put the frozen crew in the torpedoes was the ultimate revenge on Khan -- kill him by shooting him with his own crew. Remember that Marcus' plan was for the Enterprise to arrive at the Klingon homeworld, and tell Khan that they were sending 72 (or whatever the magic number was) torpedoes at him and then to fire away. It was Marcus' way of getting one last "(bleep)-you" at Khan.

Of course, Marcus also wanted Kirk's ship to get stranded in orbit around the Klingon home world to start a war with the Klingons. Not sure why that part of the plan failed, the story kinda skipped over that stuff.

Lastly, some folks have asked about a post-credit scene. Unless you are just doing a funny, not very important scene (Shwarma or Iron Man confessing his mental troubles to The Hulk) it is very difficult to do a meaningful post-credits scene unless you already have a really good idea where your story is headed next. In the case of JJ and Star Trek, while the studio says it wants to put another Star Trek film out in summer 2016, I don't think anyone has begun working on a script or a story yet. They simply don't know what to tease yet. My bet is that JJ steps back from directing and falls into just a producer role for the next film -- he's going to be very busy with Star Wars VII for summer 2015 and I suspect there will be much pressure for him to do the next Star Wars film after that (given his stellar track record, this assumes he does not make a bad Star Wars movie).

What's more, JJ's go-to writers are all so busy these days, I doubt any of them have even begun to think about the next Star Trek flick. Damon Lindelhoff is one of the hottest writers in Hollywood and is heavily involved at the moment as writer/producer of Tomorrowland (Brad Bird's next film with George Clooney and Hugh Laurie). Roberto Orci and writing-partner Alex Kurtzman are perhaps the only guys hotter than Lindelhoff, currently writing the screenplays for the Amazing Spider Man sequel and the Van Helsing reboot with Tom Cruise. Their screenplay for Tom Cruise's All You Need if Kill is being shot as we speak.

The point is that the people behind Star Trek just have not had time to think about where the series goes next.

-Jason "I hope they get away from recycling too much of the story from the original series and movies... for example, I don't need to see Carol Marcus invent the Genesis device" Evans

[accfanfrom1970]

Saw it last night, enjoyed it a great deal.

Enjoyed the opening sequence, thought Cumberbatch was a great villian, tough enough but somewhat sympathetic. Kirk, Spock, and Scotty all continue to entertain, Uhura too....Bones not so much. Saw it in 3D and Imax - expensive, but thought it was worth it. Will probably go again to see what I missed, doubt I spend the extra $$$ the second time around.

My son, who has not seen the original Wrath of Kham, but saw the first new Star Trek, also thoroughly enjoyed it, thought it was better than Iron Man 3.

[devildeac]

How about this:

http://www.today.com/food/star-trek-beer-boldly-goes-where-no-brew-has-gone-6C10038820?ocid=msnhp&pos=6#

Funny stuff.

[Ping Lin]

Apologies for being late to the party, but I didn't get to see the film until two days ago and didn't want to read anything about it.

Now that I've seen it, though, I almost wonder if I've seen the same film as everyone else in this thread. It was okay, a perfectly workmanlike film, but to say this is the best Trek ever is just...strange, in my mind.

As has already been mentioned by Duvall, there are galaxy-class sized holes in the plot. I'm willing to suspend my disbelief to a fairly large extent by even large plot holes. (If Leonard Shelby has short-term memory loss, how does he remember he's got that condition? Because the film demands it, ok, fine, I'm good.) But there was just too much to swallow.

---spoilers-----

So McCoy has the secret to eternal life and immortality, and just forgets about it? The man's blood isn't going to be distributed to every hospital in Starfleet? The imminent threat about war with the Klingons is just discarded two-thirds of the way through without even a peep in the rest of the film? Good grief, it's nearly the central plot point and a critical conflict! At least Mass Effect 3 showed you what happened to the reapers.

And the reactor scene...ugh. I squirmed throughout the whole thing, as verbatim line after verbatim line was thrown out there. I get what the scriptwriters were aiming for here -- a love letter to the old fans, etc. But it felt so artificial and treacly. And bloody forced. It's just like getting something you kinda sorta want for Christmas, but wrapped in garish wrapping paper, accompanied by your mother and father dancing about and throwing confetti in all directions, with dear old Mum saying how much she loves you and how symbolic this is of her love for you and she wants you to treasure it forever and ever and hang on to it until old age sets in because it'll always be a reminder of her and aaaaah. Even before you open the present, your enthusiasm is completely sapped.

So, in sum, I quite enjoyed the first two thirds or so of the movie. In fact, I was ready to nominate it as one of the best, if not best, Trek movies ever. The last third fell off an Everestian cliff, though.

