Escape to the Movies: Star Trek: Into Darkness
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
the spoilers come in at the second half of the review, but the short version is that Bob thinks this one sucks.ascorbius said:
I'm not going to say much else (don't want to spoil/imply anything), other than if this movie doesn't do well, I wonder if Disney will give Star Wars to someone else.
Im not a star trek fan, but what is stupid is JJ had the whole ST universe of characters, aliens etc and all he could come up with is "This just redo film 2". Thats just lazy and a lack of imagination. Is this what he will do with the Star Wars, make episode 7, which will just be a remake of 4 but about a kid called Lance Skillwacker learning the force and fight Darth Verder who will be a clone.
Lazy JJ, very, very lazy.
Lazy JJ, very, very lazy.
Yes, Bob, you'll have to retread this when Star Wars 7 comes out. I just hope the side movies will be good so I can get at least some good SW movies without the disappointment.
The first half of the review is spoiler free, so you can watch that much and glean Bob's opinion from it if you want, it's just that in order to explain why he holds said opinion properly he has to spoil the movie, which he keeps to the second half.ascorbius said:
OT: At least we can still hold out hope that Abrams might have a better time with Star Wars, as its lighter attitude to fantasy and binary light/dark side underpinning of its whole universe may well be much easier for him to grasp and do something decent with... but I'm not holding my breath.
So this review is just a Star Trek fan ranting over why it isn't good?
I mean I thought the film is alright but I know little to nothing about Star Trek especially the very first series, now I feel like I had offended someone for not knowing the previous series. I mean I got some of the references but I pretty much forgotten the Wrath of Khan film.
I do got to agree that it seen rather plain that the next movie is could be another great big reference to the old series or previous first series films yet again instead of trying to come up with something original seeing how the film universe is an alternative timeline or they are not necessary restrictly to follow the same events.
I mean I thought the film is alright but I know little to nothing about Star Trek especially the very first series, now I feel like I had offended someone for not knowing the previous series. I mean I got some of the references but I pretty much forgotten the Wrath of Khan film.
I do got to agree that it seen rather plain that the next movie is could be another great big reference to the old series or previous first series films yet again instead of trying to come up with something original seeing how the film universe is an alternative timeline or they are not necessary restrictly to follow the same events.
Star Trek is kind of like comic books - like Bob said with comic books once in the Big Picture, you can pretty much start wherever the hell you like. There is the occasional call-back, but it is still very accessible. Personally, I'd recommend starting with Next Generation and to just persevere - the first two seasons do have some rather rubbish episodes, but there is also some great ones there. The same applies for Deep Space 9 and Voyager - both series took a couple of seasons to find their feet (I do think that DS9 and Voyager could have ended better, especially Voyager, but that's a whole other discussion/rant).Grenge Di Origin said:
Oh, and you should TOTALLY see Wrath of Khan. It's the only movie I can think of where William Shatner's over-the-top ham acting actually works.
I already had enough reservations from nearly every poster having "Into Darkness" in larger print than what's supposed to be the draw, now heating what happened (along with a few other of the director's statements), he clearly didn't want to direct Star Trek in the first place. More importantly, he's taken my Star Trek, he'll be taking my Star Wars, if Hollywood decides to make a Gundam movie and make him the director that will quite literally be JJ Abrams messing up every one of my beloved childhood franchises.
Now that I've said that, it will be happen and the plot twists will be so lazy. "That guy in the mask who we always said wasn't Char, totally is Char." Hell, does this mean for Star Wars VII the twist will be that the guy with the red light saber is a sith lord?
[small]It probably is and that's just annoying...[/small]
Now that I've said that, it will be happen and the plot twists will be so lazy. "That guy in the mask who we always said wasn't Char, totally is Char." Hell, does this mean for Star Wars VII the twist will be that the guy with the red light saber is a sith lord?
[small]It probably is and that's just annoying...[/small]
Really doesn't feel like a spoiler when every Trekkie and Trekker figured out the big spoiler long ago and the production team didn't do a very good job of convincing people they hadn't already figured it out.
So is it too early to give up any hope of getting a good movie out of the writers and to give up on another franchise since Abrams is a big name without the skill to make the big movies into really good movies?
So is it too early to give up any hope of getting a good movie out of the writers and to give up on another franchise since Abrams is a big name without the skill to make the big movies into really good movies?
Yeah, I was a bit lukewarm about the reboot(the 1st movie) too.
I never really had any investment into the series, as I never watched it, but I can't imagine how painful it would be for me if I had.
Yet everyone still rates Into Darkness as "above average" and "quite good".
...
ABRAMS!!!!!!!!!!!
*echoes* ABRAMS!!!!!!!!!
I never really had any investment into the series, as I never watched it, but I can't imagine how painful it would be for me if I had.
Yet everyone still rates Into Darkness as "above average" and "quite good".
...
ABRAMS!!!!!!!!!!!
*echoes* ABRAMS!!!!!!!!!
So I knew that this review would be negative, especially given Bob's previous issues with the 2009 film and his dislike of J.J. Abrams. I was lucky enough to go and see it last week before most of the reviews were out and enjoyed it immensely. Yes, it has callbacks, and I thought in most they worked.
I enjoyed this movie, and it looks like a lot of people agree with me. It's not the best movie in the world, but in my opinion it's nowhere near as bad as Bob seems to think.
