STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

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

?

Grade the movie...

  1. A+

    18.8%
  2. A

    20.6%
  3. A-

    13.2%
  4. B+

    11.1%
  5. B

    7.9%
  6. B-

    4.1%
  7. C+

    5.7%
  8. C

    5.0%
  9. C-

    3.5%
  10. D+

    1.5%
  11. D

    1.6%
  12. D-

    1.3%
  13. F

    5.7%
  1. Amaris

    Amaris Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Location:
    United States
    Oh, yes! The Klingon who took his helmet off nearly scared me shitless at first! I was thinking, "I do NOT want to mess with these guys!"

    So well done. I'm really hoping for a costume/set design award or two this year for the movie. I mean, everything was so tightly put together, I believed I was looking right into the 23rd century. It felt that real to me.

    Also, hooray, we got to see more of earth in the future! :D
     
  2. Phily B

    Phily B Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2001
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    why were there floating beds?! is that also because of nero?!

    fuck you jj abrams
     
  3. HaventGotALife

    HaventGotALife Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2011
    This does not sound interesting. Call me whatever you want, but Star Trek used to be original. Now, it's a greatest hits where it steps on lines from other films?!? I am seriously thinking about sitting this one out, my first skipped Star Trek movie since I was 7 and VI was over my head.
     
  4. Devon

    Devon Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2005
    There are maybe a total of 3 minutes that could be considered a "re-hash." The Re-Hash claim is GREATLY exaggerated. You would be doing yourself a complete disservice to "sit it out" simply because a couple of people wanted to be melodramatic. See it for yourself and make up your own mind.
     
  5. teacake

    teacake Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2007
    Location:
    inside teacake
    There is no Shakespeare in this one so you might find it easier to understand.
     
  6. HaventGotALife

    HaventGotALife Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2011
    So Khan's not in the movie?
     
  7. Amaris

    Amaris Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Location:
    United States
    It doesn't matter. You've already decided to dislike it. If you go see it now, you'll just walk away angry. Wait for the DVD release.

    Me, I went in completely unspoiled, and I loved it.
     
  8. Devon

    Devon Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2005
    Reusing a character does not a rehash make... again, you're an individual, make up your own mind when you SEE it and have an informed opinion.
     
  9. Shazam!

    Shazam! Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2006
    And why do Kirk and Spock look different?
     
  10. throwback

    throwback Captain Captain

    Joined:
    May 27, 2011
    I have this question to ask. In our contemporary world, when the nation's capital is put on alert, there is an increased emphasis on the air traffic routes being monitored and suspicious aircraft are immediately tagged and interceptors are sent. In the film, I would presuppose that San Francisco and Paris and other major cities with Federation buildings are placed on alert and there is an increase in vigilance. So, is it explained in the movie how Khan was able to pilot a gunship that close to the conference room in an effort at assassinating several members of Starfleet?
     
  11. Amaris

    Amaris Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Location:
    United States
    Yes. It was ordered by Admiral Marcus, and he being such as he is, can order that airspace cleared, or for things to be conveniently ignored.
     
  12. Phily B

    Phily B Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2001
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    They probably don't expect him to do it, nor expect him to be able to commandeer a gunship. I don't really think it's important how he did it to be honest, from what we've seen of him in these films he is more than capable.

    As far as I know, terrorism isn't a fact of life on Earth and the Federation. I mean it was a huge deal in DS9 when that changeling blew up that meeting and they started putting Starfleet security on the streets.

    I don't think it was ordered by Marcus, Khan had gone rogue already.
     
  13. I am not Spock

    I am not Spock Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2001
    Location:
    Australia
    Absolutely. The Klingon redesign was terrifying. Less Ming the Merciless of TOS and TAS; and not so much member of 80s thrash metal band (TMP, TNG, etc); more terrifying Uruk Hai sized colossus. These guys looked like you did NOT wanna mess with them. All the more impressive then, when Khan/Harrison wipes the floor with them.

    And yes, it was good to see Earth in the future, something we haven't seen much of in previous Trek movies and TV shows.
     
  14. Amaris

    Amaris Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Location:
    United States
    Agreed, and just to reiterate, I loved that Klingon design. It was actually scary. The Klingons looked like the predator warriors that they were. Also, Uhura speaking Klingon right to the Klingon's face? Badassery.
     
  15. HaventGotALife

    HaventGotALife Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2011
    Yeah, you're right. I just had a moment of doubt.
     
  16. Amaris

    Amaris Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Location:
    United States
    Just remember, that if you go in expecting to dislike it, you probably will, as a more critical eye will tear apart any film, no matter how well made.
     
