STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

[trevanian]

There are times when I could actually like alcohol and could get wasted by drinking an inordinate amount of the stuff. I think watching this film in that condition would help alleviate the fact that I bought the ticket and would help me ease my anal retentiveness as I watch the film. Of course, I will be watching the film, because I bought the bloody ticket. I feel obligated. Ugh.

Anyway, I won't be repeating that mistake with the video game. What is it with corporations calling games that no sane person would buy, because they are more than partially broken and are incapable of measuring to anything half-decent, canon?

I would like for whoever does the next film to respect that there are fans out there who aren't like them in the fact that they aren't rolling in money. For someone like Abrams, blowing nearly fifteen dollars on a film is nothing. For a poor person, that's a meal. So, that when they do make that film, they will produce a film that has a script with intelligence and common sense and there aren't plot holes big enough to drive one of their ridiculously large ships through, and where the characters are not eclipsed by special effects and sleight-of-hand gimmicks.

1. Stop crying and sell the ticket.
2. The game's pretty awesome thank you very much.
3. Shut up.

Such a well-reasoned discourse. Now how's about making a legitimate response? You could say that with the money involved that they have to appeal to allcomers, lowest -- or at least lower-- common denominator, that sort of thing.
Naah, takes too many characters, right? Maybe hang out on twitter if characters are such a precious commodity.

 

[BillJ]

Rubbish, you implied piracy, and you know it. Backtracking now just makes it worse.

I immediately understood what Robert Maxwell was talking about. Sometimes, when you haven't been here very long it's easy to misinterpret what another poster means.

 

[BillJ]

Such a well-reasoned discourse. Now how's about making a legitimate response?

Because well-reasoned, legitimate comments seem to be ignored.

 

[Garak]

I would like for whoever does the next film to respect that there are fans out there who aren't like them in the fact that they aren't rolling in money. For someone like Abrams, blowing nearly fifteen dollars on a film is nothing. For a poor person, that's a meal. So, that when they do make that film, they will produce a film that has a script with intelligence and common sense and there aren't plot holes big enough to drive one of their ridiculously large ships through, and where the characters are not eclipsed by special effects and sleight-of-hand gimmicks.

If you're poor to the point where a movie ticket jeopardizes your next meal and you're still buying a movie ticket, then you probably deserve to be poor and won't get any sympathy from the majority of people out there.

 

[BillJ]

I would like for whoever does the next film to respect that there are fans out there who aren't like them in the fact that they aren't rolling in money. For someone like Abrams, blowing nearly fifteen dollars on a film is nothing. For a poor person, that's a meal. So, that when they do make that film, they will produce a film that has a script with intelligence and common sense and there aren't plot holes big enough to drive one of their ridiculously large ships through, and where the characters are not eclipsed by special effects and sleight-of-hand gimmicks.

If you're poor to the point where a movie ticket jeopardizes your next meal and you're still buying a movie ticket, then you probably deserve to be poor and won't get any sympathy from the majority of people out there.

That and a matinee is only six bucks in these parts. People have options other than going at midnight opening night.

 

[trevanian]

I overlook all sorts of shortcomings that I would not overlook in other films outside Bond and Trek.

Please tell me however that you didn't like On Her Majesty's Secret Service where George Lazenby plays Bond and actually gets married in the film?

Worst Bond film in the history of the series and Lazenby was terrible as James Bond.

Trek like Bond had it's Lazenby moments. Nemesis and Final Frontier were IMO definately those moments.

Among Bond devotees OHMSS ranks VERY highly (usually only one or two down from the perennial winner, the still-awesome FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE), and with the passage of time its standing continues to climb, and that is among those who despise Lazenby as well as those who somehow find something to like about him. Also, Bond getting married is in the novel too and core to the story; it isn't something you can pin on the film for having done wrong.

So you're picking an awfully strange title on which to hinge your argument. If you'd said Timothy Dalton's second film, you'd have a lot more people supporting your view (even though I think of that as the last REAL Bond movie, one that actually occupies the dangerous universe Fleming wrote about on his best days.)

