STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Here's McWeeny at Hitfix, who gives it a B+:

If you consider "Star Trek Into Darkness" to be part 13 of a larger franchise, you may walk away frustrated and tied in knots if the reactions I saw after a screening were any indication. Conversely, if this is part 2 of a new franchise in your mind, chances are you're going to have a great time with the continuation of what JJ Abrams and his collaborators began in 2009's "Star Trek." I find myself somewhere in the middle of those two camps, ultimately coming down on the side of the film as a pretty relentless piece of summer entertainment, anchored by what I consider one of the most exciting movie star performances in recent memory.

I feel badly for the hardcore "Star Trek" fans who don't like this new version, because I know what it's been like for them in the years where there were no new "Trek" movies in the works, and I know what it's been like for them loving something that was always considered somewhat left of center, always in danger of going away forever. While "Trek" has managed to survive for nearly 50 years at this point, there have definitely been lean times where Paramount didn't see much upside in continuing to throw money at something that just couldn't cross over to be a full-fledged mainstream sensation.

They've had their moments, of course. "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan" was a minor miracle, a huge rebound from the debacle that was "Star Trek: The Motion Picture." Lean and fun and wildly affectionate, "WOK" became the thing that they chased from that point on. It was interesting seeing how widely loved the series was when "The Voyage Home" was released, just as I was impressed seeing how completely everyone turned on "The Final Frontier" just a few years later. Even the biggest of the "Next Generation" movies still felt like they were nerd events, not mainstream events, and when Paramount first started talking about a reboot, it seemed like a business decision with very little creative upside available.

I would argue that the 2009 film proved that supposition wrong, and in fairly spectacular fashion. What Abrams did, and what he does in everything he makes to some degree, is he reclaimed the basic archetypical dynamic that defines "Star Trek," and he used it in a way that resonated loudly with audiences.

This part is great:

"Star Trek Into Darkness" begins with Kirk chafing at the role that he's expected to play, and Chris Pine once again owns the character of Kirk completely from the opening scene to the finish. It is downright miraculous that he ended up with the role, because what he does with it is not something I can imagine any of the other likely candidates for the part even trying to do. Pine is an original, and he plays this combination of arrogance and anger and comedy in such a way that it's all sort of jumbled up together. He's not doing Shatner at all. He's playing Kirk.

 

[BillJ]

A college degree may make things easier, but many management jobs can be had if you're willing to put in the time.

I spent twelve years at a super-regional bank nine as a grunt, three as a manager overseeing a nightly $500 million dollar deadline. I eventually had to leave because anxiety and high-blood pressure not related to the job got to me.

My wife worked six years in collections, moved onto tele-communications as a grunt. Spent less than a year and is now in a leadership position and eyeing bigger things.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

If I were thirty years younger the guy I'd switch places with right now is the manager of the auto body repair shop that works on my car.

 

[thumbtack]

My wife has several years of accounting and bookkeeping work and literally PERFECT job reviews for two decades ... same story, she cannot get a job in that field at all ... need as minimum a 4 yr degree.

It's not so much that they really, really insist upon it, but, in a down economy, they use it to reduce the flood of resumes coming in. That's what they're doing where I'm at.

 

[BillJ]

If I were thirty years younger the guy I'd switch places with right now is the manager of the auto body repair shop that works on my car.

Yep. Either him or the guy working on the car. They're both making good money.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

It's not so much that they really, really insist upon it, but, in a down economy, they use it to reduce the flood of resumes coming in. That's what they're doing where I'm at.

Yeah, and it's ultimately stupid.

When I was working for a lot of government contractors, it astonished me how many really motivated, smart and useful kids came out of the military into tech fields with strong skills and found employment in the DC area really difficult. The sole reason was that most government contracts for computer-oriented jobs - and this was way back in the 80s - stipulated as boilerplate language in RFPs that all contract staff employed on the project have at least four year degrees. If you couldn't or didn't choose to do college but enlisted instead and got lots of practical training in real world situations (and that included a lot of classroom instruction for computer programmers, operators and so forth) you were screwed in the local market.

Yep. Either him or the guy working on the car. They're both making good money.

That's true. What I envy is how much he loves the business and the work. At his age I was making great money and was bored.

 

[indranee]

I understand what you're saying but IMO it's a solid ideal to reach for. I really can't find fault with people who want to inculcate it into their lives.

