Star Trek Into Darkness SPOILERS ALLOWED Discussion Thread

[JoeinAR 1,949]

of course it doesn't matter to you at all the Blume agreed it was a ripoff.

[Jay 37,310]

Of course it is, but that wasn't what we were discussing.

[Wojo 2,453]

Hope your neck heals, Joe!

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Hope your neck heals, Joe!

thanks,

thanks to Extremis I will be fine.

[Jay 37,310]

I think it would have been cool if Pepper got to keep her powers

[JoeinAR 1,949]

it would be cool if you could regenerate limbs.

or like in Star Trek the Voyage home...the doctor gave me a pill and I grew a new kidney.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

Regrow limbs you say?

http://www.theverge.com/science/2013/5/2/4292988/3d-printed-bionic-ear-made-from-cartilage-and-antenna

[Jay 37,310]

Regrow limbs you say? http://www.theverge.com/science/2013/5/2/4292988/3d-printed-bionic-ear-made-from-cartilage-and-antenna

THAT is fucking cool.

We just got a 3D printer at work. It's REALLY awesome

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

So in my head I'm imagining the opening of "Sub-Prime Directive" playing over a scene of the Enterprise flying back home to a Starbase for Kirk to get reprimanded. In a scene not unlike the return of the Enterprise to Starbase in Search for Spock.

Let me guess: I'm completely wrong and it's actually for the Enterprise rescuing Spock. BORING.

[Brónach 1,301]

Regrow limbs you say? http://www.theverge.com/science/2013/5/2/4292988/3d-printed-bionic-ear-made-from-cartilage-and-antenna

An ear now? Last time I checked they could do bladders.

It's going to be awesome when they can pretty much make any part of the body as needed.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

I paid $27.50 to see it.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

Just got back from the midnight IMAX. We got cool posters from the movie afterwards! These are actually really really cool. Concept paintings, and they have an embossed paint effect (you can feel the picture). The sun is a glow in the dark type ink, so it glows, but something is printed in it in a white non-glow-in-the dark paint. So you see the Vengeance (or is it?) in the sun when the poster is in the dark. I'm impressed! A sizable banner/poster!

Initial thoughts: Very good. Lots of great music left out of the album. Lots! Memorable, gorgeously harmonized stuff. Not enough Benedict (I swear by the end he only appeared a total of 15-20 minutes on screen). The movie is rapid. The TWoK ripoff scenes were handled extremely well. I thought they'd be cheesy, but they actually worked. Kudos to the cast.

I wouldn't say better or worse than 2009.

[publicist 4,643]

Lots of great music left out of the album. Lots! Memorable, gorgeously harmonized stuff. Not enough Benedict (I swear by the end he only appeared a total of 15-20 minutes on screen). The movie is rapid. The TWoK ripoff scenes were handled extremely well. I thought they'd be cheesy, but they actually worked. Kudos to the cast.

"Gorgeously harmonized"? Must be the drought of great blockbuster scores. There was once or twice a bassoon or oboe playing that stood out, but on the whole the score is disappointingly shallow in concept and execution (not that more was expected).

Cumberbatch was about Bana level as the villain. Another thing i find tedious about this movie: we are subjected to minutes of an opening cliffhanger but then they didn't found the time to flesh out their unspeakable villain - he heals the girl (onscreen), blows up some building (offscreen), then he gets into the Enterprise adventure and all information about his supposed badness is provided via dialogue.

I found the film entertaining for what it was (it goes by fast and efficient, like a blowjob by an experienced old whore), but as i said earlier, it really is fastfood product without much nutritional value.

[Brónach 1,301]

Will the new Star Wars be... that?

[publicist 4,643]

The dizziness one felt while first watching ATTACK OF THE CLONES surely will not be repeated. Abrams is too pragmatic for such baroque depths of badness.

I must add that my knowledge of STAR TREK is rather miniscule, so there might be some delicious connections STID may have spun i completely missed.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

Lots of great music left out of the album. Lots! Memorable, gorgeously harmonized stuff. Not enough Benedict (I swear by the end he only appeared a total of 15-20 minutes on screen). The movie is rapid. The TWoK ripoff scenes were handled extremely well. I thought they'd be cheesy, but they actually worked. Kudos to the cast.

"Gorgeously harmonized"? Must be the drought of great blockbuster scores. There was once or twice a bassoon or oboe playing that stood out, but on the whole the score is disappointingly shallow in concept and execution (not that more was expected).

Cumberbatch was about Bana level as the villain. Another thing i find tedious about this movie: we are subjected to minutes of an opening cliffhanger but then they didn't found the time to flesh out their unspeakable villain - he heals the girl (onscreen), blows up some building (offscreen), then he gets into the Enterprise adventure and all information about his supposed badness is provided via dialogue.

I found the film entertaining for what it was (it goes by fast and efficient, like a blowjob by an experienced old whore), but as i said earlier, it really is fastfood product without much nutritional value.

Between the trio of showing, telling, and implying, the movie certainly does more implying, yes. It relies on you to draw lines between points.

Though separate discussion from this movie, I never bought the old "one is more nutritional than the other" idea that you seem to adopt and wear in your feigned la-di-da film critic persona here.

Each technique is either well used and used appropriately or not.

Sometimes showing too much feels like spoon-feeding. Sometimes implying too much leads to confusion or ambiguity that compromises artistic vision. Sometimes telling too much feels cheap and boring. Showing more things in this movie would not have made it more nutritious.

The trick is balancing the three to cater to the artistic vision.

Besides, how does fleshing things out for your audience make it more nutritious? If anything isn't making them think and fill in the gaps require more active mental participation?

[publicist 4,643]

That's pure sophism and you know it. By this feeble logic, STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS is a wonderful movie that couldn't have been made any other way because it is the way it is.

If there is anything in STIM that makes them think, hopefully it will be things like the unearned pathos and tv-style emotionalisation which has become the norm for movies like this. It's made in the more-bang-for-your-buck style Abrams seems to handle well, but it sure ain't stimulating mental participation' on any level.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

It could have been made an infinite number of ways. But it was made this way for a reason. And it was made very well this way. It has enough to get you discussing without being dragged down by endless let's show you this, and this, and this and this!

If anything, that it's so close to the original Wrath of Khan makes it an excellent example of how to very different approaches to the same basic story can be entertaining while giving you enough to have discussion and some thinking.

At the end of the day, the collective Star Trek franchise, far from being anything near a perfectly crafted intellectual tour de force of art and intellect, has inspired more progress and forward thinking in humanity than most, if not all, of what the la-di-da critics would claim to be "intellectual art" and "brain food" in their cute little circles.

[Brónach 1,301]

The point being that the collective Star Trek franchise doesn't do that anymore because it's 2013 and it's still anchored to these roots.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

I remember watching the 9 minute preview before the Hobbit, a child a seat away asked his dad why Scotty was mad they were underwater. A child had his curiosity sparked about corrosion (which is a huge problem...it costs the US alone $300 billion/year).

As long as Star Trek continues to stimulate questions of that sort at a minimum, it is an intellectually engaging piece of entertainment in my book. Everything else like the 9/11 allegory is a bonus.

[publicist 4,643]

At the end of the day, the collective Star Trek franchise, far from being anything near a perfectly crafted intellectual tour de force of art and intellect, has inspired more progress and forward thinking in humanity than most, if not all, of what the la-di-da critics would claim to be "intellectual art" and "brain food" in their cute little circles.

Ahh, fanboy wrath in full force. This is the ONE thing STAR TREK does indeed stimulate in huge capacities.

[crocodile 7,988]

What film did did you watch again, Blume?

Karol

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

Star Trek Into Darkness!

[Brónach 1,301]

I remember watching the 9 minute preview before the Hobbit, a child a seat away asked his dad why Scotty was mad they were underwater. A child had his curiosity sparked about corrosion (which is a huge problem...it costs the US alone $300 billion/year).

As long as Star Trek continues to stimulate questions of that sort at a minimum, it is an intellectually engaging piece of entertainment in my book. Everything else like the 9/11 allegory is a bonus.

I'm not going to say I disagree with that extremely specific example, but do you apply this criteria to everything else as well?

The thought on what is brain food depends on the person. For example, I remember someone describing Alien like that, but to me Alien is not intelectually engaging science-fiction. So it varies.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

The thought on what is brain food depends on the person.

That's more or less my point, with Star Trek as an example.

Dismissing a film as "junk food" because you didn't feel it hit on your narrow band of "intellectual stimulation" at a particular interval of time is a bit silly. Yet it happens time and time again.

It is not a valid criteria for objective criticism.

[Brónach 1,301]

But whether or not something intelectually stimulating doesn't really affect the whole thing. There are many non-intelectual films to me that I enjoy, for example my Alien example.

I wouldn't measure the Abrams Star Trek films on an intelectual level because... well it's a space opera rooted on a 60's TV show rehashing storylines designed to the last detail and hypercharged to appeal to a wide audience and make a bunch of money.

[publicist 4,643]

Dismissing a film as "junk food" because you didn't feel it hit on your narrow band of "intellectual stimulation" at a particular interval of time is a bit silly. Yet it happens time and time again.

It is not a valid criteria for objective criticism.

'Objective criticism'? What's that for?

What i see here, ladies and gentlemen, is another example of 'objective bullshit', namely distorting other people's opinions just to make your subjective one seem superior. You stink to high heaven today, Blume.