But even giving Bonds a pass because they're Bond movies is no longer valid. The Craig era has kept bamboozling folks into thinking they are seeing real drama while delivering stuff with plot holes as big as the Dark Ages with Moore ... well, either you're a serious movie and therefore subject to the same criticism other serious movies get, or you're escapist stuff that shouldn't pretend to be otherwise. Pretty hard to take seriously that spies keep their secret info on cellphones instead of in their head, since it just encourages Bond to go around killing folks for their cellphone info to get ahead on plot points, which is what an awful lot of CASINO ROYALE depends on. And SKYFALL is more dependent on idiot character moves than I'd thought possible.

 

[trevanian]

Such a well-reasoned discourse. Now how's about making a legitimate response?

Because well-reasoned, legitimate comments seem to be ignored.

Just as pleas for well-reasoned intelligent screenplays seem to be ignored?

 

[Kruezerman]

Such a well-reasoned discourse. Now how's about making a legitimate response?

Because well-reasoned, legitimate comments seem to be ignored.

Essentially.

 

[BillJ]

Just as pleas for well-reasoned intelligent screenplays seem to be ignored?

Have you seen the movie? I haven't. Have you seen any Star Trek movies in general? Because I have and most of them hinge on the intellectual stupidity of the characters or magic weapons to get them going (sometimes both). Doesn't make them bad movies, doesn't make Into Darkness a bad movie, especially since I haven't seen it yet.

 

[Kruezerman]

Such a well-reasoned discourse. Now how's about making a legitimate response?

Because well-reasoned, legitimate comments seem to be ignored.

Just as pleas for well-reasoned intelligent screenplays seem to be ignored?

So what is an intelligent movie? Gimme an example.

 

[BillJ]

So what is an intelligent movie? Gimme an example.

All I know is that I'll fall out of my chair if a Star Trek movie is offered as an example...

 

[indranee]

I overlook all sorts of shortcomings that I would not overlook in other films outside Bond and Trek.

Please tell me however that you didn't like On Her Majesty's Secret Service where George Lazenby plays Bond and actually gets married in the film?

Worst Bond film in the history of the series and Lazenby was terrible as James Bond.

Trek like Bond had it's Lazenby moments. Nemesis and Final Frontier were IMO definately those moments.

Among Bond devotees OHMSS ranks VERY highly (usually only one or two down from the perennial winner, the still-awesome FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE), and with the passage of time its standing continues to climb, and that is among those who despise Lazenby as well as those who somehow find something to like about him. Also, Bond getting married is in the novel too and core to the story; it isn't something you can pin on the film for having done wrong.

So you're picking an awfully strange title on which to hinge your argument. If you'd said Timothy Dalton's second film, you'd have a lot more people supporting your view (even though I think of that as the last REAL Bond movie, one that actually occupies the dangerous universe Fleming wrote about on his best days.)

But even giving Bonds a pass because they're Bond movies is no longer valid. The Craig era has kept bamboozling folks into thinking they are seeing real drama while delivering stuff with plot holes as big as the Dark Ages with Moore ... well, either you're a serious movie and therefore subject to the same criticism other serious movies get, or you're escapist stuff that shouldn't pretend to be otherwise. Pretty hard to take seriously that spies keep their secret info on cellphones instead of in their head, since it just encourages Bond to go around killing folks for their cellphone info to get ahead on plot points, which is what an awful lot of CASINO ROYALE depends on. And SKYFALL is more dependent on idiot character moves than I'd thought possible.

Yes, I'm an old Bond film afficionado and OHMSS is easily THE best, IMO.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

I assume you didn't get around, just yet, to moderating your fellow BBS moderator who, several pages back, accused a fellow forumite of supporting, if not committing, motion picture piracy? I presume it's ok to flame people if you're a mod here?

I don't want to make extra trouble for M'Sharak, but I felt this needed to be clarified since in the midst of trying to throw someone else under the bus to distract attention away from your own over the top comments about drowning complainers, you managed to come to the completely opposite interpretation of what I actually said.