The problem is that people are incorporating something twisted and strange and not at all what you think it is. I've seen one other poster play the IDIC card, but basically when it pertains to when people disagree with what he likes, and then he turns around and speaks of what he dislikes. That really makes no sense to me. It would make more sense to me that instead of worshiping a TV show's dogma and using it as any kind of basis for philosophy that one should first start with the basics like not being a hypocrite. Any one who throws out any claims of IDIC is like the one who throws the first stone...

And I called you ignorant because your post reeked of it.

Perhaps you already had the scent on your nose. There was nothing ignorant about it.

I'm gonna let this go.

 

[ConRefit79]

When I was working for a lot of government contractors, it astonished me how many really motivated, smart and useful kids came out of the military into tech fields with strong skills and found employment in the DC area really difficult. The sole reason was that most government contracts for computer-oriented jobs - and this was way back in the 80s - stipulated that all contract staff employed on the project have at least four year degrees. If you couldn't or didn't choose to do college but enlisted instead and got lots of practical training in real world situations (and that included a lot of classroom instruction for computer programmers, operators and so forth) you were screwed in the local market.

That's because one party is in bed with the Education industry. So they help their voters/donors, by making policy which forces people to seek their services.

 

[indranee]

Re: Into Darkness UK Premiere

Guys, I have posted a load of pictures and reviews of the UK Premiere of Star Trek Into Darkness, if your worried about spoilers then no worries, the reviews have been posted below the photos so you can avoid them.

http://wp.me/P3cATG-jf

Thanks!!

 

[section9]

Can I tell you something?

The AICN crowd are fanboys. JJ and Co are responsible to Paramount pictures for making the Star Trek franchise accessible to a WIDER EFFING AUDIENCE without doing to the Alien franchise what was done to it last year.

Given the responses to the film that the mainstream press is giving it, I think they've achieved it. Scr*w the fanboys.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

When I was working for a lot of government contractors, it astonished me how many really motivated, smart and useful kids came out of the military into tech fields with strong skills and found employment in the DC area really difficult. The sole reason was that most government contracts for computer-oriented jobs - and this was way back in the 80s - stipulated that all contract staff employed on the project have at least four year degrees. If you couldn't or didn't choose to do college but enlisted instead and got lots of practical training in real world situations (and that included a lot of classroom instruction for computer programmers, operators and so forth) you were screwed in the local market.

That's because one party is in bed with the Education industry. So they help their voters/donors, by making policy which forces people to seek their services.

You're entirely wrong, and substituting ideological political ranting for any knowledge about or experience with the situations in question. Thanks for contributing.

 

[Xaios]

These negative reviews perplex me. It's like they were watching a completely different movie than the people who gave it positive reviews. For example, the AIC review makes the argument that the film is incredibly solemn and unfun. Most every other review though states that, even when the film IS being serious, someone's always ready with a quip or one-liner or somethng to brighten the tone, and that it's consistently a lot of fun.

 

[Shazam!]

I know. It's almost like people have different opinions over things.

 

[Mach5]

Mostly for bald caps and scarring

More than that. Quite a bit more, actually.

I see mostly stubble, baldcap, eyebrows, ears and tatoos (stubble, tattoos and bald are not unusual, just distinctive and previously unseen).

Maybe a slight greenish tinge to the makeup under normal lighting (I might be misremembering a normal shot), which fits the Vulcan shared ancestry (Green blood, based on Copper rather than Iron).

Seriously, you see NOTHING strange about the guy's eyes and nose bridge?

 

[Xaios]

I know. It's almost like people have different opinions over things.

There's a difference of opinion, and then there's... this. These guys make it seem like they were watching Star Trek as directed by Lars von Trier.

 

[indranee]

Here's McWeeny at Hitfix, who gives it a B+:

If you consider "Star Trek Into Darkness" to be part 13 of a larger franchise, you may walk away frustrated and tied in knots if the reactions I saw after a screening were any indication. Conversely, if this is part 2 of a new franchise in your mind, chances are you're going to have a great time with the continuation of what JJ Abrams and his collaborators began in 2009's "Star Trek." I find myself somewhere in the middle of those two camps, ultimately coming down on the side of the film as a pretty relentless piece of summer entertainment, anchored by what I consider one of the most exciting movie star performances in recent memory.

I feel badly for the hardcore "Star Trek" fans who don't like this new version, because I know what it's been like for them in the years where there were no new "Trek" movies in the works, and I know what it's been like for them loving something that was always considered somewhat left of center, always in danger of going away forever. While "Trek" has managed to survive for nearly 50 years at this point, there have definitely been lean times where Paramount didn't see much upside in continuing to throw money at something that just couldn't cross over to be a full-fledged mainstream sensation.

