Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Fri Aug 22, 2014 4:40 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 199 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 10  Next
STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS 
Author Message
Gaffer

Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2009 11:42 am
Posts: 18
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
I am actually not sure that I agree that it was a philosophy before its time, because much of the 60s was pushing those same boundaries as we became a different nation. I am not sure what philosophy would be pushed today as the primary social issues of today are things like gay marriage, immigration, health care reform. I am just not sure those things would be all that interesting in Star Trek. I am not sure what you expect for them to use to make it more cerebral. I enjoyed the movie. I liked the acting, and how the characters interact with each other. They could have used a slightly different way for the ending to get the same point across without needing to semi recreate it, but it did not bother me.


Thu May 23, 2013 2:35 pm
Profile
Cinematographer

Joined: Sat May 05, 2012 4:33 pm
Posts: 584
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
Ken wrote:
Nolan is the new flavor. Someday, there will be new Batman movies and people will be ga-ga over those. The masses will forget Nolan's movies and the fans will rewatch them every so often out of respect, just as it is with Burton's movies now.

It's not a bad outcome. Most movies are forgotten altogether.

I disagree entirely, largely because of the reasons cited by James in this ReelThought: http://www.reelviews.net/reelthoughts.p ... tifier=697.
Jeff Wilder wrote:
Sean wrote:
For a blockbuster to truly stick, it must be memorable


Right. A recent example of one that appears not to have stuck is another JJ Abrams effort: Super 8. Almost 2 years after its release, it seems to have faded for much of the moviegoing public.

You see, I actually loved Super 8, and I think that J.J. Abrams does an excellent job translating many of Spielberg's best tendencies to contemporary cinema. There are countless summer movies that deserved more attention than they received, and there are also countless summer movies that don't deserve a cent.

I think that I've arrived at a solid conclusion concerning Star Trek: The J.J. Abrams Vision. I love the movies as they are (both are solid three-and-a-half-star efforts for me), but I look forward to the day when another reboot infuses the series with more of what defined the Roddenberry years.


Thu May 23, 2013 3:31 pm
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:26 pm
Posts: 2157
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
I disagreed with JB's views on that then and I still do. The fact of the matter is that Batman is a very simple character. His simplicity means that he can be interpreted in a number of different ways. He has been around since 1939, gone through more stylistic changes than Neil Young, and survived just as many social, political, and cultural changes based on his malleability. The idea that the most recent interpretation is the "definitive" one is ridiculous. There is no doubt that each generation going back to the beginning probably would have said the same thing.

Furthermore, the Nolan movies are a respectful, sober take on the character, but they have their fair share of flaws. Batman can be, will be, and has been done better.

_________________
The temptation is to like what you should like--not what you do like... another temptation is to come up with an interesting reason for liking it that may not actually be the reason you like it.


Thu May 23, 2013 3:50 pm
Profile
Cinematographer

Joined: Sat May 05, 2012 4:33 pm
Posts: 584
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
Ken wrote:
I disagreed with JB's views on that then and I still do. The fact of the matter is that Batman is a very simple character. His simplicity means that he can be interpreted in a number of different ways. He has been around since 1939, gone through more stylistic changes than Neil Young, and survived just as many social, political, and cultural changes based on his malleability. The idea that the most recent interpretation is the "definitive" one is ridiculous. There is no doubt that each generation going back to the beginning probably would have said the same thing.

Furthermore, the Nolan movies are a respectful, sober take on the character, but they have their fair share of flaws. Batman can be, will be, and has been done better.

There only only a handful of filmmakers whom I would like to see handle this material. Darren Aronofsky's name was tossed around back when the series was being rebooted ten years ago, although there are some changes he had in mind which just seemed...radical. I think James' trepidation largely had to do with WB's haste in churning out a Justice League movie as quickly as possible. At this point, I think that either a) that project will be delayed indefinitely, or b) it will still be released in 2015 and end up being a major letdown.


Thu May 23, 2013 3:57 pm
Profile
Second Unit Director

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 10:11 pm
Posts: 396
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
tkdgirl wrote:
I am actually not sure that I agree that it was a philosophy before its time, because much of the 60s was pushing those same boundaries as we became a different nation. I am not sure what philosophy would be pushed today as the primary social issues of today are things like gay marriage, immigration, health care reform. I am just not sure those things would be all that interesting in Star Trek.


