Without going into a lot of detail, today I got to see Star Trek: Into Darkness. In 3D. For free.
Which is good, because it really wasn't on my must-see list. But if I had known, it would have been. I highly recommend the 3D part, by the way.
No major spoilers here from me. At least not yet.
Star Trek purists won't like parts of it. But there are several very heavy nods to a certain previous Star Trek movie from before the JJ-verse, and a certain scene in particular. Fans of that movie will squee. And there are Klingons, but they aren't a large part of the movie. And lots of awesome scenes, some of which are in 3D.
My views may not represent those of Cryptic Studios or Perfect World Entertainment. You can file a "forums and website" support ticket here Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
It is pretty much correct, yes. I'm kind of surprised they let that get out there. But the movie is a lot better than that rather dry plot synopsis makes it sound.
Still, as I said in my last post, some Trek purists aren't gonna like a lot of it.
I'm a TOS/TMP/WoK/TNG/DS9 fan and I did like it. I accept that it isn't the same Star Trek that makes me want to play this game but it does pay a certain amount of tribute to it and stands on its' own merits as a SciFi adventure movie.
I recommend seeing it with an open mind and 3D glasses on your face.
My views may not represent those of Cryptic Studios or Perfect World Entertainment. You can file a "forums and website" support ticket here Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
I had a fleetie rant to me about the movie last night, so I went and checked it out today. I personally didn't think it was that bad. Yeah it has some obvious nods to former ST stuff, which some may or may not like (I know one scene near the end that I'm sure is pissing people off). Although like I told my fleetie, you got to remember who these films were really made for. They were made for the casual movie goer to get them interested in a dumb down action packed sci-fi movie, not so much the hard core Trek fan. If anything, I would think most Trek fans are just happy we are getting something of Star Trek in the entertainment industry (Although it would be nice to get a new TV series).
Overall, I would recommend it to anyone who goes into it knowing what exactly kind of movie it is. A early summer dumb-down plot sci-fi action movie that was fun to watch. Other than that, if you go in expecting anything else...you're gonna have a bad time. :P
Why do you think that Abrams is trying to attach himself to the two biggest scifi franchises ever like a Lamprey, because if you look, every attempt to make something "original" has always been a rip off of something else Cloverfield = Godzilla, Super8 = Every Spielberg movie ever made. so he realizes, he can't be original, so leech off of already established franchises. But he can't even do that well.-
This is the part I have no idea what Abrams was doing. The D4 was shown on Enterprise as the precursor to the D7. Yet in the JJverse, they are suddenly like Mini BoPs.
Maybe Starfleet encountered Klingon ships in a different order, or maybe their translations are different.
Fringe always felt like a ripoff of X-Files to me. Alias is Le Femme Nikita-ish IMO and part of the concept for Lost (IIRC) was "Lord of the Flies".
Well, sure, those things all influenced the Abrams series I mention. But there's no way to create anything in a vacuum, without having any other influences. Referring to another example in this thread: is Cloverfield Godzilla? Not having seen either, I can't say. But even if the premise is the same (giant monster attacks major city) I think the shaky-cam view from citizen in the street, rather than cinematic story about some hero, is certainly a new spin on the story.
Regardless, I liked STID. I saw the double feature, and was able to see the first one in theaters and then the second one at midnight. Definitely cool, and they worked together pretty well.
I was disappointed in it because it had so much potential and imo threw it away.
I have seen so many examples of flashy summer blockbusters with great plots and character development that I don't think its a good excuse for the dumb down nature of this one.
Iron Man 1 immediately comes to mind. It had great action pieces and phenomenal story telling.
Also ,it seemed like alot of Into Darkness had scenes written solely for the 3D effect and that really irritated me.
Join Legends Memorial, a chat channel to share stories about the legends of Trek who are no longer with us.
Really this was an amazing movie. Saw it in an XD 3D I-max theatre and I was blown away. From top to bottom I was thoroughly impressed and if you are on this board reading this, you should absolutely go see it.
Iron Man 1 immediately comes to mind. It had great action pieces and phenomenal story telling.
