Star Trek Into Darkness WOW! (WARNING: spoilers ahead!)

I really liked the first film because it did a great job at being a classic Star Trek reboot, bringing back the characters, their quirks, and their interrelationships which were a very significant and important part of the original series.

STID, however, is a predictable formula action sci-fi film with predictable formula dialog utilizing characters and often poorly (and, in one case, ridiculously) executed stolen plot lines that someone else created, all mixed in with some stunning special effects. Any character interaction is buried within those special effects, garnering no laughter at all from the early-bird (and most likely fellow trekker) viewers in the theater. This is 180 degrees from what Roddenberry created: daring ideas, imaginative concepts and innovative characters and dialog with lackluster special effects, the best that they could do back then. CGI has allowed bubblegum where once intelligent plots were required.

The instant credits began to roll, nearly everyone left their seats, ignoring the impressive planetary backgrounds during the first part of the credits, a completely different reaction than I've seen from films that actually affect the audience. Abrams who is not a ST enthusiast apparently thinks ST enthusiasts are the same sort of audience that wants to see Fast and Furious 6. I, for one, am not.

I own the first Abrams ST on Blu-ray and have watched it at least once since I saw it in the theater. This will not happen with STID.

I posted a spoilered version of this on Facebook. I'll sanitize it here.
I have decided that Cumberbatch's character was not who he claimed to be. In this case and the last, the first of that group announced that he was 'that guy'. They were probably all told to announce that they were 'that guy' if only one of them was available. For that matter the 'that guy' from the Original Series may not have actually been 'that guy'. While TOS'TG' was a man of his word, Cumberbatch's 'TG' was a blatant liar who would say or do anything to advance his cause. 'That Guy's name is instantly to Starfleet databanks and historians - the rest of them, not so much. Obviously, Cumberbatch's 'TG' would use the fear/awe of the name to furthur his cause.

Given all the other silliness in the movie, I think this is pretty reasonable. As an action film, it was adequate. As an entry in the Star Trek catalog, it was pathetic.

PhlAsh said:

As an action film, it was adequate. As an entry in the Star Trek catalog, it was pathetic.

Click to expand...

Totally agree. In a comment in another forum, someone mentioned that there have been some excellent sci-fi stories presented within some of the bazillion Star Trek themed books written over the years and that Abrams should base some films on them. As good as they are at hiding plot lines prior to release, the only people possibly disappointed by a movie based upon one of those books would be the tiny minority who'd have actually read it. I think it's a fantastic idea. There are probably many excellent, intelligent, thought provoking Sci-Fi scripts out there to choose from.

PhlAsh said:

As an action film, it was adequate. As an entry in the Star Trek catalog, it was pathetic.

Click to expand...

This is by far the best post in this thread. It sums up my feelings completely.

Perhaps JJ only re-writes others original work so that he can have the "Shock Value" when he changes them. I saw no reason for the "re-boot'" in his first film. It rendered all the other stories, series, and movies null and void. I was raised on those stories. You can't just pull them out from under my feet and expect me to applaud your "creative genius".

chuck5395 said:

I saw no reason for the "re-boot'" in his first film. It rendered all the other stories, series, and movies null and void.

Click to expand...

Exactly how did it render all of the original series "null and void"? It brought a new, younger set of the original ST characters for future use in what could have been creative, intelligent follow-up films. What, do you want them to use the original ST actors, all of whom are now either geriatric or dead?

Winston said:

Exactly how did it render all of the original series "null and void"? It brought a new, younger set of the original ST characters for future use in what could have been creative, intelligent follow-up films. What, do you want them to use the original ST actors, all of whom are now either geriatric or dead?

Click to expand...

No, I want them to leave them alone and write new original stories. Rodenberry was able to create new story lines without treading on his previous work. Why must everything be a re-make? Are we so bereft of original thought that can no longer be creative? Are we as consumers of entertainment so limited in thought that we will only watch re-make movies? I guess that I am sadly in the minority when it comes to this. The box office sales, as was previously mentioned, say that we don't care for originality. We just like to watch the same story over and over and over.

