Star Trek Into Darkness - Part 4

Status
Not open for further replies.
In that case, I would say demoted, considering the life expectancy :p
 
it wouldnt be a promotion but more of a transfer...in Star Trek the motion picture he became the ships tactical officer....if they did the same in this movie it would make sense for him to wear red.
In 5 and 6 is the Navigator and Second Officer
 
roach said:
it wouldnt be a promotion but more of a transfer...in Star Trek the motion picture he became the ships tactical officer....if they did the same in this movie it would make sense for him to wear red.
In 5 and 6 is the Navigator and Second Officer
Click to expand...

Wasn't he First Officer on the Reliant as well? Looks like he's been up and down and all over the chain of command!
 
(UPDATED) More reaction:

Cinema Blend (positive)
http://www.cinemablend.com/reviews/Star-Trek-Into-Darkness-6394.html

A spoiler-free video reaction from Collider (Frosty) and Peter (Slashfilm): (very positive)
http://collider.com/star-trek-into-darkness-review-video-blog/

Drew of Hitfix liked it:
http://www.hitfix.com/motion-captur...nks-up-the-impact-for-star-trek-into-darkness

Jordan Hoffman (Who is a hardcore Star Trek fan, so a 7/10 is a blessing on his part. He also states JJ will make the best Star Wars film ever!)
http://screencrush.com/star-trek-into-darkness-review/

Mr. Beaks of Aint it Cool didn't like it. Beware: His review is spoiler heavy:
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/62238

Silias of our very own sister site cominsoon.net hated it:
http://www.comingsoon.net/news/reviewsnews.php?id=103724

BTW, the reviews are coming out of the woodwork since the embargo ends at 2PM Eastern. So some of these reviews are coming out a bit earlier than the scheduled time.
 
Last edited:
Octoberist said:
Three reviews, one mixed/negative and the others positive:

(Neg)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/filmreviews/10032429/Star-Trek-into-Darkness-review.html

(Pos)

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/arts/film/reviews/article3754180.ece

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2013/05/02/star-trek-into-darkness-the-bleeding-cool-review/

BTW, how does Rotten Tomatoes work? Do the reviewer/writer of each review have to submit to the site on their own, and does RT seek them out?
Click to expand...
how dare someone give trek a bad review
 
I think some of the complaints of the neg reviews seem valid, almost to what I feared about 'Into Darkness'. I still feel the same way (to a certain point), and it seems like JJ (once again) elevates the writing to make it all fun.

That's why I think JJ's perfect for Star Wars, especially when he's dealing with a more talented writer Michael Ardt. Like him or not, I think BAD's Devin Faraci is right that say that JJ's extremely talented but hasn't worked with any really stellar writers yet.

Judging from their past, I think Orci and the rest are good when it comes to chemistry and character relations but have poor plotting. But I don't want to jump the gun too much here, since we'll see if the reviews are right (or wrong) come May 18th.
 
Last edited:
At least that spoiler review cleared one thing up for me.
 
I do think the narrative choice of this film is baffling. You can't help it but to think about the previous film/shows instead moving forward. That being said, it sounds like on its own the film's a blast.
 
Octoberist said:
BTW, how does Rotten Tomatoes work? Do the reviewer/writer of each review have to submit to the site on their own, and does RT seek them out?
Click to expand...

Since the reviewer ultimately says positive or rotten, I'm pretty sure they have to submit it themselves.
 
Gauging from those reviews it seems like this is going to be more of the same from Star Trek 09', which is hardly a bad thing, and the mainstream will eat it up.

I just remember being heartbroken when my old man (a huge Trek fan) was so disappointed with the last film. The hard sci-fi, intellectual philosophy and existentialist themes far gone.

But it was somewhat of a guilty pleasure for me. I haven't seen it since that year. I think this film should be fun. But I do agree with the people that say 'it's not Star Trek'.

Edit: J.J. Abrams will be amazing for Star Wars though.
 
Last edited:
Smallville13 said:
Gauging from those reviews it seems like this is going to be more of the same from Star Trek 09', which is hardly a bad thing, and the mainstream will eat it up.

I just remember being heartbroken when my old man (a huge Trek fan) was so disappointed with the last film. The hard sci-fi, intellectual philosophy and existentialist themes far gone.

