Escape to the Movies: Star Trek: Into Darkness

Hitchmeister

New member
Nov 24, 2009
453
0
0
Okay, objectively, and held up to the standards of great film making, ST:ID is not a great, or even particularly good movie. But we don't go see Star Trek movies for great film making. That said, ST:ID plays better than almost all of the TNG movies and at least half of the original cast movies. So, yeah, it's satisfying with suitably lowered expectations.

As far as the big spoilery twist... there's no real reason for it. It doesn't add to the film. If they hadn't been coy about hiding it, they could have spent a good 10 to 20 minutes on a better back story and made an over all better movie.
 

Toilet

New member
Feb 22, 2012
401
0
0
I found Into Darkness to be completely average, I enjoyed it for what it was but then again the most I ever got into Star Trek was watching Picard and Janeway with my Dad when I was younger and really liking it. I never got the chance to watch the original series although I did appreciate the little hamfisted references.

I didn't really enjoy the first movie but I liked this one more, What disappointed me the most was they they didn't do anything with the ideas that they had. The role reversed sacrifice at the end could have been really great if they didn't undo it 20 minutes later. I just cant help but think of all the wasted potential, they could stuck with it and then had an actual twist ending with maybe a sequel hint with a certain bald charming captain but nope for the sequel we are going to have a war with the Klingons.

(I really appreciated that Pine porked up to play Kirk in true Star Trek fashion and how Karl Urban as McCoy is a dead ringer for DeForest Kelley, McCoy has to be my favorite character.)
 

Trishbot

New member
May 10, 2011
1,318
0
0
I'm one of those people the really enjoyed the Star Trek 2009 reboot.... BUT I still think that movie is vastly overrated, filled with crippling amounts of plotholes and immersion-breaking coincidences, a very weak central plot, and number of distracting cameos from other actors (Tyler Perry? Seriously?). It spent 99% of its time "rebooting" the universe only to send that time putting the characters, through sheer coincidence and acts of fate, right back into the exact same roles their other-universe counterparts had, to the point that we KNEW everyone was going to adopt "their role" and we just had to waste time waiting for it to happen... and when it finally did, the movie was nearly over.

It still had some great scenes and the acting was, well... let's just say its more genuine than the originals. Still a good movie, but I'll probably never fully accept that Kirk gets marooned on a moon in the whole giant universe, stumbles into a cave on the whole giant moon, runs into Spock from the future in that one cave, and then also coincidentally bumps into Scotty, who is on that same moon a mere few meters away...

Concerning this film, I'm sure it'll be like the first (or the Dark Knight Rises), in that the overall film will be pretty enjoyable, but it just will lose me in the little details and collapse under the weight of plotholes, directionless scenes, unnecessary twists that serve no actual meaning, and aimless scenes that don't so much develop characters as repeat things we already know about them.

I think J.J. Abrams is decent... but he's not the 'savior' of the franchise, nor some brilliantly skilled director, or even someone with any real understanding or respect for the franchises he attaches himself to. It's mainly the work of all those around him that elevate the mundane material into something truly interesting, much like how Robert Downey Jr. turned what could've been another Daredevil or Ghost Rider into a role that elevated him (and the character of Iron Man) to a global hit... even if I acknowledge the actual movies would just be alright without him.

I guess I'm just trying to say that I have a healthy skepticism about Abrams taking on Star Wars. We need something truly NEW in the Star Wars universe and if Star Trek Into Darkness is an example of Abram's priorities, he seems incapable of going "where no man has gone before" and instead is opting to return to "where this franchise has already been several times before".

And say what you will about the Mandarin twist in Iron Man 3... at least people didn't see it coming. EVERYONE called out the "twist" in Star Trek Into Darkness nearly a whole year before we got to it.
 

Mr. Q

New member
Apr 30, 2013
767
0
0
MovieBob said:
Star Trek: Into Darkness

MovieBob gives us a frank and spoiler filled review of the latest Star Trek film.

Watch Video
Here is my thought process for this weeks Escape to the Movies episode. BTW, I will not post any of the spoilers Bob does in the video. I'm gonna make this as spoiler-free as possible.

Upon reading the description: Uh oh, I think I hear the bells tolling for this one.

Non-spoiler portion of the video: Yeah, I kinda figured it wasn't worth my time and money. I'll definitely be saving my $7 to go see Iron Man 3 again. Also, major props to Bob for using a Dial M For Monkey reference. XD

Spoiler portion of the video: OK, can we really qualify that first statement as a spoiler since most of the Internet already figured it out (including the ones that found out via Internet Movie Database)? If you didn't know about this "spoiler", then you either lack an Internet connection or you really need to bone up on your Star Trek history.

