Finally saw Star Trek: Into Darkness

[Captain Nebula]

What the #^@% was everyone complaining about?

That was a fun movie.

Much better than Nemesis or Insurrection. Definitely not the worst Star Trek movie.

And people complained about Alive Eve in here undies for a second and a half? Really?

Everybody's a critic, I guess.

But I see why Simon Pegg told everyone who didn't like it to F Off.

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

Definitely not the worst Star Trek movie.

That's probably because they took the script for one of the most liked Trek film, youthinised the characters, stripped one to her skivvies, added supertransporters and lense flares, then repackaged it as a new film.

 

[Amaris]

Definitely not the worst Star Trek movie.

That's probably because they took the script for one of the most liked Trek film, youthinised the characters, stripped one to her skivvies, added supertransporters and lense flares, then repackaged it as a new film.

Nah, that's not it.

 

[Tosk]

This deserves a new thread?

Everybody's a critic, I guess.

Including you.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Definitely not the worst Star Trek movie.

That's probably because they took the script for one of the most liked Trek film, youthinised the characters, stripped one to her skivvies, added supertransporters and lense flares, then repackaged it as a new film.

One scene, arrived through via different means, does not equal a whole script. I actually couldn't see how they could have told a Khan story any less like Space Seed or Wrath of Khan, while keeping their alternate reality premise intact.

 

[BillJ]

Definitely not the worst Star Trek movie.

That's probably because they took the script for one of the most liked Trek film, youthinised the characters, stripped one to her skivvies, added supertransporters and lense flares, then repackaged it as a new film.

We'll pretend for a moment that you're absolutely 100% right (which you aren't as anyone who doesn't have an ax to grind knows).

You and others seem to leave out one key point: those elements came from a movie made thirty-plus years ago. The audience that Into Darkness was aimed at wasn't even alive. They aren't all Trek obsessed and seen The Wrath of Khan fifty times and can quote it line-by-line.

 

[Set Harth]

That's probably because they took the script for one of the most liked Trek film

They also ripped off TSFS and TUC, let's not forget.

 

[Opus]

Wait! STiD was a remake?

That means 'The Dark Knight' was a remake of 1989's 'Batman' because it had The Joker in it!

Damn you, Hollywood!

 

[ComicGuy89]

Wait! STiD was a remake?

That means 'The Dark Knight' was a remake of 1989's 'Batman' because it had The Joker in it!

Damn you, Hollywood!

Not only did it have the Joker, it had a climatic battle at a high, elevated place that Batman has to fight his way to, right after the Joker conducts some social experiment. Also, the Joker's defeat involves a grappling hook and hanging over a ledge.

 

[Franklin]

Of course STID was a remake of TWOK. It's so obvious! Do I have to point it out detail for detail? OK, then:

-- TWOK: Kirk is 50-something, lamenting old age and questioning his confidence. STID: Kirk is 20-something and too cock-sure of himself.
-- TWOK: Spock has no real character issues. STID: Spock is full of issues.
-- TWOK: No Spock-Uhura relationship. STID: Spock-Uhura relationship.
-- TWOK: Khan is stranded on a hostile planet with the rest of his people. STID: Khan is essentially forced labor on Earth for Section 31 in order to keep his people alive.
-- TWOK: Carol Marcus is a molecular biologist. STID: Carol Marcus is a physicist and weapons specialist.
-- TWOK: Khan is obsessed with revenge against Kirk at any cost. STID: Khan is obsessed with freeing his people at any cost.
-- TWOK: Saavik is a major character. STID: No Saavik.
-- TWOK: Genesis device. STID: No Genesis device.
-- TWOK: Spock faces a no-win situation. STID: Kirk faces a no-win situation.
-- TWOK: No Admiral Marcus. STID: Admiral Marcus drives most of the conflict.
-- TWOK: Chekov has moved on in his career and is first officer on another ship. STID: Chekov becomes chief engineer on board the Enterprise.
-- TWOK: Kirk has a son. STID: Kirk has no son.
-- TWOK: No Pike. STID: Pike.
-- TWOK: Khan and Kirk never meet. STID: Khan and Kirk not only meet, they work together.
-- TWOK: Was about obsession (Khan with revenge), age, on-going friendship, death. STID: Was about maturing, growing friendship, obsession (Marcus with war), death.

There's probably more, but I think that's enough to convince anyone that STID was unoriginal and a complete rip-off of TWOK.

