Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Search   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online

RE: Star Trek Into Darkness

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> RE: Star Trek Into Darkness Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 10/5/2013 12:08:41 PM   
jcthefirst


Posts: 4426
Joined: 6/10/2005
From: Bangor
So Leonard Nimoy is basically Spockipedia, right?

_____________________________

@Jonny_C85

My Movie Blog | My Other Various Rantings Blog

(in reply to musht)
Post #: 61
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 10/5/2013 12:46:45 PM   
demoncleaner


Posts: 2410
Joined: 3/10/2005
From: Belfast

quote:

ORIGINAL: MOnkeyboy1138
Also, can anybody tell me why Kahn is a white English man, when the original was Hispanic?


Yeah, I went to see this my dad, the famous and well-respected movie critic Nigel Farage, and he said the exact same thing.

(in reply to MOnkeyboy1138)
Post #: 62
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 10/5/2013 1:28:59 PM   
porntrooper

 

Posts: 2616
Joined: 6/9/2006
From: Sheffield

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

SPOILERS

I think it also presented a risk to wake one up as it could kill the sleeping guy and Kirk was almost dead so not many risks had to be taken.

I had more troubles in trying to decipher what Khan and Marcus exactly wanted for themselves and each other.

And on a nitpicky note, Khan changing appearance after some 300 years in cryosleep, going from looking like a Mexican to looking like the poshiest of poshiness of Englishmen.




I don't have any issue with the change up of Khans ethnicity to be honest, we all speculated it was Khan, and Khan it was. It wasn't an issue for Motalban so I can see past it for Cumberbatch. I thought he did really great showing what a 'super' human could be like, I was really surprised that he could pull off being such a bad ass.

The 'Why not use another frozen dudes blood?' Well, it never occured to me during the movie, but it's a good point!

As as for the overall evil plotting of Marcus and what it was for, well, I too thought it was straightforward, but mangled a little on screen. One mate of mine did say he had no idea what he was up to, but I wouldnt go that far. I basically understood it that Marcus was waiting on all out war with the Klingons. He didnt want to start a war, but wanted to be the one to be able to finish it. After the destruction of Vulcan he notes that 'everything changed' and so he seeks out the Botany Bay at this time to obtain Khan and his crew of super dudes and to basically use them as warriors to engineer battle ships and a war fleet, and to operate as super soldiers against the Klingons - using the cover of Section 31. Khan helps develop the dreadnought class ship but Marcus seemingly betrays Khan in some way, it's at that point it becomes a bit unclear and maybe a second viewing will clear it up. My understanding was that as he's betrayed Khan and he is using Kirk to dispose of the evidence of the 72 frozen super dudes and to also either a) destroy the Klingons or to b) force Khan to do it for him. At that point it DOES become muddled. I guess the be all and end all is that Marcus fears war and wants to end/pre-empt it and wants to use the superdudes, things go to shit and Khan comes after him. Once Marcus is out of the way, Khan appears to simply become a bad guy for bad guys sake - and I definately had issue with how the movie chose to approach Khan once Marcus was out of the way.

_____________________________

"I've got an idea for a special infiltration technique. It involves draining a man of his blood and replacing it with Tizer."

(in reply to Deviation)
Post #: 63
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 10/5/2013 1:44:31 PM   
MOnkeyboy1138

 

Posts: 160
Joined: 16/1/2006
Ok, so I can accept the change of ethnicity for Kahn, it could be seen as me 'nitpicking', even though they went to great lengths to make sure that the entire rest of the cast were at least in some way similar in appearance to the originals. There are a ton of other nitpicks with Kahn. But I'm gonna let them go as well it's Cumberbatch and he was great as Kahn.

I still get annoyed by the capturing him to harvest his blood thing, at the end of the day they're gonna heavily sedate him before taking his blood, so to all intents and purposes he will be in a similar biological state to his 72 cryogenic mates when they take his blood. The cynic in me thinks it's just so they can keep him alive for a sequel.

As for the Marcus and his motivations, well some people just want all out war in movies, and this dude wanted war, he wanted to militarise Star Fleet part out of 'fear' part out of 'I don't like that I can't just waltz up to that planet and do what I want'. Cynic in me again says sequel bait, expect a Klingon war in the next one.

