Escape to the Movies: Star Trek: Into Darkness

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT
 

I am a huge Trek fan, watched all the original series, TNG, well I've watched everything lets just say that, even the God awful Enterprise, which actually got good its last season just before it was killed off.
I liked this movie. I thought the first movie was a good action sci-fi movie but one that really only used the Trek universe as a dressing, something painted over the movie to pull in more people than it might have otherwise. A lot of what makes Trek Trek, convincing and at least semi-plausible(most of the time) technobable/plot points, missions about exploration and peace where humanity overcame its darker nature, and cooperation and understanding amongst all races and creeds, was completely missing in the first movie.
The second movie, while having a lot of problems, at least trys to work within some of those themes. I understand the problems Moviebob has with the film and I even agree with a lot of them, but the film still worked for me. With Gene gone I don't think we'll ever see any Trek fiction that adheres the bright ideals he tried to convey, but this film at least tried.

BigZ7337:
I'm really starting to dislike moviebob, because of his general attitude and just the fact that a lot of the time I'm not agreeing with him, as I absolutely loved the new Star Trek. I'm not sure if I'm going to keep watching him, so many of his reviews just seem to be based solely on his point of view and opinion of the movie and not the actual movie (he probably could have done this review without ever seeing the movie), and to me he comes off as a bit of a douche bag.

Really? Your big problem with a guy who reviews movie, a movie "critic" is that his reviews are based on his point of view? Well what else do you expect his reviews to be based on? Your point of view?
Also, how could have done this review without seeing the actual movie? He references specific plot points and twists that you would have to have seen the movie to know. He is a critic. He won't always agree with you. I really liked this movie a lot but it did have some major problems. He is correct that they redid the ending but with a twist. I won't get into more here as I don't want to spoil anything for anyone who hasn't seen it yet.
Can we all agree we will stop attacking critics for expressing opinions we disagree with?

/Watching this movie made me want to go home and watch Wrath of Khan

Strife2GFAQs:
Ugh...they had to pull that fanservice card, huh? No thanks.

Don't assume you won't like it based on a review. If you are a Trek fan in any way you should still see it. It definitely has its problems but it also does some things very well and is very fun to watch.

I enjoyed it as spectacle, the ships and action were thrilling. But it was like a McDonald's hamburger, tastes good at the time but then it sits uncomfortably in your stomach. That's how this movie was for me. At first I thought it was okay, not bad, enjoyable. Now after some digesting, it's fallen into not good category.

Here's the things that bothered me enough to downgrade the movie

This things just sort of made the movie dumb to me. Not all what I expect Trek to be.

Just saw the movie like 2 hours ago. As a Star trek fan, I was a tad disappointed, but I did enjoy this movie despite the amount of criticism you'll see in this post

WARNING LOTS OF SPOILERS!!!!!!!!!!

Basically, like the first movie, Into Darkness is fun to watch, but still has some problems in the character and story department.

Jegsimmons:

When the revealed Khan was actually Khan i about walked the fuck out. It was stupid, it was wasted, and worst of all....THEY DIDN'T GET KHAN RIGHT!!!!

Khan is supposed to be of Latino decent with a tad bit of European, as opposed to a fucking Brit.
Now don't get me wrong, the guy who played him acted the living hell out of that part, and i'd love to see his work again, but at the same time, no backstory on Khan, not even the fact he was a fucking dictator who owned a third of earth at one point and killed thousands of people.

Excuse me, but even I know that's wrong, and I have never watched an episode of any Star Trek series in my life.

His full name is "Khan Noonien Sing", according to the new movie, which implies that he is actually of INDIAN descent. And wikipedia confirms that. The mere fact that a latino PORTRAYED an Indian dictator in the original series soesn't make the character a latino.

JJ Abrams never liked or cared for Star Trek, this recent Daily Show interview with Jon Stewart is enough proof:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-may-13-2013/j-j--abrams

So not surprised how wrong this reboot feels.

Strife2GFAQs:
Ugh...they had to pull that fanservice card, huh? No thanks.

So, what fan service are you referring to?

1.Using the Star Trek Franchise
2.Using the characters of the original series
3.Using Old Spock from the original series
4.Showing Klingons
5.The negative chemistry between Spock and Kirk
6.Basing the new ship designs on the old ones

...Well, I'll stop there since you probably get the message. When you reboot a franchise, nothing you do can technically 'stand on it's own' because that's not what a reboot is. Of course they will eventually have to encounter the villains and a lot of the plot devices of the older series. It wouldn't be Star Trek if it lacked what defines Star Trek.

Wow Movie Bob. This is why you're going to hate Star Wars 7. You can't watch a movie that uses a popular franchise and accept they're using some great things in the franchise in an attempt to make a good movie. If I was making a Star Trek movie and wanted a great villain for it that fans would like I'd certainly use Khan. I really enjoyed Star Trek Into Darkness even though I'm a huge Star Trek fan. Maybe it would help if you can accept people are doing something new with a franchise and are taking familiar elements and trying to make something new like a certain other movie called The Amazing Spider-Man. When Star Wars 7 comes out and if it uses a iconic character and twists them in a new way I'll be watching with an open mind and enjoying it while you will probably hate the movie just because of it.

Another rather questionable Lensflare indulgence in mediocrity. Meh. I highly doubt there's going to be anything really good to be had with this Franchise, so what would it take to kill it off? And Star Wars right along with it.

Moeez:
JJ Abrams never liked or cared for Star Trek, this recent Daily Show interview with Jon Stewart is enough proof:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-may-13-2013/j-j--abrams

So not surprised how wrong this reboot feels.

Except in that very interview he goes on to say that he got into the series once he was brought onto the first movie and appreciated it quite a bit more. But I guess acknowledging that gets in the way of taking something out of context to justify nerd rage, so feel free to continue ignoring the entirety of the interview if you need to in order to continue feeling smug.

xPixelatedx:

Strife2GFAQs:
Ugh...they had to pull that fanservice card, huh? No thanks.

So, what fan service are you referring to?

1.Using the Star Trek Franchise
2.Using the characters of the original series
3.Using Old Spock from the original series
4.Showing Klingons
5.The negative chemistry between Spock and Kirk
6.Basing the new ship designs on the old ones

...Well, I'll stop there since you probably get the message. When you reboot a franchise, nothing you do can technically 'stand on it's own' because that's not what a reboot is. Of course they will eventually have to encounter the villains and a lot of the plot devices of the older series. It wouldn't be Star Trek if it lacked what defines Star Trek.

As a huge trekkie I also felt like they were going out of their way to point at things and go: "Rember this thing you liked! Here it is, eh, EHHH!" And after a while it got tiresome. The things you listed as fanservice really weren't the big fan-servicy things.

For me, the hardest part to watch was:

OT: All in all, it was an internally consistent space action movie that wasn't terrible on its own, but freaking peeved me off as a trek fan. I think the biggest issue the movie had was trying to have two antagonists, leaving no time for one or the other to be developed very well. I have to question its pacing and story, which seemed to me to have no few plot holes. I think the most egregious issue with it though was that in order to make its twist work, it had to do a CRAPLOAD of tell and not show. So many important plot shaping points were simply thrown at is in dialogue.

Also, Moviebob, the reason the Klingons looked like they did was because they were supposed to capture an 'inbetween' point in Klingon evolution. The radical difference between what Klingons looked like in the original series vs what they looked like in Next Generation and beyond was explained by Worf in DS:9, well, sort of explained. I actually applaud the make up work here as it captured a pretty decent looking in between state.

I don't see why everyone's saying that only trek fans don't like this. It's not a great movie, at best it's a decent action film that's really, really dumb. Characters do things for no reason, people beam across the known universe, Khan is some kind of superhero. All of that could have been forgiven though if the characters didn't simply retread their arcs from the first movie. More than half the cast is completely ignored.

Vivi22:

Moeez:
JJ Abrams never liked or cared for Star Trek, this recent Daily Show interview with Jon Stewart is enough proof:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-may-13-2013/j-j--abrams

So not surprised how wrong this reboot feels.

Except in that very interview he goes on to say that he got into the series once he was brought onto the first movie and appreciated it quite a bit more. But I guess acknowledging that gets in the way of taking something out of context to justify nerd rage, so feel free to continue ignoring the entirety of the interview if you need to in order to continue feeling smug.

He didn't really appreciate it, he more just understood why people like it. He didn't exactly jump on the chance to do a Star Trek reboot. It comes across in his reboots where the first movie felt more Star Wars (hardly any technobabble or politics, focus on action sequences and humor), which is why most people found it funny that he's doing Star Wars now. The only thing these reboots have got right are the characterisations, which is not exactly hard to do when you have actors who probably have more fondness for the characters than the director.

Moeez:

He didn't really appreciate it, he more just understood why people like it. He didn't exactly jump on the chance to do a Star Trek reboot. It comes across in his reboots where the first movie felt more Star Wars (hardly any technobabble or politics, focus on action sequences and humor), which is why most people found it funny that he's doing Star Wars now. The only thing these reboots have got right are the characterisations, which is not exactly hard to do when you have actors who probably have more fondness for the characters than the director.

I agree with you about the change in theme. Star Trek at its core was a space opera, a drama that relied on the chemistry of its characters and sequences that required ingenious problem solving. About half way through DS:9 they started to shift focus toward a more action oriented Star Trek, and the series has suffered for it. It has always had action set pieces, some (perhaps many)of which were cheesy as hell, but that was never the main focus. Now we jump from one action set to the next at break-neck speed. The characters stand up becuase they were, as you said, already established, but their interactions seem flat because there's no drama to build up tension. While I applaud some of the actors for really capturing their roles, the story telling is doing them NO favors in helping us connect with them.

I though it was excellent, exactly what I was expecting from the sequel.

I loved the same-but-different series of events, like an alternate timeline should have!

Bad guy was great, story worked, acting was good. I didn't even make it to two hands counting lens flare.

Into Darkness was awesome, Bob is obviously a little overly butt-hurt as a trek fan. Stop expecting episodes of TNG and enjoy the new series for what it is.

Calibanbutcher:

Jegsimmons:

When the revealed Khan was actually Khan i about walked the fuck out. It was stupid, it was wasted, and worst of all....THEY DIDN'T GET KHAN RIGHT!!!!

Khan is supposed to be of Latino decent with a tad bit of European, as opposed to a fucking Brit.
Now don't get me wrong, the guy who played him acted the living hell out of that part, and i'd love to see his work again, but at the same time, no backstory on Khan, not even the fact he was a fucking dictator who owned a third of earth at one point and killed thousands of people.

Excuse me, but even I know that's wrong, and I have never watched an episode of any Star Trek series in my life.

His full name is "Khan Noonien Sing", according to the new movie, which implies that he is actually of INDIAN descent. And wikipedia confirms that. The mere fact that a latino PORTRAYED an Indian dictator in the original series soesn't make the character a latino.

i could have sworn in 'space seed' they said he was latino, i don't recall them mentioning indian.
still, doesn't excuse the point i made.

also since when was 'khan' an indian name exclusively?

Jegsimmons:

Calibanbutcher:

Jegsimmons:

When the revealed Khan was actually Khan i about walked the fuck out. It was stupid, it was wasted, and worst of all....THEY DIDN'T GET KHAN RIGHT!!!!

Khan is supposed to be of Latino decent with a tad bit of European, as opposed to a fucking Brit.
Now don't get me wrong, the guy who played him acted the living hell out of that part, and i'd love to see his work again, but at the same time, no backstory on Khan, not even the fact he was a fucking dictator who owned a third of earth at one point and killed thousands of people.

Excuse me, but even I know that's wrong, and I have never watched an episode of any Star Trek series in my life.

His full name is "Khan Noonien Sing", according to the new movie, which implies that he is actually of INDIAN descent. And wikipedia confirms that. The mere fact that a latino PORTRAYED an Indian dictator in the original series soesn't make the character a latino.

i could have sworn in 'space seed' they said he was latino, i don't recall them mentioning indian.
still, doesn't excuse the point i made.

also since when was 'khan' an indian name exclusively?

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Khan_Noonien_Singh

"Khan" might not be exclusive to India, but Noonien Singh really doesn't sound Latino if you ask me.
Bear in mind, I am going on what the wikis tell me, and they tell me that Khan was indian / suspected to be indian.

I thought it was okay, but that might be because...

While I don't share MovieBob's loathing of J. J. Abrams, I will agree that this second rebooted Star Trek movie was only meh. I still enjoyed watching it, but that's only because I didn't have any major expectations other than it would just be a quick-and-dirty action-flick/thrill-ride type movie. Like Bob, I found the plot very thin and transparent and the constant homage references (particularly the latter scene where new Kirk does what old Spock did to save the ship in Wrath of Khan) to be ham-fisted and overly cameoed. Even the dialog in many points were just shoved in fan-service points. This did not stop me from chuckling when they happened (although the scene referenced in the prior sentence did make me wince considerably), but, even so, my overall impression of the movie was only meh. The first new Star Trek movie I'd actually be willing to watch again; this one, not so much.

While I'm not entirely willing to call Star Trek: Into Darkness a bad movie, it certainly wasn't a great or even good movie. It was just mediocre, kinda meh. It had some nice action scenes at points, a couple of impressive camera angles (the Enterprise rising from the ocean was cool, and seeing the dreadnought crashing into a city gave you a very definite sense of scale of just how big that ship really is; although its angle of approach was very clearly taken from the 9/11 footage of the planes crashing into the World Trade Center, for those who saw that), and the homage dialog did make me chuckle (and wince at the same time, occasionally). But overall, the movie was just...meh, lacking any real depth. I really don't know any other way to put it. If I had actually gone into the movie with great expectations (I ever only saw two trailers, the one way back when it was first announced and a recent one while I was watching The Hobbit in theaters; I had almost even forgotten the movie was coming out until my friend reminded me), I think I would have been highly disappointed. As it is, because I didn't expect more than just thrill-ride action, I was able to have a good time (being with friends helped; I think if I had seen it alone, I would have been more pissy about the experience).

One of the things that I've noticed with geeks/nerds when it comes to movies and TV shows is that they are quick to pan other movies and shows as being crap, but they always fail to recognize when the movies and TV shows within their own favored genres (i.e. sic-fi, fantasy, and video games) also fail as compelling movies for precisely the same reasons of being shallow, low-brow, having poor characterization, or just being clunky and ham-fisted. A bad movie is just a bad movie, independent of the subject-matter or references. So, I'm actually glad that Bob called this movie to task, because it really isn't that great, in my opinion.

CORRECTION: the second trailer I saw wasn't while watching The Hobbit, it was while watching Iron Man 3. That's just how much I had forgotten that the movie was even coming.

I'm pretty excited for the new Star Wars movies, to be honest. Abrams's Star Trek movies are, in a lot of ways, more like Star Wars anyway. He has shown that he knows how to make a coherent, visually driven film with good performances from his actors. This time he'll be working with an ostensibly better writing team as well. Also, there's not nearly as much official source material as Star Trek, so unlike Star Trek they won't need to start a new timeline or anything. The new movies will probably overwrite much of the post-RotJ EU, which is a bummer for many fans, but I think what will come out of it will be a more cohesive story overall.

Jegsimmons:

When the revealed Khan was actually Khan i about walked the fuck out. It was stupid, it was wasted, and worst of all....THEY DIDN'T GET KHAN RIGHT!!!!

I disagree. Characterization-wise, I'd say that this version actually probably works notably better than the original in a lot of ways. Khan is just as arrogant, duplicitous and deceptive as the he was in TOS, and Cumberbatch nailed the role. What's more, they finally give Khan some room to play around with the whole "genetic superman" aspect of his character. Aside from a few scenes where he shows off superior strength and healing in TOS and WoK, it's always been heavily downplayed though they explicitly state just how superior he actually is.

Jegsimmons:

Khan is supposed to be of Latino decent with a tad bit of European, as opposed to a fucking Brit.

No, Ricardo Montalban comes across as of Latino descent with a tad bit of European. Khan's ethnicity is never explicitly stated that I can recall, but in the scripts he's generally thought of as being from India, and his name is pure Asia.

Jegsimmons:

no backstory on Khan, not even the fact he was a fucking dictator who owned a third of earth at one point and killed thousands of people.

In Khan's first appearance on TOS, nobody knew enough about him to go "Holy crap, that's Khan! He used to rule a quarter of the planet! And he's evil!!" They find it out over the course of the episode. Khan reveals some of it, some research turns up the rest, but by the time they've got it all put together, they've already let Khan read up on how to control the damn ship. Because, y'know, it's just polite to let a total stranger read the technical manuals for your ship.

By the time they know who Khan is in Into Darkness, it's a bit late in the game to go digging through the history books.

What bugs me, however, is that in the midst of the crisis, they shoehorn that stupid call to TOS Spock into the film. It's totally nonsensical; if current-Spock had been unable to find anything in the history books regarding genetically engineered dictators named Khan, I could see a justification for it. Making it his go-to response is ridiculous; he has absolutely no reason to suspect that TOS Spock might have encountered Khan.

Jegsimmons:

His battle scenes are pathetic and don't hold as much tension, the two other bits from wrath of Khan were just shoe horned in and pissed on, and worst of all.....NOTHING IS ACCOMPLISHED!!!!

His battle scenes are a hell of a lot better than anything Khan managed in TOS. Kirk beats him up, for crying out loud, which was patently ridiculous.

Jegsimmons:

the Admirals plan makes no fucking sense. too many redundancies and stupid shit.

No, the problem with the Admiral's plan isn't too many redundancies. It's too few.

If we're going to assume that Khan escaped more-or-less on his own, we're left wondering what pretext the Admiral was going to use to provoke a war with the Klingon Empire.

If Khan is supposed to be super-intelligent, then having him make the connection that if the Admiral wants a war, and he had Khan design some badass long-range torpedoes, maybe he shouldn't go hiding on Kronos.

If we allow for the prospect that Khan was played by the Admiral, given the fact that the Vengeance is still in the fitting-out process, why is the Admiral trying to provoke a war NOW? Why not wait until he has a few more such ships, fully worked-up?

Yes, the use of the long-range torpedoes as a plot device gives us an opportunity for your typical Hollywood veiled criticism of Obama's drone policy, coupled with a criticism of Bush-era militarism, but it's still a weak plot unless we take the perspective that the Admiral is scrambling to stop Khan before he either a.) hits something truly vital (since Khan is, after all, incredibly intelligent and capable), or b.) finds a sympathetic ear (as he does with Kirk) and spills the beans to someone in charge.

Squealing to the authorities seems unlikely given the Khan still wants to rule the universe, but it has to be allowed for.

The best explanation of that aspect of the plot that I can think of is that Khan's escape is largely spontaneous, the Admiral's sinister master plan is just a mad scramble to fix a terrible mistake, and he seizes the opportunity to spark the war he wants. But while he might have been taking advantage of the situation to provoke a war with the Klingons, why didn't Khan realize that?. If Khan knows enough to realize that the Klingons are a hostile power and that by hiding there he's safe from ordinary Starfleet retribution, he should have also realized that if the Admiral is getting ready for a war with the Klingons he's probably not going to be terribly concerned with pissing off the people he wants to go to war with.

As for the whitewashing of Khan, I can see a certain justification for it. The last thing most producers want to do is throw a southwest Asian terrorist up on the screen. It's similar to the casting of Ben Kingsley as the Mandarin; when China is a huge potential market, making a villain who is basically an incredibly racist caricature is probably not good business. Aside from being, y'know, racist. Similarly, there's a lot of effort (and a certain amount of justification for it) put towards divorcing the concept of "terrorist" from the concept of "Muslim". While it's generally acceptable to throw the united colors of Benetton at the heroes, it's often frowned upon to cast anyone other than a white male (or occasionally female) as the villain these days.

Ultimately I don't rank it as a great film, and it has the usual raft of Star Trek plot holes, but I enjoyed it.

Mezmer:

teamcharlie:
Star Trek: Into Darkness is fun. Probably the most fun thing out this weekend, even moreso than Iron Man 3 if space is the sort of thing you're into. It's not Wrath of Khan (1982), but aside from having similarly named but clearly distinct characters why would you expect it to be?

I'll have to echo your sentiments. I saw this movie two days ago for an early midnight premiere and absolutely loved it. It was much more entertaining than Iron Man 3. It really baffles me that Bob has given scathing reviews to both of these films. Is he upset that they brought Star Trek into the 21st century visually and gave it acting/stories that are fun to watch? The writing is at the very least solid, if not genuinely good. I don't know why he's complaining about the screenplay or the writers. Hell, my dad, who's a HUGE Trekkie absolutely adores the new movies. Maybe Bob needs to get his head out of his ass.

I'm inclined to agree. Perhaps this is what happens when you're a movie critic for too long; you eventually become jaded to all but the most unique or bizarre of movie fare. Bob gave Spring Breakers a big thumbs-up after all. How MovieBob can give the incredibly average Iron Man 3 higher props than this movie is beyond me.

It almost sounds like MovieBob resented the movie from the get-go, all because of a plot twist that many people (including MovieBob) had to already know was coming, which he interpreted as a marketing ploy. Pre-judging a movie because of it's marketing doesn't seem very professional or fair to the movie. Never mind the fact that it rather neatly gets a major canon plot point out of the way and sets the stage for a new "five year journey".

Well I honestly disagree with everything bob said here. I really enjoyed this movie.

Raesvelg:
The best explanation of that aspect of the plot that I can think of is that Khan's escape is largely spontaneous, the Admiral's sinister master plan is just a mad scramble to fix a terrible mistake, and he seizes the opportunity to spark the war he wants. But while he might have been taking advantage of the situation to provoke a war with the Klingons, why didn't Khan realize that?. If Khan knows enough to realize that the Klingons are a hostile power and that by hiding there he's safe from ordinary Starfleet retribution, he should have also realized that if the Admiral is getting ready for a war with the Klingons he's probably not going to be terribly concerned with pissing off the people he wants to go to war with.

Maybe the exact reason Khan hid on Kronos was because he knew the Vengeance was still being fitted out and so he still had time to make alliances. If the admiral was trying to avoid war with the Klingons he'd likely try to open a dialogue with them to deal with the rogue supersoldier on their planet, otherwise Khan might have a run-in with a Klingon patrol, like they actually did, and any reports would detail a human aggressor.

I really liked this film. But I'm not a Trekkie. I've never really sat and watched Star Trek. Any series. I keep meaning to, but my attention span is far too short. Maybe if it shows up on my Netflix I'll watch it. I just got done with Hemlock Grove and I need something else. I knew of Khan. I knew of the famous KHAAAAAAAN! and I knew the ending of that film.

I didn't know Khan was a supersoldier. Frankly I had no idea who Khan was beyond his name. Every single fanservice nod or wink went right over my head, and since I'm pretty good at filling plotholes with imaginative solutions (I asked a friend about the whole restorative blood problem. He surmised that Khan was in charge because he was superior and it was only his blood that they could rely on as possessing the regenerative quality), but a whole lot of plotholes seem to be labelled as such through a "Why did Character A do this when Option B was a better idea?"

They did it because things look different from their perspective. Obviously.

Thyunda:

They did it because things look different from their perspective. Obviously.

The problem with writing super-intelligent characters is that they're not written by super-intelligent authors.

Having character perspectives is great, don't get me wrong. Khan flips out and attacks the Enterprise after the torpedoes blow because he assumes that his people were still inside, since that's what he would have done, given that he is just a wee bit of a spiteful bastard and not particularly concerned with the lives of his enemies. That's his perspective, and it's fitting that he makes that particular oversight.

But basic reasoning shouldn't be subject to perspective, particularly when you're dealing with someone who is supposed to be intelligent enough on his own to create new technologies decades in advance of the existing ones, and to do so in a scant few years starting from three centuries behind. It's not a question of perspective when characters make obvious mistakes that they should not have made in character.

It's just lazy writing. Obviously.

Pandering fan service, obvious political messages, dumb action, and faulty and broken lore? Sounds like every other Star Trek show and movie ever. This guy takes Star Trek way too seriously.

I understand your frustraion Bob. I've seen but one episode of Star Trek, so this movie didn't mean much to me, but having put up with three seasons of Lost worth of abuse before I wised up, I absolutely understand your frustration. I'm sick of Abrams and his ilk putting so much work into the hype then forgetting to actually pay it off, like the hype itself is the art, is the reward. It's so... enamored with surface.

Bob, you seem to be getting kinda bitter. JJ Abrams isn't going away. No matter how bad you want him to disappear, the guy is currently in charge of 3 of the biggest things in nerd culture. And you know what? He's doing a fine job. I thought this was fantastic and at this point, you even seem to be in the minority of critics.

Granted, the movie has a few problems, but on the whole its an incredibly enjoyable, well acted, very FUN film.

Your 2 biggest complaints seem to be the advertising and the fan service. The advertising doesn't matter to me in the slightest. Its like when people got pissy because ME3 didn't live up to the obscene amounts of hype it was getting.

I get the complaint about the fan service though. I know a lot of people hate it. I loved every second of it. JJ can service this fan any time he wants. Yeah, it's lazy and pandering and silly, but that's what's awesome about it. I was grinning ear to ear throughout the entire role reversed WOK scene. I squee'd like a little girl at Spock's big scene a moment later. Every scene I was watching for and eagerly anticipating the next bit of fanservice. This was a movie for me and those like me. I'm very sorry you felt how you did.

It's a shame this movie was essentially a retread of WoK, it really lacked any of the development of Kirk or even Cumberbatch's own insanity, and why did they need cumberbatch's blood? they had dozens of frozen people.

Other than maybe Uhura and Spoke did we learn anything about anyone?

xPixelatedx:

So, what fan service are you referring to?

1.Using the Star Trek Franchise
2.Using the characters of the original series
3.Using Old Spock from the original series
4.Showing Klingons
5.The negative chemistry between Spock and Kirk
6.Basing the new ship designs on the old ones
you don't get what fan service is, do you?

Thyunda:

I really liked this film. But I'm not a Trekkie. I've never really sat and watched Star Trek. Any series. I keep meaning to, but my attention span is far too short. Maybe if it shows up on my Netflix I'll watch it. I just got done with Hemlock Grove and I need something else. I knew of Khan. I knew of the famous KHAAAAAAAN! and I knew the ending of that film.

I didn't know Khan was a supersoldier. Frankly I had no idea who Khan was beyond his name. Every single fanservice nod or wink went right over my head, and since I'm pretty good at filling plotholes with imaginative solutions (I asked a friend about the whole restorative blood problem. He surmised that Khan was in charge because he was superior and it was only his blood that they could rely on as possessing the regenerative quality), but a whole lot of plotholes seem to be labelled as such through a "Why did Character A do this when Option B was a better idea?"

They did it because things look different from their perspective. Obviously.

you so bob was right in saying the "mystery" was pointless.

I'm a die hard fan of the TOS and I've literally been watching this show and this franchise since I was an infant. Wrath of Khan is my favorite movie of all time and I feel that the death of Spock is one of the most iconic moments in all of science fiction.

That being said, I disagree with nearly everything you say in this review and I absolutely loved this movie, even the twist and the death scene.

You see, I feel like these movies NEED to retread the old series. It's a universe in which the cosmic forces are constantly trying to bring the altered universe back on track, said by Spock Prime in a deleted scene from Star Trek 2009. In fact, my father and I (Has been a fan of ST since the sixties), were actually discussing what episodes of TOS would make good "Reboot Movies" This is a fresh start and I love how these movies have established the new universe and how similar it is to the old one. I mean seriously, out of all the changes made to this universe, all of these major characters end up on the same ship? That's a stretch. But this is a universe constantly in flux, trying to redirect the flow back to the original timeline, so that's why everything seems so similar. I love that the death scene mirrored the one in Wrath of Khan. It shows, not only a stark dedication to the original lore, but it also shows that the writers actually DO "get it." So, as we continue, we need a movie version of Balance of Terror, The Ultimate Computer, or City on the Edge of Forever. Seriously, it's about time for this Kirk to get his time travel libido up and running.

I am highly of the belief that you judged this movie primarily on your hatred for Abrams. We get it, you don't like him. Can you continue being a movie critic again?

(SPOILER) Finally found time to watch Bob's review. You know...I liked the movie. But I don't disagree with Bob, not one bit. I just wasn't as distraught (or bothered) by what the movie did as Bob was, but they really could have made this movie their own by leaving the entire Khan connection out of it.

AldUK:
Bob is my favourite Escapist feature producer and I watch escape to the movies every week. 9/10 times I completely agree with you Bob, but not here. ST: Into Darkness is a fantastic film with brilliant action, awesome special effects and a great cast who all do a good job in their roles. I can't help but feel that the negativity is purely because it's not the exact film that 'you' wanted as a Trekkie.

Still a big fan. But you're so wrong here Bob and 9/10 people agree with me based on actual user reviews.

Here's the thing I find interesting about your post. I agree with you. the action was really good, if a little drawn out in places. I thought the special effects were amazing as well. I also thought that the cast, even Chris Pine, were all rather good in their roles. I even thought the movie was quite a bit of fun. The problem is that none of those things have anything to do with why the movie sucks. The movie is bad because it spends more time on exposition than on character development. Khan is the very definition of one dimensional. He has only one defining characteristic. The fact that the ending was emotionally vapid. All of the meaning behind the scene between Spock and Kirk when it was done in Wrath of Khan mean't something because we understand the deep friendship that both of those two characters had. We also had no reason to think that Spock was going to magically be brought back to life. That movie ended with Spock actually being dead. I know they essentially wrote him coming back to life on in the third movie, but it had no bearing on the second. Another thing as Bob points out is that none of the characters go through any character arcs that weren't already done in the 2009 film. I could go on, but I don't want to be here all night.

At least now Moviebob gets why a bait and switch can be disappointing... Iron Man 3 anyone? Regardless, movie was a heap of dung. Abrams is a hack. Seriously, the guy makes Felicity (?!) and directs the pilot for Lost and he's king of TV? (Lost was actually sitting in ABC's archives since the 70's.) And apparently the world's no.1 choice for science fiction director too?!! I don't know how this happened. His whole back catalogue is sketchy enough for actual quality and experience. Bad Robot is a talented company, but a dipstick is in charge...

There's literally every director in Hollywood before you get to this guy. He must be one heck of a salesman. What are the odds some folk at Disney are getting cold feet?

Portal & Half Life are gonna basically be expensive Uwe Boll movies.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here