Perfectly sums up my theatre experience of the movie as a 40 year old fan myself.
I think it is a fantastically entertaining movie and almost the complete blockbuster.
One Year Later: Star Trek Into Darkness
- Thread starter HaplessCrewman
- Start date
Perfectly sums up my theatre experience of the movie as a 40 year old fan myself.
I think it is a fantastically entertaining movie and almost the complete blockbuster.
Don't take it as an impression, they do exist. They're called masochists. Or fans of NEMISIS.
Buh-dum-boom!
Prepare to shoot me, but Nemesis is my favorite of the TNG films....
why?
1. Despite its storytelling and technical flaws, it actually looks and feels like a big screen movie, whereas Generations, First Contact, and Insurrection looked like overblown two hour episodes.
B. The space battle took up practically the entire last half of the film, and it wasn't two effects shots and a bunch of "crew getting thrown around" shots. It was a knock down, drag out space battle!
Third. The collision between the Big E and the Scimitar....priceless, if implausible!
NEM always came across as really bad fan fiction to me. 
In any case, Into Darkness was and is a thoroughly enjoyable, entertaining film. It's not perfect, but it was good enough to transcend its sci-fi genre and find a more general, casual, movie going audience.
In any case, Into Darkness was and is a thoroughly enjoyable, entertaining film. It's not perfect, but it was good enough to transcend its sci-fi genre and find a more general, casual, movie going audience.
My feelings about STID, just like they did with ST09, changed over time -- which is to say my first viewings of both left an awful taste in my mouth, but subsequent viewings allowed me to pick up on details I appreciated.
These details were usually related to the great work of the art, costuming, and VFX folks -- who clearly care very much about what they're doing -- and allowed me to focus less on the details I didn't appreciate, like the poor writing.
Also, I think time let me see the movies for what they are: 21st Century popcorn flicks that make a ton of money in the short term. And who doesn't like a good popcorn flick from time to time?
These details were usually related to the great work of the art, costuming, and VFX folks -- who clearly care very much about what they're doing -- and allowed me to focus less on the details I didn't appreciate, like the poor writing.
Also, I think time let me see the movies for what they are: 21st Century popcorn flicks that make a ton of money in the short term. And who doesn't like a good popcorn flick from time to time?
Its hard to argue with the criticisms in the article. I thought Into Darkness was entertaining and had some good moments. Not the best Star Trek film or the worst. It was all over the place with its 9-11 conspiracy angle and shoehorning Khan into the plot while trying to rip off ST:II. Khan was wasted since he had no prior history with Kirk and company. He could have just remained John Harrison throughout the film and very little would have changed.
Overall it was a well executed big budget Hollywood action movie with Star Trek sort of pasted on top of it. It fell into a lot of cliché action movie writing where there is ostensibly a lot going on, but in reality there isn't much of a plot. To be fair the TNG films really started the cliché action movie trend, they just had older actors and a smaller budget. Nemesis also tried really hard to be The Wrath of Khan and failed even harder.
Oh and the Spock/Uhura romance is just painful to watch, especially when they decide to have their argument in the shuttle on the way the Qonos.
Overall it was a well executed big budget Hollywood action movie with Star Trek sort of pasted on top of it. It fell into a lot of cliché action movie writing where there is ostensibly a lot going on, but in reality there isn't much of a plot. To be fair the TNG films really started the cliché action movie trend, they just had older actors and a smaller budget. Nemesis also tried really hard to be The Wrath of Khan and failed even harder.
Oh and the Spock/Uhura romance is just painful to watch, especially when they decide to have their argument in the shuttle on the way the Qonos.
doubleohfive
Fleet Admiral
A very vocal but exceedingly small percentage of fandom.
The problem with such people -- of which I consider myself to be a part -- is that their efforts aren't productive.
Upthread, Dennis posted an article from Forbes which, amongst other things, says this:
This is the key. The fans keep showing up. They keep buying memorabilia. They keep downloading comics, building models, collecting figures. They buy the DVD and the BluRay and the Special Editions to keep their "collections" intact.
We're like a union that never strikes: useless. And so the complaints are just incessant whining.
I really think, though, if Paramount saw all that residual income dry up overnight -- if all the millions of dollars that get spent after an initial box office run just disappeared -- they'd rethink the strategy and at the least hire writers who were a little less lazy and would take a minute or two to Google a ******* map.
C'est la vie.
I don't think I agree. Tomatometers, critical and popular acclaims, and box office results are brought up when people argue that "people hated the movie" or some other nonsense. It has nothing to do with the quality (or lack thereof) of the scrip, but to dispel the argument put forth by some critics that the movie is universally panned as the "worst movie evah".
