STAR TREK Sequel - "STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS" (SPOILERS)

[Eric W.]

Agreed 100%, Andy. I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels that way, since Giacchino is building such a loyal following. I feel guilty about it for the very reasons you mentioned, but at the end of the day I'm just not engaged much by his music. It's competent and pleasant, but there's nothing particularly compelling about it.

It's a puzzling disconnect seemingly:
Super cool guy and he's smart and when you listen to what he says you get the idea that he "gets it." I WANT to like his music and support him.

And then, shy of an ape job of one of the greats, I hear the results and I simply can't seal the deal and that's a shame. I've tried. Hard!


I don't have to go further back than his score to Abrams Trek 1 to prove my point. How do you get an opportunity like THAT and come out with something as lame, flat, and forgettable as that score was and with an orchestra no less? He really would have been better off by leagues aping Williams, Goldsmith, Horner and/or combinations thereof and I wish he had vs. what he put out instead.

It's a real shame.

[John Johnson]

Star Trek co-writer and producer Roberto Orci has posted an image on his Twitter account of the full cast and crew on the bridge of the Enterprise.



http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/news/a ... -crew.html

[Eric W.]

http://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie-tal ... 28738.html

[AndyDursin]

I still believe it took WAY too long to get this sequel made. Unlike every prior Star Trek property which started off life as a TV series and gave each cast a chance to take hold of their roles and grow into them, it's far more difficult to make a lasting impression when you make one feature film in 2009 and then don't crank out another one for another 4 years. Not only that, but Trek-starved fans have had nothing else to go on during that time either.

It's just not a smart use of the property IMO on Paramount's part. Abrams isn't so brilliant that they had to wait that long for him to become available, but they did.

[Monterey Jack]

When it comes to franchise filmmaking, you have to strike while the iron is hot. Two years later is the optimal release pattern for sequels. The same thing with 007...when Skyfall hits theaters this fall, it'll also be four years since the last Bond film (and six since the last good one). I realize corralling all of the acting and filmmaker talent takes some effort, but for a lucrative franchise like Trek, they need to keep cranking these out.

[Eric W.]

I still believe it took WAY too long to get this sequel made. Unlike every prior Star Trek property which started off life as a TV series and gave each cast a chance to take hold of their roles and grow into them, it's far more difficult to make a lasting impression when you make one feature film in 2009 and then don't crank out another one for another 4 years. Not only that, but Trek-starved fans have had nothing else to go on during that time either.

It's just not a smart use of the property IMO on Paramount's part. Abrams isn't so brilliant that they had to wait that long for him to become available, but they did.

I couldn't agree more and then some.

[AndyDursin]

So Cumberbatch IS playing Khan.

Swell.

Two films in the "new" franchise will LIKELY have exactly the same type of story -- a personal revenge type of premise -- that after 4 years (not to mention hundreds of other types of Trek stories) will mean pretty much the same type of film.

Must be about selling 3-D and IMAX tickets...lame.

[Eric W.]

So Cumberbatch IS playing Khan.

Swell.

Doesn't light me on fire.

Two films in the "new" franchise will LIKELY have exactly the same type of story -- a personal revenge type of premise -- that after 4 years (not to mention hundreds of other types of Trek stories) will mean pretty much the same type of film.

Not a surprise.

I can't say I really care much if this movie even gets made to be bluntly honest about it.

I know that's probably going to get me in trouble with you yet again on this subject. I liked the first movie for what it was but I didn't absolutely drop dead adore it like I know you did.

But even if I had: They've simply taken too damned long here.


Past that, I can't say I'm in the mood for another "reinterpretation of a retread" especially with a character like Khan.

God forbid they do something new and original, right?

To that end: Obviously the jury is out and I suspect when it's all said and done it'll be a good movie on its own merits just like part one was. I hope it's a great movie. I hope it's better than the first one.

Must be about selling 3-D and IMAX tickets...lame.

You know it is.


I miss REAL Star Trek. The warmth. The humor. The great characters. The interaction between the cast that made the characters more real. The writing. The great balance of story, action, with some meaningful going on with it all.

[AndyDursin]

I very much enjoyed the first film. Not liking it isn't "going to get you in trouble" with me. It's a disagreement, not a confrontation! I think by the standards of most modern summer time films I've seen in the last 10 years it was (much) better than most.

That said, I don't know why they can't give us something more than this, and as I've written before, 4+ years is much, much too long between installments of a series that used to be weekly on TV. Now there's a huge gap and they're not giving audiences either enough to fulfill their appetite (particularly the fans) or really get younger audiences involved with so long between sequels.

[Eric W.]

I very much enjoyed the first film. Not liking it isn't "going to get you in trouble" with me. It's a disagreement, not a confrontation!

I was teasing.

I think by the standards of most modern summer time films I've seen in the last 10 years it was (much) better than most.

No question. Granted that's not saying a whole lot but sure.

I was strictly speaking about it from the "Star Trek" angle. I liked it..heck, liked it quite a bit for what it was...but I didn't absolutely drop dead adore it.

That said, I don't know why they can't give us something more than this, and as I've written before, 4+ years is much, much too long between installments of a series that used to be weekly on TV. Now there's a huge gap and they're not giving audiences either enough to fulfill their appetite (particularly the fans) or really get younger audiences involved with so long between sequels.

Couldn't agree more.


Semi-related: Just the other day I fired up one of the Medal of Honor game soundtracks and I once again was marvelling: Where did THAT Micheal Giacchino go? Even if he was aping Williams and others a lot, there's some awfully good music he did on those things.

[mkaroly]

If I'm reading these posts correctly then the new ST 2 will be a rehash of the original ST 2, including Khan? Thumbs down if that be the case...

I just watched ST 2 again a couple of days ago...that movie has a profound depth to it...maybe it's because I'm getting older, but the acting, direction, music, story, dialogue (especially Spock's confession that he never took the KM test and then asking Kirk between gasps what he thought of his solution...how can you NOT be moved by that????)...I mean, it's an amazing film that fires on all cylinders.

All I can ask is why they would do something like that rather than create a new story...

[Eric W.]

If I'm reading these posts correctly then the new ST 2 will be a rehash of the original ST 2, including Khan? Thumbs down if that be the case...

Not a direct rehash if I understand right. It's going to involve the character but it's going to be its own spin on the subject.

I just watched ST 2 again a couple of days ago...that movie has a profound depth to it...maybe it's because I'm getting older, but the acting, direction, music, story, dialogue (especially Spock's confession that he never took the KM test and then asking Kirk between gasps what he thought of his solution...how can you NOT be moved by that????)...I mean, it's an amazing film that fires on all cylinders.

That's real Star Trek. That's what it's all about. These new ones will never reach those heights.

All I can ask is why they would do something like that rather than create a new story...

I'm really not sure about this. I think they are doing a new story.

Andy?

[AndyDursin]

Yeah, Eric is right, I'm sure it IS a new story, and isn't going to be a straight rehash of SPACE SEED. My issue is, even if the central premise (in terms of Khan's origin and such) is similar but everything else around it different, it's the type of story that's being done -- again -- that I have an issue with. We just had NEMESIS which tried a Khan type of story. Then the first JJ Abrams film with Nero that was, once again, a villain with a personal vendetta out for revenge. So I guess the question is -- why once again do we need to go down this road when the Trek universe is filled with different types of stories?

The whole thing to me is a bit distressing. The first movie did a lot of things right in my mind, setting the stage for a whole new series of films -- and what they've done is wait 4 years and then do another Khan movie? That's what I'm disappointed in. They should've gotten right back in play and made a film that should've been released LAST YEAR. If anything it ought to be the third film in this cycle coming out in 2013, not the second.

[Eric W.]

Yeah, Eric is right, I'm sure it IS a new story, and isn't going to be a straight rehash of SPACE SEED. My issue is, even if the central premise (in terms of Khan's origin and such) is similar but everything else around it different, it's the type of story that's being done -- again -- that I have an issue with. We just had NEMESIS which tried a Khan type of story. Then the first JJ Abrams film with Nero that was, once again, a villain with a personal vendetta out for revenge. So I guess the question is -- why once again do we need to go down this road when the Trek universe is filled with different types of stories?

Beats me. People running out of ideas yet again. Look at Hollywood's output.

The whole thing to me is a bit distressing. The first movie did a lot of things right in my mind, setting the stage for a whole new series of films -- and what they've done is wait 4 years and then do another Khan movie? That's what I'm disappointed in. They should've gotten right back in play and made a film that should've been released LAST YEAR. If anything it ought to be the third film in this cycle coming out in 2013, not the second.

Couldn't agree more.

[mkaroly]

Unless maybe the film has something to do with addressing the Eugenics Wars? If the Enterprise and crew are in an alternate timeline (parallel timeline...whatever) then maybe they're going for that? Maybe travel back in time to engage Khan during the Eugenics Wars...maybe in their timeline Khan lived longer, escaped Ceti Alpha V and conquered Earth.

Just thinking out loud because I would hate to see a ST 2 redux on any level.