One Year Later: Star Trek Into Darkness

[HaplessCrewman]

A pretty good article on how a critically lauded, box office hit can have its reputation change so dramatically over the course of a year.

After the initial blush, how do you see STID a year later? Do you still love it or has contemplation tempered your assessment of the film?

I think Matt Singer at The Dissolve pretty much covers it.

Star Trek Into Darkness is so fast-paced, it actually outruns its own logic problems, another reason why it received such an unusual combination of initial positive reviews and subsequent negative buzz. Almost everyone who saw the movie enjoyed the experience. They only started to see the plot holes after thinking about it, watching it again, or reading the criticism that slowly started to cohere around the film.

http://thedissolve.com/features/one-year-later/591-one-year-later-star-trek-into-darkness/

 

[doubleohfive]

The film is fine. Nerd rage over it was silly a year ago, as it is now.

As I said the other day:

Star Trek Into Darkness is a superb film.

I had a lot of issues going into it because people had basically spoiled half the damn thing for me in the weeks leading up to the film, but once I got past that I found the story, the characterization and the film itself as a whole to be quite satisfying, relevant to what's going on in the world today and more importantly entertaining.

Now, you guys can debate this till you're blue (or green) in the face, but that's my take on it. Critically and financially, it seems to be the case as well.

EDIT TO ADD:

More importantly: This is just one reviewer doing what all bloggers/reviewers who think they're actual, trained journalists/reviewers do: trying to declare something is one thing and one thing only for everyone else when all the blogger (I hesitate to use the term "writer") has is an opinion.

 

[iguana_tonante]

The idea that the "reputation" of Into Darkness (or ST09, for what matters) has changed over the years is laughable. People who loved it still loves it, and people who hated it still hates it.

The only difference is that people who liked the film simply moved on, while the many of those who disliked it are still seething with the fury of a thousand burning suns. But they are still just a (very) vocal (but tiny) minority.

 

[mos6507]

Disagree. On the runup, there are those who love to get swept up in the whole community/social experience of feeling like we're all about to participate in a monumental "event" with these blockbusters. So we want to love it as it helps us feel part of a larger whole in an age where we're otherwise so fractionalized into little special interest silos.

That's a big part of why we still go out to movies in the first place instead of watching it on our flat-screen TVs. But after that dies down, then you have to just judge the thing on its own merits as a creative work, and more often then not, you'll find it wanting.

 

[BillJ]

Between the theater, the Blu-ray and the EPIX replays, I've probably seen it a dozen to fifteen times over the last year. I think it holds up remarkably well from a purely entertainment standpoint though it has its flaws.

 

[Melakon]

I've still yet to see it. But I didn't see ST09 until 2012, so there's still time.

 

[Mudd]

The idea that the "reputation" of Into Darkness (or ST09, for what matters) has changed over the years is laughable. People who loved it still loves it, and people who hated it still hates it.

The only difference is that people who liked the film simply moved on, while the many of those who disliked it are still seething with the fury of a thousand burning suns. But they are still just a (very) vocal (but tiny) minority.

Yep. Vocal and tiny.

Hollywood Doesn't Care About Fanboy Approval

 

[LOKAI of CHERON]

I can't remember precisely, but I saw STID seven, maybe eight times in theatres - and many times on Blu-ray since last September. I was quite honestly exhilarated on my "virgin viewing" - and walked out of my local multiplex on a genuine high.

I really didn't expect that - as a fairly jaded, and sometimes apathetic, middle-aged bloke in my mid forties, to feel that way was refreshing and, well, surprising. My childhood heroes had been brought back to life in a thrilling, exciting and enormously entertaining movie. STAR TREK - back on the silver screen.

I fucking loved it last May, and I still fucking love it now!

 

[Dukhat]

Now that it's on Netflix, I plan to watch it this weekend. I'll let you know if for some reason my feelings about the film have inexplicably taken a 180 degree turn for the worse

 

[Mage]

I think it holds up remarkably well from a purely entertainment standpoint though it has its flaws.

This, and nothing more.

It's fantasticly entertaining movie, with fast action, loads of humor, some drama, everything we want in a blockbuster. However, some fans want more from Star Trek. And I don't think that what we as fans consider some of the best Trek episodes, will work well for a movie. So we get big blockbustermovies. In a way, STiD is a lot like TWOK. Somehow, fans still adore that one, but can't except this one.

So yeah, I loved STiD when it came out, and I still do. Highly entertaining.

 

[doubleohfive]

The idea that the "reputation" of Into Darkness (or ST09, for what matters) has changed over the years is laughable. People who loved it still loves it, and people who hated it still hates it.

The only difference is that people who liked the film simply moved on, while the many of those who disliked it are still seething with the fury of a thousand burning suns. But they are still just a (very) vocal (but tiny) minority.

Yep. Vocal and tiny.

