What did you like/dislike about Into Darkness (Spoilers)

[DavidLeeRoth]

Obviously this is totally subjective.

Pros:

Like the 2009 film, the cast was great. Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, etc. again did a fine job reprising the characters from TOS. Maybe because the new cast now has two films under their belt, I am starting to accept the cast as being the characters from the original series. While Shatner and Nimoy will always be Kirk and Spock, the new guys aren't too shabby in their shoes.

The movie just looks great. Like the last movie, the sparkly retro look of the costumes, sets and ships look great. The 3D worked very well, IMHO.

Into Darkness has plenty of great action, although some of the scenes dragged a bit, IMO.

Benedict Cumberbatch was good as Khan. He certainly wasn't as menacing or iconic as Ricardo Montalbán, but he was good, albeit his interpretation was a tad generic.

The story was pretty good. I feel that the film was a little flat in the third-act, but the first two-thirds held my attention.

Cons:

The plot, which re-worked some of the elements of both the TOS episode "Space Seed" and Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan started out promising, but it sort of fizzled towards the end, IMHO. Kirk and Khan join forces and make a deal, the Enterprise disables a rouge Starfleet ship, the bad Admiral is killed, Khan double-crosses Kirk, Khan is later captured and re-frozen, end of movie. It seemed anti-climatic.

Like the 2009 film, it was a case of style over substance. A good 50 minute episode of Trek in any incarnation was better than this film.

While I have no problem with the reworking of old movies/stories, this movie went too far. Completely rehashing a core member dying in a radiation chamber (this time it was Kirk, not Spock) and then giving his last words to his best friend behind a door and then bringing him back to life, was lame, as was Spock shouting "KHAN!" In their attempt to pay tribute to classic Trek, they actually come across as parodying it, IMHO.

Lastly, Carol Marcus served no purpose, other than being eye-candy.

 

[anh165]

Pros: Another great trek film to remember

Cons: Whiners who create threads about how it isn't anything like a 50 minute episode of Neelix-Trek.

 

[DavidLeeRoth]

How about fans who can't objectively analyze a film?

 

[imranbecks]

It has its cons.. But overall, I really like it. My only complaint would be the magic blood. Could've been handled better. Bones testing it on the dead tribble etc.. And then using it to bring Kirk back to life. A definite easy way out. I was hoping they would find a way to bring back Kirk in the next movie or something, then at least we would probably have something to look forward to... But alas, they took the easy way out and used Khan's magic blood, bringing Kirk back to life.

But that aside, its basically as good as the 2009 Trek. Those who enjoyed that would probably enjoy Into Darkness. Its a modern take on Star Trek and I have no problems with that. Its great for new fans of this generation who only started watching Star Trek from the 2009 movie. And indeed Abrams has breathed new life into the franchise and I'm grateful for that.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

No one can "objectively analyze" art. That's a misuse of the word "objective"...and in fact the OP is contradicting his own opening remarks there, in which he accurately described his own assessment as "totally subjective."

What didn't I like? Hmmm...can't think of anything much. The torpedo-switcheroo aspect of the plot could have been either made clearer or been more clearly worked out by the writers, but that's about it.

 

[Xavier_Storma]

Pros:
- Overall the whole movie felt more like STAR TREK in contrast to the last one, which was just as bad as BATTLE SHIP, G.I. JOE etc.
- cinematography: they treated the camerman's Parkinson for the sequel. It was superb to see a more common style of filming the film in INTO DARKNESS. You were able to enjoy the effects and the scenes, and they decreased the lense flares.
- Set design: Loved almost all of it (except for the brewery and the new ISS Warpcore, which just looks too much 21st century for my taste to be a warp core).
- Earth: Finally... some awesome Earth shots. I loved London, I loved the English countryside, San Francisco, HQ, all of it.
- Actors: Although I was against a recast of icnonic parts they cast does a good job. I don't like Uhura (there is too much focus on her) but I really like the rest (including Simon Pegg). Although Karl "Bones" Urban (the best actor of this ensemble) is far underused.
- Nods to ENT and DS9: Section 31, the NX-Class... did I spot the Phoenix on that desk, too? Nice nods to continuity.
- Kronos: I liked how they "updated" (not really, did they) the Klingon look. Although the D4 looked too generic, unlike other Klingon ships. Thanks God they did not change the Klingon appearance at all. Two thumbs up.
- Plot until the big Khannian reveal. Nice build up, except for some really gapping plot holes and logical errors an entertaining film.
- Great effect shots: Enterprise dropping out of warp, Enterprise being attacked by the Vengence, Enterprise falling towards Earth... all gave my goose bumbs.

D'Ohs:
- Khan... unnecessary for the plot, wasted completely. It would have worked much better without him, focusing on Marcus
- Carol Marcus... she was there for that one almost nude scene... other than that... totally forgettable... btw that scene was so embarrassing...
- Pretty much the whole last 3rd of the film... essentially a copy and paste of TWOK, BUT without the impact...
- Old Spock's cameo (black haired again??? He went to Bacu for a short trip, eh?) essentially telling everyone: Khan is bad.
- Gapping plot holes: How did they hide the Enterprise down there... so close to the Niburu?
Why does Starfleet hold this emmergency meeting in such a vulnerable location?
How can Khan "help" Starfleet develop the Vengence and other weapons within a few month?
Why don't they follow Khan using the transwarp transporter formula Scotty knows?
Where is the Klingon fleet?
Starfleet can localise Khan on Kronos, yet they do not know what is happening in their own Solar system (secret contruction site of the Vengence)... Riiiiiight....
The whole magic blood setup. Bones has 72 augment bodies on board... why not use or at least try to use on of them on Kirk... to prove they "work" like Khan does... kill the tribble and inject it with augment blood... Ah, yes, I forgot... no hunt for Khan on Earth... Arrr....
Spock being the ONLY starfleet personal on Earth after the Vengence crashes.
Where did that Space Dock go to in the first place (same happened in 2009 when the Narada attacked).

Enjoyable film. I rate it a "C". Works as a dumb action blockbuster... you should not start to think about it any deeper than you think about films like TRANSFORMERS or G.I. JOE, since it will fall apart completely if you do.

 

[cbspock]

I enjoyed the film, I enjoyed the callbacks to previous adventures. I think the one scene I would have gotten rid of was the call to Old Spock. It was there just to amp up how dangerous Khan was. I think he was doing a good job on his own showing how dangerous he was.

Reversing the death scene I think worked in context of the story, they took a chance that it might be too in the face, but I think it worked within the story. Kirk learning from Spock, and Spock learning from Kirk. The Khan line walked a fine line, since it has become a pop culture joke. It worked to show the rage within Spock.

McCoy using Khan's blood to make a serum to save Kirk was right out of the series when McCoy would cook up some "potion" to save the crew... Tholian Web, Miri, Deadly Years, etc.

JJ Trek goes right back to the heart of TOS, so take off those TNG glasses and look at TOS as TOS, not through the pretentious not fun talky TNG lens.


-Chris

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The call to Old Spock was a clever storytelling choice, IMAO, because they turned a potentially flat expository sequence into a Moment.

I mean, it could have just been one of those droning conversation's with the ship's computer in which the gadget recited Khan's true life history and nature, thus alerting Spock to the danger he represented. That choice fulfills the plot requirement while adding nothing to the entertainment.

 

[anh165]

I mean, it could have just been one of those droning conversation's with the ship's computer in which the gadget recited Khan's true life history and nature, thus alerting Spock to the danger he represented.

Yes something like that would be a very typical episodic example of a protagonist moment of realisation that they are dealing with a threat.

 

[DavidLeeRoth]

No one can "objectively analyze" art. That's a misuse of the word "objective"...and in fact the OP is contradicting his own opening remarks there, in which he accurately described his own assessment as "totally subjective."

What didn't I like? Hmmm...can't think of anything much. The torpedo-switcheroo aspect of the plot could have been either made clearer or been more clearly worked out by the writers, but that's about it.

Whether or not the film is good is subjective. To objectively analyze the film means to take off the fan hat and put on a critic's hat and look at the film cooly and detached and not as a fan, to remove ones feelings, did this make sense, etc. But perhaps I should have said "subjective analysis."

My point was, one should be able to give ones opinion of the movie without being labeled "whining" if one didn't think it was Citizen Cane.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Sorry, that might be described as (ideally) fair and detached, but not "objective."

 

[Dave Scarpa]

Here's another why Does Marcus Put Khan's Crew in the Torpedoes? I guess so that he can give him back to him and kill him at the same time? Why Does Khan go to Kronos, it seems he's giving the Admiral exactly what he wants a setup for war with the klingons.

 

[DavidLeeRoth]

Sorry, that might be described as (ideally) fair and detached, but not "objective."

Right, that's what I should have said.

 

[cbspock]

The call to Old Spock was a clever storytelling choice, IMAO, because they turned a potentially flat expository sequence into a Moment.

I mean, it could have just been one of those droning conversation's with the ship's computer in which the gadget recited Khan's true life history and nature, thus alerting Spock to the danger he represented. That choice fulfills the plot requirement while adding nothing to the entertainment.

That makes sense in that context.


-Chris

 

[Cinema Geekly]

D'Ohs:
- Khan... unnecessary for the plot, wasted completely. It would have worked much better without him, focusing on Marcus
- Carol Marcus... she was there for that one almost nude scene... other than that... totally forgettable... btw that scene was so embarrassing...
- Pretty much the whole last 3rd of the film... essentially a copy and paste of TWOK, BUT without the impact...
- Old Spock's cameo (black haired again??? He went to Bacu for a short trip, eh?) essentially telling everyone: Khan is bad.
- Gapping plot holes: How did they hide the Enterprise down there... so close to the Niburu?
Why does Starfleet hold this emmergency meeting in such a vulnerable location?
How can Khan "help" Starfleet develop the Vengence and other weapons within a few month?
Why don't they follow Khan using the transwarp transporter formula Scotty knows?
Where is the Klingon fleet?
Starfleet can localise Khan on Kronos, yet they do not know what is happening in their own Solar system (secret contruction site of the Vengence)... Riiiiiight....
The whole magic blood setup. Bones has 72 augment bodies on board... why not use or at least try to use on of them on Kirk... to prove they "work" like Khan does... kill the tribble and inject it with augment blood... Ah, yes, I forgot... no hunt for Khan on Earth... Arrr....
Spock being the ONLY starfleet personal on Earth after the Vengence crashes.
Where did that Space Dock go to in the first place (same happened in 2009 when the Narada attacked).

Enjoyable film. I rate it a "C". Works as a dumb action blockbuster... you should not start to think about it any deeper than you think about films like TRANSFORMERS or G.I. JOE, since it will fall apart completely if you do.

Normally I'd take no umbrage with such nitpicks, but they are all being done as compared to other Star Trek which I find laughable.

You can take almost any episode of the "OMG it taught me so much about life" [insert Trek series here] or film and ask similar questions. Anything can be picked apart so easily.

Hell there are BOOKS about nothing other than Trek nitpicks and continuity errors.

 

[BillJ]

I have some nits, but the only thing that didn't work for me was the appearance of Spock Prime.

Take off the training wheels!

 

[Opus]

The movie was excellent.

IMO, any "nits" can be easily explained away as, "It's the Alternate Universe."

The only complaint is: I WANT MORE! SOON!

 

[ATimson]

IMO, any "nits" can be easily explained away as, "It's the Alternate Universe."

"It's the Alternate Universe" doesn't explain why thrusters or the impulse engines don't work unless the warp core is online.

 

[Opus]

Trekkie gripe I don't give a damn about.

 

[Amaris]

Pros:
The whole damn film. Seriously, everything just gelled so well together that I would have to spend the next twenty minutes typing out what I liked; Characters, plot, visual effects, story, atmosphere, soundtrack, everything. So, the whole damned film.


Cons:
I currently don't own it on DVD/Blu-ray.