A year later. I've seen the film a couple of times and this is all I've got.
- The film still comes off more like a giant reset switch since it covers the same exact ground that the last movie did. Kirk and Spock bicker over their differences, Kirk gets in trouble with Starfleet, Kirk is given command of the Enterprise through special circumstances, Kirk space jumps out of one ship and onto another, both feature one of the main leads preparing to sacrifice themselves to save the day but are rescued at the end and we're left with the promise that we will be going out into deep space to do some exploring. When 3 comes out, I'd be curious to know what the film carries over from STID, because if it doesn't, STID can be seen as a completely skippable movie since nothing really happens that changes anything.
- The idea of using Khan wasn't the problem. It was his execution. I'm not saying Khan is a misunderstood good guy, but he sure wasn't Hitler. And even with what they've got, there is nothing about Khan that makes him come off as "superior" to our main characters since all of his plans are based on assumptions that are wrong and cannot figure out that the bombs he wants back could potentially be used against him.
- The action may be fun, but where's the action that Star Trek used to be really good at? You have this so-called "Federation Flagship" that's supposed to be one of a kind and super tough, but nothing is really done with her. When we have a potential space battle scene, the Enterprise has a glass jaw so big that after being shot at for 10 seconds she is completely out of the fight. She never fires a single phaser or torpedo. The Klingon chase on Kronos felt more like the Millennium Falcon being chased by Tie Fighters complete with narrow regions that only the hero ship can fit through.
- The Vengeance crashing into San Francisco was gratuitous and overall pointless. Thousands upon thousands of innocent men women and children probably died thanks to Khan and nothing about this disaster affects anyone. The fact that no one on the Enterprise even brought up the idea of stopping the Vengeance from crashing into the city is mind boggling. Sure, the Enterprise would probably be too damaged to do anything, but showing no concern at all isn't a good way to convey that they can't do anything.
Sulu: Whoa! He just jumped 30 meters.
Me: HE CRASHED A SHIP INTO A POPULATED CITY!
- The writers once again assume that if you give a character a skill set, that automatically makes them super important to the story! But like the last movie, they never put their said skills to use when the character has their moment. Carol Marcus is established as being a weapons expert so it made sense that she would assist in opening a Torpedo in order to reveal it's contents. But how she disarms the torpedo isn't exactly the kind of stuff you would need an engineer for. Just as having someone who can speak Romulan winds up being pointless since the Romulans that can speak perfect english, the method of disarming an advanced and dangerous torpedo is basically just ripping stuff out of it. This is the kind of situation I would expect a person who is NOT a weapons expert would do. If she is completely clueless about what to do, why bother making her a weapons expert in the first place? This could have been any character. And speaking of...
- Uhura reduced to "Action Girl" status. Like Alice in the Resident Evil movies, being able to kick butt is not an interesting character trait. While I loved the idea of Uhura trying to negotiate with the Klingons by speaking to them in their native language, I knew from the very beginning it was going to be pointless because IT'S AN ACTION MOVIE. Shooting will always trump talking, and what a trump attempt this was because now she has to be rescued before she's chocked and gutted. But that's ok. We're supposed to think Uhura is still cool because she can fight Klingons with knifes and guns..... and when the crew learns that they can transport onto the platform where Spock and Khan are fighting on, Uhura is the one they send. Not a security officer, not more than one person, just her with a gun. This is not a good use of a character when any character in the whole movie could have filled this role. The only character that would make more sense then Uhura would be Carol Marcus since fighting Khan would give her a little payback towards Khan for murdering her father and helping Spock who was a little rude to her earlier on in the film.
- The film still comes off more like a giant reset switch since it covers the same exact ground that the last movie did. Kirk and Spock bicker over their differences, Kirk gets in trouble with Starfleet, Kirk is given command of the Enterprise through special circumstances, Kirk space jumps out of one ship and onto another, both feature one of the main leads preparing to sacrifice themselves to save the day but are rescued at the end and we're left with the promise that we will be going out into deep space to do some exploring. When 3 comes out, I'd be curious to know what the film carries over from STID, because if it doesn't, STID can be seen as a completely skippable movie since nothing really happens that changes anything.
- The idea of using Khan wasn't the problem. It was his execution. I'm not saying Khan is a misunderstood good guy, but he sure wasn't Hitler. And even with what they've got, there is nothing about Khan that makes him come off as "superior" to our main characters since all of his plans are based on assumptions that are wrong and cannot figure out that the bombs he wants back could potentially be used against him.
