Star Trek: Into Darkness

[Pyro Tramp]

I posted what I thought would be brief thoughts in the Movie Tab but it came out longer than anticipated so hoped some points raise can be discussed here:

Star Trek Into Darkness

http://ext.pimg.tw/lizzyli928/1366217604-147332067_l.jpg

(Potential Spoilers)


Undecided if this one was inspired or lazy.

The film jumps straight to the end of a mission which serves to primarily setup the dichotomy of Spock's pragmatism and Kirk's brashness to echo over the film. Secondarily to pay lip service to the 'Prime Directive' although any of Spock's adherence to this (which is what sets the aforementioned theme into play) is overshadowed by hypocrisy inherent in their mission itself. It left a funny taste in my mouth querying a Vulcan's logic (!), at least until they directly addressed back on Earth by an excellent head of Star Fleet played by Robocop.

Cut to John Harrison setting up the films main narrative by pulling some explosive pranks on Star Fleet back on Earth. All very enigmatic, nicely staged and shot, leading to Kirk's mission. There's some rather unsubtle foreshadowing that all is not what it seems with his task. We meet the remodelled Klingons, which wasn't too keen on but they're mostly a plot device to set some peril and show that John Harrison is maybe not such a bad guy but definitely a bad ass. The Enterprise forget that he's massacred a few chaps back at the office and buddy up against Robocop who turns out to be the real villain. The whole bureaucrat pulling strings is quite a tired trend and he turns out to be ultimately disposable. And it all serves as a very thinly veiled distraction to John Harrison's actual agenda and inevitable deception. There's a lot of wasted time when they could be turning JH into a much more active and threatening villain. Shame, considering. The film suffers by getting distracted between the core Kirk/Spock dynamic and trying to include uneven and diluted antagonists, neither quite getting into the full swing of the job. I don't know if it's me but a lot of films seem to reach the second act and just convert to real time and forgo building any tension or drama in favour of quick fire action. Like Prometheus last year, a lot of the finale was given away in the trailers, even the same bloody type of scene! Advertising campaigns need a reassessment.

It's a fun ride and full of big lovely effects and overused digital lense flares, and isn't actually too bad in 3D. They definitely enjoy throwing nods to fans, which I won't spoil as they're the real treat in the film. However, they become possibly too preoccupied with them and the deviations don't serve any purpose other than to avoid being verbatim of another film. What was an inspired universe device in the previous entry is a nice mask to reuse and redo canon. The foundation of the film is meant to be dichotomy of Spock and Kirk; Quinto does a marvellously nuanced Nimoy impression but Kirk is written as near incompetent to facepalm proportions. So when it comes to the character climax, it doesn't quite have the same emotional hit or reflect any development as it should - yet you get the feeling the makers were giving themselves a big pat on the back with it. As is symptomatic with Hollywood these days, it also lacks any conviction to the actions, utilising an unfortunately similar deus-ex (ish) as Iron Man 3. The scene they borrow from still makes me well up after several viewings, this didn't manage it once. It may work differently for non-Trekkies, mind. Goes to show, too, that throwing simplicity out the window for spectacle doesn't benefit emotional moments.

It seems like the final piece before a traditional Trek film arrives and does at least know the right buttons it should be hitting, even if doesn't quite push them hard enough. It's one of those films that needs a second viewing to appreciate, I feel. I did vocally cheer one point in the film, which i've tried to avoid revealing. All in all, the best compliment I can pay to it is it's firmed a resolve that I do not want JJ directing Star Wars. He's created a fantastic Trek universe and don't want to see him doing another franchise and replacing characters into a same world, be to the detriment of both.

I didn't hate Simon Pegg this time either (accent aside) so gets a bit of extra credit.

3_5

[JayDee]

Not going to read your review just now until I've seen it, but I've got to say that is one pretty bad ass poster! Not seen that one in any of the promotional material

[Pyro Tramp]

It reminded me of Mondo posters, not sure if it is.

[JayDee]

mirror mirror

Year of release
2013

Directed by
J.J. Abrams

Written by
Roberto Orci
Alex Kurtzman
Damon Lindelof

Starring
Chris Pine
Zachary Qunito
Benedict Cumberbatch
Simon Pegg
Karl Urban

Star Trek Into Darkness

4 -

Plot - After breaking the Prime Directive on a distant planet, Captain James T. Kirk (Pine) is relieved of his command of the USS Enterprise. This proves to be a short-lived development however. When a destructive force of terrorism emerges from within Starfleet itself, Kirk is reinstated and tasked with tracking down this terrorist. The terrorist in question is John Harrison (Cumberbatch); a darkly mysterious and extremely powerful force waging a one-man war against Starfleet. When the score between them becomes personal, a vengeful Kirk follows Harrison into dangerous territory, risking a war in the process. As it turns out however, things are not what they seem. With events and revelations turning the world of Kirk and his crew upside down, loyalties are going to be questioned and sacrifices demanded.

Whatever your opinion was of J.J. Abrams' first stab at the world of Star Trek, I think you're very likely to feel the exact same way about this; his return trip aboard the USS Enterprise which I found very similar. I found his 2009 reboot of the franchise to be a very fun, if flawed film. I had hoped this sequel would take the foundation laid out and realise the potential hinted at. While I would give this film the edge over its predecessor, sadly I don't feel that it quite lived up to my hopes. It was able to retain all the things I enjoyed about the first film, but unfortunately it did likewise in terms of its flaws.

Up front I feel I should admit to not being a devout follower of the Church of J.J.; I'm not one for worshipping the ground that the man walks upon. Which would be fine, I wouldn't feel strongly either way, except for the fact that so many people seem to adore and rave about the man; thus creating in me a sort of irrational contempt towards him. I think he certainly knows how to deliver on spectacle and thrills, but on the strength of his two Trek films and the underwhelming Super 8, I'm not so sure about his abilities to deliver heart and emotion. The two Star Trek films he has delivered have scored high as slices of big-ass action, but to me they don't feel like classic Trek. I imagine they're missing the adventure, the derring do, the sense of exploration, the warmth and the level of character that has made me love the franchise over the years. He's in danger of turning the franchise into nothing but a special effects bonanza.

I also have a problem with Abrams' presentation at times, though whether I can expound upon why exactly this is I'm not sure. His direction entails a frequently moving camera, numerous whips and pans and really likes to get up close and personal to his subjects. At times it is suitable and indeed successful at breeding a lively and energetic mood, however there are times (particularly on the bridge) where I wish he would just settle down for a moment, pull back and allow the moment and the characters to breathe a little. His approach creates a bit of a TV feel for me, perhaps a leftover stemming from his time working on the small screen. Oh and when it comes time to adding the visual effects in post-production, can someone please hide the 'add lens flare' button from the man!

