Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies: Kelvin Universe' started by Agent Richard07, Apr 18, 2013.


Grade the movie...

  1. A+

  2. A

  3. A-

  4. B+

  5. B

  6. B-

  7. C+

  8. C

  9. C-

  10. D+

  11. D

  12. D-

  13. F

  1. Lonemagpie

    Lonemagpie Writer Admiral

    Jan 31, 2007
    Indeed, I didn't say goat-felching clit-snorters once, so that's definitely me being polite and mature about it.
  2. CorporalClegg

    CorporalClegg Admiral Admiral

    Aug 23, 2001
    Land of Enchantment
    I think I'm going to add "goat-felching clit-snorters" to my stock lexicon.
  3. Cryogenic

    Cryogenic Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Oct 29, 2008
    No, you're not. And that is something I seriously wish to address:

    Last time I was on this board, discussing the 2009 film and "The Motion Picture", I got a little supercilious in my manner toward people with an opposing opinion. That was wrong of me.

    People are free to enjoy the movies they will -- without condescension, without animosity. Of course, I may still get a little strident in expressing myself, and I don't so much apologize for that. But I'd hate for anyone to feel insulted or demeaned when I'm simply giving the measure of my own feelings.

    We're cool, J. Allen. :)

    Montalban was more OTT, but that was a lot more fitting and enjoyable, to me.

    Trek used to be theatrical and introspective in a pretty balanced way, in my opinion -- it was one of the delights of watching it. Now, under J.J. Abrams, it's more lively, but less engaging; more energetic, but less animating. If that makes any sense. It doesn't have the same push-pull tension; the same dynamic, the same texture. They've tried to appeal to the zeitgeist with the last two movies, and in the process much has been sacrificed. Again, IMO.

    We can go the "NOMA" (Non Overlapping MAgisteria) route if you like, but I don't think the two performances are equally different or non-interfering. This movie's depiction was a very "blunt force" approach to Khan; and that seems to be J.J. Abrams' approach to, well, everything. It's less artistic, to me, and more simply matter-of-fact and throw-away: fast-food theatrics. I think a lot more could have been done to distance Cumberbatch's Khan and make him arresting and alluring in his own right; but, to me, it wasn't, and it doesn't seem to be part of Abrams' vocabulary to even try.

    I saw some clips yesterday. I have to say that he seems pretty glib in "Sherlock" in a way that he isn't in STID. The writing in the BBC series seems sharper, funnier. There, Cumberbatch's portrayal is ably backed by solid screenplays that allow his character to fan his misanthropic feathers in some pretty colourful and amusing ways (it also helps that he has Martin Freeman as Watson to play off against). In STID, however, he seems divested of his acid cynicism, and merely comes across as po-faced, rigid, and cold: a morose antagonist spewing dialogue. His black humour peters out at "No ship should go down without her captain", which hardly sets my world on fire -- compare the way, say, Christopher Lee brought a refined, wheels-within-wheels elocution to George Lucas' dialogue in "Attack Of The Clones" (and the two or three minutes he appeared in "Revenge Of The Sith"), and here, Benedict Cumberbatch seems so lacking. I think Abrams and his writers were hoping to transplant what Cumberbatch has brought to the "Sherlock" role; but, in my eyes, they failed.
  4. beamMe

    beamMe Commodore

    Mar 17, 2011
    The film is not about that.
    It questions the morality of using drones to kill people without trail.
  5. He's Dead - Mix

    He's Dead - Mix Clean Old Mod Moderator

    Feb 4, 2002
    Somewhere in Connecticut
    He kinda had to be, he was playing against The Shat....

