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

[AndyDursin]

If anything, this sounds like they dashed off the script pretty quickly and assumed that it would all hang together on the action beats. Does this sound accurate to people who have seen the movie?

The whole movie is comprised of action beats. It never stops.

For a movie that took SO LONG to get produced, the biggest shock is how poor the screenplay is.

[Edmund Kattak]

I'm avoiding the plot discussion here, but in looking at the other descriptions, it sounds like my fears about this franchise were well founded.

If anything, this sounds like they dashed off the script pretty quickly and assumed that it would all hang together on the action beats. Does this sound accurate to people who have seen the movie?

I would say this sounds very accurate. It almost seems to be integrated into their ticket-sales strategy. If we make a film that appeals to the Trekkers/ies that leverages all of the elements that gave Star Trek its cult identity and allowed it to rise from the ashes in 1970's, then we'd only be attracting a small minority compared to what we could attract by emphasizing big action, loud attention grabbing sound design, and a blonde chick in a bikini. Yes, I said it correctly - a blonde chick wearing what amounts to a futuristic bikini (Not that Alice Eve didn't look good in that).

But hey, we can really seal (no offense to seals) the deal on the modernistic sensibility and have Kirk briefly waking up with two chicks in his bed - one of them with an incredible tail (was that scene meant as a double-entente?). But that's not all. If you act now, just give us $12.75 (May be less in your area) and we'll throw7n in the following bonus items: Spock and Uhura's brooding relationship, Starfleet dress uniforms with Starship-Troopers looking military caps, some bad rap music in a futuristic bar, The Needs of the Many Outweigh the Needs of the Few version 1.5, Benedict Cumberbach proclaiming that he is not John Harrison but "...KHAAAAANNNNNN..." quite awkwardly, Spock screaming "...KKKKKKHHHHHAAAAAAANNNNNN...." later on, Poor Peter Weller looking confused as if nobody told him that Star Trek: Enterprise was canceled 8 years ago or so.

I kept thinking to myself an observation that Andy made with IRON MAN 3. "...IRON MAN 3 was a smart script." Bingo! Star Trek: Into Darkness was a dumb script which tried to be everything they wanted it to be for the goal of ticket sales, but nothing in the form of coherently smart film-making.

[Eric W.]

I know how much Andy loved the first one to see this from him tells me my worst fears and concerns are clearly justified now. That's a real shame.


Given that the writers on this are the same one that took us on the shaggy dog story known as Lost I can't say I'm too surprised but after all this time and delay, there's NO excuses for this movie being as bad as what I'm getting from all of you clearly.

Between that and the box office numbers: I guess that's it for Star Trek.



I wonder if they'll ruin Star Wars like this, too? I have very little confidence in that. I've been mixed about it but seeing the likes of this really makes me have serious concerns about that.

If they do make a third film, it has to be without Abrams and his team. Time to move on to someone else. If they don't make another one, Paramount screwed up again (but this time we can't blame Rick Berman).

If they ever do it again and at this point I have serious doubts they need to bring in people that actually KNOW Star Trek intimately and know what it's supposed to be or honestly? Don't bother.

[AndyDursin]

The only thing we can be thankful for with Star Wars is Abrams writing crew isn't involved.

[Eric W.]

I guess this will be a love/hate thing.

Here's what a friend of mine wrote me:




Me: The consensus I'm gathering on this is "great action/'meh' script and story. It shouldn't have taken them this long to get it out."

Agree or disagree?


Them:

Eric, I thoroughly enjoyed it, and so did both of the guys who saw it with me. Many clever nods to the TV series, too. I'd give it an A-.

Fast, fast, fast paced, lots of action, great use of 3D.

By comparison, I'd give Oblivion a C+, even though it had lots of pretty pictures.
Haven't seen Iron Man, so I can't compare.

I guess he saw a different Star Trek movie than some of you did or went in with different expectations...or sumthin'.

[AndyDursin]

"Clever nods to the TV series" -- seriously!?!? I definitely would not use the word "clever" to describe any part of this film.

I went in with no expectations at all, having read the disparity of reviews, so I was ready for anything. Suffice to say I thought it was just loud, shrill, endless and poorly executed. It's dumb, wall to wall action without any dramatic meat to it. Maybe if you wanted STAR TREK handled as if it were the TRANSFORMERS it'd work, but that's the last thing I was expecting.

You can read my review for the rest of my thoughts, it's too long to type.

Other reviews along my thinking -- one of the best is Nordling's over at AICN. I totally agree with his analysis.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/62468

Lou Lemenick in the NY Post (1.5 stars) --

http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/m ... rce=feedly

AO Scott in the NY Times:

http://movies.nytimes.com/2013/05/16/mo ... d=all&_r=1&

[Eric W.]

I think my friend went in for the action and got what he wanted.

I have NO doubts when the time comes and I see this thing...and I'm in no hurry...I'm going to be AT LEAST as displeased with it as you and those other reviewers are especially given that I was a little more critical about the first one than you were.

That's too bad.

[DavidBanner]

I would also caution people against thinking of this as a true 3D movie. It is not, and was never shot or designed as such.

Unlike "Spiderman" or "Prometheus" from last year, this one was shot with 2D equipment and then converted in post. They shot some elements here and there that could be used for the 3D but the movie wasn't composed for it - and from the accounts I've read, this would probably have been beyond them.

My one friend that wanted to see the movie took his wife and kids to it Saturday. He tells me he had a great time. That isn't enough to get me to see the movie. I tend to agree with the cinematic opinions I read here, so I'm happy to wait for the home video version and save my money. (My friend says he saved on the tickets by using coupons, but I have a feeling he still wound up spending about a hundred bucks by the time he was done for even the discounted prices and then the parking, the concessions, etc.)

[DavidBanner]

One other caution: Watch out on the home video release. Disney is trying a fast one with the Oz movie, where they're just putting out the 3D disc by itself for the inflated pricing that was meant to cover the inclusion of the regular Blu-ray disc and bonus content. (And now they say they'll send you the 2D as well if you just buy the 3D and then fork over another 6 bucks!)

I wonder if Paramount is going to play the same game here. Release a comprehensive Blu-ray like before, which would include the making-of materials that people like me prefer to have, and then have a separate 3D BD with nothing but the 3D version on it, for an inflated price...

[AndyDursin]

Thankfully, as with IRON MAN 3 a week ago, I saw the 2D version. Our local theater has been putting the 2D versions into larger auditoriums lately and sticking the 3D versions in smaller theaters...hopefully that's a sign that interest is finally waning because it was the opposite a couple of years ago.

I did see OZ in 3D but I believe that was shot for the 3D process (certainly it was one of the best 3D films I've seen theatrically). I'm trying to avoid conversions whenever possible.

[tjguitar85]

What didn't you guys like about the Nimoy cameo? I honestly have forgotten the plot point by now, but I seem to recall it being relevant to new Spock saving the day or something.

[AndyDursin]

He showed up to tell "young Spock" he battled Khan in Star Trek II but at a "great cost." Translation: please watch the Blu-Ray or DVD if you haven't already. lol.

Seriously, it was pointless. Totally disposable, served no purpose other than to shoehorn him into the film for a few seconds.

[mkaroly]

He showed up to tell "young Spock" he battled Khan in Star Trek II but at a "great cost." Translation: please watch the Blu-Ray or DVD if you haven't already. lol.

Seriously, it was pointless. Totally disposable, served no purpose other than to shoehorn him into the film for a few seconds.

Yeah - after reflecting on it, it was corny. It is like Real Spock has become an "oracle" to which the alternate timeline crew can go to for advice. Doesn't work!

[AndyDursin]

He showed up to tell "young Spock" he battled Khan in Star Trek II but at a "great cost." Translation: please watch the Blu-Ray or DVD if you haven't already. lol.

Seriously, it was pointless. Totally disposable, served no purpose other than to shoehorn him into the film for a few seconds.

Yeah - after reflecting on it, it was corny. It is like Real Spock has become an "oracle" to which the alternate timeline crew can go to for advice. Doesn't work!

Maybe I missed something, but it had no purpose. He didn't share any information other than telling him Khan was a bad guy. Didn't we (and they) already know that? It was like it was there only for young, non-Star Trek fans to wonder what happened in the 1982 movie, and probably go and rent it after the film was over. And for old Trek fans, just another, fleeting opportunity to see Nimoy on-screen again. In terms of the story, it was pointless and should've been trimmed.