[cato]

It was never defined exactly what were either character's physiological limits -- we knew Khan was super-strong, but he could be knocked out by a phaser blast. We know that Spock has greater than human strength -- but how much greater?



I too wanted to know more about Spock's comparative limits, but I thought they did a great job with stunning Khan. During the fight between Spock and Khan, Uhuru stunned Khan several times, and while he was knocked back, he was not knocked out. So, he was either able to adapt, or he was faking it the first time around to gain an advantage over Kirk and Scotty. I suspect the latter, but either way liked that detail.

[DU82]

Apologies for being late to the party, but I didn't get to see the film until two days ago and didn't want to read anything about it.

Now that I've seen it, though, I almost wonder if I've seen the same film as everyone else in this thread. It was okay, a perfectly workmanlike film, but to say this is the best Trek ever is just...strange, in my mind.

As has already been mentioned by Duvall, there are galaxy-class sized holes in the plot. I'm willing to suspend my disbelief to a fairly large extent by even large plot holes. (If Leonard Shelby has short-term memory loss, how does he remember he's got that condition? Because the film demands it, ok, fine, I'm good.) But there was just too much to swallow.

---spoilers-----

So McCoy has the secret to eternal life and immortality, and just forgets about it? The man's blood isn't going to be distributed to every hospital in Starfleet? The imminent threat about war with the Klingons is just discarded two-thirds of the way through without even a peep in the rest of the film? Good grief, it's nearly the central plot point and a critical conflict! At least Mass Effect 3 showed you what happened to the reapers.

.

I believe the impending war with the Klingons would have been set off by a Federation ship firing 72 photon torpedoes at their home world. Since they didn't, no imminent war. Although, I would expect that New Star Trek 3 will involve the Klingons in some fashion.

[ncexnyc]

I attempted to take my wife and son to see Epic. We showed up a few minutes late and had to settle for Star Trek. Did I just say settle? This was a non-stop rollercoaster ride of a movie. Both my wife and I loved it. My son, well he still hates me for missing Epic.

It's really, really hard for the older Trek movies to compete with the newer ones. The special effects are so advanced they blow the previous releases out of the water. The current cast is excellent and the story line was solid. I'm not sure why anyone feels the Klingon plot was dropped. Considering the way events unfolded that was a to be continued at a later date type storyline. Kirk ran for Earth and Marcus gave chase. Once Marcus caught up and the firing started they were well away from the Klingon home world.

Were there holes? Sure. The we need Khan's blood was lame. Seventy two other flavors to chose from. The fight between Khan and Spock? Yes, absolutely. Spock is a fairly tough cookie, but on a par with Khan? No way. And how about duking it out thousand of feet above the ground on a speeding sky vehicle? As for the stun issue. They do have multiple stun settings, so maybe she had it turned down low as not to kill Khan by mistake.

Definitely a very, very good flick.

PS not to taken with the World War Z preview. I just I'm to hung-up on Walking Dead type zombies. I also think Man of Steel looks solid and Lone Ranger could be a big winner.

[msdukie]

"Star Trek II
Saw it last night, enjoyed it a great deal.

Enjoyed the opening sequence, thought Cumberbatch was a great villian, tough enough but somewhat sympathetic. Kirk, Spock, and Scotty all continue to entertain, Uhura too....Bones not so much. Saw it in 3D and Imax - expensive, but thought it was worth it. Will probably go again to see what I missed, doubt I spend the extra $$$ the second time around.

My son, who has not seen the original Wrath of Kham, but saw the first new Star Trek, also thoroughly enjoyed it, thought it was better than Iron Man 3."

Star Trek II was released in 1982.

Also, there has only been one Wrath of Khan.

[alteran]

My feelings about this movie are a little... non-standard.

I personally thought this movie was WAY better than the last one. But the last one was somewhere between a mild and a bitter disappointment to me. I could have sworn I fleshed that out on the DBR somewhere, but I can't find it in the archive otherwise I'd link it.

STiD is certainly a fun movie where lots of stuff blows up entertainingly, which is frequently all that I want from a movie in the summer. I could ding it for all its plot inconsistencies, but frankly, it has less plot holes than Wrath of Khan did in the 80s (a bomb that magically remakes planets and fills them instantly with life... okaaaaay), so that's probably not fair.

I thought JJ really improved the humor. A lot. Not so much with the slapstick, much more with the character humor. Bravo. He poked fun at the original without insulting it. (The look on Chekov's face when asked to "put on a red shirt" was wonderful. I also thought Kirk's claim that "he hadn't lost a single crew member" was a nod to fans, but more subtle.)

Scotty had a fair amount of stuff to do, and was allowed to be funny without having to be stuffed into a water tube. Someone said McCoy irritated them, I thought they played him tru-ish without making him a caricature.

