It has a name: Star Trek: Into Darkness.
- Thread starter Overmind One
- Start date
Um, that was REALLY hard to watch.
Too much of the two dumb dudes with the hokey electronics shop and bland "comedy". And way Waaaaaaay too long. This is short and sweet and says the same thing with much less filler and distracting bad jokes:But thanks for posting the one you did! I saw this shortly after it came out. Huge disappointment.
But I expected as much, because Abrams cant write Star Trek. But whomever is responsible for picking the new cast is brilliant. The look of them and their chemistry together is great 
but the writing, the ship, the interpretation of Trek needs to be un-reimagined and brought closer in line with the original.You cant change the Klingons. You cant put helmets on them and dress them in robes.
You cant create huge plotholes and re-use Trek's most iconic characters and not know what to do with them (Kahn).
You cant have people beaming from Earth to Quo'nos using a briefcase sized transporter when they could not even do that in TNG or Voyager.
Phasers do not have moving parts.
There was room for some updating, but not complete making over. Abrams will ruin Star Wars as well. He wants to "make it his own", and that means changing fundamental things in it and I think Star wars fans will hate it like I hate his Star Trek films. Funny, when the first one came out, I sorta liked it. But now, three years later, I dont like it anymore.
I liked the "Half in the Bag" review because the fact that they dig into the film and dissect why it not only wasn't really Trek but also wasn't even a good action film more than offset (for me) the 6 minutes they spent on the comedy subplot. They use the comedy backdrop as a sort of intro to a movie review show. While I do wish they would just do a movie review with no backstory I have to like the depth and perceptiveness of their analysis - that they are both drama majors and filmmakers in their own right shows.
And that was what honked me off about this film. I could have overlooked partly it's non-Trekness had it still been a well executed action film. However it wasn't. The plot was complete nonsense Trek or no Trek and the character portrayals (partly because the plot was so stupid) were idiotic.
It made me wonder what happened after Trek 09? That film had some minor visual miscues but overall was a good Trek story with well acted Trek characters and got the Trek feel right. This one was darker, moody slop with no logical story and really bad characterizations.
And that was what honked me off about this film. I could have overlooked partly it's non-Trekness had it still been a well executed action film. However it wasn't. The plot was complete nonsense Trek or no Trek and the character portrayals (partly because the plot was so stupid) were idiotic.
It made me wonder what happened after Trek 09? That film had some minor visual miscues but overall was a good Trek story with well acted Trek characters and got the Trek feel right. This one was darker, moody slop with no logical story and really bad characterizations.
Agree mostly, except the bolded. The Trek feel was recognizable, only in context of TOS, but not after that. One of the very basics was the ship itself. It just does not make sense...the way it looks, its overall design, the interior elements, it does not seem like the sort of ship that engineers would build. It has horrible ergonomics and stylistic elements that look completely out of place, and are actually worse than the flashing lights they had in the original series.
I have used arrows to point out the most painful of JJ's additions to the Bridge, but if I pointed everything out, the thing would look like a whole tribe of Native Americans went postal on the picture.
Its an orgy of acrylic and lights, WAAAAAAAY overdone, and looks completely non-functional as a ship, but is very passable as a bar or an Apple Store. I cant feel like Im watching Trek with such glaring gaudiness. I cant internalize what sort of Starfleet would build such a monstrous bridge. And the "transwarp beaming" thing makes the need for ships unnecessary. They used it as a deus ex machina in the first Abrams Trek, but in the second one they used it again tio beam Kahn (
) to Quo'nos? Did JJ really think that nobody wondered why those photon torpedo cases containing the rest of Kahn's people couldnt just be beamed to Quo'nos from the USS Vengeance?This movie was only Trek-like.
I think it's interesting Overmind - you are more of a visual person than I am. I classified the bridge and such under visual miscues while to you they are integral to the feel of the film. Not right or wrong just an interesting aside on how we perceive things. I understood why Abrams went light and airy on the interiors as it was part of his trying to communicate an optimistic future view to the film. To you it is just not Trek in that respect.
The Transwarp beaming plot device was a little naff but not abused in the first film, where it was more an answer to how to beam someone into a ship at Warp. In the second film it now can beam people across the galaxy (No need for starships anymore ). Silly usage undermined the story.