 

[Ln X]

Definitely not the worst Star Trek movie.

That's probably because they took the script for one of the most liked Trek film, youthinised the characters, stripped one to her skivvies, added supertransporters and lense flares, then repackaged it as a new film.

We'll pretend for a moment that you're absolutely 100% right (which you aren't as anyone who doesn't have an ax to grind knows).

You and others seem to leave out one key point: those elements came from a movie made thirty-plus years ago. The audience that Into Darkness was aimed at wasn't even alive. They aren't all Trek obsessed and seen The Wrath of Khan fifty times and can quote it line-by-line.

Let's be fair here. Some Trekkies have an axe to grind against STID for whatever reason, and some Trekkies have an axe to grind against those Trekkies who did not enjoy STID. I take it from your tone that you exist in the latter group?

Now STID did take some portions of TWOK and rearrange them, and the final product did not add to up to much in the eyes of some Trekkies and fans. So I can understand Bry_Sinclair's issues with STID.

Wait! STiD was a remake?

That means 'The Dark Knight' was a remake of 1989's 'Batman' because it had The Joker in it!

Damn you, Hollywood!

I like remakes if they're good and the DK totally nailed it primarily because of the Joker. The DK is a little messy with the plot and two scenes are really laughable (Harvey disarming a witness with a gun in court, and the people in those boats deliberating over whether to activate the detonator) but you overlooked that because of the Joker. He was a character you just wanted to see MOAR of!

But without the Joker the Dark Knight would have been a pretty average movie, so the line between average and greatness is very thin indeed.

 

[Hober Mallow]

Let's be fair here. Some Trekkies have an axe to grind against STID for whatever reason, and some Trekkies have an axe to grind against those Trekkies who did not enjoy STID.

QFT.

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

I'm trying to keep an open mind about NuTrek (in fact, I really want to like it), so I purposefully never read up plot points on the film before I go and see it, so I was still wondering if Cumberbatch was Khan/Mitchell/someone else.

When the film started and he was Harrison, a man with a mystery, great resources and a superb intellect, I quite liked it (the first few minutes on the planet/under water not withstanding). But when he states that he was Khan, I honestly groaned in despair in the cinema (got a few odd looks from those near me). I found that the quality of the film went downhill from that point.

With NuTrek, some of the things to do well they do very well, but then there are just lots of other things that bug me about it--don't get me wrong other Trek series and films also have annoying elements--as they're trying to make it essentially a reboot of the franchise, but they're just rehashing lots of things previously done, rather than having a fresh start and doing something really interesting.

I'm still debating whether or not to get the DVD.

 

[M'Sharak]

...

That's probably because they took the script for one of the most liked Trek film, youthinised the characters, stripped one to her skivvies, added supertransporters and lense flares, then repackaged it as a new film.

One scene, arrived through via different means, does not equal a whole script. I actually couldn't see how they could have told a Khan story any less like Space Seed or Wrath of Khan, while keeping their alternate reality premise intact.

...

That's probably because they took the script for one of the most liked Trek film, youthinised the characters, stripped one to her skivvies, added supertransporters and lense flares, then repackaged it as a new film.

We'll pretend for a moment that you're absolutely 100% right (which you aren't as anyone who doesn't have an ax to grind knows).

<snip>

Since the post is obvious ax-grinding and nothing else, why acknowledge it at all? Responding in kind tends to lead to something like this...

...

We'll pretend for a moment that you're absolutely 100% right (which you aren't as anyone who doesn't have an ax to grind knows).

....

Let's be fair here. Some Trekkies have an axe to grind against STID for whatever reason, and some Trekkies have an axe to grind against those Trekkies who did not enjoy STID. I take it from your tone that you exist in the latter group?

[...]

Which then leads to something like this...

Let's be fair here. Some Trekkies have an axe to grind against STID for whatever reason, and some Trekkies have an axe to grind against those Trekkies who did not enjoy STID.

QFT.

And from there it almost certainly devolves into back-and-forth sniping.

Don't bother responding to posts which do no more than harp on the same complaint already made dozens of times before—the discussion gains nothing from it—and especially don't make it about other fans.

This deserves a new thread?

Everybody's a critic, I guess.

Including you.

The opening post could as easily have gone in the pinned Grading & Discussion thread but, judging by the way things have gone down the tubes so quickly, it's probably just as well it didn't. Thread closed.