[KK 3,307]

I remember watching the 9 minute preview before the Hobbit, a child a seat away asked his dad why Scotty was mad they were underwater. A child had his curiosity sparked about corrosion (which is a huge problem...it costs the US alone $300 billion/year).

As long as Star Trek continues to stimulate questions of that sort at a minimum, it is an intellectually engaging piece of entertainment in my book. Everything else like the 9/11 allegory is a bonus.

That example seems like a bit of a stretch doesn't it? I assume numerous films can spark curiosity about tons of different issues.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

so in all the bs and hyperbole....Blume, how did you actually like it and how does it rate versus past Star Trek (or as Dave likes to say real Star Trek), and how does it rate versus this summers other blockbuster IM3?

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

I think I enjoyed my one-time IM3 experience more. But I think this is a movie that is more rewatchable than IM3. I'm never going back to see IM3.

To be honest, this felt more like a real Star Trek than 2009. If nothing else, because it was dialogue driven (characters talking through dilemmas and problems) with action [generously] interspersed.

In a way, much like Khan, a lot of the material at the beginning feels cold and detached, and how well you like it will be entirely dependent on if you buy the climax at the end. In Khan, you buy the emotional ending, so everything at the beginning feels satisfying and heartful to you in retrospect.

Not sure I know how to rank it yet. I need one more viewing.

[Edit] Best and most well done scene in the movie IMO is Kirk beating the shit out of Khan (at that point Harrison) and Khan just looking at him in an uncaring...cold and dispassionate "OK are you done?" it was very nicely directed with some cool sound design and music. I got the creepy chills. The movie does not get better than that though.

[Matt C 452]

I don't understand the furor going over J.J. Abrams' comments (I think it was either Daily Show or Conan) where he said he "wasn't a Star Trek fan growing up". He's said that ever since he made the 2009 film.

Just because I didn't like ranch dressing on my salad when I was growing up, doesn't mean I don't like it now.

[Ollie 1,059]

Well this film has the NSB seal of approval and that's all that matters to me.

[crocodile 7,988]

It's not a matter of whether the film is good or bad, it's a matter of what kind of Star Trek do you want to see. If you want an intelligent s-f film at its core, it will disappoint. If you want a fun thrill-ride summer blockbuster where you literally have no time to process anything or question anything, the film delivers in spades.

In any case, he should make a decent Star Wars film. He's clearly well suited for that. And that's my main reflection after watching Into Darkness.

Karol

[Wojo 2,453]

In any case, he should make a decent Star Wars film. He's clearly well suited for that. And that's my main reflection after watching Into Darkness.

Karol

The director of the next Star Wars films aren't my concern. It's the script. Hell, give George Lucas a decent script and I think he could direct a good movie. He did it once. He just grounded out to short his next three at bats with poodoo scripts.

[Wycket 36]

Saw this last night and loved it.

I really liked the last film, though I rewatched with my friends on Monday night as they had never seen it and I seemed to notice the bad far more than the good. I still think its a good film, though after watching all twelve films now over the last six months, I can definitely say that Into Darkness feels far more like a Trek film than the last one.

The problems are still there. There's far too much action, though it is all very well done so at least its not intolerable, though I definitely wouldn't have minded a few less "action" sequences. The dialogue is still not up to snuff, with most of the best lines coming from call backs to previous shows/films. Then there are a number of swear words, which don't bother me, but just feel out of place with being used so frequently in a Trek film. Lens flare only really seemed to be noticeable to me on the bridge, and even then it wasn't nearly as pronounced as the last film so this was a pleasant surprise, not that I was bothered by it before.

Now, the best part of this is the acting. Cumberbatch is great in the role, and just looks menacing throughout the film. He's not as physically imposing as Montalban, but he just looks scary and is very vicious in his actions which harkens back to the Khan in Space Seed which was great. As for the crew, Pine and Quinto really stepped up and delivered in the role, with Pine's sacrifice being quite moving and incredibly well done. Quinto felt a lot more like Spock this time to me, and not just the stereotypical portrayal of him I felt we got the first time around. The rest of the cast all did well, though Saldana probably stood out as the worst to me but they really gave her little to actual do and work with, so I really can't complain. Pegg really nailed Scotty this time to me, as did Peter Weller who really doesn't get enough work.

As for the music, I was really pleased that the score still felt the same, but definitely showed signs of maturity not only for Giacchino, but for the characters as well. As much as I like his rendition of the classic theme, it felt tacked on to me in this score and I much more would have preferred something different this time around, but I suppose its little to complain about. Ode to Khan was great and totally nailed the character for me, and will likely become a favorite of mine for years to come out of this score.

