Star Trek Into Darkness [ SPOILERS FROM POST 452 ]

sink · 09-05-2013 11:04AM

Anyone else think the warp core look extremely like the experimental laser fusion reactor at the national ignitition facility.

Oafley Jones · 09-05-2013 11:05AM

People who go into the cinema with no more demand than "switch off brain entertainment" should be forced to watch Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen on loop as a form of rehabilitation/cognitive therapy.

sink · 09-05-2013 11:06AM

Also I saw it in the cineworld IMAX and it is by far the best screen for 3D. No ghosting and bright. It's so far ahead of the rest it's the only way to see 3D.

sink · 09-05-2013 11:08AM

Oafley Jones wrote: »

People who go into the cinema with no more demand than "switch off brain entertainment" should be forced to watch Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen on loop as a form of rehabilitation/cognitive therapy.

That film is **** not because it lacks depth but because it lacks entertainment.

Arciphel · 09-05-2013 11:15AM

sink wrote: »

Anyone else think the warp core look extremely like the experimental laser fusion reactor at the national ignitition facility.

Yeah, that's where it was filmed. When Chris Pine & Benedict Cumberbatch were on Graham Norton a few weeks ago they were talking about filming in there and a practical joke they played on Cumberbatch... see here.

sink · 09-05-2013 11:31AM

Arciphel wrote: »

Yeah, that's where it was filmed. When Chris Pine & Benedict Cumberbatch were on Graham Norton a few weeks ago they were talking about filming in there and a practical joke they played on Cumberbatch... see here.

That would explain the similarity alright.

smcgiff · 09-05-2013 12:47PM

doubledown wrote: »

Seriously - why bother with an alternate timeline if you're not going to do anything alternate?

Couldn't disagree more.

It's still a Star Trek Universe (just a different version to the original) and the major characters in the first universe still exist. Therefore I thought it was very clever the way they brought Khan or (KHAAAAAN!) back into it. In fact it would be less real if they ignored those characters altogether.

I enjoyed the movie very much, and wouldn't be a mad Trekkie as such.

The blonde lead had a cracking body, and they showed it off in a fairly gratuitous way (god love 'em), but she wasn't the prettiest.

Oh, and Spock's ears had to be the fakest looking ever.

FlashD · 09-05-2013 03:04PM

santana75 wrote: »

By that stage JJ and the lads will have already started on the next turkey golden goose.

.. ..if only it was that funny! SW7

doubledown · 09-05-2013 03:38PM

smcgiff wrote: »

Couldn't disagree more.
It's still a Star Trek Universe (just a different version to the original) and the major characters in the first universe still exist. Therefore I thought it was very clever the way they brought Khan or (KHAAAAAN!) back into it. In fact it would be less real if they ignored those characters altogether.

I enjoyed the movie very much, and wouldn't be a mad Trekkie as such.

The blonde lead had a cracking body, and they showed it off in a fairly gratuitous way (god love 'em), but she wasn't the prettiest.

Oh, and Spock's ears had to be the fakest looking ever.

I just found it very lazy

having Khan as the villain. Yes, of course he still exists in the alternate timeline but I think this crew needed a couple of adventures under their belt before being put through the ringer to such an extent.

When you give yourself the device of an alternate timeline you have an unlimited amount of opportunities to go wherever and do whatever you want. Sticking so closely to the narrative of the old films is just poor. At this rate they'll end up looking for Spock in the next one and then travelling back in time to save some whales in the fourth installment. And having the main characters follow

key scenes from The Wrath of Khan

almost to the letter, albeit with a little role reversal, made me roll me eyes. I'm sure non-fans won't mind too much but I think those familiar with the older films will feel cheated.

The beauty of (most) of the Star Trek films to date is that they have been so much more than brainless summer popcorn flicks. They have heart, meaning and, sometimes, a message. They are more than the sum of their parts mostly due to the great rapport and bond the characters have with one another. I felt this entry was just noisy and a bit of a mess. It left little room for character development or interaction. That's why I used the Quantum of Solace analogy (although this is a much better film that QoS) - this too feels like a clumsy, soulless follow-up to a fresh, exciting and entertaining reboot.