I asserted that they WOULDN'T be bootlegging the film and WOULD be paying the full price to see it in the theater so they could continue to argue with knowledge about the details of the film. There was no accusation of bootlegging on their part, just that sometimes they claim to have seen a bootleg at a friend's house so that they can brag about not wasting their money on the film. See the difference?

It's not even flaming even if I had said what you contend, and it sure is hell isn't remotely on par with saying you would like to drown people.

Rubbish, you implied piracy, and you know it. Backtracking now just makes it worse.

Wow. Usually when someone tells you that you misunderstood what they said the person then goes back to reread the post before they reply again and make the same accusation. It's just the height of laziness not to even take that most basic step.

Sorry, no backtracking necessary. It's not my problem that you either have poor reading comprehension or only read single sarcastic sentences out of a post without the whole context behind it that makes it obvious I'm implying the opposite. Here, I'll post it again, since you apparently can't be bothered to make even the most minimal effort yourself but insist on keeping the misrepresentation of myself and the mod of the forum going:

3) Pay to go see the movie in theaters so you can know the details enough to argue about it despite promising you wouldn't go see it and that you would stay away from the discussions.

4) Never admit that you paid to see the movie, and instead proudly insist that you saw a bootleg of the film at a "friend's house" so that you can claim to argue from authority, brag about not paying, and still not feel guilty about stealing because it wasn't you, it was "a friend."

...

See you in a few weeks after you see the "bootleg" at your "friend's house" and predictably return to tell us how despite your total open mindedness the movie is a complete piece of shit just like you've said it would be all along. Abrams' "slimy face" will enjoy spending the money that you said you wouldn't spend on seeing the movie.

http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=8003119&postcount=415

Notice how I said they would pay to see the movie and only claim to have seen a bootleg so they can say they didn't waste any money on the film, and then followed it up by putting bootleg and friend's house in quotes, implying the opposite meaning?

I don't know if you were here after ST09 came out, but that's exactly what the most vocal opponents of the film said, that they had seen bootlegs of it because they wouldn't waste their money on JJ Abrams trash, but still wanted to be able to argue about it. I didn't believe it for a lot of them though, because even if you hate it, you'd still want to see the clearest picture and sound possible so you can participate in tearing it apart on the message boards as best as you can. Because unlike most people who think they will hate a movie or have no desire to see it, it's not enough for them to just avoid it or not talk about it, they have to beat it into the ground how much they loathe the film and show how much contempt they have for the fans, who clearly must be simpletons for liking something they don't.

That's not even the point though, it's the poor moderating that reeks of double standards that's the issue. As if, given choice, anyone would actually drown anyone/someone for not liking a Star Trek film, I mean come on, seriously? I presume most of us are able to understand context and nuance or are we all aspergic to a man, woman, child? (I am funnily enough)

No one was concerned that you were seriously going to drown any complainers. But that's not the issue. It's the toxicity and over-the-top nature of the comment that is the problem.

What's odd is that we're on the same general "side" of this issue regarding the people complaining about the film (minus the hyperbole of your comments), yet you're attempting to throw me under the bus to distract from your own misbehavior and to unfairly criticize the mod for a double-standard that didn't happen, and all over a comment that you clearly misunderstood, even after I pointed that out to you. Which is why it's funny to hear you complain about people not understanding context and nuance as well. Physician, heal thyself.

I think this whole conversation is rather silly, and I'm sure others do to, so I'd prefer if we could take it to PM from now on if you want to continue (though, god knows why). But please lay off the criticism of M'Sharak over my actions. I know I'm a smartass, but I didn't say what you think I said and there's no double-standard in his handling of the situation.

 

[shatastrophic]

I think its gonna be a great movie. I don't see what all the fuss is about. Its a re-imagining meaning all we are going to get is new spins on the old stories. Thats all any reboot is, same chess pieces (characters), on the same board (old plotline/story), but with the pieces arranged differently for a new outcome (new story). Nolan Batman, Burton Batman, Singer Superman, Man of Steel, albiet a tv show but the New Doctor Who, New BattleStar Galatica, Maguire Spiderman, the new Spiderman...they all do it. Writers essentially sit around and say, "The original story was great but how do we make it a little more modern with bigger scope and more action? I know! What if Khan was found by someone else instead of the Enterprise crew? Yeah, how can we unfold it this time making him even more of an adversary than before?" Take it or leave it thats all this is along with every other reboot.

