Star Trek Into Darkness (Post-release)

[mynameschris]

Now, Kirks death scene had me choked up a bit. The thought of Kirk dying for the Enterprise the way he should. Once it was obvious that it was basically a mirror of WOK scene I was happy with it, but also kind of like, it's too early for some reason. Maybe because that was their second encounter with Khan. No big deal. Good acting in the scene, but I wish they would have done a little make up on Kirk, kind of like they did with Spock in WOK to kind of illustrate the radiation exposure. Minor complaint.

Same here, I think if you see this character as being Kirk you feel the emotional connection, if you dont then you understandably will be cold to the scene and just see it as a mirror of the WOK scene. Kirk was my childhood hero, while that for the first 25 years of my life was Shatner I also see Pine as Kirk, not quite the same Kirk but Kirk all the same.

Now, my prediction or hopes for the next one is they have a cool Klingon villain. I like how evil and "warrior" like they made the Klingons look in this. Very cool.

Thats my hope, preferably someone Kirk can duel with both on an intellectual and physical level be it face to face or ship to ship. We have seen the Klingons as the warrior race but we need to see the other side to them, a return to their roots from TOS as a clever adversary, a dangerous match to Kirk and the Enterprise.

 

[Goonie]

Collider nailed it.
STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS Review. J.J. Abrams? STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS Stars Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto | Collider

But if you’ve seen The Original Series, Spock’s death has serious weight. It’s the end of a decades-long friendship, and the line “I have been, and always will be, your friend,” gets the tears flowing.

Star Trek Into Darkness looks at all of this, and says, “So people know these moments? Okay, we’ll twist them a bit, and call it an homage.” In actuality, it’s just theft, and a poorly executed one at that. To begin, the whole purpose of the alternate universe was to create new adventures. That meant everything that happened in the Original Series couldn’t (or at least shouldn’t) happen in the new timeline. However, since Khan was created before the timeline split, he should still look and act the same. Abrams originally tried to get Benicio Del Toro for the role, and when the actor passed, the director apparently decided there were no more talented Hispanic actors left in Hollywood, and went with Benedict Cumberbatch.

Even if you’re not a die-hard Trek fan, the film no longer has the charm to speed past such questions as:
•If they can beam Spock out of the volcano, why didn’t they just beam him into the volcano in the first place?
•Why does Kirk kick Scotty off the ship for refusing to use the torpedoes, and then decide to capture Harrison rather than use the torpedoes?
•Why does Kirk promote Chekov (Anton Yelchin) to run engineering instead of someone who’s actually an engineer?
•How would Admiral Marcus keep a gigantic dreadnaught filled with private security officers a secret?
•Why does Khan run away from Spock when Khan is physically and intellectually superior?
•Why do they need Khan’s super-blood when they have 72 other genetically enhanced people already on board the Enterprise?
•If Kirk is sent on a secret mission to retrieve Khan after Khan attacks the Starfleet officers’ meeting, then does that mean Starfleet had no official response to the direct attack?

And one question they missed, if you can beam from one planet to another, what's the point of having ships in this series now?

Someone must have put the producers and writers into a transporter and beamed their heads on backwards like Mel Brooks...

 

[SmilingOtter]

I'm looking forward to "How It Should Have Ended's" take on the film.

 

[Proper]

I enjoy many movies that portray violence to a high degree, but I don't see people killing each other on the space station which is of course real life.
I don't think future generations are going to need to be so violent out there in the stars, should our species be fortunate to learn how to go there.

Huh? You mean there will be no more bad guys in the future that nay have to be dealt with and possibly... gulp... killed? Yes, killed, as in shot with a phaser-not-on-stun? No more bad humans, no more bad aliens? Everybody will be holding hands and singing Kumbia? I know you don't really believe that. If you do please tell me so and I'll rush out to secure a bridge for sale.

 

[Bryancd]

I enjoy many movies that portray violence to a high degree, but I don't see people killing each other on the space station which is of course real life.
I don't think future generations are going to need to be so violent out there in the stars, should our species be fortunate to learn how to go there.

I appreciate that sentiment but I want to be thrilled at the movies. If I want to watch an awesome documentary on NASA I have the Science Channel and Discovery both in HD at home.

 

[SSgt Burton]

I think Trek has done its best to keep up with the masses.


When X-Files was on the air and gaining momentum (along with UFO conspiracies), TNG made the episode "Schisms" which was about the crew being abducted and experimented on by aliens. They even used the classic signs of an abduction such as "missing time."

DS9 was losing momentum, until they introducted the Dominion War which lasted 3 seasons, delivering "gritty", "darker" episodes. Now don't get me wrong, some of my favourite DS9 episodes occurred during the Dominion War story arc... however they didn't really highlight a utopian society unfettered by war and poverty that could concentrate on space exploration.

I guess I'm just saying that Trek has evolved to try and keep up with the times.


