I have seen Star Trek Into Darkness, and here is my short review.

emacsheadroom · May 2013

I'm just gonna come out and say it. "Star Trek Into Darkness" played it safe. It didn't try hard enough to give us something new and interesting and fun to watch. It didn't take risks, and it banked entirely on using icons of the original series and movies to try to recreate the atmosphere that made them so great. But if you want that atmosphere, it's better just to go watch the original material which delivered that feeling along with the layers of meaning that made it work so well and burned it into our collective memory. Try as it might, "Wrath of Khan", this movie aint. It could have spoken with its own voice, yet instead it attempts to be again what once was; it would be an effective parody if it were aware of itself. For those reasons, "Into Darkness" wasn't good enough.

captainrevo1 · May 2013

I felt more or less the opposite. (no real spoilers here).

I loved it and thought it was tremendous fun. Yes it was pretty safe but it was exciting, the humour was good, and i enjoyed the casts interactions. the action was epic, but never dragged on or got too chaotic. pretty much all the cast got their moments to shine and there are some nice twists and turns.

it was in truth not overly complex or highbrow, but they are going for the flashy space adventure over the true morality tales of the shows, but thats fine. thats what the show is good at and that is what works. the film touches on it, but only thinly. this is all about adventure.

there are some nitpicks that a trekkie will notice much like the first, that will go over the heads of none or casual fans, and a few moments that will no doubt be big talking points.

all in all, awesome film, a lot of fun to watch but dont expect the most complex of plots. its much like XI. if you liked it, then you should be comfortable here. if you hated it, I'm not sure if there is much to turn you around but i think its better than XI.

doxic1 · May 2013

I managed to see it last night. Can honestly say that I was surprised how good it was and I certainly recommend it.

themartian · May 2013

I thought it was good. I had a couple of nitpicks, which I won't go into as they're spoilers. There was a lot of good action and the interactions between the crew and John Harrison were great too. There was still a lot of lens flare, but I think it's toned down from last time.

While it didn't go into any great themes like some of the TOS films, I think you could draw some comparisons to events in the film and real world events (which I won't go into because of spoilers again).

Of course it was played fairly safe though, but a) JJ Abrams is not a known risk taker and b) neither is anyone else making summer blockbusters.

twg042370 · May 2013

So... Any "science" that even a fifth-grader would laugh at in this one?

That was my main problem with XI. It was fine until they tried to explain things. Like a beautiful woman opening her mouth and talking about Ayn Rand seriously. Ruins everything.

eisenw0lf · May 2013

themartian wrote: »

Of course it was played fairly safe though, but a) JJ Abrams is not a known risk taker and b) neither is anyone else making summer blockbusters.

He is not a risk taker? He blew up two important planets in his first film, one of them even in the prime universe. In Star Trek more people got killed than in the entire franchise before.

themartian · May 2013

eisenw0lf wrote: »

He is not a risk taker? He blew up two important planets in his first film, one of them even in the prime universe. In Star Trek more people got killed than in the entire franchise before.

Except it didn't really change anything. There wasn't a current franchise for Romulus's destruction to effect and the destruction of Vulcan was only to raise the stakes. They weren't risks, they were plot devices.

thlaylierah · May 2013

This isn't turning into the JJ flamefest the OP would have preferred.

I liked the last one, I'm sure this one will be Awesome as well.

paxfederatica · May 2013

I think of JJ-Trek as something akin to the Ultimate Marvel line of comics - something that's looking not so much to tell new stories as to update and super-size old ones for contemporary audiences.

With that goal in mind, the first movie pretty much knocked it out of the park. The trailers for Into Darkness make the new film look just as promising, but then trailers always need a grain or two of salt to go with them.

themartian wrote: »

There wasn't a current franchise for Romulus's destruction to effect and the destruction of Vulcan was only to raise the stakes.

Except, of course, for a certain MMO that was well into development at the time...

romuzarii · May 2013

I just finally accepted that I can pretend the new movies don't exist as far as "my star trek" goes. They're made in a time period where the masses demand top tiered movies to spend their dollars on, and that's what this Star Trek is aiming for, the masses. And it makes for a pretty interesting spin on Star Trek when the TNG movies flopped so badly at trying to be the same thing.