Dead wrong.Can you name another 60's television show that even tried to do something like that? Just one. You have go to the 70's with MASH and All in the Family for shows that really altered television and culture. The world is full of things that are wrong with it that you can still make stories about militarism,worldwide arm dealing fanning wars,computerized weapons,over population,pollution,climate change,the 1% stealing all the wealth in the world,xenophobic nationalism,irrational religious radicalization,human slavery and trafficking. Bad stuff didn't end in the 60's just entertainment has been dumb down to the point of slick superficiality like a supersized Happy Meal in what I might call the Death of Narrative Cinema. Good formula for the worldwide audience numbers and for fanboys to argue over silly minutiae like Burton vs Nolan but not why does Abrams have nothing to say in every single movie or tv show he makes. Just big loud empty wind up toys that have one and one goal only to make as much money as possible in the first 2 weeks.


Thu May 23, 2013 5:39 pm
Profile
Gaffer
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 7:17 pm
Posts: 29
Location: United States
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
oakenshield32 wrote:
Quote:
One of my favorite Star Trek films is The Final Frontier, and I know most people consider it to be a pile of dreck. Still, I love it, so I don't fault anyone for liking what they like. Let's just not pretend Star Trek is this paragon of human knowledge making it's foray into the scientific strata where it touches on philosophy because, more often than not, it really was about being a western set in space. It's themes were not that complex.


You can sure tell when someone is born after 1977 as they don't really have a conception of how daring a show Star Trek was.


When I was born is irrelevant. It would be wise if you didn't make such assumptions, lest you imply that not only were you born before 1977, but that you have no need to take the time or effort to learn about someone with a differing point of view.

Quote:
Remember it came out in the middle 60's that is the setting of Mad Men where women were subordinate and had few career options like moms,teachers and nurses,civil rights and segregation was a big issue with people being killed to end it and the Cold War with Red Chinese and Soviets was running red hot about an inch away from mutual assured destruction. Now granted the tv show was primarily an action adventure but it showed women working with men onboard a military vessel something they don't do today. It showed blacks as scientists and Star fleet officers and a multi racial crew. Then you had the whole Kirk and Uhura thing which was a way big deal for tv at that time and I believe that episode was banned in some southern states. Add to that a general pacifist anti-war tone which was definitely against the strident jingoism of the time and some people would label commie pinko BS. Even the idea of the Federation as a state that has evolved to eliminate strife and inequality in a way is an ideal of the United Nations and the European Union(a project designed after the bloodiest century in the history of that continent for Europeans to live together). I don't know but it seems a philosophy way ahead of it's time for tv shows of the 1960's and the general public at that time. All stuff we take for granted now and perhaps doesn't resonate as much with the later series because of it. Having an Enlightenment philosophy of making the world a better place to live in for everyone is something anyone can live by.


Actually, I am fully aware of the social implications Star Trek's cast impressed upon its viewership. Of course, Star Trek wasn't the only television show that had pushed those boundaries, it just happens to be one that is well remembered. It wasn't even the first television program to have an interracial kiss, though it is probably best remembered as such.

Quote:
Now it has been reduced to a nihilistic Galactic Fast and Furious which is kind of sad but might makes right,violence and explosions is what the international audience wants.


No, it hasn't. If "might makes right" is what you believe this film is teaching, then I suggest a second, or possibly third, viewing.

_________________
"I would be delighted to offer any advice I can on understanding women. When I have some, I’ll let you know." - Picard to Data, “In Theory


Thu May 23, 2013 10:43 pm
Profile
Assistant Second Unit Director

Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2009 4:16 am
Posts: 115
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
Quote:
No, it hasn't. If "might makes right" is what you believe this film is teaching, then I suggest a second, or possibly third, viewing.


So now there is some mysterious message under the facade of things happening and explosions...? And is so profound it takes 3 viewings...

Can you even explain the plot of this film?

(try it without laughing)


Fri May 24, 2013 3:23 pm
Profile
Cinematographer

Joined: Sat May 05, 2012 4:33 pm
Posts: 584
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
The level of discussion that this movie has prompted on the forums is staggering. Reminds me of the polarized response Prometheus garnered last year, although to be entirely honest, Into Darkness is receiving a much better reception by critics and audiences.

