STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

[doylem1]

Well after seeing the film yesterday, i felt it was as weak as the Final Frontier, Yeah the special effects were great but the film lacked the heart and soul that Wrath of Khan had, the death and resurrection of Kirk was as hallow and emotionally empty a scene i've seen in a film for a while. Spock's death in the WOK had far more impact, emotion and feeling attached
Simon Pegg as Scotty just doesn't do the character justice for me, nor does the guy playing Chekov
Star Trek 09 was a far better film than this one and left me buzzing about trek again when i left the cinema, This film didn't feel like a Star Trek film and the TOS episode Space Seed and Movie Wrath of Khan it pays homage to are far better a watch than this film.

JJ go do take a breaks and if you come back do something original, i know Hollywood is all out of ideas at present with all the remakes, and prequels its throwing out, But rather than try to remake a classic film with a different take and make a total hash of it. You created an alt timeline ripe for new stories and new adventures so stick with it.

Despite the criticism Insurrection and Nemesis gets i enjoyed those films better than this one, Might be because instead of big effects it focused more on the characters which makes you care whether they live or die. Star Trek into the Darkness didn't make me care about the characters.

It may be one of those films that you warm to after seeing it a few times but i certainly didn't warm to it 1st time

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

But, in 2009, I had fun with Star Trek for the first time in a very long time. Somewhere along the way those in charge of the franchise forgot it was suppose to be fun.

Yep.

 

[BillJ]

The edits on FX are brutal.

 

[ConRefit79]

JJ go do take a breaks and if you come back do something original, i know Hollywood is all out of ideas at present with all the remakes, and prequels its throwing out, But rather than try to remake a classic film with a different take and make a total hash of it. You created an alt timeline ripe for new stories and new adventures so stick with it.

Amen.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

They created a new timeline so that they could use whatever they want from Star Trek history without being beholden to that tired continuity and style. And that is exactly what they're doing.

So far, so good.

 

[Commishsleer]

Well after seeing the film yesterday, i felt it was as weak as the Final Frontier

Pretty harsh

Despite the criticism Insurrection and Nemesis gets i enjoyed those films better than this one, Might be because instead of big effects it focused more on the characters which makes you care whether they live or die.

At some time during INS(maybe while he was playing in the haystack) I wished Data would die and in NEM I wished he had lived


I loved STID but I also wished they had a few more character scenes. You know like Spock and Kirk playing chess, Someone complaining about the replicators, McCoy having a drink with Kirk, Kirk ringing his Mum saying he'd lost the Enterprise. Just 5 minutes of movie time.
The movie had too hectic a pace I suppose to include these moments but maybe in the next movie?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Who the fuck judges a movie on the basis of goddamned Chekov, anyway?

 

[dulcimer47]

I'm usually the last to say anything positive about B&B, but I'll say this for them: they ever resorted to re-making an existing story.

This isn't Star Trek, not even close, and no amount of box office success will change that.

I just hope that someday we will see real Star Trek again.

 

[Borgminister]

I'm usually the last to say anything positive about B&B, but I'll say this for them: they ever resorted to re-making an existing story.

This isn't Star Trek, not even close, and no amount of box office success will change that.

I just hope that someday we will see real Star Trek again.

Yes, they ever resorted to doing so indeed!

 

[trevanian]

I'm usually the last to say anything positive about B&B, but I'll say this for them: they ever resorted to re-making an existing story.

This isn't Star Trek, not even close, and no amount of box office success will change that.

I just hope that someday we will see real Star Trek again.

Fine with all that, but you didn't answer the question this board NEEDS to know ... badly!

What did you think was wrong with Chekov and why did it matter?

 

[Borgminister]

The Russian accent was vey off.

 

[Phily B]

I'm usually the last to say anything positive about B&B, but I'll say this for them: they ever resorted to re-making an existing story.

This isn't Star Trek, not even close, and no amount of box office success will change that.