They've had their moments, of course. "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan" was a minor miracle, a huge rebound from the debacle that was "Star Trek: The Motion Picture." Lean and fun and wildly affectionate, "WOK" became the thing that they chased from that point on. It was interesting seeing how widely loved the series was when "The Voyage Home" was released, just as I was impressed seeing how completely everyone turned on "The Final Frontier" just a few years later. Even the biggest of the "Next Generation" movies still felt like they were nerd events, not mainstream events, and when Paramount first started talking about a reboot, it seemed like a business decision with very little creative upside available.

I would argue that the 2009 film proved that supposition wrong, and in fairly spectacular fashion. What Abrams did, and what he does in everything he makes to some degree, is he reclaimed the basic archetypical dynamic that defines "Star Trek," and he used it in a way that resonated loudly with audiences.

This part is great:

"Star Trek Into Darkness" begins with Kirk chafing at the role that he's expected to play, and Chris Pine once again owns the character of Kirk completely from the opening scene to the finish. It is downright miraculous that he ended up with the role, because what he does with it is not something I can imagine any of the other likely candidates for the part even trying to do. Pine is an original, and he plays this combination of arrogance and anger and comedy in such a way that it's all sort of jumbled up together. He's not doing Shatner at all. He's playing Kirk.

He pretty much read my mind re Pine's take on Kirk. I'm just glad he's getting this sort of review when most reviews are full of nerdgasm about Cumberbatch's character. And also because Pine was always at pains to reveal that he wanted to play KIRK, not Shatner playing Kirk. I have no complaints about his portrayal. He was the heart of ST2009 and I'm pretty sure he's the heart of this one, as well.

Only about 50 years later will most detractors of his Kirk realize what we got in bagging him for the role. I'm saying that because I grew up with people ragging on the Shatman. And look where he's today.

Good stuff.

 

[M'Sharak]

When I was working for a lot of government contractors, it astonished me how many really motivated, smart and useful kids came out of the military into tech fields with strong skills and found employment in the DC area really difficult. The sole reason was that most government contracts for computer-oriented jobs - and this was way back in the 80s - stipulated that all contract staff employed on the project have at least four year degrees. If you couldn't or didn't choose to do college but enlisted instead and got lots of practical training in real world situations (and that included a lot of classroom instruction for computer programmers, operators and so forth) you were screwed in the local market.

That's because one party is in bed with the Education industry. So they help their voters/donors, by making policy which forces people to seek their services.

No partisan politics - you can just drop that right now. There are forums for discussing politics and, unless those have some direct bearing on the topic which is the focus here, this forum is not one of them. I also think the "college" angle has drifted far enough away from the Star Trek angle that it really needs to go find a thread of its own right away.

 

[thumbtack]

Yeah, and it's ultimately stupid.

No argument there.

 

[throwback]

I was watching recently Angry Joe's review of Star Trek. I agree with what he said about the state of the franchise. This isn't your grandfather nor your father's Star Trek. There isn't diplomacy and exploration. What there is - is blowing stuff up. I think the ability to write and direct a story that melds the diplomacy/exploration with the action is beyond the capabilities of most triple AAA film writers and directors. So, Abrams and his team do what they can do best - create an action/adventure that gets people into the theaters.

I am leery of reviews after being burned by video game critics. These critics will give gushing reviews to games that are broken, ex. Skyrim, or that have endings that upset the franchise, ex. Mass Effect 3.

I have seen the latest clips of Pine, and I still haven't shaken the feeling of disbelief. Why did Starfleet hand their flagship over to this boy?

 

[BillJ]

I was watching recently Angry Joe's review of Star Trek. I agree with what he said about the state of the franchise. This isn't your grandfather nor your father's Star Trek. There isn't diplomacy and exploration. What there is - is blowing stuff up. I think the ability to write a story that melds the diplomacy/exploration with the action is beyond the capabilities of most triple AAA film writers and directors. So, Abrams and his team do what they can do best - create an action/adventure that gets people into the theaters.

I am leery of reviews after being burned by video game critics. These critics will give gushing reviews to games that are broken, ex. Skyrim, or that have endings that upset the franchise, ex. Mass Effect 3.

Does anyone actually think the reason we don't get exploration/diplomacy SF films is because they simply don't/won't sell?

My copy of Skyrim for the Xbox 360 isn't broken. The wife and I have played the shit out of it since it was released. And why should the story ending of a video game affect the rating said game is given?