STID: 10 years later

[Roald]

Do you think STID can still become the ESB of Star Trek? Remember, Empire was only commonly regarded as the greatest SW film until the '90's. In fact, it got very mixed reviews when it was first released...

How do you think STID will be regarded 10 years from now. Personally, I think the film will atain a whole new level of respect and appriciation over the coming years... Some day, people will look back and say: wow, STID was really ahead of its time...

 

[JarodRussell]

There's nothing in it that comes remotely close to Empire Strikes Back.

And most of the pivotal and memorable moments in STD are retreads from previous films, there's nothing truly original about it.

In what way is it ahead of its time in your opinion?

 

[mos6507]

The only reason Empire wasn't received well was that it had a downer of an ending, and an unresolved one, whereas Star Wars ends jubilantly with the throne room celebration. Only in the context of all three films does Empire stand out as the best, since ROTJ, despite tying everything up, was too kiddie and felt kind of obligatory rather than sincere.

Into Darkness is a disposable blockbuster film that will be forgotten in 10 years.

 

[Kpnuts]

Into Darkness is a disposable blockbuster film that will be forgotten in 10 years.

Whereas the likes of Iron Man 3 and Man of Steel will be forgotten in three or four.

 

[timelord1010]

STID would have been a much better film if JJ Abrams writers would have left Harrison as Harrison and had left K**n frozen with the rest of his crew and Harrison could have been one of K**ns followers like his number two from the original second movie.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

Hoth is in 2009, so no.

 

[The Wormhole]

I doubt STID will any lasting appeal. Too much of it was built around the secrecy of Cumberbatch. In a decade, that won't be a factor at all and when people sit down to watch it it'll just be another generic summer blockbuster. And I say that as someone who kind of enjoyed STID.

 

[Tom Servo]

There's nothing in it that comes remotely close to Empire Strikes Back.

And most of the pivotal and memorable moments in STD are retreads from previous films, there's nothing truly original about it.

In what way is it ahead of its time in your opinion?

I do find it funny that you claim this about STID, yet you seem to love Skyfall, which pretty much has the exact same issues. And this is from someone who loved both Skyfall and STID.

I think STID won't be a classic, but will be remembered as part of the trilogy of Abrams produced and directed films that brought Star Trek back to relevancy. And that's perfectly fine by me.

 

[BillJ]

I doubt STID will any lasting appeal. Too much of it was built around the secrecy of Cumberbatch. In a decade, that won't be a factor at all and when people sit down to watch it it'll just be another generic summer blockbuster. And I say that as someone who kind of enjoyed STID.

Yet we still remember "The Best of Both Worlds" even though so much of it was built on would they save Picard or not. We still watch almost twenty years later even though we learned the answer long, long ago.

I actually think this film is going to be fondly remembered because its such a fun film to watch. Can't wait for the home-video release so I can marathon it with my other favorite Trek films and see how well it compares.

 

[Roald]

The only reason Empire wasn't received well was that it had a downer of an ending, and an unresolved one, whereas Star Wars ends jubilantly with the throne room celebration. Only in the context of all three films does Empire stand out as the best, since ROTJ, despite tying everything up, was too kiddie and felt kind of obligatory rather than sincere.

Into Darkness is a disposable blockbuster film that will be forgotten in 10 years.

I disagree with just about everything... Empire wasn't recieved well mainly because of its unconventional story structure: many reviewers felt it was just plain bad... And we'll see in 2023 who was right, you or me....

 

[Tosk]

I doubt STID will any lasting appeal.

That's pretty much it. If anything, I'd say the shine will come off a little.

I guess we'll see in a decade.

 

[Franklin]

A lot may depend on how good the third Abrams Trek movie is.

Is STID ahead of its time? No. But it's a fun movie that stayed true to most of the Trek storytelling principles, so it should stand the test of time as a Trek movie at least as well as the favorites have. As it is, right now, if ten years from now you asked me to sit down and watch any Trek movie I wanted to, I'd choose STID.

 

[Belz...]

And most of the pivotal and memorable moments in STD are retreads from previous films, there's nothing truly original about it.

What was a retread ? Apart from the Kirk death reversal scene ?

 

[T'Girl]

What was a retread ?

Well, let's see ...

A man named Khan, frozen for centuries, being one of the lead characters.

A problem with the power system, requiring someone to enter an irradiated area to die to save the ship.

The person who dies of radiation is returned to life (this time in the same movie).

A blond named Carol Marcus.

(were there some more?)

 

[BillJ]

What was a retread ?

Well, let's see ...

A man named Khan, frozen for centuries, being one of the lead characters.

A problem with the power system, requiring someone to enter an irradiated area to die to save the ship.

The person who dies of radiation is returned to life (this time in the same movie).

A blond named Carol Marcus.

(were there some more?)

By that standard, pretty much all of Star Trek has been a retread to one degree or another since Where No Man...

 

[F. King Daniel]

Amusingly, some fans were saying Wrath of Khan was a Star Wars-ripoff popcorn action flick back in 1982 ("Indiana Skywalker Meets the Son of Star Trek", Best of Trek #7). And many fans were deeply disappointed in The Empire Strikes Back as well in 1980 (see here for one such example. Many old SW 'zines are scanned and online now expressing similar sentiment). Ultimately, only time will tell - although I for one know I'll enjoy Star Trek and Into Darkness for many years to come.

 

[BillJ]

Amusingly, some fans were saying Wrath of Khan was a Star Wars-ripoff popcorn action flick back in 1982 ("Indiana Skywalker Meets the Son of Star Trek", Best of Trek #7). And many fans were deeply disappointed in The Empire Strikes Back as well in 1980 (see here for one such example. Many old SW 'zines are scanned and online now expressing similar sentiment). Ultimately, only time will tell - although I for one know I'll enjoy Star Trek and Into Darkness for many years to come.

Seems like the more things change. From the "Best of Trek" article...

If, as the Star Trek constituency, we claim to cultivate a sense of the future, we must recognize Wrath of Khan as part of a contemporary phenomenon- the one-time, pay-for-thrills motion-picture show- that cannot last. In future, films will be integrated into home technologies as disks, cassettes, etc. and will be purchased on the basis of their multiple-viewing merits. Under those standards, STTMP will easily qualify for inclusion in home libraries; it will, in its way, be a forerunner of future "good movies". This is the Star Trek condition.

Sound familiar to anyone?

 

[Shazam!]

Into Darkness is a disposable blockbuster film that will be forgotten in 10 years.

Whereas the likes of Iron Man 3 and Man of Steel will be forgotten in three or four.

So?

 

[Roald]

Amusingly, some fans were saying Wrath of Khan was a Star Wars-ripoff popcorn action flick back in 1982 ("Indiana Skywalker Meets the Son of Star Trek", Best of Trek #7). And many fans were deeply disappointed in The Empire Strikes Back as well in 1980 (see here for one such example. Many old SW 'zines are scanned and online now expressing similar sentiment). Ultimately, only time will tell - although I for one know I'll enjoy Star Trek and Into Darkness for many years to come.

Very interesting! It proves that however STID is regarded in 10 years, it is impossible to base that on anything we know today...

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Amusingly, some fans were saying Wrath of Khan was a Star Wars-ripoff popcorn action flick back in 1982 ("Indiana Skywalker Meets the Son of Star Trek", Best of Trek #7). And many fans were deeply disappointed in The Empire Strikes Back as well in 1980 (see here for one such example. Many old SW 'zines are scanned and online now expressing similar sentiment). Ultimately, only time will tell - although I for one know I'll enjoy Star Trek and Into Darkness for many years to come.

I was ready to tear that The Empire Strikes Back reviewer a new one, albeit 33 years too late, for his wrongheaded opinion, but then he used the word "meretricious" in the opening sentence and I realized "I can't stay mad at you." Plus, he's probably dead from complications brought on by chronic rectal cranial inversion by now.