 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jun 3, 2013 - 10:19 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
SchiffyM
(Member)
|
I just find it very weird that Abrams now becomes the whipping boy for making terrific movies. So what if some things do not work for everyone? At least he´s trying to give the audience more than the usual summer blockbuster.
I´ll take STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS over IRON MAN 3 or FAST AND THE FURIOUS any day.
It's just opinions. Yes, Abrams receives the usual internet snark, but I really can't think of any high profile filmmaker who doesn't get that from the usual gang of know-nothing know-it-alls.
So I have nothing against Abrams. But I didn't like "Star Trek Into Darkness" at all. I liked the first few scenes, probably the first forty minutes. And then, for me, it went downhill fast. The last half-hour, I just couldn't wait for it to end. Just my own reaction, of course, but I had no agenda when I saw the film other than to enjoy my evening with my son.
And while we're stating opinions, let me say that I thought "Iron Man 3" was vastly superior to "Star Trek Into Darkness." It had the typical over-busy climax, but I enjoyed it throughout. So why are you making Shane Black your whipping boy, WillGoldNewtonBarryGrusin?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I´m not making Shane Black my whipping boy. (There must be a better way to phrase that...)
I´m just stating my preference because IMO STID was dealing with more interesting themes than IM3.
Maybe "whipping boy" was too strong a word for Abrams. But I do get the feeling that people start to turn against him. Probably a taste for what is to come when he delivers the next STAR WARS movie?
And Jeyl, I respect your opinion about IM3 as well, of course.
I also think that the "Khan" reveal does not hurt the movie. It only offers another layer for the long-time fans. Friends who had no idea about KHAN told me that they just became more interested in Harrison once it was revealed that he was the victim of Admiral Marcus´ ideas. The ending also worked for them without knowing about its "mirroring". It´s just about giving an additional frame of reference. Either you get it or you don´t - but you certainly do not need it to enjoy the film.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jun 3, 2013 - 10:45 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
JDH
(Member)
|
Into Darkness was one of my favourite films of the year, and I see a lot. That said, I go into it with no particular affection for Star Trek. I just found it a tremendously enjoyable movie with a terrific set of performances, particularly from Cumberbatch, Urban and Quinto. The various touches and homages were exactly what I was looking for from a Trek film, and it was a lot more fun than many Abrams projects. My first thought coming out of it was that it proved he can make a great Star Wars film. Having seen it again (a rarity for me) I enjoyed it every bit as much. Plus, the score CD works a lot better as an album than the first, even if I wish it had been a touch longer. I don't see the need for a "complete" deluxe version, but I would have preferred the end credits suite to be on there. As a rule of thumb for score albums, it pretty much always should be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The ending also worked for them without knowing about its "mirroring". It´s just about giving an additional frame of reference.
Look, I'm certainly not trying to tell you not to like the movie. I'm glad you did! But to me, the ending plundered one of the great moments of the entire "Star Trek" universe, took it completely out of context, and cheapened it in a way I found unforgivable.
I´m absolutely respecting that. But I don´t understand how this ending could take the "Khan"-ending out of context and cheapen it.
I think it is a respectful re-imagining of the "Khan"-ending, telling a story about fate and how certain events seem to find a way to happen, even if they happen in a different way.
That it ends in a, well, happier way does not cheapen it for me at all for two reasons:
1. It tells a hopeful story that fate can be changed. (It´s not making fun of the "Khan"-ending.)
2. The original timeline will always be what it is. If "THE WRATH OF KHAN" would have been re-edited or remade faithfully but with the changed ending of STID, then I would agree with you. But these two films (and eras) are different from each other and cannot distract from another.
To put it in another way: even if a novel were adapted for film in the worst possible way, the novel will always be there. The film adaptation cannot cheapen it, at least not for me.
So if you find the new film unforgivable - I respect that. But I think you are clinging to the idea that the previous Trek films are a sacred text which must not be alluded to by the new films.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jun 3, 2013 - 11:24 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Jeff Bond
(Member)
|
I've watched Trek since 1970 and seen every iteration multiple times. From my perspective this film has the same strengths and weaknesses of the 2009 movie; very strong on characterization and action, fairly weak on plot (although better in some respects in that area than the last film). I've also seen four years now of "you can't be a true Trek fan and like a JJ Abrams Star Trek movie"--I know plenty of rabid Trek fans who loved Into Darkness. In fact Bjo Trimble, who is sort of the ultimate, original Trek fan, loved it, as did David Gerrold, who was very critical of the first film.
I sort of wonder what the reaction would be if we put this exact same story and made it, say, Star Trek V with the original cast and one of the original directors. Yes, elements of it would be criticized as they should be, but I don't think you'd have anyone talking about the movie as an abomination and a crime against all Trek fans, or having someone on facebook say they want to "kick Abrams in the junk" for making the movie. Abrams does somehow generate far more personal reactions and I really think it's because he's viewed as some alien usurper. Even Rick Berman never seemed to inspire actual threats of violence.
I see the last two Trek films very much like Star Trek III--a film with a plot that's fairly nonsensical, a lot of quite broad humor, and tribbles, BUT with some of the best character moments in the movie series. People look at Trek III with its flaws and probably relegate it to the lower levels of the Trek movie output but still see it as Star Trek and have affection for at least some of it. I didn't find the introduction of Khan to be very effective, I agree the film's last action sequence was overkill, but I understand the "flipping" of the WOK death scene--they wanted to show how this Kirk finally earns the captain's chair, which was by showing himself willing to sacrifice his life for the Enterprise crew. Could it have been done better? Probably. But I'm not going to say "you can't do it this way." And both Abrams movies have been about an alternate universe, and how it still has powerful connections to our "real" Star Trek universe. I find that quite interesting. It'll be interesting to see how these movies are viewed in 10 years. I think these writers are great at exploring the characters, I'll be interested to see where they take Kirk in the next movie, but I do think you need someone else in there to make the plots more coherent (and less inane in their science).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jun 3, 2013 - 12:47 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Solium
(Member)
|
know plenty of rabid Trek fans who loved Into Darkness. In fact Bjo Trimble, who is sort of the ultimate, original Trek fan, loved it, as did David Gerrold, who was very critical of the first film.
And David Gerrold's opinion is important why? He wrote one TOS screenplay a long time ago. It was a comedy episode besides that had no bearing on Trek Philosophy. So I can see why he would like Nu Trek.
What would happen if the old cast did Nu Trek? If the Nu Enterprise looked butt ugly, if the bridge looked like the Apple store, if the engineering room was a beer brewery, if the acting was ham handed, no one would ever let them live that down. JJ gets a pass on all of that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
know plenty of rabid Trek fans who loved Into Darkness. In fact Bjo Trimble, who is sort of the ultimate, original Trek fan, loved it, as did David Gerrold, who was very critical of the first film.
And David Gerrold's opinion is important why? He wrote one TOS screenplay a long time ago. It was a comedy episode besides that had no bearing on Trek Philosophy. So I can see why he would like Nu Trek.
What would happen if the old cast did Nu Trek? If the Nu Enterprise looked butt ugly, if the bridge looked like the Apple store, if the engineering room was a beer brewery, if the acting was ham handed, no one would ever let them live that down. JJ gets a pass on all of that.
Dismissing Gerrold as having no bearing on Star Trek is somewhat disingenuous. And no one is going to second guess Bjo's Trek cred.
While I find many MANY faults with STID, the acting is not going to be one of them. And as hard as I find it to believe, some people find the new E quite attractive.
I seem to recall a Star Trek TOS movie where they had to get every set that wasn't the bridge from a concurrently running television show.
A lot of people like the movie. But it certainly isn't getting a "pass".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jun 3, 2013 - 2:21 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
LeHah
(Member)
|
I see the last two Trek films very much like Star Trek III--a film with a plot that's fairly nonsensical, a lot of quite broad humor, and tribbles, BUT with some of the best character moments in the movie series.
Thats doing STIII a massive disservice. By all accounts, its probably the most thoughtful film in the series that has the unfortunate stance of occurring immediately after the biggest entry. Further, the plot to STIII is not only great for retooling religious concepts (Spock's reappearance on Vulcan is the Easter Miracle, the planet basically "asks" for a blood and soul sacrifice from the hero to regain his "brother", etc) but more importantly, it proves the moral of STII to be nonsense - as the sacrifice of the many is sometimes for the good of the one. In a way, STII can't exist without it's sequel's "corrective stance".
Star Trek (2009) was basically "Lets reboot this series by validating our attempt in using a TNG villain". Into Darkness, well, everything everyone has said here is pretty proof and pudding and all that. To say that they're in the same game isn't lowballing it so much as missing the target after several tries.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just got my Revell-Germany model of the NuTrek Enterprise and I couldn't be happier. 
I can't stand the thing. But I will admit that I grinned like a kid at Christmas when I saw her at the beginning of the movie. Weird, huh?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
