Eh, I guess I don't find that particularly compelling, but fair enough. Otherwise I mostly enjoy the film.
Why Is "Into Darkness" So [imagine a different, more accurate past participle here]?
- Thread starter TedShatner10
- Start date
Eh, I guess I don't find that particularly compelling, but fair enough. Otherwise I mostly enjoy the film.
Not sure why it needs to be compelling. Marcus wanted a war; Kirk was his tool for that.
The Enterprise dead in Klingon space, waiting to be discovered (so Marcus hopes) would suffice to provoke the Klingons. And if the “special torpedo” is a dud, regular torpedoes are on hand. The details don’t really matter as long as the Enterprise is destroyed by the Klingons (and failed torpedoes are better for Marcus anyway as they would be destroyed with the ship). Kirk’s decision to capture Khan screws everything up, thus Marcus improvised (not well, as it turned out).
But doesn't Marcus also want the Enterprise to actually kill Harrison, along with starting the war? The whole idea is two birds with one stone, yes? Ordering Kirk to fire the special torpedoes doesn't accomplish that if they can't hit their target. Sure, after that attempt fails they can then fire their regular torpedoes, but I think this is sufficient to demonstrate that this is a confusing and rickety plan, and one which even an attentive audience is going to struggle with in real time.
I mean, I didn't...so Mileage will Vary?
Harrison was stranded on Kronos with limited resources to leave the planet. Even if the torpedoes don't hit their target (debatable since even without fuel they can still be shot with some force from the launch tube, just with no fuel to sustain it.
Not saying that people can't find it confusing; I just think it's not as confusing as many try to make it be. Marcus didn't care as much about Harrison on Kronos, figuring he would be stranded and killed later on with the war, while starting the war was the primary motivation.
I dispute that this film was/is hated. Yes of course, there is a small sub-set of fans that 'hate' it. Same with all the films really. But overall, surely it is regarded as one of the best films in the franchise in terms of audience ratings and financial success.
Evidence:
Into Darkness was a financial success and received positive reviews from critics.
Its gross earnings of over $467 million worldwide have made it the highest-grossing entry in the franchise.
More people went to see it at the cinema than any other Trek movie to date.
It was nominated for best vfx at the academy awards.
It did terrific business on DVD, bluray and digital downloads.
Its Rotten Tomatoes score is 84% and 89%
For sure, I dislike Star Trek Discovery, but is it 'hated'? Not by the vast majority of viewers it would seem.
Personally, I love it. If you care to know why then read on:
https://ryesofthegeek.wordpress.com/2013/06/18/star-trek-into-darkness-film-review/
Evidence:
Into Darkness was a financial success and received positive reviews from critics.
Its gross earnings of over $467 million worldwide have made it the highest-grossing entry in the franchise.
More people went to see it at the cinema than any other Trek movie to date.
It was nominated for best vfx at the academy awards.
It did terrific business on DVD, bluray and digital downloads.
Its Rotten Tomatoes score is 84% and 89%
For sure, I dislike Star Trek Discovery, but is it 'hated'? Not by the vast majority of viewers it would seem.
Personally, I love it. If you care to know why then read on:
https://ryesofthegeek.wordpress.com/2013/06/18/star-trek-into-darkness-film-review/
What would have worked is that instead of Cumberbatch being Kahn, keep him as John. Then in the final scene where they show the tubes, then that is Kahn (a different actor), that would build up to a true wrath of Kahn as he is awoken in the future and finds out what Kirk and friends did to cause that to happen.
STID is my 2nd favorite Abramsverse movie. I go in reverse order for them now. Beyond is my favorite (yeah, I'm one of those), then STID than Star Trek (2009). Honestly Star Trek (2009) is the one that hasn't aged well for me. I like it less and less each time I watch it. I thought it was awesome the first time, now it's sort of meh to me. I'll never hate it. but I don't love it like I used to.
But my opinion of STID has been pretty steady. I don't like Cumberbatch being Khan. I'll say that upfront. I'd have much preferred he was John Harrison (in fact, when I first saw the film I thought, good, the rumors about him playing Khan were wrong, until they weren't, sigh). Cumberbatch's performance was great, and would have been great as John Harrison. He could have still been one of Khan's Band of Merry Supermen, but I never thought he had to be Khan.
I don't think the film was a rip off of TWOK (or "Space Seed"). But the reverse death scene and Khan scream gets an eye roll out of me every single time, even today. I really can't believe they went there. For those few moments they all became fanboys wanting to give their take on their favorite movie. It doesn't mean the entire movie was a TWOK rip off, it wasn't, but for a few moments it was. They just thought they were getting cute with it. The magic blood is utterly ridiculous to me as well. I mean, that's what we were reduced to get Kirk back. Magic blood? Come one guys.
But there is much more good in the film than bad. Those are my primary complaints. The overall story is pretty good, if a little disjointed at times. It has some good character moments. McCoy is more relevant to the story. Scotty has moved on from just being the odious comic relief guy and actually gets some serious story time. And I appreciate that Abrams and company took some criticisms to heart. For instance, the set design was better. There was more judicious use of lens flares. There were actually some nice, cleanly done scenes. They addressed the rapid fire promotions. By no means do I think movie makers and show runners should be beholden to fans whims. But I appreciated that they took some of that to heart where it worked with their story. I find it an average Star Trek film. Not in the upper tier. But maybe in the upper middle of the movies somewhere, like 5th or 6th place maybe.