And then look where 2 and 3 went? Big pew-pew movies full of over-the-top villains and action sequences that make very little sense.
The truth is the audience is generally youth-driven now, and they really couldn't care less about story. They want action. Heck, they'll watch a dozen different zombie movies that all have the same story and end the same way.
STO is about my Liberated Borg Federation Captain with his Breen 1st Officer, Jem'Hadar Tactical Officer, Liberated Borg Engineering Officer, Android Ops Officer, Photonic Science Officer, Gorn Science Officer, and Reman Medical Officer jumping into their Jem'Hadar Carrier and flying off to do missions for the new Romulan Empire. But for some players allowing a T5 Connie to be used breaks the canon in the game.
And then look where 2 and 3 went? Big pew-pew movies full of over-the-top villains and action sequences that make very little sense.
The truth is the audience is generally youth-driven now, and they really couldn't care less about story. They want action. Heck, they'll watch a dozen different zombie movies that all have the same story and end the same way.
This. IMHO, Star Trek Into Darkness has more story than most other Hollywood movies nowadays. While it's certainly not as indepth as the other pre-reboot movies/series, it's certainly more prevalent than in other movies.
I personally applaud J.J. for the reflection he's made on TWoK. Sure, it's all flipped, but isn't that what a reflection is?
And then look where 2 and 3 went? Big pew-pew movies full of over-the-top villains and action sequences that make very little sense.
The truth is the audience is generally youth-driven now, and they really couldn't care less about story. They want action. Heck, they'll watch a dozen different zombie movies that all have the same story and end the same way.
And honestly, that viewpoint is reflected in what most of me and other youth thoughts were afterwards.
Most of my friends walked up to me after Iron Man 2 at work and school and told me how disappointed they were in it especially after Iron Man 1's solid performance.
Thats why in years to come people will want to watch Iron Man 1 and mostly ignore the others. Most of my friends in getting ready for Avengers totally skipped Iron Man 2, many didn't even buy it.
Join Legends Memorial, a chat channel to share stories about the legends of Trek who are no longer with us.
I was actually really happy with the movie, reminded my of things Janeway talked about in the episode "Flashback" regarding a different time. And the movie really helped to show that this was a different time period from the 24th century, in terms of tech.
The empty Ketha Province, kinda bugged me considering that is where Martok is from.
Hi, my name is: Elim Garak, Former Cardassian Oppressor
LTS, here since...when did this game launch again?
Largely enjoyed it, though i thought the part they pulled dialogue straight from WoK was where they stepped over the line from 'homage' to 'plagarism.' And I REALLY want a Vengeance skin for the fleet dread now. Yeah there's lots stuff to quibble over, but as a whole I'll take it over anything else I've seen this year.
I have something to say to those that have made posts saying "Trekkie's don't like what JJ Abrams has done to Star Trek". I consider myself a Trekkie and I enjoyed this movie and the one from 2009. You don't speak for me or for any one else, those are your opinions that some others may agree with.
I liked it alot. I give it a 9/10 for a Trek movie. My biggest gripe was Khan's blood used to revive Kirk. So, it can bring Kirk BACK FROM THE DEAD, but somehow NOT make him superhuman too? Um ok. I guess Bones could have made a dumbed down version...
I also feel ripped off by buying the 4 Countdown comics. What did they set up for the movie except that they had Mudd's daughter's ship still on board? The whole Robert April business in the comics seemed for nothing. It slightly setup Spock's deathwish mentality, but still, no setup was needed for that.
Prime Spock cameo was again awesome. Im sure further enraging Shatner, lol.
Once I realized they were going to actually kill Kirk, I was kind of hoping his last words would be "It was fun".
But hey, JJ Trek 3 cant possibly ripoff Search for Spock, or the Voyage home. So hopefully they actually give us something completely original, as any smart Trekkie KNEW this was going to be a Khan film the moment they originally cast Benicio Del Toro to be in it. John Harrison my a**.
STO: @AGNT009 Since Dec 2010
Capt. Will Conquest of the U.S.S. Crusader
But hey, JJ Trek 3 cant possibly ripoff Search for Spock, or the Voyage home.