I'm willing to bet that despite the relatively poor box office numbers, a third "prequel" Trek film will get made. And while they hinted at the 5 year mission beginning (which I'd love to see), my guess is that the crew/Earth/or a budding society will be endangered which Kirk and Company will have to save.

As I said before, a Trek series could handle that "happier" side of Trek.


PS- if any of the above sounded sardonic, it was not my intention. I like those "happy, fun, thought provoking" Trek stories; I just like the action oriented darker ones as well.


Kevin

 

[jcoffman99]

Saw the film today. I enjoyed it a good bit. I went in knowing about the twists and "homage" to TWOK. I will say that it's interesting how they show us an alternative end to the Kirk Spock relationship. Is it as good as the first time? No way. But taken as its own, very interesting. I really liked the idea of the militarization of Star Fleet. Simon Pegg was fantastic and did a good job of conveying the seriousness of it. I hope to see it again.

 

[CessnaDriver]

I appreciate that sentiment but I want to be thrilled at the movies. If I want to watch an awesome documentary on NASA I have the Science Channel and Discovery both in HD at home.

I am not saying that, I've often said I like action too and it's needed.
I think there should be a balance between it for drama's sake and showing humanity has advanced.

 

[CessnaDriver]

Huh? You mean there will be no more bad guys in the future that nay have to be dealt with and possibly... gulp... killed? Yes, killed, as in shot with a phaser-not-on-stun? No more bad humans, no more bad aliens? Everybody will be holding hands and singing Kumbia? I know you don't really believe that. If you do please tell me so and I'll rush out to secure a bridge for sale.

Of course not, TOS never portrayed all the aliens getting along with us at all. But by god the Federation tried and Kirk tried.
Again there is critical need for conflict and drama, I want action too. but not just because it's safe to do that and please the most people.
I do not recall Spock before, a being of logic, beating an enemy near to death, cracking arms and needing to be called off like a rabid dog lest he commit murder. Sure he flipped a time or two to a lesser degree in TOS but it was Pon Far or something acting upon him. JJ Spock is out of control. That's over the line in any alternate timeline. Even mirror Spock kept his cool.

 

[Hedjii72]

And one question they missed, if you can beam from one planet to another, what's the point of having ships in this series now?

Hey, that is a good one! What exactly is the range on the transporters? Did Khan beam directly to Kronos?

Honestly, there were so many things the writers didn't think through all the way.

 

[CessnaDriver]

Curious what you guys think of Master and Commander?
This was very much a "Star Trek" movie in many ways.
Granted the HMS Surprise was a vessel of war, but there was a lot of great stuff
with the doctor wishing to explore the Galapagos and the conflict that created with his Captain.
The challenges of being at sea far from home.
Good stuff. Dramatic, action, thoughtful content. An enemy you barely see, a wonderful surprise ending.

 

[The Mad Professor]

I do not recall Spock before, a being of logic, beating an enemy near to death, cracking arms and needing to be called off like a rabid dog lest he commit murder. Sure he flipped a time or two to a lesser degree in TOS but it was Pon Far or something acting upon him. JJ Spock is out of control. That's over the line in any alternate timeline. Even mirror Spock kept his cool.

Spock Prime never saw his homeworld destroyed, his species virtually eradicated, his mother die horribly in front of him, and his best friend die while he could do nothing. NuSpock did what anybody else might have done in that case. He finally snapped. Were he a full Vulcan, he could have likely dealt with it better, but he was always fighting his human emotional side.

Mirror Spock was from a universe where death, torture, cruelty, and the like were quite literally a way of life. I imagine that Mirror Vulcans were just as cruel and sadistic, but they used logic to make themselves cold and calculating, turning the art of death into a precise science.

 

[Proper]

Of course not, TOS never portrayed all the aliens getting along with us at all. But by god the Federation tried and Kirk tried.
Again there is critical need for conflict and drama, I want action too. but not just because it's safe to do that and please the most people.
I do not recall Spock before, a being of logic, beating an enemy near to death, cracking arms and needing to be called off like a rabid dog lest he commit murder. Sure he flipped a time or two to a lesser degree in TOS but it was Pon Far or something acting upon him. JJ Spock is out of control. That's over the line in any alternate timeline. Even mirror Spock kept his cool.

OK, enough. I can't anymore. Good luck with that.

 

[msleeper]

Complete non-Trek fan here, though I am more than a little familiar with the series' and films.

I thought it was enjoyable, but a much weaker film than the first one. It felt incredibly predictable, which was a really surprising feeling because I know JJ Abrams has the balls to go in completely radical directions. In the opening scene where Spock is in the volcano? I 100% genuinely expected Abrams to kill him. In the scene where Kirk dies? I 100% genuinely expected Abrams to let him stay dead - despite the totally opaque setup for reviving him via Khan's blood.