But my opinion of STID has been pretty steady. I don't like Cumberbatch being Khan. I'll say that upfront. I'd have much preferred he was John Harrison (in fact, when I first saw the film I thought, good, the rumors about him playing Khan were wrong, until they weren't, sigh). Cumberbatch's performance was great, and would have been great as John Harrison. He could have still been one of Khan's Band of Merry Supermen, but I never thought he had to be Khan.
I don't think the film was a rip off of TWOK (or "Space Seed"). But the reverse death scene and Khan scream gets an eye roll out of me every single time, even today. I really can't believe they went there. For those few moments they all became fanboys wanting to give their take on their favorite movie. It doesn't mean the entire movie was a TWOK rip off, it wasn't, but for a few moments it was. They just thought they were getting cute with it. The magic blood is utterly ridiculous to me as well. I mean, that's what we were reduced to get Kirk back. Magic blood? Come one guys.
But there is much more good in the film than bad. Those are my primary complaints. The overall story is pretty good, if a little disjointed at times. It has some good character moments. McCoy is more relevant to the story. Scotty has moved on from just being the odious comic relief guy and actually gets some serious story time. And I appreciate that Abrams and company took some criticisms to heart. For instance, the set design was better. There was more judicious use of lens flares. There were actually some nice, cleanly done scenes. They addressed the rapid fire promotions. By no means do I think movie makers and show runners should be beholden to fans whims. But I appreciated that they took some of that to heart where it worked with their story. I find it an average Star Trek film. Not in the upper tier. But maybe in the upper middle of the movies somewhere, like 5th or 6th place maybe.
Oh, and I love Leonard Nimoy, believe me. But that cameo sequence was just poorly done. We have lots of action going on. Then suddenly everything stops so Spock-Prime can tell them Khan is a very dangerous individual. Um, no shit Sherlock.
If you're going to do something like that, first of all, use better placement. And it should be something that could actually be of help.
If you're going to do something like that, first of all, use better placement. And it should be something that could actually be of help.
Magic blood makes more sense than transporters. I know it is an oft cited problem with Into Darkness but for me, when I look at the film, things like Nimoy's appearance or use of Khan take away more than blood treatment.
The work done at my wife’s company would have been sci-fi 20 years ago and it essentially involves “magic blood” to treat leukaemia patients with no other options via stem cells from frozen umbilical cord blood (some of it decades old) treated with her company’s “secret sauce” to multiply the stem cell count of the cord blood by a factor of 50. And in another 20 years, perhaps sooner, they will be using this invention with CRISPR technology to repair/replace a number of organs (think liver/kidney/pancreas) as well as curing a number of other blood disorders beyond leukaemia.
I won’t be holding my breath on the transporter or warp drive, though. I’ll leave that to others.
I won’t be holding my breath on the transporter or warp drive, though. I’ll leave that to others.
I can't like this enough. Even in my casual research on blood and plasma based treatments there is a variety of options that fit in to the film's idea, from blood doping, platelet doping, as well as the treatments you list.
It's one of the few hills I'm willing to die on because blood based treatments are real world science.
My question is . . . why is anyone supposed to regard "Into the Darkness" as the worst of the Kelvin Universe movies? Personally, I think the 2009 movie, "Star Trek" is the worst, especially when it features a third-year cadet becoming the captain of Starfleet's flagship by the end of the movie.
And also why others consider it differently.I would think reading this thread would make it clear why some people consider it the worst of the three films.
I really liked this movie. I think perhaps it is at least in part because I was watching "Fringe" at the time as well, so I felt like I saw was JJ Abrams was doing. For those that don't know or remember, one major point in Fringe is that the characters enter a parallel universe where they find out who they would have been and how they would have behaved had their life situation and personal histories been different.
When I saw Into Darkness, I really felt like JJ Abrams was playing with this concept, so rather than "ripping off" Wrath of Khan, it was asking, how would THIS crew react to events similar to those in WoK.
To me, it's like accusing Back to the Future 2 of "Ripping off" Back to the Future because Marty goes back inside the events of the first film to retrieve the Sports Almanac.
Yes, the events are similar, but the characters and motives are very different.
When I saw Into Darkness, I really felt like JJ Abrams was playing with this concept, so rather than "ripping off" Wrath of Khan, it was asking, how would THIS crew react to events similar to those in WoK.
To me, it's like accusing Back to the Future 2 of "Ripping off" Back to the Future because Marty goes back inside the events of the first film to retrieve the Sports Almanac.
Yes, the events are similar, but the characters and motives are very different.
My issues with the movie were never about the "ripping off" of TWOK (mainly because I don' t think it did, in any way).
I just think the plot was a little / a lot over-baked, and the ending 1/4 of the movie is dreadful. Like- worst stuff in the entire movie franchise. It's unfortunate, though...because the earlier 3/4 are really quite entertaining. The acting / cast is stellar in this one, and it is an absolutely gorgeous movie to look at.
I just think the plot was a little / a lot over-baked, and the ending 1/4 of the movie is dreadful. Like- worst stuff in the entire movie franchise. It's unfortunate, though...because the earlier 3/4 are really quite entertaining. The acting / cast is stellar in this one, and it is an absolutely gorgeous movie to look at.
I would think reading this thread would make it clear why some people consider it the worst of the three films.
I've already read the comments. I still believe the 2009 movie is the worst of the Kelvin franchise.
Yes. We've been reading the comments. I think everyone's got that part.
However, as this thread is specifically about a different movie, perhaps you could provide a link to that article you mentioned writing, and post it in a thread which IS about the 2009 movie?
Just a thought.
That's nice, but you asked why anyone would consider ID the worst of the three films, and why people dislike ID is what this thread is discussing. Whether the 2009 film is worse than this one is out of scope of the original question.