Sure I could be seen as being nitpicky with most of my problems with the movie, but coincidences, deus ex machina, and pointless and underserved sub plots and characters smack of lazy writing and really take me out of the story. As for humour, it was mostly little wink and nod jokes to the classic Shatner Trek and not humour of itself, what with the 'damn it Jim's' and 'I caany do it's' (and the like). I wanted to like this I really did, I went in with an open mind, prepared for good or bad, and just found it sadly lacking, an almost enjoyable, nearly good movie, frankly just a bit meh.

(in reply to porntrooper)
Post #: 64
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 10/5/2013 1:59:16 PM   
Deviation


Posts: 27284
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ

quote:

ORIGINAL: porntrooper


quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

SPOILERS

I think it also presented a risk to wake one up as it could kill the sleeping guy and Kirk was almost dead so not many risks had to be taken.

I had more troubles in trying to decipher what Khan and Marcus exactly wanted for themselves and each other.

And on a nitpicky note, Khan changing appearance after some 300 years in cryosleep, going from looking like a Mexican to looking like the poshiest of poshiness of Englishmen.




I don't have any issue with the change up of Khans ethnicity to be honest, we all speculated it was Khan, and Khan it was. It wasn't an issue for Motalban so I can see past it for Cumberbatch. I thought he did really great showing what a 'super' human could be like, I was really surprised that he could pull off being such a bad ass.

The 'Why not use another frozen dudes blood?' Well, it never occured to me during the movie, but it's a good point!

As as for the overall evil plotting of Marcus and what it was for, well, I too thought it was straightforward, but mangled a little on screen. One mate of mine did say he had no idea what he was up to, but I wouldnt go that far. I basically understood it that Marcus was waiting on all out war with the Klingons. He didnt want to start a war, but wanted to be the one to be able to finish it. After the destruction of Vulcan he notes that 'everything changed' and so he seeks out the Botany Bay at this time to obtain Khan and his crew of super dudes and to basically use them as warriors to engineer battle ships and a war fleet, and to operate as super soldiers against the Klingons - using the cover of Section 31. Khan helps develop the dreadnought class ship but Marcus seemingly betrays Khan in some way, it's at that point it becomes a bit unclear and maybe a second viewing will clear it up. My understanding was that as he's betrayed Khan and he is using Kirk to dispose of the evidence of the 72 frozen super dudes and to also either a) destroy the Klingons or to b) force Khan to do it for him. At that point it DOES become muddled. I guess the be all and end all is that Marcus fears war and wants to end/pre-empt it and wants to use the superdudes, things go to shit and Khan comes after him. Once Marcus is out of the way, Khan appears to simply become a bad guy for bad guys sake - and I definately had issue with how the movie chose to approach Khan once Marcus was out of the way.


Yeah, I got why he freed Khan and his fear of war with the Klingons then, but the betrayal, his actions, his mannerisms that are occasionally almost bloodthirsty and I cannot think of a context of why he would suddenly betray Khan and even with that I'm still confused with the intention of the missiles. It's a disappointingly facile reason for what could have been a great villian, and he was more fun then Khan/Cumberbatch.

When I'm thinking Khan from Octopussy is a better built villian, you know there's a problem.

_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to porntrooper)
Post #: 65
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 10/5/2013 2:13:57 PM   
MOnkeyboy1138

 

Posts: 160
Joined: 16/1/2006

quote:


When I'm thinking Khan from Octopussy is a better built villian, you know there's a problem.


Classic

_____________________________

You know the thing about Chaos? It's fair

I'm just a dog chasing cars, I wouldn't know what to do with one if I caught it

(in reply to Deviation)
Post #: 66
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 10/5/2013 4:56:30 PM   
Wild about Wilder


Posts: 1662
Joined: 9/4/2010
From: Hertfordshire
Thought this was a fine romp of a movie have a couple of quibbles 1: we never see anything more of the little Girl from the start as would be interesting to know if there would be any lasting effects of the transfussion & 2: Thought McCoy was vastly underused considering it was always the dynamic between Kirk, Spock & Him that the show often revolved around.
But on the whole an action packed Summer Blockbuster 8/10

(in reply to MOnkeyboy1138)
Post #: 67
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 10/5/2013 9:15:16 PM   
Rgirvan44


Posts: 19049
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park
Futher questions

- The Enterprise is around the moon, and it can't speak to Starfleet on Earth, but can speak to New Vulcan.
- When speaking to New Vulcan Spock at no point says "Hey, you mind telling Starfleet what is going on here? Thanks!"
- Starfleet can detect John Harrison to a specifc part of the Klingon Homeworld, yet cannot see a massive space battle at the moon.
- How exactly do the transporters work?

