Virogen

Into Darkness Omega Sector Reviews and Ratings

Favorite Overall Trek Series/Movie  

202 members have voted

  1. 1. What is your overall favorite Star Trek series?

    • Star Trek: Enterprise
      16
    • Star Trek: The Original Series
      50
    • Star Trek: The Animated Series
      0
    • Star Trek: The Next Generation
      55
    • Star Trek: Deep Space Nine
      48
    • Star Trek: Voyager
      33
  2. 2. What is your overall favorite Star Trek movie?

    • Star Trek - I: The Motion Picture
      10
    • Star Trek - II: The Wrath of Khan
      41
    • Star Trek - III: The Search for Spock
      6
    • Star Trek - IV: The Voyage Home
      22
    • Star Trek - V: The Final Frontier
      4
    • Star Trek - VI: The Undiscovered Country
      28
    • Star Trek - VII: Generations
      11
    • Star Trek - VIII: First Contact
      64
    • Star Trek - IX: Insurrection
      6
    • Star Trek - X: Nemesis
      10


Recommended Posts

Okay, so here is my review of Star Trek Into Darkness. Bear with me, ladies and gewms. Spoilers will be aplenty!

Now, first, the attendance. The attendance in the theater was a crime against nature. Now, I usually go watch movies when there aren't going to be too many people. These times are morning to afternoon, and I try to avoid Friday's and Saturdays. But, of course, if you have an idea, at least ten other people will have the exact same ideas. And, there's usually at least 15 people in the theater, so not too bad. But, even with it being a Tuesday, graduations have been pretty heavy lately, so you have all the students fresh out of High school and your stay-at-home Moms taking their kids and so forth.

There was exactly 10 people in the theater. Two of those were me and my little brother. It was atrocious how few came to the movie. The only movie I have been to with less people was Olympus had Fallen (7 people) and Lincoln (3 people, including me). :cry:

Now to the movie. The movie as a whole was a pretty good film. As a movie, I think it really didn't do too bad of a job. Sure, there are gaping plot holes (haven't shuttles approached stars before? I'm sure they could handle a volcano). And yes, they used the reset button shamelessly. But, as a movie it delivers a nice story. Even for a complete remake of TWOK. :rolleyes:

Onto the characters. Sulu all but vanished along with Chekov. Sure, it was a nice homage to The Final Frontier using "Captain" Sulu to call out John Harrison with Kirk and company went to go grab him. And yes, it does harkon to The Undiscovered Country. But, Sulu and Chekov really were fighting for literal air to get screen time. Scotty did manage to keep in the game, as did Uhura, finally getting to use her linguistic skills with the Klingons. But, the movie was very heavy Spock and Kirk, more so than usual in TOS-Era movies.

Kirk and Spock's strained relationship was a very nice touch to the movie. Kirk trying to do his best to be the Vulcan's friend, and Spock pushing him away. It's later revealed that Spock simply can't allow himself to open up, because of what happened when Vulcan was destroyed and, in a sense, if he keeps people out and guards his already emotionally straight-jacketed self, he can't get hurt. It's wonderful to see him finally let go when Kirk buys the Farm. And it's also amazing to see Kirk really mature in the film, going through arrogant "Some rules shouldn't apply to me" to his more mature "I'm not ready for this."

Now, for John Harrison. Benedict Cumberpatch is a wonderful actor. I have never seen him in anything else (despite plans to watch Sherlock to see him in that), but he really sold me for the most part of being Kahn. Except, when he finally announced "I am Kahn" I nearly bursted in laughter. It was lacking any power for me (maybe because I love Ricardo Montalbon :inlove: and grew up watching him as Kahn). But when we see Kahn in TWOK, he brings some much power and presence into the scene, that Cumberpatch pales so far in my mind it was laughable. Even more laughable that everyone of the ship is like "Kahn? Kahn who?" When Prime Spock ends up talking to Beta Spock, and he talks about Kahn, there is so much more power to him talking in those few seconds then most of the movie gave. While he sold my little brother (who afterwards even told me he was guessing he was Kahn before Harrison gave his identity), I am almost sold. Almost. :cylonnono:

I love Peter Wellers and his Paxton. When I saw him, I wanted to shout, "Terra Prime!" And while I didn't much care for Carol Marcus (besides a few seconds in her skivvies) Admiral Marcus and the more or less intact Section 31 is just great. Although, I don't know how much I like him being pretty open and flippant about Section 31. His death was pretty good, I mean Kahn killed him.