As for the rest of the video, it pretty much confirms my worst fears and amplifies my already mounting fears for Star Wars: Episode VII. I mean, sweet Jebus on a pogo stick! Is this the over-hyped schmuck Hollywood gave the keys to perhaps two of the biggest Sci-Fi franchises in history?!? This is the best man Disney and Paramount decided to go with?!? A mediocre director with great set-up but piss-poor execution and tends to favor mystery for the sake of mystery?!? I'd almost compare him to Michael Bay but at least Abrams doesn't plug in racist stereotypes in his movies!

I dunno what pisses me off the most. The fact that most critics, despite its flaws, gave this a pass (which begs the question "How badly do these people long for death's sweet embrace?") or the fact that most of Hollywood is (a) barely aiming for the stars with projects like these or (b) actually aiming for the gutters thinking that no one will notice. For the love of all that is holy, can we please hire people who actually care about what they're making rather than just picking hacks who offer fanboy pandering and cheap thrills in exchange for a pay check?!

God, I so wanna curl up into the fetal position and weep right now.
 

AnarchistAbe

The Original RageQuit Rebel
Sep 10, 2009
389
0
0
Strife2GFAQs said:
Ugh...they had to pull that fanservice card, huh? No thanks.
Honestly, I don't feel the movie was NEARLY as bad as he made it out to be. As someone who always enjoyed Star Trek, but wasn't a "Trekkie", I really enjoyed the film.
 

Jake the Snake

New member
Mar 25, 2009
1,141
0
0
teamcharlie said:
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'll have to echo your sentiments. I saw this movie two days ago for an early midnight premiere and absolutely loved it. It was much more entertaining than Iron Man 3. It really baffles me that Bob has given scathing reviews to both of these films. Is he upset that they brought Star Trek into the 21st century visually and gave it acting/stories that are fun to watch? The writing is at the very least solid, if not genuinely good. I don't know why he's complaining about the screenplay or the writers. Hell, my dad, who's a HUGE Trekkie absolutely adores the new movies. Maybe Bob needs to get his head out of his ass.
 

medv4380

The Crazy One
Feb 26, 2010
671
0
21
I used to like the concept of Star Trek, but then I watched B5 and found it more believable. The original concept of Star Trek is a bit too far out there for me to believe, and is too idealistic. It wasn't until DS9 that anything in the Star Trek universe had any sense of realism to it. I'm for any Trek movie that shows human nature as not ideal.

They can't really do Star Trek and not bring in the guy they bring in at some point. It's like using Pike, and not putting him in the equivalent of a wheel chair at some point. We need a new origin for this guy now that the last movie messed up the time line, and this seems as good of a point as any.

At least it wasn't a giant log, and a quest to save the whales again. Instead we get an alternate version of what could have been an old trek episode, but done radically different. The moment the first movie did a "time travel" reboot I expected this.

Personally I would have rebooted by claiming that every Trek episode prior was little more than Star Fleet Propaganda, but I'm sure fans would have hated that. But there is president for that after all.
 

Hitchmeister

New member
Nov 24, 2009
453
0
0
Hitchmeister said:
Okay, objectively, and held up to the standards of great film making, ST:ID is not a great, or even particularly good movie. But we don't go see Star Trek movies for great film making. That said, ST:ID plays better than almost all of the TNG movies and at least half of the original cast movies. So, yeah, it's satisfying with suitably lowered expectations.

As far as the big spoilery twist... there's no real reason for it. It doesn't add to the film. If they hadn't been coy about hiding it, they could have spent a good 10 to 20 minutes on a better back story and made an over all better movie.
Let me just add that I have nothing against great film making and wouldn't mind if it showed up in a franchise movie like this. I just don't go in looking for it.
 

Deacon Cole

New member
Jan 10, 2009
1,365
0
0
Country
USA
I watched the first movie and if you held a gun to my head and made me tell you about it, you would have to pull the trigger. Nothing in that movie stayed with me. That they made a sequel baffles me in the same vein as "Saw V? They made a Saw IV?"

I really hate fan service, which is all these Star Trek movies have been. Don't remind me of another, better movie that I could be watching instead of your crappy movie. That's all these movies have been. A collection of things designed to remind you of other, better movies. Why are these movies making money when the Dungeons & Dragons movie, which did the same god damned thing, bombed?

I can't wait to see what Abrams does to Star Wars now. Hot mess won't even cover it. They'll probably be Ewoks in space because he mistakenly thinks they're popular. Typical, confusing the most marketable with the most popular.
 