As I have said before, I can see this movie end up becoming like Avatar in a few months' time, with more and more people poking holes in it. That being said, it's nice to see a science-fiction movie generate this much debate.


Fri May 24, 2013 3:58 pm
Profile
Assistant Second Unit Director

Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2009 4:16 am
Posts: 115
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
Sean wrote:
The level of discussion that this movie has prompted on the forums is staggering. Reminds me of the polarized response Prometheus garnered last year, although to be entirely honest, Into Darkness is receiving a much better reception by critics and audiences.

As I have said before, I can see this movie end up becoming like Avatar in a few months' time, with more and more people poking holes in it. That being said, it's nice to see a science-fiction movie generate this much debate.


One noticeable difference between both films (criticism) is Prometheus left a lot unexplained and was just confusing...Into Darkness tosses in throw-aways that on the surface explain things, but when you think about it, are totally absurd and I would call downright lazy....

Example...

"I am Khan!" cue dramatic music...

Ok, you're Khan....and...? Has he been set up, at all...??? What's with the dramatic music when we first see him hanging around a hospital...oh, that's telling us he's the bad guy, oh wait, I bet he is someone we already know! (starting to think) EXPLOSION!! YAY!

He was found adrift because Vulcan was destroyed...oh, right, we know that because of the last film...thanks! (starting to think) Wait, what?? Oh never mind, EXPLOSION and SHINY!!!....

Everything in this Star Trek Universe is unearned. (deaths and friendships especially) It relies on fan service with no redeeming quality other than looking better...moving fast (too fast to think about what is really going on) and just rehashing simply because the fans already know...and for people going in without knowing much about the legacy of Trek, who cares, they got a throw-away line with some dramatic music...EXPLOSION! SHINY! (Shove popcorn in face) Mi$$ion accompli$hed...

I think both films were criticized for the absurd level of laziness in the writing...and coming across as nothing but big name recognition cash grabs with little to no effort put in to be enjoyable on a cerebral level. I think its a disservice to the brand while playing to the lowest denominator for easy international and domestic sales. The Bay-ing of Hollywood...

But I digress...


Fri May 24, 2013 4:37 pm
Profile
Cinematographer

Joined: Sat May 05, 2012 4:33 pm
Posts: 584
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
nologo wrote:
Sean wrote:
The level of discussion that this movie has prompted on the forums is staggering. Reminds me of the polarized response Prometheus garnered last year, although to be entirely honest, Into Darkness is receiving a much better reception by critics and audiences.

As I have said before, I can see this movie end up becoming like Avatar in a few months' time, with more and more people poking holes in it. That being said, it's nice to see a science-fiction movie generate this much debate.


One noticeable difference between both films (criticism) is Prometheus left a lot unexplained and was just confusing...Into Darkness tosses in throw-aways that on the surface explain things, but when you think about it, are totally absurd and I would call downright lazy....

Example...

"I am Khan!" cue dramatic music...

Ok, you're Khan....and...? Has he been set up, at all...??? What's with the dramatic music when we first see him hanging around a hospital...oh, that's telling us he's the bad guy, oh wait, I bet he is someone we already know! (starting to think) EXPLOSION!! YAY!

He was found adrift because Vulcan was destroyed...oh, right, we know that because of the last film...thanks! (starting to think) Wait, what?? Oh never mind, EXPLOSION and SHINY!!!....

Everything in this Star Trek Universe is unearned. (deaths and friendships especially) It relies on fan service with no redeeming quality other than looking better...moving fast (too fast to think about what is really going on) and just rehashing simply because the fans already know...and for people going in without knowing much about the legacy of Trek, who cares, they got a throw-away line with some dramatic music...EXPLOSION! SHINY! (Shove popcorn in face) Mi$$ion accompli$hed...

I think both films were criticized for the absurd level of laziness in the writing...and coming across as nothing but big name recognition cash grabs with little to no effort put in to be enjoyable on a cerebral level. I think its a disservice to the brand while playing to the lowest denominator for easy international and domestic sales. The Bay-ing of Hollywood...

But I digress...

I'm curious to hear your thoughts on Star Trek: Episode VII. Are you excited about Abrams being chosen as director, or are you worried? To be fair, Star Wars is much closer to the space opera territory Abrams envisioned for Star Trek.

Were you also a fan of Super 8?

In all honesty, I was a much bigger fan of J.J. Abrams when he played Leonard on The Big Bang Theory.


Fri May 24, 2013 4:40 pm
Profile
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3478
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
nologo wrote:
Sean wrote:
The level of discussion that this movie has prompted on the forums is staggering. Reminds me of the polarized response Prometheus garnered last year, although to be entirely honest, Into Darkness is receiving a much better reception by critics and audiences.

As I have said before, I can see this movie end up becoming like Avatar in a few months' time, with more and more people poking holes in it. That being said, it's nice to see a science-fiction movie generate this much debate.


One noticeable difference between both films (criticism) is Prometheus left a lot unexplained and was just confusing...Into Darkness tosses in throw-aways that on the surface explain things, but when you think about it, are totally absurd and I would call downright lazy....

Example...

"I am Khan!" cue dramatic music...

Ok, you're Khan....and...? Has he been set up, at all...??? What's with the dramatic music when we first see him hanging around a hospital...oh, that's telling us he's the bad guy, oh wait, I bet he is someone we already know! (starting to think) EXPLOSION!! YAY!

He was found adrift because Vulcan was destroyed...oh, right, we know that because of the last film...thanks! (starting to think) Wait, what?? Oh never mind, EXPLOSION and SHINY!!!....

Everything in this Star Trek Universe is unearned. (deaths and friendships especially) It relies on fan service with no redeeming quality other than looking better...moving fast (too fast to think about what is really going on) and just rehashing simply because the fans already know...and for people going in without knowing much about the legacy of Trek, who cares, they got a throw-away line with some dramatic music...EXPLOSION! SHINY! (Shove popcorn in face) Mi$$ion accompli$hed...

I think both films were criticized for the absurd level of laziness in the writing...and coming across as nothing but big name recognition cash grabs with little to no effort put in to be enjoyable on a cerebral level. I think its a disservice to the brand while playing to the lowest denominator for easy international and domestic sales. The Bay-ing of Hollywood...

But I digress...

I beg to differ about the "lowest common denominator" I think that's a bunch of BS, my mother-a devout Star trek fan since the beginning loved both this film and the first one, when I told her about the criticism of this film, she thought it was silly.


Fri May 24, 2013 4:42 pm
Profile
Assistant Second Unit Director

Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2009 4:16 am
Posts: 115
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
Sean wrote:
nologo wrote:
Sean wrote:
The level of discussion that this movie has prompted on the forums is staggering. Reminds me of the polarized response Prometheus garnered last year, although to be entirely honest, Into Darkness is receiving a much better reception by critics and audiences.

As I have said before, I can see this movie end up becoming like Avatar in a few months' time, with more and more people poking holes in it. That being said, it's nice to see a science-fiction movie generate this much debate.


One noticeable difference between both films (criticism) is Prometheus left a lot unexplained and was just confusing...Into Darkness tosses in throw-aways that on the surface explain things, but when you think about it, are totally absurd and I would call downright lazy....

Example...

"I am Khan!" cue dramatic music...

Ok, you're Khan....and...? Has he been set up, at all...??? What's with the dramatic music when we first see him hanging around a hospital...oh, that's telling us he's the bad guy, oh wait, I bet he is someone we already know! (starting to think) EXPLOSION!! YAY!

He was found adrift because Vulcan was destroyed...oh, right, we know that because of the last film...thanks! (starting to think) Wait, what?? Oh never mind, EXPLOSION and SHINY!!!....

Everything in this Star Trek Universe is unearned. (deaths and friendships especially) It relies on fan service with no redeeming quality other than looking better...moving fast (too fast to think about what is really going on) and just rehashing simply because the fans already know...and for people going in without knowing much about the legacy of Trek, who cares, they got a throw-away line with some dramatic music...EXPLOSION! SHINY! (Shove popcorn in face) Mi$$ion accompli$hed...

I think both films were criticized for the absurd level of laziness in the writing...and coming across as nothing but big name recognition cash grabs with little to no effort put in to be enjoyable on a cerebral level. I think its a disservice to the brand while playing to the lowest denominator for easy international and domestic sales. The Bay-ing of Hollywood...

But I digress...

I'm curious to hear your thoughts on Star Trek: Episode VII. Are you excited about Abrams being chosen as director, or are you worried? To be fair, Star Wars is much closer to the space opera territory Abrams envisioned for Star Trek.