_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.


(in reply to Wild about Wilder)
Post #: 68
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 11/5/2013 12:02:30 AM   
Hood_Man


Posts: 12192
Joined: 30/9/2005
Hmm, it was "ok." The action wasn't so good that it really stands out and I didn't connect with any of the characters as much as I did in the previous film. I guess it's hard to do so when after not very long you can pretty much figure out everything that's going to happen next.

Fun, but not worth waiting 4 years for.

(in reply to Rgirvan44)
Post #: 69
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 11/5/2013 1:14:00 AM   
Private Hudson


Posts: 1840
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

Futher questions

- The Enterprise is around the moon, and it can't speak to Starfleet on Earth, but can speak to New Vulcan.
- When speaking to New Vulcan Spock at no point says "Hey, you mind telling Starfleet what is going on here? Thanks!"
- Starfleet can detect John Harrison to a specifc part of the Klingon Homeworld, yet cannot see a massive space battle at the moon.
- How exactly do the transporters work?


Yeah I was thinking much of this during the movie. So if BC can transport from Earth to Kronos, why bother with starships at all?

Also when the Enterprise was sitting like a lame duck for hours, why was it not intercepted and attacked by the Klingons or was it indeed at the edge of the Neutral Zone?

I thought transporters only had a short range (ie from a starship in orbit to a planet). They have messed up the logic of this movie and that does annoy me.

Shall we blame Lindehoff?

_____________________________

Watch my spoof movie of FULL METAL JACKET here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCGRWVvM-Zo&feature=plcp&context=C31ca298UDOEgsToPDskJ4_UorjolrWTaxEGMj5GO0

(in reply to Rgirvan44)
Post #: 70
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 11/5/2013 3:31:55 AM   
paulyboy


Posts: 2586
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Private Hudson

I thought transporters only had a short range (ie from a starship in orbit to a planet). They have messed up the logic of this movie and that does annoy me.



**Spoilers!**

Scotty does make mention of his trans-warp equation (from the first film) being "stolen" by Harrison after Starfleet made him ditch it or some such tomfoolery. I agree it's a bit of a mess though, I have a feeling they'll continue to wheel this old chestnut out when it's narratively convenient for them to do so, in fact the transporters seem to work and not work at will when it suits the writers.

I enjoyed the film overall, it's a decent enough romp, but my two main problems were how loose and fast they seem to be playing with the rules of all the technology (again, when it's convenient) and the fact it riffs so directly from The Wrath Of Khan at times, I'm all for the odd homage here and there, but remaking entire scenes (albeit with a role reversal) seems a bit contrary to a reboot in a sense, I'd much rather they did their own thing.

An enjoyable ride none the less.

3/5

_____________________________

"Pain heals, chicks dig scars, glory lasts forever!"

(in reply to Private Hudson)
Post #: 71
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 11/5/2013 9:57:05 AM   
Wild about Wilder


Posts: 1662
Joined: 9/4/2010
From: Hertfordshire
And how'd The Enterprise get back so quick from Kronos as never remember it travelling that fast in the show & this would be one of the very early models.
Also think Spock needs a wee bit more product in his hair when running!

(in reply to paulyboy)
Post #: 72
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 11/5/2013 11:38:19 AM   
Qwerty Norris


Posts: 4000
Joined: 26/10/2005
From: Edinburgh
Whilst some folk here have made valid points over the plotholes, I personally feel that if you try to pick the thing to pieces you'll end up bypassing what it does really well- i.e. being a witty, disposable, escapist fun blockbuster with great spectacle but not without a bit of substance thrown into the bargain.

I was conscious of the many issues too, but I couldn't really care less as I had a riot with it...and sometimes that's crucial to the success of something rather than if it all adds up.