Well the whole Kirk thing really is them reaching into Search for Spock as well since TWOK left Spock's fate a wee bit more vague than this movie left Kirk's (yeah, the torp on Genesis shows a young Vulcan, but that didn't assure Nimoy's return to Trek).
So hopefully they actually give us something completely original, as any smart Trekkie KNEW this was going to be a Khan film the moment they originally cast Benicio Del Toro to be in it. John Harrison my a**.
Funny thing I saw in my facebook feed. An article that said "12 things you need to know about Into Darkness" and it listed one of the 12 as "Cumberbatch's character is named John Harrison."
Made me laugh.
Anyways, I keep hearing folks saying the third one will just rehash Undiscovered Country.
But I have my money on rehashing TMP, but making V'Ger the Original Borg and then bringing it back around to the Narada as well as giving this iteration of Trek it's chance to really make a grab at the Borg.
My biggest gripe was Khan's blood used to revive Kirk. So, it can bring Kirk BACK FROM THE DEAD, but somehow NOT make him superhuman too? Um ok. I guess Bones could have made a dumbed down version...
In all fairness McCoy stated that he had made a serum from Khan's blood that accelerated the reproduction of Kirk's blood cells and brought him back to life. McCoy even jokes about Kirk not having any symptoms of being a maniacal murderer.
I have something to say to those that have made posts saying "Trekkie's don't like what JJ Abrams has done to Star Trek". I consider myself a Trekkie and I enjoyed this movie and the one from 2009. You don't speak for me or for any one else, those are your opinions that some others may agree with.
It's not they dislike the Abrams movies, it's just that Star Trek that we've known for years have a certain quality about it.
Not sure exactly how to put it to words, but if I had to, it's that the new Star Trek is driven more by the action, while the original Star Trek was driven more by the story.
Anyways, I keep hearing folks saying the third one will just rehash Undiscovered Country.
With them leaving on the 5-Year Mission, either the new movies would rehash some of the original TOS stories, maybe like the Enterprise Incident or the Organians.
Or maybe the third movie has them come back from the 5-Year mission and we get their version of the events leading to the Enterprise's Refit, prior to TMP?
But I have my money on rehashing TMP, but making V'Ger the Original Borg and then bringing it back around to the Narada as well as giving this iteration of Trek it's chance to really make a grab at the Borg.
Wouldn't be surprised. I could see Abrams really ramping up the scariness of the Borg that makes Best of Both Worlds, childsplay.
But really, I don't want Abrams to keep on rehashing old Trek, but instead make his own stories.
It's not they dislike the Abrams movies, it's just that Star Trek that we've known for years have a certain quality about it.
Not sure exactly how to put it to words, but if I had to, it's that the new Star Trek is driven more by the action, while the original Star Trek was driven more by the story.
Wagon Train to the Stars was supposed to be a space western. Action was always intended to be a part of it.
This. IMHO, Star Trek Into Darkness has more story than most other Hollywood movies nowadays. While it's certainly not as indepth as the other pre-reboot movies/series, it's certainly more prevalent than in other movies.
I personally applaud J.J. for the reflection he's made on TWoK. Sure, it's all flipped, but isn't that what a reflection is?
I'm not sure I agree.
This was the most political Star Trek movie since The Undiscovered Country.
Not to get too specific but...
A terrorist attacks a record keeping center and a military command installation in two strikes and then retreats to a cave. A shadowy intelligence organization driven leadership (which formerly worked with said terrorist) tries to start a war. The military is dispatched to conduct illegal drone strikes which have innocent casualties.
The difference here is that Kirk stands by his principles. The mission of Starfleet is re-emphasized by Scotty and ultimately by Kirk. Rule of law and trials for criminals prevail. The heroes although angry and sad kill one person in the ENTIRE MOVIE and that was more or less an accident. Phasers on stun the whole way. Respect for rule of law and right of criminals to trial. Attempting to reason with Klingons. Even the Prime Directive speech at the beginning and what it says about intervention.
