Issues with your account? Bug us in the chatroom at http://webchat.freenode.net?channels=#firstones

Star Trek Into Darkness

WORFWORF The Burninator
I have no idea if there's another thread for this film and with the forums in the current state that they are, I have no intention of looking for it if there is.

However, the film came out in the UK today and I went to see it. I have to say I have mixed feelings about it, the first half was definitely very good and they were going in an interesting direction and then about half way through they did something that made me think "why did you have to do that?" and it went down hill from there.

Lots of spoilers below

[sp] I'd been really interested in the idea that a rogue Section 31 agent was trying to stop Starfleet from turning away from the ideals of the Federation. It made a lot of sense that would be the reaction after the destruction of Vulcan and there was a lot of potential with that idea. But then they revealed that he was Khan and it felt like that was unnecessary. I've always felt if they had Khan in this film, it would show a real lack of imagination on the part of the writers. It's been pretty obvious they struggled with what to do with the sequel ever since the 2009 movie and by resorting to the most well known and most popular villain confirms that. It got even worse when they ended up recreating scenes from Wrath of Khan. In the original film they were very emotional, here they felt weak and forced in. Especially since it was easy to predict that Kirk would be alive again 5 minutes later after they showed McCoy's experiment on the tribble.

I also felt that when they finally got around to fighting Khan, he was defeated far too easily. After they captured him, I just thought "Really? That's it?".[/sp]

Looking forward to seeing what the rest of you have to say when you see it.
«1

Comments

  • ShadowDancerShadowDancer When I say, "Why aye, gadgie," in my heart I say, "Och aye, laddie." London, UK
    I think you hit the nail on the head there Worf. Not a lot more for me to add, apart from:

    [sp]I'd have like to have seen more of the Klingons, and I hope if they make a sequel they actually focus on exploring more of the galaxy. So far we've seen more of Earth than the rest put together[/sp]
  • BigglesBiggles <font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
    So... theatre or rental?
  • ShadowDancerShadowDancer When I say, "Why aye, gadgie," in my heart I say, "Och aye, laddie." London, UK
    I'd say its worth seeing at the theatre, it was quite enjoyable on the big screen. That said, if I hadn't seen it there then I wouldn't have been too disappointed
  • WORFWORF The Burninator
    I'd say it depends on how much you enjoyed the first one and don't mind that there are things about it you probably won't like.
  • ShadowDancerShadowDancer When I say, "Why aye, gadgie," in my heart I say, "Och aye, laddie." London, UK
    So to answer your question.....maybe :p
  • David of MacDavid of Mac Elite Ranger Ca
    [spoiler]In my showing, the crowd laughed at Spock's "Khaaaaaaaan!" Because how could they not? For what possible reason would you earnestly put that into a movie and not expect it to just camp the place up? I mean, it could've worked if he [i]wasn't[/i] Khan. They probably wouldn't have laughed at "Haarrrriiissssoooonnnn!" played the same way.

    They almost pulled the Khan thing out, too, but then they stopped doing a reimagining of "Space Seed" and started just ripping out pieces of "The Wrath of Khan" and bolting them in. I remember what Ron Moore said about how they thought about how they could remake a character as iconic as Dirk Benedict's Starbuck without it being a miserable failure, decided it was nearly impossible, and then dodged the issue by making the character a woman. Star Trek Into Darkness vindicates that decision.

    They should've removed the temptation to be so direct in their references by just having the secondary antagonist be Khan-like. Maybe he could be a cyborg. Or, hell, have him be John Harrison, from the cryotube next to Khan's on the Botany Bay. At least then we don't have the most anglo man in film and television playing the most infamous Cuban/Indian villain in sci-fi. The portrayals didn't really mesh, and STID relied a lot on prior knowledge of Khan (and, logically, he's one of the few characters we've met who should be essentially identical to his original version).