  17. throwback

    throwback Captain Captain

    Joined:
    May 27, 2011
    Starfleet may not have experienced terrorism in its history. (This is uncertain.) However, Starfleet has had to deal with threats. I would think that protocols would be in place to protect high ranking officers during a crisis. And, I would think that common sense would dictate that the meeting would be held in a secured facility that was protected by whatever defenses a 23rd century security apparatus could muster.

    I am biased before seeing a movie. I watched the news and I read history. So, I have expectations before I see a movie, and, when those expectations are contravened, I am dubious of what I see in a movie. When 9-11 occurred, there was a meeting convened in a secured facility to discuss the crisis and its aftermath. I would expect Starfleet to do likewise.
     
  18. teacake

    teacake Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2007
    Location:
    inside teacake
    There is terrorism against Starfleet in Enterprise.
     
  19. Amaris

    Amaris Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Location:
    United States
    As I said, though, it is explained how Harrison was able to accomplish this feat, and quite handily, too.

    **MASSIVE SPOILERS HERE**

    During the scene in the brig, Khan explains that he was protecting his family, his crew. Kirk gets angry and berates Khan for killing Christopher Pike and other innocents. Khan then explains that Admiral Marcus controlled him, because Marcus had Khan's people as a bargaining chip, and that what he had to do was ordered by Marcus, who controlled the strings. That's how a supposedly secure facility was compromised. It was all set up by Marcus so that he could order the Enterprise to head to the edge of Klingon space, fire those torpedoes at Kronos where Khan was hiding, at which point the Enterprise's warp core would fail upon return, and they would be identified by the Klingons as the aggressors, at which point Marcus could come in with his new ship, and he could have his war with the Klingons.

    It was all a setup by Admiral Marcus.
     
  20. HaventGotALife

    HaventGotALife Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2011
    The reverse is true as well. If you expect to like a movie, you will be more forgiving. As a rule, I am critical, I won't hide my satisfaction or dissatisfaction with this movie no matter what. I will go into it with an open mind, but even if it was spoiler-free, they would get a more critical eye for using Khan again. It begs for comparisons. It begs of trying to make money with what is bankable. Nero was a re-hash of every Star Trek villain, who's only motivation seems to be revenge. They have been trying to re-do Khan for ages. I was critical enough of the first film that I wanted Nero's lines stripped from him the moment I left the movie theater. That's just how I think. My opinions have hardened since 2009 was released. I have had a chance to re-watch Star Trek--from TOS, TNG, DS9, Most of VOY, and Most of ENT, all the movies--and I come into this movie with several things I want as a fan. This was true before I clicked on any spoilers:

    1. Something fresh and new. From 2010 on, I have said "I don't want a Greatest Hits. I am so afraid that this will be like Batman in that you put a Joker in the movie, tell Batman's origin every so often (Batman, Mask of the Phantasm, Batman Begins, etc) and people flock to see it. Part of the reason they do that so well is that Batman never got it right. There's always room for improvement. The difference between Star Trek and Batman is that they have been doing it well, social commentary, imagination of what we would find in space, that I don't want that to be lost. Khan, back to when Benico Del Toro was rumored to be Khan, represents trying to do the arch-nemesis off Star Trek, the Joker, to the novice. II was great on many levels, including the revenge villain, but it's those other levels that I have continued to watch II for.

    2. Star Trek, to me, is about the wonderment of what we would find in Space--that's why I like small moments like Picard looking out the window in Star Trek: Insurrection. Kirk represented in the Original Series, the attitude of the 1960s Space Program--brash, unafraid, ambitious, and successful. It seems to me that we've lost that and it's something I want Star Trek to continue into this next generation. With JJ Abrams putting lens flares in the first film, and calling it the "bright future" of Trek, I was hopeful. Now, I wonder if that's not just a set-up for us to lose that bright future in the next installment of movies. It was bright, before Nero changed it all.

    3. Social Commentary--I like my Star Trek to have something for me to think about when I come out of the movie theater or turn off the television. Special Effects are good for the suspension of disbelief, but they fade in time. 15 years ago, Insurrection looked state-of-the-art. It doesn't anymore. If all a movie can say is "wow, that looked cool!" it has the shelf-life of 10 years, tops. I like timeless Trek where I can apply the history of the world, current headlines, to the story. It shows the imagination and brilliance of the writer to see something timeless. If Trek isn't timeless, part of the reason I don't like the first one as much as some (I think it's mediocre, run-of-the-mill Trek about nature-nurture if you see anything there), then okay.

    4. I want a plot that makes sense. Too much of 09 relies on flimsy plotting and calls it "destiny." Like Kirk ending up on Delta Vega and finding Prime Spock. That's quite a coincidence and in the movie theater, it took me right out of it. "That's flimsy." So this film will get a critical eye where this is concerned.

    Those are my prejudices before ever reading a spoiler. Don't answer this question--it's rhetorical--I don't want it to influence me. Do you think I will like this movie?