Were you also a fan of Super 8?

In all honesty, I was a much bigger fan of J.J. Abrams when he played Leonard on The Big Bang Theory.


I'll reserve judgement on SW7. But no, I'm not excited. I thought the legacy of Trek would be a consideration...but that didn't stop the shaky-cam lens flare absurd action thin plot exaggerated character traits...etc etc etc

I re-watched Wrath of Khan the other night and was astonished how long takes were, the static camera, and letting you absorb the scene and chew on it...and you can still be entertained! Perish the thought....

I just watched Star Wars on Blu-Ray and had the same experience...

I doubt very much JJ will allow a scene to play out without cutting every .5 seconds and moving the camera...Directors today need to trust their audience instead of playing to the lowest denominator-popcorn-shover....if people can see and understand what is going on, they will connect...JJ and Bay have a talent for disconnecting their audiences...

...and his use of the entire plot itself being the Mcguffin....ugh, so lazy...

Super-8 was fun and felt nostalgic. I thought the performances were much better than the material...but he was emulating Spielberg....and I don't know if it's a good thing to emulate Lucas...Kershner maybe... ;)


Fri May 24, 2013 5:00 pm
Profile
Gaffer
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 7:17 pm
Posts: 29
Location: United States
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
nologo wrote:
Quote:
No, it hasn't. If "might makes right" is what you believe this film is teaching, then I suggest a second, or possibly third, viewing.


So now there is some mysterious message under the facade of things happening and explosions...? And is so profound it takes 3 viewings...

Can you even explain the plot of this film?

(try it without laughing)


There are several concurrent themes in the film; themes about sacrificing oneself for ones family, that revenge isn't justice, and that true justice is the right to a fair trial. This film was actually quite transparently critical about drone strikes, extrajudicial sentencing, and going to war on a flimsy pretext. As for being profound that it takes three viewings, of course not. I recommended a second, or third, viewing because you apparently didn't notice those themes the first time through. There are more themes that thread their way through, but those are the two biggest, and have been spotted by just about anyone who paid attention to the film.


[Reveal] Spoiler:
The plot of the film is simple: When a man who is willing to save his daughter's life ends up causing massive destruction to a Section 31 base due to the manipulations of an unknown terrorist, the heads of Starfleet seek to capture him. In the process, the terrorist attacks a meeting of some of the top brass, at which point the Enterprise, and more specifically James Kirk, volunteers to neutralize that threat. The Enterprise is equipped with a new type of secret torpedo, 72 in all, and sent on it's way to eliminate the terrorist threat once and for all. Kirk, instead of sustaining his vengeful bloodlust, lets reason prevail and instead apprehends the terrorist, who reveals himself to be not John Harrison, but Khan, an augmented human who was brought out of cryostasis to help research advanced weaponry in the wake of the Romulan incursion that had come before.

Upon learning that Khan was captured and not killed, the Vengeance arrives and demands Khan be turned over to them. When Kirk refuses due to Khan not being allowed to exercise his rights under Federation law, Admiral Marcus decides to take Khan by force. The Enterprise runs. As she does so, the Vengeance overtakes her, knocking her out of Warp near Earth's Moon. After beating the Enterprise to a bloody pulp, Admiral Marcus kidnaps his daughter from the bridge, and prepares to blast the Enterprise out of the sky, but Scotty has managed to knock out the power. Khan and Kirk space jump from the Enterprise to the Vengeance, where they fight their way up to the bridge, where Khan is stunned, lest he take over the ship himself. As Kirk captures Marcus, Khan wakes up and still manages to take control. He beams Kirk and party back to the Enterprise so they can die together, that "the Captain can go down with his ship."

The Enterprise, meanwhile has managed to load all of the torpedoes into tubes, and fires them at the Vengeance, which takes obscene damage, the blast sending it hurtling toward Earth, where it crashes into San Francisco bay and skims atop the water, smashing through part of the city. Khan manages to escape alive. The Enterprise is still without engine power, and begins to also enter the Earth's atmosphere, at which point Kirk manages to realign the matter/antimatter injector, resulting in the salvation of the Enterprise and her crew, at the cost of his own life.

Spock is there as Kirk dies, and beams down to find Khan, in order to make him pay for the death of his friend. After a lengthy chase, they end up fighting one another atop a garbage collecter. Meanwhile, as Bones uses a formula synthesized from Khan's blood to revive Kirk, Uhura beams down to Spock's location and stuns Khan. On the Enterprise, Kirk is saved. In the aftermath, Khan is stored once more in cryostasis, and the Enterprise undergoes repairs. The scene picks up a year later, as they begin their five year mission.


That's the gist of it. Keep in mind I saw the movie only once, and that was a week ago, so some details may be out of order.

_________________
"I would be delighted to offer any advice I can on understanding women. When I have some, I’ll let you know." - Picard to Data, “In Theory


Fri May 24, 2013 10:25 pm
Profile
Director
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:07 pm
Posts: 1547
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
***1/2

The best Star Trek film since First Contact if not The Undiscovered Country.

Having gotten the re-introductions out of the way with the 2009 Trek, Abrams and his writers are now free to let the characters do what Star Trek characters do.

Admittedly, this one like the 2009 one is more action-oritented than previous Trek incarnations. But Abrams doesn't let the action get in the way, the way a Sommers or Bay would.

[Reveal] Spoiler:
The supposed death of Kirk is more emotionally effective than the one in the dismal Generations. However, the revelation of Harrison as Khan isn't that surprising. Even if I hadn't seen it mentioned at certain points, I likely would have figured it out


Better than Iron Man 3, this stands as the summer blockbuster to beat in 2013.

_________________
This ain't a city council meeting you know-Joe Cabot

Cinema is a matter of what's in the frame and what's out-Martin Scorsese.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1347771599


Sat May 25, 2013 3:19 pm
Profile
Cinematographer

Joined: Sat May 05, 2012 4:33 pm
Posts: 584
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
Jeff Wilder wrote:
***1/2

The best Star Trek film since First Contact if not The Undiscovered Country.

Having gotten the re-introductions out of the way with the 2009 Trek, Abrams and his writers are now free to let the characters do what Star Trek characters do.

Admittedly, this one like the 2009 one is more action-oritented than previous Trek incarnations. But Abrams doesn't let the action get in the way, the way a Sommers or Bay would.

[Reveal] Spoiler:
The supposed death of Kirk is more emotionally effective than the one in the dismal Generations. However, the revelation of Harrison as Khan isn't that surprising. Even if I hadn't seen it mentioned at certain points, I likely would have figured it out


Better than Iron Man 3, this stands as the summer blockbuster to beat in 2013.

Couldn't agree more.

What did you make of the 2009 film? Was it merely good in your book?

After some debate, I believe that Abrams' Trek films are excellent works of blockbuster cinema, although they do not embody the same level of greatness associated with the Roddenberry years. I can't wait for Star Trek 3, although I hope to see the next inevitable reboot capture what made the original series and films so great.

I do, however, believe that it is a much, much better film than Iron Man 3. ImageImageImageImage for me, too. Not as good as the original, but still a fine sequel.


Sat May 25, 2013 4:13 pm
Profile
Assistant Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2012 2:42 pm
Posts: 872
Location: New Zealand
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
The J.J. Abrams Star Trek films, having entirely dispensed with anything resembling canon after introducing the absurd contrivance that is parallel universes (which Abrams also used in his Fringe TV show BTW), have even less to do with "Star Trek" than Skyfall had to with "James Bond". Sure it has "the names" (e.g. Spock, Kirk, McCoy, Scotty), but they don't look or behave anything like them - and they don't need to, 'cos, you know, PARALLEL UNIVERSE! Naturally, it's all highly entertaining, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. But "Star Trek"? No. Not even close. I'm willing to bet Abrams wouldn't bat an eyelid to cast Jason Statham as a young Jean Luc Picard for a "high octane" TNG reboot.
I seriously don't understand why they didn't just create a whole brand NEW IP. Cynically, I'm sure it was purely a business decision: calling it "Star Trek" brings in a guaranteed audience, even if a lot of them (like myself) were utterly horrified with what was done to Roddenberry's beloved universe. Apparently no one thought this movie sans the "Star Trek" moniker could succeed on its own. Wonder why that is? Anybody?
I shudder to think what Abrams will do with the Star Wars IP. You can bet it will be entertaining and fun, with tons of explosions, and be a roaring success. But it will undoubtedly have preciously little to do with Star Wars canon other than pay lip service. "Light sabres: check. Force: check. Space ships: check. Wookie: check. Now lets blow some shit up".


