Star Trek Into Darkness

In reply to stroker:

I think they touched a bit on those with this latest film. Maybe they just tread overly lightly for fear of inciting people politically.

Let's see... military warhawk using people's emotional desire for revenge following a major terrorist bombing to justify a pre-emptive strike in what he believes to be an inevitable war..? The difference between revenge and justice. I mean, it's not like the restyling of the Klingons made them look more Arabian or anything.

And compare this to the other movies. Yes, the series was about exploration and the social tensions of the day, but were the movies really? Voyage Home had a definite environmental message, but all the other films? Umm... not so much moral philosophizing, as just good films.

Okay, lemme pose this question to you. Would you have rather watched a retread "homage" or would have rather seen an entirely new version of "James T. Kirk & Co. meet the Borg" for the first time?

stroker wrote: Okay, lemme pose this question to you. Would you have rather watched a retread "homage" or would have rather seen an entirely new version of "James T. Kirk & Co. meet the Borg" for the first time?

I didn't see this as a "retread homage". I would not have wanted them to fight the Borg. I like the direction they took. They are reusing characters, but taking new plot lines, tensions, and themes. They are focusing on the role of Star Fleet, the excitement and danger of new exploration, and the growing tension with the Klingons as to whether or not war is inevitable. Only thing that felt slightly re-canned was going in to the irradiated chamber to save the Enterprise. But, I saw that as a way of showing that, even though this is a fresh start, history has a way of repeating itself.

Getting pissed off that the reused Khan as a villain is a bit like watching a new Sherlock Holmes movie and getting pissed off over discovering that Moriarty is the mastermind.

In reply to Beer Baron:

I'm not pissed they used Khan. I'm pissed that they had a choice of doing the same old thing or trying to break some new ground and they chose the former.

stroker wrote: In reply to Beer Baron: I'm not pissed they used Khan. I'm pissed that they had a choice of doing the same old thing or trying to break some new ground and they chose the former.

Like this?

I saw it coming from a mile away, and I laughed.

I find it irritating that the characters in this latest film ape the original characters so much they seem to be imitating them more than acting on their own. It isn't funny, and as a Trek fan, it really isn't entertaining either.

I can see how it could be irritating, but it is what they are doing, playing THAT character which was defined by the previous actor. I mean, if they made Kirk an overweight Hispanic woman, that would be a bit strange.

In reply to aircooled:

That lady keeps telling me my friend isn't there before hanging up the phone......wtf?

Well, I found a web comic about our argument...

Okay, let's just say I wish the Enterprise (pick your variant) would run into the planet of Cannibal Child Molesters sometime. Let's see how well the Prime Directive tackles that.

Saw the movie last week. I agree, they have become big action pictures that ramp your pulse every 5 minutes or so. But I don't care. I've known these characters for nearly 40 years now. They are old friends and I enjoy getting to hang out with them for a few hours every few years.

stroker wrote: Okay, lemme pose this question to you. Would you have rather watched a retread "homage" or would have rather seen an entirely new version of "James T. Kirk & Co. meet the Borg" for the first time?

I hate the Borg. They sucked, and we never would have beaten them.

Other than 7 of 9. She was hot.

Correction, the Borg sucked once the Voyager writers got ahold of them. Before that, they were a legitimate "unbeatable" villan that would kick the E36 M3 out of anyone in their path without breaking a sweat. The crews really had to work to come out of it alive. Janeway, however, had some gimmick to beat them every other episode

I think it needed a more menacing enemy... like... say...

FINALLY going to see this movie tonight. I can't wait.

And now The Onion weighs in: http://www.theonion.com/video/trekkies-bash-new-star-trek-film-as-fun-watchable,14333/

puts fingers in ears Not listening! I haven't read anything, but I'm seeing it this weekend. Pretty excited!

They couldn't have broken new ground in THIS movie. This one was about getting them back to the starting place of the series.

Now they have the choice of mixing in some of the old plot lines and enemies AND throwing in some differences.

They've got the cast, the audience and money to do more. From this point on, as long as they stay within the constraints already laid down by the series they've got a chance to do it 1 better. Actually many more times than 1 better as this is a movie and not a TV series shot on a budget and a limited time frame.

Jeff wrote: Saw the movie last week. I agree, they have become big action pictures that ramp your pulse every 5 minutes or so. But I don't care. I've known these characters for nearly 40 years now. They are old friends and I enjoy getting to hang out with them for a few hours every few years.

Bam. I just came back from it, and I agree it's probably the best one since Undiscovered Country. Not as philosophical as the shows were, but the movies were never as deep as the TV shows anyhow. The lens flare doesn't really bug me, I never really noticed it until people started talking about it. It's a great action sci fi flick starring characters that I love.