Hollywood Doesn't Care About Fanboy Approval

 

[BillJ]

And I don't think that what we as fans consider some of the best Trek episodes, will work well for a movie.

One day, Paramount will make my big screen treatment of "The Omega Glory"!

 

[BillJ]

The idea that the "reputation" of Into Darkness (or ST09, for what matters) has changed over the years is laughable. People who loved it still loves it, and people who hated it still hates it.

The only difference is that people who liked the film simply moved on, while the many of those who disliked it are still seething with the fury of a thousand burning suns. But they are still just a (very) vocal (but tiny) minority.

Yep. Vocal and tiny.

Hollywood Doesn't Care About Fanboy Approval

The casual moviegoers that propelled Star Trek Into Darkness to $467 million worldwide thought it was an entertaining science-fiction adventure with a fun cast and strong special effects. They didn’t care about the whole “Is Benedict Cumberbatch playing Khan?” controversy or the hamfisted callbacks to Wrath of Khan or the 9/11-truther undertones. It was the hardcore Star Trek fans who took to the Internet to proclaim the film to be the “worst Star Trek film ever.” But Paramount (a division of Viacom, Inc.) knows that most of those ”Trekkies” will still show up for Star Trek 3 in summer 2016 no matter how much they disagree with the choice of Roberto Orci as director.

Nailed it.

 

[Mage]

The casual moviegoers that propelled Star Trek Into Darkness to $467 million worldwide thought it was an entertaining science-fiction adventure with a fun cast and strong special effects. They didn’t care about the whole “Is Benedict Cumberbatch playing Khan?” controversy or the hamfisted callbacks to Wrath of Khan or the 9/11-truther undertones. It was the hardcore Star Trek fans who took to the Internet to proclaim the film to be the “worst Star Trek film ever.” But Paramount (a division of Viacom, Inc.) knows that most of those ”Trekkies” will still show up for Star Trek 3 in summer 2016 no matter how much they disagree with the choice of Roberto Orci as director.

Nailed it.

I want to have that quote as my signature line for the rest of my life!!

 

[F. King Daniel]

The casual moviegoers that propelled Star Trek Into Darkness to $467 million worldwide thought it was an entertaining science-fiction adventure with a fun cast and strong special effects. They didn’t care about the whole “Is Benedict Cumberbatch playing Khan?” controversy or the hamfisted callbacks to Wrath of Khan or the 9/11-truther undertones. It was the hardcore Star Trek fans who took to the Internet to proclaim the film to be the “worst Star Trek film ever.” But Paramount (a division of Viacom, Inc.) knows that most of those ”Trekkies” will still show up for Star Trek 3 in summer 2016 no matter how much they disagree with the choice of Roberto Orci as director.

Nailed it.

This will be the most quoted post in the thread, and rightfully so.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

I think it was the worst "Star Trek" movie since the last one.

 

[Lucky]

I still love it as much as I did when I saw it last year. For my money, it is the 4th best Star Trek film.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

I tried watching it two nights ago. Aside from the excellent opening sequence, I was pretty bored with it and stopped midway. Then I noticed Netflix had DAYS OF THUNDER back on and watched that to get a great laugh. I got more entertainment from watching Tom Cruise and Michael Rooker getting into an absurdly over the top wheelchair race in a hospital than I got from whatever STID's idea of "thirll ride" is during the Klingon sequences.

 

[thumbtack]

Star Trek Into Darkness is a superb film.

Nevertheless, there is a certain tactical advantage to allowing every enraged nerd with a blog to proclaim it the single greatest failure in motion picture history. Hollywood loves a good comeback, and the "comeback" status of TWOK and TUC made both films seem better than they actually were.

Yep. Vocal and tiny.

Hollywood Doesn't Care About Fanboy Approval

But if the internet is all you have, that's where all your faith is going to go. As pointless as it is, I expect them to continue banging away on their keyboards with as much self-importance as ever. Which does have its entertainment value.

 

[Mage]

Getting back to the comments about fans and their way of reacting to their franchise of choice.....

I have a harder and harder time calling myself a fan of anything really. Mostly because I get sick and tired of the looks you get from people. Some fans, who are truly fanatic to a point where it becomes unhealthy, really take the fun out of it sometimes, by argueing over which way the the viewscreen on the original Enterprise would be angled if you would take the dome of the bridge considering where the turbolifttube sits on the model and where the turboliftdoors are on the bridge-set.......

Within every group, there are always extremist, who set a standard by which all members of said group will be judged. And that kinda sucks when you really like to talk about great plots and characters with non-fans, who will very quickly asume you're just another nutjob with overly detailed floorplans to a starship that doesn't exist.

I know this opinion will not gain me any brownie-points, but I'm glad I said it. If you, as a viewer of this movie, can get so incredibly pissed of by the size of the Enterprise that the entire movie is now ruined for you.......