However the one area where this film truly does improve upon Abrams' first attempt is in its villain, who this time around is given a much more fleshed-out character and interesting story. In Star Trek, Eric Bana was given very little opportunity to make an impression as Nero; his character felt like it existed merely as a plot device to get the crew involved in time travel and alternate realities. In John Harrison however, Benedict Cumberbatch is given greater scope to work with and truly makes the most of it. His terrorist foe oozes menace and charisma. It's a fantastically gripping and magnetic performance which just cements his growing reputation as one of the hottest young talents around. He absolutely dominates the screen and your attention whenever he appears, and for me is the best thing this sequel has going for it. All of which makes it rather unfortunate then that I don't feel he is really utilised to the fullest, with the script conspiring to have him off screen for more time than would have been ideal. Abrams' main focus remains the occasionally strained dynamic between Spock and Kirk, and on the action. The script flirts with some more complex issues such as morality and the rights of a terrorist, but quickly dismisses them to blow some more stuff up. It also opts for quite a rushed and clumsy conclusion which seems to ignore the consequences created. The script just feels rather lazy at times.

When it comes to the Enterprise crew the undoubted star amongst the cast remains Zachinary Quinto who continues to deliver an uncanny impersonation of Leonard Nimoy. It's actually rather eerie and unnerving just how similar they are; it's the same voice, the same face, the same mannerisms, the same nuances - everything! In fact, were it not for the small issue that the original Spock is still alive I'd be tempted to believe Quinto was actually Leonard Nimoy reincarnated! As in the first outing, Chris Pine proves to be a solid and decent Kirk but I've still to truly warm to him and the character. I just don't feel like he has truly inhabited the character and made it his own, or that he has the suitable natural star power. As a result, in the scenes where Kirk goes face to face with Harrison, I personally felt that he paled in comparison to the magnetic and over-powering gravitas of Cumberbatch. So much so that I rather found myself cheering for the villain which I don't think is a particularly good thing to feel for this type of venture. And Pine is not helped by the fact that the script often conspires to make his Kirk flawed, weak and not the sharpest tool in the shed.

I read another review which criticised the film for having supporting characters presented as little more than window dressing, and that really is the case when it comes to much of the Enterprise's crew; with the likes of Sulu, Chekov, McCoy and Uhura all suffering. Basically everyone but Spock, Kirk and Scotty. The actors are given pitifully little to work with outside of basic traits imitated after the men and women who first brought these characters to life. As McCoy, all the script allots Urban is the chance to deliver grumpy one-liners. Anton Yelchin remains an endearing presence as Chekov, but is relegated to basically mispronouncing his v's and his w's. As a result I've still to really take to any of the supporting cast in any great manner. Oh and as I've mentioned on here a few times before, I'm not a fan of Simon Pegg and take umbrage at him portraying a Scotsman. I found him annoying in the first film, and so was rather despondent to find his role had been increased this time around.

One of the main flaws in Abrams' first trip into space aboard the Enterprise was the romance between Spock and Uhura. Revealed out of the blue late on in proceedings, no development or explanation was really put forward. It came across as nothing more than a flimsy gimmick; as if Abrams & co had merely included it for a bit of controversy, just to get people talking and create some buzz. I had hoped that they would take the opportunity to expand upon it in the sequel but sadly that is not the case. Very little progress is made on that front, and they decline the chance to address issues such as how a relationship between a human and a vulcan actually works, or even why they're together. We've had two movies now and still have no real clue why these two have hooked up.

As with the first film, the one area where the film is a pretty much unreserved success is in its effects and the sheer spectacle they create. It looks spectacular and remains a great theme park ride of a movie, full of large scale space battles and thrilling set-pieces. Though the battle on Kronos suffers from the manic, quick-fire editing that hurts many modern films, making it almost incomprehensible to figure out what the hell is happening at times. One problem with so much action however is that I began to suffer peril fatigue (a term borrowed from another review). With Kirk & co in danger every five minutes it begins to wear on you a bit. Again as with its predecessor, Into Darkness features numerous nods to classic Trek, and near its conclusion this is particularly true of Wrath of Khan. This blatant callback will likely work fine for newcomers to the world, but for trekkies (well this one at least) the scene felt incredibly forced and cheesy, even verging on being cringeworthy, and completely sabotaged any potential emotion in the scene. For a film trying to breathe new life into a franchise it seems overly obsessed with the past.

And lastly, another thing that wasn't so much a flaw with the film as just a personal nitpick is the fact that I was disappointed with just how much of the running time was spent aboard the Enterprise or on Earth. That was fine on TV when you only had to wait another week for a new episode, but with a potential wait of a few years between instalments I feel its a shame not to spend more time exploring “strange new worlds” and interacting with alien races. Outside of the film's prologue our only real exposure to the wider universe is a brief visit to the Klingon homeworld of Kronos, but much of it is shrouded in darkness preventing us from really getting an idea of its aesthetic, and the Klingons themselves I found to be a disappointing creation; not really evoking their look from any previous outings.

As seems pretty typical for this type of fair these days, the film does have its share of plot holes. Quite a large share actually. But I won't get too bogged down in them right now (perhaps later :D). One thing I did have an issue with however was some of the deus ex machina plot devices they came up with to get themselves out of a jam. They may work fine in the short term but I'm curious to see how they play out as we go along. For example, is it just me or did they actually just remove the threat of death from the world of Star Trek? Or at the very least greatly diluted it.

Conclusion - Given how many flaws I've pointed out it may seem strange that I've still given it such a high rating, indeed even I think it looks generous! But for all its problems, as a big summer blockbuster it remains a highly entertaining (if disposable) popcorn flick, and as a result of Benedict Cumberbatch's inclusion it is an improvement on the first film. And my inner Trekkie is pretty damn strong which is always going to help anything carrying the Trek name. However with more screentime for Cumberbatch, more attention paid to the script and better use of its supporting cast this could have been something special.

Oh and another interesting aspect, which perhaps hurt my enjoyment of this, was just how similar this was to Iron Man 3 in terms of sharing similar themes and story beats. I found IM3 to be a much smarter, wittier and overall a far more thrilling experience however.

[JayDee]

Now that I have seen it got to say that I did agree with pretty much everything you said Pyro, even if I did give it a higher rating. What can I say, I'm easily pleased and a generous rater! :D

[TheUsualSuspect]

Star Trek Into Darkness

Kirk is given the task of tracking down John Harrison, the man responsible for the death of hundreds of Starfleet Commanders, but upon capturing him, the crew of the enterprise learns of more sinister evils lurking in the darkness.

