"Nope" as in, "nuh-uh, I am NOT doing this one" or "nope" as in "it sucks, don't bother, there's your review"?
Escape to the Movies: Star Trek: Into Darkness
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
I'm going to respond to this review in a minute-by-minute way, because it's going to help me focus my thoughts on why I generally disagree with Bob.
1. There is decidedly too much time spent on complaining about how the movie is advertised and/or "teased" -- i.e. as a film with mysteries, twists, etc. Having seen the TV advert for this film several times before the movie was released, I never got that impression. Bob seems kind of convinced that the "mystery box" aspect was being played up, and that that is something to apparently fault the movie for. It didn't live up to its supposed twists. OK. I never felt liked I was promised wowing plot twists. The ad didn't come off that way, to me, and it seems weird to harp on that point.
2. The claim that relying overmuch on callbacks is a deathblow to the film. It's not. Some people haven't seen Wrath of Khan. Quite a few people haven't seen Wrath of Khan. Maybe I would have a lesser opinion of this movie if I had seen Wrath of Khan myself, but making reference to Wrath of Khan or even paralleling it in various aspects should not be a damning move even if it's done in a ham-fisted way. Bob claims that the Khan thing is the "hook of the whole movie." It's not. I wouldn't have cared either way if the character's name was Khan or if he was some other random dude. I didn't think the character was some sort of remarkable movie villain -- like one for the ages -- but I thought his backstory and motivation was good enough. What's most interesting about him in the film is how he relates to Kirk, and in turn, how he relates to the actual main theme which Bob either misses or ignores (which is weird, because it's not like it's subtle or anything). It ties into my third point, which is:
3. The warmongering admiral is pretty obviously a Dick Cheney type, but that doesn't mean the film is completely devoid of decent moral ambiguity. The main theme of the film centers around the willingness, or unwillingness, to disregard rules/morals to achieve some sort of end. Khan, like Kirk, wants to save and protect his "family," but he is deranged and willing to kill and do whatever is necessary to do so. Kirk more or less shares this frame of mind at the beginning of the film, but eventually comes to the conclusion that a certain level of aggression and violence is unacceptable, regardless of the situation. Bob brings up the daddy issues aspect of Kirk's personality, which he claims is retrod during this movie, but the stuff that I've touched upon in this paragraph is not even remotely related to that. Again, it's more about the parallels between Khan and Kirk. That and the character of the war hawking admiral goes a bit beyond the obvious: it at least brushes upon the idea that the admiral is trying to exploit this supposed evil rather than destroying it outright, which is actually rather apt when you consider how the U.S. handled its recent war(s) with the Middle East. I'm not even arguing that the themes and allusions are overly deep or thoughtful; they aren't, really, but I think it's inaccurate to claim that they a) fall completely flat or b) that they're a point-for-point retread of the '09 film.
4. There's also a pretty obvious character arc for Spock beyond the dual nature aspect that Bob mentions -- and even if it's kind of token -- it's his willingness to be deceptive. He tricks Khan and ends up blowing him up. Beyond that, I think the additional scenes that do focus of his dual nature are well handled, and they focus more on specific compassion versus general compassion. Bones tells Kirk at the beginning of the movie that Spock would have let him die in that volcano, but do you think by the end of the movie that Spock would have made the same decision?
To me, it seems like this review does focus too much on the supposedly mishandled fan service. To someone -- like me -- who isn't a big a Star Trek fan, it doesn't seem to be a grievous flaw. Even if I was a big fan, I believe this film does enough to make it effective on its own. I didn't think the film was amazing or even great by any stretch, but I did think it was a good, well made action flick.
1. There is decidedly too much time spent on complaining about how the movie is advertised and/or "teased" -- i.e. as a film with mysteries, twists, etc. Having seen the TV advert for this film several times before the movie was released, I never got that impression. Bob seems kind of convinced that the "mystery box" aspect was being played up, and that that is something to apparently fault the movie for. It didn't live up to its supposed twists. OK. I never felt liked I was promised wowing plot twists. The ad didn't come off that way, to me, and it seems weird to harp on that point.
2. The claim that relying overmuch on callbacks is a deathblow to the film. It's not. Some people haven't seen Wrath of Khan. Quite a few people haven't seen Wrath of Khan. Maybe I would have a lesser opinion of this movie if I had seen Wrath of Khan myself, but making reference to Wrath of Khan or even paralleling it in various aspects should not be a damning move even if it's done in a ham-fisted way. Bob claims that the Khan thing is the "hook of the whole movie." It's not. I wouldn't have cared either way if the character's name was Khan or if he was some other random dude. I didn't think the character was some sort of remarkable movie villain -- like one for the ages -- but I thought his backstory and motivation was good enough. What's most interesting about him in the film is how he relates to Kirk, and in turn, how he relates to the actual main theme which Bob either misses or ignores (which is weird, because it's not like it's subtle or anything). It ties into my third point, which is:
3. The warmongering admiral is pretty obviously a Dick Cheney type, but that doesn't mean the film is completely devoid of decent moral ambiguity. The main theme of the film centers around the willingness, or unwillingness, to disregard rules/morals to achieve some sort of end. Khan, like Kirk, wants to save and protect his "family," but he is deranged and willing to kill and do whatever is necessary to do so. Kirk more or less shares this frame of mind at the beginning of the film, but eventually comes to the conclusion that a certain level of aggression and violence is unacceptable, regardless of the situation. Bob brings up the daddy issues aspect of Kirk's personality, which he claims is retrod during this movie, but the stuff that I've touched upon in this paragraph is not even remotely related to that. Again, it's more about the parallels between Khan and Kirk. That and the character of the war hawking admiral goes a bit beyond the obvious: it at least brushes upon the idea that the admiral is trying to exploit this supposed evil rather than destroying it outright, which is actually rather apt when you consider how the U.S. handled its recent war(s) with the Middle East. I'm not even arguing that the themes and allusions are overly deep or thoughtful; they aren't, really, but I think it's inaccurate to claim that they a) fall completely flat or b) that they're a point-for-point retread of the '09 film.
4. There's also a pretty obvious character arc for Spock beyond the dual nature aspect that Bob mentions -- and even if it's kind of token -- it's his willingness to be deceptive. He tricks Khan and ends up blowing him up. Beyond that, I think the additional scenes that do focus of his dual nature are well handled, and they focus more on specific compassion versus general compassion. Bones tells Kirk at the beginning of the movie that Spock would have let him die in that volcano, but do you think by the end of the movie that Spock would have made the same decision?
To me, it seems like this review does focus too much on the supposedly mishandled fan service. To someone -- like me -- who isn't a big a Star Trek fan, it doesn't seem to be a grievous flaw. Even if I was a big fan, I believe this film does enough to make it effective on its own. I didn't think the film was amazing or even great by any stretch, but I did think it was a good, well made action flick.
I hate to say it Bob, I usually trust your reviews and you usually have good points, but this is just the end of it for me. It just disturbs me as to why you'd attack a movie so hard just because you don't like the director, that's not the point of reviewing, the point is to review the subject on it's own, not degrade it because, again, you don't like the director.
It perplexes me as to why a man like you abhors this movie just because of J.J. Abrams when Red Letter Media's Mike Stoklasa(who's clearly a bigger Star Trek/Star Wars geek) knows where it's at, it just really bothers me.
It saddens me but you've just lost a subscriber at this point, sad since I used to see you at the same pantheon as Yahtzee & Jim.
It perplexes me as to why a man like you abhors this movie just because of J.J. Abrams when Red Letter Media's Mike Stoklasa(who's clearly a bigger Star Trek/Star Wars geek) knows where it's at, it just really bothers me.
It saddens me but you've just lost a subscriber at this point, sad since I used to see you at the same pantheon as Yahtzee & Jim.
I don't know about you guys, but I pretty much squee'd audibly when I found out who the main villain was. Does this make me a bad trekkie? I've got all the usual credentials, started watching with TOS but became firmly rooted in the Picard camp with TNG. I just got finished watching Voyager from start to finish, which I keep in its entirety on my iPod. I even played STO all the way to Vice Admiral, not that it proves anything other than my tolerance for MMO grind.
I actually rather like the reboot so far, and I thought that Into Darkness surpassed its predecessor quite a bit. This one wasn't so focused on being an origin story, we got to see the characters in their element as the legitimate crew of the Enterprise and it had plenty of fun action stuff to boot. And while the references to the original were a little over the top I'm glad they were in there, and it fits into the theme of fate/the space-time continuum bringing these people and events together in some way. At least, that's how I always interpret the little plot conveniences. Call it an excuse for bad writing if you want, but it just makes sense to me personally.
