Star Trek: Into Darkness (Spoilers Discussion and Review)

Discussion in 'Movies' started by Dave Scarpa, May 15, 2013.

  1. SilverWook

    SilverWook Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2006
    Messages:
    2,033
    Likes Received:
    486
    Real Name:
    Bill
    Seems to me that kidnapping the really old Vulcan chap from the future, faking his death, and extracting all that 24th century knowledge would have been a tad easier than looking for the Botany Bay. Does Starfleet not know about Spock prime?

    How did Admiral Banzai find out about Scotty's transwarp beaming formula anyway?
     
  2. Tino

    Tino Lead Actor
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 1999
    Messages:
    8,246
    Likes Received:
    1,779
    Location:
    Metro NYC
    Real Name:
    Valentino
    Ditto ( fan since '75)
     
  3. Jonathan Perregaux

    Jonathan Perregaux Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 1999
    Messages:
    1,233
    Likes Received:
    599
    Real Name:
    Jonathan Perregaux
  4. SilverWook

    SilverWook Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2006
    Messages:
    2,033
    Likes Received:
    486
    Real Name:
    Bill
    I suppose it's possible he lobbied to get it built above board before the rest of the big cheeses shot the idea down. Concept models abound for vehicles that were ultimately never built.
     
  5. Rex Bachmann

    Rex Bachmann Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2001
    Messages:
    1,975
    Likes Received:
    0
    Real Name:
    Rex Bachmann
    Nelson Au wrote (post #177)

    They are not "boomers"! (Go find the definition of that demographer's "imaginative" term in a dictionary or on-line somewhere.) Otherwise, you've pretty much hit the nail on the head. These people have the "re-runs" like nobody's business.


    "Used to"? Uh, I resemble that remark! But, yes, they've once again lived down to their well-deserved reputations!


    Scott-S wrote (post #164):


    Yep. Trek creativity pretty much died when the "franchise" moved to the big screen, where rehashes and remakes (for which read "ossification") predominate. WoK was fun, as was half of First Contact (not the earthly half!), but the rest has pretty much been a big disappointment (unless you give up all expectation of any real professional effort or creativity, as I did after seeing The Lurch for Spock).


    (#169)


    Uh, that's "geeks", in new-speak. ("'Nerds', totally different head, dude! Totally!") There will certainly be fewer and fewer of these things at the obscene costs of multiple 100s of millions of dollars a pop. It's called the law of diminishing returns.

    And if you think they're making these movies to please "most of us [geeks]", you haven't been paying attention. Their publicly stated goal has been to "open up" ST to the all the casual---"Sheesh! Who cares about 'science'?"---moviegoers, has it not? These producers do not care at all
    about the ["geeks"].

    The
    "battle" over "popularization" of the franchise began in earnest back in the day of Enterprise. Remember the uproar over the theme song? The deliberate dropping of "Star Trek" from the show's original title so that it wouldn't be associated with "boring Geezer Trek"? ("We wants young'ns!") That was the first real volley, and it has proceeded apace.


    Lou Sytsma wrote (post #206)


    Along with new producers (who commission them) who have a different agenda from just "flash & BOOM!" and "branding".


    schan 1269 wrote (post #213):


    That it's worth doing in the first damned place (esp. at $200m+ a pop)???


    Doug zdanivsky wrote (post #218)


    Uh-oh! You've just gone and given the producers their "original new idea" for the next movie: Mutated tribbles in space! "Star Trek: The Travels with Tribbles". ("In a universe gone mad . . . .")

    (Bloated Paramount exec: "It's got heat! It's got numbers!" Flack to Paramount exec: "It's got our braaaand! The best Trek ever!")
     
  6. Kevin EK

    Kevin EK Producer
    Reviewer

    Joined:
    May 9, 2003
    Messages:
    3,035
    Likes Received:
    494
    I think it's a little harsh to completely dismiss all the Trek movies after Wrath of Khan as having no creativity.

    I'd agree that Search for Spock was mostly a rehash of Wrath of Khan, albeit with a few fun character moments thrown in here and there.
    The Voyage Home was a satisfying movie to me. I could see some disenchantment with the "let's threaten Earth" part of the plot, but the overall here was handled quite well.
    No argument about The Final Frontier.
    The Undiscovered Country had another good idea in it, and at least had the characters once again acting their ages.
    We need to keep in mind that up through Voyage Home, there was no other Trek available for fans of the show. Having TNG on the air went a ways toward really telling some good new stories. This didn't happen right away, but after a few promising eps during their first two years, they came of age in their 3rd season - almost a complete reversal of what had happened to the original show.

    I was never a huge fan of the TNG movies, although I'd agree that the Enterprise portion of First Contact was pretty good. I'd also argue that the climactic ship battle in Nemesis was very well done.

    The 2009 movie didn't work for me, simply because it was badly shot and written without any regard to whether it made any sense. I haven't seen the new movie and probably won't until it's on home video. My understanding of it is that they didn't learn the basic lessons of what had gone wrong with the 2009 movie, which saddens me.

    I do hope when they make another Trek movie, and they will certainly do so on a reduced budget, that they really take the time to write a good script that tells a good story, and that the next director understands some basic concepts of staging and coherence. Messy handheld and shaky camera work does not make for "urgent storytelling".
     
  7. Edwin-S

    Edwin-S Producer

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2000
    Messages:
    5,968
    Likes Received:
    282
    J.J Abrams = STAR TREK's Michael Bay
     
  8. mattCR

    mattCR Executive Producer
    Reviewer

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2005
    Messages:
    10,513
    Likes Received:
    385
    Location:
    Lee Summit, Missouri
    Real Name:
    Matt
    Well the box office on this one sure didn't pan out. It broke $200m, but it has almost no shot at 300, probably low shot at 250.
     
  9. Tino

    Tino Lead Actor
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 1999
    Messages:
    8,246
    Likes Received:
    1,779
    Location:
    Metro NYC
    Real Name:
    Valentino
    It will probably max out at $230 million domestically, about 10% less than the first, but has made more internationally and has surpassed the first one worldwide. From boxoffice guru:
    The first one did $385 million worldwide and there are still some major markets left to open like Japan and Spain.
     
  10. PaulDA

    PaulDA Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    2,692
    Likes Received:
    92
    Location:
    St. Hubert, Quebec, Canada
    Real Name:
    Paul
    While you (both specific and general) are perfectly entitled to dislike Abrams' Trek films, I think this particular statement is off the mark. This review points out enough elements in the latest film that set it a cut above Bay's films in terms of thoughtfulness. I can see where Abrams' filmmaking is not everyone's cup of tea, and I wouldn't place it in a too renowned group, but I respectfully disagree with the idea that his films are devoid of ideas worthy of further examination. YMMV
     
    TravisR likes this.
  11. Edwin-S

    Edwin-S Producer

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2000
    Messages:
    5,968
    Likes Received:
    282
    Anyone who uses a "Supernova" as a galaxy destroying plot device gets put on the Michael Bay level of film-making in my book. I don't expect a large degree of scientific verisimilitude in a STAR TREK movie, but I do have my limits. I'm speaking of the first one here.

    The second one works for me as a Bay-style action film, but as a ST film it is barely a cut above "Nemesis" and "Insurrection". I will give that it is superior to "The Final Frontier" but that is not saying much, because almost any ST film is better than that.

    I read part of his review. He lost me when he started talking about Abrams's ST: ID as a "recap" of the 'war on terrorism". That is exactly why I hate this film as a STAR TREK movie. You want to make a movie diatribe about the "war on terror" then make a movie about it set in our day and age when it would have some impact. I don't need to see a thinly disguised screed on the "war on terror" in my ST films. I want to see a ST film where we have outgrown our petty jealousies, racism, and barbarism just like the original series, for all its "cheesiness", used to depict.
     
    Ockeghem likes this.
  12. Joel Fontenot

    Joel Fontenot Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 1999
    Messages:
    867
    Likes Received:
    148
    Location:
    Baton Rouge, LA
    Real Name:
    Joel Fontenot
    I guess you never saw the TOS episodes "Mudd's Women", "What Are Little Girls Made Of", "Dagger of the Mind", "The Conscience of the King", "Arena", "The Devil In The Dark", "Errand of Mercy", "The Doomsday Machine", "Friday's Child", "A Private Little War", "The Omega Glory", "Day of the Dove", " The Savage Curtain" or "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield"?

    A lot of those qualities were plainly depicted in TOS. Most were depicted by the guest characters of the week, but some even by our main characters. Most issues were not even thinly disguised at all, but blunt as a baseball bat over the head. Sure, by TNG, Roddenberry set the tone that "we" don't ever have those issues anymore and that only "others" still have those issues and that "we" should enlighten them. But in TOS, "we" (whether it's our heroes or other Starfleet personnel) certainly weren't immune to our own faults - but we could overcome them.

    At least, that's my observation.
     
  13. Edwin-S

    Edwin-S Producer

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2000
    Messages:
    5,968
    Likes Received:
    282
    No. I've seen all of those, more than once, but not recently. Yeah, you are right. The characters in the original series had their weaknesses and had to fight against them, but the overall feel of the original series was that the future really was different. ST: ID doesn't do that. For all of its "future" setting, ST: ID just felt like the present with a few SciFi tropes grafted on to it. ST: ID has to be the first Star Trek film where the exterior shots of the city made me think that, in Abrams's ST future, cities are still grungy, ugly cesspits.

    It was just a typical action film with Star Trek tropes pasted on it. Get rid of the Star Trek characters and ships and it could have been any old Steven Seagal/Arnold Schwarznegger/Sylvester Stallone actioner.
     
  14. Nelson Au

    Nelson Au Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 1999
    Messages:
    12,482
    Likes Received:
    1,121
    No to dispute this conversation, but San Francisco was depicted as a clean futuristic utopia that Roddenberry envisioned. The flying vehicle that Spock and Khan fight on was a very Star Warsy grungy vehicle, that's for sure! Other then that, I find things that I agree with by both you and Joel.
     
  15. Ockeghem

    Ockeghem Ockeghem

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Messages:
    9,420
    Likes Received:
    355
    Real Name:
    Scott D. Atwell
    Edwin,

    This is my perception as well. I'm not sure why this is so, but in the latter series I felt that the 'future' was in many respects much more similar to our 'present.' When subsequent Trek series attempted to parallel (or allude to in various ways) issues and/or problems with regard to our 'current' reality, I found those attempts to fail more often than not. I think it's because I begin from the premise that TOS conveyed a nearly-Utopian society (at least on their 'present-day' Earth), although as Joel pointed out above, it was not perfect. But there is something about the overall 'feel,' as you say, that was different. As much as I enjoy TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT, I have rarely felt that this was the case with those series. (I do not include TAS in this context because I felt that it was much closer to TOS than any of the other series for obvious reasons.)
    Again, agreed. And to this we might be able to include the use of pejorative phrases or perhaps even words in general, as Uhura made rather clear to 'Lincoln' in The Savage Curtain:
    Lincoln: "Mr. Scott -- What a charming Negress. Oh, forgive me, my dear. I know in my time some used that term as a description of property."Uhura: "But why should I object to that term, sir? In our century, we've learned not to fear words."http://www.voyager.cz/tos/epizody/78savagecurtaintrans.htm

    Would that we would be able to achieve this in our time.
     
  16. Gary Seven

    Gary Seven Grand Poo Pah

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2003
    Messages:
    1,602
    Likes Received:
    159
    Location:
    Lake Worth, Florida
    Real Name:
    Gaston
    Actually, not true. Ignore means they gave it no thought. They broke the prime directive before but after giving it thought, even having discussions. In ST:ID, it was ignored. Either way I had no problem with it given the angle that Kirk is "learning" on the job (which in itself, I do have a problem with).

    The explanation given for Khan's assistance is absurd no matter how you look at it. Starfleet has mastered the control of anti-matter/matter explosion to provide almost limitless power, they have mastered the technology of converting matter to energy and back to matter, they have mastered faster than light travel, food replicators, etc., and a 300 year old man can provide tech they don't have or didn't think of? Laughable, considering in Khan's time they are barely theories.