Now, I really didn't like they had to almost word for word copy the Spock death scene for Into Darkness. But, say what you will, Pine and Quintino gave a d--n good performance in that scene! It almost brought me to tears, they really sold the scene. But, it did lack some of the power by being almost an exact duplicate of that scene.

The Vengance/Enterprise battle was laughable, as there was no real battle. It was what the Mutari Nebula and Reliant Ambush on Enterprise done by amateurs almost.

Also, they spelled Qo'nos wrong! They spelled it Kronos, which is the pa'taq way of spelling it. ALthough I do like we get the Klingons, even my brother says he much prefers the original Klingons to these rejects. Probably tried getting Michael Jackson's job but failed.

:soapbox:

But, I'd give it a 7 out of 10. While it does have a good story and some very good performances from the cast, it fails to deliver an original story and it evens steals from Nemesis Data space jump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, they spelled Qo'nos wrong! They spelled it Kronos, which is the pa'taq way of spelling it.

They spelled it that way in The Undiscovered Country too (in the subtitles, when Uhura is speaking Klingon).

I think that's just easier for audiences than to wrap their brains around "Quooo Noos? Er, Qih-nose? Quizno's?"

Edited by Sehlat Vie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't seen it yet, thus I probably shouldn't be posting in this topic. But I did want to say that from reading everyone's reviews (which I appreciate that all of you took the time to write out), I've found there appears to be a general consensus: as a random summer blockbuster? This movie delivers. In fact, that appears to be the reoccurring theme in every review. Even those who didn't like Abrams' '09 movie, you all seem to agree that if this movie didn't have the title Star Trek that this would be a decent sci-fi flick. In that sense, I can only say that Abrams clearly succeeded in turning Star Trek mainstream. I've heard people who say they don't like Trek praising this movie. Now, whether or not it's a good or bad thing that Abrams was successful is another topic.

I just wanted to point that out.

I'm still on the fence about spending money to see this movie in theaters (mostly cause of costs). Half of you aren't particularly different from me in terms of how I feel about Trek (and DS9) for that matter. I feel like I'll prolly say "huh. not a bad movie." BUT...."I prolly could've waited until it's in Redbox". kind of thing. I don't know. I'm just getting that vibe. I could be wrong. But I do think your reviews have opened my eyes a bit. So a big thanks to all of you for doing that.

Edited by The Founder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't seen it yet, thus I probably shouldn't be posting in this topic. But I did want to say that from reading everyone's reviews (which I appreciate that all of you took the time to write out), I've found there appears to be a general consensus: as a random summer blockbuster? This movie delivers. In fact, that appears to be the reoccurring theme in every review. Even those who didn't like Abrams' '09 movie, you all seem to agree that if this movie didn't have the title Star Trek that this would be a decent sci-fi flick. In that sense, I can only say that Abrams clearly succeeded in turning Star Trek mainstream. I've heard people who say they don't like Trek praising this movie. Now, whether or not it's a good or bad thing that Abrams was successful is another topic.

I just wanted to point that out.

I'm still on the fence about spending movie to see this movie in theaters (mostly cause of costs). Half of you aren't particularly different from me in terms of how I feel about Trek (and DS9) for that matter. I feel like I'll prolly say "huh. not a bad movie." BUT...."I prolly could've waited until it's in Redbox". kind of thing. I don't know. I'm just getting that vibe. I could be wrong. But I do think your reviews have opened my eyes a bit. So a big thanks to all of you for doing that.

If you can scrape together enough dilithium? You should really see it in a theatre (unless you have a 72" TV at home, of course.... ). I think 2D would be fine; the 3D didn't really add that much, although at least it was relatively unobtrusive. The only really memorably dimensional scenes were the beginning (on Nibiru) and on Kronos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, they spelled Qo'nos wrong! They spelled it Kronos, which is the pa'taq way of spelling it.

They spelled it that way in The Undiscovered Country too (in the subtitles, when Uhura is speaking Klingon).

I think that's just easier for audiences than to wrap their brains around "Quooo Noos? Er, Qih-nose? Quizno's?"