So they can do whatever they want on the big screen, but when it comes time for the small screen again I sure hope they remember that an action packed ST tv show is not going to repeat the big screen movie success. TV viewers and movie goers are two different things. People expect story on the tv screen, to watch a show for years, and just about anything goes for the big screen because it's only for a hour and half or so for 10 bucks. I truly hope the so called experts understand this and that at least one of those experts are in the CBS crowd, because I'll be damned if I've waited for who knows how long for my next ST show only to have action packed dim whitted TRIBBLE shoved in my face because the masses paid to see Action Trek at the theater.

lincolninspace · May 2013

romuzarii wrote: »

TV viewers and movie goers are two different things. People expect story on the tv screen, I'll be damned if I've waited for who knows how long for my next ST show only to have action packed dim whitted TRIBBLE shoved in my face because the masses paid to see Action Trek at the theater.

I'm ok with the JJ movies since the Tng movies were weak anyways but I would hate it if they dictate the future of Trek on tv, The JJ verse only belongs on the big screen.

themartian · May 2013

paxfederatica wrote: »

Except, of course, for a certain MMO that was well into development at the time...

I've no idea what MMO you're talking about

Since you brought up STO, I think Cryptic actually took the bigger risk if you think about it. They could have easily had the Romulans just move to a new planet and set up as before so that by 2409 the Romulans were basically as they were in TNG. That would have saved a lot of whining on the forums, but by embracing what happened in the film they've created something pretty cool in the last season and Legacy of Romulus.

thlaylierah · May 2013

I'm pretty sure any Star Trek TV show that would be considered would be JJ Trek.

The moneys with all the new fans that want all the excitement and explosions.

Next Gen was pretty boring sometimes.

harryhausen · May 2013

thlaylierah wrote: »

I'm pretty sure any Star Trek TV show that would be considered would be JJ Trek.

The moneys with all the new fans that want all the excitement and explosions.

Next Gen was pretty boring sometimes.

That boring stuff you don't like is 'Star Trek'.

thlaylierah · May 2013

Actually I liked TOS best.

That is THE Star Trek and JJ Trek is emulating it.

commandersalvek · May 2013

thlaylierah wrote: »

Actually I liked TOS best.

That is THE Star Trek and JJ Trek is emulating it.

Hes ripping it off not emulating it and in the latest film almost exactly as the original Scene from ST2

It is better than the last one -no planets were harmed this time-Poor Klingons could have been next.

No we got what we wanted Big Explosions and lens flares and a story full of holes.

Hes off to Star Wars let them have his "emulation".

thestargaze · May 2013

doxic1 wrote: »

I managed to see it last night. Can honestly say that I was surprised how good it was and I certainly recommend it.

I agree with you. I love it. I saw it in 3D and wow...

I would have to say that some scenes was a bit to emotional for me. There was certain scenes you kind of recognized. Personally I never liked them in the original. Its just to mich mush, mush for me. But I do have to say some of it I loved.

I am certainly going to rewatch this movie many times, in 2D and 3D.

xiphenon · May 2013

Into Darkness is imho much better than the first one.

The plot of the first one was highly illogical, but at last the actors were greatly casted.

The plot of Into Darkness has much less logical flaws. There is also no simple minded villian as in the first movie.

(we remeber back, the motivation of Nero was to kill someone who wanted to prevent the destruction of his home planet but unfortunately failed to do so ... ah, next time better don't help at all, Spock.).

The actors doing a great job. My favorites are Karl Urban as McCoy and Cumberbatch as ... ahm ... yes, well ... lets say John Harrison ;-) In the end, all characters are more deeply portraited as in the first movie and their actions and motivations are reasonable for the audience.

There are many references/homages to the original series.

Of course, the FX are just great.

So my review: congrats J.J., you did it well.

PS: one critic point is the Klingons looked a little bit scary.

emacsheadroom · May 2013

thlaylierah wrote: »

This isn't turning into the JJ flamefest the OP would have preferred.