And the dedication in the credits seals the political message. Heck, I can't repost it here without starting a political discussion but I'll say it's respectful to the people who've sacrificed and fought while challenging political leadership.
It's shot in a very action heavy style but just because the themes aren't explored in wordy speeches doesn't mean they aren't there.
This is basically the 180 degree opposite of Enterprise's "waterboard the Suliban" plotline. Kirk and crew refuse to sacrifice a single principle or get their hands a little dirty, aside from using (Spoiler) as a punching bag.
As someone upset with Nero's death in the first movie, I felt this movie emphasized Roddenberry's values the whole way. The characters (especially Kirk) are more cartoonish (especially romantically; I just read the 60s writing bible and they were against relationships or public displays of affection -- although even then the 60s writers more or less said they thought it would be fitting to have them in the future but that 60s audiences wouldn't recognize it as compliant with a modern military). The action shots are relentless but there's a message in it. And it's one fundamentally consistent with Roddenberry. Understanding. Respect for rule of law. Friendship.
Fringe always felt like a ripoff of X-Files to me. Alias is Le Femme Nikita-ish IMO and part of the concept for Lost (IIRC) was "Lord of the Flies".
I'm not a LOST fan but I know several, and there is a huge anger about the fact that people think Abrams created this whole thing by himself, when in fact he was part of a larger team and was a minor member of the writing staff. and that he CO-created the series. And despite that, the was Abrams tells it, you would think he was a shiny one man band of the whole series.
So apparently there is some ire as to his beginnings not being as they have been represented. This does not surprise me.
Westerns weren't always about shoot-em-ups. :rolleyes:
That may be true, but the vast majority have been. When someone says "western", what non-violent one do you think of? Personally, I think of The Good, The Bad and the Ugly or Open Range - Hell, even Dances with Wolves has quite a few major fight scenes. The genre is synonymous with:
1. Cowboys
2. Outlaws
3. Gunfights
When people say Star Trek, the 1st thoughts to the average person are probably one or all of the following:
1. Kirk and Spock
2. Beam me up, Scotty.
3. The Enterprise firing phasers.
Also the Klingons looked like Remans. The Khan 'ending' was a rip off of the second film and although this was meant to be an alternate timeline it still smacked terribly of lazy scriptwriting.
Monkey see, Monkey do. Monkey flings Feathered Monkey poo...
That may be true, but the vast majority have been. When someone says "western", what non-violent one do you think of? Personally, I think of The Good, The Bad and the Ugly or Open Range - Hell, even Dances with Wolves has quite a few major fight scenes. The genre is synonymous with:
1. Cowboys
2. Outlaws
3. Gunfights
When people say Star Trek, the 1st thoughts to the average person are probably one or all of the following:
1. Kirk and Spock
2. Beam me up, Scotty.
3. The Enterprise firing phasers.
All 3 = adventure in space.
Actually there have been many non-violent westerns. A simple Google search goes a long way. Dr Quinn Medicine Woman is an example for you. The sub-genre of Spaghetti Western were characterized by more action and violence than Hollywood Westerns.
Comments
Which is good, because it really wasn't on my must-see list. But if I had known, it would have been. I highly recommend the 3D part, by the way.
No major spoilers here from me. At least not yet.
Star Trek purists won't like parts of it. But there are several very heavy nods to a certain previous Star Trek movie from before the JJ-verse, and a certain scene in particular. Fans of that movie will squee. And there are Klingons, but they aren't a large part of the movie. And lots of awesome scenes, some of which are in 3D.
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
It is pretty much correct, yes. I'm kind of surprised they let that get out there. But the movie is a lot better than that rather dry plot synopsis makes it sound.
Still, as I said in my last post, some Trek purists aren't gonna like a lot of it.
I'm a TOS/TMP/WoK/TNG/DS9 fan and I did like it. I accept that it isn't the same Star Trek that makes me want to play this game but it does pay a certain amount of tribute to it and stands on its' own merits as a SciFi adventure movie.
I recommend seeing it with an open mind and 3D glasses on your face.