The film starts off Kirk disobeying direct orders from Starfleet in order to save the life of a crew member. The result of this action has him demoted from captain, yet this subplot only lasts 5 minutes as he is thrust back into the role after a devastating hit from the new villain, played by Benedict Cumberbatch. So the film starts off pretty shaky, having something important happen that ultimate goes nowhere for the story. Once Cumberbatch comes on the screen, the film becomes stronger and more focused.

This new Star Trek film dances around revenge, sacrifice and friendship. The relationship between Spock and Kirk is stronger, almost a complete 180 from what we saw in the original film. Despite this new strong friendship, Spock still has trouble conveying emotions and thinks more logically than emotionally. This film tries to be bigger and pose a more dangerous threat to our crew than the original, as most sequels do, but in order for that to happen, a lot of the characters are given the short straw. Zoe Saldana, John Cho and Anton Yelchin get the worst of it.

Saldana is belittled to a girlfriend role, Cho only drives the ship and Yelchin is thrown into the back and literally does nothing. Pegg, Quinto and Pine take the front roles and of course Cumberbatch steals the show whenever he's on the screen. I can't help be feel a tad disappointed that most of the crew is given little to do, whereas everyone in the original had a moment to shine.

Into Darkness is a good entertaining film, that falls a tad bit short of its predecessor. It's still a great film, but there are too many telegraphed scenes that leave the emotion empty because you know where they writers are going to go with it. Big reveals are not shocking and the predictable ending leaves a bad taste in my mouth. They had a chance to throw a big curveball and make us salivate for the next film, but instead we are treated with the "Spielberg" ending, something that I think Abrams is becoming more and more guilty of.

Those detractors are not enough to make the film a disappointment. It is highly enjoyable popcorn flair. Those worried about lens flare? He tones it down this time!!! YAY!!!!

3.5

[The Gunslinger45]

mirror mirror

Year of release
2013

Directed by
J.J. Abrams

Written by
Roberto Orci
Alex Kurtzman
Damon Lindelof

Starring
Chris Pine
Zachary Qunito
Benedict Cumberbatch
Simon Pegg
Karl Urban

Star Trek Into Darkness

4 -

Plot - After breaking the Prime Directive on a distant planet, Captain James T. Kirk (Pine) is relieved of his command of the USS Enterprise. This proves to be a short-lived development however. When a destructive force of terrorism emerges from within Starfleet itself, Kirk is reinstated and tasked with tracking down this terrorist. The terrorist in question is John Harrison (Cumberbatch); a darkly mysterious and extremely powerful force waging a one-man war against Starfleet. When the score between them becomes personal, a vengeful Kirk follows Harrison into dangerous territory, risking a war in the process. As it turns out however, things are not what they seem. With events and revelations turning the world of Kirk and his crew upside down, loyalties are going to be questioned and sacrifices demanded.

Whatever your opinion was of J.J. Abrams' first stab at the world of Star Trek, I think you're very likely to feel the exact same way about this; his return trip aboard the USS Enterprise which I found very similar. I found his 2009 reboot of the franchise to be a very fun, if flawed film. I had hoped this sequel would take the foundation laid out and realise the potential hinted at. While I would give this film the edge over its predecessor, sadly I don't feel that it quite lived up to my hopes. It was able to retain all the things I enjoyed about the first film, but unfortunately it did likewise in terms of its flaws.

Up front I feel I should admit to not being a devout follower of the Church of J.J.; I'm not one for worshipping the ground that the man walks upon. Which would be fine, I wouldn't feel strongly either way, except for the fact that so many people seem to adore and rave about the man; thus creating in me a sort of irrational contempt towards him. I think he certainly knows how to deliver on spectacle and thrills, but on the strength of his two Trek films and the underwhelming Super 8, I'm not so sure about his abilities to deliver heart and emotion. The two Star Trek films he has delivered have scored high as slices of big-ass action, but to me they don't feel like classic Trek. I imagine they're missing the adventure, the derring do, the sense of exploration, the warmth and the level of character that has made me love the franchise over the years. He's in danger of turning the franchise into nothing but a special effects bonanza.

I also have a problem with Abrams' presentation at times, though whether I can expound upon why exactly this is I'm not sure. His direction entails a frequently moving camera, numerous whips and pans and really likes to get up close and personal to his subjects. At times it is suitable and indeed successful at breeding a lively and energetic mood, however there are times (particularly on the bridge) where I wish he would just settle down for a moment, pull back and allow the moment and the characters to breathe a little. His approach creates a bit of a TV feel for me, perhaps a leftover stemming from his time working on the small screen. Oh and when it comes time to adding the visual effects in post-production, can someone please hide the 'add lens flare' button from the man!

However the one area where this film truly does improve upon Abrams' first attempt is in its villain, who this time around is given a much more fleshed-out character and interesting story. In Star Trek, Eric Bana was given very little opportunity to make an impression as Nero; his character felt like it existed merely as a plot device to get the crew involved in time travel and alternate realities. In John Harrison however, Benedict Cumberbatch is given greater scope to work with and truly makes the most of it. His terrorist foe oozes menace and charisma. It's a fantastically gripping and magnetic performance which just cements his growing reputation as one of the hottest young talents around. He absolutely dominates the screen and your attention whenever he appears, and for me is the best thing this sequel has going for it. All of which makes it rather unfortunate then that I don't feel he is really utilised to the fullest, with the script conspiring to have him off screen for more time than would have been ideal. Abrams' main focus remains the occasionally strained dynamic between Spock and Kirk, and on the action. The script flirts with some more complex issues such as morality and the rights of a terrorist, but quickly dismisses them to blow some more stuff up. It also opts for quite a rushed and clumsy conclusion which seems to ignore the consequences created. The script just feels rather lazy at times.

When it comes to the Enterprise crew the undoubted star amongst the cast remains Zachinary Quinto who continues to deliver an uncanny impersonation of Leonard Nimoy. It's actually rather eerie and unnerving just how similar they are; it's the same voice, the same face, the same mannerisms, the same nuances - everything! In fact, were it not for the small issue that the original Spock is still alive I'd be tempted to believe Quinto was actually Leonard Nimoy reincarnated! As in the first outing, Chris Pine proves to be a solid and decent Kirk but I've still to truly warm to him and the character. I just don't feel like he has truly inhabited the character and made it his own, or that he has the suitable natural star power. As a result, in the scenes where Kirk goes face to face with Harrison, I personally felt that he paled in comparison to the magnetic and over-powering gravitas of Cumberbatch. So much so that I rather found myself cheering for the villain which I don't think is a particularly good thing to feel for this type of venture. And Pine is not helped by the fact that the script often conspires to make his Kirk flawed, weak and not the sharpest tool in the shed.

