Escape to the Movies: Star Trek: Into Darkness

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

Please tell me I'm not the only one that was taken out by the whole "fall" that enterprise had.

As for the whole plot of the movie, I thought it was pretty damn good up until the big reveal. At that point I just gave a little "Really? aw come on! That ain't healthy, man" but that was it. I honestly liked the movie and, even if it wasn't better than the first one, it was still good.

When i first came out of the movie i was all hyped up because of the visuals. i'm a sucker for the ships. But then i got to talking with my fleetmates in sector 31. everyone gave it around a 6-7 because of the story.

As my fleet comander said when their friend who loved the movie asked him "what did you think"

Admiral Roki replied. "the masses will love it"

We all agree. yes jj is brining interest back into startrek. but its not our startrek anymore. If they make another series it will most likely be based of the new timeline.

As far as we are conserned. untill they make a series based after voyager. our game we play is canon. and the last vestige of the original timeline. the new timeline. while started with the old. romulus's destruction is the changing point. one path follows spock into the past which changes and alters that time. the other continues and shows new romulus and how everyone is working on picking up the pieces.

What does NVP stand for? Something something protagonist?

Im not a star trek fan, but what is stupid is JJ had the whole ST universe of characters, aliens etc and all he could come up with is "This just redo film 2". Thats just lazy and a lack of imagination. Is this what he will do with the Star Wars, make episode 7, which will just be a remake of 4 but about a kid called Lance Skillwacker learning the force and fight Darth Verder who will be a clone.

Lazy JJ, very, very lazy.

Or they could just have Luke fight and kill one of Palpatine's many clones. Yes he actually had clones in the lore. Several of them.

Yep. It was a forgettable, C-plus-at-best, Stallone-eque action movie that is actively hurt by the Star Trek branding and downright pathetic attempts at fan service.The "secrets" and "twists" in the movie, aside from being pathetically unsurprising to anyone who has heard anything about the movie beforehand (and even less so to fans of the classic franchise), did absolutely nothing to advance what little plot or development there was. See if it you like "lazors pew pew" or (ironically) "gubment is teh sux because violence", but otherwise give it a pass.


Blood Brain Barrier:

The reason you liked this film is because you're not a Trekkie. Only non-Trekkies could enjoy it because that's what Abrams wanted. You can't make money unless you pander to the larger audience and not a niche, and Abrams is a Jew after all.

Well I am a Trek fan so please speak for yourself. I think having watched every episode for the first three series qualifies me as a fan and I enjoyed this film. Its not the best Star Trek film but I would still put it above most of the original set of movies and all of Next Gen's movies except First Contact.

I think that the use of Cumberbach and Weller how their characters work in the plot is what saves the movie. Despite what bob says about Khan being all over the place I saw straight line of a character who only real concern is to beloved crew back to continue their goals. Weller was great example of everything that the federation is not and what impulses their leaders need to work against. For Kirk, I liked his character arc more that it was stretched out over two movies. I never felt like he earned what he got by the end of the movie. It is not until he learns the lessons of this movie that he learns what it is to be a leader thus leading to his sacrifice.

Here's what I don't get, but what someone might explain to me:
What was it that was appealing about the first reboot Star Trek movie, that people liked and thought was good?

As a trekkie I personally loathed it, but I've heard one guy say that it was about friendship, like TOS relationship between Spock and Kirk, which I think is a good point.
Other than that though, what do people see in J. J. Abrams' work?

For me, Star Trek has always been about our role in the future. I liked Enterprise because it was for a while, a bit more believable and had some interesting problems and challenges(although most of it was fairly shit, there were things to think about).
I don't get any such sort of vibe from the new reboot. It seems like a shitload of references and action scenes, led by mostly uninteresting actors who have no class, no style and no unique aspects to them.
The original Kirk, Picard, Sisko and even Janeway and Archer all had quirks, flaws, personal style and class to them. You could actually imagine having them as a superior officer or even as a captain. For those who've served or been in shipping, you know what I mean. It takes a strong, capable and charismatic person to be a good captain and you feel that you can put your faith in them almost immediately.

Chris Pine seems to have none of those qualities.

Okay, objectively, and held up to the standards of great film making, ST:ID is not a great, or even particularly good movie. But we don't go see Star Trek movies for great film making. That said, ST:ID plays better than almost all of the TNG movies and at least half of the original cast movies. So, yeah, it's satisfying with suitably lowered expectations.

As far as the big spoilery twist... there's no real reason for it. It doesn't add to the film. If they hadn't been coy about hiding it, they could have spent a good 10 to 20 minutes on a better back story and made an over all better movie.

I found Into Darkness to be completely average, I enjoyed it for what it was but then again the most I ever got into Star Trek was watching Picard and Janeway with my Dad when I was younger and really liking it. I never got the chance to watch the original series although I did appreciate the little hamfisted references.

I didn't really enjoy the first movie but I liked this one more, What disappointed me the most was they they didn't do anything with the ideas that they had. The role reversed sacrifice at the end could have been really great if they didn't undo it 20 minutes later. I just cant help but think of all the wasted potential, they could stuck with it and then had an actual twist ending with maybe a sequel hint with a certain bald charming captain but nope for the sequel we are going to have a war with the Klingons.

(I really appreciated that Pine porked up to play Kirk in true Star Trek fashion and how Karl Urban as McCoy is a dead ringer for DeForest Kelley, McCoy has to be my favorite character.)

I'm one of those people the really enjoyed the Star Trek 2009 reboot.... BUT I still think that movie is vastly overrated, filled with crippling amounts of plotholes and immersion-breaking coincidences, a very weak central plot, and number of distracting cameos from other actors (Tyler Perry? Seriously?). It spent 99% of its time "rebooting" the universe only to send that time putting the characters, through sheer coincidence and acts of fate, right back into the exact same roles their other-universe counterparts had, to the point that we KNEW everyone was going to adopt "their role" and we just had to waste time waiting for it to happen... and when it finally did, the movie was nearly over.

It still had some great scenes and the acting was, well... let's just say its more genuine than the originals. Still a good movie, but I'll probably never fully accept that Kirk gets marooned on a moon in the whole giant universe, stumbles into a cave on the whole giant moon, runs into Spock from the future in that one cave, and then also coincidentally bumps into Scotty, who is on that same moon a mere few meters away...

Concerning this film, I'm sure it'll be like the first (or the Dark Knight Rises), in that the overall film will be pretty enjoyable, but it just will lose me in the little details and collapse under the weight of plotholes, directionless scenes, unnecessary twists that serve no actual meaning, and aimless scenes that don't so much develop characters as repeat things we already know about them.

I think J.J. Abrams is decent... but he's not the 'savior' of the franchise, nor some brilliantly skilled director, or even someone with any real understanding or respect for the franchises he attaches himself to. It's mainly the work of all those around him that elevate the mundane material into something truly interesting, much like how Robert Downey Jr. turned what could've been another Daredevil or Ghost Rider into a role that elevated him (and the character of Iron Man) to a global hit... even if I acknowledge the actual movies would just be alright without him.

I guess I'm just trying to say that I have a healthy skepticism about Abrams taking on Star Wars. We need something truly NEW in the Star Wars universe and if Star Trek Into Darkness is an example of Abram's priorities, he seems incapable of going "where no man has gone before" and instead is opting to return to "where this franchise has already been several times before".

And say what you will about the Mandarin twist in Iron Man 3... at least people didn't see it coming. EVERYONE called out the "twist" in Star Trek Into Darkness nearly a whole year before we got to it.

Star Trek: Into Darkness

MovieBob gives us a frank and spoiler filled review of the latest Star Trek film.

Watch Video

Here is my thought process for this weeks Escape to the Movies episode. BTW, I will not post any of the spoilers Bob does in the video. I'm gonna make this as spoiler-free as possible.

Upon reading the description: Uh oh, I think I hear the bells tolling for this one.

Non-spoiler portion of the video: Yeah, I kinda figured it wasn't worth my time and money. I'll definitely be saving my $7 to go see Iron Man 3 again. Also, major props to Bob for using a Dial M For Monkey reference. XD

Spoiler portion of the video: OK, can we really qualify that first statement as a spoiler since most of the Internet already figured it out (including the ones that found out via Internet Movie Database)? If you didn't know about this "spoiler", then you either lack an Internet connection or you really need to bone up on your Star Trek history.

As for the rest of the video, it pretty much confirms my worst fears and amplifies my already mounting fears for Star Wars: Episode VII. I mean, sweet Jebus on a pogo stick! Is this the over-hyped schmuck Hollywood gave the keys to perhaps two of the biggest Sci-Fi franchises in history?!? This is the best man Disney and Paramount decided to go with?!? A mediocre director with great set-up but piss-poor execution and tends to favor mystery for the sake of mystery?!? I'd almost compare him to Michael Bay but at least Abrams doesn't plug in racist stereotypes in his movies!

I dunno what pisses me off the most. The fact that most critics, despite its flaws, gave this a pass (which begs the question "How badly do these people long for death's sweet embrace?") or the fact that most of Hollywood is (a) barely aiming for the stars with projects like these or (b) actually aiming for the gutters thinking that no one will notice. For the love of all that is holy, can we please hire people who actually care about what they're making rather than just picking hacks who offer fanboy pandering and cheap thrills in exchange for a pay check?!

God, I so wanna curl up into the fetal position and weep right now.

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

Honestly, I don't feel the movie was NEARLY as bad as he made it out to be. As someone who always enjoyed Star Trek, but wasn't a "Trekkie", I really enjoyed the film.

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 used to like the concept of Star Trek, but then I watched B5 and found it more believable. The original concept of Star Trek is a bit too far out there for me to believe, and is too idealistic. It wasn't until DS9 that anything in the Star Trek universe had any sense of realism to it. I'm for any Trek movie that shows human nature as not ideal.

They can't really do Star Trek and not bring in the guy they bring in at some point. It's like using Pike, and not putting him in the equivalent of a wheel chair at some point. We need a new origin for this guy now that the last movie messed up the time line, and this seems as good of a point as any.

At least it wasn't a giant log, and a quest to save the whales again. Instead we get an alternate version of what could have been an old trek episode, but done radically different. The moment the first movie did a "time travel" reboot I expected this.

Personally I would have rebooted by claiming that every Trek episode prior was little more than Star Fleet Propaganda, but I'm sure fans would have hated that. But there is president for that after all.

Going to see it tonight. Hope its better than Iron Man 3....

Okay, objectively, and held up to the standards of great film making, ST:ID is not a great, or even particularly good movie. But we don't go see Star Trek movies for great film making. That said, ST:ID plays better than almost all of the TNG movies and at least half of the original cast movies. So, yeah, it's satisfying with suitably lowered expectations.

As far as the big spoilery twist... there's no real reason for it. It doesn't add to the film. If they hadn't been coy about hiding it, they could have spent a good 10 to 20 minutes on a better back story and made an over all better movie.

Let me just add that I have nothing against great film making and wouldn't mind if it showed up in a franchise movie like this. I just don't go in looking for it.

I watched the first movie and if you held a gun to my head and made me tell you about it, you would have to pull the trigger. Nothing in that movie stayed with me. That they made a sequel baffles me in the same vein as "Saw V? They made a Saw IV?"

I really hate fan service, which is all these Star Trek movies have been. Don't remind me of another, better movie that I could be watching instead of your crappy movie. That's all these movies have been. A collection of things designed to remind you of other, better movies. Why are these movies making money when the Dungeons & Dragons movie, which did the same god damned thing, bombed?

I can't wait to see what Abrams does to Star Wars now. Hot mess won't even cover it. They'll probably be Ewoks in space because he mistakenly thinks they're popular. Typical, confusing the most marketable with the most popular.

And say what you will about the Mandarin twist in Iron Man 3... at least people didn't see it coming. EVERYONE called out the "twist" in Star Trek Into Darkness nearly a whole year before we got to it.

Up until just a few weeks ago I was hoping that it really would be the red herring rumor that caught a bit of traction a while back. I still think that could have been a more interesting movie.

Sooo... Given that I haven't been into the series from the beginnings (I am a game nerd, and only now exploring the territory of TV/Comic book/Film nerddom) Would I like this movie? I mean, I get that it will piss off long-time fans, but if I enjoyed the first movie, should I go, or just be happy watching Iron Man 3 this weekend?

I saw ths film last week and when asked what I thought. All I could think of to say was "JJ Abrams is a prick." I couldn't even really be bothered to rant. He is just a prick.... Though later that day I ranted for hours till I was coughing up blood felt good.

I was accidentally spoiled on tumblr (thanks!) about a week and a half ago or so back when the Aussie screenings had the leak. I was hoping it was crap but then I got spoiled AGAIN (seriously if you're on tumblr tag you're fucking spoilers jfc) and realized it was legit. I'm going to go see it though just because I still want to.


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.

the spoilers come in at the second half of the review, but the short version is that Bob thinks this one sucks.

I'm not going to say much else (don't want to spoil/imply anything), other than if this movie doesn't do well, I wonder if Disney will give Star Wars to someone else.

Nothing surprising there. He literally hates ANYTHING to do with Abrahms. Honestly, I hope that one day, a movie directed by Abrahms but under the guise of some random other director or made up name (Pen-name I think is what people call them?) comes out.

I think Bob goes into any Abrahms movie with the pre-conceived notion that it will suck, so he thinks it sucks in the end.

Just guess work as I really didn't mind the last Trek film (still a thousand times better than the tripe we got before), and I haven't seen this one yet, so I can't necessarily say that I agree with him or disagree with him, yet.

A review is no place for spoilers..
I've watched the first part however it really was pretty much "Spoiler Filled" not just the 1st half.. more like 2 3rds.

Bob has his Big Picture slot on here which he uses to go into more detail about things which he believes need to be said.. This (to me) falls into that category.

Keep the reviews spoiler free so I can make up my mind whether I see the film.

Maybe it's only movies he likes he doesn't spoil.

Star Trek: Hated: "I really want to spoil this movie" then spoiled 2:31 into the review.
Iron man 3: Loved: Hints at a twist but does't spoil it and states that he wont.
Oblivion: Hated: Spoilertastic. from 2:20
Oz the Great and Powerful: Loved: No spoilers
Life of Pi: Disliked: Spoiled at 4:05
Wreck it Ralph: Loved: No Spoilers
Cloud Atlas: Loved: No Spoilers
Dark Knight Rises: Liked but Dissappointed: No Spoilers
Cabin in the woods: LOVED: Not spoiled

So I just need to look for the word "Spoiler" in the title to know Bob doesn't like it.

Having only seen the original ST & Next Gen when I was a kid, I don't see myself as a Trekkie and even I knew it was khan... the moment i figured the poster wasn't for the new Superman movie.

Also, it's a personal opinion, but JJ is not really that good, I don't see why everybody loves him so freaking much, I see him as a guy with great premisses but utterly fails on execution; there is internet fan fiction (my own included) for that, we don't want that in professional film makers, writers, etc.

Star Trek has always had my respect for being Sci-Fi at it's finest, now it's just wiz bang zoom, mission impossible: outer orbit, it's time that stopped.

Sorry, I had to vent.

What does NVP stand for? Something something protagonist?

He said "MVP" as in Most Valuable Player, or something to that effect.

OT: Wow, Bob really hated this - even more than I was expecting. Avoiding..

I couldn't disagree more with Bob on this. I loved the movie. I thought that there was significant character development, the plot was interesting to me, and it had some fan-service, but I thought generally it was a good movie (there's one particular scene that I had to try not to laugh at ... ).

I don't really understand why MovieBob is so hard on this movie. It wasn't cinematic gold by any means, but I wasn't expecting it to be. I was expecting it to be an interesting, slightly off-kilter version of Star Trek. I thought that the development of Kirk and Spock in this movie was as extensive if not more extensive than the first one.

I dunno, I just really can't agree with Bob on this one.

Into Darkness was a good, good movie, it was well-paced, we got to enjoy the characters since the first movie already developed them, the villain was stand-out and it had plenty of well placed references to Wrath of Khan.

Honestly Bob needs to just stop reviewing these movies, because its bizarre how he develops an emotional connection to these franchises (Transformers - toy robots? Seriously?)and it comes across in his reviews, making him sound ridiculous.

That's the big twist? I guessed that from the beginning.

This movie was everything I wanted it to be.
A fun science-fiction action-romp with a likeable cast, great cinematography, a great score, good performances all-around, some throwbacks to the "original" even complete and utter dolts like me can understand...

And there goes every ounce of credibility you were trying to have. That last bit is exactly the sort of bullshit Bob was talking about. Those references do nothing except make people like you feel like this is the genuine article. It's fool's gold. Mimicking aspects of other movies or episodes or tropes does enough for the people who know OF "Star Trek" and makes them feel like they are part of "the club", but because they mimic without understanding, appreciating, or even caring about the "original", it does a complete disservice to the movie itself by weakening its own integrity while also insulting the actual fans.

Since I don't want to spoil anything for this movie, I'll instead use an example from a different movie, "Prometheus" (which also received copious rewrites from Damon Lindelof).

So the big stinger at the end of "Prometheus" is that the "original" Xenomorph bursts out of the Engineer's chest. For people who only tangentially knew of "Alien" or perhaps saw it once a long time ago, they saw this and thought "Oh, cool! So this is a prequel to 'Alien'!" and felt like they "got it". However, anyone who actually gave a shit thought this was the stupidest thing imaginable. The Engineer at the end of this movie is on a ship that is of human design, the Engineer is not wearing his "space-jockey" mask, the ship is not on the planetoid Acheron, and the Engineer is not in a chair. If they wanted to make this work and actually remain consistent with "Alien", all they would have had to do was have the Engineer survive the encounter with the proto-face-hugger (since face-huggers do not instantly kill their hosts in "Alien"), have him fly off in his ship in pursuit of our heroine (it would even have served as a great climactic action scene), and THEN have the Xenomorph burst out of his chest, causing him to crash-land on Acheron (which, by the way, was literally right next door). The only way it could possibly make sense now is if a completely different Engineer comes along and gets attacked by a face-hugger.

On top of that, the manner by which the proto-face-hugger came about made absolutely no sense within the context of the film. David finds black goop on one of the mystery cylinders, finds out it has DNA that matches human DNA, inexplicably contaminates one of the crewmember's drinks with it not having any reason to believe it would do anything, the crewmember then has sex with Shaw, who then somehow gets pregnant, then the original crewmember dies horribly, then Shaw gives birth to a face-hugger. David, meanwhile, acts like this was all a part of some greater scheme, but there's absolutely no evidence that he had any idea what he was doing, which makes his actions seem completely insane, especially considering how they could have very easily endangered his primary objective of getting his father to meet the Engineer.

My point is, when you contrive and contort the plot just to have a fan-service moment that actually insults the intelligence of the fans and only works for people who don't actually care about the franchise, you really shouldn't bother doing fan-service in the first place. "Prometheus" would have been a better film if they had just left out the Xenomorph subplot entirely or if they had simply done it in a manner consistent with the rest of the film's universe.

The same could be said for "Star Trek Into Darkness". In the first "Star Trek" film, the references were generally either harmless, tongue-in-cheek moments, or generally pretty consistent with the universe as a whole (or at least could be handwaved with sufficient caveats). In STID, the references are not only front-and-center and crucial to the plot, but they are laughably stupid and blatantly insulting to anyone who has the slightest bit of passion for the franchise. And I know what you're probably thinking. "So what? They don't have to cater to the fans. They just have to make a good movie!" And you know what? You're right. Yet they still tried and failed, and by doing so, they made the movie worse. If they were going to fail, they shouldn't have bothered in the first place. Like "Prometheus", they should have either cut out the references entirely or used them intelligently. Instead of making Character A turn out to ACTUALLY be Character B, they should have just made an original character. No twist necessary. They're just trying to evoke a certain amount of clout without actually earning it.

I'm glad that you liked the film -- really -- because the best thing about the 2009 "Star Trek" film was how it managed to work for people like you without stepping on the toes of people like me (at least no more than other "Star Trek" films had done). And I'm glad that at least this film works for SOMEBODY. But those "throwbacks" you recognized were put in there specifically to make you "feel" like you were watching a "Star Trek" movie, and believe me when I say that the major spoilery ones are BEYOND insulting and merely serve to make this film LESS of a "Star Trek" movie by making it incompatible with everything that came before it.

So this movie may have been fun, but believe me, sir. This is a BAFFLINGLY stupid movie. It just tricked you into thinking it wasn't.

A review is no place for spoilers..

As MovieBob pointed out, sometimes you have to reveal the big twist to review the movie. I write reviews as well, and trust me this is true. Try reviewing Life of Pi in any real detail without spoiling the movie. The big twist changes how you will react to the movie and as a critic you have to tell people why the surprise twist changed your opinion of the movie.

oh sure, the film is far from perfect but it was still good to watch. i think even it was better then the last one. im not a trekky fan even when i watched most of the episodes with my father and all movies, since he is a trekky fan, but i dint mind this one. i had fun watching it and had good humor in it as well.
but thats of course my opinion.


A review is no place for spoilers..

As MovieBob pointed out, sometimes you have to reveal the big twist to review the movie. I write reviews as well, and trust me this is true. Try reviewing Life of Pi in any real detail without spoiling the movie. The big twist changes how you will react to the movie and as a critic you have to tell people why the surprise twist changed your opinion of the movie.

He managed it quite well in Cabin in the Woods. There have been films he reviewed with twists that he stated: "I will not spoil!"
He can do it when he chooses to, perhaps when he likes the movie enough.

For the second time, a forgettable overrated Abrams Star Trek film will be thoroughly outclassed by the young wunderkind Blomkamp's entry into the sci-fi genre (09 with District 9 and 2013 with Elysium)

Seems so appropriate if you ask me...

Transformers will likely stop sucking if it is done by someone other than Michael Bay. Same thing with Star Trek/ Jeffrey Jacob Abrams.

I say hand both to Joss Whedon.

First of all IMDB already spoiled the main twist. And I cant wait until the New Starwars movies come out with the same BS twists and milktoast plots. Thanks JJ a-hole

 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
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
Register for a free account here