test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
In to Darkness was a great movie!
errab
Member Posts: 1,434 Arc User
In to Darkness was the 1st Star Trek movie that my Daughter has ever seen on the big screen and she said she loved did 
I loved it too
Say what you will; JJ is exposing many that have never seen or had any interest in it to Star Trek and I'm grateful.
I loved it too
Say what you will; JJ is exposing many that have never seen or had any interest in it to Star Trek and I'm grateful.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Post edited by errab on
0
Comments
"Critics who say that the optimistic utopia Star Trek depicted is now outmoded forget the cultural context that gave birth to it: Star Trek was not a manifestation of optimism when optimism was easy. Star Trek declared a hope for a future that nobody stuck in the present could believe in. For all our struggles today, we haven’t outgrown the need for stories like Star Trek. We need tales of optimism, of heroes, of courage and goodness now as much as we’ve ever needed them."
-Thomas Marrone
I have a general dislike for TOS.
My wife loved it.
My daughter especially loved it.
The third movie has some work to match this one. The TOS feel along with WoK was captured magnificently. (Where's my Blu-Ray copy already!!)
Although to quote my brother on one particular scene:
I would much rather in both movies have a new cast of characters, either from novels or just something original. As a fan of Star Trek, the little nods that Abrams makes to the original show and films doesn't make it sentimental for me, it makes it feel lazy and redone.
As far as I know Star Trek isn't a comic book series, like Superman or Batman which gets remade over and over, there is a certain theme that feels like it runs through the shows and movies. These recent movies are using characters that we know and turning them into a 20 something sitcom.
Obviously everyone will have their own opinions about this movie and the previous one, and as I said as just a film to watch and enjoy it gets high marks, but this movie and the 2009 reboot could just as easily be any sci-fi series, just take away the character names and it doesn't "feel" like Star Trek. I couldn't tell you what Star Trek "looks" and "feels" like either but I know it when I see it, and these movies just don't have that same appeal to me.
actors are great, plot is ok for an action movie, effects are incredible...interior of the ship is amazing, the indutrial look of the engi and shuttlebay section is in my opinion amazingly authentic (though the outer shape i don't like) and the bridge is awesome.
the design of the cities, london, san francisco...amazing.
i think jj abrams will make some great star wars movies...he is a great director when it comes to visualisation and action
I'm not so sure; A few token glimpses of St. Paul's Cathedral and some Union Flags as set dressing didn't sell me on the idea that those scenes were taking place in London.
STXI, was a like a Pilot movie to a Series and i wasn't sure if i liked it.
Comics, Videogame made the new stuff grow on me / got used to it.
STXII, was just what JJ-Trek needed to validate all the other stuff.
i wasn't sure if i liked the JJ-Trek after the first movie.
i went out of the cinema and really did NOT know what to think of it.
it had things i was pi**ed about it had things that were awesome.
all the Plotholes got explained away over time.
- Transwarp Beaming, did not like that one at all, but there was a TNG episode where Bok did it, so... i guess the Tech was out there when Prime Spock came back just not widely used because things can go wrong... like beaming into a solid object (as Scotty did).
- Faster than Light - Hobus Nova, got explained away by Star Trek Online, more or less successfully.
- Red Matter... used 3 times, reacting differently every time -> i still don't like this plot device, but if you think about it as a kind of chemical reaction, the red matter could react differently with a Subspace Nova than it would otherwise. It's not like this is real science this stuff is make belief anyway so whatever.
so the things that REALLY bothered me got explained away, the nerdy nitpicky stuff... whatever i have to ignore it in favor of having fun with the movie. (don't like the bridge, don't like engineering, warpocore ejection etc. etc.)
also
after reading the comics and playing that gorn videogame (despite the press and the internet teaming up to bash it down more than it deserves)
...i got used to the crew and setting a bit more, i got used to the art style a lot more (i have more problems with the unreadable non-information that is displayed on all the computer monitors, only to make it look cool, than i have with any of the lens flares or shaky cam by now).
there are a few things i choose to ignore, others i got used to and accept them for what they are.
JJ-Trek will never live up to the realism TNG had (for me) but it does not have to.
TNG is TNG and JJ-Trek is JJ-Trek.
They are connected to each other in a very obscure timetravel way, but they are completely different products.
I was never a TOS fan, the TMP movies were good but i never really liked the Series.