But it was somewhat of a guilty pleasure for me. I haven't seen it since that year. I think this film should be fun. But I do agree with the people that say 'it's not Star Trek'.
Click to expand...

I understand the perspective --- to an extent.

If the show is the aforementioned source of debate on philosophy, religion, and politics, yes, I agree. However, all of the Star Trek films, save the first one, have popcorn spectacle: revenge has been the primary plot thread in most of them (Wrath of Khan, Search for Spock, First Contact, Nemesis, Star Trek '09, and so on.) And the ones that did not have the simple, rehashed retelling of Moby Dick were completely out there: Insurrection, the one Shatner directed, and there's one other one I am missing.

In short, Plinkett explains the problem better than I can: I highly recommend his review of Star Trek 09 (the full one, not the teaser he did.)

One of the points he made that I like is that we will never have a film like the Motion Picture again: a thoughtful and symbolic film that captured the wonder of space travel.

With that said, I am excited as hell for Into Darkness. I like Abrams had done with the series.
 
jonathancrane said:
I understand the perspective --- to an extent.

If the show is the aforementioned source of debate on philosophy, religion, and politics, yes, I agree. However, all of the Star Trek films, save the first one, have popcorn spectacle: revenge has been the primary plot thread in most of them (Wrath of Khan, Search for Spock, First Contact, Nemesis, Star Trek '09, and so on.) And the ones that did not have the simple, rehashed retelling of Moby Dick were completely out there: Insurrection, the one Shatner directed, and there's one other one I am missing.

In short, Plinkett explains the problem better than I can: I highly recommend his review of Star Trek 09 (the full one, not the teaser he did.)

One of the points he made that I like is that we will never have a film like the Motion Picture again: a thoughtful and symbolic film that captured the wonder of space travel.

With that said, I am excited as hell for Into Darkness. I like Abrams had done with the series.
Click to expand...


All of this is true, and it has contributed to a very mediocre series of films.
 
jonathancrane said:
I understand the perspective --- to an extent.

If the show is the aforementioned source of debate on philosophy, religion, and politics, yes, I agree. However, all of the Star Trek films, save the first one, have popcorn spectacle: revenge has been the primary plot thread in most of them (Wrath of Khan, Search for Spock, First Contact, Nemesis, Star Trek '09, and so on.) And the ones that did not have the simple, rehashed retelling of Moby Dick were completely out there: Insurrection, the one Shatner directed, and there's one other one I am missing.

In short, Plinkett explains the problem better than I can: I highly recommend his review of Star Trek 09 (the full one, not the teaser he did.)

One of the points he made that I like is that we will never have a film like the Motion Picture again: a thoughtful and symbolic film that captured the wonder of space travel.

With that said, I am excited as hell for Into Darkness. I like Abrams had done with the series.
Click to expand...
Yeah I've seen that RedLetterMedia review and agree. The best sci-fi is films like 2001: A Space Odyssey and Star Trek the Motion Picture.

I guess it's just this new Star Trek verse is so far removed from any of the previous iterations. It really has jettisoned the whole ideas of exploration and learning.

That said it's a visual feast. I expect the 3D in this one to be amazing. I think Karl Urban is great as Bones, but that's as far as I'd go commending the cast. I expect Benedict Cumberpatch to be great though.

I will definitely see this film, but I can't say I'm excited. However Star Wars 2015, sign me up! (I'm much more of a Trek fan but J.J. Abrams is a much better fit for SW, so I think that movie will shine.)
 
Benedict and Chris have been on Graham Norton tonight promoting the movie and it was pretty funny.
 
Smallville13 said:
Yeah I've seen that RedLetterMedia review and agree. The best sci-fi is films like 2001: A Space Odyssey and Star Trek the Motion Picture.

I guess it's just this new Star Trek verse is so far removed from any of the previous iterations. It really has jettisoned the whole ideas of exploration and learning.

That said it's a visual feast. I expect the 3D in this one to be amazing. I think Karl Urban is great as Bones, but that's as far as I'd go commending the cast. I expect Benedict Cumberpatch to be great though.

I will definitely see this film, but I can't say I'm excited. However Star Wars 2015, sign me up! (I'm much more of a Trek fan but J.J. Abrams is a much better fit for SW, so I think that movie will shine.)
Click to expand...