Officially, it is actually spelt both ways....therefore neither is wrong :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, they spelled Qo'nos wrong! They spelled it Kronos, which is the pa'taq way of spelling it.

They spelled it that way in The Undiscovered Country too (in the subtitles, when Uhura is speaking Klingon).

I think that's just easier for audiences than to wrap their brains around "Quooo Noos? Er, Qih-nose? Quizno's?"

Officially, it is actually spelt both ways....therefore neither is wrong :)

29490-Picard-applause-clapping-gif-s5nz.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, they spelled Qo'nos wrong! They spelled it Kronos, which is the pa'taq way of spelling it.

They spelled it that way in The Undiscovered Country too (in the subtitles, when Uhura is speaking Klingon).

I think that's just easier for audiences than to wrap their brains around "Quooo Noos? Er, Qih-nose? Quizno's?"

Officially, it is actually spelt both ways....therefore neither is wrong :)

Picard does not think so:

https://www.youtube....h?v=4UMxWrwPeto

Edited by Admiral Harmon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would've been impressed if the writers were smart enough to refer to the planet as Klingzai.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would've been impressed if the writers were smart enough to refer to the planet as Klingzai.

9R0Ae.gif

HUH?!?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Klingzai was the original name of the Klingon homeworld, and actually was referred to as such in a TOS episode. I forget which, but obviously in one featuring the Klingons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Klingzai was the original name of the Klingon homeworld, and actually was referred to as such in a TOS episode. I forget which, but obviously in one featuring the Klingons.

Really? I thought I'd pretty much committed TOS to memory and I don't ever recall the Klingon homeworld ever being given a name. Not even in TAS....

This sounds like a job for Michael & Denise Okuda's Star Trek Encyclopedia..... :vulcan:

*checking.... (one moment please :P ) *

Nope.

No mention of it. The closest I could find to an 'alternate' name for Kronos was Kling in TNG's "Heart of Glory"....

Memory Beta makes a mention of it http://memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/K'lai_Klinzhai ; it is the (non-canon) parent star of Kronos, but it was (apparently) never mentioned on screen.

Edited by Sehlat Vie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*checking.... (one moment please :P ) *

Now I'm hearing the TOS computer making that *CLACK-CLACKCLACKCLACKCLACK-CLACK* sound it makes when computing. :P

I'm probably wrong, but I recall hearing that Klinzhai (I unfortunately misspelled) was one of the original names for Q'onoS before it became Q'onoS, or even Kling. Then again, Klinzhai is also what the Klingon alphabet is called. So it's a multitude of possibilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*checking.... (one moment please :P ) *

Now I'm hearing the TOS computer making that *CLACK-CLACKCLACKCLACKCLACK-CLACK* sound it makes when computing. :P

I'm probably wrong, but I recall hearing that Klinzhai (I unfortunately misspelled) was one of the original names for Q'onoS before it became Q'onoS, or even Kling. Then again, Klinzhai is also what the Klingon alphabet is called. So it's a multitude of possibilities.

You're almost right... it's the parent star, so it's close. Like Earth and Sol.

As for the tabulating noise? I'm writing on a 7 year old Mac with a slowly failing monitor (curse of the vertical lines!) so your tabulating joke is NOT too far off.... :giggle:

Edited by Sehlat Vie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I liked the 2009 reboot but not so much STID. The problems I have with Into Darkness have to do with just that film itself not the reboot in general. Too many plot holes added up in STID for my liking:

 

1. Why would Admiral Marcus need to revive Khan to figure out how to fight the Klingons? It would be like someone today reviving Napoleon to figure out how to fight the North Koreans. Second of all, Starfleet has had 100 years to prepare for the Klingons by this point. The two sides have always been portrayed as powers of equal strength. The Klingons are a threat, but they're not an overwhelming one. Humanity also seems savage and primitive enough that they don't need Khan's insights. The humans in the Abrams films, unlike the Roddenberry series, would fit right into today's world.

2. Khan would never allow himself to become a pawn of Starfleet or Section 31. He'd never save Kirk from the Klingons. And he's not really that ruthless in this film. He should've killed Kirk right before beaming his corpse back to the Enterprise or fatally wounded him at least so he'd be dying and in as much pain as possible even as he intended to destroy the Enterprise. He does horrible things but he himself doesn't act villainous enough. The original Khan, as well as Kruge in "Star Trek III: The Search for Spock", were much more black-hatted, which is what Khan should be.

