Star Trek Into Darkness (The Big Bad Star Trek (X)II Thread)

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

New clip:

[Trent B 337]

Oh god the

brewery

is back!

However, judging from that it sounds like the score is gonna be awesome. I wonder if that sequence will be on the OST.

[crocodile 8,012]

Thank god it's Budweiser and not Heineken!

Karol

[Jay 37,355]

Exciting stuff!

[Faleel 5,347]

Reminds me of The Incredibles a little bit in the strings for a second..

[Trent B 337]

Thank god it's Budweiser and not Heineken!

Karol

At least Budweiser has the frogs....oh wait, had the frogs..my bad.

[Jay 37,355]

new poster

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

I like how they shrunk the Enterprise even more.

[crocodile 8,012]

That's John Harrison's secret weapon - the Shrinking Machine!

Karol

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[crocodile 8,012]

Camera? This not a photograph of the actual space battle between ships, you know... or is it? I know, I know, It's so realistic these days that you can't tell.

Karol

[Trent B 337]

To quote Peanut (Jeff Dunham) "Polish a turd, it's still a turd!"

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Oh god the

brewery

is back!

However, judging from that it sounds like the score is gonna be awesome. I wonder if that sequence will be on the OST.

That set is a damned embarrassment.

[Trent B 337]

Oh god the

brewery

is back!

However, judging from that it sounds like the score is gonna be awesome. I wonder if that sequence will be on the OST.

That set is a damned embarrassment.

Indeed. Whoever thought that a brewery should be part of an egnineering set needs to be fired...

[Ollie 1,059]

I think it's cool concept.

Kinda dumb to fire someone over that.

[Wojo 2,453]

Indeed. It's a cost savings move. You don't fire someone who saves money on sets, especially if you reuse the concept.

[Ollie 1,059]

I don't know if any of these have been posted but they are short viral videos with Cumberbatch talking about members of the crew. So far they've been available in other languages but here's the UK one for Spock and the US one for Uhura.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

I think it's cool concept.

Kinda dumb to fire someone over that.

the set designers a fraud.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

Star Trek Into Darkness stands at 88% on Rotten Tomatoes now. It's got two rotten reviews. I think there will be more.

But I'm not too concerned. Most of the negative reviews sound a lot like this:

http://www.nytimes.com/library/film/061580empire.html

For those unaware, ESB received some fairly mixed review at the outset. Most second children tend to!

The Force is with us but let's try to keep our heads. These things are certifiable: "The Empire Strikes Back," George Lucas's sequel to his "Star Wars," the biggest grossing motion picture of all time, has opened. On the basis of the early receipts, "The Empire Strikes Back" could make more money than any other movie in history, except, maybe, "Star Wars." It is the second film in a projected series that may last longer than the civilization that produced it.

Confession: When I went to see "The Empire Strikes Back" I found myself glancing at my watch almost as often as I did when I was sitting through a truly terrible movie called "The Island."

The Empire Strikes Back" is not a truly terrible movie. It's a nice movie. It's not, by any means, as nice as "Star Wars." It's not as fresh and funny and surprising and witty, but it is nice and inoffensive and, in a way that no one associated with it need be ashamed of, it's also silly. Attending to it is a lot like reading the middle of a comic book. It is amusing in fitful patches but you're likely to find more beauty, suspense, discipline, craft and art when watching a New York harbor pilot bring the Queen Elizabeth 2 into her Hudson River berth, which is what "The Empire Strikes Back" most reminds me of. It's a big, expensive, time-consuming, essentially mechanical operation.

Gone from "The Empire Strikes Back" are those associations that so enchanted us in "Star Wars," reminders of everything from the Passion of Jesus and the stories of Beowulf and King Arthur to those of Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn, the Oz books, Buck Rogers and Peanuts. Strictly speaking, "The Empire Strikes Back" isn't even a complete narrative. It has no beginning or end, being simply another chapter in a serial that appears to be continuing not onward and upward but sideways. How, then, to review it?

The fact that I am here at this minute facing a reproachful typewriter and attempting to get a fix on "The Empire Strikes Back" is, perhaps, proof of something I've been suspecting for some time now. That is, that there is more nonsense being written, spoken and rumored about movies today than about any of the other so-called popular arts except rock music. The Force is with us, indeed, and a lot of it is hot air.

Ordinarily when one reviews a movie one attempts to tell a little something about the story. It's a measure of my mixed feelings about "The Empire Strikes Back" that I'm not at all sure that I understand the plot. That was actually one of the more charming conceits of "Star Wars," which began with a long, intensely complicated message about who was doing what to whom in the galactic confrontations we were about to witness and which, when we did see them, looked sort of like a game of neighborhood hide-and-seek at the Hayden Planetarium. One didn't worry about its politics. One only had to distinguish the good persons from the bad. This is pretty much the way one is supposed to feel about "The Empire Strikes Back," but one's impulse to know, to understand, cannot be arrested indefinitely without doing psychic damage or, worse, without risking boredom.

