My biggest beef was the language. Star Trek shouldn't have cursing in it.
Star Trek Into Darkness (Post-release)
- Thread starter Vivek
- Start date
I suppose some people would have rather seen another prime universe movie. They could call it Star Trek: The Geritol Years...
That's not nearly as bad as multiple S$%@s.
******* can't be that bad as the language filter didn't block it.
******* can't be that bad as the language filter didn't block it.
I'll toast to that. I know there was some language in previous Treks, but they never used it this casually.
greatwazoo42
Master Member
LOL! I would have loved to have seen new characters and cameos by the older TOS crew as mentors of a sort. We have that 78 year empty space between the last ride of the Dash A and the rise of the D. There is so much that could be done there. Maybe we can get a TV Show set there and keep going with the alternate universe movies where a bigger budget would be better used. With all the fan productions coming out these days and getting praise even the most ego-centrally dimwitted TV exec should be able to see the marketability of something like that. What would also help is to revive the Trek concept of taking modern problems and putting them in a sci-fi frame. TOS Trek addressed the issues of the world at the time well. Using the TOS cast as cameo mentors against the two or three generations down younger crew of a new ship would give an excellent "in our day" perspective vs. the "it isn't your day anymore" view.
SSgt Burton
Sr Member
Certainly. And "Ohhhhhh ****!" from Data in "Generations"...
However I have to agree that (over)use of the "s" word really takes me out of the moment when it comes to a Star Trek film. Same went for the "throwing me under the bus" line. It's way too contemporary.
Kirk's SOB line I can live with, as it isn't slang, was probably used as an expletive 300 years ago, and will probably continue to be 300 years from now.
Kevin
Wow. Can't believe I didn't think to use the term colorful metaphors. Double ******* on me.
greatwazoo42
Master Member
One damned minute, Admiral!
SmilingOtter
Master Member
And let's not forget Picard:
Last edited by a moderator:
Zuiun
Sr Member
For me, I find myself just flat out conflicted about the film and the direction of this new spin on the series.
Like Trek '09, I find Into Darkness to be very entertaining while "in the moment." JJ Abrams is a talented action director and can definitely make a story interesting to watch.
The problem is afterward, when you start to really think about the story as presented, that things fall apart.
I do think the writing is lazy. I know that there are some in here who blatantly misinterpret that as some kind of personal insult against the writers, which is a pretty telling leap in logical deduction, and a failure to recognize the difference between a lazy "action" and a lazy "person." However, the fact remains that even very talented people can succumb to taking shortcuts in an effort to expedite the writing process at the expense of solving serious story problems. To me, that is a lazy action.
I absolutely do NOT regret spending money to see it. I don't consider it a waste of time. On the level of the most basic promise a movie makes to an audience (namely to be entertaining for two hours), the film succeeds and I would watch it again.
At the same time, I do expect a little more, in general from a Star Trek film. And I don't mean "more" in terms of plot complexity. Into Darkness has that in spades. Too much, if you ask me. In fact, I think that's my biggest problem with it. The plotting is overly complex, at the expense of the story being overly superficial.
The diametric opposite of this is Wrath of Khan: Very simple plot, but a very complex story.
And to be 100% fair, there are many things in WOK that simply do not hold up well upon post-viewing contemplation (for example, that the "genius" Khan seems to continually fall for the most rudimentary tricks). But I think the reason WOK holds up and is revered to this day despite those flaws is because the story actually feels like it matters, the character motivations make sense (without requiring endless debate, speculation, or checking tie-in materials to unravel), and the structure of the film remains very simple, while telling a complex story of revenge, aging, and personal relationships.
Bottom line: I find these new Star Trek films to be pretty great and immensely entertaining ... as long as you don't think about them too much. And I find that fact to be just a little disappointing when talking about something in the "Star Trek" franchise.
Like Trek '09, I find Into Darkness to be very entertaining while "in the moment." JJ Abrams is a talented action director and can definitely make a story interesting to watch.
The problem is afterward, when you start to really think about the story as presented, that things fall apart.
I do think the writing is lazy. I know that there are some in here who blatantly misinterpret that as some kind of personal insult against the writers, which is a pretty telling leap in logical deduction, and a failure to recognize the difference between a lazy "action" and a lazy "person." However, the fact remains that even very talented people can succumb to taking shortcuts in an effort to expedite the writing process at the expense of solving serious story problems. To me, that is a lazy action.
I absolutely do NOT regret spending money to see it. I don't consider it a waste of time. On the level of the most basic promise a movie makes to an audience (namely to be entertaining for two hours), the film succeeds and I would watch it again.
At the same time, I do expect a little more, in general from a Star Trek film. And I don't mean "more" in terms of plot complexity. Into Darkness has that in spades. Too much, if you ask me. In fact, I think that's my biggest problem with it. The plotting is overly complex, at the expense of the story being overly superficial.
The diametric opposite of this is Wrath of Khan: Very simple plot, but a very complex story.
And to be 100% fair, there are many things in WOK that simply do not hold up well upon post-viewing contemplation (for example, that the "genius" Khan seems to continually fall for the most rudimentary tricks). But I think the reason WOK holds up and is revered to this day despite those flaws is because the story actually feels like it matters, the character motivations make sense (without requiring endless debate, speculation, or checking tie-in materials to unravel), and the structure of the film remains very simple, while telling a complex story of revenge, aging, and personal relationships.
Bottom line: I find these new Star Trek films to be pretty great and immensely entertaining ... as long as you don't think about them too much. And I find that fact to be just a little disappointing when talking about something in the "Star Trek" franchise.
Addressing this point now.
I think that Khan is a genius in every sense of the word. He is highly intelligent, but prone to hubris. He thinks of every possible contingency and plans for every response ahead of time, and yes, he is good. However, he thinks in excessively complex patterns and practically ignores the basics. Like a computer hacker trying to get into someone's system, he anticipates every code, every firewall, every contingency, and has a plan for dealing with it to get to the information he wants. He knows he cannot fail, and he is pretty much right. However, he does not anticipate the most basic solution that the other computer user can do: unplug the damned machine.
You've obviously never watched a Michael Bay film
From the writers of JJ's Star Trek movies.
Zuiun
Sr Member
Thanks. I wouldn't have gotten that otherwise.
(Sorry... this comment just gave me a chuckle.)
To be fair, I don't think Khan missing some simple tricks really takes away from the film for exactly the reason that he's presented as being fairly blinded by revenge. The film even does a good job of setting this up by even having some of his men question his decisions. Also, as pointed out in the film, he is inexperienced.
So in this sense, it's still good writing. Within the context of the film, it all makes sense.
It's only on later examination that you start to question how it is he completely missed things like the hours versus days "code" that even my 11 year old self picked up on in the theater.
And there are other nitpicks in the film, too, to be sure (Khan recognizing Chekov requires a roundabout explanation of him being on the ship but we just never saw him in the first season; or why does Kirk get SOOOO pissed off at Khan's "buried alive" speech when he knows the Enterprise is coming back for him? Etc.).
But none of these nitpicks really take away from WOK being an excellent story overall that also happens to be told very well.
On the other hand, I think that Into Darkness is a mediocre story, with a plot that confuses complexity for substance, yet that just so happens to be told / directed well. I can still be entertained by it, but I'm pretty confident it won't resonate with me years from now the way WOK does.
And that's OK.
Last edited:
At the end of the day, WOK is an original story based upon an original story.
For me, STID kinda falls short, and tries to borrow the scenes and setups containing the most emotional impact from TWOK, and then twist them under the banner of originality and 'Look what I did there?'
Kinda like a tribute band playing your favorite band's tracks. Homage and tribute, but not the real deal by a long chalk, while they drop a lyric or a bum note...
TWOK as a whole was, and still is an excellent piece of filmmaking - great supporting cast, superb production design and effects work (the U.S.S. Reliant!) well paced and directed with a brilliant score. Then there's the interior and exterior conflict of the characters.
I believe I'll be spinning WOK in my Blu-ray player for many years to come.
I know STID will not even find its way into my collection, for many reasons I haven't the time to write (and repeat the comments of others) here.
Originality was severely lacking in STID. Yeah, anyone can wrap it and present it any way they desire, support JJ and co for their dedication to the source material, but if the film's a bad film (and make no mistake, STID is, on almost every level for all the reasons and more TWOK is not) then that's all it will be remembered for.
For me, STID kinda falls short, and tries to borrow the scenes and setups containing the most emotional impact from TWOK, and then twist them under the banner of originality and 'Look what I did there?'
Kinda like a tribute band playing your favorite band's tracks. Homage and tribute, but not the real deal by a long chalk, while they drop a lyric or a bum note...
TWOK as a whole was, and still is an excellent piece of filmmaking - great supporting cast, superb production design and effects work (the U.S.S. Reliant!) well paced and directed with a brilliant score. Then there's the interior and exterior conflict of the characters.
I believe I'll be spinning WOK in my Blu-ray player for many years to come.
I know STID will not even find its way into my collection, for many reasons I haven't the time to write (and repeat the comments of others) here.
Originality was severely lacking in STID. Yeah, anyone can wrap it and present it any way they desire, support JJ and co for their dedication to the source material, but if the film's a bad film (and make no mistake, STID is, on almost every level for all the reasons and more TWOK is not) then that's all it will be remembered for.
Let's see, Transformers Revenge of the Fallen 20% approval rating, ST-ITD 89%... Yep, same thing. :/
Audience and critical reaction tells a very different story from the one you and others are attempting to advance. It's fine to not like it, but to call it stupid is, well, kind of stupid.
Last edited:
Zuiun
Sr Member
To be fair, I think that Into Darkness had a fairly original premise to work from.
The notion that the events of the first movie would inspire some within Starfleet to want to militarize the organization is an interesting one -- and could be made into a VERY Trek moral dilemma concerning the core values of Starfleet.
There was definitely something there.
And I think it probably would have been better for the story if "John Harrison" had really been just John Harrison, some brilliant engineer that was blackmailed into helping to build a warship.
Khan was unnecessary to the story they wanted to tell. And that's kind of a Big Deal, because Khan was reduced to a gimmick that allowed Abrams and the writers to borrow depth from Trek's past at the expense of adding their own.
Agreed, Zuiun.
The ball was dropped as no one had their eye on it.
They borrowed from the best, but didn't follow up what had been established by 2009's effort (which in some respects is superior) as they were concentrating on mimicking what had gone before (pardon the pun!) by way of sequence continuity.
That, and trying to please the fan and general cinema going Joe at the same time.
Did either Wilber or Bennett & Sowards get a credit for 'based on characters/story' created by? I didn't stay long enough to read the credits.
The ball was dropped as no one had their eye on it.
They borrowed from the best, but didn't follow up what had been established by 2009's effort (which in some respects is superior) as they were concentrating on mimicking what had gone before (pardon the pun!) by way of sequence continuity.
That, and trying to please the fan and general cinema going Joe at the same time.
Did either Wilber or Bennett & Sowards get a credit for 'based on characters/story' created by? I didn't stay long enough to read the credits.
Similar threads
