Star Trek Into Darkness (2013) (1 Viewer)

[Nelson Au]

Regarding all the ships on Admiral Marcus' desk, they were made by Qmx, a specialty company that makes and markets replicas from Star Trek and Galactica. Here's a report on all the ships on Marcus desk:
http://trekmovie.com/2013/05/23/qmx-made-props-for-star-trek-into-darkness-replicas-available-to-buy-this-summer-hot-wheels-into-darkness-die-cast/
Ted, I was thinking all those exact things about Khan while watching the movie. I keep reminding myself that this new writing group probably had a mission which was to keep it simple. They had a mission to please the largest group of people possible. So to make Khan a simple killing machine was what they did.
The Khan we know from TOS would not have been affected by the change in the timeline. He was frozen in the Botany Bay when Nero changed the course of history.
Perhaps when the blu-ray comes out, there will be deleted scenes. But from my single viewing, he seemed more mad at Starfleet for using him to make weapons. I'm trying to read the novelization now to see if Foster was able to inject more of the story into the book. Perhaps there were cut scenes he can place back that helps explain things.

 

[Chuck Anstey]

I'm sure I just spent more time thinking about the motivation of Khan to answer the above concerns than the creative team but I can justify most of his actions. For Khan to become ruler he needed to get the current leader(s) out of the way. Perfect plan for the attack on London and then on the Starfleet leaders, especially the one who knew who he was and was in charge of Section 31. He could then take over Section 31 and its advanced technology after some additional scheming. At the end where he was going to destroy the Enterprise, Khan was going to destroy it for the same reason Marcus was; they were the only ones who knew who he was and what he was doing. With the Enterprise gone, Khan would have had a lot more time to work on his plan to rule the galaxy (and this is exactly what he stated in The Space Seed) without being pursued or having the rest of Starfleet know about him.

"We will find a world that wants to be led!"
"You mean conquered. A starship would make the pretty easy." (especially one that is more powerful by a long shot than any other ship in this part of the galaxy)

A change in character would have been Khan showing respect for Kirk. All humans are beneath him and just things to rule or destroy.

 

[Johnny Angell]

I cannot believe the People going La-la over this film, or now dismissing Trek and Roddenberry's and Gene Coon's Version as Quaint, but Out of Date.

I cannot believe the certainty with which you dismiss the opinions of others. It seems as if you've made the final pronouncement on the movie and it's time to turn off the projectors across the nation.

I was commenting in another thread how I just don't get the popularity of Godzilla. However, I recognize there must more to the movie than I can appreciate.

 

[Malcolm R]

I thought it was nice just for once to see a Federation Starship that could really kick a$$ (though it was the Enterprise's it was kicking). The Federation ships always seem outmatched in nearly every conflict throughout the series and film franchise.

Through 12 days, Into Darkness is now tracking about $300K ahead of ST'09 at the box office.

 

[Chris Will]

I was commenting in another thread how I just don't get the popularity of Godzilla. However, I recognize there must more to the movie than I can appreciate.

Very true. I don't get why anyone would enjoy a Fast and the Furious movie but, they keep making the dumb things. Ditto for The Hangover Part Enough Already. I'll take STID over those movies any day of the week, but of course, I loved Into Darkness.

 

[Sam Favate]

I thought this description of the movie was hilarious:

http://io9.com/star-trek-into-darkness-the-spoiler-faq-508927844

And I also have to ask: the USS Vengeance? Is this the mirror universe?

 

[Joel Fontenot]

Regarding all the ships on Admiral Marcus' desk, they were made by Qmx, a specialty company that makes and markets replicas from Star Trek and Galactica. Here's a report on all the ships on Marcus desk:
http://trekmovie.com/2013/05/23/qmx-made-props-for-star-trek-into-darkness-replicas-available-to-buy-this-summer-hot-wheels-into-darkness-die-cast/

Thanks Nelson. That's what I wanted to know.

 

[Ted Van Duyn]

A change in character would have been Khan showing respect for Kirk. All humans are beneath him and just things to rule or destroy.

He didn't seem that way towards Marla McGivers. She wasn't a genetically engineered superman yet he calls her a "superior woman" in the end. And despite not being said on screen, I do believe there was a bit of respect that Khan had towards Kirk in the end.

 

[Edwin-S]

I was going to go and see EPIC, missed the last show, so ended up going to see this. Frankly, I was disappointed. The opening wasn't bad and had some of the most effective use of 3D that I have seen in a while. However, that didn't last long. After the opening, the 3D seemed to take a back seat and became less immersive the longer the film ran.

As for the film itself, I was left wondering what the hell had happened to the future that Roddenberry showed in the original series. Abram's Star Trek has none of the charm, fun or imagination of the original series and none of the feel of the later TNG series. The martial tones of this film were evident everywhere. The militaristic uniforms. The head gear that looked like it had just come out of a US Military Academy. The plot of a military paranoic trying to convert Star Fleet to a military force, from an exploration corp, just left me shaking my head.

There was lots exciting action scenes, but the film overall just craps all over any of the elements that made the original STAR TREK a good. There were several points in the film where all I kept asking myself is, "what is this crap"? Kirk was still acting like an idiot, and Spock ends up blubbering and blowing his lid! In the second installment?? They couldn't even keep the character canon for two films??

And don't get me started on the "relationship" between Uhura and Spock. There was absolutely no chemistry there at all, even when he was trying to be more emotional. They could have left out their "relationship" and you wouldn't even have missed it. Keeping it in was actually worse, because it just caused the film to stop because of the half-hearted development that took place. The only time their "relationship" had even the tiniest spark was in the shuttle.

I also didn't like the take on Khan's character. I didn't mind Cumberbatch in the reboot of Sherlock Holmes, but his perfomance as Khan often smelt like Ham. You watch Ricardo Montalban's performance of Khan and you see a villain that is ruthless, manipulative and charasmatic. Cumberbatch's Kahn was just a robot. There is nothing there in terms of charisma or manipulativeness. It is hard to believe that a great character like Khan could be made to be dull and colourless, but they managed to succeed in proving that it could be done in this film. Frankly, about the only character I really liked in this film was Scotty and he was hardly even in it.

All in all, it wasn't a complete disaster as long as you look at the thing as a Michael Bay-style explosion film. It only becomes almost a complete disaster when you look at it as a STAR TREK film. It was called STAR TREK for a reason. Where was the TREK in this thing? There was none. It is supposed to be exploratory, not explosionary. It was just another thinly disguised, paranoic "war on terrorism", our boys on guard for thee jerkfest.

 

[Edwin-S]

This wasn't as good as IM3 but I thought it was better than the last one. I do wonder, perhaps dumbly, if some of this heat from fanboys is because the director is doing their upcoming rival series.

Did you ever think that maybe the heat from "fanboys" is due to the fact that it is a shitty Trek film and has nothing to do with the director doing STAR WARS? In fact, if this film is any indication then STAR WARS fans should be prepared for a shitty STAR WARS film. I liked STAR TREK and I liked STAR WARS. The fact that Abrams is directing both series has no bearing with me. I couldn't care less, All I see in this film is a STAR TREK film that isn't STAR TREK. It's STAR DREK.

 

[Brian Dobbs]

9/10

I don't understand why haters got to nitpick this movie. Not only was it a worthy sequel to the 2009 film, but I really felt as though it paid homage to the earlier Trek films. It really made me feel like these new actors were channeling the older actors in their performance.

Villian was great. Action was great. It was really funny. GREAT actors. Plot kept you guessing. My god, seeing it in IMAX was a truly religious experience.

My wife really enjoyed it, and she's not familiar with the older films. And because I am, I was able to gain a deeper appreciation for it.

On an entertainment level, it was better than Iron Man 3. Man of Steel has a lot of ground to cover to beat this film.

BTW, I saw this in 70mm IMAX.

 

[Chris Will]

Let's take a break from the constant STID bashing for just a minute, I have a question.
Don't know if anyone else saw it but, there was a great show that aired on History called Star Trek: The Secrets of the Universe. (you can watch it online: http://www.history.com/shows/star-trek-secrets-of-the-universe) Its got a good amount of behind the scenes footage and a lot of real space science talk, it was really interesting.
My question is about how special effects companies handle CGI scenes. The opening shot of the episode is an extended shot of the Enterprise from STID, a much longer shot then what appears in the movie. So, do fx companies always create scenes that are much longer then what is in the final film? So, could the ship to ship combat scenes be even longer on ILM's hard drives? If so, I'd love to see some more of the longer versions of these shots. I just always assumed the fx were animated to the scene you see in the movie and not much beyond.

 

[Citizen87645]

I would think FX work is not unlike live action filming or even photography. You always shoot more than you need, though there is a point of diminishing returns in regards to the time and cost of dealing with all the material. I can see them conceiving a sequence and then needing to trim it down for time or pacing once it's incorporated with the other stuff. Ideally they would have it just right from the get go, as that would mean staying on budget for time and finances, but I doubt that happens very often.

 

[Chuck Anstey]

I didn't look at h

Don't know if anyone else saw it but, there was a great show that aired on History called Star Trek: The Secrets of the Universe. (you can watch it online: http://www.history.com/shows/star-trek-secrets-of-the-universe) Its got a good amount of behind the scenes footage and a lot of real space science talk, it was really interesting.
My question is about how special effects companies handle CGI scenes. The opening shot of the episode is an extended shot of the Enterprise from STID, a much longer shot then what appears in the movie. So, do fx companies always create scenes that are much longer then what is in the final film? So, could the ship to ship combat scenes be even longer on ILM's hard drives? If so, I'd love to see some more of the longer versions of these shots. I just always assumed the fx were animated to the scene you see in the movie and not much beyond.

I didn't look at the shot you were talking about but I would think that simple flyovers with few moving objects and nothing changing would be easy to create any length sequence with a minute of two effort. That would be much different than creating a space battle where the models are constantly being updated with thousands of particles moving and colliding. Unless they created a space battle engine that simulates combat and damage so they simply script the ship motion and firing and let the rest just happen.

 

[Adam_S]

FIST FIGHT!

Why is it that every genre film is now reduced to a climactic Fist Fight as a way to resolve all differences? I mean, there are more endings to a film than the Quiet Man or The Searchers, but that's all that writers seem able to come up with these days when it comes to genre.

 

[Joel Fontenot]

FIST FIGHT!

Why is it that every genre film is now reduced to a climactic Fist Fight as a way to resolve all differences? I mean, there are more endings to a film than the Quiet Man or The Searchers, but that's all that writers seem able to come up with these days when it comes to genre.

Well, to be fair, the original series had a lot of fist fights too - including both pilots. Although in "WNMHGB", it was a big climatic one.

 

[Chris Will]

I understand what you are saying but, fist fights have been a part of Star Trek since the beginning. I bet Krik threw more punches then phaser shots in TOS.Didn't see Joel's post until after I posted mine. Also, why doesn't the edit button appear until after I reload the page, it's annoying.

 

[Citizen87645]

I understand what you are saying but, fist fights have been a part of Star Trek since the beginning. I bet Krik threw more punches then phaser shots in TOS.

Visual proof: http://imgur.com/gallery/YGgY0

 

[Nelson Au]

Shat Fu! I wish I could claim that one! That's a great link Cameron.

 

[Johnny Angell]

That is a great link. Lets see, in the Bowling Ball, he doesn't even touch the guy. The Drop Kick the guy is just standing there and Kirk doesn't really kick him but places his foot on his chest and pushes. The Hand Chop, doesn't look like it would harm a fly.

But that was part of the charm of the series. Fun, but kinda cheesy.