I also was expecting-slash-hoping that when young Spock called up old Spock, that old Spock would give young Spock information that would prove to be useless, or even better, prove to be totally wrong. As in, the Khan that the old Spock fought would be a totally different adversary than this one, or something like that.

Again, as a total non-fan of Trek, I really enjoyed the first film by how fresh it felt and how willing JJ Abrams was to mix up the established canon. But with this one, it felt incredibly by-the-numbers and I really can't imagine why. Maybe he's waiting for the third one to kill off - really kill off - some characters, when the Enterprise goes on it's 5 year mission? Who knows.

 

[Jeyl]

Is this film trying to imply that the five-year mission to explore deep space was the result of Vulcan's destruction? Kirk does brag about how this five-year mission is a new program, and that Khan tells Kirk that after the destruction of Vulcan, Starfleet has been sending ships further into uncharted territories. If exploring uncharted terriroties in deep space was NEVER much of a priority before, what was the cause of the five-year mission in the original universe? I don't recall them having a catastrophic event from an unknown enemy.

 

[trueogre]

Collider nailed it.
STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS Review. J.J. Abrams? STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS Stars Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto | Collider





And one question they missed, if you can beam from one planet to another, what's the point of having ships in this series now?

Someone must have put the producers and writers into a transporter and beamed their heads on backwards like Mel Brooks...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v46/doleted/Funny/mel-brooks-spaceballs-6_zps6087b9b9.jpg

It was tech that only Scotty invented and was handed over to Sector whatever it is 33? I assume it was compartmented due to it's probable applications for terrorism, but ultimately their secret service would use it in extreme circumstances. Unfortunately John Harrison got hold of this information and used it for that every purpose.

 

[The Mad Professor]

Is this film trying to imply that the five-year mission to explore deep space was the result of Vulcan's destruction? Kirk does brag about how this five-year mission is a new program, and that Khan tells Kirk that after the destruction of Vulcan, Starfleet has been sending ships further into uncharted territories. If exploring uncharted terriroties in deep space was NEVER much of a priority before, what was the cause of the five-year mission in the original universe? I don't recall them having a catastrophic event from an unknown enemy.

To be fair, the new timeline has Kirk assuming command of the Enterprise in 2258, six years earlier than his prime counterpart (2264). 2264 was the prime universe start date for the five-year mission, so the new timeline's five year mission started five years early. It could be argued that, due to the logistics involved with such a mission, the planning for it was already underway for some time (likely even before Kirk's birth), and the Narada Incident (and subsequent need to check for other threats) simply advanced the mission timetable.

 

[ghostryder]

Red Letter Media Half in the Bag: Star Trek Into Darkness

 

[Bryancd]

Red Letter Media Half in the Bag: Star Trek Into Darkness

Is it just me? I have never found these guys funny...at all.

 

[Jeyl]

Red Letter Media Half in the Bag: Star Trek Into Darkness

"Star Trek: The Fast and the Furious is the second film in the newly rebooted franchise by JJ Abrams. The movie is essentially the same film as the first one. Kirk learns to be a leader, Spock gets emotional, Uhura and Spock have a lovers' quarrel, and some guy wants revenge. Things also blow up. But this time things are more blow upee."

And that's barely scratching of all the retreads that STID took from the last one. I remember a few weeks ago before STID was released in the US that everyone was so happy about the promise of deep space exploration thanks to the Enterprise finally embarking on it's five year mission, but forgetting that it was essentially the same set up that the last movie made. Given how much this film kept to that promise, it's almost guaranteed that we won't see the crew actually doing anything in deep space unless it involves their modern day Earth being attacked by a bad guy.

That bit where they think the writers were being clever by having the Enterprise fire the torpedoes on Qo'nos so that Khan's followers would wake up is NOT what was going on in the film at all.

My favorite bit is when Mike talks about the only thing that this Star Trek has going for it in terms of direction.

The only trick up their sleeve as far as the characters go is that "we're a family" and "family works together!" and "Kirk and Spock are best friends!". There's nothing else that they can do. How about something really complicated character wise? But when you take complicated characters and you boil them down to cartoon characters, that's what you're left with. James Kirk is a hot head who learns to lead. He did that in the first one. Spock is an emotionless guy who learns to be emotional at the right time. He did that in the first one. Uhura loves Spock. Scotty is whacky. Bones is there and says his corny lines. So now we've boiled them down to cartoon characters. You can't build them beyond that. So every movie will be about "We're best friends".

Going with the "family" and "friends" schtick is ok, but if that's all you got going for your movie in terms of what your story is about, it's going to come to the point where the story and setting doesn't really need to be about anything at all. I get that Kirk and Spock are supposed to be friends, but why not dial it down a bit so that when they're on duty we get to see them act like professional people who don't treat every situation as though it's something that could affect their relationship?

- - - Updated - - -

Is it just me? I have never found these guys funny...at all.

It's not them that's funny. It's the stupidity of the script that's funny. They're just pointing it out.