But, as solid as Cumberbatch was, only Ricardo Montalban is Khan.

Am I the only one that noticed the Firefly-esque camerawork? The shaky wide view with a rapid zoom-in was a firefly staple.

bgkast wrote: Am I the only one that noticed the Firefly-esque camerawork? The shaky wide view with a rapid zoom-in was a firefly staple.

Yup, noticed that. Battlestar Galactica (the new series) comes to mind too. they did that a lot.

So, I saw it last night. I really liked it. Well, then again, the only two Trek movies I didn't find some enjoyment from were Insurrection (I can't even tell you what happened, it was that forgettable) and Generations (Kirk deserved a much better send-off).

I won't give out any spoilers, but they had me going for a little while after the big battle. If it ended that way, I would have gotten up and left. Glad it didn't.

Also, I liked the multiple nods to The Original Series episodes, like the ones with Harry Mudd. Total fan service, but I appreciated it.

Another thing: they NEED TO make a new TV series. It needs to be in the future, past the events that happened to cause the alternate timeline. They could do it, and if they do, use the new Battlestar Galactica series as a benchmark (if you haven't seen it, go watch it!). That would be cool. And that way, they can have the movies in the alternate timeline while the new series is on TV. They did this before, and they could do it again. There is a serious lack of good sci-fi on TV right now, and this would fill the void.

I liked it as an action sci-fi movie. Not as a Star Trek movie. I feel like the point of Star Trek was that they worked out solutions to problems together as a team. It led the viewer through their thought processes. This, though, seemed to be lots of infighting within the crew and maverick actions working with deus ex machina solutions. It didn't feel like Star Trek to me. Instead of the meat of the Star Trek ethos, Star Trek fans are left with token comments about red shirts instead.

The Kronos fight scene looked like it could have come straight out of a video game. I kept waiting for the health and kill score HUD to show up. Plus, it looked like half the costumes were inspired by Assassin's Creed.

That said, it was visually and sonically impressive. The opening scene was fantastically beautiful. It was the best sound I've heard in a movie in a while, and I didn't see it with ATMOS.

I felt the whole magic blood thing was weak. Again, another trite plot device. I found myself hoping for a Star Trek 3: The Search for Kirk, only to be let down with a last minute resurrection.

Plus, where the heck were the terrestrial defenses, space docks, etc. around Earth? Where were the tractor beams? Why the heck was it that the ONLY ships anywhere were the Enterprise and the Dreadnought? They might as well have had the pivotal battle take place above that red forest. Why was everyone else sitting with their thumbs up their butts?

scardeal wrote: I liked it as an action sci-fi movie. Not as a Star Trek movie. I feel like the point of Star Trek was that they worked out solutions to problems together as a team. It led the viewer through their thought processes. This, though, seemed to be lots of infighting within the crew and maverick actions working with deus ex machina solutions. It didn't feel like Star Trek to me. Instead of the meat of the Star Trek ethos, Star Trek fans are left with token comments about red shirts instead.

I dunno, I seem to recall a whole lot of fistfights in the original series, with Kirk laying down a beating regularly, and including Scotty fistfighting Klingons who insutled the Enterprise. And a lot of Scotty coming up with last minute miracles that won the battles.

bgkast wrote: Am I the only one that noticed the Firefly-esque camerawork? The shaky wide view with a rapid zoom-in was a firefly staple.

Totally. My wife and I call that "shaky-zoom" and while Firefly used it infrequently and with some restraint they used it all the frakkin' time on Battlestar Galactica. The first time they used it, we pointed it out to each other and thought it might be a call back to Firefly. Then they used it again 5 minutes later. And again. And again. I swear they used it to zoom in on a water glass at some point, for no apparent reason. Horrible device in BSG, neat in Firefly.

It was neat in Firefly because it was new, now it's like having the Wilhelm Scream every 30 seconds or something.

Chris_V wrote: I dunno, I seem to recall a whole lot of fistfights in the original series, with Kirk laying down a beating regularly, and including Scotty fistfighting Klingons who insutled the Enterprise. And a lot of Scotty coming up with last minute miracles that won the battles.

My wife and I have been watching TOS on Netflix for the past year or so. (We've got 5 or 6 episodes left, and we've also watched all the OS movies recently as well.) That stuff was the exception rather than the rule. That's why it was remarkable and memorable when they happened. If I recall correctly, in about 90% of the cases where they fought, it was after trying all other courses of action. There are also several episodes where the striking thing was Kirk's refusal to fight when the easy thing to do would have been to fight.