I read another review which criticised the film for having supporting characters presented as little more than window dressing, and that really is the case when it comes to much of the Enterprise's crew; with the likes of Sulu, Chekov, McCoy and Uhura all suffering. Basically everyone but Spock, Kirk and Scotty. The actors are given pitifully little to work with outside of basic traits imitated after the men and women who first brought these characters to life. As McCoy, all the script allots Urban is the chance to deliver grumpy one-liners. Anton Yelchin remains an endearing presence as Chekov, but is relegated to basically mispronouncing his v's and his w's. As a result I've still to really take to any of the supporting cast in any great manner. Oh and as I've mentioned on here a few times before, I'm not a fan of Simon Pegg and take umbrage at him portraying a Scotsman. I found him annoying in the first film, and so was rather despondent to find his role had been increased this time around.

One of the main flaws in Abrams' first trip into space aboard the Enterprise was the romance between Spock and Uhura. Revealed out of the blue late on in proceedings, no development or explanation was really put forward. It came across as nothing more than a flimsy gimmick; as if Abrams & co had merely included it for a bit of controversy, just to get people talking and create some buzz. I had hoped that they would take the opportunity to expand upon it in the sequel but sadly that is not the case. Very little progress is made on that front, and they decline the chance to address issues such as how a relationship between a human and a vulcan actually works, or even why they're together. We've had two movies now and still have no real clue why these two have hooked up.

As with the first film, the one area where the film is a pretty much unreserved success is in its effects and the sheer spectacle they create. It looks spectacular and remains a great theme park ride of a movie, full of large scale space battles and thrilling set-pieces. Though the battle on Kronos suffers from the manic, quick-fire editing that hurts many modern films, making it almost incomprehensible to figure out what the hell is happening at times. One problem with so much action however is that I began to suffer peril fatigue (a term borrowed from another review). With Kirk & co in danger every five minutes it begins to wear on you a bit. Again as with its predecessor, Into Darkness features numerous nods to classic Trek, and near its conclusion this is particularly true of Wrath of Khan. This blatant callback will likely work fine for newcomers to the world, but for trekkies (well this one at least) the scene felt incredibly forced and cheesy, even verging on being cringeworthy, and completely sabotaged any potential emotion in the scene. For a film trying to breathe new life into a franchise it seems overly obsessed with the past.

And lastly, another thing that wasn't so much a flaw with the film as just a personal nitpick is the fact that I was disappointed with just how much of the running time was spent aboard the Enterprise or on Earth. That was fine on TV when you only had to wait another week for a new episode, but with a potential wait of a few years between instalments I feel its a shame not to spend more time exploring “strange new worlds” and interacting with alien races. Outside of the film's prologue our only real exposure to the wider universe is a brief visit to the Klingon homeworld of Kronos, but much of it is shrouded in darkness preventing us from really getting an idea of its aesthetic, and the Klingons themselves I found to be a disappointing creation; not really evoking their look from any previous outings.

As seems pretty typical for this type of fair these days, the film does have its share of plot holes. Quite a large share actually. But I won't get too bogged down in them right now (perhaps later :D). One thing I did have an issue with however was some of the deus ex machina plot devices they came up with to get themselves out of a jam. They may work fine in the short term but I'm curious to see how they play out as we go along. For example, is it just me or did they actually just remove the threat of death from the world of Star Trek? Or at the very least greatly diluted it.

Conclusion - Given how many flaws I've pointed out it may seem strange that I've still given it such a high rating, indeed even I think it looks generous! But for all its problems, as a big summer blockbuster it remains a highly entertaining (if disposable) popcorn flick, and as a result of Benedict Cumberbatch's inclusion it is an improvement on the first film. And my inner Trekkie is pretty damn strong which is always going to help anything carrying the Trek name. However with more screentime for Cumberbatch, more attention paid to the script and better use of its supporting cast this could have been something special.

Oh and another interesting aspect, which perhaps hurt my enjoyment of this, was just how similar this was to Iron Man 3 in terms of sharing similar themes and story beats. I found IM3 to be a much smarter, wittier and overall a far more thrilling experience however.

I cannot call myself a trekkie since I have not seen that much of the original series, but I did watch the movies as a kid. Wrath of Khan being one of my all time favorite sci-fi flicks. The thought of rehashing one of the best endings ever for this makes me sad. I am feeling vindicated that I am not going to see this in theaters.

[teeter_g]

I loved this movie! Granted, it wasn't as good as the first and the endings were almost identical but it was good, none the less.

[Pyro Tramp]

Now that I have seen it got to say that I did agree with pretty much everything you said Pyro, even if I did give it a higher rating. What can I say, I'm easily pleased and a generous rater! :D

I thought I had already commented but don't see it.

Yes, very similar views but mine weren't quite as eloquently phrased as yours. Nice write up. Glad I wasn't alone!

[JayDee]

Yes, very similar views but mine weren't quite as eloquently phrased as yours. Nice write up. Glad I wasn't alone!

Well that's one way to look at it. Another could be that I just rambled on for ages, while you were able to say pretty much the same things really but in a much more efficient and economical manner. :D And thank you. :up: I enjoyed your review as well when I was eventually able to read it

[edarsenal]

great reviews, hearing the flaws will allow me time to deal with them and move on to the more enjoyable aspects. I do consider myself a trekie from the original series with a dwindling interest as new offshoots came out on the small screen and i do want to see this one in the theater, simply for the effects on a large screen, having enjoyed the first one as much as i do.

[Pyro Tramp]

Well that's one way to look at it. Another could be that I just rambled on for ages, while you were able to say pretty much the same things really but in a much more efficient and economical manner. :D And thank you. :up: I enjoyed your review as well when I was eventually able to read it

Oh you flatterer.

Question I keep coming back to, and thought in the build up, does the film benefit or gain anything from Cumberpatch being Khan?

[PeterVincent]

Oh you flatterer.

Question I keep coming back to, and thought in the build up, does the film benefit or gain anything from Cumberpatch being Khan?

I think introducing him as Khan was more of a forced fan service (which didn't end up servicing too well) than a beneficial plot point. I did see it coming, along with 90% of the world, so I was waiting for it to get out of the way so I could continue having fun with the film.

If he (Cumberpatch) was anyone else , I feel that the film would have still been the same, with no difference whatsoever.

