Great flick. Better than I was expecting. Better than the critics are giving it credit for. I'll reckon it was also better than the 2009 reboot.
As a fan who enjoyed the first one, I might not have the same perspective as everyone else. There was a lot more tie ins to old Star Trek than I had anticipated. I thought they made the movie stronger, for the most part.
Better than anything else, it actually had a story. A real story. Pretty rare in movies nowadays. And they didn't try to shoehorn every character into it. Some characters didn't get more than half a minute screen time. But it's kind of hard to have a coherent story and give everyone their time in the sun.
I'd like to see how some of the subject matter goes over with neophytes. But from a long time trekkie, it certainly won me over.
Definitely in the top two or three Trek flicks.
[ May 30, 2013, 01:38 PM: Message edited by: Aros ]
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Going to see it Sunday morning, can't wait. Thank you for the quick review.
Leaving this thread now, because someone will be a jerk and put in a spoiler.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
I agree Aros. There was the right amount of twists in the plot, and it was well acted, especially by Benedict Cumberbatch.
There were some callbacks to the reboot, and some funny little inclusions that made you laugh.
My only gripe was the 3D. I had purchased tickets for the IMAX version and didn't catch that it was 3D. The movie didn't have anything that screamed "HERE IS FOR YOU 3D LOVERS!" by throwing stuff at the screen, but the lens flare was distracting in 3d and didn't blend well with the rest of the effects and lighting. Every time there was lens flare it looked like a blurry spot on the screen and not a whole lot else.
Other than that minor distraction I loved the film, and ( I don't know how to say this in a non-spoiler way but I'll try) hope they make a direct sequel to this film instead of going off on a completely new story line.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
I'm seeing it tonight. I already know who the bad guy really is (hard to avoid that spoiler), but will it detract from it? Will I still enjoy it and are there still big twists?
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
I knew what was happening. I (and most of the critics) don't feel it will really hurt your enjoyment of the movie.
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
I've heard that JJ Abrams loves lens flare, but I never noticed it until this movie. I saw it in 2D and the lens flare was out of control, particularly in some of the bridge scenes.
My only other complaint was that I thought one of the action scenes towards the end could have been a bit shorter, to the same effect.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
I really enjoyed it. I especially like how the Klingons are pretty TOS-looking, as well as all the references to TOS. The ending twist was so heavily foreshadowed that it was impossible not to see it coming, but that didn't really cheapen it for me. It was clear that the characters *didn't* see it coming, so their decisions and sacrifices were meaningful and important regardless.
As far as the main badguy: I didn't watch any trailers or read any reviews, but I still guessed it as soon as they captured him. Just guessing it sent shivers down my spine, though, and he was really well acted, so no complaints there. Honestly, the only way to make it *not* guessable would require fundamentally altering his character or backstory, and that would have had a very negative impact on the film.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: I really enjoyed it. I especially like how the Klingons are pretty TOS-looking
TOS-looking in what respect?
Posted by madvogon (Member # 12938) on :
Unfortunately, referring to yourself as a trekkie proves you're a poser.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I thought it was pretty blah.
The Klingons weren't even close to being TOS-looking. They were TNG/DS9 looking, only different, more alien (which I kind of liked, actually).
I guess I'm a little surprised at the rave reviews this is getting. The plot was devoid of any surprises. Of course the bad guy was the bad guy, and of course what happened at the end happened at the end (spoiler free).
The only way to telegraph the surprises more than they did was to have Samuel Morse direct.
The science was sloppy. The plot was ridiculous. They tried to throw in stuff from the old TOS but they mostly flung it lazily at Trekkies and I found it annoying rather than amusing. The Scotty stuff was solidly funny. I'll give them that.
But the graphics were pretty and most of the jokes were funny. Other than that this is an utterly forgettable summer big budget flick.
I will say that Cumberbatch was pretty cool though. I look forward to seeing him play a Sith in Abrams' next movie.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
I will say that Cumberbatch was pretty cool though. I look forward to seeing him play a Sith in Abrams' next movie.
I hadn't thought about that, but now that you mention it, Cumberbatch would probably be the best Sith (save Vader) to ever grace the silver screen.
I am pleased that American audiences are finally seeing just how awesome Cumberbatch is. I didn't think he could pull off the intensity that his character had, and was pleasantly surprised.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
He was already basically a Jedi in the Star Trek movie. Just put a red lightsaber in his hand.
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: The only way to telegraph the surprises more than they did was to have Samuel Morse direct.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
More things that bother me:
The treatment of women. Dr. Marcus was there only to take her clothes off. She certainly wasn't there to serve her purpose from the original. And they certainly didn't care about her as a character. Uhura was in the first one to take her clothes off, and in the second one to be a shrill girlfriend who bickers at the wrong moments and acts like a petulant child. I know most of TOS is a bromance between Kirk and Spock (with a healthy amount of Bones thrown in), but come on. Having Uhurha on the bridge in the 60s was a big deal, she didn't really do much but just being there was impressive. But I feel like we've actually REGRESSED in these last two movies. Star Trek is chock full of strong female characters (though, admittedly, more so in the post-TOS and even post-TNG era).
I honestly didn't even realize what people were talking about with the Big Spoiler for the movie. I thought they were referring to a different bait and switch than the Big Reveal. But the problem with it is that it's a totally pointless, useless, actually damaging reveal to make. It does absolutely nothing for the story. If you aren't a Star Trek fan, it means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to you. If you're a Star Trek fan, then you get what's going on, and you have to be, because Abrams doesn't explain ANYTHING. But that's the problem, Abrams just throws it in there as if he's trying to appease the fan boys, but it fails because it's such a HACK job. He would have made the fan boys happier by ignoring it entirely and just leaving it alone.
I think you have to ask yourself two questions: Is this a good movie? Is this a good STAR TREK movie? And maybe a third question, is this a good SPOILER SPOILER movie?
I think the answer to all three is: No. For a variety of different reasons.
If you want to ask yourself two other questions: Was this a decent forgettable summer action flick? Sure. Was this a pretty good Star Wars movie? Not bad, actually.
If we make a spoiler thread, I'll break down the couple dozen plot points that are stupid or make no sense, but I'll wait a bit for that.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Lyrhawn: I too felt kinda skeezy when Kirk wouldn't stay turned around when Dr. Marcus was changing. More importantly, I have no idea why she was even changing in the first place, or why she couldn't just find a closet or other room to do it in.
I kinda felt like they were trying too hard to sell Kirk as a "ladies man" kinda like the original Kirk, but honestly, it would have been nice if Dr. Marcus hadn't been all like, "Geez, could you turn around, or I'll tell you to do it again!"
Also SPOILERS AFTER THIS POINT
When the admiral beamed her up, it was kinda dumb her response was to run away with her face in her hands....
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Lyrhawn: I too felt kinda skeezy when Kirk wouldn't stay turned around when Dr. Marcus was changing. More importantly, I have no idea why she was even changing in the first place, or why she couldn't just find a closet or other room to do it in.
I kinda felt like they were trying too hard to sell Kirk as a "definitely NOT gay" kinda like but honestly, it would have been nice if Dr. Marcus hadn't been all like, "Geez, could you turn around, or I'll tell you to do it again!"
Also SPOILERS AFTER THIS POINT
When the admiral beamed her up, it was kinda dumb her response was to run away with her face in her hands.... [/qb][/QUOTE]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Lyrhawn: I too felt kinda skeezy when Kirk wouldn't stay turned around when Dr. Marcus was changing. More importantly, I have no idea why she was even changing in the first place, or why she couldn't just find a closet or other room to do it in.
I kinda felt like they were trying too hard to sell Kirk as a "ladies man" kinda like the original Kirk, but honestly, it would have been nice if Dr. Marcus hadn't been all like, "Geez, could you turn around, or I'll tell you to do it again!"
Also SPOILERS AFTER THIS POINT
When the admiral beamed her up, it was kinda dumb her response was to run away with her face in her hands....
The Kirk thing is in keeping with every character basically becoming a parody of him or herself. They're all like their TOS personas, but TIMES A MILLION! Kirk doesn't just like the ladies, he threatens himself with whiplash every time a girl walks by. He's sleeping with the super sexy Orion girl, he's having a threesome with cat girls, it's impossible for him to not sleezily stare at a fellow officer when she changes for no reason. Kirk slept around in TOS, but he was also a professional, to a degree.
Spock's conversational tone is a running gag. Haha, look how logical Spock is! He's so silly! He's logical to the point of absurdity. Every time he opens his mouth the audience in my theater laughed.
Chechkov is a joke as well, whose accent is also hyped up into overdrive for comedic relief, and whose antics seem to be for jokes as well. Scotty is one of the worst. He had some good jokes in the original series, but Scotty was also a badass. He fought and drank like a sailor. This Scotty is the movie's Gimli. He's just there to fall down and be a goof.
Bones might be the only character solidly, accurately portrayed, except Bones was supposed to serve as Kirk's moral check. Whenever he went off track, Bones even more than Spock was the one who steered him back, because Bones was the everyman of the series. He still occupies a small portion of that space. The "I'm a doctor not a..." jokes are incredibly ham handed too.
In general every character is just an overdosed parody. Sulu is the only one who arguably comes out a little better. My problem with this, I think, is similar to the problems I and many have with The Big Band Theory. People watching aren't laughing WITH Star Trek fans, they're laughing AT Star Trek by lampooning it.
It's no wonder the plots have no heft whatsoever. Star Trek's saving grace, especially in the TOS era, was that for all the bad acting and horrible graphics and sets, a lot of the stories had a lot of meat on their bones, and it at least tried to be scientifically accurate. Now it's an intentional punchline without and pretense to higher purposes.
Posted by madvogon (Member # 12938) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: <snip> I honestly didn't even realize what people were talking about with the Big Spoiler for the movie. I thought they were referring to a different bait and switch than the Big Reveal. But the problem with it is that it's a totally pointless, useless, actually damaging reveal to make. It does absolutely nothing for the story. If you aren't a Star Trek fan, it means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to you. If you're a Star Trek fan, then you get what's going on, and you have to be, because Abrams doesn't explain ANYTHING. But that's the problem, Abrams just throws it in there as if he's trying to appease the fan boys, but it fails because it's such a HACK job. He would have made the fan boys happier by ignoring it entirely and just leaving it alone. <snip>
Personally, I loved the fan candy. There was so much of it. My only regret with this movie is a lost opportunity: Sulu and his katana would have been extremely useful in the boarding action against the dreadnaut.
I still look forward to the further shenanigans of Hartcourt Fenton Mudd.
Posted by madvogon (Member # 12938) on :
Actually, the funniest thing that happened with the Star Trek movie was the tobacco disclaimer, which was read word for word in the descriptive narrative. The redundancy of this disclaimer is self evident. According to current MPAA protocols, a lit cigarette or any other tobacco use is minimally a automatic R, and the movie was rated PG-13.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by madvogon:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: <snip> I honestly didn't even realize what people were talking about with the Big Spoiler for the movie. I thought they were referring to a different bait and switch than the Big Reveal. But the problem with it is that it's a totally pointless, useless, actually damaging reveal to make. It does absolutely nothing for the story. If you aren't a Star Trek fan, it means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to you. If you're a Star Trek fan, then you get what's going on, and you have to be, because Abrams doesn't explain ANYTHING. But that's the problem, Abrams just throws it in there as if he's trying to appease the fan boys, but it fails because it's such a HACK job. He would have made the fan boys happier by ignoring it entirely and just leaving it alone. <snip>
Personally, I loved the fan candy. There was so much of it. My only regret with this movie is a lost opportunity: Sulu and his katana would have been extremely useful in the boarding action against the dreadnaut.
I still look forward to the further shenanigans of Hartcourt Fenton Mudd.
See the Mudd thing was cute/clever, I thought. I didn't mind that at all. I didn't mind having a tribble on board either, I thought that was funny as well.
Little stuff like that that's used as a nod to the fans really is pretty cool and I applaud it. But flinging lines at us? They made a mockery of the "the needs of the many.." line, as well as the spoiler line.
That's not fan candy, that's fan apples with razor blades shoved in them.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Lyrhawn, I wonder if anything could have pleased you.
This movie is relatively self-aware, homage, deconstruction of the original Star Trek, rethought in an alternate universe, wrapped around an action / adventure movie. As such both it and the last film have been near perfection.
If you don't like it, that's fine. But you're getting close to self-parody with all your hyperbole.
A couple of thoughts: - You complain about the Klingons then admit you like them. Huh? I thought they were great. - It's sad that the plot had no surprises for you. I thought that, other than a few well placed points of foreshadowing, it was difficult to predict what would happen next. That's the point of a tight script. - I disagree with your comments on mis-characterization. Kirk was always a player, and there have always been eye-candy girls. I don't think anyone will agree with you that Spock was off-base. Though you'll have to remember that these are both younger, less disciplined versions of the character (and in Kirk's case, he's more rebellious due to an altered timeline). Scotty was very well done and came off as seasoned and competent. Checkov (which you spelled wrong) did a better accent than the original. IMHO Bones is the MOST off-base, and he seems to be the one spouting tag lines unnaturally. - You seem to have a problem with the humorous characterization of some of the characters. Did you see Star Trek IV? It was considered among the best of the films (by most critics), and it lampooned Scotty and Checkov MUCH more than this film did.
It was a well put together movie. Not perfect, no. Better than most of them. And most non TREKKIES (Gene Roddenberry's preferred term) that I've spoken with loved the movie.
You can pick nits all day. But my hypothesis is that no film that appealed to both fans and laymen could have pleased you.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:This movie is relatively self-aware, homage, deconstruction of the original Star Trek, rethought in an alternate universe, wrapped around an action / adventure movie. As such both it and the last film have been near perfection.
I'm curious what you think was "homage" and "deconstruction." I see references to the original, call-backs, but no homages; merely taking what made the original at all interesting and cheapening it does not count as deconstruction.
quote:And most non TREKKIES (Gene Roddenberry's preferred term) that I've spoken with loved the movie.
Yes. This has been my experience as well. The more you are familiar with and fond of Star Trek, the more you recognize this movie as a dismal failure. If you are not a Star Trek fan and were looking for something sublimely stupid with lots of blinky lights, this film no doubt fits that bill.
Interestingly, I felt exactly the opposite about Iron Man 3: that it was a movie that strongly rewarded people who knew quite a lot about the Iron Man comic, and probably didn't quite hit the same targets for the non-fan.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Aros -
I wasn't complaining about the Klingons, I was dispelling your description of them. I thought they looked great.
I'll admit the plot was more obvious if you're a Star Trek fan, but Abrams WANTS his plots to be guessable. He does it on purpose. His "twists" aren't meant to be mind blowing, they're just there to drive the action forward. None of the "surprises" in the movie were actually surprising. And by the way, that's part of the problem. I shouldn't be able to guess everything just because I'm a fan. He should be creating a plot independent of past Star Trek so that new and old fans together can be surprised.
I love Star Trek IV. It's probably my favorite after Wrath of Khan and First Contact. But I think you miss my meaning when it comes to the comedic angle. Parody is a subset of comedy, they aren't interchangeable.
I can't go into too much of it without spoilers, but the movie made absolutely no sense at all as a regular movie. Pretending it isn't Star Trek at all, it had absolutely no logical internal plot consistency, which is something just about every major movie reviewer has noted as well. They all basically agree it makes absolutely no sense at all, but it's fast paced with pretty pictures. Is that really what we're calling an awesome movie these days? What happened to good writing and stories that make sense?
The thing of it is, they would have made me much, MUCH happier if they hadn't tried to include any of the stuff they did from Star Trek. Abrams tried to suck the life out of previous Star Trek incarnations by invoking its most memorable moments and lines, but he did so in a way that sapped them all of their original power. That's not homage or deconstruction, it's zombifying and also a little insulting, because it presupposes that fans can be made happy simply with references and have no respect for the original material.
If he wanted to make me happy, he should have eliminated the big spoiler twist at the end. It was stupid, it had no bearing on the plot, it wasn't explained in even the slightest way, and was really just bad.
I'll admit it was always going to be hard to make a new Star Trek that would really make me happy, but actually, most of what I thought would be my biggest problems weren't. I think the cast is wonderful. I didn't think I'd like a new Spock or a new Kirk, but they're actually great!
My problem is that the stories absolutely suck. They're terrible. They're lazy. They not only don't pretend to be Star Trek, Abrams has specifically said he's rejecting Star Trek's entire underlying premise because philosophy and attempts at realistic science are too hard for today's masses, so he needed to dumb it down and flash it up. So if he'd actually tried to create something NEW. I mean NEW. Not poorly rehashed the Best of Star Trek with new flashy lights and quick cuts, then yes, I might very well have liked it.
Case in point is the relationship between Spock and Kirk. I won't spoil anything, but their relationship in this Star Trek means almost nothing to me. They hated each other through most of the first movie. Now it's a year later and the only reason we have to believe they are even friends is because they keep telling us they are friends. The only emotional resonance between the two of them is inferred from the PREVIOUS Star Trek, it's not actually demonstrated on screen.
These movies will always be polarizing to the fans. Star Trek is such a big property that it means something different to all of us. My only disappointment with the new movies is that Bones should be a bigger character, on par with Jim and Spock. If there's something that's critical, crucial Star Trek to you, I concede, it might ruin it all. You'll start nitpicking all sorts of details. Look to RedLetterMedia -- you can pick any plot to death and make it seem absurd. Seriously. Especially if you're already disappointed that they've trashed something you love.
I like the interplay with previous elements, the twisting of familiar people and plot points in new (and different ways). I think that it's both effective as an homage and as a "what if" scenario. I like the fact that if the movie has to be dumbed down for the masses, that there's at least minor snippets of fan service twisted into new shapes. If we're going to get bright balloons, at least they're twisting them into interesting animals.
What I'm certain about: - It's an entertaining movie. - With maybe a little too much action. - There's a lot of interesting details to notice. - And a lot of rehashed plot and dialogue, some subtle and some not, used in different ways. - Many tropes of the original series are exploited -- some lovingly and some (almost) mockingly. - Fans will see a lot more details than non-fans. Some will be irksome and some will be loving. - Non-fans will enjoy a rousing action movie with fun characters and more plot than your average popcorn sci fi movie. - Appealing to the masses may be the ONLY way we see intelligent (or otherwise) Star Trek on television again. It has to make money or it's dead. - At it's best, Star Trek was a lot more intelligent and thought provoking than new Trek. At it's worst is was dumber, more melodramatic, and more flaccid. Take off the rose colored glasses. This isn't dumber than Star Trek I, V, VII, IX, or X.
Long live Mr. Abrams! May this flick make so much money that Star Trek comes back to tv.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
I can't wait to see what RedLetterMedia thinks of it. . . .
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Lyrhawn, you realize that your link is played up for comedic value, right? And that 90% of those plot foibles can be explained by a little thought or logic?
Yes. The other 10% is right on. And just stupid. But again, you'll get that in any movie. We want to talk about dumb. . . .
Ironman 3 Spoilers (Tom?)******************* - Why would Tony spend half of the movie trying to fix one silly suit, when he had 2000+ at his disposal?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:90% of those plot foibles can be explained by a little thought or logic?
Or the complete lack thereof.
Iron Man 3 SPOILERS . . . . . . .
quote:Why would Tony spend half of the movie trying to fix one silly suit, when he had 2000+ at his disposal?
He was hundreds of miles away and needed Jarvis to get the cranes set up. As soon as the cranes cleared access to the basement, he sent for the other suits. A better plot hole question: why, once he had access to a phone, didn't he call SHIELD? Or, given that he's the sort of guy who was so paranoid about suit access that he spent all his nights designing new ones and installing transponders in his skin to call rocket-propelled parts across a continent to him, how is it conceivable that he didn't have additional suits stored elsewhere -- like, say, Stark Tower in New York?
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
quote:
Interestingly, I felt exactly the opposite about Iron Man 3: that it was a movie that strongly rewarded people who knew quite a lot about the Iron Man comic, and probably didn't quite hit the same targets for the non-fan. [/QB]
Iron man 3 spoilers
Iron Man 3 sucked. At least 2/3rd's of the humor fell flat. And it also especially hurt the movie considering where the movie puts some of it's shittiest humor. Both villains are also terrible. But I hated the movie even before he meets Mandarin. Tony's narration doesn't work. It formalizes the relationship between him and the audience, as if the audience is a kind of shrink, and his narration comes off dry and awkward. Then Tony goes and wastes his speech for revenge on the ******* bodyguard (who should have died) The big scene that takes place soon after was ruined by the musical choice--as well as some of the other action--and one some of the hand to hand **** is ruined by bad editing. Tony (3rd) redemption arc also feels diluted. And that finale scene after they win and blow up the suits was pretty sublimely dumb, tom.
For me, all of my film making nerd (including trek fans)friends love Into Darkness, but my more bookworm friends don't.
[ May 21, 2013, 04:48 PM: Message edited by: umberhulk ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Why would Tony spend half of the movie trying to fix one silly suit, when he had 2000+ at his disposal?
He was hundreds of miles away and needed Jarvis to get the cranes set up. As soon as the cranes cleared access to the basement, he sent for the other suits. A better plot hole question: why, once he had access to a phone, didn't he call SHIELD? Or, given that he's the sort of guy who was so paranoid about suit access that he spent all his nights designing new ones and installing transponders in his skin to call rocket-propelled parts across a continent to him, how is it conceivable that he didn't have additional suits stored elsewhere -- like, say, Stark Tower in New York?
Why didn't he activate the suits during the initial attack on his house? Riddle me that one. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*grin* Well, I think the film does a pretty good job of showing that he's caught flat-footed by the attack and only barely had time to call on his insta-suit -- to save Pepper, even -- before hit by the blast and stunned into ineffectiveness. Of course, a larger criticism (of a piece with the ones I mentioned earlier) is that it's hard to believe he had such a huge blind spot regarding attacks on his inner sanctum that he didn't have some kind of contingency set up. I mean, he had special code words for Jarvis to launch all suits, blow up all suits, etc., so it's surprising that he hadn't thought to set up a protocol for "in the event of an attack on my garage, launch all suits." If the film had wanted to make Maya's visit unambiguously treacherous, they could have had her introduce a bomb or a virus or something once she was welcomed inside; by making her visit more ambiguous, the screenwriters were limited to exactly the sort of physical, external threats that you'd think Tony Stark, paranoid turtle, would have anticipated.
--------
quote:Tony's narration doesn't work.
The narration is, I think, a bad idea -- as is the blowing up of all the suits -- unless you look at the film as what it is: a closing chapter to Robert Downey Jr.'s turn as Tony Stark. Listen to the narration and you realize very quickly that Downey isn't speaking as Stark; he's speaking as himself. It's self-indulgent to the extreme, but since an indulgence for self-indulgence is basically the price of entry, I'm willing to tolerate it (as opposed to, say, the narration in Blade Runner.) Where the film's plot gets wobbly -- and it does get wobbly in several places, although never as wobbly as Into Darkness -- it's generally because it's deviated from comic book logic to draw a stronger parallel to the actual biography of the lead actor.
I can understand why film school kids would like Into Darkness; the shots are very pretty. But pretty shots for the sake of pretty shots -- and at the expense of any logic or plot progression -- is exactly the same sort of crap that makes so many Malick movies unwatchable.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
Narration doesn't work unless I recognize something that doesn't have some kind of distinct charm to it. Both of the percieved ideas, to me, are too dryly operatic. And they both feel too formal.
Veronica Mars is writing a diary. Michael Weston is writing a spy handbook. The narrator in The Assassin of Jesse James is telling you a piece of western folklore as you sleep by the campfire. These are cases where I think narration works.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: I can't wait to see what RedLetterMedia thinks of it. . . .
RedLetterMedia did an okay job of point out the plot problems in the first one.
I really just can't fathom how you think they're all explainable. You'd have to actually explain them to me, because really, none of it makes sense. Most people agree none of it makes sense, but no one cares because the movie isn't about plot, it's about action, and I agree that on THAT score alone, it's a good movie. It's very fast-paced and intense.
What it comes around to is suspension of disbelief. I'm willing to give a lot of leeway in Sci-fi movies for the fantastic to be explained away, but man, Abrams didn't even try. The movie falls apart under even the lightest bit of scrutiny. It's not nitpicking. It's asking for the smallest bit of coherence that doesn't insult my intelligence.
And yeah, I think it's better than something like Star Trek: Nemesis. But you know, I think even Nemesis at least TRIED to do more heavy lifting than this did. The plot made no sense for a lot of reasons, it was contrived and thrown together with no explanations, but the underlying story between Shinzon and Picard, and between Data and whatever fake Data was called at least ASPIRED to something more. Into Darkness didn't do that. And that's why the action sequences rate it no better than average in the grand scheme of things.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Aros: I can't wait to see what RedLetterMedia thinks of it. . . .
RedLetterMedia did an okay job of point out the plot problems in the first one.
I really just can't fathom how you think they're all explainable. You'd have to actually explain them to me. . . .
First -- have you watched the RedLetterMedia review of the first one? They thought it was, literally, one of the best movies they've reviewed. And most critics think that this one is about on par.
SPOILERS************************************** Second, that review you point out. I don't have all day, but here's a few rebuttals: - All the volcano stuff is fairly easy to explain. Spock had to go into the volcano to place the bomb -- not necessarily detonate it. Cold fusion is just buzzwords to speak to laymen watching the film, but there's no reason the device couldn't have been powered by cold fusion. It was established in the first movie that the ships were more structurally sound and built ON the planet . . . why couldn't it be under water if it needed to hide close? It has shields. The plan was to remain (relatively) unseen, draw away the villagers, drop the bomb, and get out. Because of the interference, they had to change plans and get close to rescue Spock . . . so they had to leave their hiding spot. The only hiccup here? A more structurally sound Enterprise, established in the first movie. - The loss of command. The point of this movie was to show growth. Kirk is still a rebellious, disrespectful alternate Kirk. An angry Kirk. This movie shows his growth from kid who doesn't take a lot of this stuff seriously to a man who'll die for his crew. Why can't he lose his command? It's basically showing him hit bottom of the barrel. - Starfleet as baddies. Most of this stuff is evident if you pay attention to the plot. Peter Weller wants all of Khan's goodies. Then he wants Khan dead and to start a war, mostly to militarize Starfleet. Khan got the better of him by getting revenge and sticking his crew members in the missiles. It's pretty clear that if Spock can work out what someone will do with a 93.1% probability (or whatever) that Khan can too -- and he'd figure that Kirk wouldn't fire the missiles. - Khan as a white dude is pretty easy too. Marketing. The first movie did terrible overseas. Star Trek always has. Cumberbatch is wildly popular with the overseas crowd due to Sherlock. By casting him, JJ was assured both a great performance and increased overseas box office. Does it ruin the character? No. And more money means a better chance at more movies (and possibly a tv series). - Kirk teaming up with Khan. There's two bad guys. Why wouldn't Kirk think that Khan could help him? That's the point of Spock Prime getting involved. This is an altered timeline. How would anyone know? - Death scene and reusing lines. I liked this. Some people don't. A common trope in alternate timeline science fiction is that certain events are relatively fixed. Someone had to die to defeat Khan. But this time it was Kirk; he was learning to lay down his life and be a real captain. Most of the reused lines can be seen the same way. But I agree that this self-referential behavior can shatter the suspension of disbelief. Ehh. I thought it was fine. - Khan's blood. Probably the weakest part of it all, but why not? It was a simple plot device planted early in the movie. Kirk could die, but there was no point keeping him dead. That's been done before. I like the fact that no matter how much is "recycled", they don't try to make the audience out to be idiots. Of course Kirk won't die for good. Of course Khan will betray them. But the characters don't know that. And the Trek neophytes won't either. And I don't think it's the secret to eternal life. But maybe it can reverse some major physical damage and bring someone back from just past the brink of death.
It's pretty easy to pick something apart. A lot harder to justify. This seems to happen a lot when Lindeloff is involved. . . .
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Cold fusion is just buzzwords to speak to laymen watching the film, but there's no reason the device couldn't have been powered by cold fusion.
Can we all agree that this is, um, stretching?
quote:This movie shows his growth from kid who doesn't take a lot of this stuff seriously to a man who'll die for his crew.
Like the last movie?
quote:I like the fact that no matter how much is "recycled", they don't try to make the audience out to be idiots.
*polite cough*
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Tom,
- Why is that stretching? Why can't a cold fusion device . . . make cold? Is that really a huge stretch? It's possible.
- After the first movie, do you really think he was ready to take over a starship full time? I think he still had a lot to prove. I wasn't convinced he was ready to be in command.
- My point with the "idiot" comment is that they weren't going to repeat the whole "wait until the next movie to see . . . did he really die? Will we resurrect him, just like we did Spock?" Nobody would have fallen for that.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Why can't a cold fusion device . . . make cold?
Well, for one thing, making a volcano really cold won't actually stop the volcano, especially if it's big enough to destroy the planet -- and, of course, making enough of the planet's mantle so cold that it ceases to actually flow might well have other ramifications. For another: definitionally, a cold fusion device outputs energy. That energy might be used to -- very inefficiently -- achieve some kind of heat transfer, but that means that all the heat sucked out of the lava went somewhere and got hotter.
quote:After the first movie, do you really think he was ready to take over a starship full time?
Oh, sure, we could have seen him struggling with the responsibilities of command. That could easily be nu-Kirk's thing, the one defining character trait that all modern film characters need to have for the purposes of script shorthand. But it doesn't need to be the central theme of the plot again. It's the same problem Doctor Who has, now that it's made the Doctor the Most Important Person in the Universe: all the stories become the same story.
quote:Nobody would have fallen for that.
For that reason, "killing" him produced no dramatic tension.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Why can't a cold fusion device . . . make cold?
Well, for one thing, making a volcano really cold won't actually stop the volcano, especially if it's big enough to destroy the planet -- and, of course, making enough of the planet's mantle so cold that it ceases to actually flow might well have other ramifications. For another: definitionally, a cold fusion device outputs energy. That energy might be used to -- very inefficiently -- achieve some kind of heat transfer, but that means that all the heat sucked out of the lava went somewhere and got hotter.
Just to reinforce the point: "Cold fusion" as a source of power doesn't have anything to do with what that device does, which is apparently suck all the heat out of the local area. It would be like calling a cordless drill a "NiCad battery discharger." It would be narrowly accurate in a way that completely defies common sense.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Aros -
Don't worry, it's pretty clear we're not even close to being on the same page when it comes to movies.
Or basic storytelling.
Or logic.
You think I'm nitpicking a strong plot to death. I think it's an incredibly weak plot that doesn't require nitpicking, but rather a casual glance to expose its huge faults. We just have different thresholds for what constitutes a strong plot.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I'll take silly loud action movies playing dress-up as trek over the terrible brain-death the trek universe had drifted into (Enterprise? Nemesis?) but everyone here should be willing to accept that that's what this movie was: a big dumb action flick capitalizing on star trek imagery and iconic characters.
But besides that, I really don't understand why the plot had to be so weak? I was willing to toss it aside as much as I could, but even on two long islands I was still going "haha, wait, why .. why are they .. why wouldn't they .. don't .. isn't .. lol wtf who wrote this"
So I made it two long islands and a vodka tonic. BAM. problem solved.
But really, come on. That plot was so goddamned silly. One would think the body of trek as a franchise could offer more of an opportunity to have an actually compelling or cerebral element to an otherwise tightly woven plot. This should be easily avoidable.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
also why does the thread title have "no spoilers" in it, that just makes it a giant trap now
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I used to diss Enterprise as much as anyone else until I actually sat down to watch it all the way through. It carried through the first season on concept alone. Most fans were too busy going "ooo neat!" to realize it was sort of boring. Then Season 2 really was just boring. But they changed the show pretty seriously at the end of Season 2 when they decided to adopt something closer to a Buffy the Vampire slayer bad guy of the season approach in a more tight, focused narrative. Season 3 was a fun, solid season. But the damage was sort of done for its reputation at that point. Still, I think it gets a raw deal.
And I can't defend Nemesis. Nemesis was their attempt to make an action movie like what the current iteration is. They tried to do both action and classic Trek bigger meaning stuff but failed on both counts.
If this revitalizes the series and renews interest and gets it back on TV in a meaningful way, then bravo. If this is a sign of things to come, and this is what Star Trek is from here on out, then it wasn't worth it to me.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:that just makes it a giant trap now
It's like when the bad guy surrenders surprisingly easily and gets put in a transparent cage of some kind, really, during which time he talks about his motivations a bit before the power goes out and an explosion rocks the building.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Enterprise didn't really get a 'raw deal' except in the sense that they punted it out half-baked. You want a series to start strong and grow on that, not spend two seasons climbing up to where it should have been to start with, quality-wise.
Full disclosure: I didn't even make it five episodes into Enterprise.
Posted by happymann (Member # 9559) on :
What Samp said about spoilers...
There's been a rash of recent "bad guy gets captured but it's exactly where he wants to be in the first place" hasn't there.
Dark Knight, Avengers, this, etc. I'm sure I'm missing several. Is this a recent trope or am I just not thinking of its earlier iterations?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Enterprise didn't really get a 'raw deal' except in the sense that they punted it out half-baked. You want a series to start strong and grow on that, not spend two seasons climbing up to where it should have been to start with, quality-wise.
Full disclosure: I didn't even make it five episodes into Enterprise.
None of the Star Trek series came out of the gate strong. Every one of them finished much stronger than they started. Just about all of DS9's forgettable episodes are in the first two seasons before they introduce the Dominion as the chief antagonist. ("Move Along Home" anyone?) Voyager was mired in the Kazon and Kes until it got much more interesting (both visually and storywise) when Seven of Nine was introduced and they mixed things up with the plots more than endless Kazon stories. TNG probably had the best start, but even they had a fairly blah first season until they changed the uniforms and switched up the plots a bit.
Every single Star Trek show did not not come out of the gate roaring and required time to find their place and get into a groove. Some found that groove faster than others, and some started out better than others. DS9 I think had the best opening episode of any Star Trek show, actually it's easily in my Top 5 list for best premieres because they managed to do so much with so little, wrote it excellently and deeply, and Avery Brooks acted the hell out of it.
Enterprise is at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to the gap between where it started and where it needed to be. But it got there eventually. The second season was a pretty seriously slog, and that's actually when I stopped watching. I didn't go back and watch Season 3 until much later, but I was pleasantly surprised when I did, and it changed my overall opinion of the show.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
I went in with low expectations and ended up being a giddy with delight the whole way through, I guess I'm a terrible star trek fan
Zachary Quinto makes a great Spock.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Tangentially related to this, but I just watched a few episodes of Sherlock.
I'm even more disappointed in Cumberbatch's character now. He's such a great actor, they needed to give him a lot more to work with. You could have had the most wooden stuntman in Hollywood act out Harrison's part with Alan Ricking doing ADR and it would have been almost as good. But BC has range, he could have played a far more dynamic role.
ERS -
You aren't a terrible Star Trek fan. Like I said, if you don't expect much out of it, it's a perfectly enjoyable film. It's just too bad that all it takes these days to make a great film is the expectation that it's nothing more than mindless entertainment. The very best of Star Trek really makes you think.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Lyrhawn,
You can't hold it against a "how good can it possibly be" yardstick. Old Star Trek is dead. The best we can hope for now is a fun jaunt through the Star Trek universe. How can your expectations be so high? It's JJ Abrams, for Pete's sake.
But it's fun. And entertaining. With more plot twists, depth, and better acting than most summer blockbusters. If the only Star Trek we can get it referential, self aware fun -- most of us will eagerly consume it.
I think we're on the same level and agree about a lot of things. It's just I gauge my expectations based on what I've come to expect from a jaded Hollywood. Too bad that Joss Whedon isn't carrying the franchise.
To expect that mainstream Hollywood will give us anything even remotely resembling thought provoking sci-fi . . . you must be living in the seventies.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
It's like Star Trek -- The Ride.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I would rather it stay dead than be expected to enjoy its zombified corpse.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Then stay home. Maybe you can find someone who'll listen to you rant about the good old days.
I still say it's better than a lot of Star Trek has been. And much more entertaining than most.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Depends on your criteria for "entertaining" if you're using the word "most."
It's not like there's a lack of movies every year with flashy explosions, action and quippy one-liners. This movie would have worked just as well if you changed all the names and uniforms instead of creating a generic action movie and then overlaid it with Star Trek symbols to suck in the Trekkies, cause that's all it was. There really wasn't anything at all about this movie that made it Star Trek other than the use of names and costumes.
And there are plenty of us who would like to see them make a GOOD Star Trek movie, and not just a good action movie. We gather for coffee on Sundays.
Now I know how Londo felt at the end of B5. The Grand Old Days of the Republic were great, but in trying to recapture them, they burned their society to the ground.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
good luck with that old man
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I grew up on 90s Star Trek, not the 70s. I actually rarely watch the TOS show because, well, most of it isn't really my cup of tea. But I love a lot of the movies, and there are individual TOS episodes that I think are great, though the 70s hokey is a little hard to get past at times.
I'm even willing to give them some of a break for turning utopia into dystopia, because despite the fact that the entire point of Star Trek is to portray a utopian future, I know that darkness, dystopia and apocalypse are the current "in" thing, and that if done correctly, can make for a really good story. But I'm also a little over it. It's supersaturated. Everything is dark. I'm waiting for a version of Mickey Mouse to come out where Minnie ran away with Donald, Pluto got hit by a car, and Mickey spends his days drinking and singing country songs.
Oh well, you'll be hearing from me again when the disastrous movie version of World War Z comes out. Because it's the same formula. Take some great source material, buy the naming rights, then change every thing about it to turn it into a generic action movie.
Posted by Marlozhan (Member # 2422) on :
I agree with a lot of what you are saying, Lyrhawn, yet I loved the movie. The loss of the important ideas is apparent in the new ones, yet I find myself experiencing the same wonder I always have with Star Trek, except stronger in some ways. The end of the first movie left me excited for their next adventure. I felt that feeling even stronger at the end of this one.
I do wish their was more of the Star Trek ideas in this, but I also think back to Star Trek of past years, and there was a lot about it that just wasn't that great. There are things about the new movies that are done better, and things that we have lost.
I must admit, I have some concerns that the ongoing films will become more action movies than they already are, and lose more heart. But the optimist in me believes that the hook needed to be set to make Star Trek a viable franchise for mainstream people, and that hook has been set. I feel very optimistic about where the franchise may head from here.
And as far as the plot and science not making sense, that fits right in with Trek lore. There are so many ridiculous scenarios in the Trek universe that it is, well, ridiculous. I can overlook that part.
Overall, this reviewer captures a lot of how I feel:
quote:You would have to comb through "Into Darkness" to find the philosophical lesson. Maybe there's a statement about the dangers of genetic engineering. Maybe there's something about how it's always a good idea to keep a dead tribble around, just in case.
I believe the original series helped to set my own moral compass as a child. All that talk and action about the good of the many, doing the right thing, loyalty, and accepting different cultures really made an impact on me. I don't think kids seeing "Into Darkness" are going to get the same sort of feelings I did as a 10-year-old sitting in front of the tube TV after school, hanging on every line of dialogue.
Still, I can't help but believe there must be a way to balance the action and the philosophy. "Wrath of Khan" did it. These new movies can still aspire to reach that level. That's why I'm so looking forward to the next one. After all, another lesson "Star Trek" taught me is optimism. I have a lot of hope for the future of the franchise.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm not sure I agree about the hook. The idea seems to be that this is what's necessary to bring in a new generation of fans, but I see three problems with that:
1. You can read any number of articles that say Star Trek has always had a ceiling, and all these movies have done is lower it a little bit. It's starting to look like Into Darkness sales aren't going to beat Star Trek, because people say the first one and a lot of them didn't come back for the second, which means it's still being driven in large part by longtime fans, a fact also supported by the lack of support from moviegoers under 25 who aren't familiar with/didn't grow up on Star Trek. Many also suspect that, now that Star Trek is a generic shoot-em up largely based on Earth, it has to compete with a host of other generic movies based around the same ideals. Given that circumstance, are people going to go see Star Trek over Iron Man? The data seems to suggest they'll pick Iron Man. So I'm not convinced this has really opened up the series to a huge group of new fans that would watch a TV series (which is where Star Trek really belongs).
2. Ratings wise, Star Trek would be just fine judging from today's standards. Ratings for Star Trek Voyager, not exactly a fan favorite, crush every episode of a show like Mad Men (actually, they specifically crush Mad Men). Almost everyone has cable, so it's not an access issue, and an episode of Star Trek is cheap compared to what some shows cost today. Trekkies alone could sustain a series if it needed to make ratings like what AMC shows have, and they're some of the highest rated shows on television.
3. If this is the hook necessary to get people back on board, then you can't change it later and expect to keep them, which means this is the Star Trek we get from here on out. People keep telling me "but this is what we have to suffer through now so we can get Trek back on TV," but that doesn't make me feel any better unless this is a temporary suffering, or even if it wasn't, that NEW people who are going out to see the movies are also going to watch the show, which I don't think is at all guaranteed based on what I've see from moviegoers.
I'm not sure how much hope I have from the next one because reading interviews with Abrams and Lindeloff, I'm convinced they have no idea what they're doing with Star Trek other than to make it into a cookie cutter action flick. And that works for a lot of people. I think it works great on that score. But they don't know how to get it up to Wrath of Khan status without actually specifically stealing from Wrath of Khan! And that doesn't work. If they can make a new WoK without simply stealing what they can't come up with themselves, then awesome, sweet, I'll be there at the midnight movie. I'm not saying Star Trek needs to be boring by any means. My criticism isn't that there's necessarily too much action (although, there is), but yeah, there's no balance.
quote:And as far as the plot and science not making sense, that fits right in with Trek lore. There are so many ridiculous scenarios in the Trek universe that it is, well, ridiculous. I can overlook that part.
I agree and disagree. You don't have to dig to find ridiculous episodes of Star Trek, but I think it's unfair to simply point to any show's worst outings to justify something else that sucks. But the thing about Star Trek is that, usually, it has INTERNAL consistency. That is to say, it makes sense within its own universe. Now, they broke a lot of their own rules too, and we usually wag our fingers at them when they do, but there's a difference between looking at ST and saying "hey, warp speed is ridiculous, that doesn't make sense!" and "wait a minute, why don't they just beam the ridiculous 'cold fusion' device into the volcano?"
Star Trek was always the show that at least tried to get science right. It was science-fiction, not science-fantasy. It was one of the biggest genre differences between Star Trek and Star Wars. Most of the time it wasn't internally ridiculous, even if you thought the concept of a phaser or transporter was ridiculous, it often made sense within its own world. But Into Darkness fails the test at a human level because almost everything that happens is just stupid, random, non-sensical, and poor writing, which most reviewers admit is the case even while praising the shiny explosions.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Many of the arguments (especially Lyrhawn's) against the new movie are that it succeeds as a (dumb) action movie and that it fails as Star Trek.
I'd disagree.
I'll give it an A- as a dumb action flick and a C- as a Star Trek film. But contextualized as a "Star Trek tribute" for mainstream audiences, I'd probably give it an A.
Honestly, most of the Star Trek movies were relatively bad movies whose only redeeming factor was that they were Star Trek. This one is a relatively good movie who's only drawback is that it is pretty weak as a "serious" Star Trek film.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I wonder when they are going to get around to resorting to time travel so they can save Vulcan. I was disappointed that this was completely ignored in this movie. If they can attain time travel with a stupid Klingon destroyer (whatever they called the smaller ships/boats) surely they can do it with the Enterprise, and the original elderly Mr. Spock available to guide them. They could even save the Romulan home world. Just deliver the "red matter" a little earlier, in time to gobble up the star before it goes supernova. But no, they decide to have everyone resigned to their fate.
Incidentally, just how far from the Romulan home world was the star that went supernova? If the Romulan homeworld was destroyed in a matter of minutes or even a few days, then it must have been very close to the Romulan home world--maybe even the star that was its sun. If that was the case, then annihilating the star would leave Romulus without a sun. That would have destroyed the Romulan home world, too.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Aros -
I'd give it an A+ as a (dumb) action movie.
I might agree with that C- for a Star Trek film...but I'm not sure how this helps your case at all.
I'm not sure what your third grade even means. Galaxy Quest was a Star Trek tribute that gets an A. Into Darkness isn't a tribute.
quote:Honestly, most of the Star Trek movies were relatively bad movies whose only redeeming factor was that they were Star Trek. This one is a relatively good movie who's only drawback is that it is pretty weak as a "serious" Star Trek film.
I would rank these past two Star Treks probably right in the middle of all Star Trek movies. II, IV, VI, VIII and First Contact all come out ahead. I give it the edge over everything else because those movies were both bad AND visually unappealing. At least Into Darkness is pretty. So it ranks about a par. Not bad, not great. And your last point is the point I've been making all along. This is a perfectly fine dumb summer shoot-em up. It's just a terrible Star Trek movie. Glad we finally agree!
ETA: I'm on the fence about Star Trek: Generations. I have a lot of childhood nostalgia for it, but I think it still holds up okay. The idea of the Nexus is classic science fiction in all its glory while also tackling some really interesting character development with Picard, which is where I think it shines. Bringing back Kirk might be where it fails.
[ May 29, 2013, 06:34 PM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I wonder when they are going to get around to resorting to time travel so they can save Vulcan. I was disappointed that this was completely ignored in this movie. If they can attain time travel with a stupid Klingon destroyer (whatever they called the smaller ships/boats) surely they can do it with the Enterprise, and the original elderly Mr. Spock available to guide them. They could even save the Romulan home world. Just deliver the "red matter" a little earlier, in time to gobble up the star before it goes supernova. But no, they decide to have everyone resigned to their fate.
Incidentally, just how far from the Romulan home world was the star that went supernova? If the Romulan homeworld was destroyed in a matter of minutes or even a few days, then it must have been very close to the Romulan home world--maybe even the star that was its sun. If that was the case, then annihilating the star would leave Romulus without a sun. That would have destroyed the Romulan home world, too.
I got over Vulcan. It's never coming back, and it CAN'T come back. If Vulcan comes back, you ruin the alternate timeline thing. Into Darkness cannot happen unless Vulcan stays destroyed, for a lot of reasons.
The time travel aspect of the Romulan star supernova and red matter makes least sense of all. All Nero needed to do to save his wife was wait for the star to go Supernova and deliver the red matter himself. Or, simply give it to the Romulan government and tell them what was coming down the road. And hey, instead of getting revenge for your wife, you actually SAVE your wife! Done and done.
There's a companion comic book set that explains the whole supernova thing. It was in the Hobus System, which is an adjacent system. And no, the science doesn't make any sense there either. They create a weird supernova that someone turns matter into energy, which makes no sense at all, and apparently they also have it travel faster than the speed of light, which is also impossible. In reality, it would probably have taken months for the blast wave to arrive.
Personally I like the explanation that they knew it was coming, but the Senate played politics and games with each other so that regular Romulans were caught off guard when the blast wave actually arrived. It makes for a more compelling story than what they came up with.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Its explained more in Star Trek Online, the blast could travel through subspace, and it was the work of some mysterious aliens.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
So I've heard.
I don't care for that explanation.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
It makes "sense" within the internal consistency of Trek though.
I liked this interpretation of how making Khan white might've been pretty clever.
quote: That being said, I think Cumberbatch was brilliant as Khan, and that the invisible whiteness of Khan was brilliantly written. If there was ever a people who considered themselves automatically and without any further comment racially superior and entitled to genocide, it's the English, and they've always accomplished it unacknowledged and with invisibility. STID's Khan was to my mind perfect in how his villainnous-ness was always implicit and normalised: there wasn't really any formal exposition scene detailing his criminality, for example and his interaction with Kirk is at times no more antagonistic than bickering bromance (the scene where they wait in the airlock). He even kills Kirk completely indirectly, unknowingly and with virtually no individual malice. Many people of colour can certainly attest to being familiar with that in their encounter with the English and their settler descendants. He's one of the best white villains I've ever seen. I even like the way he sees himself as the victim, which is certainly how white supremacy is working in the anglophone world right now.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Cumberbatch was interesting as John Harrison, and pretty lame as Khan. I guarantee that absolutely NONE of that was going through their mind when they were casting Cumberbatch. I also don't think it works because whites and the English aren't typically seen as evil to people who are white, or English, which is great, perhaps, for Chinese viewers, and America's minorities, but the vast majority of people who'd view the English as the enemy won't make that connection. Especially for a show that's already called "too cerebral" by many, I think that's a leap.
See, the great thing about Ricardo Montalbahn's Khan was that he actually WAS the victim in a sense. Yes, he was the dictator of an Asian nation, he was also marooned on a planet where his wife died, at the hands of Kirk, which made his vendetta personal, and in the eyes of many, justified. That's much better and more interesting than a psychopath who thinks he's the good guy, because how many bad guys actually SEE themselves as the bad guy outside of a Batman cartoon? (Speaking of Batman cartoons, Mr. Freeze is the best white villain ever).
Especially after seeing Cumberbatch in Sherlock, Khan is a let down for 2 main reasons:
1. Cumberbatch has so much more range! He could have played an infinitely more interesting, deep villain that one whose performance depends 90% on glowering and a really deep voice. The cut scene where he's taking a shower looks like someone tried to give a cat a bath. Lame! If you cut scenes together with Star Wars to make him a Sith, it would have fit much better, because he had all the emotional range of a Lucas-villain from the prequels.
2. As that quote notes, Khan's backstory isn't explained AT ALL. Zero. Not a bit. Which means all the resonance of Khan as Khan comes from your familiarity with him from WoK and Space Seed. In other words, there was no point in making him Khan, especially for new audiences, to whom the reveal had zero effect. And that's not an homage or a tribute, it's really lazy storytelling based on a gimmick.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Full-blown plot discussion? I updated the thread title to warn about spoilers. . . .
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
You are being awful rude to Lyrhawn Aros.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
I'll change the title.
I apologize. I thought it was gentle jibing, all in good fun. Lyrhawn has pretty liberally turned on the spoiler faucet without marking them. So I was just letting people know to avoid the spoilers -- especially Lyrhawn's posts.
No worries. . . .
[ May 30, 2013, 02:02 PM: Message edited by: Aros ]
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
Binders full of Spoilers.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Sorry, that last post was spoilerific.
Though really the thread was already a minefield, and not just from me.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You know, I don't think that "Benedict Cumberbatch is actually Khan" is a spoiler. Because when you think about it, it means nothing to the movie. He doesn't act like the Khan you know; he doesn't share the motives of the Khan you know. And the Khan of this movie gets no backstory or description, so it's completely irrelevant. We know from his introduction as Harrison that he's a sneaky guy with an ulterior motive and some plans -- and that's how he ends the movie, just under a different name that may resonate with some people who remember another film. They may as well have named him Kal-El -- and when people said "Oh, by the way, Cumberbatch is playing Kal-El," that wouldn't have been a spoiler, either.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
It's a spoiler to me dammit, and I barely have any idea what Khan is.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Frankly I don't think it's that big a deal either.
Abrams and the other people in the movie swore up and down for YEARS that he wasn't Khan for the subsection of movie goers who had any idea who Khan was, and then he's Khan! Except he's not Khan, because he's just a name, not a character.
But if you don't know who Khan is, then it means nothing. It's not like the Darth Vader reveal where you were invested in the people and it meant something. Khan means nothing. His backstory is never explained. His significance as a character is never explained. He has no connection to Kirk, and you only know he's dangerous because a couple other people tell you he is, but no one tells you why other than his demonstrated abilities as a Sith ninja.
He only has cache if you're familiar with him from WoK, which is lame for someone trying to reboot a series. If the reboot can't stand on its own, then it wasn't very well done. Khan is irrelevant without prior knowledge and familiarity.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Khan is irrelevant if the story sucks.
S******t (as Plinkett would say), if you wanted to remake Wrath of Khan, why not just remake Wrath of Khan?. No real harm in doing that. You get Havier Bardem to play Khan, and you do the exact same story from Space Seed / Wrath of Khan, with some minor changes. Done and Done.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think just about everyone involved would have been happier if he'd remained John Harrison and gotten his own storyline.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
The longer I think about it, the less I like the movie. That's sad.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It's typical of Abrams films.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I still like Super 8. I only saw it the once, but it managed to cement itself in the my movie happy place.
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: The longer I think about it, the less I like the movie. That's sad.
The entire point of a mindless summer action movie is that you DON'T think about it. Stop trying, and it won't get any worse. You go see them, you enjoy them, then you forget about them until the inevitable sequel.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
But...but...Star Trek!
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I still like Super 8. I only saw it the once, but it managed to cement itself in the my movie happy place.
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: The longer I think about it, the less I like the movie. That's sad.
The entire point of a mindless summer action movie is that you DON'T think about it. Stop trying, and it won't get any worse. You go see them, you enjoy them, then you forget about them until the inevitable sequel.
I still love Super 8 as well, but I think that may have something to do with Spielberg's involvement. Super 8 gave me the same feeling I get whenever I watch Goonies.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
You can pick apart any movie to death. It was a good, fun movie. Forget about it.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
khaaaaaaaaauuun
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: You can pick apart any movie to death. It was a good, fun movie. Forget about it.
Let's not have any opinions about any movies anymore, then. They all get two thumbs up.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
No, because movies can be terrible for reasons independent of being stupid.
Mission Impossible 3 is better than 4. They're both equally as dumb. But midway through 4, there's a part that undermines the villain's credibility as a threat, and the movie loses some of its stakes.
[ May 31, 2013, 03:54 PM: Message edited by: umberhulk ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I still like Super 8. I only saw it the once, but it managed to cement itself in the my movie happy place.
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: The longer I think about it, the less I like the movie. That's sad.
The entire point of a mindless summer action movie is that you DON'T think about it. Stop trying, and it won't get any worse. You go see them, you enjoy them, then you forget about them until the inevitable sequel.
I still love Super 8 as well, but I think that may have something to do with Spielberg's involvement. Super 8 gave me the same feeling I get whenever I watch Goonies.
That's a lot of why I love it too. I'm not even sure how much of that was Spielberg so much as the fact that Abrams LOVED those movies when he was a kid. They were a genre all their own that movies today don't really even try to capture. There's just something about the 80s, it produced a decade of movies that at once the cheesiest movies ever but a whole generation of us grew up on Goonies, Flight of the Navigator, Krull, ET and the like, and almost as soon as the 90s hit, we stopped making those. Super 8 nailed the feel but with 21st century graphics. And it nailed it because Abrams LOVED those movies. It was an admitted ode to Spielberg because he was trying to make something that matched what Spielberg (and those like him) did. Peter Jackson grew up obsessed with LOTR, and made fantastic movies based on them.
Star Trek, on the other hand, he's admitted he never liked and never understood. I think it's the same thing with the X-Men movies. Bryan Singer never liked or was familiar with X-Men, and made his own movies without any real knowledge. And they sucked. He thought it was just flying around zapping people. Same thing with Abrams, who tried to throw bones to fans by flinging reminders at us but couldn't quite seem to grasp that Star Trek isn't loved by fans because of a few cheesy one-liners.
It's why I'm actually really looking forward to Star Wars, because Abrams loves Star Wars. I think you either need to really understand your material, or you need to be a singularly superior writer and film maker (a la Whedon) to play in someone else's sand box. Otherwise, everything more or less ends up looking the same. Which is why Star Trek was fun, flashy and entirely forgettable.
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: But...but...Star Trek!
Don't worry, it's not REALLY Star Trek.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I have yet to find an explanation for this, but was Kahn's blood really the only blood that could have saved Kirk?
Posted by tertiaryadjunct (Member # 12989) on :
quote:Originally posted by PSI Teleport: I have yet to find an explanation for this, but was Kahn's blood really the only blood that could have saved Kirk?
One would assume not. There's no reason to assume he's any different than any of the other Augments. But there was no way for McCoy to know that for sure without taking the time to test one, so making sure Spock didn't kill Khan would be the safest route.
Also, while I'm at it...
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: "wait a minute, why don't they just beam the ridiculous 'cold fusion' device into the volcano?"
I actually agree with a lot of what you've said in this thread, but this (if you were serious about it) is a poor example because they address it directly. They couldn't transport anything in the vicinity of the volcano without flying the Enterprise right up to it (I can't remember the specifics but I'm sure in involved some technobabble about ionic interference ), and if they'd done that the indigenous people would have seen the ship. Which they ultimately do anyway to save Spock...
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well, two things:
1. How long did it take between the Enterprise stabilizing, Spock beaming down for an incredibly overlong Star Wars style jumping between hovercars style fight with Khan etc and when Khan was actually brought back to the ship? In all that time, Bones couldn't have just popped down to the storage area, opened up the other containers and yanked some blood out? If anything, it probably would have been faster than waiting for Spock to get Khan. I don't have a problem with Bones telling Spock to capture not kill just in case (though, telling Spock of all people not to engage in vendetta killing seems a little unnecessary and shows you just how far away from Star Trek we really are), but really, he had a cargo bay full of cures.
2. Actually, what they said in the movie was that they needed a LINE OF SIGHT to beam Spock out, not proximity. You can get a line of sight just as easily from space as you can right on top of the volcano. There's silly technobabble and there's silly technobabble. This is just LAZY technobabble because it presupposes that nothing you say in the technobabble actually matters. When you're just plain making up science, as is often necessary in Star Trek, then okay, but when you're using regular concepts even I can understand, then you're just being lazy. I know the difference, as do most people, between proximity and line of sight.
They should have just stayed in space, but then we couldn't have gotten that super cool scene of the Enterprise ridiculously rising out of the water like a vengeful leviathan.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I thought it was pretty blah.
IMO this movie was just boring.
I liked AE significantly better, though that might have been because I was still disappointed by how bad Star Trek was.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
watched the movie again sober
david lindelof should not be involved in moviemaking anymore thx
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: watched the movie again sober
david lindelof should not be involved in moviemaking anymore thx
I read a rather long Vanity Fair piece about how he was brought in to save World War Z, and deduced I have no interest in seeing World War Z.
It's actually a fascinating piece that sort of underscores my problems with Star Trek. They go in at length in interviews about how they got the rights to World War Z, and proceeded to basically dump the entire plot of the book and turn it into a cookie cutter action fast-moving zombie thriller.
They didn't want the story, they just wanted the name, because World War Z is hugely popular.
If they'd used the JMS script, I'd probably go see it. Both because he's a great writer, and he actually tried to stay true to the original.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
Lyrhawn, I'm appreciating your posts. Rock on.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Yeah, between Lost, Prometheus, and now the Trek reboots, I'm having trouble understanding what it is people like about Lindelof. It's disappointing, because all three of those things could have been much better if there had been writers attached who gave a crap about coherent plotting. Instead, they were disappointments. (Edit: I gave up on Lost very early in season 2, but everything that percolated through to me about the series afterward confirmed my view that they really were just throwing hooks everywhere without any clue where they would eventually take it all.)
I enjoyed the Trek reboots as summer popcorn, but only that. My expectations were very low going into both, and they were exceeded in each case, but I was pretty disappointed by the plotting in both movies. I thought both of them were basically nonsensical.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
I knew I had no interest in WWZ the second I watched the trailer.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
"Star Trek Into Darkness" works as long as you turn off your brain and enjoy the pretty lights and the cool lines. It was actually entertaining enough that I did enjoy it quite a bit, even as I realized that not a single plan of any character at any point in the movie made sense. So I liked it, and I'll probably see it again, and I don't for a second think much thought was put into making it consistent with old Trek, with itself, or with science.
(Wanna save a civilization from a volcano without getting spotted? Fire a photon torpedo into the base on the side away from where the civilization is to provide drainage. Do it a few hours before dawn, from space, and the only thing anyone sees can easily be explained as a fortuitous meteorite. Freezing the volcano just means the flow is coming to come out somewhere else, like, say, from underneath the civilization.)
Yes, any movie plot is coming to come unraveled if you pick at it. This particular movie plot has to be vigorously defended at every turn because, in so many ways, it just doesn't make sense.
Unless.
Unless you realize the true aim of the movie, which is this: Make cool scenes.
Every plot point was there to either build up to or display a cool scene. So many plot threads are inexplicable and bizarre, unless you realize they're happening not because they're moving the plot forward or building character but because the screenwriter needs this Cool Big Thing to happen a few pages later. Then they make perfect sense.
The biggest difference between Abrams and, for example, Whedon, is that Abrams creates cool scenes and then strings together enough plot to connect them. Whedon creates great character moments and then uses action scenes to connect those.
Which is fine. It made for an exciting, shiny action movie. The fact that all of the character names could have been changed and Star Trek taken off the title and it would have been just as entertaining is immaterial.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
It didn't even work for me in that way Chris. It looked really pretty but nothing about the movie was exciting, throughout the movie I was searching for something to occupy my mind because the movie was so boring.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
oh no, there it is.
"Just turn off your brain and enjoy it"
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Ah, note I have not advised that. I said it can entertain if you do that. I'm not excusing the laziness of the writers or the lack of concern on the part of the director. I did say I enjoyed it, but only despite its many, many flaws.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by T:man: It didn't even work for me in that way Chris. It looked really pretty but nothing about the movie was exciting, throughout the movie I was searching for something to occupy my mind because the movie was so boring.
I went back and forth. Even while I was annoyed by all the crap happening, I still laughed at the funny lines and liked the pretty pictures, and the Jedi ninja scene on Qo'noS. But after that, I was a bit exhausted with it all. I kind of just wanted it to end at that point, but it kept going. I probably would have enjoyed it more if the end had been 20 minutes shorter.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Ah, note I have not advised that. I said it can entertain if you do that. I'm not excusing the laziness of the writers or the lack of concern on the part of the director. I did say I enjoyed it, but only despite its many, many flaws.
to be fair a movie is coming out in which anybody i know is under orders to turn off their brain to watch it period no questions
pacific rim, ofc
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:I probably would have enjoyed it more if the end had been 20 minutes shorter.
Abrams did what he could. He even put the Klingon home world 5 minutes away.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: [QUOTE]Originally posted by T:man: [qb]I still laughed at the funny lines and liked the pretty pictures, and the Jedi ninja scene on Qo'noS.
I also laughed at a lot of the Spock scenes, and did like the visuals, but by the flying car fight I was already ready to leave the theater.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
I watched it again this weekend, and did indeed enjoy it more. I just rolled with it and ignored canon.
Then I went home and watched The Wrath of Kahn with a friend, and reveled in the canon.
Last night, I watched "Space Seed" from TOS and .
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges:
quote:I probably would have enjoyed it more if the end had been 20 minutes shorter.
Abrams did what he could. He even put the Klingon home world 5 minutes away.
Yeah that bothered me. I mean, I guess I understand, you want to keep the plot moving, but couldn't they do a cut and say they'd been traveling for hours? Or use that time to, I don't know, stop and have a conversation that's longer than 60 seconds about something personal that actually matters?
quote:Originally posted by T:man:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: [QUOTE]Originally posted by T:man: [qb]I still laughed at the funny lines and liked the pretty pictures, and the Jedi ninja scene on Qo'noS.
I also laughed at a lot of the Spock scenes, and did like the visuals, but by the flying car fight I was already ready to leave the theater.
I actually didn't laugh at the Spock stuff. I didn't care for turning him into quite so obvious a punch line. The Scotty stuff was pretty good though, even though he got the same treatment.
I just rolled my eyes and snorted at the screen when the flying car scene came on. At that point I was in a sort of "sure, why the hell not?" state of mind.
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: I watched it again this weekend, and did indeed enjoy it more. I just rolled with it and ignored canon.
Then I went home and watched The Wrath of Kahn with a friend, and reveled in the canon.
Last night, I watched "Space Seed" from TOS and .
I watched WoK the other night too and man, so good. I read a lot of the comments which contained an ongoing debate between Into Darkness fans and WoK fans. The ID people seem to generally agree that WoK is slow and boring. Apparently no one understands the value of tension these days.
Posted by Olivet 2.0 (Member # 12719) on :
I think maybe there is a kind of misunderstanding of what tension is.
Like, the shooting between the ships dodging debris thing? That was video-gamey and possibly thrilling, but it had no tension at all. I mean, you had to know they were going to make it. There was never any question that the movie was going to end with those two characters splatted against the hull of the Vengeance. Same with Spock chasing Khan.
Not that it wasn't fun when Cumberbatch picked up Neo's abandoned coat and flapped off into traffic, but there was never any question that they were going to catch him, juice him, and revive Kirk with his squeezings.
I think I may have discovered that the key to enjoying anything from this writing/directing team is to value the journey more than the destination. because you always know where it's going, you might as well have some interest in how it's going to get there.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Mmm. Benedict Cumberbatch squeezings.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I assume Cumberbatch was created from Alan Rickman squeezings.
Who knows what the next iteration will look like? Or more importantly, sound like.
Posted by Olivet 2.0 (Member # 12719) on :
I knew I could count on somebody to take that line and run with it, but I admit to being a tad surprised it was you two. Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
You can't just open the book of my life and dive right in. I, like woman, am a mystery.
Posted by Olivet 2.0 (Member # 12719) on :
Let's keep it that way (I am such a geek, quoting Firefly on the internet.)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
), and if they'd done that the indigenous people would have seen the ship. Which they ultimately do anyway to save Spock...
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
.