I hated the idea of a prequel for TOS when ENT started and i didn't like the idea to reboot TOS, i want them to go FORWARD, what happens after Voyager and Nemesis is what i want to see (thats the main reason i play STO).
With all of that, when i watched Into Darkness, i really was able to enjoy it because i went past the confusion about the first movie by now.
There were a few *ugh* and *meh* moments... like in every other movie in existence, but all in all i really liked how they played with their new Universe, IMHO it really EARNED the "alternate universe" title this time around.
What i didn't like was Cumberbatch, his acting was just fine, but they did such an amazing job re-casting the TOS crew, why is he looking nothing like the original?
I really had to ignore the visual discrepancy here to accept him as who he was supposed to be... and imho HE was not the real evil in this movie and that is the only reason it really worked for me, i actually started to LIKE the guy and wanted Kirk and him to become friends... but oh well turns out he was as evil as in the other universe after all... can't go too alternate universe on it or it becomes a mirror universe ...i guess?
...
oh and... i hated the Transwarp Beaming stuff in the last one, in this one it was used again as a plot device AND to let Scotty's Character grow, the persistent use of it validated the use of it in the first one even more for me.
It was not just a throw-away plot device to get them on the Enterprise, the TECH exists now, it is out there and it has real consequences, yet it probably is a well guarded secret and won't make it out of the confiscated archives (again), so i can totally see why it wasn't common used tech in the TNG era.
...on the other hand, it is totally OP tech, why not just use transwarp transporters to beam a few nukes on Qo'nos and wipe it off the map from a safe distance?
Long Range Torpedoes seem a bit outdated against Transwarp Beaming... but that is probably overthinking it too much again.
But the STXIII needs to go above and beyond rehashing old Ideas.
In 2 movies they went from before the first episode of TOS to Wrath of Khan, the only thing left to do would be to redo The Undiscovered Country, so the next one needs to be all about Klingons. But imho that would be rehashing the old movies too much at that point and people would get bored of it. So i say, make the next one something new that was never seen in any form or shape within TOS / TMP.
Compared to Batman, they now had Batman Begins and the Dark Knight including the Joker (as in: BEST VILLAIN OF THIS FRANCHISE EVER), after that it can only go downhill from there unless they can come up with some fresh ideas that work just as well.
...but i really think they will do stuff with Klingons next. Maybe undiscovered country style, maybe full DS9 style War. They've build up the Klingons enough now, they got to do something huge with them now.
I really did love the film. I thought it was incredibly enjoyable. The fx looked superb, humour was good, some great interactions of the cast. Some nice fan service, some moral issues to think about and quite a bit of emotion and soul. everything just worked for me.
now there were some plot holes. Here comes the spoilers.
why was the enterprise in the ocean at all?
The fact that they had Khan being played by a white guy did irk me. I'm quite happy to have him in the movie, as he is a great villain that was only made better in my view, but the fact he does not look like khan did bother me.
maybe when they changed his identity they did cosmetic changes as well? sort of like finding Napolean in a statis tube. some people will know what he looks like, so if he is your secret agent you change his appearance? i would have liked if they explained that.
the whole transwarp beaming thing, although its actually dawned on me what it was. in the first film i thought they just made a mistake as it was about beaming into a ship at warp, not so much about the distance, and they just got their distance wrong. but as the dominion used very long range tech, and after scotty was recovered in the 24th century, he could have used the info to make the feds their own version. it just becomes too powerful a piece of tech though if you can beam all round the galaxy in seconds.
the ending with the wrath of khan switch, i actually enjoyed. to a new fan it feels brand new but its a nod to the old fans. i get why some will hate it, and maybe they should not have done it, but i still quite enjoyed it for what it was.
You'd surprised how many films lose their impact when they're not yelling in your ear. It's how I realized that The Avengers was just sort of okay. Like a Xena episode with better effects.
My 60 year old mother and her granddaughter (my niece) went to watch it together and both loved it. Both of them are now huge fans of Star Trek and both of them have crushes on Captain Kirk. Of course, my mother likes young Shatner and my niece likes Pine.
Two females - three generations apart - now share a love of Star Trek. I think that's awesome.
Now my mom and niece plan to watch the series together because my niece wants more Trek.
The studio hired Abrams to revitalize the franchise. I think that's exactly what has happened here.
