Escape to the Movies: Star Trek: Into Darkness

[Canadamus Prime]

Yeah, I hate Abrams. I probably won't bother to see this in theatres and instead wait for it to appear on Netflix.

I won't even do that.

Before this review, I already knew I was at most going to watch it if somebody I knew got it on DVD and said they were going to watch it on a night I visited.

But now, Bob has totally confirmed what I figured this movie was going to be, and painted an even worse picture of what I thought it could be.

This means that I won't stain my proper Star Trek loving eyes with this movie. Somebody needs to convince Hollywood that he can't properly do franchise movies. They seriously need to tackle him and bar him from doing the new Star Wars, before he does any more damage to things he shouldn't be touching.

Yeah, but I kinda want to see this for myself just to find out what it's all about and how terrible it is, but I'll be damned if I contribute to their box office gross while doing so.

The thing about Abrams is I'm pretty sure he'll be great for Star Wars, but he hasn't the slightest clue what Star Trek is all about. Nor do I think he really cares.

 

[[Insert Name Here]]

Everyone's got their opinion on this one, but I'm definitely disagreeing with Bob. Into Darkness was pretty bloody great.

 

[RedDeadFred]

Spoiler filled? Why?

This means that I can't watch this review.
The general consensus seems to be that it's good, I'll have to go by that - as I don't want a review spoiling the movie.

To be honest, it really sounds like he went into this movie determined to dislike it. Most of his arguments stem from the twist and it honestly just sounds like he can't get past the older movies and doesn't want them to ever be touched. I'll leave it at that as far as spoiler territory goes.

He also references one of the villain's plans and says that since we've seen it before in other movies, it's dull. He uses Avengers as one of the examples. That movie was only a year ago but apparently that plan wasn't dull then according to Bob.

He does say that there's a lot of retread as far as character development goes (basically repeating a lot of the first movie) and that does sound like a fair criticism. Kinda sucks about that but it's not going to stop me from seeing this movie.

Edit: From what I've seen of the comments, people who aren't Trekies tended to enjoy the movie a lot more than people who are Treckies. I'm sensing some nerd/fanboy rage here... Bob just goes into movies with set opinions of it already in mind. He loves the Marvel movies therefore he loved Iron Man 3 (I thought it was perhaps the worst out of all of them and definitely a bad movie in general). He didn't like the first Star Trek and he loathed this one (I enjoyed the first one quite a bit).
I think Bob is a great reviewer on most occasions but sometimes his blatantly obvious fanboyism gets in the way.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

snip

Yeah, but I kinda want to see this for myself just to find out what it's all about and how terrible it is, but I'll be damned if I contribute to their box office gross while doing so.

The thing about Abrams is I'm pretty sure he'll be great for Star Wars, but he hasn't the slightest clue what Star Trek is all about. Nor do I think he really cares.

Nah, I still think he'll ruin Star Wars. I know that Star Wars tends to have more action than Star Trek, which might make his adaption of Star Wars better than Star Trek, but the thing is, like Star Trek, Star Wars is also about story driven action, there really isn't much action for action's sake.

With his Star Trek movies, Abrams has proven he cares fuck all about story or fleshed out characters for that matter.

On your last point, that is really what I'm getting at. The film industry really shows it is quite stupid if it lets a director have control of a franchise he doesn't care about.

It's like giving a writer who's never written and/or hates fantasy, full writing control of some kind of new installment to Lord of the Rings story/franchise.

]Everyone's got their opinion on this one, but I'm definitely disagreeing with Bob. Into Darkness was pretty bloody great.

A couple questions.

1.) How much of pre-Abrams Star Trek have you ever watched, if any?

2.) Think about Into Darkness, remove all the action from it, all the pew pew, explosions, flare. Now, what do you think of the movie?

The reason I ask this is because the proper franchise Star Trek could stand on its own if you took out such action from it. Because in order for someone to defend the movie, they have to defend it without action and fancy special effects as a point, because that is not what Star Trek is about.

I'm doing this for my own research on the average person that ends up liking JJ's schlock version of Star Trek.

 

[mrverbal]

SO I'm fascinated by how much your nerd rage has made you misunderstand what was going on here, Bob. (and others)

Spoiler

You seem to assume Khan intended to get captured, when it is obvious he did not. He didn't want to get killed, and obviously believes the enterprises torpedo threat. Once he discovers that there are 72 - the number of his crew - he makes the logical leap that they are in the tubes. He lets himself get captured because the *only* thing he cares about are his crew, and he doesn't want them to die killing him.

At every step, Khan's plan develops based on the additional information available to him. It's not some Joker level masterwork pre-plan - he's just improvising.

And it works, because he's a crazy super genius.

The Admiral's plan is weak, agreed, but it isn't the worst I've ever seen. And the movie is hardly making obvious political points, or about anyone in particular - it's hardly like the "lets start a war" plot is new in films, science fiction films, or even star trek episodes/films.

Further, the comparison of every star trek film to 2 is laughable, as wrath is a really, really boring and poorly plotted film. Or at least the first half hour; I've never made it further without falling into a man-clevage super-mullet over acting induced sleep.

snip

A couple questions.

1.) How much of pre-Abrams Star Trek have you ever watched, if any?

2.) Think about Into Darkness, remove all the action from it, all the pew pew, explosions, flare. Now, what do you think of the movie?

The reason I ask this is because the proper franchise Star Trek could stand on its own if you took out such action from it. Because in order for someone to defend the movie, they have to defend it without action and fancy special effects as a point, because that is not what Star Trek is about.

I'm doing this for my own research on the average person that ends up liking JJ's schlock version of Star Trek.

What a clever, well thought out and unbiased set of questions.

And my answer is : I give little to no fuck about the effects sequences. The klingon fight was ok, but frankly the way the ships movie in trek makes space combat dull as all fuck, and the fight scenes were ok but nothing super exciting. I like the film because it was interesting and well acted.

This notion you have that the old films are "better" is errant bullshit. Have you seen any of the next gen films? None of them have a plot worth a fucking damn, and seriously they make fuck all sense. Yes, even first contact; no, it's not a good film, what they fuck are you thinking?

 

[Devil's Due]

I have watched Star Trek since I was a kid and I have seen every episode (even Enterprise) and almost every single movie (I believe all that's left is just the very first one for me).

From this, I have a high expectation of Star Trek, and I can honestly say that I enjoyed the movie. Yes, the last 30 minutes or so are extremely predictable, however the beginning was very interesting and the middle built up well. They COULD have made less comedy in it (I personally felt they tried too often to make a joke), but overall I enjoyed it greatly. I am glad that we finally get to see Sulu doing some more, Scotty's personal side a bit, etc. All in all, I enjoyed it greatly. I would like to see it again sometime.

Spoiler: Weeeee, minor beginning spoiler!

When Kirk told Checkov to put on a red shirt, my entire theater, almost every person there, actually cried out "NOOOO..!" We were all terrified of what was about to happen next. His expression was also hilarious, as if his character knew that was a bad sign.

 

[Brad Shepard]

I think Bob's hatred for JJ colored his view on this, like his fanboyish view of Marvel colored his view on Avengers, but what else is new.

 

[ritchards]

What? You could actually make out a movie underneath all that noise/music and see something through all those lens flares?

 

[Redd the Sock]

I've been viewing this reboot much like Marvel's Ultimate Universe, so something that's a big splashy action back throwback full of fanservice nods isn't a surprise. It's fully expected.

I'll be seeing this tomorrow, but for now I can't decide if that's bad or not. Many complaints seem to stem from issues with this not being TV. Less time for supporting cast and even less will to give them time and the rehash of an old story rather than original material sound like cries for something that needs more than a couple of hours every 4 years until too much of the production demands too much money, or gets fired, or dies. This is the kind of thing that might have been accepted as a season finale, but as a movie, I can see people responding to too much cut out to only focus on the high points of the overall mythos.

Those the twist sounds poorly done. Leave it to modern writers to get their plot twist ideas from fanfiction.net. Come on, you want to surprise us, why go with the obvious choice? You present the obvious choice and then go gotcha with something off the rails, and with all the Trek lore out there, it isn't hard to find something that fits but still surprises us.

As of the political message delivery, sorry Bob, that is pure Trek. They've had good material, but they can be very heavy handed with their social commentary to the point of being beaten over the head with a sledge hammer.

 

[major_chaos]

I loath the new Star Trek movies, to me they are the exact same as that awful Syndicate reboot: Generic, talentless trash that apes what is popular while using the name of a beloved old franchise to generate sales.

 

[jmarquiso]

So yes. I feel about Zack Snyder what you feel about Abrams. That's funny.

Edit: Funny enough, I largely blame the screenwriters for both of them. Orci and Kurtzman are a bane on film and should be destroyed. But Abrams, I like Abrams.

That said, I agree with the spoilery stuff somewhat, but I do think it manages to accomplish more.

 

[Revolutionary]

I'm sitting here wondering f this is one of those instances where Bob is unduly harsh on a movie because it pushed the wrong buttons, or if it's legitimately that bad. I guess I'll give Bob the benefit of the doubt seeing as I've always found Abrams' work in TV mediocre at best.

 

[Alex Mac]

I think this was a fine movie. Not brilliant and perhaps not living up to everything that it could have been but overall good. I think they could have gotten a bit more in depth with the villains and I do think that some actors were slightly under utilized but I don't think the film is close to what Bob paints it as.

 

[abell]

Eh. Eh. I enjoyed myself. It wasn't great, things could have been better, but, I don't consider Star Trek a sacred cow, so, I'm fine with it.

 

[zefiris]

Interesting - most real Star Trek fans I know watched and loved this movie. Really, the only legitimate criticism against it is that they, of course, made Khan white, because Hollywood is dumb. That hurt the movie a bit.

Well, that and the pointless lensflares.


And for the angry fanbois:

1.) How much of pre-Abrams Star Trek have you ever watched, if any?

Me? Everything, including the animated series (which I bet most of you nerds who claim to be the only real Trek fans have never heard of). I went to watch it on Mother's day - it was a present for my mother, who grew up on Star Trek classic, owns every Star Trek classic book and has watched all the series. She still goes to every german Trek convention.

She absolutely loved it. But I guess she's a woman so she doesn't count as a real fan, either. And I guess that's how you'll discount me as well

2.) Think about Into Darkness, remove all the action from it, all the pew pew, explosions, flare. Now, what do you think of the movie?

[/quote]

I like it. I never cared for pew pew, explosions and flares. Oh, and for my above mentioned mother? Yep, the effects weren't why she watched it, either.

If you actually take a step back from your rabid dislike for Abrams, you'll notice that this movie really is as Star Trek as it gets. It could easily be a classic episode, provided you dial back the effects. In fact, it fixed all the issues the original reboot had. Except the stupid lensflares, of course. They're dumb.


Not that I expected Bob to like it, that's the guy who stalwartly defended OtherM as not sexist, after all, and then pretended female fans hating it didn't exist.

 

[VonBrewskie]

Bob, I rarely see your reviews this pissed off. I think the Green Lantern review was the only one that was more scathing. You seem genuinely ticked. I liked the first Star Trek "reboot" but that's because I didn't watch the show very much. I have no point of reference. I learned after watching the first film that it missed the point of the original series. I mean, I got into Next Generation for awhile when I was a kid, but I never went full on Trekkie. I did watch enough to know that the "reboot" seemed more about the pew pew than careful dialogue and interesting interactions between humans and the unknown from the original series. Thanks for the heads up brother. Saved me some gas money again!

 

[Maerx]

I love how bob says "With a twist". Anyway I was never into Star Trek but I knew it was a really intelligent series. Both os these movies seem to forget that and be all like Michael Bay with Transformers.

 

[haruvister]

I usually respect Bob's opinion, even when not agreeing with it. But here it was clear he'd at least partially made up his mind before watching the movie, and all the stuff about needing spoilers to do his job just came across as spiteful. Also, it seems a bit rich to wax lyrical about the "great" Iron Man 3, and then condemn this film for being shallow. I mean, IM3, Avengers et al are fun and well-made, but also unashamedly frivolous. The reason Abrams' Star Trek movies work so well is because they have genuine depth of character, and intricate interplay between the characters - that's why we can give a damn about the explosions and running and shooting. It's a simple conceit that 90% of action movies fail to recognise - and apparently one that Bob does too.

 

[SecondPrize]

Really doesn't feel like a spoiler when every Trekkie and Trekker figured out the big spoiler long ago and the production team didn't do a very good job of convincing people they hadn't already figured it out.

So is it too early to give up any hope of getting a good movie out of the writers and to give up on another franchise since Abrams is a big name without the skill to make the big movies into really good movies?

I hadn't paid any attention at all to this apart from watching a trailer, then I read an interview a couple weeks ago with Cumberbach (sp?) where he talked about being Khan. After that every conversation I've had about this has involved me mentioning Khan.

 

[Jenvas1306]

they dont care for the rest of startreks stories and thats very evident. okay tos was also kinda a mess and Im more into everything from next gen to enterprise, so I can let this movie slip as startrek inspired action. I dont like the klingon redesign I dont like how randomly they take characters and put them where they dont belong (noticed that android?)

also, does anyone else think that there is some nice gay romance hidden with spock and kirk?
http://chaoslife.findchaos.com/new-frontiers