- The action may be fun, but where's the action that Star Trek used to be really good at? You have this so-called "Federation Flagship" that's supposed to be one of a kind and super tough, but nothing is really done with her. When we have a potential space battle scene, the Enterprise has a glass jaw so big that after being shot at for 10 seconds she is completely out of the fight. She never fires a single phaser or torpedo. The Klingon chase on Kronos felt more like the Millennium Falcon being chased by Tie Fighters complete with narrow regions that only the hero ship can fit through.
- The Vengeance crashing into San Francisco was gratuitous and overall pointless. Thousands upon thousands of innocent men women and children probably died thanks to Khan and nothing about this disaster affects anyone. The fact that no one on the Enterprise even brought up the idea of stopping the Vengeance from crashing into the city is mind boggling. Sure, the Enterprise would probably be too damaged to do anything, but showing no concern at all isn't a good way to convey that they can't do anything.
Sulu: Whoa! He just jumped 30 meters.
Me: HE CRASHED A SHIP INTO A POPULATED CITY!
- The writers once again assume that if you give a character a skill set, that automatically makes them super important to the story! But like the last movie, they never put their said skills to use when the character has their moment. Carol Marcus is established as being a weapons expert so it made sense that she would assist in opening a Torpedo in order to reveal it's contents. But how she disarms the torpedo isn't exactly the kind of stuff you would need an engineer for. Just as having someone who can speak Romulan winds up being pointless since the Romulans that can speak perfect english, the method of disarming an advanced and dangerous torpedo is basically just ripping stuff out of it. This is the kind of situation I would expect a person who is NOT a weapons expert would do. If she is completely clueless about what to do, why bother making her a weapons expert in the first place? This could have been any character. And speaking of...
- Uhura reduced to "Action Girl" status. Like Alice in the Resident Evil movies, being able to kick butt is not an interesting character trait. While I loved the idea of Uhura trying to negotiate with the Klingons by speaking to them in their native language, I knew from the very beginning it was going to be pointless because IT'S AN ACTION MOVIE. Shooting will always trump talking, and what a trump attempt this was because now she has to be rescued before she's chocked and gutted. But that's ok. We're supposed to think Uhura is still cool because she can fight Klingons with knifes and guns..... and when the crew learns that they can transport onto the platform where Spock and Khan are fighting on, Uhura is the one they send. Not a security officer, not more than one person, just her with a gun. This is not a good use of a character when any character in the whole movie could have filled this role. The only character that would make more sense then Uhura would be Carol Marcus since fighting Khan would give her a little payback towards Khan for murdering her father and helping Spock who was a little rude to her earlier on in the film.
Saw it twice in the theatre (Once in 3D with friends, and again in 'normal' because 3D never has really worked for me and makes the film look more darkly lit); and picked up the Blu-Ray the day it was released...
But as a now 51 year old TOS fan replace 'mid-forties' with 'early-fifties' and the quote above works as my impression of STiD too.
I made a point of watching it in 2D. Films that are converted to 3D post production look shite. It was the most pumped Ive felt upon leaving the theatre since T2. I loved seeing Star Trek getting the big budget treatment it so deserves. The scene where scotty and kirk were running up the walls of the of the enterprise as it was spinning out of control were simply excellent, dramatic Trek turned up to 11. I loved it. And I'm a massive TMP fan...
Yep, chalk me up as another punter distinctly unenthused by 3D. Home Cinema is one of my major hobbies and a passion too. For me, 3D adds nothing save distraction to most movies.
4K is a development I'm looking to adopt should native content become readily available though - I've watched jaw dropping demonstrations at a CE show.
doubleohfive
Fleet Admiral
I'm aware of the Forbes article; it was my Facebook page Dennis shared it from.
2) You're right that it's money driving things. Perfect example - the outrage over Paramount's spreading all the various extras for Star Trek Into Darkness over different editions of the DVD, Blu-Ray, and iTunes releases. Some people here were quite annoyed. And yet just about everyone went and bought the damn thing, once again lining Paramount's pockets.
But as I said then, they don't have anyone to blame but themselves.
STiD: Critics: 87% / General Audiance: 90%
source:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_into_darkness/
Just saying...
Good to see!!!
Agreed!!!.
One more time...THIS.
I rewatched the film earlier this evening. Lots of fun, I really enjoy the character work with Kirk and Spock ... and the story is still fascinating to watch unfold.