3. The movie was supposed to show Kirk becoming more mature and growing into an adult. When he's repeatedly punching Khan, he's acting like a 15-year-old. When he constantly turns his head whenever a woman walks by, he's acting like a 14-year-old. When he's having a threesome, it's like a teenage boy's fantasy. I see nothing in the film that shows he became more mature. All I see is a kid who had a bad experience and a rough mission, then made a good speech at the end. He's not an adult. He's still reckless. He's still immature. I don't think this is the type of Captain you want to send out on a five-year mission into the unknown. Is this who the Admiralty wants representing the Federation? The only rationale I can think of is to get Kirk out of the way. It would make more sense to have him in Federation space, thinking outside the box to solve unconventional local problems where he can be of help and they can keep an eye on him.

4. Spock is much too emotional. Spock shouldn't be yelling "KHAAAANNN!!!" and going crazy while fighting him. Spock shouldn't be jealous when Dr. Marcus is assigned as Science Officer and, yes, he was jealous. Spock wouldn't give Pike lip.

5. The treatment of Doctor Marcus is extremely sexist. She undresses while Kirk is in the same room and the only reason is to show a shot of her in her underwear. When she screams after Admiral Marcus is killed, it's like something from out of a '50s B-movie. They can't even stay away from the sex jokes while McCoy is down with her while they perform "surgery" on the torpedo.

6. Why would Khan's blood restore anything to life? They don't even try to explain it. It's just magic blood that can somehow reanimate every cell in your body. Does that mean Khan could be immortal? The question is never posed.

7. While we're at it, there's an entire ethical dilemma that's not even touched upon. Now that the location of the Botany Bay is known, should these escaped supermen and superwomen stand trial? I'm surprised they were all just left in suspended animation but that could've been mitigated if there was at least a discussion about what should be done with them.

8. There's absolutely no comparison between the scene when Spock was dying in "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan" and the reverse scene in "Star Trek Into Darkness".

9. When Spock is fighting Khan on Earth, it feels more like "The Matrix" than "Star Trek". And why just beam down Uhura to let Spock know not to kill Khan? Maybe Uhura is the only one who can get through to Spock quickly enough but she's Communications Officer. There should be at least one Security Officer as well.

10. Why would that officer toward the beginning of "Into Darkness" blow up a building just because Khan/Harrison saved his daughter? Seems like an extreme thing to agree to.

11. Starfleet has sensors, ships in orbit have sensors, spacedock has sensors. Why did it take Kirk to figure out that "Harrison" was about to attack where the briefing was being held?

12. This is last because I realized as I was watching that this was the least of the film's problems: if you're going to cast someone to play Khan, it should either be a Hispanic actor, like Ricardo Montalban was, or an Indian. The fact that a 1967 episode and a 1982 film are more diverse than a 2013 film is inexcusable. This is not to slight Benedict Cumberbatch but I think he was miscast, unless they had him just be John Harrison. On that note: I understand that Khan went by a false identity but, if you're going to have the false identity, why not go the rest of the way and have McCoy or Khan himself mention that he was surgically altered?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good review, Lord Garth.

Lots of good critical thinking going on. On a couple of points I'd just like to add/offer some bits...

Why would Admiral Marcus need to revive Khan to figure out how to fight the Klingons?

I don't think he intentionally sought Khan to defeat the Klingons. I think the Botany Bay was stumbled upon (by another ship) in this timeline, and a captain (more prudent than TOS' Kirk) probably just had the ship towed to earth right away, where once Khan was revived, Section 31 began to see him as a resource to exploit. The same reasons Klingons seeking 'super soldier' augment DNA basically screwed up their race for almost a century. Starfleet saw a cargo hold full of super soldiers to exploit for what Marcus saw (and hoped) was an inevitable conflict. He just didn't count on Khan being quite as clever as he was; much as Kirk underestimated him in "Space Seed."

And the reason Khan didn't seem quite as 'ruthless' as he was before, was that they used his people as bargaining chips (although I disagree on this point; I'd call trashing London & assassinating top Starfleet brass mighty ruthless; far more so than suffocating Kirk and co. in "Space Seed"). Khan is still a leader; and his people are his first loyalty. That was clear even in TOS, as one of his first concerns was reviving the rest of his cryogenically frozen followers ASAP.