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
Overall, I would recommend it to anyone who goes into it knowing what exactly kind of movie it is. A early summer dumb-down plot sci-fi action movie that was fun to watch. Other than that, if you go in expecting anything else...you're gonna have a bad time. :P
What about Lost, Fringe, and Alias?
Never said you couldn't, but this isn't that film.
Maybe Starfleet encountered Klingon ships in a different order, or maybe their translations are different.
I don't think they can choose whether or not to let random people edit wikipedia once said people have seen the film.
Well, sure, those things all influenced the Abrams series I mention. But there's no way to create anything in a vacuum, without having any other influences. Referring to another example in this thread: is Cloverfield Godzilla? Not having seen either, I can't say. But even if the premise is the same (giant monster attacks major city) I think the shaky-cam view from citizen in the street, rather than cinematic story about some hero, is certainly a new spin on the story.
Regardless, I liked STID. I saw the double feature, and was able to see the first one in theaters and then the second one at midnight. Definitely cool, and they worked together pretty well.
Fringe never had the X-Files feel to me.
Alias really didn't come off like Le Femme Nikita to me either. And hey, Nikita is its own series now anyways.
Lost has absolutely nothing to do with Lord of the Flies. It has far more to do with The Third Policeman.
Not a lot of lens flares in this one. It's got more darkness in it.
I have seen so many examples of flashy summer blockbusters with great plots and character development that I don't think its a good excuse for the dumb down nature of this one.
Iron Man 1 immediately comes to mind. It had great action pieces and phenomenal story telling.
Also ,it seemed like alot of Into Darkness had scenes written solely for the 3D effect and that really irritated me.
The truth is the audience is generally youth-driven now, and they really couldn't care less about story. They want action. Heck, they'll watch a dozen different zombie movies that all have the same story and end the same way.
This. IMHO, Star Trek Into Darkness has more story than most other Hollywood movies nowadays. While it's certainly not as indepth as the other pre-reboot movies/series, it's certainly more prevalent than in other movies.
I personally applaud J.J. for the reflection he's made on TWoK. Sure, it's all flipped, but isn't that what a reflection is?
And honestly, that viewpoint is reflected in what most of me and other youth thoughts were afterwards.
Most of my friends walked up to me after Iron Man 2 at work and school and told me how disappointed they were in it especially after Iron Man 1's solid performance.
Thats why in years to come people will want to watch Iron Man 1 and mostly ignore the others. Most of my friends in getting ready for Avengers totally skipped Iron Man 2, many didn't even buy it.
Chillax. No Ego. No Drama.
Like my alien? Watch THE VIDEO
Need custom graphics for you or your fleet? Click HERE
The empty Ketha Province, kinda bugged me considering that is where Martok is from.
LTS, here since...when did this game launch again?
I also feel ripped off by buying the 4 Countdown comics. What did they set up for the movie except that they had Mudd's daughter's ship still on board? The whole Robert April business in the comics seemed for nothing. It slightly setup Spock's deathwish mentality, but still, no setup was needed for that.
Prime Spock cameo was again awesome. Im sure further enraging Shatner, lol.
Once I realized they were going to actually kill Kirk, I was kind of hoping his last words would be "It was fun".
But hey, JJ Trek 3 cant possibly ripoff Search for Spock, or the Voyage home. So hopefully they actually give us something completely original, as any smart Trekkie KNEW this was going to be a Khan film the moment they originally cast Benicio Del Toro to be in it. John Harrison my a**.
Capt. Will Conquest of the U.S.S. Crusader
Well the whole Kirk thing really is them reaching into Search for Spock as well since TWOK left Spock's fate a wee bit more vague than this movie left Kirk's (yeah, the torp on Genesis shows a young Vulcan, but that didn't assure Nimoy's return to Trek).
Funny thing I saw in my facebook feed. An article that said "12 things you need to know about Into Darkness" and it listed one of the 12 as "Cumberbatch's character is named John Harrison."
Made me laugh.
Anyways, I keep hearing folks saying the third one will just rehash Undiscovered Country.