I do agree about the ears though! The don't hold up under IMAX scrutiny!

I'll be interested to see what fans of the originals have to say over the coming days...

titan18 · 09-05-2013 04:08PM

Not a trek fan, albeit loved the last film so went to see it today since I was passing the cinema. It's good, but not as good as the last one.

Even as a non-trekkie, I knew who Khan was and I did think it was a bit soon to be bringing him into it

. Although Cumberbatch did a terrific job so can't feel too bad about it.

Standalone parts, the acting is quite good, it's a nice looking film, and the plot isn't bad, although I felt it stretched a bit and felt overlong. It was a jump to jump to jump feeling and I kept on thinking this action piece was the finale only for something else to happen. It's only just over 2 hours but felt longer as a result.

Fault I have with a lot of these types of films, so not just picking on this, but

when Kirk is reactivating the warp core and dies etc, there's no tension as I know they're not going to kill off their lead

, which assume they're attempting to add tension into it, but there's no real danger.

Good film, but I wouldn't be rushing out to get it on Blu-ray like I did with the last one.

ScrubsfanChris · 09-05-2013 04:09PM

Nibiru

Think I was the only one there you laughed at that.....

I'm a bit of a novice when it comes to star trek, but I still didn't like the film all that much.
The opening was pretty rubbish, with a bit to much "Hey look, its 3D!"
The comedic elements were good, but you could see that ending coming with about 40 minutes left in the film.

I'd give it maybe a 6/10.

smcgiff · 09-05-2013 04:15PM

Titan...

I'd put the fact

Khan appears in spoiler tags

as I was surprised by this

even though I subsequently found out that there was a lot of speculation before release that Cumberbatch's character was Khan

, others wont know this and may be spoiled.

titan18 · 09-05-2013 04:21PM

smcgiff wrote: »

Titan...

I'd put the fact
Khan appears in spoiler tags
as I was surprised by this
even though I subsequently found out that there was a lot of speculation before release that Cumberbatch's character was Khan
, others wont know this and may be spoiled.

Good point, thanks. Hopefully no one saw that

FutureGuy · 09-05-2013 04:34PM

From a Trek fan.

Bumming Internet of an iPad in Manchester's apple store. Just out of the 3D IMAX. First time at an IMAX and loved the experience. Got a fecking gorgeous art print for being at the first screening.

Although there are certain aspects I'm not too thrilled with, I found it very VERY enjoyable. Sh!ts all over iron man 3. GF absolutely loved it.

so even though it was widely speculated, it was still a great reveal regarding Khan. Manly problem was that there was so little of him. Cumberbstch was excellent. I was very disappointed that we didn't see Enterprise vs Vengeance and Kirk vs Khan. But my main gripe, and this pisses me off so much, was the scene where they interrupt the story and gets bones to tell us all that Khans blood has mystery resurrecting properties, thereby nullifying death for the rest of the film. That in turn made a farce of the Kirk death scene. Also, Pines acting was way WAY off for that scene. On several occasions he looked like he was going to start laughing and say "haha gotcha, now you know feelings".

I need to sleep on it but I enjoyed it for what it was. A blockbuster action film. I have a feeling that the logical part of my brain is going to pick the film apart in the morning.

8.5/10

constitutionus · 09-05-2013 09:24PM

well just back from seeing this myself with one of my best friends (he's the treckie , not me ) .

****ing LOVED it !

after the lack luster iron man 3 that left me feeling wanting star trek into darkness deliverd in spades what i demand in a blockbuster.

its also the best 3D film ive seen in an age and plays to that formats strengths straight from the start. i dont like 3D as most the time its a waste but abrahms nailed it .

in fact the visuals in this create the most fully realised trek verse that weve seen so far IMO and its a sumptuous and beautiful one at that . TBH the one thing that annoyed me about this film is this is the same guys that wrote transformers

how the hell they can get this so right and get that so wrong does my head in and i can only presume its down to bay.

i can see how some would feel it serves up too much referencing of previous films that in this continuity have no place but TBH ive no problem with that as its inevitable in whats essentially a parallel universe and its done in such a way that if your a complete newbie youve no clue its going on.

end of the day though i found this to be a complete blast that hit all the beats a blockbuster should. its got humour, pathos, action and some nice twists.

8.5 out of 10 from me.

the only reason its not higher is im sticking to my reservation of 9 and higher to the truely spectacular. dong get me wrong this is a great film and one of the few where the 3D option isnt a complete waste of time. its just not "classic" status, mearly succeding where so many films lately have'nt in being a bloody good blockbuster.

roll on the next one

Slydice · 09-05-2013 10:28PM

I thought the film was really good.

Lots of hat tips to people who watched old trek such as:
Nurse Chapel
Carol Marcus, mother of Kirks son David
Khan
Christopher Doohan
Scotty sabotaging the other starship
Section 31

Hat tip (probably more) to new trek:
Discussion of the Bar Fight from the first film of the reboot

Robocop.... Holy ****, ROBOCOP!

That space battle, wow, talk about knocking the crap outta the enterprise.

Benedict Cumberbatch was great. Also, Khan is still alive so could be resurrected.

Kirks death scene (which got me and I'd say will get a lot of people)

Spocks anger! Older Spock "With that being said"

That Klingon who spoke reminded me of someone, was it Nick Tarabay?

One thing I think I spotted was that the Klingon homeworld Qo'noS had a moon that looked like it was blown up. If that was Praxis, then it should be too soon. There again, alternative universe... so klingons gearing up for war all the sooner?

I wonder if the transwarp algorithm Scotty invented can be blamed for some things starting to rush.

So much other stuff (i just can't remember it all). It's jam packed. Really enjoyed the film.

crazyderk · 10-05-2013 07:10AM

Went to see it last night in IMAX 3D and it was f*cking epic!!!!!!!!!!

Fysh · 10-05-2013 08:18AM

I saw it last night in normal 2D - I didn't realise there were full-IMAX sequences in it, I might have gone for a screening at the BFI if I'd realised (assuming 2D IMAX was available, that is).

I thought it was a decent enough popcorn flick, but depended a bit too much on a relentless stream of stuff happening for the story to progress - I reckon it could easily have been 15-30 mins shorter and been a better, leaner film for it. The story was pretty good, most of the characters are given stuff to do (though the female characters get short shrift again, which is a bit tiresome, especially given the gratuitous T&A scene).

I think I came out of it a bit grumpy because the third act was weak and badly paced - things like

the endless pining "OH NOES TEH KIRK IS DEAD!!!!" with OTT music cues when we've had a blatantly telegraphed Cure For Deadness established earlier on

had me waiting for the film to get the **** on with things. It was reminiscent of Django Unchained - a supporting actor was the most engaging thing on screen, so once he wasn't the focus, it all sort lurched to a crawl.

All in all, it's not bad, but as far as balls-out action films go it falls far short of the experience of watching something like The Raid for me.

This may have been covered earlier in-thread, but going right back to the opening sequence and the Prime Directive -

given that the tribe concerned were absolute primitives with no idea what's going on, why is it a problem that by seeing the Enterprise they've basically become a bunch of UFOlogists? It's not like one sighting of a starship is going to automatically take them from primitives to space-faring interstellar vandals.

pinkypinky · 10-05-2013 08:34AM

As a life long Star Trek fan, I'm disappointed...now I still enjoyed it thoroughly but it could have been so much better.

Cumberbatch was brilliant but it was such a cop out to be Khan after all this speculation. They wasted his talents on having something too close to the original second film. Carol Marcus was a barely fleshed out character and the scene in her underwear was pointless. I did love the Spock/Uhura stuff, nice snappy dialogue there.

johnpatrick81 · 10-05-2013 08:43AM

Anywhere in Dublin showing it not in 3d but in Imax?

Sad Professor · 10-05-2013 08:57AM

johnpatrick81 wrote: »

Anywhere in Dublin showing it not in 3d but in Imax?

No. Cineworld has the only IMAX cinema in the country.

peteeeed · 10-05-2013 10:17AM

saw it in IMAX yesterday , loads of good twists and turns and the interplay between kirk and spock is really funny . as with all IMAX showings get there on time, no adverts just trailers and then movie

Len_007 · 10-05-2013 10:39AM

Great show! Trek Lives folks, roll on #3!

Zillah · 10-05-2013 10:55AM

Fysh wrote: »

This may have been covered earlier in-thread, but going right back to the opening sequence and the Prime Directive -
given that the tribe concerned were absolute primitives with no idea what's going on, why is it a problem that by seeing the Enterprise they've basically become a bunch of UFOlogists? It's not like one sighting of a starship is going to automatically take them from primitives to space-faring interstellar vandals.

Oh come on... they

really blatantly showed us a scene where the aliens dropped the scroll they had been worshipping before, and instead drew a picture of the Enterprise on the ground and started worshipping that instead. If it isn't obvious that accidentally setting yourselves up as literal Gods for a primitive alien race is a bad thing then I'm not sure I can explain it to you.

Anyway, I enjoyed the film. Had no idea that

Cumberbatch was going to be Khan. On one hand I was a bit disappointed, because I was looking forward to a whole new story...on the other hand when it started dawning on me I went "Oh...oh my GOD IS HE KHAN!?"...which was cool.

I agree that the pacing was a bit of a mess, but I felt like it should have been a much longer movie for what they were trying to do. The

new doom-ship was introduced so late, and barely did anything and then stopped being relevant so quickly. Who's the antagonist? Cumberbatch or the Admiral?

Anyway, script wasn't great but lots was very good. I think there's a bunch of pretty blatant plotholes too.

Like,

why the hell did the Admiral give Kirk the Khan-crew-torpedoes? If he wanted them dead, tricking Kirk into firing them at the Klingon homeworld seems like a rather preposterous way to do it.

Fysh · 10-05-2013 12:01PM

Zillah wrote: »

Oh come on... they
really blatantly showed us a scene where the aliens dropped the scroll they had been worshipping before, and instead drew a picture of the Enterprise on the ground and started worshipping that instead. If it isn't obvious that accidentally setting yourselves up as literal Gods for a primitive alien race is a bad thing then I'm not sure I can explain it to you.

To my mind it demonstrates a misunderstanding of the Prime Directive by failing to take account for the Outside Context Problem, i.e.

for a species that's barely discovered the wheel, seeing a spaceship that implies warp technology is irrelevant, because the technology gap is too great for them to overcome even if they were to somehow grasp that the thing that rose out of the water wasn't a god or an animal but a ship.

It's not a big deal, I just thought it was a bit daft. Active interference is one thing (

Spock stopping the volcano's eruption certainly counts there

), but

an accidental sighting that, at best, means they change the identity of their non-existent deity isn't much of a problem that I can see, unless future Starfleet crew are going to start visiting the planet and interacting with them

.

Zillah wrote: »

Anyway, I enjoyed the film. Had no idea that
Cumberbatch was going to be Khan. On one hand I was a bit disappointed, because I was looking forward to a whole new story...on the other hand when it started dawning on me I went "Oh...oh my GOD IS HE KHAN!?"...which was cool.

I agree that the pacing was a bit of a mess, but I felt like it should have been a much longer movie for what they were trying to do. The
new doom-ship was introduced so late, and barely did anything and then stopped being relevant so quickly. Who's the antagonist? Cumberbatch or the Admiral?

Anyway, script wasn't great but lots was very good. I think there's a bunch of pretty blatant plotholes too.

Like,
why the hell did the Admiral give Kirk the Khan-crew-torpedoes? If he wanted them dead, tricking Kirk into firing them at the Klingon homeworld seems like a rather preposterous way to do it.

Yeah, I think I'd agree with all of that. Though

the "Khan" reveal was a bit "meh" for me, as I don't really enjoy all the winks to past films.

Sad Professor · 10-05-2013 02:17PM

This is basically a "not broken, don't fix it"-type sequel. Anyone hoping for a TDK-type sequel in which the filmmakers acknowledge the flaws of the first film and try to make something different and better will be disappointed. The first Star Trek was a huge hit with regular viewers. Die-hard fans had their issues with it but so many of their criticisms were contradictory or irrational. Abrams and co got so much abuse from them that they probably came away with the belief that there was simply no pleasing them and decided to stick with what worked the first time. The result is the Skyfall of Star Trek films: a modern blockbuster aimed at everyone and no one and with references/in-jokes galore designed to satisfy fans of the franchise.

I enjoyed it but I was also greatly disappointed. I was hoping for something deeper, more original. Instead Abrams did exactly what I feared he would do: recycle plot points from the old films while throwing as many set pieces at us as possible. It's good, even excellent at times. But where as I was able to suppress my inner-Trekkie for the first film, I found it much harder to do so here. I can't help but feel Abrams in trying to satisfy die-hard fans just ended up alienating them even more than he did the first time. You can't win fans of a franchise over with silly references. You do it by taking the universe they love so much seriously. Abrams is respectful of Star Trek and its legacy but he also seems to be trying to turn it into something that it's not.

Anyway, as others have said, if the film proves anything it's that Abrams will make a great Star Wars film. As for Star Trek, they need to get rid of Orci and Kurtzman and make something a little smaller and more character-driven next time.

smcgiff · 10-05-2013 03:54PM

Sad Professor,

Not sure what you're looking for.

What they do seem to be doing is setting up the next film to be the start of the 5 years of exploration. That should tick a few boxes for the old style trekkies.

I wonder will they give in to the temptation of introducing the Borg early in this universe.

However, it looks as if it'll be the Klingons (Which were always the best enemy imo).

Daemos · 10-05-2013 03:58PM

doubledown wrote: »

http://www.theeffect.net/2013/05/08/star-trek-into-darkness-review/

I have to agree with this too. I loved the first film, I think it was nigh-on perfect as a sci-fi film. But this one was lacking... something. I think 'soulless' is exactly it. I can't say what it was missing, but it was missing something

And forgive me, I'm not a Trekkie per se, so don't know all the details,

but were all the people in the cryogenic missiles super-soldiers like Khan? If so, why did they need his blood to bring Kirk back? Could they not use the blood of whoever they took out to put Kirk in?

Aside from that, it had some good moments, but wasn't that great. In comparison to the first film, it was disappointingly average

Daemos · 10-05-2013 04:01PM

smcgiff wrote: »

Sad Professor,

Not sure what you're looking for.

What they do seem to be doing is setting up the next film to be the start of the 5 years of exploration. That should tick a few boxes for the old style trekkies.

To be fair, they did that at the end of the first film too; all we got in this one was a 5-minute - albeit interesting - sequence at the beginning of this one. After that, it was all either set on, or linked to, events on Earth

I wouldn't be surprised if Star Trek 3 came out in 5 years, and opens with the Enterprise returning home

Goldstein · 10-05-2013 04:05PM

Daemos wrote: »

I have to agree with this too. I loved the first film, I think it was nigh-on perfect as a sci-fi film. But this one was lacking... something. I think 'soulless' is exactly it. I can't say what it was missing, but it was missing something

A screenplay and logic.

Star Trek Into Darkness [** SPOILERS FROM POST 452 **]

Comments

Star Trek Into Darkness [ SPOILERS FROM POST 452 ]