    The use of Khan for me was totally inappropriate since the time line diverged in the 23rd century, not the 20th or 21st. Therefore, Khan's entire backstory should remain unchanged. But in fact it was totally changed as well as the character itself. Ironic considering the purpose of the timeline divergence was to avoid such conflicts.
     
  17. Joel Fontenot

    Joel Fontenot Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 1999
    Messages:
    867
    Likes Received:
    148
    Location:
    Baton Rouge, LA
    Real Name:
    Joel Fontenot
    While I did enjoy the movie - a bit more than I expected - I did in fact have issues with it. My issues were more with specifics.

    I never liked the idea of going to the "Khan" well in the first place. I hoped against hope that they wouldn't go there knowing that they would anyway based on how "secretive" they were about it the whole time leading to the movie's release. But, as the reviewer in the link provided above noted, this guy could have been anyone, really. The way he was written, he didn't seem at all like the Khan we knew. I do remember looking for clues while watching the movie, and they never came.

    I also did not care for the Kirk/Spock role reversal of the WoK ending - all the way to having Spock do the "Khaaaaan!!!" yell (especially given that Kirk's yell was under different circumstances). I did cringe at that.

    Spock chasing Khan at the end was a bit ridiculous and overly long, but I could let that go.

    While I don't mind a kick-ass Uhura, or her having a bigger part, I don't want her to be the number 3 to Kirk and Spock (as the media seems to see it). The next film must bring McCoy back into the triad, as only he is the proper balance to Spock in Kirk's decision making.

    As for the basic story, I'm okay with it. I bought into the premise just fine. While I understood the overall terrorism parallel, the specifics outlined in that linked review kind of got lost on me. But basically, the parallel very much was how Star Trek always was. They always spotlighted contemporary issues in TOS with varying degrees of subtly and bluntness (including ST:6 with the fall of communism in Russia - and continuing prejudices to overcome there, too). The events of the 2009 movie basically set up a deviation from the utopian ideal that they should have been at, but this film was supposed to show how they would self-correct.

    Although, I am tired of terrorism parallels. I think that's been done to death. It is time they moved on to something else now. Hopefully, the end of ST:ID sets us up for something like that for the next movie - and gets us away from Earth.
     
  18. Nelson Au

    Nelson Au Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 1999
    Messages:
    12,482
    Likes Received:
    1,121
    Well, V'Ger and Nomad are unaffected by the timeline change and are still floating around out there. :)
     
  19. Bryan Tuck

    Bryan Tuck Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2002
    Messages:
    1,706
    Likes Received:
    220
    Real Name:
    Bryan Tuck
    That actually points to one of my main problems with going down the Khan route. The 2009 film was a "soft" reboot, but if you really wanted to get nit-picky, there are all sorts of paradoxes that could arise out of that. To me, it felt like the filmmakers were simply trying to meet the fans halfway, so I kind of accepted it as basically a hard reboot in practice, and I wasn't going to worry too much about every little thing matching up (the original continuity had gotten convoluted enough as it was).

    But by using Khan (a character with a very specific backstory that technically wouldn't have been affected by the timeline change), they kind of forced the issue for fans. I swore I wouldn't let it bug me, but now here I was in a Superman Returns-type situation, trying to figure out which parts of the continuity were still in place. Did the Eugenics Wars still happen in the 1990s? And did we somehow have the technology at that time to put people in hibernation and send them out into deep space?

    I guess that could be my fault for overthinking it, but it might not have mattered anyway if they had just made a good movie.
     
  20. Tino

    Tino Lead Actor
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 1999
    Messages:
    8,246
    Likes Received:
    1,779
    Location:
    Metro NYC
    Real Name:
    Valentino
    Worldwide boxoffice update: Total Lifetime GrossesDomestic: $223,065,000 50.3%+ Foreign: $220,800,000 49.7%= Worldwide: $443,865,000 Japan opening in August. Spain soon too. I think it has a good shot at $500 million worldwide. That's about a 30% increase in boxoffice than the first.
     

Share This Page