10. Why would that officer toward the beginning of "Into Darkness" blow up a building just because Khan/Harrison saved his daughter? Seems like an extreme thing to agree to.

Most fathers I know would do almost ANYTHING to avoid seeing their little girl die. Khan might've also filled his head with other lies or misinformation about S31 as well....

7. While we're at it, there's an entire ethical dilemma that's not even touched upon. Now that the location of the Botany Bay is known, should these escaped supermen and superwomen stand trial? I'm surprised they were all just left in suspended animation but that could've been mitigated if there was at least a discussion about what should be done with them.

Some might argue that imprisonment in cryo-stasis is already a life sentence.... why revive them and risk a jailbreak/war?

8. There's absolutely no comparison between the scene when Spock was dying in "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan" and the reverse scene in "Star Trek Into Darkness".

This scene just made my wife and I groan.

It was a shameless, cut-and-paste job passing as scriptwriting. It crossed the fine line between homage and wholesale theft. And Spock's "Khan" scream felt inappropriate and embarrassing (the ST equivalent of Darth Vader's "Noooooo"). The scene that should've had the audience in tears was sapped of its' power by Orci & Kurtzman's hackish pandering and laziness. Shame on them BOTH.

12. This is last because I realized as I was watching that this was the least of the film's problems: if you're going to cast someone to play Khan, it should either be a Hispanic actor, like Ricardo Montalban was, or an Indian. The fact that a 1967 episode and a 1982 film are more diverse than a 2013 film is inexcusable. This is not to slight Benedict Cumberbatch but I think he was miscast, unless they had him just be John Harrison. On that note: I understand that Khan went by a false identity but, if you're going to have the false identity, why not go the rest of the way and have McCoy or Khan himself mention that he was surgically altered?

My wife and I went to see this with an Indian friend of ours and she (correctly) pointed out that the name "Khan Noonian Singh" is in itself kind of a religious/geographic jigsaw puzzle; it mixes Muslim and Sikh names, for one. Kind of like comedian Steven Wright's jokes about the 'beautiful, blonde Chinese girl' and her fixation on Jewish cowboys named "Bucky Goldstein." It doesn't really fit anyway; no matter how you slice it. So, it's neither 'correct' to cast an hispanic with a Spanish accent, or a pasty Brit with British accent (although British accented Indians are far more common than Spanish accented ones, as my friend joked).

And I assume (by inference, if not dialogue) that since Khan was given such a whitebread name as "John Harrison", he was most likely given a surgically altered appearance to fit the moniker. But I agree with you 110% that even a quick throwaway line explaining this change of appearance would've helped smooth over this annoying gap. Maybe it's explained in the deleted scenes, or a future IDW comic? At any rate, it was a bad oversight, IMO....

But on many of your other points I very much agree. This movie was entertaining, and I might even see it a couple more times in cinema, but overall? I enjoyed ST09 a bit more. This one had many gaps in the narrative (the "beaming through shields" thing really bothered me, too; see my lengthy review on the bottom of the first page of the thread); gaps that could've easily been fixed ....

Edited by Sehlat Vie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Virogen   

I finally saw it in IMAX 3D... and I need to see it again to let it all sink in... I think I prefer 2009, but I should see it again before commenting. One of the best Trek movies for sure, but does not reach Wrath of Khan....

+ The discussions about killing Khan with missiles ... and Kirk deciding to take him alive. I liked that.

+ The speech at the end - encouraging a much needed post 9/11 mentality.

+ Peter Weller was excellent.

+ Section 31 - I just felt such geeky glee to see a DS9 reference form the movie.

+ Carol Marcus. Nice to have another female crewmember.

+ Directing. JJ Abrams - you will be missed.

+ All the Trek references they snuck in.

- Khan. Benedict was underused... and surprisingly not as impressive a performance as I was expecting. There was no need to have Khan in this movie.

- KHAAAAAAAAAN... It took me out of the experience... It was so unnecessary.

- The transporters... gosh I wish they would decide what they can and can't do.

- Music was not original.

