Star Trek "Into Darkness"

[darien87]

Actually the character development on the latest Trek was probably one of the weakest links in the movie IMO.

Yeah I'd call the character development non-existent also. What happened in that movie to further solidify Spock and Kirk's friendship? Nothing. Other than spout witty one-liners what did McCoy do to develop his relationship with Kirk? Nothing. What happened to between Spock and Uhura to show their relationship progressing? Oooo they had a little spat. Was anything done with Chekov or Sulu? No. In fact Sulu was barely in the movie. I honestly can't remember a single thing he did. I honestly don't see how anyone could think there was character development in this movie. It was just one stupid scene after another.

 

[darien87]

No I don't want to see the original cast come back. The new cast would have been fine if there was a better storyline and director.

Also, I'm all for a new Trek series for TV. TOS is NOT my favorite Trek, DS9 was! So many great actors and deep characters came from that show.

BTW Galaxy Quest had more believability than new Trek

DS9?!? Really? I only half paid attention to that show. I never really got into it. I do think the Dominion was a pretty cool adversary. But I never liked Captain Sisko. He was so robotic to me.

 

[3db]

Actually the character development on the latest Trek was probably one of the weakest links in the movie IMO. Khan was so unauthentic and forced into the film. He's probably the best actor in the movie yet he didn't pull it off as if it was a natural part for him. Mccoy and Scotty were used mostly as comic relief rather than as characters with dimension. The bromance between Kirk/Spock was yet again trusted upon us and unnatural. Carol Marcus was portrayed as a complete bimbo, but she was hot so everyone likes hot right? Even Peter Weller seemed out of place and actually played a better role in ST Enterprise despite the serious flaws in the last season of that show. Lennord Nimoy was out of place in both films and it was painful to watch. Hmm we have this bad guy Khan bent on destroying us, let me make a quick phone call to my older self to ask him what to do. Really?

This movie, and the last as well, have more in common with Star Wars then they do with Star Trek. Jar Jar even admitted that in an interview that he never liked or understood Star Trek but he was always a Star Wars fan boy.

As a result, we got lot's of mindless action, bigger monster eating a big monster, jumping off moving platforms while fighting, timelines that make no sense, weak plot, insultingly stupid science. Sadly Star Wars films to me (all 6 of them) had more depth and believability than this film.

Sorry to rain on everyone's parade but if you didn't already know it, I'm a pretty big Trekkie and very disappointed in the pandering and watering down Jar Jar Abrams did in these movies.

I bought them just to complete my collection and for guests to enjoy when they come and visit, but I cringe anytime I watch them.

Now what blows my mind is Roberto Orci (one of the story writers of the new Trek) did an absolutely fantastic job with Transformers Prime. I just don't see how someone couldn't have improved the plots of the last 2 treks and focused more on believability than mindless stupid action, excessive camera shaking, extreme close ups and over usage of lens flare.

I've pretty much given up on SciFi now b/c there is nothing left with depth of storyline and believability anymore. DS9 was the benchmark in this regard and we will NEVER see another Star Trek like that again IMO.

Now I just wait patiently for more Through the Wormhole episodes with Morgan Freeman or Scifi shows with Dr. Michio Kaku

I just can't believe how WRONG you are in your character analysis. You must have been taking lessons from Ebert . BTW hand me an umbrella. I believe its starting to be rain.

 

[j_garcia]

Actually the character development on the latest Trek was probably one of the weakest links in the movie IMO. Khan was so unauthentic and forced into the film. He's probably the best actor in the movie yet he didn't pull it off as if it was a natural part for him. Mccoy and Scotty were used mostly as comic relief rather than as characters with dimension. The bromance between Kirk/Spock was yet again trusted upon us and unnatural. Carol Marcus was portrayed as a complete bimbo, but she was hot so everyone likes hot right? Even Peter Weller seemed out of place and actually played a better role in ST Enterprise despite the serious flaws in the last season of that show. Lennord Nimoy was out of place in both films and it was painful to watch. Hmm we have this bad guy Khan bent on destroying us, let me make a quick phone call to my older self to ask him what to do. Really?

This movie, and the last as well, have more in common with Star Wars then they do with Star Trek. Jar Jar even admitted that in an interview that he never liked or understood Star Trek but he was always a Star Wars fan boy.

As a result, we got lot's of mindless action, bigger monster eating a big monster, jumping off moving platforms while fighting, timelines that make no sense, weak plot, insultingly stupid science. Sadly Star Wars films to me (all 6 of them) had more depth and believability than this film.

Sorry to rain on everyone's parade but if you didn't already know it, I'm a pretty big Trekkie and very disappointed in the pandering and watering down Jar Jar Abrams did in these movies.

I bought them just to complete my collection and for guests to enjoy when they come and visit, but I cringe anytime I watch them.

Now what blows my mind is Roberto Orci (one of the story writers of the new Trek) did an absolutely fantastic job with Transformers Prime. I just don't see how someone couldn't have improved the plots of the last 2 treks and focused more on believability than mindless stupid action, excessive camera shaking, extreme close ups and over usage of lens flare.

I've pretty much given up on SciFi now b/c there is nothing left with depth of storyline and believability anymore. DS9 was the benchmark in this regard and we will NEVER see another Star Trek like that again IMO.

Now I just wait patiently for more Through the Wormhole episodes with Morgan Freeman or Scifi shows with Dr. Michio Kaku

Here's the thing: Scifi pretty much started as CAMP. More or less near comedy, whether it was intended that way or not. And it was still enjoyable. The new ST movies fit right in today with what is considered "entertainment", which is exactly what you described - mindless, explosions, fast pace and almost zero substance. Those are the directors the studios are after though because that's the flavor of the week, just to turn a buck.

I don't want to pick holes in this particular film because I don't think it was made for fans, it was made for an audience. FANS I am guessing won't like it. I was entertained, but it lacks one of the most basic things that made the original series interesting - the characters and their relationships. Naturally they can't squeeze all of that into 2hrs, but practically leaving it out completely really does no favors to anyone. On the other hand, SciFi and believability usually don't go hand-in-hand

 

[its phillip]

I agree with some of what gene said - DS9 is the best (although TNG is also the best) ST show

 

[gene]

DS9?!? Really? I only half paid attention to that show. I never really got into it. I do think the Dominion was a pretty cool adversary. But I never liked Captain Sisko. He was so robotic to me.

No way man you need to give it a second visit. Once the Dominion War got into full mode it was incredible. The stuff that went on behind the scenes like Sisko plotting with Garak to get get the Romulans involved was incredible. The final episode of DS9 was one of the finest moments in Trek history IMO.

 

[gene]

Here's the thing: Scifi pretty much started as CAMP. More or less near comedy, whether it was intended that way or not. And it was still enjoyable. The new ST movies fit right in today with what is considered "entertainment", which is exactly what you described - mindless, explosions, fast pace and almost zero substance. Those are the directors the studios are after though because that's the flavor of the week, just to turn a buck.

I don't want to pick holes in this particular film because I don't think it was made for fans, it was made for an audience. FANS I am guessing won't like it. I was entertained, but it lacks one of the most basic things that made the original series interesting - the characters and their relationships. Naturally they can't squeeze all of that into 2hrs, but practically leaving it out completely really does no favors to anyone. On the other hand, SciFi and believability usually don't go hand-in-hand

I guess I'm just tired of mind numbing action movies with no plot. I really loved the new Batman movies b/c they gave you both story and action. I was hoping for the same with new Trek but that never happened. My hope (wishful thinking) is that Nicholas Myer will come in to direct Star Trek III and have an old Kirk create a wormhole to travel back in time to stop Nero from ever coming into the past to prevent the entire timeline change and erase the last 2 movies Then reboot into a new TV series that takes place after DS9/Voyager and let the past stay in the past.

 

[markw]

You're kidding me, right?

No I don't want to see the original cast come back. The new cast would have been fine if there was a better storyline and director.

Also, I'm all for a new Trek series for TV. TOS is NOT my favorite Trek, DS9 was! So many great actors and deep characters came from that show.

BTW Galaxy Quest had more believability than new Trek

DS9 was margina, but everythng else after ST:TNG sucked wind. ...and you want another one?

I think I know what you need:

 

[gene]

DS9 was margina, but everythng else after ST:TNG sucked wind. ...and you want another one?

I think I know what you need:

I don't know any Trek fan who has watched the entire 7 seasons of DS9 ever think that show sucked but if you prefer Jar JAr Trek then more power to you I suppose.

IMO 40-50% of TNG was cheese, 55% of Voyager was cheese, 50% of TOS was cheese, most of the first and last season of Enterprise was cheese but the Xindi war arch was great. But, the TNG movies and TOS movies (except ST V) were generally good and better than Jar Jar Trek.

DS9 was the most consistent and had the best storylines and action of all Trek.

 

[j_garcia]

I liked TNG and DS9. Loved TOS, but it is goofy to watch now Did not get into Voyager; it started out OK and went down hill after a while.

I guess I'm just tired of mind numbing action movies with no plot. I really loved the new Batman movies b/c they gave you both story and action. I was hoping for the same with new Trek but that never happened. My hope (wishful thinking) is that Nicholas Myer will come in to direct Star Trek III and have an old Kirk create a wormhole to travel back in time to stop Nero from ever coming into the past to prevent the entire timeline change and erase the last 2 movies

Then reboot into a new TV series that takes place after DS9/Voyager and let the past stay in the past.

They are just feeding the cattle their hay. It isn't just SciFi, it is a problem for the film industry as a whole.

 

[j_garcia]

Kind of ironic: Gold box deal of the day at Amazon TODAY ONLY 6/20 - Star Trek: Original Motion Picture Collection just $29.99

Amazon.com: Star Trek: Original Motion Picture Collection (Star Trek I, II, III, IV, V, VI + The Captain's Summit Bonus Disc) [Blu-ray]: William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, DeForest Kelley, James Doohan, George Takei, Majel Barrett, Walter Koenig, Ni

 

[lovinthehd]

Lemme get this straight: Y'all are trashing star trek for not being realistic and, in the same thread, analyzing kid's cartoons?

Not just a cartoon but a stupid toy that somehow became a cartoon! I've always been amazed by that....

 

[GO-NAD!]

My wife did a rental download to our PVR of "Into Darkness" from our cable provider and we watched it last Friday evening. It was supposedly HD, but it must have been seriously compressed, because the PQ/SQ were not very good. The movie was ..... OK. I did not like "Kirk" at all. He looked and behaved like a Midshipman, rather than a Starship captain. I wasn't buyin' it for one minute. And, when your central character is so unbelieveable, it's hard for the rest of the cast to compensate - not that they were all that great either. I did like "Scottie", because I'm a Pegg fan and I don't think anyone else could have brought anything more to the role.

I watched TOS when I was a kid in the 70's and I compare every subsequent series and movie to it. Sure, Shatner overacted and the special effects were cheesy - at least to our more "sophisticated" eye. But, when you're a kid, none of that matters. It's a nostalgia thing, I suppose. I liked some of the original movies (never saw them all). And, I did enjoy TNG, although not as much as TOS. I never really watched any of the other series or movies, as I lost interest in Star Trek as a brand. I don't think "Into Darkness" is going to drag me back either....

 

[Richel]

i watched this movie but i think first part is the better one..

 

[Pyrrho]

Looks like that is what is happening. Strange, isn't it. I wonder why they call it sci-fi?

That is a good thing to bring up. If it is sci-fi, then it should have some sort of connection with science. It isn't just called fi[ction].

 

[Pyrrho]

No I don't want to see the original cast come back. The new cast would have been fine if there was a better storyline and director.

Also, I'm all for a new Trek series for TV. TOS is NOT my favorite Trek, DS9 was! So many great actors and deep characters came from that show.

BTW Galaxy Quest had more believability than new Trek

How can you say that any of them are better than the original series? Think of the short skirts, the gaudy colors (including those glorious colored stars in the sky, just like one sees on a dark night), the cheesy sets, the styrofoam rocks (or at least that is what they look like), the 1960's look of the future. Think of William Shatner's acting. Nothing can compare.

My BD set of the original series is one of my most prized possessions, as I can now see it in more glorious detail than they originally expected anyone to see such special effects. Truly, there is nothing else like it.

 

[Adam]

I just watched it today. I avoided this thread for months, and I'm happy to say that I didn't know a thing about the plot until I watched it. I quite enjoyed it.

 

[Alex2507]

I avoided this thread for months ...

You avoided a thread with "Into Darkness" in the title?

Then maybe I was wrong about you.

 

[gmichael]

You avoided a thread with "Into Darkness" in the title?

Then maybe I was wrong about you.

I don't get it.

 

[itschris]

Wife is going on a shopping spree today which means I get to watch a movie... the one I want the way I want. I'm going to watch this again. I don't have the strong feelings that Gene does about it. I thought it was a good enough movie. The action and special effects make up for some of the nonsense... similar to Pacific Rim where if none of them ever talked, it'd probably be a much better movie. Either way, both are pretty good movies.

One thing I noticed now is that every Trek film has to have the requisite scene of the Enterprise rising through a plasma cloud of some sort. I was thinking it wasn't going happen in Into Darkness until the free fall was averted and we break to the unassuming scene of clouds for a few seconds only to have the Enterprise slowly rise through the puffy white cotton balls. I mean don't get me wrong.. super cool visual.. but it's gotten a little cliche.