Star Trek Into Darkness

Conner42

Senior Member
Jul 29, 2009
262
0
21
Light spoilers ahead, though I would have to wonder if anyone hasn't figured out the minor thing I spoil.



I got to see this at a double feature where they showed the first movie as well. Because I haven't seen the first movie since...well, probably since the year it came out(though, I watched it a lot of times when it came out), watching it for the first time since then kind of brought back that excitement I had when I did see it for the first time. It was an exciting action movie while also being a good Star Trek movie. You could point out that it didn't really like to follow the logic of its own universe and that it was spoon feeding the audience information with archetypal characters and a really basic plot, but taking that approach was probably the best thing they could do for rebooting a franchise. It was about setting up all of the pieces together for how all of the characters ended up together. Now, with all of the pieces assembled, they can take the series in new and interesting directions.

Maybe that'll happen in a couple of more movies, but, until then, Star Trek: (Insert generic title here to badly try to hide the fact that they couldn't call it the Wrath of Khan again) is a really good action movie and is even better than its predecessor.

After seeing the first movie in theater, during our break, I over heard guys having a conversation about Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan 2.4 the Re-Make and it kind of went something like this.

Guy 1: Well, that was pretty good, it was better than 1st one.
Guy 2: Yeah, it felt more like a Star Trek movie.
Guy 1: Yeah, it used more of the standard tropes.
Guy 2: Yep....
Guy 1: Mhmm

And that's as far as the conversation went. I kind of felt like these guys wanted to say more about it but they kind of couldn't because there really wasn't much else to talk about. It's good, it feels a bit more like Star Trek, and it's an incredibly fun action movie.

The best thing this movie has going for, though, is Benedict Cumberbatch as Khan. Some of you might know him as Sherlock Holmes from Sherlock but he's also been in other movies, with Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy coming to mind, but, now, we finally get to see him in a really big role where he gets to display his talent to the general audience. He is absolutely great and entertaining to watch as he actually gives us a memorable bad guy as opposed to that one guy from the first movie(quick, tell me the bad guy's name without looking it up).

If it's another thing that I really like about this movie is how it doesn't try to "raise the stakes" from the last film. The first movie involved a giant space ship that could destroy planets and it had scary looking tentacles that also involved galaxies getting destroyed. In the sequel, however, the entire movie is made up of two space ships at battle with each other and that's pretty much it. And it's great too as they manage to do so much with just a simple concept. There are still a lot of different ways where they keep on raising the stakes but the keep the movie a little more character focused when it comes to these stakes. Instead of just involving the destruction of planets or galaxies, they opt for keeping the whole battle contained and keeping it involved with characters we actually know.

Okay, there's actually a lot I would like to talk about when it comes to these actions scenes, but it's one of those things where you're just going to see for yourselves. Though, what I will say is that the action scenes are extremely well directed and it's pacing is really good as well. All of the intense battles and life threatening situations are well shot and they make sure that you actually see everything you need to.

With all of the good this movie has going for it, it does feel incredibly held back with not all that good screenplay. This is where things get frustrating as it has all of the pieces for an incredibly great movie, but once they can actually get good writers on board, we've yet to come across anything special. The problem lies in the fact that the story is told in one of the laziest ways possible. The first movie had this problem as well, but, like I said, it might have been necessary since it was all about putting everything together. Now, though, it's kind of disheartening to see how hard these guys seem to be actually trying.

I guess it shouldn't be too surprising as the guys behind the screenplay are also behind Transformers, but the things that happen are quite baffling when you think about it. The dialogue in the movie is serviceable and it can get pretty funny when it tries humor(they do sarcasm pretty well), but when it comes to the plotting it gets pretty dumb. The problem is the over reliance on Chekhov's Gun, that all important plot device where a scene screams "THIS WILL BE IMPORTANT LATER ON IN THE FILM" and everything in the movie gets resolved this way. Seriously! It makes me wonder if these guys can do anything else besides playing on coincidences and the unlikely. I think they try to bring in destiny to explain this but that's even worse as that really is an excuse for lazy screen writing.