    Khanberbatch felt like too much of an asshole. Montokhan had more of a sense of royalty. Like he genuinely felt he should be running things, and he mostly irritated that no one else was smart enough to realize that. Even when he was losing, he was completely confident. Khanberbatch just wanted to wreak a bunch of stuff because he was irritated about being jerked around. Some pontificating at the end about how the Federation needed superior men and women to lead it when he was ransoming his people back from Spock (as exhibited by Admiral Robocop being a warmongering jackass) wouldn't have been amiss. And maybe a classic literary quote or two. Don't go full Nick Meyer on us, but bust out some literature just as a garnish. Something from "Heart of Darkness," maybe.

    It's still a really good movie, but Khan and the TWoK references are a millstone weighing it down.[/spoiler]

    Did anyone else notice some characters in the closing credits that weren't in the movie? I'm guessing either a deleted scene, or [spoiler]Chris Hemsworth and Jennifer Morrison[/spoiler] had one hell of a contract for the last one.
  • SpiritOneSpiritOne Magneto ABQ NM
    I enjoyed it, was a good homage, full of action and humor.
  • CanavandriveCanavandrive Registered User
    I didn't care for it.
    It seemed like a running gag on old trek lines.
    I left upset because it didn't take it self seriously.
    I said to someone else it probably got PGed so kids could see it.
    What happened to the days of Ballsy kids sneaking into R rated movies?

  • ShadowDancerShadowDancer When I say, "Why aye, gadgie," in my heart I say, "Och aye, laddie." London, UK
    It wasn't great at all. Just a rehash of plot points with a new shiny surface. Makes me fear for the new Star Wars movies
  • CanavandriveCanavandrive Registered User
    It also makes you rehash your posts! oh star trek: Into the LOL
  • ShadowDancerShadowDancer When I say, "Why aye, gadgie," in my heart I say, "Och aye, laddie." London, UK
    Hmm dunno how I managed that. Can't seem to delete one either.
  • croxiscroxis I am the walrus
    BEHOLD THE POWER OF MODERATION
  • BigglesBiggles <font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
    "If you do things right, no one will be sure you've done anything at all."
  • BigglesBiggles <font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
    It wasn't great at all. Just a rehash of plot points with a new shiny surface. Makes me fear for the new Star Wars movies
    "It wasn't great at all" is an understatement. It was a terrible movie and a horrible use of the Star Trek name and characters.

    After Into Darkness, I can't see why anyone would be excited about the new Star Wars movie.
  • SpiritOneSpiritOne Magneto ABQ NM
    More viewing leave me underwhelmed by the direction of both Into Darkness and the rebooted ST2009.

    They should have shitcanned the entire transwarp beaming. You want to sneak Kirk back on the Enterprise, have the station be a secure research station where they are investigating the stolen romulan cloaking device. Obviously Kirk wouldn't have been apart of stealing it, but it would have a nice nod to the original. In fact the whole god dam planet they were on shouldn't have been Delta Vega, it should have been Vulcans moon. It could have been the Vulcan science academy research station. It would be emptying because Vulcan was just destroyed.

    I also would have preferred the original idea of the ship at the beginning of the movie be the original Enterprise under command of Robert April. George Kirk could have been the second officer, and Number 1 could have been the crewman sucked out of the ship in the explosion.

    I also don't like the idea that Kirk was born in space. This isn't Picards happy go lucky, family ties in Space. This is the space McCoy talks about, wrapped in darkness and silence. His mother could have been on board, and even pregnant, but not giving birth.

    Kirk also should not have been an academy student thrust into the captains chair. It's too much. And the decision to have Kirk lose his command and sent back to the academy was also an over reaction. He should have been at least a Lt at the start of the Vulcan battle. Perhaps still serving on board the Farragut. The ship could have been destroyed by the Narada and he gets picked up by the Enterprise.

    There are a lot of ways they could have improved the 2009 reboot. More importantly they could have not invented new technology that trapped them in the second movie.
  • StingrayStingray Elite Ranger
    Seems like a lot of people don't have that intimate knowledge to the whole TOS lore that keeps them from enjoying the reboots on their own merits. I'm just curious to see if JJ can do a worse job than Lucas did with the SW prequels.
  • While 2009 was a good movie, I still can't wrap my head around the crew, ESPECIALLY Kirk, becoming the command staff right as they were graduating. Even though there were a few casualties with Nero, you have all the department heads who would become first officer. Just seemed sloppy.

    And yeah, Into Darkness, they really messed up Khan. Not just the casting, but his behavior. And the crew not knowing who Khan was? Seriously, you had to force a Nimoy cameo to educate them?

    And yeah, transwarp beaming and medical tech that hundreds of years beyond even ST kinda throws in a Deus Ex Machima into the whole mix.
  • StingrayStingray Elite Ranger
    edited August 2014
    The Honest STID Trailer seems to reflect some of the common criticism voiced here.
  • WORFWORF The Burninator
    The crew not knowing who Khan is, is consistent with the TOS episode. Only one of the crew members knew who Khan was and she fell in love with him.

    I stand by my original post though, the first half of the film was an interesting approach to Star Trek but then they ruined it by having Khan there and badly rehashing a fan favourite villain.
  • In Space Seed (which I saw not that long ago) he only introduced himself as Khan for that very reason. It was after his full name was realized that everybody remembered who he was from the history books. I guess he did the same thing in Into Darkness, but then that begs the question......if he isn't recognized by his face or his first name, why go by the undercover name?
  • BigglesBiggles <font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
    Seems like a lot of people don't have that intimate knowledge to the whole TOS lore that keeps them from enjoying the reboots on their own merits.
    They only merits Into Darkness has to enjoy are as a turn-your-brain-off action movie.
  • StingrayStingray Elite Ranger
    edited August 2014
    They only merits Into Darkness has to enjoy are as a turn-your-brain-off action movie.
    Well, to be fair, I'd say the recent Trek movies fall a notch or two above the Transformer flicks though and for some reason people keep going to see them. I'm not one of those people. ;-)
  • ShadowDancerShadowDancer When I say, "Why aye, gadgie," in my heart I say, "Och aye, laddie." London, UK
    The best thing about the Transformers movies was when the end credits started to roll
  • StingrayStingray Elite Ranger
    The best thing about the Transformers movies was when the end credits started to roll
    So, you are publicly admitting to have seen the Transformer movies? :D I wouldn't know, because I didn't see the end credits either. ;-)
  • WORFWORF The Burninator
    I kinda like Michael Bay because he knows exactly what kind of movies he makes and doesn't pretend otherwise. It showed when he appeared in the Verizon ads that poke fun at him and his style. He wouldn't have done it if he wasn't okay with that.

    Abrams on the other hand thinks he makes well crafted, intelligent films but ultimately there's little difference between his movies and Bay's.
  • StingrayStingray Elite Ranger
    edited August 2014
    Well, Michael Bay must have a lot of fans of his work, as the movies keep raking in millions. So do the Kardashians. It seems to be a guilty pleasure of the masses.
  • ShadowDancerShadowDancer When I say, "Why aye, gadgie," in my heart I say, "Och aye, laddie." London, UK
    I saw the first Stingray, but that was enough! And the general population are morons!
  • StingrayStingray Elite Ranger
    Same here, I gave him the benefit of the doubt. Never understood who was fighting whom and who was winning or loosing, Megan Fox and boom!! The only realization I got towards the middle was, I'm getting too old for this sh1t!! Never actually finished watching the first one until the end.
  • FreejackFreejack Jake the Not-so-Wise
    I know they a bad movies...I know they suck...I know I shouldn't reward Bay by viewing his films, but when they are on, I just can't help but watch...

    I don't know if it's nostalgia or a complete lack of quality movies in the large-sentient-robots-inexplicably-disquised-as-vehicles genre, but when I see a Transformer movie, I just sit back and let Peter Cullen's mechano-organic voice lull me into a false sense of enjoyment.

    Jake
  • StingrayStingray Elite Ranger
    They should probably add movies to the things you can't argue over, like taste and colors. lol People are voting with their wallets. Billions of flies love to eat sh1t, that doesn't mean we have to agree. ;-)
Sign In or Register to comment.