Star Trek- Better than I thought it was going to be!

[JoeB131]

Just got done watching "Star Trek: Into Darkness".


(Warning- SPOILERS AHEAD)

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan was the best of the movies. Nearly every film since then has tried to recreate the formula with a similar scenery-chewing villain, and this film decides, what the heck, let’s just bring back Khan.

Does it work? Kind of. I found myself intermittently being touched by the nice nods to the classics of Trek and then rolling my eyes at some of the corniness and over the top action scenes.

SPOILERS-
After a series of terrorists attacks on Star Fleet, Kirk and company are sent to the Klingon home world to hunt down the perpetrator, whom they are told is a renegade Star Fleet office but is in fact Khan. Seems he was resurrected by a renegade admiral who wanted to use his knowledge to prepare for war with the Klingons.

They have some subtle commentary on the war on terror and the ends justifying the means. Mostly, though, it’s enough plot to hang an okay action movie on. Peter Weller does a great job in his role. The machinations between Kirk and Admiral Marcus and Khan are pretty good.

Good stuff? Carol Marcus, a Tribble, Klingons, a ship they seized from Harry Mudd, Section 31, and so much more from a Trek Nerd’s wish list.

Also, have to say a lot of good things about the characters here. They all disappear into their roles fairly easily, with maybe the exception of Pine, who simply is not invoking Shatner just yet. Karl Urban is great as McCoy, but he’s completely underutilized. Quinto is becoming a convincing Spock.

The more dubious stuff. The action scenes are a bit much, to the point of eliminating my suspension of disbelief. This is the kind of cartoony stuff the Star Wars Prequels did. They spent a lot of money on this, and frankly, STII:TWOK got the same emotional impact with cheap sets on a movie they originally planned as a made for TV operation.

The Deus Ex Machina they use at the end to save a major character is telegraphed so obviously there’s no tension, and they spend a lot of time creating a thematic bridge between this and the climax of TWOK.

Worth watching. Yes.

 

[Swagger]

I think that Star Trek has simply evolved with the techology the producers now have at their disposal compared to the original series. And, as such, it makes sense that resulting productions focus more on the action elements such technological advances can accomodate.

Furthermore, I disagree with your opinion of Pine's portrayal of Capt. Kirk. He brings a much greater fluid energy to the role than his predecessors. He's leading a young crew, eager to go where no man has gone before, and his almost boyish wonder of the challenges he's anticipating making a refreshing change compared to Stewart's mature leadership.

 

[longknife]

I've read a lot of scifi bloggers who weren't all that thrilled with this latest Star Trek movie.

I'll wait til it shows up on cable.

 

[Moonglow]

I think that Star Trek has simply evolved with the techology the producers now have at their disposal compared to the original series. And, as such, it makes sense that resulting productions focus more on the action elements such technological advances can accomodate.

Furthermore, I disagree with your opinion of Pine's portrayal of Capt. Kirk. He brings a much greater fluid energy to the role than his predecessors. He's leading a young crew, eager to go where no man has gone before, and his almost boyish wonder of the challenges he's anticipating making a refreshing change compared to Stewart's mature leadership.

My wife does not like the new Kirk, she feels his portrayal is no good compared to Shattner's Kirk. I like all of them. I also am wondering why we don't facsimile their world govt.on our planet.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I think that Star Trek has simply evolved with the techology the producers now have at their disposal compared to the original series. And, as such, it makes sense that resulting productions focus more on the action elements such technological advances can accomodate.

Furthermore, I disagree with your opinion of Pine's portrayal of Capt. Kirk. He brings a much greater fluid energy to the role than his predecessors. He's leading a young crew, eager to go where no man has gone before, and his almost boyish wonder of the challenges he's anticipating making a refreshing change compared to Stewart's mature leadership.

My wife does not like the new Kirk, she feels his portrayal is no good compared to Shattner's Kirk. I like all of them. I also am wondering why we don't facsimile their world govt.on our planet.

A world Government would need to make most citizens of that world equal, the only way currently to do that would be to lower Our life styles to the 3rd world. Be careful what you ask for.

 

[Harry Dresden]

I've read a lot of scifi bloggers who weren't all that thrilled with this latest Star Trek movie.

I'll wait til it shows up on cable.

well lots of the "hard core" fans feel there was no need to create a new version of something that has been established for 50 years....Abrams and Co. could have just went back to day one on Kirks Enterprise and went from there,instead he has created his own version of Star Trek.....they do the same to many of the long established Comic Characters when they make some of their movies....take creative liberties.....what you gonna do?....

 

[JoeB131]

I saw it. I think it was an odd mixture of some really nice nods to the classic Trek, and some things in there that really were silly.

Especially the action sequences.

 

[Ringel05]

I've read a lot of scifi bloggers who weren't all that thrilled with this latest Star Trek movie.

I'll wait til it shows up on cable.

well lots of the "hard core" fans feel there was no need to create a new version of something that has been established for 50 years....Abrams and Co. could have just went back to day one on Kirks Enterprise and went from there,instead he has created his own version of Star Trek.....they do the same to many of the long established Comic Characters when they make some of their movies....take creative liberties.....what you gonna do?....

Almost every time a movie is redone it's to renew or transfer the patent as well as an attempt to appeal to the newer audience. Purist's will almost never like it, such is life.
While I like the sci-fi venue I'm not a Trekkie, Where I tend to get really anal is with historical movies, to each their own.........

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

God damnit. Now im going to have to go see it. After reading this thread, minus the spoilers, my interest was peaked. So I went to look qt all the reviews on Fandango and of course the lowest was an 88. Since when do critics and fans EVER agree?

IMAX 3D tomorrow. A movie like this deserves the full treatment I suppose so I'll mortgage my house tomorrow to pay the price. Gonna watch the last one tonight I guess.

 

[JoeB131]

Gramps, I saw it in 3-D and found it sort of distracting, actually.

 

[Harry Dresden]

I've read a lot of scifi bloggers who weren't all that thrilled with this latest Star Trek movie.

I'll wait til it shows up on cable.

well lots of the "hard core" fans feel there was no need to create a new version of something that has been established for 50 years....Abrams and Co. could have just went back to day one on Kirks Enterprise and went from there,instead he has created his own version of Star Trek.....they do the same to many of the long established Comic Characters when they make some of their movies....take creative liberties.....what you gonna do?....

Almost every time a movie is redone it's to renew or transfer the patent as well as an attempt to appeal to the newer audience. Purist's will almost never like it, such is life.
While I like the sci-fi venue I'm not a Trekkie, Where I tend to get really anal is with historical movies, to each their own.........

Ringle i just feel if you have something that has 50 years of history behind it....you dont fuck with it.....Abrams could have created a whole brand new different crew and ship.....and used them for his alternate timeline shit....and it still would have sold....

 

[Ringel05]

well lots of the "hard core" fans feel there was no need to create a new version of something that has been established for 50 years....Abrams and Co. could have just went back to day one on Kirks Enterprise and went from there,instead he has created his own version of Star Trek.....they do the same to many of the long established Comic Characters when they make some of their movies....take creative liberties.....what you gonna do?....

Almost every time a movie is redone it's to renew or transfer the patent as well as an attempt to appeal to the newer audience. Purist's will almost never like it, such is life.
While I like the sci-fi venue I'm not a Trekkie, Where I tend to get really anal is with historical movies, to each their own.........

Ringle i just feel if you have something that has 50 years of history behind it....you dont fuck with it.....Abrams could have created a whole brand new different crew and ship.....and used them for his alternate timeline shit....and it still would have sold....

You're a traditionalist, it's okay and to a certain degree so am I but hey, it's only a movie and ya can't please everyone.

 

[Moonglow]

I think that Star Trek has simply evolved with the techology the producers now have at their disposal compared to the original series. And, as such, it makes sense that resulting productions focus more on the action elements such technological advances can accomodate.

Furthermore, I disagree with your opinion of Pine's portrayal of Capt. Kirk. He brings a much greater fluid energy to the role than his predecessors. He's leading a young crew, eager to go where no man has gone before, and his almost boyish wonder of the challenges he's anticipating making a refreshing change compared to Stewart's mature leadership.

My wife does not like the new Kirk, she feels his portrayal is no good compared to Shattner's Kirk. I like all of them. I also am wondering why we don't facsimile their world govt.on our planet.

A world Government would need to make most citizens of that world equal, the only way currently to do that would be to lower Our life styles to the 3rd world. Be careful what you ask for.

How the hell would you know how it would be if all things were equal, including income.


"Better is bread with a happy heart than wealth with vexation."
Amenemope

 

[Moonglow]

well lots of the "hard core" fans feel there was no need to create a new version of something that has been established for 50 years....Abrams and Co. could have just went back to day one on Kirks Enterprise and went from there,instead he has created his own version of Star Trek.....they do the same to many of the long established Comic Characters when they make some of their movies....take creative liberties.....what you gonna do?....

Almost every time a movie is redone it's to renew or transfer the patent as well as an attempt to appeal to the newer audience. Purist's will almost never like it, such is life.
While I like the sci-fi venue I'm not a Trekkie, Where I tend to get really anal is with historical movies, to each their own.........

Ringle i just feel if you have something that has 50 years of history behind it....you dont fuck with it.....Abrams could have created a whole brand new different crew and ship.....and used them for his alternate timeline shit....and it still would have sold....

Hey it's Chicolini in the avatar!

 

[JohnL.Burke]

Just got done watching "Star Trek: Into Darkness".


(Warning- SPOILERS AHEAD)

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan was the best of the movies. Nearly every film since then has tried to recreate the formula with a similar scenery-chewing villain, and this film decides, what the heck, let’s just bring back Khan.

Does it work? Kind of. I found myself intermittently being touched by the nice nods to the classics of Trek and then rolling my eyes at some of the corniness and over the top action scenes.

SPOILERS-
After a series of terrorists attacks on Star Fleet, Kirk and company are sent to the Klingon home world to hunt down the perpetrator, whom they are told is a renegade Star Fleet office but is in fact Khan. Seems he was resurrected by a renegade admiral who wanted to use his knowledge to prepare for war with the Klingons.

They have some subtle commentary on the war on terror and the ends justifying the means. Mostly, though, it’s enough plot to hang an okay action movie on. Peter Weller does a great job in his role. The machinations between Kirk and Admiral Marcus and Khan are pretty good.

Good stuff? Carol Marcus, a Tribble, Klingons, a ship they seized from Harry Mudd, Section 31, and so much more from a Trek Nerd’s wish list.

Also, have to say a lot of good things about the characters here. They all disappear into their roles fairly easily, with maybe the exception of Pine, who simply is not invoking Shatner just yet. Karl Urban is great as McCoy, but he’s completely underutilized. Quinto is becoming a convincing Spock.

The more dubious stuff. The action scenes are a bit much, to the point of eliminating my suspension of disbelief. This is the kind of cartoony stuff the Star Wars Prequels did. They spent a lot of money on this, and frankly, STII:TWOK got the same emotional impact with cheap sets on a movie they originally planned as a made for TV operation.

The Deus Ex Machina they use at the end to save a major character is telegraphed so obviously there’s no tension, and they spend a lot of time creating a thematic bridge between this and the climax of TWOK.

Worth watching. Yes.

I want to see the movie but I always wait till the movie comes out on dvd because I hate associating with people as a rule. I loved the first Star Trek in it's current incarnation but my only hesitation about "Into Darkness" is that it seems to take place on Earth. Where's the trek part? Am I wrong? Does Kirk get to pick up chicks on another planet at least? Just wondering.

 

[JoeB131]

Some of the action happens on Earth, some on the Klingon Homeworld, some on other planets.

And Kirk manages to get some alien "tail"... literally. Heh, heh, heh.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

Some of the action happens on Earth, some on the Klingon Homeworld, some on other planets.

And Kirk manages to get some alien "tail"... literally. Heh, heh, heh.

That's great news. Thanks for telling me.

 

[JoeB131]

When you see it, you'll get the joke.

 

[MisterBeale]

A world Government would need to make most citizens of that world equal, the only way currently to do that would be to lower Our life styles to the 3rd world. Be careful what you ask for.

This is SO not true. We would need to get rid of partisan politics. The false left/right paradigm, and most importantly, fiat currency as a means to control price signals. The elites on this planet, the slim one percent of the planet, hold over ninety-five percent of the wealth. You are very ignorant if this is your belief. The world's resources, labor, and economic potential are enough so that all people on the planet could live a lower class, or lower middle class existence easily. Probably within a decade, everyone could have a middle class life style if we redefined what that meant, NOT CONSUMERISM. You don't need a car, we don't need tons of gadgets, and lots and lots of cloths. Live simply, so that other may simply live. How many outfits does your average Star Trek crew member have? How many personal possessions? How many "toys?"

What would it take? The decentralization of power structures. The elimination of bloodlines controlling the destiny of humankind's future. A truly egalitarian society where all men and women have an even shot at deciding our future. While certain families are more concerned with maintaining their grip on control of the planet; the intellectual, scientific, and spiritual development of the planet has been hamstrung. Essentially, we are crippled by a global cabal that has an iron grip on us. Much like episode 23 Season 1 from Star Trek Enterprise, we are like the Mazarites, corrupt and wasteful to the core.
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Fallen_Hero

If you want to know the why and the wherefores, DEMAND the press reveal what goes on inside those secrete meetings that the one percent hold to decide what wars our leaders will start next, and how they plan to manipulate the world economy through their global trade organizations and central banks. It takes more money to fight high tech wars than to feed, cloth and educate the world. Too big to fail? Try a population too stupid to care.

 

[MisterBeale]

For the most part, my son and I enjoyed it for what it was worth, and silly brainless action movie. Don't analyze it or try to geek it out as a "Star Trek" movie, you'll ruin the experience for yourself. I could think of a zillion different inconsistancies that just make you go, why?

Like, why didn't they just scan the volcano in the beginning, find an approriate place to beam down the bomb from space, and have a timer on it? Oh yeah, b/c that wouldn't have made the opening sequence quite as exciting, and that is how they would have done it back in the sixties, in the traditional Star Trek.

At the end of the movie, when they needed some of Khan's blood to miraculously bring Kirk back from the dead? They had all Khan's other crew members on ice, sitting right there, who are supposedly just like him, right? So why was it SOOOO important to make sure they got Khan back alive? Oh yeah, for drama effect. They couldn't just use some of the crew member DNA that was sitting RIGHT THERE! At the end of the movie, they have Khan and his whole crew on ice still, does this mean that in all subsequent Star Trek movies, no one in the galaxy need every die again?

There was just tons of crap like that, all through the movie. But Americans are so brain dead today, they would never think anything about it, it is about sitting back and enjoying the experience, letting the movie doing the thinking for you. My eleven year old loved it. But really, that is what this is for right? To make money and get the general populace to enjoy and unite around a slice of what is uniquely a part of Americana.

For me, what I thought was the best, was the underlying implicit moral of the story, something that WILL NEVER be forgotten by those of us who know what they did to this country, these evil elites. And that is what this movie is a testament to. Truth, honor, loyalty, and goodness. Sure, they can call people who know the truth, "conspiracy theorists" or "nutters" out in civil society, but we are legion, and we control the cool aspects of culture. And it will be passed down in movies like this, so the children WILL know what is possible, and what is the truth. Kids see stuff like this, and despite what they see in the media, despite what they are conditioned in the schools, they begin to question the dominant paradigm and the motives of our corrupt leaders.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YP4PnZCKzMY]The Star Trek 9/11 Truther Connection - YouTube[/ame]