Although an Indian being played by a white guy is really just as wrong as an Indian being played by a Mexican as in TOS.
I really loved this film, especially as a DS9 fan. The plot would have made a good DS9 episode. Section 31, conspiracies, corruption within Starfleet, building up to war, designing ships purely for battle, characters being manipulated, Section 31 recruiting augments. Even the way Admiral Marcus said he was ready to die to protect the Federation's way of life was similar to Sloan's last words. Watch the DS9 episodes Paradise Lost and Inter Arma Silent Leges to see what I mean.
yes and no. he more or less looked the part though. We dont know his family tree. He could have mixed parents or Khans family could have originated from mexico, but he was born and raised in Indian and was an indian citizen for all we know. Its not overly important but now that it is the established look.
having Benedict who is as white as humanly possible just seems like dodgy casting (it feels like they got the best actor they could over who looked right). Even if he had a sun tan it would have helped the illusion that he is meant to be the same man.
it sort of throws me as I still dont fully believe he is khan. I keep expecting some plot twist to come.
Although i did not like it as much a the original films and episodes, i must say i was impressed. When I first saw it, for a few days after(BTW i saw it the first day it came out in America), i was like, so much action, so little dialogue in both movies, then i watched Trek 2009 again and thought about Into darkness again, and i was like, wait, there is a good amount of dialogue, there was just so much action i was blinded from the dialogue originally.
I loved the villain Khan in this movie was way better than Nero too.
Again, I give JJ's movie a 7-8 out of 10. I was impressed.
The last one I felt was horrible. But Into Darkness corrected lots of the faults. I'm not going to go in to detail because of spoilers but it took a lot of the existing Trek lore (both hard and soft canon) and made a film of it with respect.
Actually I think that was one of the best parts. Way back when Star Trek was 1st conceived, Gene made the decision that unlike other Sci Fi that he would not spell out every plot and tech detail to the audience (think old school Lost in Space). He believed that the audience could fill in the gaps, personally I like a movie that does not need to talk down to me.
Also, any time when anything is explained (Qo'noS), is when it's pertinent that all of the audience knows what it is they're talking about.
Things like Tribbles, Mudd, and more are not relevant to the core of the plot (and. therefore, do not need to be explained)
I'm with you on this, I don't see it a rehash or lazy plot point like some fanboys who can't get a grip. I look at this role reversal as just that, a role reversal. JJ Trek is an alternate timeline, not a full blown reboot of the franchise. So it stands to reason that though some events are sped up, altered, etc, that the characters are still the same. JJ Spock and JJ Kirk are still original Spock and original Kirk, and that in this instance they would indeed act the same or say same things even though roles are reversed. It also stands to reason that certain events in this alternate timeline would also mimic events from the standard timeline. Call it fate, Manifest Destiny or whatever you want.
It didn't bother me at all. Trek fans are simply under the false assumption, due to Ricardo Montelban playing Khan, that Khan is supposedly "Indian". In fact the title/surname Khan is attributed more to Persians/Arabs and to some Mongols(Kubla, Genghis). So if you really wanted to get down to the nitty gritty, Khan being "Indian" was really wrongly portrayed way back in the 60s. He very well could, or maybe even should, have just been an arab or an asian fellow. Even Khan's backstory never said he was from India, until the "out of canon" novels put forth the whole "he's Indian" thing. All TOS had ever established(and JJ Trek never really got around too) was that he was simply a conqueror of Asia to the Arab lands who is from Asia during the Eugenics Wars.
Well played, Mr. Abrams. Well played, indeed.
This film was awful
People spoiled this film 2 weeks or more before it released. Yet you apparently still went to see it? If "JJ ruined Trek" as you say, why did you waste probably at least $10 bucks to see it? I just don't get why people who whine and gripe about "JJ Trek" still go see the films. It has to be just so they can gripe and whine.
Well, he's need to see it three or four more times to write the ten page review on why the new movie sucks, with every nitpicky item. Then he will spend the next three years blanketing the net with his hate and thread bomb with his review on every forum that remotely has someone says I like the new film.
This is SO sad.
You are missing out on what Star Trek really is about.
TOS and JJ Trek are it.
Not all that boring Next Gen drek.
I urge you to watch the remastered TOS, although it will turn you off from NG.
Awww man, I was sooooo hoping after reading that first sentence that you were going to take that poster to task for completely misspelling Uhura.