[Schimo]

Who would thought that after very good Star Trek reboot in 2009 we’ll get this as it’s sequel. J.J. Abrams and his writers tried to play it safe with villain that almost every Trakkie loves, they really tried to preserve the flavor of original series (although in parallel universe, where they can do anything, they decided not to write anything new), to make funny dialogues and J.J. went in extra trouble to make us remember every inch of every actor’s face with so many closeups that Indian soap operas looks like Battle of the Pelennor Fields compared to this view. He tried so much to give us as little as possible.
Even the special effects are way under the today’s blockbusters level. For almost 200 millions dollars we expect way better visual impression than few shots of Enterprise and future London, although the beginning was very promising in that field. In other hand, beginning was promising in many fields, pretty much all of them. But at the end of the movie there was very little of upsides.

Let’s see the plot. At beginning we get standard fast sequel characterization primary for those who haven’t see prequel. So we once again meet modern captain Kirk, who looks and acts like all-American high school quarterback who doesn’t respect any rules but he is extremely moral and brave. We also meet his logical Vulcan friend and first officer, Spock, who in every appearance on screen, logically, remind us that he’s logical and unemotional but he makes more illogical and emotional decisions and acts then otherwise. We also meet all those other characters who more or less serve just as humor relief what actually isn’t all bad but it is a degradation of those, once interesting, characters. Not to forger, there’s even one character which pretty much only purpose is to do a lingerie scene, female, of course.
That dynamic, interesting, funny and visually impressive beginning with a little dose of philosophy is also this movie’s peak. Then we get very fast intro into movie’s main plot which is spinning around an evil terrorist who makes a big mess in The Godfather style and then runs away. Guess who’s going after that evil man!?
Whole idea for plot is solid, but it’s way from being original. Every segment in which this writers tried to be original, even in slightest possible way, ended as catastrophe with plot holes, a lot of questions (not philosophical or theoretical, just practical ones), useless characters and constant big and important battles with some new laws of physics which felt like infinity. Approximately one third of a movie went on Spock’s and Kirk’s bromance and those cheesy and pathetic dialogues and closeup stares between them. Another third was spent on explosions, bad visual effects and Kirk acting like an superhero (aren’t all those Marvel screenings enough?). But in one third of a movie we actually saw something good. It was Benedict Cumberbatch as main villain.

Although acting was in high level in general, Cumberbatch stole the show. He had help in a view of very good characterization of his character and pathetic one of good guys, so it isn’t strange that big part of audience actually cheered for him. Both Chris Pine as Kirk and Zachary Quinto as Spock gave us top performance so it’s fair to say that acting performance is the biggest (possibly the only) upside of latest J.J. Abram’s Star Trek.
Star Trek: Into Darkness ended up as an confirmation of J.J. Abrams’s directing and Damon Lindelof’s writing incapability. Every one of projects that two of them touched in these roles ended up as a disappointment. But the worst thing is that they have good ideas but realization of those ideas is terrible. We can only hope that they will get better in time and that new Star Wars will not end as an Indian soap opera.

5,5/10

[TylerDurden99]

Saw this today, a few quick thoughts:

I liked it more than I liked the first one, but its still lacking the Star Trek spirit. But... it's getting there. Pine develops into Kirk a lot more in this entry and Quinto still proves to be a perfect Spock. The plot and the villain were pretty standard, but this really upped the ante on spectacle, which I didn't mind because it was done right, in the sense that wasn't overblown and it didn't take away from the story.

Benedict Cumberbatch was perfectly fine as the villain of the piece, but his take on the material isn't anything new and not once did I think he was deserving of the rave reviews I heard of him in Into Darkness. His reveal halfway through didnt annoy as much as I thought, neither did the role reversal in the third act. What did annoy me was (SPOILER BEGINS) the Macguffin that saves Kirk's life. It completely takes away from the emotional impact of Kirk's supposed death and only serves a purpose as a cheap grab at another sequel. There are some who didn't mind that, but I guess it didn't work for me at all. (SPOILER END)

One thing the first did right was establish the characters and gave them moments to shine, whereas this film makes everyone except Kirk, Spock and Scotty background characters who really have nothing to do. Alice Eve was nice to look at, but her character was pointless and didn't serve a purpose at all. Robocop was cool as her dad though. But in all seriousness, I wasn't happy how Bones, my favourite character from the first film and the original tv series and films, was just there to make wisecracks. I wasn't happy with Anton Yelchin being kept quiet in the back room. And I wasn't happy about how Spock and Uhura's relationship was limited to constant bickering.

But, despite all this, I did like the film. There was enough spectacle and heart there to keep me entertained. I liked elements of the story, the toning down of the lens flare and the trio of central performances of Pine, Quinto and Cumberbatch. JJ Abrams said he's been getting into Star Trek a bit more since the first film... and it definitely shows here.

3.5

[JayDee]

Nice review Tyler. :up: As with Pyro very similar thoughts as myself.



Yes, very similar views but mine weren't quite as eloquently phrased as yours. Nice write up. Glad I wasn't alone!

I think we also seemed to share the same high opinion of Iron Man 3. So quite similar opinions. Wanna be best friends? :p

[yellowjacket1]

7/10

Make no mistake, there is NO story of which to speak. This movie is ALL action practically from start to finish. What passes for a plot is entirely predictable if you’re a Star Trek fan but that’s not all bad. They certainly do borrow heavily from what we’ve seen before but they offer it in an alternate reality fashion. Some may call that a rehash but I’m sticking with the alternate realty take and I enjoyed the ride. The last fifteen minutes or so was very over-the-top and unnecessary but the film makers kept with their intension of delivering crazed action above all else. I admired that consistency. Some popcorn films try to shift tones and add “depth” and most just fail miserably at the attempt. This movie goes balls to the walls leaning on Star Trek mythology all the way through and makes no apologies about it. I had enough fun to overlook all the logic flaws, kind of like Kirk would tell Spock. Put logic aside and enjoy the ride.

Note: It IS as far away from Gene Roddenberry's vision as possible. ALL mindless action over story was never what Trek was suppose to be.

[Magister Commodus]

I can't believe what I'm seeing right now. You people actually liked this film? It was mediocre at best, all it had was a paper thin plot and no character development. Also the film was back to front, why the hell is San Francisco getting destroyed at the end (that end was terrible), it would have had more of an impact if it was at the start. And then they had the antagonist getting captured just like Skyfall and The Avengers which both sucked. I wonder what went wrong?

"Written by:
Roberto Orci
Alex Kurtzman
Damon Lindelof"

Oh that's what.

[Rhaegar Targaryen]

Star trek into darkens.

The movie was made for people nowadays. and some things must change eventually". and of course there is artistic license my feelings are . i don't give a toss. i likes the original enterprise. i like the original destine of the uniforms. the phases. all of it. oh and two other things.