Fuse Eh! said:

but all in all it was a pretty good sci-fi action thriller / morality play.

Click to expand...

Personally, I would have liked less "action thriller" and more "morality play" Don't get me wrong, I like a good sci-fi action thriller; but Trek, to me, is - or at least should be - more than that.

Winston said:

I really liked the first film because it did a great job at being a classic Star Trek reboot, bringing back the characters, their quirks, and their interrelationships which were a very significant and important part of the original series.

Click to expand...

This. I want to see more character exploration.

Winston said:

STID, however, is a predictable formula action sci-fi film with predictable formula dialog utilizing characters and often poorly (and, in one case, ridiculously) executed stolen plot lines that someone else created, all mixed in with some stunning special effects. Any character interaction is buried within those special effects, garnering no laughter at all from the early-bird (and most likely fellow trekker) viewers in the theater. This is 180 degrees from what Roddenberry created: daring ideas, imaginative concepts and innovative characters and dialog with lackluster special effects, the best that they could do back then. CGI has allowed bubblegum where once intelligent plots were required.

Click to expand...

Also, this.

Winston said:

The instant credits began to roll, nearly everyone left their seats, ignoring the impressive planetary backgrounds during the first part of the credits, a completely different reaction than I've seen from films that actually affect the audience.

Click to expand...

I sat through he credits the first time like I always do, to see if there was a "bonus scene" at the end. (spolier: theer isn't) I did not enjoy the impressive planetary backrounds; they were giving me motion sickness (which I do not normally suffer from) even in 2D. Second time I saw the movie (as part of a company outing yesterday) I got up and left as soon as the Enterprise warped out on her five year mission.

Something else that bugged me, and I get that it was done to move the "story" along, but is the Klingon homeworld really only a few minutes away from earth at warp? Also, I'm pretty sure the moon is far enough away that a ship rendered adrift near it is not going to "fall into earth's gravity" within a matter of minutes... I know trek has always played fast and loose with distances and how "fast" warp travel really is, but honestly?

And just so I don't spend my whole post complaining. The scenes setting up the motivation for the bomber were perfect. The performances of those 2 actors was supurb in my opinion. You got a sense of EXACTLY what they were going through, and what they were feeling/thinking without a single word of dialog between them. And you understood WHY he made the choice he did. It was horrific, but you understood him.

Oh, by the way: the Spock-Uhura romance needs to be ENDED.

It's sophomoric, chick-lit soap-opera crap, and it's completely distracing/disruptive/derailing to the storylines. No major event can happen in the movie without Uhura snuggling up to Spock, giving him the puppy-dog eyes, and sobbing about whatever this latest crisis is going to mean to "their relationship."

Not to mention it's utterly out of character for both principals (one in particular who is supposed to be a member of an alien culture whose entire philosophy is based on the ironclad control of emotion).

Guys its a SF film not King Lear. The plots In TOS ran the gamut from the ridiculous to the sublime but not all were thought provoking ground breaking drama. I think this film was a little predictable but had a lot of great moments. Abrams took a moribund franchise and bought life back to it.

The real Star Trek was never about how many action figures could be sold or how big the opening weekend was. It was about a Wagon Train to the Stars. Once the plug was pulled on Phase II and ST:TMP was commissioned, it was all downhill. So now Trek is another Corporate Franchise, churning out the same lame burgers as the all the others. Now it's not even SciFi, it's a bloody Space Opera. Underwater starships? The dream was officially dead when the champagne bottle cracked on the Enterprise B hull.

Not sure if this was already mentioned here, but did anyone notice that Kirk called Scotty on Earth from in or near Klingon Space, apparently using only their communicators? Even if the Enterprise relayed the comms, that means that Cell Phones in the 23rd century can communicate in real time over hundreds of light years via subspace...


Just Sayin...