_____________________________

Qwerty's Top 10 of 2013 (so far)

1. Zero Dark Thirty
2. No
3. A Hijacking
4. Behind the Candelabra
5. In The Fog
6. Good Vibrations
7. McCullin
8. Beyond the Hills
9. The Place Beyond the Pines
10. Wreck-it Ralph

(in reply to Wild about Wilder)
Post #: 73
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 11/5/2013 12:39:59 PM   
Rgirvan44


Posts: 19049
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park
quote:

ORIGINAL: Qwerty Norris

Whilst some folk here have made valid points over the plotholes, I personally feel that if you try to pick the thing to pieces you'll end up bypassing what it does really well- i.e. being a witty, disposable, escapist fun blockbuster with great spectacle but not without a bit of substance thrown into the bargain.

I was conscious of the many issues too, but I couldn't really care less as I had a riot with it...and sometimes that's crucial to the success of something rather than if it all adds up.


I think sometimes you can start to forgive really lazy plotting if you head in the direction too far.

The last Star Trek is the sort of thing you are talking about, and which I agree. There were problems with that movie as well, but it managed to overcome them with grand adventure.

This one however, just become utterly perplexing at certain points. Communications are blocked, yet Spock can speak to New Vulcan? That is really really shoddy writing, and not one nit pick. They set up the scene to be that the Enterprise is cut off, and yet the very next scene, we see that they aren't.

< Message edited by Rgirvan44 -- 11/5/2013 12:40:22 PM >


_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.


(in reply to Qwerty Norris)
Post #: 74
Great Kirk/Spock dynamic, great visuals, solid plot, bu... - 11/5/2013 12:42:27 PM   
goggleboxgirl

 

Posts: 2
Joined: 22/9/2010
EDIT: No offsite linking to personal blogs please. You can paste a review here and include a link in your signature.

< Message edited by Rebenectomy -- 11/5/2013 1:08:12 PM >

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 75
Lens Flares - 11/5/2013 3:26:35 PM   
KingButtMonkey

 

Posts: 21
Joined: 28/11/2005
Good, but loses a point for the overuse of lens flares, come on JJ, it actually ruined some of the 3d effects because of the bright blue lights going across the screen.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 76
Star Trek 2 - Iron Man 0 - 11/5/2013 7:01:41 PM   
darthmhall101

 

Posts: 33
Joined: 11/5/2013
Personally I really liked Into Darkness, this is the problem with anything "Trek" related, people tend to get too personal and over analyse. Just go and enjoy it for what it is...
Also as far as summer block busters go its a vast improvement over the disappointing Iron Man 3.
I hope JJ returns to complete the trilogy, bring on the Borg!!

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 77
star trek - 11/5/2013 7:49:31 PM   
HERMES_67

 

Posts: 93
Joined: 1/10/2005
I'm no trekkie, however, this is head and shoulders above any previous films in the series. Excellent film that should not be missed. Enjoy.....

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 78
star trek - 11/5/2013 7:49:33 PM   
HERMES_67

 

Posts: 93
Joined: 1/10/2005
I'm no trekkie, however, this is head and shoulders above any previous films in the series. Excellent film that should not be missed. Enjoy.....

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 79
Star Trek Into Blandness - 11/5/2013 8:21:50 PM   
kingoftheducks


Posts: 643
Joined: 30/9/2005
Howdy y'all, here's my spoiler-free review (cut-n-pasted from my Film blog that you can click though to in my signature):


J.J. Abrams' 2009 Star Trek was a shamelessly enjoyable throwback to proper rollicking rollercoaster blockbuster shenanigans. A shiny, polished, clockwork action-adventure that delivered on thrills, laughs and strong character work, albeit coupled to a functional storyline with a rather poor villain. But, as an origin tale of the original Starship Enterprise crew it served its purpose admirably.

His sequel sees the Federation targeted by a formidable adversary in the shape of John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch). Captain Kirk (Chris Pine) and his crew set out on a deregulated mission to hold him accountable for his actions.