But I have my money on rehashing TMP, but making V'Ger the Original Borg and then bringing it back around to the Narada as well as giving this iteration of Trek it's chance to really make a grab at the Borg.
In all fairness McCoy stated that he had made a serum from Khan's blood that accelerated the reproduction of Kirk's blood cells and brought him back to life. McCoy even jokes about Kirk not having any symptoms of being a maniacal murderer.
It's not they dislike the Abrams movies, it's just that Star Trek that we've known for years have a certain quality about it.
Not sure exactly how to put it to words, but if I had to, it's that the new Star Trek is driven more by the action, while the original Star Trek was driven more by the story.
With them leaving on the 5-Year Mission, either the new movies would rehash some of the original TOS stories, maybe like the Enterprise Incident or the Organians.
Or maybe the third movie has them come back from the 5-Year mission and we get their version of the events leading to the Enterprise's Refit, prior to TMP?
Wouldn't be surprised. I could see Abrams really ramping up the scariness of the Borg that makes Best of Both Worlds, childsplay.
But really, I don't want Abrams to keep on rehashing old Trek, but instead make his own stories.
Wagon Train to the Stars was supposed to be a space western. Action was always intended to be a part of it.
Westerns weren't always about shoot-em-ups. :rolleyes:
I'm not sure I agree.
This was the most political Star Trek movie since The Undiscovered Country.
Not to get too specific but...
A terrorist attacks a record keeping center and a military command installation in two strikes and then retreats to a cave. A shadowy intelligence organization driven leadership (which formerly worked with said terrorist) tries to start a war. The military is dispatched to conduct illegal drone strikes which have innocent casualties.
The difference here is that Kirk stands by his principles. The mission of Starfleet is re-emphasized by Scotty and ultimately by Kirk. Rule of law and trials for criminals prevail. The heroes although angry and sad kill one person in the ENTIRE MOVIE and that was more or less an accident. Phasers on stun the whole way. Respect for rule of law and right of criminals to trial. Attempting to reason with Klingons. Even the Prime Directive speech at the beginning and what it says about intervention.
And the dedication in the credits seals the political message. Heck, I can't repost it here without starting a political discussion but I'll say it's respectful to the people who've sacrificed and fought while challenging political leadership.
It's shot in a very action heavy style but just because the themes aren't explored in wordy speeches doesn't mean they aren't there.
This is basically the 180 degree opposite of Enterprise's "waterboard the Suliban" plotline. Kirk and crew refuse to sacrifice a single principle or get their hands a little dirty, aside from using (Spoiler) as a punching bag.
As someone upset with Nero's death in the first movie, I felt this movie emphasized Roddenberry's values the whole way. The characters (especially Kirk) are more cartoonish (especially romantically; I just read the 60s writing bible and they were against relationships or public displays of affection -- although even then the 60s writers more or less said they thought it would be fitting to have them in the future but that 60s audiences wouldn't recognize it as compliant with a modern military). The action shots are relentless but there's a message in it. And it's one fundamentally consistent with Roddenberry. Understanding. Respect for rule of law. Friendship.
I'm not a LOST fan but I know several, and there is a huge anger about the fact that people think Abrams created this whole thing by himself, when in fact he was part of a larger team and was a minor member of the writing staff. and that he CO-created the series. And despite that, the was Abrams tells it, you would think he was a shiny one man band of the whole series.
So apparently there is some ire as to his beginnings not being as they have been represented. This does not surprise me.
-AE
1. Cowboys
2. Outlaws
3. Gunfights
When people say Star Trek, the 1st thoughts to the average person are probably one or all of the following:
1. Kirk and Spock
2. Beam me up, Scotty.
3. The Enterprise firing phasers.
All 3 = adventure in space.
Also the Klingons looked like Remans. The Khan 'ending' was a rip off of the second film and although this was meant to be an alternate timeline it still smacked terribly of lazy scriptwriting.
Actually there have been many non-violent westerns. A simple Google search goes a long way. Dr Quinn Medicine Woman is an example for you. The sub-genre of Spaghetti Western were characterized by more action and violence than Hollywood Westerns.