Star Trek Into Darkness

[I'm Murrin]

I just got back from seeing this, and I think it was pretty good.

I don't really like the actor playing McCoy.


I do have a few quibbles, though.

1 - Wow, Klingon ships are way too easy to blow up.

2 - Why give the torpedoes with their special payload in them to the ship? They could've just destroyed the things themselves with less risk. Or removed them - seemed easy enough for Spock to do it on short notice in a crippled ship.

3 - The ship crash at the end was dramatic and all, but... as soon as the ship stopped the film completely forgot about all the damage and the lives lost. The human cost of that last attack by Harrison was ignored to go off on a foot race through completely undamaged parts of the city. No real impact was felt.

4 - At the end, when McCoy realises they can use Harrison's blood to save Kirk, they thaw out one of the other men from Harrison's crew so that they can use the cryo-pod to keep Kirk safe until they have a blood sample. Why didn't they just take blood from the guy they thawed out?


On the other hand, I liked the nods to the original films, and the reversal of Spock and Kirk at the end.

[Menolly]

Oy...

Murrin, perhaps you should but a spoiler warning up first? I have not seen this yet, but did want to see your opinion of it.

Glad to hear overall it got your approval.

[Orlion]

This just confirms that I will not be seeing this film.

[I'm Murrin]

Oy...

Murrin, perhaps you should but a spoiler warning up first? I have not seen this yet, but did want to see your opinion of it.

Glad to hear overall it got your approval.

I figured saying "I just watched it, here are my quibbles with it" was a warning. That said, I've now gone back and edited one thing. Still wouln't read if you don't want spoilers, though.

Orlion - It's not bad, it just has the same kind of plot holes as every film or episode of Star Trek ever.

[Orlion]

Orlion - It's not bad, it just has the same kind of plot holes as every film or episode of Star Trek ever.

I'm just not interested in paying money to see some loser remake "Wrath of Kahn". Seriously, the whole point (allegedly) of making a Star Wars rip off before was so that it would free them up to tell whatever stories they wanted to. Abrams literally had free reign, and instead decided, "I know! Let's revisit the one story that was done right to begin with! I'm sooo clever."

[Hashi Lebwohl]

I do know this--if Spock Prime doesn't warn Starfleet about things that are out there in their future (like Borg and The Dominion) then he is an ass. Will he warn the Klingnons that their power-plant planet will someday explode? What about VGER and that awful whale business? He has already messed up the timeline so he might as well take care of the other business since he has apparently decided to stay here.

I'll still go see this. It looks like a good popcorn flick.

[I'm Murrin]

Good point.

[I'm Murrin]

On further reflection, this movie's plot makes no goddamn sense.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

It probably isn't supposed to make sense. It is supposed to sell tickets because Benedict Cumberbatch and shiny new, young, hip Star Trek.

[I'm Murrin]

I feel like it could have made sense with some additional scenes, something that explained why the villain did the things he did. (Specifically, not generally.) If you threw in a scene somewhere that convincingly explained that he planned it all along for a specific outcome, it might make sense.

Spoiler

The outcome would be him getting control of the giant military starship. It's a pretty obvious thing to do: have the entire plot be a gambit by super-smart Khan to get that ship out in space and to get on board it. But the film actually leaves you with no real explanation, and only guesses that maybe that's what was intended. Khan's own words - not to be trusted, but not directly contradicted in the film as it exists - on why he attacked Starfleet don't work within that idea.

Does it matter if we know he's lying, if the film never proves it, nor offers an alternative explanation?

[aTOMiC]

Saw Star Trek into Darkness yesterday.
I found it very entertaining.
I don't care about the obvious references to the other Star Trek 2 so it didn't bother me.
I wasn't looking for problems and had no trouble just enjoying the film.

-nuff said.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

It wasn't a remake of Wrath of Khan, as people on many movie websites are saying. In fact, based on my recollection of WoK this movie was actually more entertaining and more satisfying to experience.

What you should take away from this film, references back to the original series and movies notwithstanding, are the clear parallels to our current War on Terror. Terrorist blows up something, attacks military people, escapes to a hostile territory, our military has to go in to get him secretly, and they are armed with drones/torpedoes with which to kill him rather than trying to capture him and bring him to justice. The moral is this: you must never allow yourself to become a beast when you are hunting beasts.

The film makes perfect sense when you realize that Admiral Marcus is working in collusion with Mr. Harrison except Mr. Harrison is going to double-cross the Admiral. Mr. Harrison is simply using the Admiral's plans to advance his own plans; the supercharged ride just happened to be a nice bonus.

I used to be a Star Trek fan until it got too preachy and too moralistic--only their way was right because they were so morally advanced, etc, etc, etc. Deep Space 9 was its last saving grace but I never watched it past Season Two. After that I ignored it completely...until Mr. Abrams' reboot. Now I like it again. Well, these movies, at any rate.

Extra bonus: Tribbles.

Extra extra bonus: Albert King's great blues song Everybody Wants to Go To Heaven But Nobody Wants to Die. IT is good to know that the blues are still alive in the 23rd century. We will always need the blues.

Unanswered question: what exactly was on that scroll at the first of the movie?

[dlbpharmd]

I thought it was great!

I don't mind the parallels between WOK - if you think about the reboot is on an alternate timeline, it makes perfect sense.

My only gripe is that I read the review on CNN.com yesterday morning, and got spoiled about Harrison's true identity.

[Billy G.]

Does Cumberbatch play the villain?

[I'm Murrin]

Yeah.

[peter]

I'm so far from being able to remember anything about The Wrath of Khan that they could have shown me the same damn film and I wouldn't have known the difference .

That said of course I'll see this (at some point). I'm no 'trekkie' but you gotta love these guys with their simplistic world view and pointed ears and stuff. Star Trek Rules OK!

(On the subject of ears "How many ears has Captain Kirk got? Three - his left ear, his right ear and his final front ear. )

[ItisWritten]

The film makes perfect sense when you realize that Admiral Marcus is working in collusion with Mr. Harrison except Mr. Harrison is going to double-cross the Admiral. Mr. Harrison is simply using the Admiral's plans to advance his own plans; the supercharged ride just happened to be a nice bonus.

I saw it tonight, and yeah, that's key.

Unanswered question: what exactly was on that scroll at the first of the movie?

I would guess that it was sacred texts of their religion, immediately discarded in favor of the ship in the sky.

[dANdeLION]

I don't really like the actor playing McCoy.

Did they change the actor? Because I thought the guy playing McCoy in ST 1 was a perfect fit. Either way, I plan on seeing it Monday.

[I'm Murrin]

Same guy, Karl Urban. The gruff act just grates on me, it never feels like a real person.

[dANdeLION]

Same guy, Karl Urban. The gruff act just grates on me, it never feels like a real person.

Understood. However, that's how the original McCoy was, and I always liked that character, because of his gruff exterior.