- Writing. Gosh I hope they get better writers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I finally saw it in IMAX 3D... and I need to see it again to let it all sink in... I think I prefer 2009, but I should see it again before commenting. One of the best Trek movies for sure, but does not reach Wrath of Khan....

+ The discussions about killing Khan with missiles ... and Kirk deciding to take him alive. I liked that.

+ The speech at the end - encouraging a much needed post 9/11 mentality.

+ Peter Weller was excellent.

+ Section 31 - I just felt such geeky glee to see a DS9 reference form the movie.

+ Carol Marcus. Nice to have another female crewmember.

+ Directing. JJ Abrams - you will be missed.

+ All the Trek references they snuck in.

- Khan. Benedict was underused... and surprisingly not as impressive a performance as I was expecting. There was no need to have Khan in this movie.

- KHAAAAAAAAAN... It took me out of the experience... It was so unnecessary.

- The transporters... gosh I wish they would decide what they can and can't do.

- Music was not original.

- Writing. Gosh I hope they get better writers.

I agree on all points. During the movie when Marcus beams his daughter off the Enterprise with raised shields, next Kahn orders Spock to lower his shields so he can beam off the cryogenics chambers. Why didn't he just beam them off? Yeah, and the revelation he was Kahn held no power for me except to laugh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The transporter thing really bugged me too; we saw Chekov beam two FALLING targets (I'd call falling 'moving') from an imploding planet's gravity well in ST09, yet that same wunderkind Chekov can't beam a single running target off of San Francisco?!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Benedict   

The transporter thing really bugged me too; we saw Chekov beam two FALLING targets (I'd call falling 'moving') from an imploding planet's gravity well in ST09, yet that same wunderkind Chekov can't beam a single running target off of San Francisco?!?

says it all about San Francisco. What a city.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The transporter thing really bugged me too; we saw Chekov beam two FALLING targets (I'd call falling 'moving') from an imploding planet's gravity well in ST09, yet that same wunderkind Chekov can't beam a single running target off of San Francisco?!?

says it all about San Francisco. What a city.

I love San Francisco.... it's our coast's answer to New York. :thumbup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The transporter thing really bugged me too; we saw Chekov beam two FALLING targets (I'd call falling 'moving') from an imploding planet's gravity well in ST09, yet that same wunderkind Chekov can't beam a single running target off of San Francisco?!?

That's why they should have had me write the script. I would have had it make sense. I guess it can only grab dumb blonds with good assets that are behind shields. :laugh:

Edited by Admiral Harmon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zef'No   

Although I didn't do it consciously, it was perhaps ironically fitting that I should see Star Trek Into Darkness 31 years to the day since The Wrath of Khan first premiered in cinemas.

I think the biggest complaint I have is that the film had too many elements to it, and it often jumped from one to the next in a rather disjointed manner. The lack of coherent form made it dramatically unsatisfying.

For example, in the space of a few scenes you have the Khan story, a Klingon attack, Section 31 and a rebel Admiral, Carol Marcus, bizarre torpedoes, the Spock/Uhura relationship, Kirk's career, Scotty resigning, scenes on Earth... and much more. Instead of focusing on telling a good story, the film was all over the place. It was a hodgepodge of disconnected elements that seemed to be competing with each other for dominance.

Then there's the beginning. Everything before the title was completely irrelevant. They could have saved a lot of money and just cut it all out. Obviously they wanted to open with a big action number, but they could have found a way to relate it to the main story somehow. The scenes with that girl in hospital also were irrelevant and unnecessary.

Yes, there was the whole Kirk's career thing, his responsibility, the Kirk/Spock friendship and so on, but that could have been done a lot more efficiently without that primitive race and their volcano. - It never really explained why the Enterprise was under water, which was rather ridiculous.

And after making a big deal about Kirk getting demoted, it was only a few minutes later that he was promoted again! - So it all seemed rather pointless (this instant reversal is echoed later in the film with his death).

So I found it rather slow to begin with. The middle was probably the best, but then it seemed to completely change the plot and end with something totally different. The things that seemed to be significant in the beginning just fizzled out without resolution. The "reset button" finale would put even a typical Voyager episode to shame.

It was nice to see London, but I would have preferred to see more existing landmarks. All I saw was St. Pauls and possibly the Gherkin, but the rest was just a sea of grey skyscrapers that could have been anywhere. It also didn't feel futuristic enough to me.

