Escape to the Movies: Star Trek: Into Darkness
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
And there goes every ounce of credibility you were trying to have. That last bit is exactly the sort of bullshit Bob was talking about. Those references do nothing except make people like you feel like this is the genuine article. It's fool's gold. Mimicking aspects of other movies or episodes or tropes does enough for the people who know OF "Star Trek" and makes them feel like they are part of "the club", but because they mimic without understanding, appreciating, or even caring about the "original", it does a complete disservice to the movie itself by weakening its own integrity while also insulting the actual fans.Calibanbutcher said:
Since I don't want to spoil anything for this movie, I'll instead use an example from a different movie, "Prometheus" (which also received copious rewrites from Damon Lindelof).
So the big stinger at the end of "Prometheus" is that the "original" Xenomorph bursts out of the Engineer's chest. For people who only tangentially knew of "Alien" or perhaps saw it once a long time ago, they saw this and thought "Oh, cool! So this is a prequel to 'Alien'!" and felt like they "got it". However, anyone who actually gave a shit thought this was the stupidest thing imaginable. The Engineer at the end of this movie is on a ship that is of human design, the Engineer is not wearing his "space-jockey" mask, the ship is not on the planetoid Acheron, and the Engineer is not in a chair. If they wanted to make this work and actually remain consistent with "Alien", all they would have had to do was have the Engineer survive the encounter with the proto-face-hugger (since face-huggers do not instantly kill their hosts in "Alien"), have him fly off in his ship in pursuit of our heroine (it would even have served as a great climactic action scene), and THEN have the Xenomorph burst out of his chest, causing him to crash-land on Acheron (which, by the way, was literally right next door). The only way it could possibly make sense now is if a completely different Engineer comes along and gets attacked by a face-hugger.
On top of that, the manner by which the proto-face-hugger came about made absolutely no sense within the context of the film. David finds black goop on one of the mystery cylinders, finds out it has DNA that matches human DNA, inexplicably contaminates one of the crewmember's drinks with it not having any reason to believe it would do anything, the crewmember then has sex with Shaw, who then somehow gets pregnant, then the original crewmember dies horribly, then Shaw gives birth to a face-hugger. David, meanwhile, acts like this was all a part of some greater scheme, but there's absolutely no evidence that he had any idea what he was doing, which makes his actions seem completely insane, especially considering how they could have very easily endangered his primary objective of getting his father to meet the Engineer.
My point is, when you contrive and contort the plot just to have a fan-service moment that actually insults the intelligence of the fans and only works for people who don't actually care about the franchise, you really shouldn't bother doing fan-service in the first place. "Prometheus" would have been a better film if they had just left out the Xenomorph subplot entirely or if they had simply done it in a manner consistent with the rest of the film's universe.
The same could be said for "Star Trek Into Darkness". In the first "Star Trek" film, the references were generally either harmless, tongue-in-cheek moments, or generally pretty consistent with the universe as a whole (or at least could be handwaved with sufficient caveats). In STID, the references are not only front-and-center and crucial to the plot, but they are laughably stupid and blatantly insulting to anyone who has the slightest bit of passion for the franchise. And I know what you're probably thinking. "So what? They don't have to cater to the fans. They just have to make a good movie!" And you know what? You're right. Yet they still tried and failed, and by doing so, they made the movie worse. If they were going to fail, they shouldn't have bothered in the first place. Like "Prometheus", they should have either cut out the references entirely or used them intelligently. Instead of making Character A turn out to ACTUALLY be Character B, they should have just made an original character. No twist necessary. They're just trying to evoke a certain amount of clout without actually earning it.
I'm glad that you liked the film -- really -- because the best thing about the 2009 "Star Trek" film was how it managed to work for people like you without stepping on the toes of people like me (at least no more than other "Star Trek" films had done). And I'm glad that at least this film works for SOMEBODY. But those "throwbacks" you recognized were put in there specifically to make you "feel" like you were watching a "Star Trek" movie, and believe me when I say that the major spoilery ones are BEYOND insulting and merely serve to make this film LESS of a "Star Trek" movie by making it incompatible with everything that came before it.
So this movie may have been fun, but believe me, sir. This is a BAFFLINGLY stupid movie. It just tricked you into thinking it wasn't.
As MovieBob pointed out, sometimes you have to reveal the big twist to review the movie. I write reviews as well, and trust me this is true. Try reviewing Life of Pi in any real detail without spoiling the movie. The big twist changes how you will react to the movie and as a critic you have to tell people why the surprise twist changed your opinion of the movie.ascorbius said:
oh sure, the film is far from perfect but it was still good to watch. i think even it was better then the last one. im not a trekky fan even when i watched most of the episodes with my father and all movies, since he is a trekky fan, but i dint mind this one. i had fun watching it and had good humor in it as well.
but thats of course my opinion.
but thats of course my opinion.
First of all IMDB already spoiled the main twist. And I cant wait until the New Starwars movies come out with the same BS twists and milktoast plots. Thanks JJ a-hole
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_into_darkness/
87% of professional critics and 89% of people who saw the movie thought it was good.
Can you hear the butthurt?
I love the old star trek, i loved TNG, i loved the reboot, and I'm sure I'm gonna love this. Everything he says in this review is just REALLY subjective (like saying something is dumb, you can not objectively say a movie "works" or "doesn't work"). Just remember, this is the same guy who told us to watch a Twilight movie and Sucker Punch (and also genuinely believes that Halo: Reach was just "Halo 3 with jetpacks" and that the humans were the bad ones and protects the hypothesis whenever arguments against Nintendo come up)
87% of professional critics and 89% of people who saw the movie thought it was good.
Can you hear the butthurt?
I love the old star trek, i loved TNG, i loved the reboot, and I'm sure I'm gonna love this. Everything he says in this review is just REALLY subjective (like saying something is dumb, you can not objectively say a movie "works" or "doesn't work"). Just remember, this is the same guy who told us to watch a Twilight movie and Sucker Punch (and also genuinely believes that Halo: Reach was just "Halo 3 with jetpacks" and that the humans were the bad ones and protects the hypothesis whenever arguments against Nintendo come up)
At least with Star Wars we won't have to deal with his spectacularly shitty writing team.
As for the movie itself, I'm a little warmer to it then Bob is. I think it's a fun movie. Dumb as a bag of rocks but still fairly fun. I'm not much of a trekkie, but even I got tired of the references to Khan.
As for the movie itself, I'm a little warmer to it then Bob is. I think it's a fun movie. Dumb as a bag of rocks but still fairly fun. I'm not much of a trekkie, but even I got tired of the references to Khan.
On it's own with a tweak here and there it is a good movie but because it requires an underlying level of original Trek knowledge for 'the big plot twist' to make any sense it is actually an all right movie.
It then wanders off in to being a bad movie when it takes established Trek techlore and starts to not only piss on that but some how manages to piss on Trek lore that the first reboot movie itself had a go at pissing on. If anyone cares I can explain what Trek tech it pisses on but for now I'll skip it.
It then wanders off in to being a bad movie when it takes established Trek techlore and starts to not only piss on that but some how manages to piss on Trek lore that the first reboot movie itself had a go at pissing on. If anyone cares I can explain what Trek tech it pisses on but for now I'll skip it.
I hardly paid attention to any of the news, and I still figured out what the surprise was once I learned that there is, indeed, a surprise.
Going to see it tonight, but I have a feeling Mr. Plinkett will have afield day with this movie.
Going to see it tonight, but I have a feeling Mr. Plinkett will have afield day with this movie.
Last night I watched the recent Daily Show with JJ Abrams as the guest, and walked away from the whole interview with a sour taste in my mouth. As he swaggered up on stage, and gave a surprised Jon Stewart a bro-hug all I could do is make a disgusted, 'ughkkh,' sound. And that phrase, 'who does this guy think he his,' seems to sum it up perfectly.
He went on to talk about how he didn't get Star Trek when he was younger, but after Jon Stewart jumped on him for saying that JJ quickly tried to cover that statement up by saying he gets it now, of course. He then went on to say how his main goal with the new Star Trek movies is to make them appeal to the broader public, and making them standalone movies.
Don't get me wrong I don't see trying to make Star Trek have broader appeal as a bad thing, but making it into a generic Action Movie, with sloppy pandering to fans doesn't seem like the right approach. But, maybe JJ just gets Star Trek so much now, that he knows what he's doing?
The standalone movie bit baffles me though - isn't the point of making sequels to have more time to develop characters? If a standalone movie is all you want why not just make them new characters? Why try to put up any guise that they are interconnected movies at all? I guess the obvious answer is to get people in who don't realize that there isn't going to be any character progression, but what a short sighted endgame.
It just makes me even more worried about the new Star Wars movies - do all we have to look forward to is 3-disjointed movies, with campy Han, Luke and Leia cameos to try to do some fan service?
He went on to talk about how he didn't get Star Trek when he was younger, but after Jon Stewart jumped on him for saying that JJ quickly tried to cover that statement up by saying he gets it now, of course. He then went on to say how his main goal with the new Star Trek movies is to make them appeal to the broader public, and making them standalone movies.
Don't get me wrong I don't see trying to make Star Trek have broader appeal as a bad thing, but making it into a generic Action Movie, with sloppy pandering to fans doesn't seem like the right approach. But, maybe JJ just gets Star Trek so much now, that he knows what he's doing?
The standalone movie bit baffles me though - isn't the point of making sequels to have more time to develop characters? If a standalone movie is all you want why not just make them new characters? Why try to put up any guise that they are interconnected movies at all? I guess the obvious answer is to get people in who don't realize that there isn't going to be any character progression, but what a short sighted endgame.
It just makes me even more worried about the new Star Wars movies - do all we have to look forward to is 3-disjointed movies, with campy Han, Luke and Leia cameos to try to do some fan service?
Pat Hulse said:
First of: The fact that I acknowledge that I don't have a clue about Star Trek should not diminish my credibility, and if you think so, then I say you should think again. What this does is enable YOU, the reader of my post to understand where I am coming from. This allows you to judge whether or not we share the same viewpoint.
Obviously, we do not, but this does not mean that I lack credibility.
Second: Prometheus:
I don't think that they wanted to recreate the original Alien-scene.
First of all, it was a different planet entirely.
Second: IT WAS A DIFFERENT PLANET.
I rest my case.
Third:
The throwbacks in the Star Trek movie:
The throwbacks didn't make me feel as if I was watching a Star Trek movie.
The fact that I was watching a Star Trek movie that was heads and shoulders above the rest of the movies made that happen.
I get that maybe, someone who is actually passionate about the original series and movies might not like this, but to these people I have nothing to say but:
I am very sorry but I do not give a flying pigfuck. I enjoyed the hell out of that movie and I will definitely go see the next one, thus being part of what is "destroying" your franchise.
Also: the original Star Trek movies were pants-on-head retarded at times, so claiming that this is somehow "worse" is baffling to say the least.
Has everyone forgotten that the reboot doesn't affect the continuity of the original Star Trek by any means? Alternate timelines have always been present in the Star Trek universe (especially prominent in DS:9), so the original universe with the original Kirk and Spock and Picard and Riker and Janeway and Chakotay and Sisko and Worf is ALL STILL THERE AND UNAFFECTED BY THIS TIMELINE!Laughing Man said:
It was established in the very opening scene of Star Trek 2009 that this timeline was different, altered by the presence of Nero, so anything and everything different (physics, technology, character traits, how certain races looked) can all be chalked up to "Nero fucked it up."
I don't know why it's so hard for other Trek fans to see this...
Bob is my favourite Escapist feature producer and I watch escape to the movies every week. 9/10 times I completely agree with you Bob, but not here. ST: Into Darkness is a fantastic film with brilliant action, awesome special effects and a great cast who all do a good job in their roles. I can't help but feel that the negativity is purely because it's not the exact film that 'you' wanted as a Trekkie.
Still a big fan. But you're so wrong here Bob and 9/10 people agree with me based on actual user reviews.
Still a big fan. But you're so wrong here Bob and 9/10 people agree with me based on actual user reviews.
I saw the movie at a midnight premiere, and all I really have to say is that I agree with just about every single word Bob says in this review. I have a few significant issues with the 2009 reboot, but Into Darkness makes the first one look like a masterpiece in comparison.
It really is a shame, because there are quite a few great pieces in play here (a mostly excellent cast, some solid visuals, fun action bits) that are utterly wasted by the hamfisted, dumb as a bag of rocks script that spends have the time making giant, plot-devouring REFERENCES and the other half being illogical nonsense that makes it hard to follow the motivations, development, or plans of any of the main characters in play here.
As for the "twist,"
The fact that he is Khan shouldn't even be considered a twist, and it drags down the whole movie with its poor execution. When Benedict (an excellent, utterly wasted actor) opens his mouth to give his "MY NAME IS KHAAAANN," this means absolutely nothing in the reboot universe. The Eugenics Wars were never set up, the character of Khan has never been mentioned or established- so why should any of the main characters give a damn? Clearly, the reveal is for the audience- but most of the audience whom the reboot series is trying to attract will have little to no idea who Khan is, so it won't matter to them. Only fans and Trekkies will get the "twist," and all it will do for them is invite comparisons to Wrath of Khan, so why? Why the heck did you bother?
Khan is so poorly characterized anyway that you could have replaced him with the original character "John Harrison," and absolutely nothing would have changed. Seriously, what does Khan being in the film add to the film in any way, except to give them poor justification to redo several scenes and characters from the much better Wrath of Khan? This is a movie that develops its villain so poorly that New Spock (Zachary Quinto is also an excellent actor, so this is not his fault by any means) actually calls up Leonard Nimoy on the phone to get him to spell out to the audience that KHAN IS A BAD GUY THAT WAS THE GREATEST THREAT TO THE ENTERPRISE. If that isn't lazy writing, I don't know what is.
For context, I do like Star Trek, but I'm not a Trekkie by any means. I just started getting into it and have only watched a good bit of TOS, Wrath of Khan, the 2009 reboot, and Into Darkness. I like the reboot despite its flaws, but I found Into Darkness to be not just a bad Star Trek movie, but a bad movie by any standard.
EDIT: Here's a link to another review that also illustrates the ways Into Darkness breaks down on both a logical and dramatic level. It's great, but full of even more SPOILERS than Bob's review, so read at your own risk:
http://badassdigest.com/2013/05/14/star-trek-into-darkness-spoiler-review/
It really is a shame, because there are quite a few great pieces in play here (a mostly excellent cast, some solid visuals, fun action bits) that are utterly wasted by the hamfisted, dumb as a bag of rocks script that spends have the time making giant, plot-devouring REFERENCES and the other half being illogical nonsense that makes it hard to follow the motivations, development, or plans of any of the main characters in play here.
As for the "twist,"
The fact that he is Khan shouldn't even be considered a twist, and it drags down the whole movie with its poor execution. When Benedict (an excellent, utterly wasted actor) opens his mouth to give his "MY NAME IS KHAAAANN," this means absolutely nothing in the reboot universe. The Eugenics Wars were never set up, the character of Khan has never been mentioned or established- so why should any of the main characters give a damn? Clearly, the reveal is for the audience- but most of the audience whom the reboot series is trying to attract will have little to no idea who Khan is, so it won't matter to them. Only fans and Trekkies will get the "twist," and all it will do for them is invite comparisons to Wrath of Khan, so why? Why the heck did you bother?
Khan is so poorly characterized anyway that you could have replaced him with the original character "John Harrison," and absolutely nothing would have changed. Seriously, what does Khan being in the film add to the film in any way, except to give them poor justification to redo several scenes and characters from the much better Wrath of Khan? This is a movie that develops its villain so poorly that New Spock (Zachary Quinto is also an excellent actor, so this is not his fault by any means) actually calls up Leonard Nimoy on the phone to get him to spell out to the audience that KHAN IS A BAD GUY THAT WAS THE GREATEST THREAT TO THE ENTERPRISE. If that isn't lazy writing, I don't know what is.
For context, I do like Star Trek, but I'm not a Trekkie by any means. I just started getting into it and have only watched a good bit of TOS, Wrath of Khan, the 2009 reboot, and Into Darkness. I like the reboot despite its flaws, but I found Into Darkness to be not just a bad Star Trek movie, but a bad movie by any standard.
EDIT: Here's a link to another review that also illustrates the ways Into Darkness breaks down on both a logical and dramatic level. It's great, but full of even more SPOILERS than Bob's review, so read at your own risk:
http://badassdigest.com/2013/05/14/star-trek-into-darkness-spoiler-review/
Going by the interviews he's given, it's pretty clear that JJ Abrams isn't a die-hard Trekkie. Who can blame him, I figure Paramount's suits just selected his name picked the Trek project and got the ball rolling. I'm absolutely not surprised that the first movie turned into an actionfest that doesn't have much in common with the series, and the second movie repeating this is no surprise either.
It's a Trek movie for casual fans or severely lapsed Trekkies, of which I am. Considering, I didn't mind the "big reveal" or the way characters were handled.
As for Chris Pine being wooden? Eh, I don't see that. There was enough random comedy in the first Trek for Pine to not be stuck mugging à la Shatner.
Really, if you want to lament someone's under-utilization, go with Zoé Saldana. At least Nyota and Spock's relationship is technically canon (first-ever Trek episode!), but the poor girl's stuck with Nichelle Nichols' fairly demeaning material.
It's a Trek movie for casual fans or severely lapsed Trekkies, of which I am. Considering, I didn't mind the "big reveal" or the way characters were handled.
As for Chris Pine being wooden? Eh, I don't see that. There was enough random comedy in the first Trek for Pine to not be stuck mugging à la Shatner.
Really, if you want to lament someone's under-utilization, go with Zoé Saldana. At least Nyota and Spock's relationship is technically canon (first-ever Trek episode!), but the poor girl's stuck with Nichelle Nichols' fairly demeaning material.