Star Trek Into Darkness (2013) (1 Viewer)

[SilverWook]

Finally saw ST:ID yesterday. I totally enjoyed it. Sure a Khan angle that seemed odd mired it a tad. But I don't think they(writers) knew the wrath they'd get by changing Khan to human.Otherwise...The issue with the beginning. The prime directive had been ignored by (prior)Kirk and Picard before.Somebody, I think, mentioned "why not use the superblood on the other captains". They were dead too long.Homage to radiation death. I had no problem with it. What do people not get about "reboot"?And, lastly...Somebody was mired with, "really ask somebody 300 years old to assist in modern weapon building". The explanation given by Khan made total sense. Wasn't this the same premise used in Demolition Man? Imagine if the creators of WW I aircraft were brought back to life today and were given control of Grumman...I'm more than sure that a few had ideas greater than the technology available.

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?

 

[Tino]

Some, but not all (and I'm not even a casual fan, I'm an old-timer from the early 70s syndication run). I found the "rebooted" scenes A) far less "identical" to the original than many people suggest and B) far more compelling on multiple levels. Different strokes...

Ditto ( fan since '75)

 

[Jonathan Perregaux]

The models can be seen here: http://www.qmxonline.com/news/stid-history-of-starflight-models/

I wonder why the admiral would have a top-secret starship sitting right there on his desk top.

 

[SilverWook]

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.

 

[Rex Bachmann]

Nelson Au wrote (post #177)

Today's movie makers are influenced by Lucas and Star Trek and other re-runs. So these guys likely just don't have the same ability to create from a certain point of view. They are boomers and their life experiences are vastly different and education mght not have been as strong.

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.

Or as another poster who used to participate here would call them hacks.

"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):

I held off reading this thread until I saw the movie. I am glad I did. It seems filled with tons-o-hate. I think there are some people that will never be happy with any Trek film.

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)

. . . having a "bad" sci-fi movie is better than having none at all. I am just afraid that since it is really hard to please most of us "nerds", there will be fewer attempts in the future.

. . . Unfortunately if they made a Trek film that would please the hard core fan, it might not make any money, They have to try and balance out pleasing the Trek fans and yet still a good movie for casual audiences that might not care about the cannon.

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)

New writers is what is really needed.

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


schan 1269 wrote (post #213):

What do people not get about "reboot"?

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


Doug zdanivsky wrote (post #218)

The one with the Tribbles would be a good one to watch after this movie as well..

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!")

 

[Kevin EK]

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".

 

[Edwin-S]

J.J Abrams = STAR TREK's Michael Bay

 

[mattCR]

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.

 

[Tino]

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:

Sci-fi hit Star Trek Into Darkness declined by a good 36% to an estimated $2M and has banked $220.5M for Paramount. Global sum is now $438.1M

The first one did $385 million worldwide and there are still some major markets left to open like Japan and Spain.

 

[PaulDA]

J.J Abrams = STAR TREK's Michael Bay

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

 

[Edwin-S]

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

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.

 

[Joel Fontenot]

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.

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.

 

[Edwin-S]

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.

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.

 

[Nelson Au]

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.

 

[Ockeghem]

... but the overall feel of the original series was that the future really was different.

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.)

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.

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.

 

[Gary Seven]

Finally saw ST:ID yesterday. I totally enjoyed it. Sure a Khan angle that seemed odd mired it a tad. But I don't think they(writers) knew the wrath they'd get by changing Khan to human.Otherwise...The issue with the beginning. The prime directive had been ignored by (prior)Kirk and Picard before.Somebody, I think, mentioned "why not use the superblood on the other captains". They were dead too long.Homage to radiation death. I had no problem with it. What do people not get about "reboot"?And, lastly...Somebody was mired with, "really ask somebody 300 years old to assist in modern weapon building". The explanation given by Khan made total sense. Wasn't this the same premise used in Demolition Man? Imagine if the creators of WW I aircraft were brought back to life today and were given control of Grumman...I'm more than sure that a few had ideas greater than the technology available.

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.

 

[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.

 

[Nelson Au]

Well, V'Ger and Nomad are unaffected by the timeline change and are still floating around out there.

 

[Bryan Tuck]

Well, V'Ger and Nomad are unaffected by the timeline change and are still floating around out there.

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.

 

[Tino]

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.