WHAT THE HELL did they do to the Klingon. what i saw was not a Klingon it was some thing that wanted to look like one and failed miserably. and the ship they used. if it was meant to be a bird of pray. then they got that spectacular wrong . also the bat'leths they used. were designed wrong. not one of them in all my years watching star trek has ever had a blade that points backwards. not even the sword of kalis had that.

and one last miner point. khan was meant to be found on the bottany bay . no where in the film was their a dimension of that ship.


and guys don't give me the alternate time and future bull. i already know that

excellent acting excellent effects. a pretty good storyline. if not a bit predictable. all and all very good film.

But despite all my annoyance at certain parts of this film . i will give it a
4

I would recommend it to anyone.

[neone]

i will like it if includ some of time travel shots

[gandalf26]

mirror mirror

Year of release
2013

Directed by
J.J. Abrams

Written by
Roberto Orci
Alex Kurtzman
Damon Lindelof

Starring
Chris Pine
Zachary Qunito
Benedict Cumberbatch
Simon Pegg
Karl Urban

Star Trek Into Darkness

4 -

Plot - After breaking the Prime Directive on a distant planet, Captain James T. Kirk (Pine) is relieved of his command of the USS Enterprise. This proves to be a short-lived development however. When a destructive force of terrorism emerges from within Starfleet itself, Kirk is reinstated and tasked with tracking down this terrorist. The terrorist in question is John Harrison (Cumberbatch); a darkly mysterious and extremely powerful force waging a one-man war against Starfleet. When the score between them becomes personal, a vengeful Kirk follows Harrison into dangerous territory, risking a war in the process. As it turns out however, things are not what they seem. With events and revelations turning the world of Kirk and his crew upside down, loyalties are going to be questioned and sacrifices demanded.

Whatever your opinion was of J.J. Abrams' first stab at the world of Star Trek, I think you're very likely to feel the exact same way about this; his return trip aboard the USS Enterprise which I found very similar. I found his 2009 reboot of the franchise to be a very fun, if flawed film. I had hoped this sequel would take the foundation laid out and realise the potential hinted at. While I would give this film the edge over its predecessor, sadly I don't feel that it quite lived up to my hopes. It was able to retain all the things I enjoyed about the first film, but unfortunately it did likewise in terms of its flaws.

Up front I feel I should admit to not being a devout follower of the Church of J.J.; I'm not one for worshipping the ground that the man walks upon. Which would be fine, I wouldn't feel strongly either way, except for the fact that so many people seem to adore and rave about the man; thus creating in me a sort of irrational contempt towards him. I think he certainly knows how to deliver on spectacle and thrills, but on the strength of his two Trek films and the underwhelming Super 8, I'm not so sure about his abilities to deliver heart and emotion. The two Star Trek films he has delivered have scored high as slices of big-ass action, but to me they don't feel like classic Trek. I imagine they're missing the adventure, the derring do, the sense of exploration, the warmth and the level of character that has made me love the franchise over the years. He's in danger of turning the franchise into nothing but a special effects bonanza.

I also have a problem with Abrams' presentation at times, though whether I can expound upon why exactly this is I'm not sure. His direction entails a frequently moving camera, numerous whips and pans and really likes to get up close and personal to his subjects. At times it is suitable and indeed successful at breeding a lively and energetic mood, however there are times (particularly on the bridge) where I wish he would just settle down for a moment, pull back and allow the moment and the characters to breathe a little. His approach creates a bit of a TV feel for me, perhaps a leftover stemming from his time working on the small screen. Oh and when it comes time to adding the visual effects in post-production, can someone please hide the 'add lens flare' button from the man!

However the one area where this film truly does improve upon Abrams' first attempt is in its villain, who this time around is given a much more fleshed-out character and interesting story. In Star Trek, Eric Bana was given very little opportunity to make an impression as Nero; his character felt like it existed merely as a plot device to get the crew involved in time travel and alternate realities. In John Harrison however, Benedict Cumberbatch is given greater scope to work with and truly makes the most of it. His terrorist foe oozes menace and charisma. It's a fantastically gripping and magnetic performance which just cements his growing reputation as one of the hottest young talents around. He absolutely dominates the screen and your attention whenever he appears, and for me is the best thing this sequel has going for it. All of which makes it rather unfortunate then that I don't feel he is really utilised to the fullest, with the script conspiring to have him off screen for more time than would have been ideal. Abrams' main focus remains the occasionally strained dynamic between Spock and Kirk, and on the action. The script flirts with some more complex issues such as morality and the rights of a terrorist, but quickly dismisses them to blow some more stuff up. It also opts for quite a rushed and clumsy conclusion which seems to ignore the consequences created. The script just feels rather lazy at times.

When it comes to the Enterprise crew the undoubted star amongst the cast remains Zachinary Quinto who continues to deliver an uncanny impersonation of Leonard Nimoy. It's actually rather eerie and unnerving just how similar they are; it's the same voice, the same face, the same mannerisms, the same nuances - everything! In fact, were it not for the small issue that the original Spock is still alive I'd be tempted to believe Quinto was actually Leonard Nimoy reincarnated! As in the first outing, Chris Pine proves to be a solid and decent Kirk but I've still to truly warm to him and the character. I just don't feel like he has truly inhabited the character and made it his own, or that he has the suitable natural star power. As a result, in the scenes where Kirk goes face to face with Harrison, I personally felt that he paled in comparison to the magnetic and over-powering gravitas of Cumberbatch. So much so that I rather found myself cheering for the villain which I don't think is a particularly good thing to feel for this type of venture. And Pine is not helped by the fact that the script often conspires to make his Kirk flawed, weak and not the sharpest tool in the shed.

I read another review which criticised the film for having supporting characters presented as little more than window dressing, and that really is the case when it comes to much of the Enterprise's crew; with the likes of Sulu, Chekov, McCoy and Uhura all suffering. Basically everyone but Spock, Kirk and Scotty. The actors are given pitifully little to work with outside of basic traits imitated after the men and women who first brought these characters to life. As McCoy, all the script allots Urban is the chance to deliver grumpy one-liners. Anton Yelchin remains an endearing presence as Chekov, but is relegated to basically mispronouncing his v's and his w's. As a result I've still to really take to any of the supporting cast in any great manner. Oh and as I've mentioned on here a few times before, I'm not a fan of Simon Pegg and take umbrage at him portraying a Scotsman. I found him annoying in the first film, and so was rather despondent to find his role had been increased this time around.

One of the main flaws in Abrams' first trip into space aboard the Enterprise was the romance between Spock and Uhura. Revealed out of the blue late on in proceedings, no development or explanation was really put forward. It came across as nothing more than a flimsy gimmick; as if Abrams & co had merely included it for a bit of controversy, just to get people talking and create some buzz. I had hoped that they would take the opportunity to expand upon it in the sequel but sadly that is not the case. Very little progress is made on that front, and they decline the chance to address issues such as how a relationship between a human and a vulcan actually works, or even why they're together. We've had two movies now and still have no real clue why these two have hooked up.

As with the first film, the one area where the film is a pretty much unreserved success is in its effects and the sheer spectacle they create. It looks spectacular and remains a great theme park ride of a movie, full of large scale space battles and thrilling set-pieces. Though the battle on Kronos suffers from the manic, quick-fire editing that hurts many modern films, making it almost incomprehensible to figure out what the hell is happening at times. One problem with so much action however is that I began to suffer peril fatigue (a term borrowed from another review). With Kirk & co in danger every five minutes it begins to wear on you a bit. Again as with its predecessor, Into Darkness features numerous nods to classic Trek, and near its conclusion this is particularly true of Wrath of Khan. This blatant callback will likely work fine for newcomers to the world, but for trekkies (well this one at least) the scene felt incredibly forced and cheesy, even verging on being cringeworthy, and completely sabotaged any potential emotion in the scene. For a film trying to breathe new life into a franchise it seems overly obsessed with the past.

And lastly, another thing that wasn't so much a flaw with the film as just a personal nitpick is the fact that I was disappointed with just how much of the running time was spent aboard the Enterprise or on Earth. That was fine on TV when you only had to wait another week for a new episode, but with a potential wait of a few years between instalments I feel its a shame not to spend more time exploring “strange new worlds” and interacting with alien races. Outside of the film's prologue our only real exposure to the wider universe is a brief visit to the Klingon homeworld of Kronos, but much of it is shrouded in darkness preventing us from really getting an idea of its aesthetic, and the Klingons themselves I found to be a disappointing creation; not really evoking their look from any previous outings.

As seems pretty typical for this type of fair these days, the film does have its share of plot holes. Quite a large share actually. But I won't get too bogged down in them right now (perhaps later :D). One thing I did have an issue with however was some of the deus ex machina plot devices they came up with to get themselves out of a jam. They may work fine in the short term but I'm curious to see how they play out as we go along. For example, is it just me or did they actually just remove the threat of death from the world of Star Trek? Or at the very least greatly diluted it.

Conclusion - Given how many flaws I've pointed out it may seem strange that I've still given it such a high rating, indeed even I think it looks generous! But for all its problems, as a big summer blockbuster it remains a highly entertaining (if disposable) popcorn flick, and as a result of Benedict Cumberbatch's inclusion it is an improvement on the first film. And my inner Trekkie is pretty damn strong which is always going to help anything carrying the Trek name. However with more screentime for Cumberbatch, more attention paid to the script and better use of its supporting cast this could have been something special.


Oh and another interesting aspect, which perhaps hurt my enjoyment of this, was just how similar this was to Iron Man 3 in terms of sharing similar themes and story beats. I found IM3 to be a much smarter, wittier and overall a far more thrilling experience however.


Great review there JD, sums up many of my feelings about the film. Despite it's many flaws it comes off as about an 8/10 for me aswell.

I have to say that the best part of the whole thing for me was the badass Black Starfleet ship turning up. That awesome nightmarish scene where it catches Enterprise in warp was probably the best sound visual/sound effect that I have seen in a Sci Fi movie, despite it only being seconds long.

That being said it was a bit of Deja Vu having another massive ship like the Romulan mining ship from Star Trek turn up. I would probably rather have a ship to equal the Enterprise and a great tactical battle of wits ensue, a bit like Enterprise vs Reliant from Wrath of Khan, or Enterprise vs the cloaked Bird of Prey from Undiscovered Country.

I hated, and I mean hated the switcheroo with Kirk/Spock death ending. The scene doesn't even come close to matching the emotion of Spock's death from W.O.K. It was almost embarrassing to watch and straightaway you know they are going to use Khan's blood to save Kirk, in turn making the ending entirely predictable and the weakest point of the film.

Quite right also about the "Peril fatigue", every 10 minutes is another death defying situation in which you are NEVER at any point concerned for the wellbeing of any of the major characters. These guys don't have the brass balls to kill off a major character like in Wrath and have him stay dead (at least until the next instalment:)).

They could do with taking a look at the old films, using a bit less action and more of those tense bridge situations with the dark red battlestations illumination where Kirk/Spock must cleverly outthink the bad guy. Also many of the magic moments of the better old Star Trek films are scenes of dialogue that haven't been matched by the new films. Slow it down a bit guys we don't need an action scene every 10 minutes, or having a good dialogue scene broken by action.

That being said it's a decent sequel that I enjoyed enough to watch twice in 3 days.

I do worry a little about Star Wars though. Are we going to end up with the two powerhouse Sci Fi franchises identical to eachother?

[DexterRiley]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6B22Uy7SBe4

[LP Quagmire]

A major disappointment after the surprising 2009 reboot. I wish Paramount would stop trying to remake WRATH OF KHAN.

[Yoda]

I liked it. I can get why it irks longtime fans, but I dig the "same universe with some rippling differences" concept a lot and I think they're exploiting it well. But then, I just appreciate the older films; I don't see them as sacrosanct, and even if I did I think I'd be fine with the fact that they're clearly setting them apart so as not to disturb the canon.

Anyway, this continues to be a very entertaining series. Not as good as the first one, but really good. I'm on board for whatever they do next. 4.

[Sedai]

A major disappointment after the surprising 2009 reboot. I wish Paramount would stop trying to remake WRATH OF KHAN.


Ah yes...wait a sec, what are you on about? You mean like, once? Where are all these alleged remakes? The fact that Khan is the villain here is just about where the similarities stop. This is the first time the crew meets Kahn, so isn't this a remake of Space Seed, if it's a remake at all? Wrath was a revenge flick, and this isn't. They lifted ONE event from Wrath, and they changed it up, because this is a tangent universe. Where is the Genesis device? Seti Alpha system? They didn't put....creatures...in our bodies....

This entire run is a REBOOT, not a REMAKE, and Abrams was quite clear when he said he would be retelling certain stories in the Star Trek universe, but with a new spin and changes as he saw fit.

Here's the thing - there is no lightning left in the Star Trek bottle - no NEW lightning, that is. There is a reason the franchise died when it did: They were plumb out of ideas. At that point, we were watching a copy of a copy of a copy...you get the picture. If you want brand new science fiction ideas, watching Star Trek is going to leave you pretty cold.