I enjoyed this movie, and it looks like a lot of people agree with me. It's not the best movie in the world, but in my opinion it's nowhere near as bad as Bob seems to think.
You... really didn't pay much attention to the review did you? I'm not much of a fan of Bob (think his head tends to be somewhere it shouldn't be), but the points you mentioned were, at best, salient points that had nothing really to do with the main reason he didn't like it.FargoDog said:
The Actual reasons he states he doesn't like it are:
1. The twist about Khan is done for it's own sake and doesn't add to the film (apparently Abrams is channeling M.Night).
2. The character of Khan isn't actually a character simply a walking plot convenience.
3. All the other characters basically just go through the same motions they did in the first.
4. The bad guy is so obvious and over the top, he fails to elicit any threat.
5. The plot itself is hamfisted.
6. Bob is sick of Abrams doing this.
2. The character of Khan isn't actually a character simply a walking plot convenience.
3. All the other characters basically just go through the same motions they did in the first.
4. The bad guy is so obvious and over the top, he fails to elicit any threat.
5. The plot itself is hamfisted.
6. Bob is sick of Abrams doing this.
The points you mentioned barely registered, and I don't really know how those are the ones you picked up on.
I wouldn't call this a movie "good" either...
This movie is GREAT and I wholeheartedly recommend you go see it now, screw whatever bob says and go watch it.
Why? Because it's fun without being stupid.
It's better than Iron Man 3 in every single way, the action is better, the cinematography is nicer, the climax is better the "twist" is better and if it wasn't for RDJ, this movie would blow Iron Man 3 so far out of the water that Greenpeace would have to bring a semi-truck to get it back in. THis is of course my opinion, so feel free to scream at your screen now about how I am wrong etc.
It's better than Wrath of Khan, it's damn well better than every Star Trek movie that came before it (in MY OPINION, bear in mind, I am not a Star Trek fan, nor did I never watch an episode of the Star Trek series).
Hell, I liked it better than most of the Marvel movies that came before it, including The Avengers (yeah yeah, I said Jehova, get your beards ready now). (I never read Marvel/DC comics either).
This movie was everything I wanted it to be.
A fun science-fiction action-romp with a likeable cast, great cinematography, a great score, good performances all-around, some throwbacks to the "original" even complete and utter dolts like me can understand and a good plot. Of course, this is far from being on-par with science-fiction classics, such as Moon and "2001", but then again this movie doesn't try to go that route.
(Also, why did Bob need to "critique" this movie and feels that revealing the "twist" is something he has to do, when in his Iron Man 3 review, he tiptoed around it, telling us how great the twist was, when, in all honesty, the "Iron Man Twist" is just as bad, if not worse than this movie's "twist".)
This movie is GREAT and I wholeheartedly recommend you go see it now, screw whatever bob says and go watch it.
Why? Because it's fun without being stupid.
It's better than Iron Man 3 in every single way, the action is better, the cinematography is nicer, the climax is better the "twist" is better and if it wasn't for RDJ, this movie would blow Iron Man 3 so far out of the water that Greenpeace would have to bring a semi-truck to get it back in. THis is of course my opinion, so feel free to scream at your screen now about how I am wrong etc.
It's better than Wrath of Khan, it's damn well better than every Star Trek movie that came before it (in MY OPINION, bear in mind, I am not a Star Trek fan, nor did I never watch an episode of the Star Trek series).
Hell, I liked it better than most of the Marvel movies that came before it, including The Avengers (yeah yeah, I said Jehova, get your beards ready now). (I never read Marvel/DC comics either).
This movie was everything I wanted it to be.
A fun science-fiction action-romp with a likeable cast, great cinematography, a great score, good performances all-around, some throwbacks to the "original" even complete and utter dolts like me can understand and a good plot. Of course, this is far from being on-par with science-fiction classics, such as Moon and "2001", but then again this movie doesn't try to go that route.
(Also, why did Bob need to "critique" this movie and feels that revealing the "twist" is something he has to do, when in his Iron Man 3 review, he tiptoed around it, telling us how great the twist was, when, in all honesty, the "Iron Man Twist" is just as bad, if not worse than this movie's "twist".)
Star Trek: Into Darkness is fun. Probably the most fun thing out this weekend, even moreso than Iron Man 3 if space is the sort of thing you're into. It's not Wrath of Khan (1982), but aside from having similarly named but clearly distinct characters why would you expect it to be?
I don't think he's saying that the movie is bad because of the fact that it has a political message. What he's saying is that the message, and in fact a lot of the movie itself, doesn't do anything. The movie changes nothing, advances nothing, doesn't grow characters or the universe, and is just a filler piece until JJ and Co. can pump out the next feature. In The Avengers, things happen for a reason, characters grow and change, people learn things, and the mythos of the world is affected.FargoDog said:
And you're right, The Avengers' number 1 goal was to not suck and fuck up years of shared world building, and it accomplished that goal. Sometimes, when one takes a massive risk like that, it's all one can really hope for.
This is a personal gripe (and such has nothing to do with the quoted message and should not be taken as part of any reply), but I wonder when people are going to get that Bob loves movies that try things and take risks more than ones that don't, and noticeably so. He'll admit when it doesn't work (Suckerpunch, for example), but when movies just trot out the old stuff because that's what the movie-makers think is going to work and make them money (The Expendables, for example), he doesn't enjoy himself as much and typically ends up disappointed.