When you get right down to it, though, this is still a really fun movie to watch. Although I'm convinced that they really need to get better writers on board before they can start really going anywhere with this franchise, it's still a great action movie.

http://moviesandsean.blogspot.com/2013/05/star-trek-into-darkness.html
 

Kenbo Slice

Deep In The Willow
Jun 7, 2010
2,706
0
41
Gender
Male
The bad guy from the first movie is Nero. I didn't even have to look it up either. Seriously, he wasn't THAT forgettable.

OT: This movie was pretty awesome, especially when Spock laid the beat down Khan.
 

alrekr

New member
Mar 11, 2010
551
0
0
The main thing I liked was they remembered Scotty's equation from the first film. That equation was groundbreaking yet no one seemed to care but they explained that in this one.

Apart from that I felt it was a poor mans Wrath of Khan for the vacant Mac generation. Though at least this one had bit more of the old school Star Trek socialism and political messages; you know all that anti-facist stuff and how create sharing is.
 

uchytjes

New member
Mar 19, 2011
969
0
0
The only real flaw I saw in the film was HOW THE HELL DID THEY FALL TO EARTH THAT FAST!? Seriously. Even if we disregard the fact that they seemed to be traveling with the moon, how was it that fast? 10-20 minutes to fall all the way from the moon to the earth? It just doesn't make any sense. Also, I smell a reel physics episode in the making on this one.
 

xPixelatedx

New member
Jan 19, 2011
1,316
0
0
I am glad this one is more like the Star Trek movies, but I still don't think having yet another typical summer action movie was worth killing off the TV shows. Star Trek was always about the shows, the movies were just a thing that happened to exist, like the comics, novels and toys. Star Trek isn't Star Trek without the shows, so the entire franchise might as well be dead now.

And for those who don't know, it's because these movies exist that they aren't allowing anymore shows to be made. Allowing is the right word, to, since they came out and admitted they were purposely stopping them from being made.
 

Hatchetman

New member
Mar 28, 2012
10
0
0
I wasen't paying too much attention to this during production but I heard something about it being a remake of the first original regular series episode "Where No Man has Gone Before". I imagined Cumberbatch's character being a starfleet officer who had returned from some kind of secret mission and was slowly starting to gain incresed intelligence and psychic powers, and after he snapped Kirk and company had to track him down while also uncovering the details of the mission that resulted in him gaining his powers, revealing some Starfleet shenanagains. I had a slow burn mystery plot puntuated with action scene confrontations against a main villian showing a progressive increase in power with each encounter. Then there would be an Akira-ish final confrontation with Cumberbatch as a finale.

It looks like I was expecting Voltron and got Cloverfield.
 
Nov 28, 2007
10,686
0
0
My main issues with the movie were twofold. First off, the editing during a couple of the action scenes were way too overdone. I hate it when action scenes have cuts so rapid that it is hard to tell what is going on, as was the case during the spaceship fight, as well as the fight against the Klingons. Also, I felt like the movie should have ended about 15-20 minutes before it did. Not because the movie felt overlong, but

ending the movie with Kirk's death, and having the last shot of the movie be Dr. McCoy noticing the tribble reviving, saving the revival of Kirk for the next movie, ala Search for Spock, would have been a much better ending, as compared to killing Kirk, then saying "loljk".

Other than that, and a couple poorly-timed jokes (seriously, that was the worst possible place for the "KHAN!" reference), I really enjoyed the movie. Not a great movie, but I got exactly what I wanted, and a bit more. That's all you can ask for.
 

Conner42

Senior Member
Jul 29, 2009
262
0
21
thebobmaster said:
ending the movie with Kirk's death, and having the last shot of the movie be Dr. McCoy noticing the tribble reviving, saving the revival of Kirk for the next movie, ala Search for Spock, would have been a much better ending, as compared to killing Kirk, then saying "loljk".
.
I don't think anybody is wanting a "Quest for Kirk" kind of movie for the next one. It does leave me wondering why they did the whole ending like this but it seems like they wanted to do a character arch for Spock(though, if you think about it, didn't Spock kind of learned these things from time-traveling Spock in the last movie?).