With a threadbare plot, and character introductions out of the way, you would think that this film would have license to mix up its relentless action alongside some more thoughtful material, be that character-based or philosophical. Indeed, the film opens with a high-energy set piece in which Spock (Zachary Quinto) is attempting to prevent a volcano from erupting destroying a primitive civilization, unfortunately he finds himself trapped inside and to rescue him would mean exposing this simple culture to the technological advancements of the Enterprise, interfering with their way of life and thus violating the prime directive.

It's a classic Trek quandary, and as the clock ticks it imbues the prologue with one of those great 'How are they going to get out of this one?' moments that writers ordinarily love to back themselves into. Unfortunately, the conclusion is lazy at best. Now, one could be forgiven for saying that this is designed to represent Kirk's way of handling things, and indeed, that does form part of the debate of the film's first act, however the film continues to solve its problems in a repetitively clunky and abrasive fashion.

This would not be a problem if we were folllowing the adventures of - for example - Han Solo on a personal mission, but the Federation operates under a code, and debate, reasoning, logic vs. action, these are all core tenants of its modus operandi.

Sky Movies recently posted a video in which Simon Pegg and J.J. Abrams discuss the latter's recent appointment to direct the next installment of the Star Wars franchise, in this Abrams addresses the differences between Trek and Wars and says:

"Meanwhile, with Star Trek, I had friends who loved it, and I just never... I tried, I would sit and watch episodes and try to find my way in. For some reason, I think that because it was a more philosophical sort of debate driven show... I loved the action of Star Wars and Trek never really seemed to have that."

Which sort of sums up the main problem as this Star Trek franchise continues under the wing of Abrams, and hopefully - now that he's signed to Star Wars we could find someone who will marry the action and intellect rather than just jettison the latter in favour of the former.

There are plenty of opportunities within this film, primarily with the relationship between Kirk and Spock and then the questions that John Harrison brings to the mix, for this to have been a popcorn scoffing fantasy romp that also provokes some interesting questions, or, at the very least, puts the crew into situations that had to be solved with methods other than running, punching and deus ex machina.

Additionally the supporting cast - i.e. the rest of the Enterprise crew - are completely sidelined, with absolutely nothing for them to do of any real value, and, in one surprisingly and shockingly poor taste moment, new recruit Dr. Carol Marcus (Alice Eve) is given a gratuitious underwear shot for no conceivable purpose other than titillation.

I must admit, I am not a huge Star Trek fan, I enjoy it in a casual sense, I admire that it uses its science fiction conceit to reflect and address interesting issues, that it's about a bright, positive future, one with equality, harmony and an explorative spirit. That's what the fans respond to, and this is illustrated quite wonderfully in the documentary Trekkies.

Unfortunately, this Star Trek is about running to the thing, pressing the button and punching the baddie in the face. Which, can be diverting for a few cheap thrills, but ultimately it's a rather hollow and superficial experience.

J.J. Abrams once delivered a TED talk on what he loves about film-making, it revolved around the concept of the 'mystery box', and Star Trek Into Darkness exposes the flaws inherent with his approach. He's great at delivering the big picture fun, he can ratchet up the emotions on a very broad level, he can tick the clock, he can orchestrate an action beat with aplomb, but, it's clear that he relies too heavily on the allure of the 'mystery box' as a concept and has forgotten to actually put something inside of it. Which makes him just right for the next franchise on his list.

When I bought my ticket the clerk at the desk slipped up and said; "That's one for Star Wars." She wasn't far wrong.



_____________________________

Read my Cinema Diary here:
http://www.theargus.co.uk/opinion/blogs/brighton_film_blogs/profile/34700/

Watch films I've made here:
http://www.youtube.com/kingoftheducks

Buy My Novel PSYWORM at www.firsttimepublishers.com PLEASE!

(in reply to HERMES_67)
Post #: 80
RE: Star Trek Into Blandness - 11/5/2013 9:40:53 PM   
anakin solo


Posts: 1044
Joined: 28/2/2006
From: in the force
I liked into Darkness considering that I didn't like the first one, my one problem with it was Uhura who annoyed the hell out of me. But loved the way it twisted a really important end scene which worked. If they do bring out another one they need to get rid of that little alien that hangs around Scotty because he really doesn't do anything.

I also disagree that people are saying that it's better than Wrath of Khan

_____________________________

my ally is the force and what a powerful ally it is.

(in reply to kingoftheducks)
Post #: 81
Boldly goes, but where we've gone before.... - 12/5/2013 12:12:56 AM   
rdaggard

 

Posts: 5
Joined: 12/5/2013
The first broke new ground. The second uses that ground to trek through an already discovered country. For a sequel this is good. But Abrams seems so hellbent on rushing through action sequences he neglects the ensemble he established. Again only Spock is given anything interesting to do. Thankfully the villain is played by someone good enough to hold our attention. 3/5


< Message edited by rdaggard -- 12/5/2013 12:15:03 AM >

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 82
Boldly goes, but where we've gone before.... - 12/5/2013 12:15:45 AM   
rdaggard

 

Posts: 5
Joined: 12/5/2013
The first broke new ground. The second uses that ground to trek through an already discovered country. For a sequel this is good. But Abrams seems so hellbent on rushing through action sequences he neglects the ensemble he established. Again only Spoke is given anything interesting to do. Thankfully the villain this time holds our attention. 3/5

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 83
Boldly goes, but where we've gone before.... - 12/5/2013 12:16:36 AM   
rdaggard

 

Posts: 5
Joined: 12/5/2013
The first broke new ground. The second uses that ground to trek through an already discovered country. For a sequel this is good. But Abrams seems so hellbent on rushing through action sequences he neglects the ensemble he established. Again only Spoke is given anything interesting to do. Thankfully the villain this time holds our attention. 3/5

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 84
Trektastic! - 12/5/2013 12:50:43 AM   
Cool Breeze


Posts: 2351
Joined: 9/11/2011
From: The Internet
MAJOR SPOILERS...

Saw it tonight and absolutely LOVED IT!

After finding Iron Man 3 to be very disappointing, i thought this was a hugely entertaining blockbuster.Action packed,funny,and surprisingly very moving in parts.Unlike Iron Man 3, i found the villain reveal to be very satisfying ( though i had suspected it for a while despite managing to stay spoiler free ).The film could have easily been another Wrath of Khan clone but in fact its a great companion piece to that film.It was fun seeing Kirk and Khan teaming up to take down Marcus ( Was not surprised one bit that he was a baddie, he was played by Peter Weller for gods sake! ) but of course that alliance could never last.

I only saw it a few hours ago so will get more in depth later but the action and fx were of course, superb.Really cool to finally see the Klingons again ( Would like to see TOTAL WAR break out between the starfleet and the the klingons in a part three which is heavily intimated here ).I would perhaps like to have seen a more elaborate full on battle between the Enterprise and the Dreadnought but im nitpicking, all the hijinks going on with Scotty on the ship and the space jump were very entertaining.

Im sure there are plotholes, but i had such a fun time watching the movie i didnt particularly notice any.Lets face it, ALL star trek can be nitpicked to death, there have been entire books dedicated to the subject.

Highly recommended.Just go the cinema and enjoy it folks.Im looking forward to seeing it again in a few weeks.

< Message edited by Cool Breeze -- 12/5/2013 12:51:22 AM >


_____________________________

'' Iv played Oskar Schindler, Michael Collins, Rob Roy Mcgregor, even ZEUS for gods sake! No one is going to believe me to be a green grocer! ''

(in reply to rdaggard)
Post #: 85
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 12/5/2013 3:57:09 AM   
Shifty Bench

 

Posts: 15398
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Land of the Scots
SPOILERS THROUGHOUT POST

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulyboy
it riffs so directly from The Wrath Of Khan at times, I'm all for the odd homage here and there, but remaking entire scenes (albeit with a role reversal) seems a bit contrary to a reboot in a sense, I'd much rather they did their own thing.


This is exactly my problem with the film. I was enjoying it until that final half hour, as soon as Kirk knocked out Scotty, I started to cringe. They went an entire film and most of another without replicating any scenes from any of the other movies so why do this one? It seemed oddly out of place and Spock yelling Khan's name made it seem like a parody. I should have been moved but I remembered the magic blood and knew Kirk would be ok rendering it pointless. Really, really annoyed at that last act and I was genuinely loving it up until then.


_____________________________

Extended Edition Podcast- Episode 46:Threads Of Destiny (Star Wars Fan Film)

(in reply to paulyboy)
Post #: 86
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 12/5/2013 11:16:21 AM   
BelfastBoy

 

Posts: 587
Joined: 30/11/2005
NITPICKING SPOILERS BELOW - BEWARE!



OK, so I'm going to go for a personal 3* rating, just because the film is so wildly entertaining and enjoyable from start to finish. However, putting aside the "It's only a movie argument", the film's plotting is a mess, and is begging to be ripped to shreds. Most of this doesn't affect your enjoyment at the time, but the list below summarises my issues with JJ+Co's approach, which seems to be largely "let's paper over the cracks in the plot with lots of hyperkinetic action and editing". Most of this has already been covered, but here's my thoughts:

- I get that Khan wants revenge on Admiral Marcus (who himself just wants to start a war with the Klingons), but what exactly is his plan? It seems to be nothing more subtle than a kamikaze attack on San Francisco, perhaps trying to destroy Starfleet HQ? Is that it or did I miss something?
- Did anyone believe that Kirk would actually die? That's why the ripping-off of Wrath Of Khan is such a failure - Spock's death scene works because for viewers in 1982, it was meant to be permanent. There was no convenient means of cheating death at the time, and Spock was actually dead in that moment. With Kirk in 2013, the film has already established the properties of Khan's blood twice, so it's obvious that it'll be used to save him. The genuinely good acting in that scene from Pine and Quinto is therefore all for nothing - although the KHAAAAAAAAAN! cry from Spock is out of character and verging on Sheldon Cooper-esque levels of comedic parody! (Also, yes, there's 72 other people on the Enterprise who could be similarly transfused with a lot less hassle.)
- The film is set in 2259, so if Khan's crew's freezing literally happened 300 years earlier, was there a war and advance in eugenics technology in the 1950s that we missed?
- Peter Weller isn't that bad in a very cliched 'bad military dude who chews scenery' role, but what set of circumstances occurred to allow him to be cast in this film? In other words, who else passed or wasn't available? No disrespect to Weller, but his appearance in this film is like Tom Berenger's resurrection in Inception. Can we also speculate that Marcus's wife is English given the distinctly unconvincing possibility of Weller being Alice Eve's dad?
- The nonsensical 'transwarping' technology is a seriously lazy deus ex machina that's presumably going to be wheeled out at any point in the new franchise when someone needs to get from one place to another in an illogical manner!
- Is the implication that Khan and his crew are, in the practical sense, immortal? Also, they're all frozen, presumably locked away but very much alive - sequel / future film bait, anyone? (Ditto for Carol Marcus - future Kirk love interest or what?)
- STID conforms nicely to the sci-fi trope of starship interiors that make no sense whatsoever. The Enterprise's interior bears no relation to the 2009 film's incarnation at all.
- How did Spock actually manage to incapacitate Khan in the end? Was there some point of damage he reached where even Khan's regenerative powers could be bypassed and he could be hurt or knocked unconscious? Given that Khan could stay conscious after repeated stun blasts, I don't get it. Spock seemed to inflict one final, huge punch at the end of the scene, and that was that. Next time we see Khan, he's in the cryo tube.

- Kudos to Benedict Cumberbatch though - as Paul Rudd says in 40 Year Old Virgin: "You know, I always thought that Matt Damon was like a Streisand, but I think he's rockin' the shit in this one!"
- I'm not a fan of Michael Giacchino's Star Trek music. In comparison with the high standards set in earlier films by Goldsmith, Horner and even Cliff Eidelman, Giacchino's work is - IMO, of course - neither special nor memorable. However, STID features a brief piano-led piece for a Noel Clarke scene early in the film. It's called 'London Calling' on the OST tracklisting, and is utterly gorgeous because it's pretty much the opposite of the rest of the film's music, as it's subtle, sparse and melodic.

< Message edited by BelfastBoy -- 12/5/2013 11:22:22 AM >

(in reply to Private Hudson)
Post #: 87
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 12/5/2013 12:16:05 PM   
Qwerty Norris


Posts: 4000
Joined: 26/10/2005
From: Edinburgh

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44


I think sometimes you can start to forgive really lazy plotting if you head in the direction too far.

The last Star Trek is the sort of thing you are talking about, and which I agree. There were problems with that movie as well, but it managed to overcome them with grand adventure.

This one however, just become utterly perplexing at certain points. Communications are blocked, yet Spock can speak to New Vulcan? That is really really shoddy writing, and not one nit pick. They set up the scene to be that the Enterprise is cut off, and yet the very next scene, we see that they aren't.


Yeah the Spock dynamic between old & new has never sat well with me, and like you, I'm not a fan of Lindelof's writing at all (that prejudice was built on the nonsense he came up with in both Lost & Prometheus).

Overall though, both the banter & spectacle made sure I was very forgiving of its faults, but I understand this has not been the case for everyone.



_____________________________

Qwerty's Top 10 of 2013 (so far)

1. Zero Dark Thirty
2. No
3. A Hijacking
4. Behind the Candelabra
5. In The Fog
6. Good Vibrations
7. McCullin
8. Beyond the Hills
9. The Place Beyond the Pines
10. Wreck-it Ralph

(in reply to Rgirvan44)
Post #: 88
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 12/5/2013 12:20:02 PM   
Private Hudson


Posts: 1840
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wild about Wilder

And how'd The Enterprise get back so quick from Kronos as never remember it travelling that fast in the show & this would be one of the very early models.
Also think Spock needs a wee bit more product in his hair when running!


Yes, I thought that too. I actually thought for a moment he was gonna stop and look at his reflection in a shop mirror and think: "Hmmn, yeah, baby, yeah!"


_____________________________

Watch my spoof movie of FULL METAL JACKET here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCGRWVvM-Zo&feature=plcp&context=C31ca298UDOEgsToPDskJ4_UorjolrWTaxEGMj5GO0

(in reply to Wild about Wilder)
Post #: 89
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 12/5/2013 12:25:16 PM   
Private Hudson


Posts: 1840
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulyboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Private Hudson

I thought transporters only had a short range (ie from a starship in orbit to a planet). They have messed up the logic of this movie and that does annoy me.



**Spoilers!**

Scotty does make mention of his trans-warp equation (from the first film) being "stolen" by Harrison after Starfleet made him ditch it or some such tomfoolery. I agree it's a bit of a mess though, I have a feeling they'll continue to wheel this old chestnut out when it's narratively convenient for them to do so, in fact the transporters seem to work and not work at will when it suits the writers.

I enjoyed the film overall, it's a decent enough romp, but my two main problems were how loose and fast they seem to be playing with the rules of all the technology (again, when it's convenient) and the fact it riffs so directly from The Wrath Of Khan at times, I'm all for the odd homage here and there, but remaking entire scenes (albeit with a role reversal) seems a bit contrary to a reboot in a sense, I'd much rather they did their own thing.

An enjoyable ride none the less.

3/5


I did hear that bit too. But it just throws the whole thing into chaos. If Harrison has the capability to 'trans-warp' then why not just keep hopping about?

Also if Scotty invented transwarp, then why bother sending a ship of 500 people (or whatever it holds) for such a mission and put them all in danger? Why not get 50 crack troops and transwarp them to Kronos?

The script was full of logic holes.

As some people have mentioned:

The Communications issue yet new Spock can speak to Spock (not calling him Spock Prime - that is just fanboy w@nk)...

The whole blood thing... why not get it from another superman?

The transporter chaos...

oh I can't bother going on.

Let's make a list of things that were contradictory or products of lazy writing. That's what I used to love about Star Trek is that it was on the whole quite sensible, even when it got daft (if you know what I mean --Spock's Brain anyone?).

I will watch it again on DVD and hopefully I can give it one more star.


_____________________________

Watch my spoof movie of FULL METAL JACKET here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCGRWVvM-Zo&feature=plcp&context=C31ca298UDOEgsToPDskJ4_UorjolrWTaxEGMj5GO0

(in reply to paulyboy)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> RE: Star Trek Into Darkness Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


 
Movie News  |  Empire Blog  |  Movie Reviews  |  Future Films  |  Features  |  Video Interviews  |  Image Gallery  |  Competitions  |  Forum  |  Magazine  |  Resources
 
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.143