I think Abrams has to straddle a line here, one that runs directly between fresh and nostalgic. Khans story was sort of a shoe-in in this regard, and i think if we got out to film number three with no Khan coming into the picture, fans would have started clamoring for the story. Let's face it: no one clamors for a retelling of Star Trek V : The Final Frontier, so the list of "most-wanted retellings" is quite short.

[LP Quagmire]

Ah yes...wait a sec, what are you on about? You mean like, once?

Twice -- you're forgetting STAR TREK: NEMESIS, which really isn't a bad idea.

[CommandaManda]

Being an Original Series fan (I've been watching since I was a toddler) I can fully say that I was - shall we say - quizzical as to whether or not Star Trek and Into Darkness would satisfy my Kirk/Spock/McCoy needs.

Casting Chris Pine versus Chris Hemsworth (who was slapped into the role of Kirk's father) seems a tragic mistake. Pine irritates me - he's not quite as pretty as Shatner was, and he's nerdy in a flea-bitten way. 'Course, they want to illustrate how Kirk would have been if he had been crushed by the death of his father, etc. Still I long for the "noble" looks that Shatner brought to the role.
Quinto is fine, he's doing and bang-up job, and Karl Urban as McCoy is startlingly wonderful.

I don't expect much plot in these movies. When you're up against special effects, plot takes the back seat. i can live with that, if the acting is adequate. So far, it's been great. A little nod to Karl Urban - he needs more screen time.

As for the bad guys - Benedict Cumberbach is a wonderfully Grinch-like figure. I could not help but squeal in agony, ecstasy and glee when I saw him turn his grin into a "V" and hiss out: "Now, shall we begin?!" Not that he's anything as impressive as Ricardo Montalban's chest. Sure, he can pretend to know Jujitsu and Aikido all he wants, he's not really impressing me. His acting does - that red-nosed bit about his crew had me near to sniffling.

Sadly, the character building seems to be all about Spock in this one - but - then again, how often does Spock really get the starring role? Yes, he is the Vulcan Deus Ex-Machina, but it's nice to see that his flaws are real, and to see him struggling with them can be comedic and integral to a good Star Trek flick.

To sum it up: Yes, I liked both films. Emphasis on the LIKE. I didn't love them, but I can certainly live with them. Now pardon me, I'm going to go watch Galaxy Quest again. :)

[Yoda]

Twice -- you're forgetting STAR TREK: NEMESIS, which really isn't a bad idea.
I doubt he's forgetting it; it's not a Khan remake. At most it just touches on some of the same vague mano-a-mano elements.

[LP Quagmire]

I doubt he's forgetting it; it's not a Khan remake. At most it just touches on some of the same vague mano-a-mano elements.

Ahhh, well a Jedi Master would know more about that than a Trekker or John Logan for that matter, who admitted he based his NEMESIS screenplay largely on WRATH OF KHAN...

[Yoda]

I don't think a screenwriter attempting a structural homage makes it a remake any more than being based on a true story makes Titanic a documentary.

[LP Quagmire]

I agree that Karl Urban is great as Bones. the best character in this reboot in my opinion



He was in the 2009 film; he was woefully under-used in INTO DARKNESS.

[Powdered Water]

Ah yes...wait a sec, what are you on about? You mean like, once? Where are all these alleged remakes? The fact that Khan is the villain here is just about where the similarities stop. This is the first time the crew meets Kahn, so isn't this a remake of Space Seed, if it's a remake at all? Wrath was a revenge flick, and this isn't. They lifted ONE event from Wrath, and they changed it up, because this is a tangent universe. Where is the Genesis device? Seti Alpha system? They didn't put....creatures...in our bodies....

This entire run is a REBOOT, not a REMAKE, and Abrams was quite clear when he said he would be retelling certain stories in the Star Trek universe, but with a new spin and changes as he saw fit.

Here's the thing - there is no lightning left in the Star Trek bottle - no NEW lightning, that is. There is a reason the franchise died when it did: They were plumb out of ideas. At that point, we were watching a copy of a copy of a copy...you get the picture. If you want brand new science fiction ideas, watching Star Trek is going to leave you pretty cold.

I think Abrams has to straddle a line here, one that runs directly between fresh and nostalgic. Khans story was sort of a shoe-in in this regard, and i think if we got out to film number three with no Khan coming into the picture, fans would have started clamoring for the story. Let's face it: no one clamors for a retelling of Star Trek V : The Final Frontier, so the list of "most-wanted retellings" is quite short.

You know, I popped the disc out and haven't finished the movie but after reading your post Mike I'mma gonna give it another go. I trust your judgement on Abrams and basically agree with your entire argument here. Even though, clearly. I'm a bigger fan of Final Frontier than you are! ;)

[CommandaManda]

It came to me just now - the reason for all this misery - is that they're not trusting highly trained science fiction authors to do the writing. STOS did that in droves (at least in the first and second seasons) and that's why we got serious humanity in space stories. They need to take a leap into the freakin' unknown, for G's sake.

[Powdered Water]

Well, I tried Mike. But this film is garbage.

Dear god. Spock shouts out Khan? Just awful...

I will not watch another one of these.

[Yoda]

So, did I kinda like this movie because I didn't grow up with The Wrath of Khan? I've seen it, and I liked it, but I feel like I was able to dig Into Darkness because I didn't hold it sacred or anything. I kind of liked the clever reversals--some were a little over the top, yeah, but I thought they were all sort of fun.

I think one of the problems here is that even though Abrams came up with a brilliant way to remake these films without upsetting the canon, a lot of people still act like he's messing with the canon. Which makes me think fealty to canon has less to do with a genuine desire to see a story taken seriously, and more to do with some kind of preservation of experiences and/or a fear that one's own experience will not be the culturally dominant one in the future.

[Powdered Water]

I think it may have been Sleezy that pointed out some of the gaping and I mean GAPING holes in the story in the first go around. I was willing to live with most of those and if memory serves I believe he was to, to a point.

But this flick here expects you to completely ignore what has made Star Trek into something that has lasted for over 50 years. This flick is garbage. It's supposed to be a thrill ride but it's a thrill ride only for people that can't follow the story for more than 10 minutes. Because there isn't a story.

Stories and characters are what built Star Trek. Not stupid re-packaging. I guess I'll try to be civil if we're really gonna have the "this isn't a remake, not really" discussion but man... What else am I supposed to call this?

[earlsmoviepicks]

Enjoyable and fun. Any nod to the original series is ok with me. btw, watched "Amok Time" immediately afterwards with the kids, and it was a nice little Trekkie nightcap