This much about "The Empire Strikes Back" I do understand: When the movie begins, Han Solo (Harrison Ford) and Princess Leia (Carrie Fisher) and their gang are hanging out on a cold, snowy planet where soldiers ride patrols on animals that look like ostrich-kangaroos, where there are white-furred animals that are not polar bears and where Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill) almost freezes to death.

Under the command of Darth Vader, the forces of the Empire attack, employing planes, missiles and some awfully inefficient tanks that have the shape of armor-plated camels. Somehow Han Solo and Princess Leia escape. At that point Luke Skywalker flies off to find Yoda, a guru who will teach him more about the Force, Yoda being the successor to Ben (Obi-Wan) Kenobi (Alec Guinness), the "Star Wars" guru who was immolated in that movie but whose shade turns up from time to time in the new movie for what looks to have been about three weeks of work.

As Han Solo and Princess Leia wrestle with the forces of darkness and those of a new character played by Billy Dee Williams, an unreliable fellow who has future sainthood written all over him, Luke Skywalker finds his guru, Yoda, a small, delightful, Muppet-like troll created and operated by Frank Oz of the Muppet Show. Eventually these two stories come together for still another blazing display of special effects that, after approximately two hours, leave Han Solo, Leia and Luke no better off than they were at the beginning.

I'm not as bothered by the film's lack of resolution as I am about my suspicion that I really don't care. After one has one's fill of the special effects and after one identifies the source of the facetious banter that passes for wit between Han Solo and Leia (it's straight out of B-picture comedies of the 30's), there isn't a great deal for the eye or the mind to focus on. Ford, as cheerfully nondescript as one could wish a comic strip hero to be, and Miss Fisher, as sexlessly pretty as the base of a porcelain lamp, become (is it rude to say?) tiresome. One finally looks around them, even through them, at the decor. If Miss Fisher does much more of this sort of thing, she's going to wind up with the Vera Hruba Ralston Lifetime Achievement Award.

The other performers are no better or worse, being similarly limited by the not-super material. Hamill may one day become a real movie star, an identifiable personality, but right now it's difficult to remember what he looks like. Even the appeal of those immensely popular robots, C-3PO and R2-D2, starts to run out.

In this context it's no wonder that Oz's contribution, the rubbery little Yoda with the pointy ears and his old-man's frieze of wispy hair, is the hit of the movie. But even he can be taken only in small doses, possibly because the lines of wisdom he must speak sound as if they should be sung to a tune by Jimmy Van Heusen.

I'm also puzzled by the praise that some of my colleagues have heaped on the work of Irvin Kershner, whom Lucas, who directed "Star Wars" and who is the executive producer of this one, hired to direct "The Empire Strikes Back." Perhaps my colleagues have information denied to those of us who have to judge the movie by what is on the screen. Did Kershner oversee the screenplay, too? Did he do the special effects? After working tirelessly with Miss Fisher to get those special nuances of utter blandness, did he edit the film? Who, exactly, did what in this movie? I cannot tell, and even a certain knowledge of Kershner's past work ("Eyes of Laura Mars," "The Return of a Man Called Horse," "Loving") gives me no hints about the extent of his contributions to this movie. "The Empire Strikes Back" is about as personal as a Christmas card from a bank.

I assume that Lucas supervised the entire production and made the major decisions or, at least, approved of them. It looks like a movie that was directed at a distance. At this point the adventures of Luke, Leia and Han Solo appear to be a self-sustaining organism, beyond criticism except on a corporate level.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Blume should point out that ESB received mostly great reviews with some that were mixed and a few negative.

I remember that time period well.

the idea that this Star Trek reboot is going to be anything close to ESB is insulting to ESB, that would also imply that Star Trek 2009 is as good as Star Wars and that's just no where near reality.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

I just said the second movies are cursed with more mixed reviews, and that the tone of the reviews are similar.

All that said, now that you mention it....Star Trek ('09) had way better and nuanced characters than Star Wars. It's the clusterfuck of a story that kept it from the greatness of Star Wars!

[JoeinAR 1,949]

but Star Wars has the Millenium Falcon and star destroyers,

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

True. A 5 year old could draw better spacecraft than the people JJ has working for him.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

there is a review at Aint it Cool News that is rather unkind.

I think tomorrow I will pick up Star Trek the Wrath of Khan on blu, maybe Search for Spock as well, I can trade my dvd's of those films in and buy the blus for 4.99 each.

[Jay 37,355]

That's a great deal!