I just hope that someday we will see real Star Trek again.

Yeah, they made a bunch of movies that - bar one - are widely panned by critics and fans alike. I mean Trek fans are pretty hardcore, but I'm pretty sure most of us gave up with Nemesis, the only TNG film I didn't see.

 

[dulcimer47]

I'm usually the last to say anything positive about B&B, but I'll say this for them: they ever resorted to re-making an existing story.

This isn't Star Trek, not even close, and no amount of box office success will change that.

I just hope that someday we will see real Star Trek again.

Fine with all that, but you didn't answer the question this board NEEDS to know ... badly!

What did you think was wrong with Chekov and why did it matter?

I never said anything about Chekov, but in my opinion, he and Simon Pegg/Scotty are the two worst "recreations". My favorite by far is Karl Urban/McCoy, unfortunately, he is being pushed aside by Uhura.

 

[Kruezerman]

I think it's fascinating that the majority of the people in the "F" category show their location as the United States. Funny ain't it?

 

[dulcimer47]

I'm usually the last to say anything positive about B&B, but I'll say this for them: they ever resorted to re-making an existing story.

This isn't Star Trek, not even close, and no amount of box office success will change that.

I just hope that someday we will see real Star Trek again.

Yeah, they made a bunch of movies that - bar one - are widely panned by critics and fans alike. I mean Trek fans are pretty hardcore, but I'm pretty sure most of us gave up with Nemesis, the only TNG film I didn't see.

It's true, the TNG films weren't the franchise's best run, but FC is really good, and Generations is underrated, remember, Kirk's death was mandated by the studio, it wasn't really a creative decision. However, I'm not going to discount TNG, DS9, and the occasionally good Voyager or Enterprise episode.

I don't think it's a coincidence that Ron Moore was involved with both scripts, he always seemed to balance out any bad elements brought forth by Braga.

Once again, if our barometer for success is going to be box office results and "mainstream critics", then J.J.'s "Star Trek: Transformers" will always be out ahead.

However, as long as the franchise is on this path, we'll never see another "Measure of a Man" or "Inner Light" or "Far Beyond the Stars" again. For that matter, even something like "Time's Arrow" is probably beyond J.J.'s capabilities...

And when it comes to getting "mainstream" popularity - make good stories and that will come - you need to look no further than 1994, when TNG was one of the most popular shows on television, had already spun-off DS9, and was about to spin-off Voyager, and would be in the theaters in the fall with Generations.

TNG didn't need lens flares and explosions, and to me, their successes went far beyond J.J.'s movies.

J.J.'s movies will be lucky to get 4 made, probably 3. TNG's movie franchise, for being a "failure" made 4, and that was after spending 7 years as a critically acclaimed series that spawned an additional 18 years of episodes after it's conclusion.

I'm reminded of what Picard said about the Stargazer in "Relics": "The first vessel that I served on as captain was called Stargazer. It was an overworked, underpowered vessel, always on the verge of flying apart at the seams. In every measurable sense, my Enterprise is far superior. But there are times when I would give almost anything... to command the Stargazer again."

Sure sounds like he's describing "Prime" Star Trek there, doesn't it? The only difference is that J.J. Trek is only better in one measurable sense: box office results.

 

[Commishsleer]

I just hope that someday we will see real Star Trek again.

What is the 'real' Star Trek?

You can see all the Star Trek series showing in most places in the world on TV and cable (except maybe TAS).

 

[Phily B]

Is this Generations that was so bad that Nimoy didn't want anything to do with it? If STID had half the plot holes that Generations had then this thread would be unbearable.

 

[dulcimer47]

I just hope that someday we will see real Star Trek again.

What is the 'real' Star Trek?

You can see all the Star Trek series showing in most places in the world on TV and cable (except maybe TAS).

"Real" Star Trek is character development and social commentary told through a sci-fi prism, not explosions, CGI, and magic Khan blood.

True, I should have specified new episodes of a show like TNG and/or DS9.

Who was it recently who said that Star Trek is a TV show and best done in that format? Ron Moore I believe.

 

[dulcimer47]

Is this Generations that was so bad that Nimoy didn't want anything to do with it? If STID had half the plot holes that Generations had then this thread would be unbearable.

Nimoy didn't want anything to do with Generations because there wasn't enough for Spock to do, as it was a TNG movie.

Also, let's remember the vast difference between 1994 and 2009/2013. Nimoy had wanted to distance himself from Spock since the late 70's, and unless there was a significant role for Spock, he wasn't going to do it. I don't fault him for that.

Nimoy in 2009/2013 is whole different story, not to mention that Spock-prime plays a very minor part in J.J.'s movies, and Nimoy has a relationship with J.J. from Fringe.

I don't think whether or not Nimoy is involved with a movie is any measure of that movie's quality.

 

[rahullak]

I'm usually the last to say anything positive about B&B, but I'll say this for them: they ever resorted to re-making an existing story.

This isn't Star Trek, not even close, and no amount of box office success will change that.

I just hope that someday we will see real Star Trek again.

Yeah, they made a bunch of movies that - bar one - are widely panned by critics and fans alike. I mean Trek fans are pretty hardcore, but I'm pretty sure most of us gave up with Nemesis, the only TNG film I didn't see.

It's true, the TNG films weren't the franchise's best run, but FC is really good, and Generations is underrated, remember, Kirk's death was mandated by the studio, it wasn't really a creative decision. However, I'm not going to discount TNG, DS9, and the occasionally good Voyager or Enterprise episode.

I don't think it's a coincidence that Ron Moore was involved with both scripts, he always seemed to balance out any bad elements brought forth by Braga.

Once again, if our barometer for success is going to be box office results and "mainstream critics", then J.J.'s "Star Trek: Transformers" will always be out ahead.

However, as long as the franchise is on this path, we'll never see another "Measure of a Man" or "Inner Light" or "Far Beyond the Stars" again. For that matter, even something like "Time's Arrow" is probably beyond J.J.'s capabilities...

And when it comes to getting "mainstream" popularity - make good stories and that will come - you need to look no further than 1994, when TNG was one of the most popular shows on television, had already spun-off DS9, and was about to spin-off Voyager, and would be in the theaters in the fall with Generations.

TNG didn't need lens flares and explosions, and to me, their successes went far beyond J.J.'s movies.

J.J.'s movies will be lucky to get 4 made, probably 3. TNG's movie franchise, for being a "failure" made 4, and that was after spending 7 years as a critically acclaimed series that spawned an additional 18 years of episodes after it's conclusion.

I'm reminded of what Picard said about the Stargazer in "Relics": "The first vessel that I served on as captain was called Stargazer. It was an overworked, underpowered vessel, always on the verge of flying apart at the seams. In every measurable sense, my Enterprise is far superior. But there are times when I would give almost anything... to command the Stargazer again."

Sure sounds like he's describing "Prime" Star Trek there, doesn't it? The only difference is that J.J. Trek is only better in one measurable sense: box office results.

I agree with some of what you've said. Abrams Trek is better, but not only when it comes to box office results. Of course, any other sense of gauging its success would be subjective.

Have you considered that Abrams Trek movies could probably be the best Trek movies ever made? The four TNG films, which I consider as being good, aren't nearly in the same league. And comparing a TV show to a movie doesn't work even if it is the same franchise. They're different mediums catering to different audiences. Who knows, if Abrams Trek spins off into a TV show, we could see another Measure of a Man type episode, but perhaps with some more pizzazz.

I think Abrams Trek has struck a balance among wanting to have high box office results, having core Trek material for the long time fan, new ideas and visuals, half-decent plot, and character moments. And all in just 2 hours (or 4 if you take both movies), as opposed to hundreds of hours available in a TV show.

YMMV.