I actually rather like the reboot so far, and I thought that Into Darkness surpassed its predecessor quite a bit. This one wasn't so focused on being an origin story, we got to see the characters in their element as the legitimate crew of the Enterprise and it had plenty of fun action stuff to boot. And while the references to the original were a little over the top I'm glad they were in there, and it fits into the theme of fate/the space-time continuum bringing these people and events together in some way. At least, that's how I always interpret the little plot conveniences. Call it an excuse for bad writing if you want, but it just makes sense to me personally.
Indeed, "no". You might not be antisemitic, but that comment was. Being sarcastic is fine, as long as it has a purpose. But all you achieved with that comment was perpetuate a narrative in which that stereotype survives to be used as a weapon.Blood Brain Barrier said:
And the fact that you seem to think you know better than a larger group says quite a lot about your superiority complex as well - a group might I add, which has come to the conclusion, through Social Darwinism, to shun discriminatory language to the benefit of cohesive social qualities. Why do you think you know better than an organic social construct?
I couldn't agree more. Well written. (only copied your ultimate statement as others can read your point by point above).Phindin said:
The point is, and I think you'd agree, Bob should have focused on the movie he was given, rather than the one maybe he wanted, along with other matters including marketing.
The movie itself was a blast. Sure I could quibble (Bob objected to gorgeous girl in underwear?) but didn't we see a film that more or less made narrative sense with great casting, acting, special effects that rose to an enormous challenge (make a great Star Trek movie)? I think so, so much that I will definitely buy this on bluray.
My advice? You should. This review was so bad it may have cost Bob a fan in me. Sure, I hated when he hated on Expendables 1. I hated that he loved Scott Pilgrim so much (it was a B- movie). But his hate for this movie? A fanboy scorned. It was pretty terrific. Entertainment Weekly, for instance, gave it a solid A. I think a rank near that is justified.Saviordd1 said:
I hope you get extra butter on your popcorn so I can live vicariously (dieting... that is die with a T at the end.)
He really was, though, they got an unintentional laugh from me when Kirk punched him. And I got to see the Super Fight I always wanted but never thought I'd get!trty00 said:
ITMT: here is how a fight originally turned out:
BTW: For what its worth, Pines is 32. Shatner was 36 in this scene.
I'm not sure what you're saying - that the mob always knows more than the individual simply because it's a mob?Farther than stars said:
I have no problem with wanting to shun discriminatory language, if that's your choice. So why do you shun my choice to discriminate?
I'm with Bob on this one. I liked the first one as a sort of clumsy-but-endearing push to revitalize Trek. It was cute, and I appreciate what it did. However, after the second one, I get the feeling that, for all the "bringing Trek into the new age"-speech, the reboot universe is quickly being revealed as meaningless, generic, and irrelevant.
There is nothing inside these movies that doesn't just slide right off the brain once you watch some other summer blockbuster; nothing to hook you in except maybe the new music and visual style (and the latter is more abrasive than I'd like). It hasn't invented anything new, it's just playing with Trek's old elements, or worse, treating them as gimmicks.
And I have to mention how tired I am of the deceitful chessmaster supervillain shtick. It's been pounded into the ground by dozens of movies this decade. WE GET IT, the American mass subconscious is pissing its pants at the thought of an evil marginalized hermit-genius with hopes of social upheaval and mass murder of civilians; Iron Man 3's entire twist hung on the public's obsession with such villains. Can we just get a movie where the villain isn't Shmosama Shbin Shmladen?
There is nothing inside these movies that doesn't just slide right off the brain once you watch some other summer blockbuster; nothing to hook you in except maybe the new music and visual style (and the latter is more abrasive than I'd like). It hasn't invented anything new, it's just playing with Trek's old elements, or worse, treating them as gimmicks.
And I have to mention how tired I am of the deceitful chessmaster supervillain shtick. It's been pounded into the ground by dozens of movies this decade. WE GET IT, the American mass subconscious is pissing its pants at the thought of an evil marginalized hermit-genius with hopes of social upheaval and mass murder of civilians; Iron Man 3's entire twist hung on the public's obsession with such villains. Can we just get a movie where the villain isn't Shmosama Shbin Shmladen?
Because if I am to discourage the existence of discriminatory language, I must then shun the people who use that language and thus perpetuate its existence and the associated stereotypes. Choice doesn't really come into it.Blood Brain Barrier said:
And I'm not saying the mob always knows more than the individual simply because it's a mob. But it does have more credibility in that absence of valid arguments on the side of the individual. Nothing about that comment was productive and its only possible result was alienation and division, both of which should be discouraged in order to maintain a stable society.
I am a big fan of the original Star Trek franchise, and This movie sounds like it is exactly what I expected it would be. And that is why I actively refuse to watch it.
I would agree. Bob has openly raged because God-Emperor-Greatest-Directorintheworld-Joss-Whedon wasn't chosen as Star Wars director, so now he has an obviously hateful bias against against anyone (not just JJ Abrams) who would take over Star Wars.FargoDog said:
Star Wars may end up being a damn good film, but Bob WILL hate it. Bob WILL pick it apart and find every flaw he can.
I bet Bob has already written and recorded his Star Wars review, long before it's even released.
His recent hypocrisy (loving one film for one reason and then hating another for the exact same reason) is leading me to believe that he is really not a very good film critic.
I'm sticking to Mark Kermode; he manages to avoid the nerd rage which has consumed Bob.
Oh yeah; I watched the film yesterday and enjoyed it. It's not amazing (If I had to score it, I'd give it a 7/10) and the lenseflare needs to calm the fuck down, but it's nowhere near as bad as Bob claims it to be.
SonOfVoorhees said:
I'm sorry to say, but your post shows very clearly that you only saw the review and not the movie. And because of that, the post comes off very reckless.
The film is not a remake of ST2: Wrath of Khan. If anything, it's a re-imagined version of the episode of the tv series that introduced Khan. If there's a relation to ST2, it's the one homage scene where Spock sacrifices himself to save the ship, that and the character reference to Carol Marcus. That's it. Those are the only things that have to do with ST2: Wrath of Khan.
So to wrap it up...ST2: Wrath of Khan is a SEQUEL-STYLED MOVIE of the events that happened in the episode, "Space Seed"...as to the re-imagined ST2: Into Darkness being a re-imagined movie of the UNFOLDING OF EVENTS RELATED to "Space Seed"
I don't agree it was lazy or lack of imagination. Out of all the scripts that were drafted, the timing of this script had to be, and coincidentally be the place of the 2nd movie. The movie was clearly an homage piece if there ever was one, and what better way to show it as the 2nd movie? I actually went to see it, and thought it was pretty well made for a summer audience. It didn't awe me as the last movie, but I don't think it deserved the harsh review that Bob gave it. But please...see the movie time before you comment on its review thread...At least Bob did.
Hmmm Bob says he didn't like the movie, but it seemed to be coming from the perspective of someone who actually KNOWS and CARES a LOT about the Star Trek universe.
But what about the audience who have no clue about the Star Trek universe (yes, such people exist, scary I know) and haven't seen anything other than the 2009 Star Trek movie?
Well I'm one of those people (el gasp!). I have no goddamn clue who Khan is, memes floating around the internet are about as much as I know about the character (i.e. jack all).
I don't know who Captain Kirk is other than the one played by Chris Pine, I don't know who Spock is other than the one played by Zachary Quinto.
The attempts at fanservice won't even register on me because I was never a fan, but I still genuinely enjoyed the 2009 movie because I love any movie which has great characters, acting, story, action scenes, etc and I felt I "understood" that movie just fine without being a fan of the series.
...So purely from a non-fan standpoint and using only the 2009 movie as a reference, will I like Star Trek - Into Darkness? Does it hold up as a good movie on it's own?
That's what I wanted to know, Bob.
But what about the audience who have no clue about the Star Trek universe (yes, such people exist, scary I know) and haven't seen anything other than the 2009 Star Trek movie?
Well I'm one of those people (el gasp!). I have no goddamn clue who Khan is, memes floating around the internet are about as much as I know about the character (i.e. jack all).
I don't know who Captain Kirk is other than the one played by Chris Pine, I don't know who Spock is other than the one played by Zachary Quinto.
The attempts at fanservice won't even register on me because I was never a fan, but I still genuinely enjoyed the 2009 movie because I love any movie which has great characters, acting, story, action scenes, etc and I felt I "understood" that movie just fine without being a fan of the series.
...So purely from a non-fan standpoint and using only the 2009 movie as a reference, will I like Star Trek - Into Darkness? Does it hold up as a good movie on it's own?
That's what I wanted to know, Bob.
I've seen reviews of it saying it's a pretty soulless, mediocre action flick from an outsider's perspective; if it wasn't Star Trek it would probably be largely ignored.Yuuki said: