STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

[trevanian]

I think it is absolutely indicative of a bad trend, and to address one of your points, I can't imagine a circumstance where I'd be wanting to see a 180 million dollar trek movie, because it doesn't need that much money. Maybe if Nolan was making it, because he spends the money wisely, but I don't think he'd be a good fit creatively, though I like damned near everything he does.

Making more smaller shows definitely impacts the VFX community in a better way, because it gives the boutiques a chance to survive. And I've heard that repeatedly, not just in my own interviews with VFXsfolk but in the occasional thread on cgtalk and elsewhere.

One stop shopping for vfx can work (look at Dneg, they can handle a lot of different stuff with taste) but it shouldn't be a default. Going to ILM when it means you're really getting ILM and ILM/Singapore isn't really what ILM used to mean, not entirely. VFX facilities have rarely if ever been going concerns, but if you can't change the system or unionize, then to retain the artists, you need to do something, and if improving -- sorry, altering the frequency of relying on vfx to shore up shitty movies would do that, then you're impvoing stuff on two fronts.

HAVE A FEELING THIS IS GOING TO BE TOLD TO GET ITS OWN THREAD ELSEWHERE ...

 

[lurok]

'Hang on a minute,' you find yourself thinking, 'that doesn’t make sen ... oh look, a Tribble.' ....

By far the funniest thing read so far...

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.

This. What I loved about 09 was that all the actors played the characters, rather than just 'doing' the originals. That's main reason looking forward to this. Though a bit sad Cho and Yelchin seem to be missing out on the publicity junkets.

 

[JarodRussell]

I'd rather have no Star Trek than a bad Star Trek film, regardless of how big its budget is.

A bad Star Trek film would be a box office failure; we've had examples of that.

By that logic, Blade Runner is a bad film and Transformers is a good one. I know which I'd rather watch.

donners22, I thank you!

 

[DarthTom]

Apparently Zoe had a little problem with her dress yesterday in London, LOL. Her co-stars rushed into help.

 

[Franklin]

Hollywood Reporter review by Todd McCarthy (BEWARE: VERY, VERY FULL OF SPOILERS):

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movie/star-trek-darkness/review/451154?utm_source=feedly

He doesn't like the movie because:
-- The 3D "looks surprisingly flat," and is "bordering on cheesy."
-- The images are "pale and thin."
-- The visual quality "takes a few steps backwards," compared to the quality of previous big-budget releases.
-- A "rampantly hectic opening action sequence."
-- The moral issues are "marginally more engaging" than the "cranked-up action sequences" that seem to come every ten or fifteen minutes. They have a "rote, push-button feeling to them."
-- He says Abrams is less imaginative in this movie than he was in ST09. There is little sense of style or grace.
-- Overall, he says it's a "professionally capable but creatively humdrum outing."

He says very little about the performances other than the returning actors fit into their roles comfortably and the other actors fill their roles well.

 

[throwback]

There is I think another factor to consider when evaluating films nowadays. Many of the films made today are geared for an international audience. Two-thirds of the revenues generated are from this audience.

If we have storylines that at script-stage feel too U.S.-centric, especially with big action or science-fiction movies, we try to come up with solutions that will make the movie feel more global.

- Tomas Jegeus, Co-President of 20th Century Fox International Theatric (http://entertainment.inquirer.net/1687/hollywood-tailoring-movies-for-overseas-audiences)

So, Hollywood can justify making a film up close to $200 million, because they know that the amount needed to coup revenue - $600 million, two-thirds of it will come from overseas.

Here is another quote that I think reflects on what I have seen in the last decade or so.

The rise of the videogame along with the ability of special effects artists to realize wholly imaginary worlds has made the story world one of the three or four crucial elements in a blockbuster film. As little as a decade ago, Hollywood didn’t care about story world, because it slows down narrative drive. Special effects were designed primarily to heighten heroic action.

But videogames showed Hollywood the power that comes from having viewers immerse themselves and explore a world in all its facets. And there’s no medium that can do that better than the big screen film medium.

Many screenwriters believe that this aspect of the film is the responsibility of the director and the special effects artists. Wrong. A good story world is written into the script, and it is intimately organic to the story. That’s why you must make sure that every visual element contributes to the story. In other words every element should have story meaning embedded within it.

- John Truby (http://www.writersstore.com/5-keys-to-writing-a-summer-blockbuster/)

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

There is I think another factor to consider when evaluating films nowadays. Many of the films made today are geared for an international audience. Two-thirds of the revenues generated are from this audience.

If we have storylines that at script-stage feel too U.S.-centric, especially with big action or science-fiction movies, we try to come up with solutions that will make the movie feel more global.

- Tomas Jegeus, Co-President of 20th Century Fox International Theatric (http://entertainment.inquirer.net/1687/hollywood-tailoring-movies-for-overseas-audiences)

This is true.

The videogame stuff...meh.

 

[Mach5]

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?

Well, yeah, but it's not as distinctive as the TNG makeup.

On this I agree. I never liked what they did with Romulans in TNG. Those V-shaped ridges were unnecessary and plain stupid.

 

[indranee]

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

This part is great:

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.

I loved the Netfix review. It perfectly encapsulates everything I felt about the movie, particularly Pine's performance, the Kirk/Pike scenes, the Kirk/Spock scenes. After being a little cool on the 2009 reboot Kirk, I was amazed how incredibly fond I was of him by the end of this movie, and that's despite him still being an immature jerk at the beginning. I attribute this to Pine's performance. As the reviewer said, Pine's Kirk is somehow simultaneously cocky yet self-effacing, focused yet irreverent, independent yet needy. He's not the Kirk of Wrath of Khan, who has friends and experience to back him up. In fact his crew challenge him just as much as the circumstances. I like how this movie tears James T apart, shuts down every option and sifts through his soul to see what he's got left.

This film didn't give me the same intellectual orgasm I had with say... Arcadia. It has its problems and some dramatic devices just get in its way. But it's more earnest and familiar and Trek-like than I ever expected it to be. That was a pleasant surprise.

well said.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

And for right now I'm NOT talking about box office, because that is not the measure of success we should be addressing,

It is if you want sequels.

 

[ConRefit79]

And for right now I'm NOT talking about box office, because that is not the measure of success we should be addressing,

It is if you want sequels.

Some of us fans may want that. If JJ Trek fails early, it will mean no Star Trek for awhile. But eventually the studio will try again, cause it makes them money. And hopfully they will see Star Trek's original formula has more staying power than JJ Trek and go back to it.

 

[Captrek]

Hollywood Reporter review by Todd McCarthy (BEWARE: VERY, VERY FULL OF SPOILERS):

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movie/star-trek-darkness/review/451154?utm_source=feedly

-- Overall, he says it's a "professionally capable but creatively humdrum outing."

That's how I describe First Contact.

 

[Flake]

If STID fails to get the $$$ Paramount want then it will still make another one but I would imagine they would reduce the production budget and the advertising budget and simply move the movie to different time of the year where it has more time to itself.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

And for right now I'm NOT talking about box office, because that is not the measure of success we should be addressing,

It is if you want sequels.

More to the point, it's the only quantifiable measure of success. When one debates claims about "quality" it's just a matter of bashing one's subjective notions and prejudices against someone else's, and getting into pissing contests over that kind of thing with people who are biased against a movie is just a waste of one's breath and an unnecessary test of one's patience. Let them masturbate on their own.

Not to mention that it's convenient not to "talk about box office" when the numbers don't favor one's own opinion.

As for what "we should be addressing" - unless you've got a mouse in your pocket, the first person singular is more appropriate.

 

[Opus]

And for right now I'm NOT talking about box office, because that is not the measure of success we should be addressing,

It is if you want sequels.

Some of us fans may want that. If JJ Trek fails early, it will mean no Star Trek for awhile. But eventually the studio will try again, cause it makes them money. And hopfully they will see Star Trek's original formula has more staying power than JJ Trek and go back to it.

How's that workin' out for 'Flash Gordon' and 'Buck Rogers'?

 

[Franklin]

Two very negative reviews:

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/reviewsnews.php?id=103724 (no spoilers)

and

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/62238 (spoilers)

Lesnick at Comingsoon is brutal, not even liking Cumberbatch. He believes the plot is a nearly beat-for-beat remake of "Nemesis". He ends his review with, "Diehard fans -- and the moviegoing public in general -- deserve better than this shameful franchise entry."

It seemed as if Mr. Beaks at Ain't It Cool News would've wanted to like the movie, but couldn't. He's hard on it, too, saying the movie is so misguided that it makes ST09 look like a lightning caught in a bottle accident.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Abrams's movies are the foundation for the next twenty to thirty years of Star Trek whether he even makes a third one or not. They represent a bright line of demarcation between the past - in which every new Trek production was required to fit into an increasingly ungainly, outdated and narrow continuity reaching back to the mid-1960s - and a future in which the studio and their hired producers will evaluate and develop every Trek project on the basis of how they believe it maximizes the value of the Franchise to them at that time.

The first question from now on will be "can you achieve the same level of commercial success with Trek that Abrams did?"

Some projects - most likely, any tv versions - may resemble oldTrek more than Abrams's movie in terms of story content (though certainly not visually). They won't be forced to fit into pre-Abrams continuity or style, though, and producers will be free to recast and use older characters and story material as they think best.

oldTrek as such is dead, forever. It died with Star Trek: Enterprise in 2005. It's highly doubtful that there's anyone in a position of responsibility at Paramount now who really regrets that or misses it.

 

[ConRefit79]

How's that workin' out for 'Flash Gordon' and 'Buck Rogers'?

I don't remember how many times I saw the 80's Flash Gordon film as a kid. But I was surprised there wasn't a sequel.

Only saw the 80's Buck Rogers on TV. I would be interested in a new series for TV.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I don't remember how many times I saw the 80's Flash Gordon film as a kid. But I was surprised there wasn't a sequel.

I don't doubt that you were.

Here's a hint: it bombed.

 

[ConRefit79]

I don't remember how many times I saw the 80's Flash Gordon film as a kid. But I was surprised there wasn't a sequel.

I don't doubt that you were.

Here's a hint: it bombed.

It did. But remember, I was a kid then. And only go to see it on weekends. And there were always people there.