We have to keep in mind that Kirk and his crew in Into Darkness have only been at it for a year. The actual plot of the film seems to begin while they are on shore leave. This is the reason Abram's films don't involve exploring. Because **** happens before they get to explore. They get side tracked by Harrison and his vendetta. If they do a time jump in the next one they could have them be in the middle of exploring and they come across something that launches the plot of that film. You could ask why they didn't do a time jump with this one, but I think it was good they are still showing the crew in their early years. They are still bonding and building the foundations of the crew that will one day reach out and explore the universe.

And for my own money I prefer Abrams take on film. On TV I don't mind the exploration and the more cerebral nature of it all week to week, but on film, when it all has to fit in a 2 hour package, I want large, grandiose, adventures and big antagonists. This isn't to say I wouldn't want an indie director to take a swing at a cerebral smaller budget Trek film cause honestly that would be freaking amazing as well. For right now tho, I wanna enjoy this more lighthearted action adventure approach.
 
Last edited:
Marvolo said:
We have to keep in mind that Kirk and his crew in Into Darkness have only been at it for a year. The actual plot of the film seems to begin while they are on shore leave. This is the reason Abram's films don't involve exploring. Because **** happens before they get to explore. They get side tracked by Harrison and his vendetta. If they do a time jump in the next one they could have them be in the middle of exploring and they come across something that launches the plot of that film. You could ask why they didn't do a time jump with this one, but I think it was good they are still showing the crew in their early years. They are still bonding and building the foundations of the crew that will one day reach out and explore the universe.

And for my own money I prefer Abrams take on film. On TV I don't mind the exploration and the more cerebral nature of it all week to week, but on film, when it all has to fit in a 2 hour package, I want large, grandiose, adventures and big antagonists. This isn't to say I wouldn't want an indie director to take a swing at a cerebral smaller budget Trek film cause honestly that would be freaking amazing as well. For right now tho, I wanna enjoy this more lighthearted action adventure approach.
Click to expand...

Why would a time jump be necessary? Why does the crew need to fight a terrorist in order to bond? Whatever **** that happens is entirely up to the writers. Why does Harrison exist at all? Its not like there is some crew backstory they are honoring. This is the story they chose to tell, not one that they had to.

Star Trek doesn't have to be defined by villains or villains with revenge plots for that matter. Unfortunately the films have rarely realized this which is why about half of them suck.
 
I think that one clip of Kirk interrogating Harrison allowed me to figure out how Harrison might actually be you-know-who. I'm going to post my theory here just so I can see if I was right after I watch the movie.

Harrison (possibly) indicates that a bunch of Enterprise crew members are actually sleeper agents. However, one has to presume that Kirk has known a lot of these people for years. So were they sleeper agents the whole time, or, are they actually not who they say they are and are actually members of the Botany Bay, made to look like the crew members?

In the prologue, Harrison indicates that he has some sort of formula (or some type of treatment that can help the deformed baby. Perhaps his formula can make a person identical to someone else, all the way down to fingerprints, etc. If so, then he could be Khan, and could have killed the real John Harrison and taken his place to destroy Starfleet from within.

Maybe not. Just a theory on how he could be Khan and yet not look like Montabhan and have an English accent for some reason.
 
^I'm sure it'll be something Abrams-y about the explanation. Though I hope in the third film they actually get a chance to go out there and do some exploration.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Poll Poll
Star Trek (2009) vs. Star Trek Into Darkness
3 4 5
Replies
112
Views
10K
MrMaooz
MrMaooz
T
  • Locked
Star Trek Into Darkness
39 40 41
Replies
1K
Views
37K
Thread Manager
T
T
Star Trek Into Darkness - Part 6
6 7 8
Replies
176
Views
10K
AVEITWITHJAMON
AVEITWITHJAMON
T
  • Locked
Star Trek Into Darkness - Part 5
39 40 41
Replies
1K
Views
37K
Thread Manager
T
T
  • Locked
Star Trek Into Darkness - Part 3
39 40 41
Replies
1K
Views
30K
Thread Manager
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)

Members online

Total: 3,469 (members: 26, guests: 3,443)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,273
Messages
22,078,152
Members
45,878
Latest member
Remembrance1988

Share this page

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"