STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

[Xavier_Storma]

That doesn't make it right!

We're not going to be able to convince them. They enjoy the new films and are willing to accept its new creator's vision of Star Trek characters, settings and technology.

Oh no... don't get me wrong...

I hated the reboot in 2009. Really... everything was awefull about this film (for me - and I can perfectly live and accept that people liked it).
From the black hole huge plot holes (Black hole = time travel, when the script needs it and then... shredder... guess what... when the script needs it to be), fatal cinematography (not one sharp or quiet shot, 50% of the film are lense flares), down to the stupid excuse for a plot (bridging absurd action scenes with each other... Sulu's fencing... my God...). It sucked. Really... it just completely sucked.
It deserved the F I rated it.

INTO DARKNESS works so much better. The plot is dense (at least in the first half... the movie dives down from the point Khan reveals himself), the cinematography is so much better (as if they changed the whole camera team), and in scenes it feels and looks like STAR TREK. Art direction is wonderful, and the visuals are stunning.
Is it an entertaining film. Yes!
Is it a good film? Average at best.
Is it a good STAR TREK film? No, defineatly not.

But if you can detach you logical cortex from the "fun" cortex, you will be able to enjoy the visuals.

Maybe it is because I went into it with -100 expectations after the huge disappointment the last film was for me... I don't know.

I rate DARKNESS a healthy "C".

Eventhough I really hate 2009.

 

[BillJ]

Is it a good STAR TREK film? No, defineatly not.

What makes a good Star Trek film?

But if you can detach you logical cortex from the "fun" cortex...

I've been doing this since the mid-70's because seldom has Trek and "logical" deserved to be mentioned in the same sentence.

 

[Cinema Geekly]

In a recent review I read this:

"One of the things that really resonated for me about Into Darkness was the fact that, like the best Star Trek stories, the film has an important, and very relevant message at its heart, about not throwing away our ideals when confronted with dangerous threats to our civilization and a strong indictment of Cheney-esque and Rumsfeldian politics. In a free society, our democracy cannot just be words on a piece of paper, but have real meaning that we live by … even when inconvenient."

[Link to review - M']

If that isn't Trek then I honestly am not sure what is.

Personally I think that because they are couched with big budget CGI and action scenes and don't spend 1 hour and 50 minutes discussing the deeper story in a conference room that the movies are "brain dead".

We can have a good story AND good action equally as far as I'm concerned. We move at a faster pace now then we did in the 90's and certainly in the 60's. Old talky Star Trek is just going to bore people and even more so if you are paying money for a movie.

You are just going to have become those people you swore you'd never be (your parents) and move into back-in-my-day-ville.

 

[abaldwin360]

Trek fans have been making excuses for bad storytelling since the 1960's.

That doesn't make it right!

So what?

It does make attempts to compare nuTrek unfavorably to oldTrek wrong on this score.

Frankly, someone could come along and produce an Oscar-winning Star Trek film that was internationally hailed as a masterpiece and knocked Avatar off to become the most successful film in history...and some trek fans would call it "an okay film but bad Star Trek" because it was different and didn't respect "canon."

(Okay, that's obviously a hypothetical - I don't think anyone could produce an Oscar-caliber Trek movie.)

But Star Trek (2009) did win an Oscar, and was nominated for three more.

 

[Kemaiku]

What makes a good Star Trek film?

Two hours of aging actors smugly reciting poor dialogue if I remember the first ten of them correctly.

 

[Xavier_Storma]

What makes a good Star Trek film?

Two hours of aging actors smugly reciting poor dialogue if I remember the first ten of them correctly.

The Hollywood obsession with youth...

Not every hero needs to be in his 30ies...

 

[BillJ]

What makes a good Star Trek film?

Two hours of aging actors smugly reciting poor dialogue if I remember the first ten of them correctly.

I like the TOS films, but they have just as many logic gaps as the Abramsverse films.

Sub-space shockwave, anyone? The magic torpedo? Proto-matter? Getting to the center of the galaxy in a few hours?

 

[ConRefit79]

The Hollywood obsession with youth...
Not every hero needs to be in his 30ies...

But TOS Kirk was Captian in his early 30's. NuTrek he is in his 20's. That is more implaus.... Oh never mind.

 

[BillJ]

What makes a good Star Trek film?

Two hours of aging actors smugly reciting poor dialogue if I remember the first ten of them correctly.

The Hollywood obsession with youth...

Not every hero needs to be in his 30ies...

How does that make for a bad movie? Plus, Pike wasn't in his thirties.

 

[BillJ]

The Hollywood obsession with youth...
Not every hero needs to be in his 30ies...

But TOS Kirk was Captian in his early 30's. NuTrek he is in his 20's. That is more implaus.... Oh never mind.

But Prime Kirk likely had other commands before getting the Enterprise. Dehner mentions a 'first command' in "Where No Man..."

Plus, Picard got the Stargazer at twenty-eight.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

But Prime Kirk likely had other commands before getting the Enterprise. Dehner mentions a 'first command' in "Where No Man..."

Plus, Picard got the Stargazer at twenty-eight.

Neither of those men necessarily had to have the RANK of Captain when they had the position of it. Kirk Prime could have received his first command as a Commander or Lieutenant Commander. Same for Picard. (We saw this happen with Dax on DS9. When she commanded the Defiant, she was addressed as Captain, yet she was a LCDR by rank.)

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Plus, Picard got the Stargazer at twenty-eight.

No. He just once took command of the bridge at that age when his superiors were dead and injured. He did not retain it.

We don't know that for sure.

 

[BillJ]

But Prime Kirk likely had other commands before getting the Enterprise. Dehner mentions a 'first command' in "Where No Man..."

Plus, Picard got the Stargazer at twenty-eight.

But neither of those men necessarily had to have the RANK of Captain when they had the position of it. Kirk could have had his first command as, say, a Commander or Lieutenant Commander. Same for Picard. We just don't know for sure.

No we don't. But I would point to TMP as evidence that rank doesn't matter when captaining a starship. Admiral Kirk wore captain's stripes when he took over command of the Enterprise.

Captains may simply wear captains stripes when assigned command. Or maybe not. But Kirk being a "captain" doesn't really destroy the movie for me.

 

[Ryan8bit]

Plus, Picard got the Stargazer at twenty-eight.

No. He just once took command of the bridge at that age when his superiors were dead and injured. He did not retain it.

We don't know that for sure.

Yeah, I guess we don't.

 

[F. King Daniel]

In the novel The Valiant, the Stargazer's captain and first officer were killed, and Picard took command. He kept it.

Ditto Dax on the USS Aventine in the post-series novels.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I would point to TMP as evidence that rank doesn't matter when captaining a starship. Admiral Kirk wore captain's stripes when he took over command of the Enterprise.

IIRC, if an Admiral has command of a ship, they are still referred to as Admiral. Kirk actually demoted himself in rank. That's the difference. He expected to KEEP command of the Enterprise.

 

[Kemaiku]

Confirmed by The Buried Age.

 

[BillJ]

No. He just once took command of the bridge at that age when his superiors were dead and injured. He did not retain it.

We don't know that for sure.

Yeah, I guess we don't.

How old do you think Picard is? He commanded the ship for twenty-two years.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ Picard was born in 2305. As of the Stargazer incident (when he took command for the first time), I think he was 28.

 

[BillJ]

I would point to TMP as evidence that rank doesn't matter when captaining a starship. Admiral Kirk wore captain's stripes when he took over command of the Enterprise.

IIRC, if an Admiral has command of a ship, they are still referred to as Admiral. Kirk actually demoted himself in rank. That's the difference. He expected to KEEP command of the Enterprise.

How do you demote yourself?