My other major complaint is the fact that large chunks of dialogue are taken word for word from The Wrath of Khan. The main culprit being the radiation scene; it was such a blatant rip-off. I hated it, it felt more like an amateur parody than anything else. Why bother recreate a scene I saw decades ago? - In TWOK it had weight because we'd known the characters for years and Spock stayed dead (at least for a while), but here Kirk was back to perfect health by the end of the film (thanks to some ridiculous magic blood which nobody seemed in a hurry to use on any of the other dead bodies around).

During the whole Kirk's death bit, everyone seemed to forget about Khan. I thought he was dead, but then he suddenly appeared again -didn't he have time then to do whatever it was he was trying to do?

I also didn't really think it was necessary to make Alice Eve's character "Carol Marcus". This is completely inconsistent with TWOK is several ways, and it just seemed unnecessary. It would have been a better fit to have made her Elizabeth Dehner (from Where No Man Has Gone Before), but they could have just as easily made her someone new. Presumably Kirk will have a relationship with her in the next film, but as he does this with every woman he sees anyway, it isn't really significant.

I didn't much care for Alice Eve anyway, I found her rather drippy. And of course there was that scene where she got undressed for no reason; completely unnecessary.

There were a lot of cliché action scenes that have been used countless times in other movies (Star Wars for example). The thing with the ship squeezing through the tiny crack, and the hand-to-hand battle on the roof of moving vehicles being two prime examples. Never did it quite achieve the same tension as the Mutara Nebula battle in TWOK (or the stuff with Chang in TUC). There were also way too many countdowns that get resolved in the last minute or two.

Some of the details of the plot points seemed to be lost amid the big action scenes, or else drowned out in a sea of loud music and sound effects. There seemed to be a few plot contrivances such as the beaming at the end; they could do it down but not up? Why not send dozens of security officers down? (And surely there would be enough security officers on Earth to stop him too?!) Then we've got transporters than can beam you half way across the galaxy, and blood that can bring back the dead. Hmmmm. Nevertheless, I don't think there quite as many plot holes as the 2009 film though. I'm afraid though that scenes like Kirk/Khan being shot towards a ship like human torpedoes really don't have any interest for me.

I hated the Klingons. They seem just shoved in the film without needing to be there and are forgotten about by the end. And, like the Romulans from the 2009 film, they did not look right at all. You would think security around the Klingon homeworld would have been a lot tighter, regardless of how remote an area was involved. Did I see Bat'leths though? - I'm not sure if they were or not, but it was a nice touch if they were. The Klingon language that Uhura speaks does sound authentic and very reminiscent of the pronunciation in ST:V (I have no idea if either are actually "authentic", nor do I care).

The Abramsverse seems a lot smaller than other Trek we have seen. Neither Earth nor the Klingon Homeworld seemed to have any big starships in the vicinity, and both planets seem to be relatively close together.

Leanord Nimoy. In some ways, it was good to see him again, but his appearance was rather a cheat and should not have been done. They wanted to have their cake and eat it, but asking him to describe what happened in his past seems to go against the idea that this is a new and different remake. Clearly events in this new universe haven't happened anything like how they did in the original, so what harm is there in Spock-Prime divulging such information? But then again, if there is supposed to be some kind of continuity, then that goes against their own rules because they've messed it all up big time. I think they really need to decide whether they are respecting the existing canon or not. At the moment, it seems like they borrow from it when it suits them, but ignore it when it doesn't. They need to pick a direction and go with it.

The casting of Khan was rather dubious. He was nothing like Ricardo Montalban. They also omitted a lot of his TOS backstory which short-changed the character a bit (he's supposed to be a clever leader, not an indestructible terrorist). And nowhere in the film does he have any interesting dialogue. Rather than having a personal grudge against Kirk, he was just painted as a run-of-the-mill bad guy. What exactly were his motivations; why did he go to the Klingon Homeworld? Bizarrely, Kirk and Spock both become a lot more unstable than Khan ever does.

I thought it would have been a much better idea if they had made Khan to be a good guy (as hinted in the middle of the film). That would have been a nice twist on the TWOK story, but sadly it was not to be. It would have been even better though if they had used an original character (like a Section 31 operative), or at least not one so iconic. If they really had to use Khan, it would have been better I think to have done a more literal remake of Space Seed (rather than TWOK).