It's not a bad piece, and yes it's describing something real albeit hard to really quantify at this stage beyond certain suggestive things here and there. [Oh, and I'm commenting on the run here so I don't have time to read the thread, but I'm just going to assume the "tiny clique of butthurt Trek fanboys" explanation has already cropped up, notwithstanding that that's fairly clearly not just what Singer is talking about, yes? Side-eye, for youse who are doing that. Side-eye for youse all.
]I do think Singer maybe misdiagnoses some things. The YouTube comedy series that took the piss did so reasonably affectionately, not just as "backlash," and generally speaking I don't see much evidence that anyone has forgotten about the thrilling action sequences or likable cast. But some of the other things he talks about are things that I've seen come up in pretty widely-dispersed places on and off the Net and more often than not from non-fans (not just non-Abramsfans, I mean non-fans), so yes, I'd say they're worthwhile topics on the whole.
Also worth noting that Singer nails an aspect of the appeal of Into Darkness that's worth remembering:
Which I think is quite true.
Edited to add right up front: This is probably a post that's going to get a lot of TLDR (too long, didn't read) replies. Oh well, felt good to vent.
Matt Singer quotes Khan:
What? Khan's quote is very clear. Khan put his people in the torpedoes. He may be masking his real motive for doing it, but he admits he did it. He says he was discovered. That had to be by Section 31, which would mean Marcus knows. So, found out, Khan has to save himself. He logically assumes that when Marcus gets ahold of the seventy-two torpedoes, he'll summarily kill Khan's crew to cover things up. Instead, Marcus doesn't, maybe deciding they're more useful as bargaining chips to get Khan back or for some other purpose, later.
But Khan, in a fit of emotional rage fearing Marcus did kill them, goes very rogue and very public, and now Marcus must get rid of them. Whether it's the best way to do it or not may be arguable, he takes advantage of Kirk's willingness to go after Khan to get rid of the torpedoes more or less in plain sight. When Khan realizes Kirk has exactly 72 torpedoes, it occurs to him his people may still be inside and alive. The story could've been very different if Khan had been told there were 28 or 8 or 12, or 142 torpedoes. Seventy-two was the magic number.
What in the world about that is unclear or doesn't hold up to scrutiny?
As far as contemplating Kirk's ups and downs in rank goes, WTF? They take the Enterprise from Kirk at a meeting where Pike wasn't there to defend him. After a short cooling off period, Pike talks to Marcus, and in a great selling job, talks Marcus into letting him essentially take Kirk under his wing (let's face it, even Marcus would have to admit Kirk is exceptional). Also, Pike may have influence over Marcus that comes from them having a sort of mentor-protégé relationship, or at least Marcus greatly admires Pike and what he thinks (Marcus telling Kirk he talked Pike into jointing Starfleet insinuates that). Then, Pike is killed, and Marcus lets Kirk captain the Enterprise again because under the circumstances he thinks, "What the hell, he'll either be my scapegoat for war or get himself killed, anyway."
As far as the, "Oh, shit," moments go. I thought most good action movies will full of quite a few of those.
As far as Kirk being alive ten minutes after he's dead goes (movie time), so what? Spock was probably dead ten minutes on the Genesis planet before coming back to life. The only difference between his "death" and Kirk's was the time in between the movies for Spock.
Here's the most inane and ego-involved line from Singer's piece, "Star Trek into Darkness isn't as great as its reviews suggest -- or as bad as its backlash." There were 215 positive reviews out of 247 reported on RT. What percentage of those reviewers have recanted their positive reviews a year later? Has the backlash on Youtube completely enveloped and negated all those positive reviews? Which by implication were all knee-jerk reactions to the movie, by the way. They were just unthinking tools, too unsophisticated to ask the right questions and be intellectually honest with themselves about how bad the movie really was. All 215 of them.
The last part of his article is full of holes, too. For all we know, some medical branch of Section 31, or maybe even some mainstream Starfleet medical personnel have been or are studying Khan's blood for its restorative qualities. However, after the 1990s, as brought out on DS9, eugenics is an ethical third rail for humans. One shouldn't expect Khan's blood to be as common as flu shots.
As far as using blood from any of the other 72 go, how does one know all 72 in the tubes are supermen (or superwomen)? What if only ten are? Or one in five? Or, even zero? McCoy knows for certain about Khan's blood. Is McCoy feeling lucky? Pick a tube, any tube.
Singer says the movie is cynical. Gee, after seeing this country rationalize going after the wrong people (Iraq) after 9/11, maybe we're entitled to be cynical about our leaders and their motives. The ending of STID is positive and optimistic because it looks as if after their bad moment, the fever is broken. The war lust is gone. Marcus and all his ilk are just as responsible for the Vengeance crashing into San Francisco as Khan was, because they created and perpetuated the atmosphere that led to it all. By the end of the movie the evil has been exposed, and the demons seem to have been purged. Why not be sincerely hopeful at the end of the movie?
Matt Singer quotes Khan:
Singer himself says about this, "But as far as I can tell, neither Marcus nor Khan know Khan's crew are inside the torpedoes when they are given to Kirk. So, Khan's whole plan was revenge for the murder of people who hadn't been killed, and Marcus' whole plan was to give Khan the one thing he wants. None of it holds up to scrutiny, and all of it is unclear."
What? Khan's quote is very clear. Khan put his people in the torpedoes. He may be masking his real motive for doing it, but he admits he did it. He says he was discovered. That had to be by Section 31, which would mean Marcus knows. So, found out, Khan has to save himself. He logically assumes that when Marcus gets ahold of the seventy-two torpedoes, he'll summarily kill Khan's crew to cover things up. Instead, Marcus doesn't, maybe deciding they're more useful as bargaining chips to get Khan back or for some other purpose, later.
But Khan, in a fit of emotional rage fearing Marcus did kill them, goes very rogue and very public, and now Marcus must get rid of them. Whether it's the best way to do it or not may be arguable, he takes advantage of Kirk's willingness to go after Khan to get rid of the torpedoes more or less in plain sight. When Khan realizes Kirk has exactly 72 torpedoes, it occurs to him his people may still be inside and alive. The story could've been very different if Khan had been told there were 28 or 8 or 12, or 142 torpedoes. Seventy-two was the magic number.
What in the world about that is unclear or doesn't hold up to scrutiny?
As far as contemplating Kirk's ups and downs in rank goes, WTF? They take the Enterprise from Kirk at a meeting where Pike wasn't there to defend him. After a short cooling off period, Pike talks to Marcus, and in a great selling job, talks Marcus into letting him essentially take Kirk under his wing (let's face it, even Marcus would have to admit Kirk is exceptional). Also, Pike may have influence over Marcus that comes from them having a sort of mentor-protégé relationship, or at least Marcus greatly admires Pike and what he thinks (Marcus telling Kirk he talked Pike into jointing Starfleet insinuates that). Then, Pike is killed, and Marcus lets Kirk captain the Enterprise again because under the circumstances he thinks, "What the hell, he'll either be my scapegoat for war or get himself killed, anyway."
As far as the, "Oh, shit," moments go. I thought most good action movies will full of quite a few of those.
As far as Kirk being alive ten minutes after he's dead goes (movie time), so what? Spock was probably dead ten minutes on the Genesis planet before coming back to life. The only difference between his "death" and Kirk's was the time in between the movies for Spock.
Here's the most inane and ego-involved line from Singer's piece, "Star Trek into Darkness isn't as great as its reviews suggest -- or as bad as its backlash." There were 215 positive reviews out of 247 reported on RT. What percentage of those reviewers have recanted their positive reviews a year later? Has the backlash on Youtube completely enveloped and negated all those positive reviews? Which by implication were all knee-jerk reactions to the movie, by the way. They were just unthinking tools, too unsophisticated to ask the right questions and be intellectually honest with themselves about how bad the movie really was. All 215 of them.
The last part of his article is full of holes, too. For all we know, some medical branch of Section 31, or maybe even some mainstream Starfleet medical personnel have been or are studying Khan's blood for its restorative qualities. However, after the 1990s, as brought out on DS9, eugenics is an ethical third rail for humans. One shouldn't expect Khan's blood to be as common as flu shots.
As far as using blood from any of the other 72 go, how does one know all 72 in the tubes are supermen (or superwomen)? What if only ten are? Or one in five? Or, even zero? McCoy knows for certain about Khan's blood. Is McCoy feeling lucky? Pick a tube, any tube.
Singer says the movie is cynical. Gee, after seeing this country rationalize going after the wrong people (Iraq) after 9/11, maybe we're entitled to be cynical about our leaders and their motives. The ending of STID is positive and optimistic because it looks as if after their bad moment, the fever is broken. The war lust is gone. Marcus and all his ilk are just as responsible for the Vengeance crashing into San Francisco as Khan was, because they created and perpetuated the atmosphere that led to it all. By the end of the movie the evil has been exposed, and the demons seem to have been purged. Why not be sincerely hopeful at the end of the movie?
Last edited:
