Just saw this movie yesterday, $6 Imax!
I went into the theater with no knowledge of Star Trek. I must say, this movie was AWESOME! No wonder it got such high ratings. I've officially become a fan of Star Trek. Loved every part of it. The space and time traveling stuff are really interesting.
Now whenever I take pictures, instead of the usual peace sign or other things, it will be the "Live long and prosper" sign. lol.
Saw this movie last week. I watched a fair bit of the original Star Trek, a fair bit of The Next Generation, almost all of Voyager and bits and pieces of DS9. Also saw a lot of the old movies.
This movie is really solid... I wouldn't call myself a hard core fan but this will def do credit to what has gone before. Like others who have said it, this is a movie I could see twice.
lol if i wanna go to the movies i have to pay at least double that and i get no freaking Imax either ^^
I love what The Onion had to say about this movie:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02LgdXVkXgM
<@Terra> he told me this, "man actually meeting terra is so fucking big", and he started crying. Then he bought me hot dogs
I finally saw this movie yesterday. It was pretty good. Not quite as good as Star Trek 6 or the one where they return to Earth to save the whales. It was pretty much all action with some character/relationship developments.
Personally I'm not that happy with the entire "reboot" fad that is making changes to old favorites. Since I'm old enough to have enjoyed these series in their original glory and intended times in our cultural development, I think it's a shame they have to change these series to make them more appealing to the current generation.
One question that almost ruined the movie for me from the start: when the USS Kelvin first encounters the Romulan mining ship, why didn't they flee? Why did they sit there and take all that damage before surrendering their captain?
“For God will not permit that we shall know what is to come... those who by some sorcery or by some dream might come to pierce the veil that lies so darkly over all that is before them may serve by just that vision to cause that God should wrench the world from its heading and set it upon another course altogether and then where stands the sorcerer? Where the dreamer and his dream?”
Tho show the pathos...THE PATHOS!!!
also, that chick in the video Xan posted (in the TNG era captain shirt) had a rack that wouldn't quit. Yowza!
Anyone watch the second movie? Everyone in it was so sexay and awesome. I loved it.
I walked out of the 3D version after like two minutes, though. It... was simply not put together well.
"Leaving hell is not the same as entering it." - Tierce Japhrimel
I found the movie to be several times better than the new iron man movie at the very least. It didn't seem to lose much of its charm from the first movie, which I appreciated.
Yeah I just watched Iron Man III (yay, school's out), too. I really liked Iron Man III as a hardcore actiony feel good movie, but Star Trek II was a pure orgasmic emotional roller-coaster.
Can we expect Abrams to achieve the same thing in Star Wars?
OH GAWD CUMBERBATCH SYLAR CHRISTOPHER PIKE GUY AVATAR GIRL RUSSIAN GUY DID I MENTION CUMBERBATCH GUY DOCTOR SCOTTY OH GAWD YESSU
"Leaving hell is not the same as entering it." - Tierce Japhrimel
I didn't like Into Darkness nearly as much as I enjoyed the first one, and I would go so far as to say I was actually pretty disappointed when I walked out of the theater. I had mostly made my peace that this new universe was taking over and the Star Trek of my youth was gone but was going to be left to fade away without being treaded on. But instead ID kept driving home its ties to the old universe with the numerous callbacks and references, but it still took place firmly in the new universe with the new universe's style and the new universe attitude and the new universe's (lack of) philosophy. It felt like it was simultaneously riding on the back of the old universe and pissing on it.
But that said, once I put aside my Star Trek fandom the movie was quite enjoyable and I really liked it as a franchise-less sci-fi action adventure. The terrestrial action scenes were my favorite parts and what little there was of space combat was also very cool and left me wishing dearly there had been more.
For the most part I was not drawn in by the 'emotional' aspects of the movie though, since I couldn't help but be reminded repeatedly of Star Trek II, and in comparison Into Darkness felt clunky and ham-fisted, though I would not begrudge anyone the opposite opinion given the generational gap and difference in styles. I did like the handling of the villain up to about the last 20 minutes of the movie, up until then he felt very much a part of this new universe while still evoking a lot of similar feelings to the character he was a throwback to. But eventually he got a little too mustache twirling evil for my tastes given the different circumstances in the new universe.
Last edited by Yukimura; Sat, 05-25-2013 at 01:45 PM.
Interesting. How is the old Star Trek different from the new one?
That's why I usually avoid original source material until after I see the adaptation, lol. Lucky for me, I only ever watched Star Trek over my brother's shoulder, so I didn't have any hopes to crush.
Star Wars fans are way crazier than Star Trek fans. And aren't those movies going to be a total reboot? Anticipating all hell to break loose no matter what Abrams does! XD!!!!! Though, most of the fans I hear just complain about Lucas' three last movies more than anything.
"Leaving hell is not the same as entering it." - Tierce Japhrimel
The main difference I see between the old Star Trek and the new one is that the old one had a strong underlying theme of humanism and moral idealism and it would often explore the idea that eventually humanity would get over it's major conflicts and then instead of fighting and competing people would spend their time trying to better themselves and helping each other out. It was basically a functional socialist utopia since there was effectively no scarcity and that allowed stories to be told that relied on the notion that the characters were from a society where 'need' was almost never a sufficient motivator for action or aggression because needs could be met so easily without causing problems for others.
The new series doesn't give me any of those idealistic feelings. The characters in the new series feel like they could all have come right out of our society and their behaviors and actions make sense using modern points of view. I preferred Star Trek as a window into better world than ours.
A second difference that really bugged the Star Trek nerd in me was the looseness of the techno-babble in the new series. The old universe wasn't hard sci-fi by any stretch of the imagination but it did feel like effort was made to create somewhat believable and internally consistent technologies with understandable limitations that it required obvious effort to overcome. The new Star Trek is a lot looser with technological capabilities and inner workings and was more like a black box that produced whatever effect the plot needed to happen with minimal acknowledgement or appreciation of the difficulty therein or the need for consistency. Of course, only a huge nerd like me is likely to care about such a thing which I suspect is what Abrams and co were banking on when the decided to loosen things up.
I lot of Trek fans argue that the new movies completely miss the point of Star Trek. I would argue that not only was Into Darkness not a bad Trek movie, I would argue that it is actually a great one.
Mostly as an aside, it was a rather well accomplished media coup that most Trek fans thought for quite a long time that John Harrison was supposed to be Gary Mitchell from "Where No Man Has Gone Before". All the trailers deliberately showed him doing things that could easily be misconstrued for ESP and had promotional images to match. This was further supported by Alice Eve's depiction of Carol Marcus with the same haircut at Elizabeth Dehner from the same episode. They managed it well enough that I didn't even suspect it could have been Khan until right before he admitted it in the cell. They played it off well enough in the Kronos scene that it still could have been an ESP user.
Still, ID ties well into the 2008 reboot, and it is the events there where Into Darkness really cashes in on. Nero's appearance from the other timeline and the damage he did to the still-young Starfleet caused irrevocable damage. What this allows for is a bit of modernization of Roddenberry's Utopian ideals. Not spitting in them, but testing them. Nero repeatedly attacks Starfleet and Earth, and utterly destroys Vulcan, a fairly peaceful planet with a tradition of diplomacy and exploration. Suddenly, the leadership of Starfleet comes to the realization that there are in fact very horrifying threats out there, and this is exacerbated by the Klingons being Klingons. This is also shown a bit with the new uniforms that Starfleet wears in this movie. It is far more militaristic than anything seen in the other continuity. The more violent leanings are pervasive in this new continuity. The wounds that Nero caused did not heal well.
What results is that there is a very legitimate reasoning behind Admiral Marcus' secret plots to build the Dreadnought-class vessel, one capable of war, and as a nice touch, slight hints at the Mirror Universe's Terran Empire. There are bad things out there, things that threaten the peace of the Federation, and a possible solution is force. He opts to unfreeze Khan and use his intellect and ferocity as a weapon and a way to push the Federation into a position of dominance, rather than diplomacy.
What makes ID a great Trek movie is Kirk's development into a responsible captain. Nero killed the father he idolized in the primary universe. As a result, we got a much more impulsive Kirk that was far more willing to skirt the rules, disobey authority, and act more gung-ho and think and plan less. He admits as much multiple times in the two movies when comparing himself to Spock. In the end, Kirk still manages to find a father figure in Admiral Pike. It is the loss of this father figure that almost pushes Kirk to the point of no return, where he would align far more with Admiral Marcus that he would with the Kirk of TOS and films. The fact that he hadn't lost a single crew member since taking over left him cocky and full of bravado. A cavalier attitude when he should have one representing actual leadership.
Despite his rage at John Harrison, for killing the father figure in his life, Kirk still manages to listen to his friends and crew. He accepts Scotty's resignation in a fit of rage and isn't thinking clearly or responsibly. He's just following orders, not thinking for himself. Yet the reservations that his crew had expressed to him still resonated, and he disobeyed the plan Admiral Marcus set out.
Kirk eventually gets out his frustration in a poor attempt to physically subdue Khan. But he still captures him instead of killing him, and even talks to him instead of simply bringing him back to Admiral Marcus. This shows that despite the off the rails attitude that we saw in the early parts of ID and throughout the 2008 reboot (including firing all out at Nero's ship as he is getting sucked into the black hole...), Kirk is developing some of the appropriate ideals of Roddenberry's vision, mostly through the guidance that Admiral Pike showed him. Kirk accepted Pike's judgment that he simply wasn't ready for captaincy, and was willing to learn again. This shined through more than Kirk's grief and anger.
This plays well with the ultimate conclusion of the film. In stark comparison to Wrath of Khan or even TOS, Kirk and crew manage to overcome their hatred of Khan for all the betrayals and all the things he had done, and capture him peacefully instead of continuing the cycle of rage. They don't banish him and his people (which ultimately caused the events of Wrath of Khan), they return him to sleep with the rest of his own crew, a fate that Khan suggests to Admiral Marcus as he was killing him. In addition, Original Spock warned Alternate Spock that Khan was not to be trusted, and implied that only Khan's death could result. While angry and more than willing to kill him, Spock (with help from Uhura and Bones) is ultimately the one who makes the decision to spare Khan. This compassion and understanding from the Enterprise crew is what had been missing from the reboot film, and was a strong theme of TOS up through TNG.
This turnabout results in the alternate timeline to start to return to the more Utopian ideals of the original, modernized. They recognize that there are threats out there, but Kirk learns responsibility and the value of having good council with his crew. The voices of many are better than a single voice. That ending the cycle of violence is preferable to getting into an arms race. You have to look at both films to see why ID is a great Trek film. The ripples of change from Nero's actions altered a great deal more than the obvious things, it had begun to alter the entire outlook of the Federation. Even with all the changes, ID was a story about redemption of the Utopian ideals that had been poisoned in the later series of the original timeline. Despite all the horrible things that happened to Kirk and Spock, far worse than anything either of the two of them faced in TOS or the movies, they still uphold an inspirational vision of the future, rather than a more Han Solo and pointy-eared-Jedi vibe.
Yes, it is an action film....but it is also still a cerebral one, despite what a lot of detractors might say the series has devolved into with the reboots.
I lost all stamina to write anything deeper here after struggling through Ryll's post that was longer than the bloody movie itself, so I'll just say I was entertained by the movie. It looked great and while all the hardboiled action, militaristic aspects, pessimistic views and the generally grim world felt different compared to the original utopia, what Ryll said is also true in my opinion. The fact they still launched the five years mission instead of staying home preparing for a war already tells they want to believe in exploration and meeting new people, not the inevitability of ruination and suffering.
I think most normal people today understand more than the technobabble found in the old and new star trek(s). :P
I don't think they need to explain as much as they use to.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