There were a few good points about the film. The different uniforms weren't bad; a nice nod to TMP. I liked the reference to Section 31 (though it was revealed a bit too openly for a secret organisation). And the ship models in the Admiral's office were a very nice touch; I saw the Phoenix, the NX-01 and even an original Enterprise design that was also seen in the rec room in TMP. My favourite line was probably where Kirk ordered Chekov to wear a "red shirt", and the look on his face - You mean I'm going to die?! I got tired of him announcing "Captain on the Bridge" every time Kirk entered though. I also don't like the new warp effect.

I'm honestly not sure whether I preferred this film or the 2009 one, though if I had to pick, I'd probably lean towards STID being more satisfying overall. This one didn't feel quite as anachronistic which was good (though that may be because I was expecting it), and it didn't come with all the baggage of having to set everything up. It did share some faults however, like the sets and the music, neither of which particularly appealed to me (though the Engineering set was better). Like the 2009 film, it would have been better if they had made some use of the TOS theme during the actual movie instead of only at the end (the Alexander Courage fanfare at the very end was excellent, if long overdue).

I thought they got the Kirk/Spock bromance right, much more so than the 2009 film (although still room for improvement) - the characters must have developed this relationship remarkably quickly though. Kirk wasn't the exaggerated stereotype he was in 2009 and did (eventually) seem to grow up a bit. There were a few moments when Chekov and Scotty were just comic relief, but they both grew on me during the film and I warmed to them. Spock's hair looked less natural to me though, more obviously a wig. Uhura came across a bit wet at the start, blubbering about her precious boyfriend, and when she was finally inserted into the action at the end it felt a little forced.

McCoy similarly seemed a lot better here; his lines were very much like what the original McCoy would have said. However, they need to be careful not to make him a caricature; his constant swearing and blasphemy gets a little repetitive after a while, and although they ring true to the original, it is perhaps a little overdone.

They still haven't got the classic triangle quite right. Although Kirk/Spock and Kirk/Bones relationships feel a lot better this time around, the Spock/Bones element is almost completely missing. This was one of the best things about TOS, and I would love for the two to have some meaty scenes together in the next film.

I liked the mention of Nurse Chapel going off the explore the unknown or something like that. A nice respectful honour to Majel Barrett who originally played the character and who died since providing the computer voice in the 2009 film.

Overall then, I wasn't really impressed. It wasn't a particularly good film, although I've certainly seen much worse. Given the choice between watching TWOK or this though, I would pick TWOK every time. I wonder if STID will be held in as high esteem 31 years from now..?

Although I would not classify either STID or the ST:09 as being especially good films, I am finding myself beginning to accept the Abramsverse more now than I did. It's a more appealing universe than Enterprise was, and I would not be averse to seeing the same characters again, although I just hope that one day they appear in something good.

What's the betting the next film features a villain called General Chang..?

In a nutshell:

Pros:

- Characters are much more charismatic and seem more real here.

- Less baggage than the first film.

- Not quite as many glaring plot holes as the first film.

Cons:

- Complete lack of originality.

- Reliance on cheap tricks.

- Too many competing elements result in an unsatisfying hodgepodge.

- Cliché action scenes that distract from the story rather than enhance it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Benedict   

if they follow the patterns of the original films maybe the JJPrise will be blown to atoms in orbit of a new world with Chang onboard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anyone cares, the movie has gotten an average of 6.8 on the poll on this thread.

Edited by Admiral Harmon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems odd to me that there is a new ST movie out there right now, and I've only had the desire to see it twice. Usually I go see ST movies multiple times (I saw ST09 about 5 times or so). While it wasn't one of the worst ST movies for me, it was not among the best either....

I'd say a consensus of 6.8 (rounded up to a 7) is about right.

It's also reflected in the lower-than-expected box office. It still hasn't hit that magic number of doubling it's budget ($190 million; with marketing, you could round that up to $200 million). It's about $70 million shy of that (last I checked, it pulled in about $330 million internationally and domestically)....

Sad that movies have largely become a numbers game these days, but compared to its predecessor (which didn't get a 3D release either), STID has not exactly pulled in the kind of money it should have...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites