View Single Post
Old May 12 2013, 09:32 AM   #1655
Ulva
Vice Admiral
 
Ulva's Avatar
 
Location: Way up north
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Aike wrote: View Post
RAMA wrote: View Post
Still following international reaction on twitter and elsewhere...the bad reactions are usually dire, usually coincide with preconceived notions of Khan. I'd say these bad reviews are running at 5% or less. Im still seeing 25-30% calling it the best Star Trek movie ever and a larger percentage calling it better than ST09, usually because of characterization and the more complex plot, as well as superior villain.. Of course RT is still at 90% fresh after 60 reviews. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star...into_darkness/

As for myself, I'm still not a fan of the Khan idea, however, I've softened a lot since the rumors started..deciding to consider it like a Bond Blofeld, or Batman's Joker type antagonist analogy. Also, the appearance of Khan is mitigated for me by who's playing the role, I've been a Cumberbatch fan for a long time, and touting the Sherlock series well before it came to the USA (don't ask). Also simply thinking of it as an alternate history that can be told. When the Orci comics came out, the first issue was almost a duplication of the TOS episode, then it started to vary to a greater degree. People are going to complain no matter what...if it's too close, its not original, of it's too far afield, then it's not Star Trek. I'm going into the movie with an open mind.

RAMA
My prediction is that US trekkers in general will love this movie. I think the reason we are seeing some lower grades this time around is because it has opened outside the US first.
Hereīs why.

1) The fact is that, maybe except the UK, and itīs a big maybe, TOS was never as popular as TNG or even Voyager in many European countries or Australia and New Zealand. For instance, Star Trek (2009) sold less tickets than First Contact and Insurrection in Germany. On IMDB Star Trek (2009), has a much higher average among American voters than among non-American ones. Given that Into Darkness has 8.4 now and it is mainly international votes coming in, it will go through the roof next weekend when it opens in the US.

2) Lots of folks that liked and loved the last one, still enjoy Into Darkness even if they grade it lower. I think this has to do with that they are mainly TNG era fans. They were just happy to see anykind of new Star Trek in 2009. But they are not as attached to Kirk, Spock and the rest of the crew as Americans are.

3) People believed it would be Star Trek: The Empire Strikes Back or Star Trek: The Dark Knight mixed with some kind of disaster movie because of the marketing and tag lines like "Earth will fall". Itīs not. Itīs a lot lighter. They are just selling it like that to bring in average joe sixpack that has no interest in space battles. If youīre a trekker, forget about the marketing. Instead, read what JJ, Burke and the script writers are saying.


4) Some have had too high expectations. So itīs good to be a little pessimistic. Star Trek (2009) was excellent. Still, this is a worthy sequel and most of you guys will enjoy it as soon as it begins. If you liked the nine minute preview, you will enjoy the rest of the movie. The fun doesnīt end until two hours later.

I just wish I would be able to see it in the US, because it is a crowd pleaser.
You have no idea what you're talking about so please desist telling me what I am and why I think the way I do. I liked the first one, but this? Not at all. You know why? Because I expected Trek and got dated space opera.

It was so empty. It really was. There were Montgomery plans (check out his Market Garden plan for reference), smashing action, quite literally, never ever a sense that this could go south for real - you actually have to have that gut feeling that wow, that was unexpected, even though these characters will pull through at the end - and the elements that are Trek were simply quickly hammered in with a nail gun to get them over with. They were gestures, and you can’t treat the core of Trek like that and think it’ll stay Trek.

It had no flow. It felt like scenes written because damn! we have all these characters and we need to squeeze all of them in to this film with lubricant and a shoe horn. Whedon has his faults, but at least knows how to do an ensemble cast film in a way were there’s flow and people get their moments in the spotlight without it feeling forced or it turning into a stack of scenes on top of each other.

I’m irritated because they have a good cast, they actually work. Pine is a really good Kirk, and Quinto and Pine work well together. Pegg is a great Scotty. I LOVE this reincarnation of Scotty. And Cumberbatch does what he can with what he has to work with. Problem is, it doesn’t matter how great they are if the script is poor. The plot holes were large enough to fit the NCC-1701 into them.

I keep coming back to Avengers as a comparison and just how ST XII failed where Avengers worked. There were plot holes in Avengers too, but the difference was that the plans were relatively simple so they might actually work. Kahn’s plan is ridiculous. Plain and simple. So is Kirk’s. And Admiral Marcus, OMG. I think it’s fun the way they re-use actors in Trek, but before, you never knew where the new character with the same actor would go. In this case? I was so disappointed that Weller was another villain (because it was painfully obvious from the start).

And how bloody convenient that the biggest and fastest starship that is also a warship, Starfleet’s only and built in secrecy on top of everything (I’m sorry but how was the even possible that close to earth? It wasn’t possible to hide things like that in 2154 so how is it suddenly possible here, in the 2260s), can be handled by one person. Riiight. The crash with it? It has a frelling WARP CORE. As Scotty enlightens us at the very beginning, it’s a nuclear disaster waiting to happen - but when Kahn crashes it in San Francisco Bay, that’s just completely overlooked. It has always been a problem in Trek, that warp core, but at the first convenient moment, it’s ignored. Why were we told they're so sensitive if we don't get to see the repercussions later on? Certainly a hook wasted.

What happens in this film should have had political repercussions. Starfleet had an Admiral trying to start a war and develop weapons in secrecy. How could that not be a huge thing, both within Starfleet and to the earth government? And the escalating conflict with Qu'onos, what happened to that? Did it just miraculously go away? Nothing of this is even hinted.

Trek has always had a commentary to what goes on in our world around us right now, but in this film that’s just gone. It should be about what we can be if we pull our heads out of our asses, so it’s actually quite political, but there is precious little of that in this film. It’s just a spectacular man hunt. Iron Man is more political in the last film than ST XII.

Marvel's films also manages to have a female cast that mainly isn't only there for the men to enjoy. And don't tell me they weren't in this film, because they are. Marcus is joked about in a sexualised way and shown in underwear and Uhura got to be mostly about her as a girlfriend to Spock. All of this is just just plain wrong.

This is just an action film with a Starfleet communicator pin on it.
__________________
Don't compromise yourself. You're all you've got. - Janis Joplin
Ulva is offline   Reply With Quote