I'm not sure what you mean about it being the worst possible place for the "KHAN!" reference as if it were a joke. If you're referring to Spock yelling it when Kirk dies, then, yes, it was a reference, but it was still supposed to be a serious scene. It was just Spock yelling it this time.

I do agree with your assessment of the movie though.
 
Nov 28, 2007
10,686
0
0
Conner42 said:
thebobmaster said:
ending the movie with Kirk's death, and having the last shot of the movie be Dr. McCoy noticing the tribble reviving, saving the revival of Kirk for the next movie, ala Search for Spock, would have been a much better ending, as compared to killing Kirk, then saying "loljk".
.
I don't think anybody is wanting a "Quest for Kirk" kind of movie for the next one. It does leave me wondering why they did the whole ending like this but it seems like they wanted to do a character arch for Spock(though, if you think about it, didn't Spock kind of learned these things from time-traveling Spock in the last movie?).

I'm not sure what you mean about it being the worst possible place for the "KHAN!" reference as if it were a joke. If you're referring to Spock yelling it when Kirk dies, then, yes, it was a reference, but it was still supposed to be a serious scene. It was just Spock yelling it this time.

I do agree with your assessment of the movie though.
I meant the timing. Here's the thing. The original "KHAN!" was over the top, and so was this one. I had no problem with that. But the context was totally different between the two scenes. In the first one, Kirk is purposely putting on an over-the-top performance in order to make Khan think he won. But in this one, it just struck me as out-of-place, due to how serious the scene was. I was honestly getting a bit teary-eyed, because they did Kirk's death so well, and then that got thrown in there. Totally broke the feel of the scene for me. And maybe a whole "quest for Kirk" wouldn't have worked, either, but it would have been better than rushing the last 20 or so minutes like they did.

Still, minor nitpicks. And I can't dislike anything Simon Pegg is involved in.
 

Casual Shinji

Should've gone before we left.
Legacy
Jul 18, 2009
19,691
4,475
118
thebobmaster said:
And I can't dislike anything Simon Pegg is involved in.
Not even How to Lose Friends and Alienate People? That movie was terrible.

It seems only Edgar Wright is able to utilize Simon Pegg to the fullest.
 
Nov 28, 2007
10,686
0
0
Casual Shinji said:
thebobmaster said:
And I can't dislike anything Simon Pegg is involved in.
Not even How to Lose Friends and Alienate People? That movie was terrible.

It seems only Edgar Wright is able to utilize Simon Pegg to the fullest.
Never saw it. What I have seen of Simon Pegg is "Hot Fuzz", "Shaun of the Dead", both new Star Trek movies, an episode of "Spaced", and that one episode of "Doctor Who". And I enjoyed all of them.
 

Nimzabaat

New member
Feb 1, 2010
886
0
0
Conner42 said:
thebobmaster said:
ending the movie with Kirk's death, and having the last shot of the movie be Dr. McCoy noticing the tribble reviving, saving the revival of Kirk for the next movie, ala Search for Spock, would have been a much better ending, as compared to killing Kirk, then saying "loljk".
.
I don't think anybody is wanting a "Quest for Kirk" kind of movie for the next one. It does leave me wondering why they did the whole ending like this but it seems like they wanted to do a character arch for Spock(though, if you think about it, didn't Spock kind of learned these things from time-traveling Spock in the last movie?).

I'm not sure what you mean about it being the worst possible place for the "KHAN!" reference as if it were a joke. If you're referring to Spock yelling it when Kirk dies, then, yes, it was a reference, but it was still supposed to be a serious scene. It was just Spock yelling it this time.

I do agree with your assessment of the movie though.
Actually I think the best thing J.J. Abrams could have done was

Kill Kirk. Seriously that would have made his mark on the franchise better than anything so far (currently it's lens flare). Not to mention that Chris Pine is the most forgettable cast member anyways. So far Kirk's whole story is that he never learns, so let him finally learn what it means to be a captain by dying for his crew. There's some depth there. I was so disappointed with the "Kahn's blood is magic" and can revive the dead thing.

But that's just me. Otherwise, huge plot holes aside, it was a fun movie.

Since the Enterprise was falling down... and the gravity wasn't working... why was gravity going all over the place? In Inception they showed the van rolling and that explained things. This time... not so much.

Okay i'm done :)
 

Conner42

Senior Member
Jul 29, 2009
262
0
21
BobDobolina said:
Basically the gamble they took on Abrams was that he would bring the sensibility of the non-Trek-watching masses to the franchises, slap a coat of his customary cleverness (not intelligence; cleverness) and visual style onto the packaging, throw together a yarn worthy of the average brainless Michael Bay actioner, and get rid of all the tiresome "philosophy" and whatnot. Basically use the franchise name to sell a generic action product. I was amazed (and a bit disgusted) to watch so many Trek fans pour drool all over the results the first time around, so pathetically pleased were they to see a Trek movie with an actual budget that tried to be exciting. And I have to admit it's with no small amount of schandenfreude that I watch many of them slowly getting wise to the con.

Not everything about the old series or movies was near-my-god-to-thee or anything, of course. I do hand it to Abrams that he's able to serve up a sense of visual splendour and wonder, which is something movies like this should be trying to do and that the old franchise just forgot about or gave up on. The much-ballyhooed "philosophy" of the old Trek was often sledgehammer-subtle and Gene Roddenberry's supposed "vision" incoherent. But at its best, the old Trek reached for and achieved more than just brainless action. That's something I'm convinced no Abrams Trek film will ever be able to say.

Into Darkness is better than the first Abrams film in that it has a plot, but that's not saying much. The cast is great and do their best but are IMO criminally underserved by the writing and directing team. I would far rather seen Cumberbatch set his own stamp on a villain's role than be forced to serve up a retread in minimal screen time of Khan (who was supposed to be Indian for god's sake). And overall I don't understand why it doesn't occur to the company that you could have the good action and hire a half-decent writing and directing team; why is it that HBO can pull this off on television routinely and yet film can no longer manage it?
Yes, I think Star Trek definitely deserves better. Like I said, once we can actually get writers on board, we'll have something really good.

While I did really like Cumberbatch in this movie, he wasn't really given a whole lot to do, but that can be attributed to how he's not really a character in this movie.

Ugh, really, a lot of the problems just comes from the really dumb script from these guys who really shouldn't be involved in the first place.

As for TV vs. movies, well, you have to do a lot more to keep the audience's attention in order to keep them coming back to watch more. So, writing might be a little more valued. But, that's really just conjecture, it does sound like something to look into however.
Nimzabaat said:
Kill Kirk. Seriously that would have made his mark on the franchise better than anything so far (currently it's lens flare). Not to mention that Chris Pine is the most forgettable cast member anyways. So far Kirk's whole story is that he never learns, so let him finally learn what it means to be a captain by dying for his crew. There's some depth there. I was so disappointed with the "Kahn's blood is magic" and can revive the dead thing.
Well then...

I actually really like this idea. It would have made Kirk's death a lot more effective, it would have meant more than just a plot device to complete Spock's character arc, and it could take the series on a whole new and interesting direction. Unfortunately, a lot of people wouldn't have liked it though, Star Trek fans and non-fans alike. The fact of the matter is that they wanted to recreate the ending of The Wrath of Khan in a way where they didn't have to change anything and in a way where they didn't need to make that "Quest for Kirk" movie.

Ugh...

Now I know how Moviebob feels when you're not being allowed to discuss why certain parts of a movie doesn't work because of spoiler territory. Not that it's a bad thing at the moment, though, since these have been really good discussions. Though, I can only imagine what the people who haven't seen the movie and are dying to know what we're talking about are feeling like : )

Still, this Spoiler thing is getting annoying.