STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

[TommyW]

You'd be amazed how little industrial machinery has changed, aesthetically speaking, in the last five decades. When talking about a piece of hardware that is all function and no style, you expect it to look the way it's always looked.

Indeed. In another 200 years they'll still be saying "hell, was this filmed in a brewery made decades ago?"

 

[Casas9425]

There isn't going to be an audio commentary on the blu ray?

 

[Hober Mallow]

Then what was it?

And if wasn't Trek, what was Nemesis ?

Also crap.

 

[Belz...]

Not my question.

 

[energize6]

I don't know if it's already been asked but at the beginning of the movie, if they didn't want to get the Enterprise noticed, how did they get in the water in the first place?

 

[F. King Daniel]

Scotty says, "We've been down here since last night" so I figure they landed under the cover of darkness. And probably several miles further out.

 

[Noname Given]

I give it a D-. I thought visually it was nice. The story was unoriginal. There were so many plot holes I don't know where to begin. It was a good action sci fi film but it wasn't Star Trek even with its little homages to prime universe Trek. I just think JJ Abrams is more suited for Star Wars type films. I cannot get used to that beer factory engine room or the bridge with a window/view screen with light glares bouncing off it. Sorry, as much as I love Trek I cannot get into this version.

So, I suppose ST:TMP (being unoriginal as it was a remake of the perevious episode "The Changeling"; as well as being full of p[lot holes) "wasn't Star Trek" either?

 

[energize6]

Scotty says, "We've been down here since last night" so I figure they landed under the cover of darkness. And probably several miles further out.

Seems hard to believe no one would hear it, though. Thanks for the answer.

 

[Set Harth]

Here's a question that may have been answered already.

Did Mudd's ship have warp drive? If not, how did it get from "the edge of the Neutral Zone" to Kronos?

Or is the edge of the Neutral Zone somehow at sublight distance from Kronos?

 

[F. King Daniel]

I assume it had warp drive. And that it's the same ship from "Mudd's Women"

 

[Gepard]

I assume it had warp drive. And that it's the same ship from "Mudd's Women"

Oh, wow. That's actually kind of brilliant, if it was intentional.

 

[Therin of Andor]

So, I suppose ST:TMP (being unoriginal as it was a remake of the perevious episode "The Changeling"; as well as being full of p[lot holes) "wasn't Star Trek" either?

In it's day that's exactly what was said. Extremely confusing for this then-newbie enthusiastic fan.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I assume it had warp drive. And that it's the same ship from "Mudd's Women"

Oh, wow. That's actually kind of brilliant, if it was intentional.

I'm sure it was. ID was by far the fanwankiest Trek film ever. I can picture Harry Mudd piloting away from the Enterprise, the women sat in the back room where Cupcake and whateverhisnamewas were during the chase on Kronos.

 

[Therin of Andor]

ID was by far the fanwankiest Trek film ever. I can picture Harry Mudd piloting away from the Enterprise, the women sat in the back room where Cupcake and whateverhisnamewas were during the chase on Kronos.

Although readers of "Countdown to Darkness" know that the ship had passed to Mudd's daughter, and it had been used in the incident with April.

 

[trevanian]

I give it a D-. I thought visually it was nice. The story was unoriginal. There were so many plot holes I don't know where to begin. It was a good action sci fi film but it wasn't Star Trek even with its little homages to prime universe Trek. I just think JJ Abrams is more suited for Star Wars type films. I cannot get used to that beer factory engine room or the bridge with a window/view screen with light glares bouncing off it. Sorry, as much as I love Trek I cannot get into this version.

So, I suppose ST:TMP (being unoriginal as it was a remake of the perevious episode "The Changeling"; as well as being full of p[lot holes) "wasn't Star Trek" either?

Well, if you peeled the bad art direction & moronic splitfocus diopters off TMP it was still something resembling TREK underneath, just that the characters were in a different place in their lives.

But if you stopped aiming every light at the camera in the Abrams, and also discarded the ludicrous brewery and the rest of the contemporary welds, you'd STILL have something that didn't resemble trek underneath.

So I would not concur.

 

[marksound]

I give it a D-. I thought visually it was nice. The story was unoriginal. There were so many plot holes I don't know where to begin. It was a good action sci fi film but it wasn't Star Trek even with its little homages to prime universe Trek. I just think JJ Abrams is more suited for Star Wars type films. I cannot get used to that beer factory engine room or the bridge with a window/view screen with light glares bouncing off it. Sorry, as much as I love Trek I cannot get into this version.

So, I suppose ST:TMP (being unoriginal as it was a remake of the perevious episode "The Changeling"; as well as being full of p[lot holes) "wasn't Star Trek" either?

Well, if you peeled the bad art direction & moronic splitfocus diopters off TMP it was still something resembling TREK underneath, just that the characters were in a different place in their lives.

But if you stopped aiming every light at the camera in the Abrams, and also discarded the ludicrous brewery and the rest of the contemporary welds, you'd STILL have something that didn't resemble trek underneath.

So I would not concur.

Filmmaking is art.

Those who produce the films we pay our hard earned money to see make artistic decisions all the time, from start to finish. If you don't like their choices, fine.

What artistic choices would you have made if you were making films in the 1970s? In the 1980s? The 90s, or 2000s, or today?

I see things in movies that I wouldn't do the same way, but that doesn't mean that I can't appreciate the choices that were made in the process of putting a film together.

It's easy to criticize. Not so easy to do.

 

[BillJ]

But if you stopped aiming every light at the camera in the Abrams, and also discarded the ludicrous brewery and the rest of the contemporary welds, you'd STILL have something that didn't resemble trek underneath.

Looked and felt like Trek to me.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Looked and felt like Trek to me.

"Looked and felt" perhaps, but still just a facsimile. It's not real Star Trek.

Or whatever...

 

[F. King Daniel]

Curse us, the false Trekkies, unable to see the holy light of truth and differentiate between true and false Star Trek.

Perhaps it's retina damage from all the lens flares.

 

[Therin of Andor]

"Looked and felt" perhaps, but still just a facsimile. It's not real Star Trek.

Or whatever...

I was told constantly, in 1980, that I'll never be a "real" Star Trek fan because I wasn't allowed to watch it in the 60s. And that's probably also why I liked such "inferior copies" as TAS and TMP.