    That's what this series needs--More Christopher Lee! He's still working, bring him on!
  6. AnnLouise

    AnnLouise Lieutenant Junior Grade Red Shirt

    Aug 27, 2006
    As Spock was making the argument to Kirk over the immorality of killing Khan, I flashed to the recent murder of the soldier in London. I did not think Spock was wrong, but I kept seeing footage of the attackers, standing in the street with red hands displayed for the smartphone cameras.
    So for better or worse, this is actually one of the most topical of the ST movies wrapped inside a popcorn summer flick.
  7. Belz...

    Belz... Commodore Commodore

    May 19, 2013
    In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
    Really ? I thought it was about Kirk seeking revenge for the death of his mentor and learning a vital lesson in command, temperence and sacrifice.
  8. Talosian

    Talosian Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Dec 22, 2008
    It's about both. Part of Kirk's maturation is his decision to not act as judge, jury, and executioner despite his own urge for avenging the murder of his mentor and father figure and contrary to Admiral Marcus' orders.

    The difference between how Kirk and Spock handled Nero versus Khan is no accident.
  9. Admiral Buzzkill

    Admiral Buzzkill Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Mar 8, 2001
    As others have already made clear, that's beside the point.

    The short answer, though is: a whole lot more than have been directly impacted by genetic engineering to produce superhuman dictators. :lol:
  10. RPJOB

    RPJOB Commander Red Shirt

    Apr 11, 2012
    As opposed to simply blowing them away when they've been defeated and are no longer a threat like Spock advocated in the last movie.

    It's not about the morality of killing people without trial. It's about killing people who belong to your political union without trial. They didn't seem too worried about giving Nero a fair trial.

    The only people that appear to deserve a fair trail are those that are Federation citizens. Everyone else is fair game.
  11. King Bob

    King Bob Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Jan 30, 2001
    Good to know that people continue to dig in regardless of the circumstances being entirely different between the two situations.
  12. Set Harth

    Set Harth Vice Admiral Admiral

    Mar 10, 2010
    Well, let's assume the film alienated its female viewers. By the same token, it must have alienated its male viewers with the gratuitous shirtless shot of its studly male star. So the film basically alienated everyone and that explains why it made no money.
  13. Admiral Buzzkill

    Admiral Buzzkill Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Mar 8, 2001
    Different movie. We're talking about STID here. "What's wrong with this movie is something that happened in another movie" doesn't work.
  14. RPJOB

    RPJOB Commander Red Shirt

    Apr 11, 2012
    It's a direct sequel with the same characters in a situation that can be compared with one from the previous movie. Should we just assume that Vulcan is back? That Amanda isn't dead? Or should we wonder just where that older Spock came from? For that matter, should Spock have brought up Vulcan's destruction during his spat with Uhura? Shouldn't that have been left in the last movie?

    If you're going to have a character act one one way in the first movie and then strongly advocate a different path in the sequel you should at least show what's cased them to change their mind. As it is, the only difference that was voiced was that Harrison was a Federation citizen. That's what we get to go on.

    Spock advocated killing Nero. Kirk not only agreed but did so with a grin. Suddenly (6 months movie time) they're all concerned about killing someone without trial.
    Last edited: May 31, 2013
  15. He Who Must Not Be Named

    He Who Must Not Be Named We'll Build A Wall & Make The Muggles Pay For It Moderator

    Jul 5, 2004
    Locutus of Bored
    I know. I couldn't believe they cast the butt dwarf from The X-Files in the vital and celebrated role of Keenser. I've been outraged about it since 2009, and the current movie only brought new and more terrifying flashbacks. The horror... The horror...

    I'm going to take a wild guess that it's slightly higher than the number who have been subjugated by charismatic genetically engineered tyrants who controlled a quarter of the world during the Clinton presidency?

    Also, it's not questioning the morality of being a victim of drone strikes, assassination and imprisonment without trial, or preemptive wars of vengeance launched under false pretenses, so that's a silly point to make. It's questioning the morality of using those tactics against others, which is quite relevant to the citizens of many of the Western nations where the film will perform most strongly and to the US in particular. Not only have many of those citizens from all over the political spectrum been indirectly responsible for supporting those actions with their votes and political donations, you'll find a much higher number of them have had loved ones killed or wounded in action in the aforementioned war, or have been traumatized in war themselves.