Hitchmeister

New member
Nov 24, 2009
453
0
0
Trishbot said:
And say what you will about the Mandarin twist in Iron Man 3... at least people didn't see it coming. EVERYONE called out the "twist" in Star Trek Into Darkness nearly a whole year before we got to it.
Up until just a few weeks ago I was hoping that it really would be the red herring rumor that caught a bit of traction a while back. I still think that could have been a more interesting movie.
 

conflictofinterests

New member
Apr 6, 2010
1,098
0
0
Sooo... Given that I haven't been into the series from the beginnings (I am a game nerd, and only now exploring the territory of TV/Comic book/Film nerddom) Would I like this movie? I mean, I get that it will piss off long-time fans, but if I enjoyed the first movie, should I go, or just be happy watching Iron Man 3 this weekend?
 

luvd1

New member
Jan 25, 2010
736
0
0
I saw ths film last week and when asked what I thought. All I could think of to say was "JJ Abrams is a prick." I couldn't even really be bothered to rant. He is just a prick.... Though later that day I ranted for hours till I was coughing up blood felt good.
 

Safaia

New member
Sep 24, 2010
455
0
0
I was accidentally spoiled on tumblr (thanks!) about a week and a half ago or so back when the Aussie screenings had the leak. I was hoping it was crap but then I got spoiled AGAIN (seriously if you're on tumblr tag you're fucking spoilers jfc) and realized it was legit. I'm going to go see it though just because I still want to.
 

ascorbius

Numberwanger
Nov 18, 2009
263
0
0
A review is no place for spoilers..
I've watched the first part however it really was pretty much "Spoiler Filled" not just the 1st half.. more like 2 3rds.

Bob has his Big Picture slot on here which he uses to go into more detail about things which he believes need to be said.. This (to me) falls into that category.

Keep the reviews spoiler free so I can make up my mind whether I see the film.


Maybe it's only movies he likes he doesn't spoil.

Star Trek: Hated: "I really want to spoil this movie" then spoiled 2:31 into the review.
Iron man 3: Loved: Hints at a twist but does't spoil it and states that he wont.
Oblivion: Hated: Spoilertastic. from 2:20
Oz the Great and Powerful: Loved: No spoilers
Life of Pi: Disliked: Spoiled at 4:05
Wreck it Ralph: Loved: No Spoilers
Cloud Atlas: Loved: No Spoilers
Dark Knight Rises: Liked but Dissappointed: No Spoilers
Cabin in the woods: LOVED: Not spoiled

So I just need to look for the word "Spoiler" in the title to know Bob doesn't like it.
 

manheim

New member
Mar 17, 2010
10
0
0
Having only seen the original ST & Next Gen when I was a kid, I don't see myself as a Trekkie and even I knew it was khan... the moment i figured the poster wasn't for the new Superman movie.

Also, it's a personal opinion, but JJ is not really that good, I don't see why everybody loves him so freaking much, I see him as a guy with great premisses but utterly fails on execution; there is internet fan fiction (my own included) for that, we don't want that in professional film makers, writers, etc.

Star Trek has always had my respect for being Sci-Fi at it's finest, now it's just wiz bang zoom, mission impossible: outer orbit, it's time that stopped.


In conclusion: ABRAHAAAAAAAAAAMS!!! and also KHAAAAAAAAAANN!
Sorry, I had to vent.
 

Teoes

Poof, poof, sparkles!
Jun 1, 2010
5,174
0
0
maninahat said:
What does NVP stand for? Something something protagonist?
He said "MVP" as in Most Valuable Player, or something to that effect.

OT: Wow, Bob really hated this - even more than I was expecting. Avoiding..
 

Serrenitei

New member
Jun 15, 2009
35
0
0
I couldn't disagree more with Bob on this. I loved the movie. I thought that there was significant character development, the plot was interesting to me, and it had some fan-service, but I thought generally it was a good movie (there's one particular scene that I had to try not to laugh at ... ).

I don't really understand why MovieBob is so hard on this movie. It wasn't cinematic gold by any means, but I wasn't expecting it to be. I was expecting it to be an interesting, slightly off-kilter version of Star Trek. I thought that the development of Kirk and Spock in this movie was as extensive if not more extensive than the first one.

I dunno, I just really can't agree with Bob on this one.
 

DalekJaas

New member
Dec 3, 2008
1,028
0
0
Into Darkness was a good, good movie, it was well-paced, we got to enjoy the characters since the first movie already developed them, the villain was stand-out and it had plenty of well placed references to Wrath of Khan.

Honestly Bob needs to just stop reviewing these movies, because its bizarre how he develops an emotional connection to these franchises (Transformers - toy robots? Seriously?)and it comes across in his reviews, making him sound ridiculous.