If you want something completely new then we need a movie post Voyager or something completely different. The Matrix to me was a new version of Superman. A guy who can do all that stuff but there is a different premise.

So going into this movie being upset that they are not doing something completely different is kinda like taking the milk outta of the fridge, noticing that its sour, and then putting it back in expecting it to be good tomorrow. Your shooting yourself in the foot, as your basing your expectations of off something that was never going to occur.

I also don't understand the passionate disgruntled comments on Cumberbun being Khan. I get it and I think its a valid point. I also think the movie pays to much attention to the title of Khan and not the Noonien Singh. But Ricardo was Spanish wasn't he? In fantasy Island he was as white as they come (skin I mean). We see in the original series he was make up'd a little bit to appear tanner. It did work for the times and translated well into the 80's with TWOK because he aged well and at that point already played the character tremedously. But in the end, we have 2 guys both from Europe who have now played the same character who is supposed to be Indian and from another part of the world. Oh well, they're actors. Besides, my friend looks and is Vietnamese but was born here and is a citizen. Who's to say that didn't happen to Khan. Nicholas Meyer said it best when talking about TWOK, "Why does he only wear one glove, thats for the audience to decide with their imaginations". The point is we are supposed to meet movies half way, being dependent on them to shell out every detail results in boards like this and long boring movies like the Hobbit. I am excited to see Cumberbun's spin on it.

I think the kids are gonna love it, Im gonna love it and its going to do great! If you don't like it just say your a fan of the stuff before.

I think the elephant in the room is that we are all very passionate about Star Trek and it can feel like we are being left behind because the new is different from the old. But Picard said it best to B4, "But his wonder, his curiosity about every facet of human nature allowed all of us to see the best parts of ourselves. He evolved; he embraced change, because he always wanted to be better than he was." I am curious about every facet of Star Trek which allows me, and those like me, to see the best parts of it whether old or new. Because of this I can evolve with the franchise. Evolving can mean becoming better or adapting to the times. We gotta embrace change or get left behind. Are we better people for blasting something we have no control over? Albeit probably the worst Star Trek Movie, Nemesis was still trying to convey that message. How can one judge this new movie to be shit if they didn't pay attention to the message given in the worst of the movies to date.

 

[Kruezerman]

So what is an intelligent movie? Gimme an example.

All I know is that I'll fall out of my chair if a Star Trek movie is offered as an example...

I always hear 2001. Why? It's a film of cinematics and awesome graphics but not much else in my view.

Lincoln? You can't really frak up a historical movie.

Avatar? Ha!

 

[shatastrophic]

What's odd is that we're on the same general "side" of this issue regarding the people complaining about the film (minus the hyperbole of your comments), yet you're attempting to throw me under the bus to distract from your own misbehavior and to unfairly criticize the mod for a double-standard that didn't happen, and all over a comment that you clearly misunderstood, even after I pointed that out to you. Which is why it's funny to hear you complain about people not understanding context and nuance as well. Physician, heal thyself.

I think alot of this is going around amongst everyone. We are all on the same side here in that we love this stuff. On a side note this was a wonderfully written paragraph on the subject.

 

[ConRefit79]

Initially I enjoyed ST09. It was a fun movie. But in subsequent viewings, it felt like an average summer popcorn flick. It felt empty. A movie I may see once or twice and never bother seeing again. I still watch STTMP, STFF and Nemesis once or twice a year. But ST09 DVD sat on my shelf after one viewing. I've since sold it.

I tried to come up with reasons why I'm not passionate about JJ Trek, like I was for the series and films which preceeded it. BTW, I like much of all the previous series and films. Obviously there are plot holes, but that is not enough. There are plot holes in all the films. Style and production are good to. The best answer I can come up with, is I have nothing invested in these characters. They may slap Star Trek on the title. The character names may be Kirk, Spock and McCoy, but when I see these actors, they're not those characters to me. Not the same ones I watched in syndication an theaters. Perhaps if they started as a TV show, I would be able to warm to them. But now, I have to wait 3 to 4 years for 2 hours of mostly action. Granted it wouldn't be enough, just like the Original movies. But at least I would care. This group, I just don't care.

I was going to give STID a chance if they didn't use Kahn. But now, I'll just wait to borrow it from the Library.

 

[CaptainWacky]

GIVE ME KEENSER SPOILERS NOW.

Spoiler: Scotty says

"Don't sit there looking at me like an oyster!"

(paraphrased - it was funny!)

Thank you! I'll definitely go and see this movie.

 

[M'Sharak]

...

1. Stop crying and sell the ticket.
2. The game's pretty awesome thank you very much.
3. Shut up.

(emphasis mine)

The bits I've placed in bold really weren't necessary and probably could have been omitted without any detrimental effect on the message.

...

Let's just say you shouldn't go further. Try keeping it about the movie instead, or maybe about reactions to the movie. Leave the other fans (and what you might like to do to them) out of it; that sort of thing really is out of place here.

Well you're the moderator so you'll set the tone as you see fit.

I do what I can.

I assume you didn't get around, just yet, to moderating your fellow BBS moderator who, several pages back, accused a fellow forumite of supporting, if not committing, motion picture piracy? I presume it's ok to flame people if you're a mod here?

No, that would be an incorrect presumption.

I won't hold my breath, I watched your moderation of this forum as a long time lurker, and its appalling frankly.

That's all very nice, but still - please refrain from taking nasty swipes at other fans or groups of fans, even if the swipes are merely figurative. That sort of thing simply isn't necessary and adds nothing useful to the discussion.

 

[trevanian]

So what is an intelligent movie? Gimme an example.

All I know is that I'll fall out of my chair if a Star Trek movie is offered as an example...

There are certainly some intelligent moments in TREK movies ... I honestly found the whole two-hours-means-two-days thing in TWOK to be pretty sharply handled (for me, the thing that gave it away was the way Shatner says CAPTAIN Spock -- it just sounds totally wrong, kind of blurted, and that is a good way of flagging something without sledgehammering the point across.) The moment in TMP when Decker tells Kirk it is his job to offer options and Kirk doesn't go off on him and instead acknowledges the point seems like it hints at being the movie Livingstone was trying to write, where the characters would be more mature than he took them for at first. But TREK movies most often come off for me as either 'that was a nice try' or 'geezus REALLY?' ... and that usually is depending on whether I buy into the thing.

The comment somebody made about not being able to mess up a historical movie is hysterical ... have you seen MISSISSIPPI BURNING? A strong success as a perfomance-driven drama, yes ... but in terms of historical accuracy, it is monstrously offensive. That is a real pushmepullyou for me.

2001 is my alltime favorite motion picture, but that's not because it is intelligent, it is because it delivers a wholly unique and powerful CINEMATIC experience. It does include some smart stuff like how the US/Russian stuff that Hanks loves so much plays, but there are story deficiencies (apparently created in postproduction, as if to 'deliberately bury' traditional connective tissue in storytelling) that are evident on any viewing.

You're probably gonna laugh, but I was looking on the blu-ray.com site while writing this, and I think I'd call REPO MAN an example of an intelligent movie. It has a point of view, it has a sense of wit that goes beyond gags, and it has construction -- ufos ARE time machines discussion leaps to mind -- that you can marvel at the first time and get excited waiting to hear on the umpty-umph time.

I've always thought Se7en was an intelligent movie. Some folks have issues with scenes played where the room lights aren't turned on, but except for the first scene in the movie, which plays like TV, I find the whole thing impeccable.

Tavernier's DEATHWATCH is an intelligent movie, kind of the genre's version of NETWORK, which I still find utterly brilliant. The casual way DEATHWATCH throws away details of its culture are particularly good, though even after several viewings I think there are some aspects that don't all quite marry up.