Either way, I think we both agree that Into Darkness should be cast just there - Into Darkness. It is a cinematic abomination. It still baffles me that the same person who wrote a nice Trek-lite (but with the right Tone, feel and mood) story for 09 wrote this incoherent, dark, brooding nonsense. Too many mushrooms I guess....
The Transwarp beaming plot device was a little naff but not abused in the first film, where it was more an answer to how to beam someone into a ship at Warp. In the second film it now can beam people across the galaxy (No need for starships anymore
). Silly usage undermined the story.Either way, I think we both agree that Into Darkness should be cast just there - Into Darkness. It is a cinematic abomination. It still baffles me that the same person who wrote a nice Trek-lite (but with the right Tone, feel and mood) story for 09 wrote this incoherent, dark, brooding nonsense. Too many mushrooms I guess....
heisenberg
Earl Grey
Um, that was REALLY hard to watch.
But thanks for posting the one you did! I saw this shortly after it came out. Huge disappointment.
You cant change the Klingons. You cant put helmets on them and dress them in robes.
You cant create huge plotholes and re-use Trek's most iconic characters and not know what to do with them (Kahn).
You cant have people beaming from Earth to Quo'nos using a briefcase sized transporter when they could not even do that in TNG or Voyager.
Phasers do not have moving parts.
There was room for some updating, but not complete making over. Abrams will ruin Star Wars as well. He wants to "make it his own", and that means changing fundamental things in it and I think Star wars fans will hate it like I hate his Star Trek films. Funny, when the first one came out, I sorta liked it. But now, three years later, I dont like it anymore.
I don't agree with his sentiment about star trek voyager/TNG but I do share his sentiments about star trek into the darkness. Good to know that someone else sees this as a star wars movie rather than a star trek movie
True enough - I was just showing how to make almost any movie look good. Compare it to something much, much worse
True enough - I was just showing how to make almost any movie look good. Compare it to something much, much worse
Tank girl?
Tank girl?
True indeed! Remember when we watched it the idea was to see "the ultimate facepalm"?
It was beyond facepalm...it was just....I cant find the word.
But was it worse than Blade: Trinity?
I could make an argument that they are equally horrid.
Blade: Trinity has nonsensical scripting together with an obnoxious musical score and potentially the worst overall job of casting in recent cinematic history - literally every major part in the film is badly miscast. The thing felt like it was directed by a music video producer who had just eaten 50 pounds of psychedelic mushrooms.
Blade: Trinity has nonsensical scripting together with an obnoxious musical score and potentially the worst overall job of casting in recent cinematic history - literally every major part in the film is badly miscast. The thing felt like it was directed by a music video producer who had just eaten 50 pounds of psychedelic mushrooms.
ParagonPie
Well Known GateFan
Pretty much, he was treated as the 'ace in the hole.'
Luckily the evil federation people were too dumb to notice his shuttle craft just simply join the convoy entering inside without any clearance or authentication codes. Security? What is that!
Oh dear....Abrams actually put R2D2 into the Star Trek Into Darkness film! He hid him pretty well, but he is there:
http://io9.com/r2-d2-spotted-in-star-trek-into-darkness-1273196593
Anybody doubt that Abrams has NO CLUE what the major differences are between Star Trek and Star Wars? If he thought it was "cute" to put this sort of easter egg in Star Trek, he is mistaken. The Star Trek convention in Las Vegas let him know...Star Trek: Into Darkness was voted WORST Star Trek Film ever by Trekkies:
http://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/aug/14/star-trek-into-darkness-voted-worst
THE WORST. I concur.
http://io9.com/r2-d2-spotted-in-star-trek-into-darkness-1273196593
Anybody doubt that Abrams has NO CLUE what the major differences are between Star Trek and Star Wars? If he thought it was "cute" to put this sort of easter egg in Star Trek, he is mistaken. The Star Trek convention in Las Vegas let him know...Star Trek: Into Darkness was voted WORST Star Trek Film ever by Trekkies:
http://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/aug/14/star-trek-into-darkness-voted-worst
THE WORST. I concur.
Atlantis
Well Known GateFan
You'll be happy to know Abrams won't be directing the 3rd film.
http://www.blastr.com/2013-9-13/its-official-jj-abrams-wont-be-directing-3rd-star-trek-movie
YJ02
Well Known GateFan
All the more reason to kill this whole nuTrek and get back to the original line (like with the SG film) and give me CPT WORF dang it!