Sat May 25, 2013 8:06 pm
Profile
Director
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:07 pm
Posts: 1547
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
Sean wrote:
What did you make of the 2009 film? Was it merely good in your book?


It was pretty good overall. I'd give it ***. Entertaining. But this one seemed ot have more oomph to it.

However, my father hated it. His comments were pretty much the same as:

nitrium wrote:
The J.J. Abrams Star Trek films, having entirely dispensed with anything resembling canon after introducing the absurd contrivance that is parallel universes (which Abrams also used in his Fringe TV show BTW), have even less to do with "Star Trek" than Skyfall had to with "James Bond". Sure it has "the names" (e.g. Spock, Kirk, McCoy, Scotty), but they don't look or behave anything like them - and they don't need to, 'cos, you know, PARALLEL UNIVERSE! Naturally, it's all highly entertaining, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. But "Star Trek"? No. Not even close.


That's why he has not seen and will not see Into Darkness.

_________________
This ain't a city council meeting you know-Joe Cabot

Cinema is a matter of what's in the frame and what's out-Martin Scorsese.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1347771599


Sat May 25, 2013 9:02 pm
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:35 am
Posts: 2048
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
Jeff Wilder wrote:
***1/2
The best Star Trek film since First Contact if not The Undiscovered Country.


That's how I feel, too, with "Wrath of Khan" topping them all. This one has a lot more on its mind than you're giving it credit for. I also think people are underestimating Zoe Saldana, who makes a fine alternate Uhura.

[Reveal] Spoiler:
I was half expecting McCoy to revive Kirk with blood from the tribble. But really, any of the 72 frozen bodies could have been thawed out and used. Although, if you remember, Khan's crew also were enhanced humans, so that would have introduced other complications.

_________________
Evil does not wear a bonnet!--Mr. Tinkles


Sat May 25, 2013 10:01 pm
Profile
Gaffer
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 10:17 pm
Posts: 37
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
Hi All,

Great review by James. I would agree that Star Trek: Into Darkness was invigorating entertainment and lots of fun. :D It's not an instant classic, or "greatest of all-time," but compared to most of the Hollywood Action Movie drivel out there (Roland Emmerich, etc.), this was in another league.

I'm not sure where all the vitriol over this movie is coming from, I thought it was *just great fun.* :mrgreen:

Benedict Cumberbatch (Sherlock (BBC)) was friggin' AWESOME as the antagonist in this movie. Even though I hated him early on for his actions, while on the Klingon Homeworld, when he was kicking butt, he was seriously BAD-ASS! JJ Abrams shot those scenes near-perfectly in showing off this superhuman, one man army. At least for all of my friends and I, it was impressive.

Is Benedict Cumberbatch better than Ricardo Montalban as Khan? No.

Ricardo's Khan will always be burned in my memory as an iconic villain.

Same for Heath Ledger's Joker in Dark Knight.

But I don't remember reading anywhere where JJ Abrams, or Paramount, or anyone was saying that "Star Trek Into Darkness" was "replacing / overwriting" Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. It's not like something as stupid as George Lucas actually OVERWRITING the Original Star Wars and making Han Solo shoot second; or any of the other questionable things he did overwriting original canon.

This is a brand-new sequel to an Alternate Universe / Reboot / New Take on Star Trek. And it was fantastic, IMHO. :)

Reading some of the hatred here, makes it feel like we just got exposed to Jar Jar Binks or something. Seriously.

Star Trek: Into Darkness is my favorite movie of the summer so far (or tied with Iron Man 3). Loved it.


Sun May 26, 2013 8:22 pm
Profile
Assistant Second Unit Director

Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2009 4:16 am
Posts: 115
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
J.W. Allen wrote:

There are several concurrent themes in the film; themes about sacrificing oneself for ones family, that revenge isn't justice, and that true justice is the right to a fair trial.


Say this out loud to someone...see if they laugh

J.W. Allen wrote:
This film was actually quite transparently critical about drone strikes, extrajudicial sentencing, and going to war on a flimsy pretext.


It actually isn't transparently about "drone strikes"...."extrajudicial sentencing"..(you already kinda said that), nor "and going to war on a flimsy pretext"....he was going to fire missiles at the Klingons, and 72 virgi..err I mean missiles...! Ahuh... got it...

Admiral Robocop actually had a point (that the story just vapidly dropped, not allowed to have anything remotely interesting to contemplate in today's films, EXPLOSIONS! YAY!)...

But why was his storyline even remotely coherent? Because we know who Klingons are, we know they are an "enemy"..etc etc. The problem with this plot is its complete fan servicing without earning the story. But he had a big giant ship so he must be bad...EXPLOSIONS! YAY!

J.W. Allen wrote:
As for being profound that it takes three viewings, of course not. I recommended a second, or third, viewing because you apparently didn't notice those themes the first time through. There are more themes that thread their way through, but those are the two biggest, and have been spotted by just about anyone who paid attention to the film.


It honestly isn't that complicated. 2 biggest? You named a bunch there....It might be a tad complex in its stupidity though...
[Reveal] Spoiler:
J.W. Allen wrote:
[spoiler=]The Enterprise is equipped with a new type of secret torpedo, 72 in all, and sent on it's way to eliminate the terrorist threat once and for all.


And why 72? Was he really going to launch all 72 missiles? Don't think about this point...EXPOLOSIONS! YAY!

What ultimately was Khan's plan....? Meh...We get it, it was all a master plan to get captured...which every villain is doing in almost every movie lately...

J.W. Allen wrote:
Kirk, instead of sustaining his vengeful bloodlust, lets reason prevail and instead apprehends the terrorist, who reveals himself to be not John Harrison, but Khan, an augmented human who was brought out of cryostasis to help research advanced weaponry in the wake of the Romulan incursion that had come before.


Yes got that. But why was his reveal so dramatic? Do you actually think the story earned that? When he is revealed as Khan, Kirk just shrugs his shoulders...and that isn't even getting into the whole reason he alone was unthawed and the reason he was found...good grief all these throwaway lines were just utter shite and sloppy...

J.W. Allen wrote:
The Enterprise is still without engine power, and begins to also enter the Earth's atmosphere, at which point Kirk manages to realign the matter/antimatter injector, resulting in the salvation of the Enterprise and her crew, at the cost of his own life.


Oh clever. We've never seen that before...oh wait...

Why can't they do something memorable of their own...? We get it, everyone knows Wrath of Khan. Or at least the writers have big boners for it...

J.W. Allen wrote:
Spock is there as Kirk dies,


And we laughed.

J.W. Allen wrote:
and beams down to find Khan,


A space battle turning into a foot and punch chase. 10 MINS OF PUNCHING! YAY! (shove popcorn in face)

J.W. Allen wrote:
After a lengthy chase, they end up fighting one another atop a garbage collecter.


Yes, a garbage collector...EPIC! PUNCHING! YAY! Khan wasn't just physically superior, his most dangerous aspect was intelligence, cunning and malevolence. What a waste of evil British accents....wait, Khan is British now? This is the most glaring aspect of servicing stupid. British accents are more evil to the popcorn shovers....

J.W. Allen wrote:
Meanwhile, as Bones uses a formula synthesized from Khan's blood to revive Kirk, Uhura beams down to Spock's location and stuns Khan. On the Enterprise, Kirk is saved.


So now no one can die. Wonderful. Destroy all stakes and consequences....for all the fan servicing the writers did, Khan was advanced, not a superhuman with life saving blood...it removes all infallibility of Khan from Space Seed and his quest for vengeance....Khan's evil is earned in Wrath Of Khan...not here...

J.W. Allen wrote:
In the aftermath, Khan is stored once more in cryostasis, and the Enterprise undergoes repairs. The scene picks up a year later, as they begin their five year mission.


You are just getting way too specific. Droning out all the fun of debating the ridiculousness of the film. Providing a clinical essay on the plot of this film has made me fall asle.....zzzzzzzz

J.W. Allen wrote:
That's the gist of it. Keep in mind I saw the movie only once, and that was a week ago, so some details may be out of order.


Not sure a play by play was necessary...

This movie is a fun ride...but dreadfully stupid. And we have already seen this film, that is where the criticism is coming...

It's tired. Bring in new stories...nothing is earned in JJ's universe....


Tue May 28, 2013 1:43 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 199 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 10  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.
Translated by Xaphos © 2007, 2008, 2009 phpBB.fr