Fred22 said:

Guys its a SF film not King Lear. The plots In TOS ran the gamut from the ridiculous to the sublime but not all were thought provoking ground breaking drama. I think this film was a little predictable but had a lot of great moments. Abrams took a moribund franchise and bought life back to it.

Click to expand...

What the man said. And for those complaining about the lack of utopian themes in the new Star Trek movies, which ST movie is considered the best in the franchise? Oh, wait...The Wrath of Khan...the main themes deal with vengeance, obsession, revenge, a weapon of mass destruction, and aging into non-relevance.

And I'm sorry, sci-fi has always taken a mirror to current day issues to allow us to examine them in a different setting. TOS did this with things like the Cold War, Vietnam, racism, weapons of mass destruction, abuse of power, etc.

Finally, for those fans of TWOK...realize that was 30+ YEARS AGO. The majority of the demographic Paramount is aiming for wasn't even 10 years old when TWOK was released. You want to keep a franchise alive, you need to keep it relevant.

FC

Zonie said:

Not sure if this was already mentioned here, but did anyone notice that Kirk called Scotty on Earth from in or near Klingon Space, apparently using only their communicators? Even if the Enterprise relayed the comms, that means that Cell Phones in the 23rd century can communicate in real time over hundreds of light years via subspace...


Just Sayin...

Click to expand...

Well.....yeah it's plausible. Like a cell phone, their "communicators" would have a relatively short range, but it would be like a cell phone network: Communicator to Enterprise, Enterprise to a "Subspace" network, Network to Scotty's Communicator. Just like we can make long distance calls on our cell phones via the cell phone network and communications satellites.

Now, is the movie supposed to be a window to one's soul? Nope. It's good flashy entertainment, and it did that.

I still say it's "meh" compared to the pre-Abrams films...

It may be called "Star Trek" but it's about like New Coke versus old Coke... the only thing they had in common was the red can... in every way that mattered, the new stuff was inferior-- just like Abrams-Trek...

Roddenberry had DEFINITE ideas about what "Star Trek" was supposed to be... the "ideals" of "his universe"... he stressed the non-militarism-- that's gone... they put everybody in very militaristic "dress" uniforms for the "official ceremonies"... lots of things like that.

Agree with the comments about "underwater starships" and other lame plot devices like this... "cold fusion" isn't actually cold... LOL That had to be one of the more rediculous things I've seen lately...

It all adds up to this not *really* being Star Trek... it's "Abrams-Trek"... don't get me wrong; it's a fun movie, but it's just not *classic* Trek in the Roddenberry style. I have to laugh at some of the stuff I've read... how certain people have "saved" Star Trek time and time again... Rick Berman claimed to have "saved" Star Trek from some of Roddenberry's "left field" ideas during the later Trek movies and TNG era... yet isn't it funny that Trek managed to stay "true to its calling" and immensely popular when it was closest to Roddenberry's original ideals... and the "franchise" became "stale and moribund" only after these people who supposedly "saved" Trek strayed from the formula and turned it into something different??

Oh well... neither here nor there... and as an action/adventure film, I enjoyed it... but it's forgettable... not like "classic Trek" (in both TV and movies...)

All IMHO... Later! OL JR

PS. I'm hesitant to see how JJ Abrams screws up Star Wars...

GDJ said:

Well.....yeah it's plausible. Like a cell phone, their "communicators" would have a relatively short range, but it would be like a cell phone network: Communicator to Enterprise, Enterprise to a "Subspace" network, Network to Scotty's Communicator. Just like we can make long distance calls on our cell phones via the cell phone network and communications satellites.

Click to expand...

I haven't seen it, but this explanation still doesn't work. There were too many episodes in the series and in the movies where the Enterprise (or another ship) was so far from Starfleet that a subspace message was supposed to take weeks (or months) to be received and replied to. A conversation in real time? I don't think so.