[JoeinAR 1,949]

well nothing gets you into a Star Trek mood than Star Trek.

[Ollie 1,059]

What dipshit wrote that review of TESB?

[publicist 4,643]

Vincent Canby.

[Pieter Boelen 740]

but Star Wars has the Millenium Falcon and star destroyers,

Now that IS a valid point. Star Wars has some pretty cool spacecraft.

In fact, Star Destroyers are SO cool that whenever I play Star Wars: Empire at War, I play as the Empire.

I don't like evil. Not at all. But Star Destroyers are just too cool to pass up on.

[Quintus 5,399]

Probably old, but it amused me.

[Ollie 1,059]

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

The film's plummeting to rotten territory!

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_into_darkness/

It's 9% away from rotten! Dun dun dun!

[crocodile 8,012]

Well, that was... unexpected.

Ah well, maybe it is a good Trek film after all.

Oh by the way, Cauliflower, where did you hear those "other" bits of Giacchino's score?

Karol

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

A few tracks blinked onto YouTube before a rather quick takedown.

[Faleel 5,347]

And you didn't download them

[JoeinAR 1,949]

The film's plummeting to rotten territory!

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_into_darkness/

It's 9% away from rotten! Dun dun dun!

I have very little hope.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

It can't be as bad as Nemesis. Right?

[JoeinAR 1,949]

well considering your predictions I don't know.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

If it's as good as Nemesis, I'll probably love it.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

You've got strange taste!

[publicist 4,643]

It's a well-made blockbuster movie - just like the first one. Which means, it's also a bit hollow and never does much beyond its shiny surface.

So if you were satisfied with Numero Uno, this was will do as good.

[Matt C 454]

Apparently, Paramount is confident enough in the movie to move up the traditional release of Star Trek Into Darkness up a day. It'll still debut in IMAX May 15th, but now the nationwide release is May 16th.

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=startrek12.htm

I don't know if they want to get a headstart on the weekend like G.I. Joe Retaliation did...

[Jay 37,355]

Sweet!

~~~

Variety's review is very very positive (only minor spoilers, no major ones)

http://variety.com/2013/film/reviews/star-trek-into-darkness-review-1200442461/#!1/startrek_benedict/

[Crimson Nagus 43]

The film's plummeting to rotten territory!

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_into_darkness/

It's 9% away from rotten! Dun dun dun!

It's 21 points away from rotten, at least now it is, which is pretty good. 81% is where it stands now, which is better then everything in the top 10 of the box office except Mud. IM3 is only at 78%.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

Holy shit. The latest tracking for this movie from ReelSource (THE tracking company):

                      Male    Female  Adult  Male  Female                      20-35   20-35    35+   Teen   Teen TREK2Plan on Seeing:        90%     81%    86%    88%   78%Aware, Not Interested:  6%     10%     8%     7%   12% Unaware:                4%      9%     6%     5%   10%

I can see why Paramount may be confident.

At this point, the only thing that can kill this film is bad reviews. Which is why I'm still sticking by domestic numbers I posted in the Box Office Thread. I think Rotten Tomatoes will be down to 70% by the time the next big wave of reviews come in.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

I would expect it to open strong around 140 million opening weekend. Unlike Ironman 3 it does not have a second week without another event film set to open. I simply do not believe the Great Gatsby will be a big hit. It looks pretty, and pretty dreadful.

Star Trek has one week to preform well then it goes head to head with Hangover Pt. 3. Still it will be strong through Memorial Day.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

Now this is a poster. Officially released in the Star Trek app.

[Trent B 337]

I don't let reviews get in the way of seeing the film. If I like it, I like it. If I don't then I don't. I don't think I should let someone else' review sway me from not seeing the movie. I for one AM going to see the movie.

Regarding the design of J.J's-Prise... I know they did a bash of the TOS and Refit (while adding some things) but the way how the whole thing is designed is just ....off. The nacelles sit to close together and the engineering hull does not flow well with the rest of the ship. If they fixed those two areas then I wouldn't have a problem with the design. I'll have to come up with a sketch to show you what I mean..

[JoeinAR 1,949]

it's a cool ship and yet it's ugly too.

The saucer is clear reflective of the original series, I works well with the bridge area reflective of the Enterprise refit from STTMP.

the secondary hull is....off as you say Trent.

The slightly swept forward arms attached to the nacelles was rejected in the designs for the previous Enterprises as it looked like a turkey. There is a reason why they where rejected. They are unattractive.

I do like the nacelles themselves but they are too close together. The deflector dish is really good. The neck from the secondary hull to the saucer is off as well. It should be placed much closer to the front of the secondary hull.

I do hope Enterprise NCC-1701-A in the future will be a better looking ship

[Jay 37,355]

Another clip online

http://on.mtv.com/18w1er6