All in all, I was very pleased with the film. Having gone in with doubt after hearing about dubious reviews, I was relieved while watching that I enjoyed the film as much as I did. The writers did a good job mashing Space Seed and Wrath of Khan together, while still having the militaristic starfleet plot connect to it and not feel arbitrary. Honestly, I would have loved for Khan to simply be an ally this time around and end the film taking the Vengeance to come back for revenge in the sequel, but I thought things came together pretty well as is. Watching interviews, it seems like the cast is done after the next one, so if the last film with them is somehow about them restoring the original timeline and returning to the Prime universe after that, I will find these films very favorably and appreciate them for giving Trek the kick it needed after getting so stale under Rick Berman.

[Faleel 5,340]

I liked it.

Some interesting unreleased cues, I wonder if there are any unused/Alternates? (the original IMAX prologue etc.)

[Ollie 1,059]

And in the spirit of this thread I paid $8.50 ea for my tickets for a matinee showing, 2D.

[Jay 37,310]

$7.75 for a 2D Friday afternoon matinee for me.

[Ollie 1,059]

Mine is reserved seating. So we can show up 5 minutes before the film starts if we wanted to and not have to stand in line or look for seats.

[Jay 37,310]

What'd you think of the movie?

[A. A. Ron 1,740]

Just got back from seeing this. I think I like the last film better actually. Khan was great of course, but Kirk just came off as an asshole for most of the film. Maybe it was just me, I don't know. Either way, it took a good 40 minutes for the film to really get interesting for me. Once it did, I enjoyed myself. The actors for Spock, Uhura, Scotty, Sulu, and Chekov all really owned their roles this time around. McCoy was great as always -- loved how he was hitting on Dr. Marcus. Wish Leonard Nimoy's scene hadn't seemed so......worthless. Oh and I think it's kinda funny how Peter Weller is playing such a similar role to the one he had on the Enterprise TV series.

[Ollie 1,059]

This film is excellent.

I don't care that Khan is the villian, I thought Cumberbatch was great in his role. I think this role gave him more to do as Khan than his predecessor's.

I thought this film improved on the weaknesses of the first film as far as giving more depth to the characters and focusing a bit more on the story. I thought Weller was a perfect choice for his role. And I didn't mind the ending either, I thought it was touching. It continued Kirk's maturation of a Captain.

The main goal of a film is to entertain its audience and this film does that. Abrams keeps the pace going but he allows the audience to breathe. It doesn't have to be an arthouse or acclaimed film because I've seen my share of them that have captivated me and plenty that have been awful too.

This series so far is what the prequels should have been and I'll be honest and say I'm actually getting excited for Episode VII.

Oh yeah, there's interesting music missing and Giacchino's score is very good.

[Matt C 452]

On some levels, it's superior to the 2009 film. Benedict Cumberbatch is a wonderful villain (even if his role was the worst-kept secret ever) and the action scenes are even better this time around.

But the script plays like fan fic, like someone saying "I didn't like how 'Wrath of Khan' ended, so I'll write my own ending and set it in the '09 filmverse." It's entertaining fan fic, to be sure, but it's time Paramount goes with fresh writers for the third film. The interactions between the crew are fun to watch as always, but Uhura barely has anything to do apart from kick ass, and get snippy with Spock.

And the deus ex machina appearance by Leonard Nimoy was just fanwank for the veteran ST fans (whereas his appearance in the '09 film felt more integral). And WTF was with that 9/11 dedication after the end credit sequence? It's 11 years too late.

Despite my gripes with the script as well as the writers & director lying about Benedict Cumberbatch's role in the film (even after advance screenings), it's an enjoyable ST film. I think it's on par with the first pic.... would've been better had Orci, Kurtzman & Lindenof had been kicked to the curb and J.J. Abrams weren't so OCD about keeping the film secret up until release.

And Giacchino's score was nice, even though I didn't remember anything new apart from the motif for Cumberbatch's character and the opening scene music.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

I thought this film was excellent. I was surprised how much I was engaged by it. I want to see it again.

That's high praise in itself.

[Matt C 452]

I technically didn't pay out of pocket. I had a free ticket, which covered the $10.75 3D price-tag.

[Ollie 1,059]

@ Joey, I just fell out of my chair.

[Wojo 2,453]

I think Dave hijacked Joey's account for a post.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

No we both liked it. Unfortunately it's not showing at home at a matinee time we can see this week. We'll have to see 3 movies next weekend.

Fast 6, Hangover 3, and Star Trek IND

[gkgyver 1,645]

What does that mean, the cast is done after the next one? Part of my enjoyment of these films comes from the imagination what they will look like in later films, when they actually have the proper age.

These films feel like Teen-Star Trek, and they're great, but I really want a Trek film with adult actors in the near future, in five or ten years.

Why would you rob this series of that payoff?

[Brónach 1,301]

How old are the characters supposed to be?

Pine is 32. Quinto is 35. Karl Urban is 40. Zoe is 34. Simon Pegg is 43 and John Cho is 40. Anton Yelchin is 24.