Peartree said:

I haven't seen it, but this explanation still doesn't work. There were too many episodes in the series and in the movies where the Enterprise (or another ship) was so far from Starfleet that a subspace message was supposed to take weeks (or months) to be received and replied to. A conversation in real time? I don't think so.

Click to expand...

If I recall Subspace signals propagate faster than Warp 10 so depending on how fast subspace can carry a signal, real time (or at least a very short delay) may be plausible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspace_(Star_Trek)

Subspace signals travel faster than warp 9.9. Warp 10 is instantaneous travel anywhere, evidently, so that can't happen. But subspace signals travel at "ludicrous speed."

luke strawwalker said:

PS. I'm hesitant to see how JJ Abrams screws up Star Wars...

Click to expand...

I was thinking the same thing until I saw this new Star Trek. Now I have a lot more confidence in the new Star Wars movie. Remember in the new Star Trek your dealing in a different reality, so it's a new playing field. Let go of the old Trek, embrace the new Trek!

May the force be with thee!

dlazarus6660 said:

I was thinking the same thing until I saw this new Star Trek. Now I have a lot more confidence in the new Star Wars movie. Remember in the new Star Trek your dealing in a different reality, so it's a new playing field. Let go of the old Trek, embrace the new Trek!

May the force be with thee!

Click to expand...

Yeah, but there was nothing wrong with the OLD Trek... that's the whole point...

I think Abrams is probably going to make Star Wars into some kind of comic book version of itself, like the new Trek is...

That's the whole point.

It's a good action flick, but the "classic" feel and flavor of Trek is gone... it's a comic book version of itself.

Later! OL JR

luke strawwalker said:

While visually very interesting and plenty of action, it was a little light on the character development... better than the last one, but still... somehow "lacking"...

Click to expand...

It doesn't build up the tension the way the earlier movie (that it's sort of based on) did. It's kind of like a roller coaster that doesn't have that big, slow climb ......

Spoilers follow ....

There is some silly stuff in the film: The entire first twenty minutes, like the first Abrams film, seems more like a parody of Star Trek. Some of the hand-to-hand fighting scenes look ones out of the Batman TV show. The stupid lens flares are worse this time around. Of all the people on the ship, Uhura is sent into combat (really?!!?!?) The gratuitous underwear scene is embarrassingly out of place (Alice Eve looks nice enough in that blue uniform, anyway). Some of the props and visual effects were weak. And, isn't it time for the "shaky cam" fad to end?

BTW ... you can play a drinking game when you watch it. Take a drink every time someone says "manual override."

Nevertheless, it's a fun movie and Cumberbatch is excellent in it. I liked that the crew acts like professionals and considers the consequences of their actions. And, they actually think their way out of situations instead of just shooting.

Of the three big budget movies that I've seen on the theater most recently, it's better than The Hobbit, but not as good as Skyfall.

-- Roger

luke strawwalker said:

Yeah, but there was nothing wrong with the OLD Trek... that's the whole point...

Click to expand...

There's actually an immense problem that has plagued every previous incarnation of "Star Trek." Up until now, the property simply failed to have any appeal for viewers outside of the United States and Canada. Given the vast sums of capital required to produce and market films today the concept of a North America-only franchise property is no longer acceptable business practice.

The bottom line is that in order for "Star Trek" to continue it must appeal to viewers on a global scale. In that regard, JJ and company have been wildly successful in penetrating international markets, and that means that we get to continue to enjoy the adventures of the Enterprise and her crew for years to come.

James

OK, for everybody on here that complained about the new Star Trek movie go to the PBS website and watch the episode called "The Airmen and the Headhunters". For those who didn't complain about the new Star Trek movie you should go watch this too. This is a great story about a real B-24 crew that was shot down and how they fought the Japanese on Borneo with the help of the local headhunters.

I posted this on a previous thread and only one person said that they planned on watching it. Go watch this! This was real life. Real headhunters out there helping the Americans and hunting down the Japanese and... well, doing what headhunters do. You won't complain that you spent 53 minutes watching this!

https://video.pbs.org/program/secrets-of-the-dead/

luke strawwalker said:

Yeah, but there was nothing wrong with the OLD Trek... that's the whole point...

Click to expand...

And that would be like saying : But there was nothing wrong with the OLD Model T..I mean it has four tires, an engine and gets you from point A to point B...Just sayin...

I haven't seen the new Trek film yet..Want to..But, I don't make it to the theatres very often and doubt I will watch it until it comes out on DVD..So, I will reserve my judgement until then..I did, however, enjoy IMMENSELY the last Trek movie...

Pantherjon said:

And that would be like saying : But there was nothing wrong with the OLD Model T..I mean it has four tires, an engine and gets you from point A to point B...Just sayin...

I haven't seen the new Trek film yet..Want to..But, I don't make it to the theatres very often and doubt I will watch it until it comes out on DVD..So, I will reserve my judgement until then..I did, however, enjoy IMMENSELY the last Trek movie...

Click to expand...

Don't wait for the DVD, go see it at the theater! Now!

Well fellas I watched it a second time in the theater and I liked it even better I have the original series on vhs dvd and blue ray so I do like the original which in no way detracts from how much I enjoyed this movie.

James Duffy said:

There's actually an immense problem that has plagued every previous incarnation of "Star Trek." Up until now, the property simply failed to have any appeal for viewers outside of the United States and Canada. Given the vast sums of capital required to produce and market films today the concept of a North America-only franchise property is no longer acceptable business practice.

Click to expand...

+1

Excellent point. Star Wars has been much better in this regard in terms of other than North America markets.

FC

Post contains SPOILERS!

I saw it yesterday and really enjoyed it.

Regarding the earlier comments about half empty theaters, I arrived 45 minutes early because I like to sit in the exact geometric center of the sound system, and the theater was already 65% full (according to the box office), and by the time it started, the theater was sold out. So apparently it has hit its stride.

This is definitely an action movie, and it really excels at that. The pace is very fast. Sometimes I can be completely overwhelmed by too much fast-paced action in a movie, and I don't really like it, but this movie was calibrated just right, and I fully enjoyed all the action. I saw it in 3D IMAX, and it was awesome!

While it is an action movie, I don't agree that the movie does not explore any thought-provoking themes or that it simply recycled an old plot and was unoriginal. The main theme that is being examined in the movie is the question of how the society of the Federation and the institution of Starfleet will respond to an external security threat during it's formative years. We know that in the timeline of the original series and TNG, Starfleet and the Federation are peaceful and non-aggressive. Now we have a split timeline, and in this new timeline the history is different, and it tests that familiar society in different ways. In this movie, the Starfleet admiral has responded to the destruction of the Vulcan homeworld by attempting to militarize Starfleet. He is attempting to provoke a war with the Klingons. And he is authorizing ethically questionable operations such as secret photon torpedo strikes within the sovereign territory of another world in order to eliminate a terrorist without due process. So, will the society evolve in the way that Roddenberry envisioned it, or will it evolve in a new aggressive and militaristic way? These are questions we face in our own post-9/11 society, and the movie is reflecting that. Star Trek has always explored real-world issues against a Sci-Fi backdrop, and this movie is no exception.

So far, I like the new re-imagining of the Star Trek franchise. Just like the James Bond franchise gets re-imagined for each new generation, and it evolves to adapt to the tastes and style of the times, I think Star Trek needs to do the same thing to stay relevant. This is a good Trek movie for our times.

There were a few things that bothered me about the movie. As someone has already pointed out, the capabilities of the communicator technology is inconsistent with how it has been represented in the franchise up until now. I'd say the transporter capabilities are also different --- you can't use the transporter to beam from Earth to the Klingon home-world. I also did not like the "cold-fusuon" explanation for freezing the volcano. But the main thing I did not like was the idea that simply injecting a serum of Khan blood can bring a dead person back to life. Sci-Fi writers need to be careful that they do not introduce too many miraculous technologies into Sci-Fi universes, otherwise they create logical inconsistencies in future movies. If you can bring a dead person back to life with an injection, then why in future movies does anyone have to die? That miraculous technology served this movie well, but what about implications for future movies in which people die?

That said, I really enjoyed the movie! See it on the big screen in 3D!

ThirstyBarbarian said:

There were a few things that bothered me about the movie. As someone has already pointed out, the capabilities of the communicator technology is inconsistent with how it has been represented in the franchise up until now. I'd say the transporter capabilities are also different --- you can't use the transporter to beam from Earth to the Klingon home-world. I also did not like the "cold-fusuon" explanation for freezing the volcano. But the main thing I did not like was the idea that simply injecting a serum of Khan blood can bring a dead person back to life. Sci-Fi writers need to be careful that they do not introduce too many miraculous technologies into Sci-Fi universes, otherwise they create logical inconsistencies in future movies. If you can bring a dead person back to life with an injection, then why in future movies does anyone have to die? That miraculous technology served this movie well, but what about implications for future movies in which people die?

Click to expand...

Heh, Star Trek fans have been fan-wanking (so to speak) explanations like this for decades.... But yea, writers have to be careful with uber-tech like this...keeping the limitations consistent across the franchise. My personal take:

1. Instant communication - like someone else said, you can assume nearby ships and stations act as cell towers, where they relay the comm into subspace which omni-travels the entire universe instantaneously. Quantum entanglement anyone?
2. Transwarp transporters - similar to the comms...but very risky? The few times we see where it has been successful have been offset by all the testing (after Star Trek 2009) that shows massive (and nasty) failures. Or maybe suppressed by Section 31...after all, they were able to hide an entire starship construction site...
3. Cold-fusion bomb - It is the 24th century...terms change meaning over long periods of time.
4. Khan's blood - That's a toughie. Maybe it only can be produced by Khan's body? Very short preservation/effectiveness time? Ethical considerations of turning Khan into a human blood bank? But yea, they need to avoid this in the future...

I was thinking an awesome story would be the crew encountering the 'Borged' Tarkalians from the ST:E ep "Regeneration" in space. You could explain that knowledge of them was wiped out (or at least fragmented) during the devastating Romulan War of a century ago (which would have been shortly after the end of the ST:E series). They had actually planned to explore the Romulan War in Season 5 of ST:E if it had been renewed.

Anyway, though it would mimic ST:FC, you could change a lot of it since everything forward of Star Trek 2009 was wiped in the new timeline.

FC

I want to preface this by saying I am a very casual Star Trek fan and not one of those "Roddenberry was a God" types.

I hated this movie with such a passion. The lens flare was completely distracting and unnecessary.

How in the heck do two starships 230,000 miles away get sucked into Earth's orbit? If a ship in space became disabled, it wouldn't list to one side like a sinking ship in the ocean.

a The whole death scene made me so sick to my stomach I actually got up and left. Absolutely worse than a Uwe Boll film

paul.nortness said:

I hated this movie with such a passion. The lens flare was completely distracting and unnecessary.

Click to expand...

It was worse than in the previous film. It was especially bad in the scenes taking place in the Apple store ... err ... I mean the bridge.

How in the heck do two starships 230,000 miles away get sucked into Earth's orbit?

Click to expand...

In one case, it appears that the ship's momentum was already moving it towards earth. The other one was commanded to fly to earth.

If a ship in space became disabled, it wouldn't list to one side like a sinking ship in the ocean.

Click to expand...

I'm bothered by those kinds of things sometimes. But, in most SciFi universes space ships fly like airplanes. So having one sink like a ship on the ocean is okay with me. (And, it could have been a stuck thruster or an explosion or whatever that caused the Enterprise to list.)

After all, space ships wouldn't fly faster than light and transporters wouldn't exist and so on. Lots of things that happen in SciFi movies that wouldn't or couldn't in reality.

-- Roger