So, I think us hard core fans had a lot to sink our teeth into.

Increasingly, though, for fans of Star Trek et al, it wasn't its most interesting when stuff blows up wherever it goes (which is somewhat antithetical to its 5-year mission, no?). But this seems to be the expectation of the modern popcorn audience, so I'm not sure I really have a realistic complaint.

It just feels like something is missing. Still, a pretty exciting SF flick with an A+ villain.

Ultimately, I think I'm saying that Trek could offer more, just maybe not in a movie format. Part of me wants to see it back on TV, where it has the time to flesh out storylines and characters, and be optimistic about the future-- rather than just a bunch of very talented officers running from flashpoint to flashpoint stopping Mankind/The Earth/The Universe from being blowed up real good.

JMHO.

[BD80]

Finally saw it and absolutely loved it. Thanks for the warning about spoilers, it helped, but with as predictable as the script was, figuring out that he was Kahn (as he wiped out the Klingon empire single-handedly) there wasn't much real mystery to the plot. Even still, a fabulous movie, and worth the 3D IMAX treatment (if I can convince everyone on this board to see it again 10 more times in 3D IMAX, can it overtake FF6 in the standings? How about 100 times each?)

As predictable as the plot was I still loved the script, for the way it develops the new characters in parallel with the original characters. To that end, the casting is also fabulous. The actors evoke the original actors/characters and add depth that was not in the original.


I have to admit that the more I reflect on this film, the lesser it gets in my eyes. The back half of the picture, once the main villain is revealed, really falls into extremely lazy scripting with the story following such a familiar and obvious path. A critic friend of mine said someone needs to sue Lindelhoff for plagiarism. ... -Jason "hey, Duvall, what parts made the least sense to you?" Evans



I watch movies to be entertained. I was very entertained by Star Trek! :cool:

I second Jason's question - what parts made no sense? Warp drive travel greater than the speed of light? Teletransportation? Tribbles? :rolleyes:

I have no trouble with "warp drive" it is a staple of sci-fi that humans progress to discover things that seem impossible now. Remeber Dick Tracey's wrist communicator? A video communication device that broadcast wirelessly and fit on his wrist? Absurd!

Firing weapons at another ship at warp speed? Too far.

The best one, one I saw coming from the moment Scotty announced the problem and cringed and chuckled in disbelief until they actually had Kirk do it:

Kick the reactor core back into alignment. A device that can power a star ship through warp speed, into and out of the earth's atmosphere, enable phaser attacks, transport matter, and he KICKS it into alignment?



...currently writing the screenplays for ... the Van Helsing reboot with Tom Cruise. ...

At his age, wouldn't it be better to reboot Cruise as a vampire being hunted by Helsing?

[OldPhiKap]

Note to JJ: please drop the Nimoy cameo bit.

Thanks, us.

[OldPhiKap]

For alteran:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHkvD7-u7y8

[rthomas]

I liked the gratuitous girl in her underwear scene. But I thought that the look on Kirk's face during the gratuitous underwear scene was hilarious.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/03/22/article-0-18D922D0000005DC-495_634x478.jpg

[fuse]

...and the Van Helsing reboot with Tom Cruise.

-Jason Evans

Jason, this has to be the worst spoiler of this whole thread. ;-)
Maybe it qualifies as a guilty pleasure, but remaking Van Helsing says Hollywood has run beyond dry with new ideas.

[msdukie]

Note to JJ: please drop the Nimoy cameo bit.

Thanks, us.

Why? Isn't what is going on with the "real" Spock (whom we have all known and loved since 1966) really far more important and interesting than what is going on with a set of alternate reality representations of the original characters who aren't even the original characters?

[alteran]

For alteran:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHkvD7-u7y8

Man, I cannot believe anyone got the reference! And it was good to see John Candy again.

Alas, I cannot spork you since you've posted too much other stuff I liked.

[alteran]

Kick the reactor core back into alignment. A device that can power a star ship through warp speed, into and out of the earth's atmosphere, enable phaser attacks, transport matter, and he KICKS it into alignment?

The technical term is, "percussive maintenance."

Yeah, that seemed a bit silly to me. I also grinned at how bad his leverage was-- he had to kick it into horizontal alignment by... jumping almost vertically on it.

I'm surprised at how often ALL movies these days seem to just do something ridiculous like this when they could just as easily do something that makes a lot more sense.

And GET OFF MY LAWN!!!!

[alteran]

I liked the gratuitous girl in her underwear scene. But I thought that the look on Kirk's face during the gratuitous underwear scene was hilarious.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/03/22/article-0-18D922D0000005DC-495_634x478.jpg

And she's not even GREEN!

Where's the respect for the CANON?!?!?

:D

[OldPhiKap]

Curious as to thoughts on this:

http://www.joblo.com/movie-news/have-money-woes-between-paramount-and-cbs-doomed-jj-abrams-future-involvement-with-star-trek

[JasonEvans]

Curious as to thoughts on this:

http://www.joblo.com/movie-news/have-money-woes-between-paramount-and-cbs-doomed-jj-abrams-future-involvement-with-star-trek

Here are my thoughts --

The Wrap is about as bad a source as there is in Hollywood. It is basically only a notch or two above the National Enquirer in terms of accuracy.

A story like this one does not hold up to scrutiny. The Wrap says JJ was frustrated because he wanted to develop more stuff on TV surrounding the characters in the movies. Ummm, does anyone think the actors in the Star Trek films are going to be committing to 6 months of TV filming any time soon? I doubt it.

Chris Pine has like 4 movies lined up over the next couple years including playing Jack Ryan in a re-launch of the Tom Clancy character, which is clearly a long-term franchise play that will tie him up for years. You got no Kirk, you got no Star Trek. Zoe Saldana (Uhura) is going to be in the big Marvel film Guardians of the Galaxy plus she's starring in Avatar 2. Simon Pegg is a legit movie star with many projects in a row lined up. Zach Quinto and Karl Urban aren't quite as busy as the others, but are you going to build a whole TV series around Spock and Bones and no one else?

There are probably elements of truth to the story and I think most folks do not expect JJ to be directing Star Wars movies in the future as he is going to be very tied up with Star Wars for the next couple years. Paramount will probably move on to some other director, which is fine. The fact that JJ will have only limited (I am sure he will get a producer credit) in the franchise moving forward is not some kind of death knell for Star Trek.

-Jason "I would like to see someone else take the stories in an unfamiliar direction versus following too much of the original storylines, like in this one" Evans

[msdukie]

It's not like JJ didn't know that Trek was owned by CBS and that Paramount only owned the movies going into all of this.

Besides, even if Trek were still all under the Paramount umbrella as it was from late 1967 to 2005, do you really think that Paramount would stop marketing and merchandising TOS, TNG, DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise?

After Star Trek XIII, everyone's contracts are up and whether this group continues to make movies or not, it seems a given that Series VI will go into production shortly after the next movie comes out. Hopefully, it will NOT take place in the alternate reality.

They need to go back to the regular ("prime") timeline and pick up in the "ongoing future" which would be the mid 2390s, enough time after the last shows while allowing occasional characters to show up. It's already been 11 years since any production was set in the 24th Century.

[msdukie]

And she's not even GREEN!

Where's the respect for the CANON?!?!?

:D

Right, because in the Prime timeline he only got her pregnant with his son David.

[alteran]

It's not like JJ didn't know that Trek was owned by CBS and that Paramount only owned the movies going into all of this.

Someone knows something about Trek that I don't? My surprise is only surpassed by my relief that I may not be a hopeless goofball.

I'm not sure what this means in practical terms, though. Paramount launched ST: Voyager on the Paramount network (UPN), so even if CBS has some sort of rights leverage (presumably over series rights), it doesn't seem enough to prevent a competitor from releasing a series.

[OldPhiKap]

Someone knows something about Trek that I don't? My surprise is only surpassed by my relief that I may not be a hopeless goofball.

I'm not sure what this means in practical terms, though. Paramount launched ST: Voyager on the Paramount network (UPN), so even if CBS has some sort of rights leverage (presumably over series rights), it doesn't seem enough to prevent a competitor from releasing a series.

I thiink the issue is that one boss wants to keep pushing and marketing the original actors, and one boss wants to reboot without any marketing competition/dilution from Nimoy and company. At least, I read something along those lines a month or so ago.

[msdukie]

Someone knows something about Trek that I don't? My surprise is only surpassed by my relief that I may not be a hopeless goofball.

I'm not sure what this means in practical terms, though. Paramount launched ST: Voyager on the Paramount network (UPN), so even if CBS has some sort of rights leverage (presumably over series rights), it doesn't seem enough to prevent a competitor from releasing a series.

Since 2005, and the Paramount/Viacom split, Star Trek's rights have all ended up on CBS side (TV, books, comics, merchandise etc.) with the exception of Paramount continuing to own the right to the movies, and the video releases of all of Trek TV are released by CBS Studios and Paramount Home Entertainment together.

Even if you look at the credits of Star Trek Into Darkness, it will say Star Trek is a registered trademark, copyright etc. of CBS Studios, Inc.

Any and all TV Trek in the future will be the property of CBS Studios. Paramount got Trek when it acquired Desilu in 1967 during season 2. The Viacom split in 2005 created the odd division of the franchise.

[msdukie]

Also any and all merchandise for Star Trek Into Darkness comes from CBS, not Paramount.