You should stop assuming what I would prefer. I had high hopes for this movie, and I loved the previous one. Into Darkness was definitely a fun movie to watch, but for me it just didn't go far enough. It didn't do enough to stand out as its own movie. At one point I was thinking "Oh look, John Harrison is crashing a ship into San Fransisco, that's nice". There was no weight or importance to that. It didn't feel like anything meaningful. I think the trailer shouldn't have spoiled that scene...

kain9prime · May 2013

romuzarii wrote: »

I just finally accepted that I can pretend the new movies don't exist as far as "my star trek" goes.

Awesome! I feel the exact same way about all the TNG movies and Enterprise.

Looking forward to seeing the new movie.

jam3s1701 · May 2013

emacsheadroom wrote: »

You should stop assuming what I would prefer. I had high hopes for this movie, and I loved the previous one. Into Darkness was definitely a fun movie to watch, but for me it just didn't go far enough. It didn't do enough to stand out as its own movie. At one point I was thinking "Oh look, John Harrison is crashing a ship into San Fransisco, that's nice". There was no weight or importance to that. It didn't feel like anything meaningful. I think the trailer shouldn't have spoiled that scene...

people should really not be calling him Harrison it s KHAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

kain9prime · May 2013

commandersalvek wrote: »

Hes ripping it off not emulating it...

He's taken the elements that most people know about them as pop culture icons, hypercharging it, and trying to make the IP profitable again...y'know, since the TNG movies and Enterprise weren't really doing it that much. At the end of the day, the IP making cash is what will keep things like STO and future Trek productions AWAY from the back burner of Hollywood, or even the trash bin.

Crazy talk, I know...

:rolleyes:

emacsheadroom · May 2013

jam3s1701 wrote: »

people should really not be calling him Harrison it s KHAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thanks dude, for spoiling it for people who genuinely didn't know that and wanted to wait and see the movie.

tc10b · May 2013

Yeah, but the whole Khan thing is lost on people who didn't watch TOS to begin with, since no real mention is made of him during either film. Only vague hints, it's expected that you already know.

harryhausen · May 2013

This review pretty much mirrors my reaction to the film, both in what he didn't like about it, and in what he did like about it:

Telegraph Review

nepht · May 2013

Anything with Karl Urban's version of Bones gets my vote

nepht · May 2013

emacsheadroom wrote: »

Thanks dude, for spoiling it for people who genuinely didn't know that and wanted to wait and see the movie.

Everyone and their aunt knew who Sherlock was playing from the start dont kid yourself :P

ricorosebud · May 2013

romuzarii wrote: »

I just finally accepted that I can pretend the new movies don't exist as far as "my star trek" goes. They're made in a time period where the masses demand top tiered movies to spend their dollars on, and that's what this Star Trek is aiming for, the masses. And it makes for a pretty interesting spin on Star Trek when the TNG movies flopped so badly at trying to be the same thing.

So they can do whatever they want on the big screen, but when it comes time for the small screen again I sure hope they remember that an action packed ST tv show is not going to repeat the big screen movie success. TV viewers and movie goers are two different things. People expect story on the tv screen, to watch a show for years, and just about anything goes for the big screen because it's only for a hour and half or so for 10 bucks. I truly hope the so called experts understand this and that at least one of those experts are in the CBS crowd, because I'll be damned if I've waited for who knows how long for my next ST show only to have action packed dim whitted TRIBBLE shoved in my face because the masses paid to see Action Trek at the theater.

I love this sideways slam of people enjoying the new Trek movies and implying that fans that want it "TV style" are a more intelligent audience than "the mass of movie goers."

TV audience is smarter and demands story you say? The Kardasians, American Idol, CSI: Whatever, Jersey Shore, How I Met Your Mother, Glee, Whitney, Two and a Half Men, American Horror Story, Duck Dynasty and many others would like a word with you. (And those were just shooting from the hip)

Because the new films don't give two hour lectures with made up technobabble and beat you to death with a 'moral question' does not mean those who enjoy it are less intelligent than those who don't. It's just not your flavor. You are not smarter for having a differing opinion.

Such an attitude is not in the Star Trek spirit, in my opinion. You must not be a 'real Trek fan' :rolleyes: (C wut I did thar?)

I have seen Star Trek Into Darkness, and here is my short review.

Comments