    In that sense it's very relevant and perhaps even somewhat challenging to present day Western audiences who choose to listen to the message of the film, which is not even subtext but rather spelled out quite explicitly in dialogue and events in the film. I'm not going to call it deep, cerebral science fiction, but it should make you think a little.

    How about a film with a powerful and charismatic leader who controlled part of Asia and is armed by a secretive intelligence agency to help them defeat their enemies until he carries out a massive terrorist attack in a major city, striking the HQ of their military and some towers in an airplane.


    The terrorist is tracked with the omnipresent CCTV cameras that can be found in most major cities (and London especially).


    After first ordering a drone strike to take the bad guy out, which is protested by some, a mission to kidnap or kill the criminal in a sovereign nation without extradition or permission is undertaken, where he is eventually beaten while in custody and thrown in jail.


    After that, he's thrown into prison in an undisclosed location without trial for an indefinite period of time.


    Nope, nothing relevant to the present day and recent history there.

    I shall call it, Nero Dark Thirty. Wait, wrong guy. How about Generation Khan?
  16. Trumpy

    Trumpy FrozenToad Admiral

    Jul 5, 2006
    Trump Tower
    I much preferred Star Trek when they beat you across the face with allegory.


  17. Gep Malakai

    Gep Malakai Vice Admiral Admiral

    Oct 20, 2007
    Into Darkness wasn't exactly subtle either, what with Kirk's children's show "what-we-learned-today" speech at the end and all. Its hamhandedness is one of its chiefest charms.
  18. Trumpy

    Trumpy FrozenToad Admiral

    Jul 5, 2006
    Trump Tower
    Then no one can deny it isn't Star Trek.
  19. Gep Malakai

    Gep Malakai Vice Admiral Admiral

    Oct 20, 2007
    You mean no one can deny it is Star Trek? No disagreement here. Earnest yet clumsy topicality just screams "Star Trek." I can't tell you what criteria other people use, but that sure is mine.
  20. Kabraxal

    Kabraxal Lieutenant Junior Grade Red Shirt

    May 9, 2013
    Finally got a day off and went to an IMAX theatre to watch it in 3D... probably the best 3D film I've ever seen. Amazing. As for the rest of the film... miles ahead of ST09. I always, always felt ST09 was a great movie, but a terrible terrible Trek. This however... I had no real moments that jarred me out of the experience like that last movie and I felt the slow easing into the original 5 year mission was absolutely fantastic.

    And I think the cast really nailed their roles... not to say they were bad before, but there was far too much setting up for who they were to become and it just felt off at some points. In this one, the chemistry was perfect and I started to fully believe they were the characters. And I think they got the perfect actor to play Khan. He was charming and likeable somehow, despite being an absolutely ruthless and chilling figure. And I am so so happy they left it open for that storyline to return and really up the anti.

    As for the overall story... it hooked me from the beginning. Loved the intro and those amazing scenes (yes.. I ducked at the spear...). And I liked how it led us into the heart of the movie, though I do have one big gripe in that it was a bit too easy and fast for Kirk to go from Captain to academy to first officer to Captain. Could have done with something less convoluted to be honest. However, from there it was just a blast to watch... not only great action scenes, but some actual Trek conscious putting an underlining message to the story, and some damn gorgeous 3D scenes (I want my own personal IMAX theatre). And the final scene... talk about goosebumps.

    This was basically the film I wanted from ST09... and maybe it will make rewatching that film all the much easier knowing the very next one in the pipeline is just spectacular. And I went in with massive reservations... though still have a few about that horrid teleporter effect as well as the Enterprise pixie dust after warp. A little toooo much there I think.

    Solid A... too bad the blu ray release just won't live up to that IMAX experience :(