# Star Trek Into Darkness - Spoiler Free



## EricNoah (May 15, 2013)

Opening soon .... kind of excited .... discuss! (Spoiler free)

What are you hoping to see?  What do you think will get short shrift?


----------



## Mallus (May 15, 2013)

I'm hoping to see everything that made the 2009 film great + Benedict Cumberbatch!

I'll think traditional sci-fi a la the best TOS episodes and coherent plotting will --again-- get the short shrift. I've decided I don't care. I had a blast with the first one, it was pure movie magic. The only thing that has me a bit bummed was I didn't see the new film two weeks early at a preview. In fact, I won't see it until Sat.


----------



## MarkB (May 15, 2013)

I watched it on Saturday and was very impressed. The way the film played out was different than I'd expected from the trailers, which was good, and Benedict Cumberbatch was excellent.


----------



## EricNoah (May 15, 2013)

I figure that while the size/shape of the crew (number of cast members) was good for TV where you can devote time to the second string, it's too many for feature films and so Sulu, Chekhov, Scotty will not get much screen time.  This, I think, will be Kirk and Spock's real "bonding" film.  And time for Kirk to bond with Enterprise as a whole (the ship, the crew as a family).


----------



## Herschel (May 15, 2013)

Sherlock Smaug FTW! I like Eric Bana, but Cumberbatch should be awesome. Also, with the origin stuff out of the way they can go to town quickly. I'd guess Uhura, Sulu and Checkov will be small roles.


----------



## Janx (May 15, 2013)

From the trailers, I'm not sure how much trekking through the stars they will be doing.

The whole thing looks to be based on earth, with maybe a short trip to the corner star base for groceries.

Not that the old trek movies had much exploring or morality play stuff going on that the TV series had, but at least the ship left Earth and did stuff "out there" instead of everything being a threat to earth all the time (barring ST1 and ST4 which were basically the same threat).

I liked the prior movie well enough, except for the Hoth scene which just seemed contrived.  as one friend pointed out with that movie, Star Trek was changed to appeal to the mainstream by becoming Star Wars with lots of laser blasts and rapid ship shots.

ST2a looks to be more of the same, this time set on Coruscant, I mean Earth.

I expect to go see it.  And I'll probably like it for being a sci fi movie.  But I expect it to drift farther from what Trek is and more to what Star Wars is.  And I'm on the Star Trek side of the ST vs. SW conflict.


----------



## EricNoah (May 16, 2013)

Eep, I accidentally stumbled on a spoiler somewhere ... I'm trying not to let it bum me out! Maybe it will be cooler than it sounds.  In any case, ready to see the gang again.  I'm hearing from reviews that the acting is very solid.


----------



## Bagpuss (May 16, 2013)

Saw it last Friday, I liked it a lot, I thought the acting was top notch throughout, Chris Pine is an excellent Kirk. Opening scenes were great....

Spoiler follows.....
[sblock]a bit disappointed it turned out to be a retelling of an old tale, but at least that was done well, still I would have preferred a new story. To much fan service lead to a lack of originality IMHO.[/sblock]


----------



## RangerWickett (May 17, 2013)

I thought it was really dumb. Like, I enjoyed it for the first 50% or so, but once we got to act three, it went from being a spirited Star Trek-themed action movie to a tedious Star Trek-mocking action movie. Ending with a chase and a fist fight was very underwhelming too.

[sblock]The Kirk-Spock sacrifice switcheroo mildly pissed me off. You don't get to have a heroic sacrifice of your character if I don't really like the character. Kirk is still all swagger, still has never really lost anything in his adult life. In The Wrath of Khan, Spock dying helped Kirk grow as a character, and it was a powerful scene because you could see that the two characters had a long, deep friendship. In this movie (The Ret of Con), Spock doesn't need to learn any lessons. Kirk mock-dying has very little impact, and it does a disservice to the original.

Plus the KHAAAN yell was just schlock.[/sblock]

Cumberbatch did great with what they gave him, but c'mon, it's Star Trek. The triumph over the villain needs to be a moral and ideological one, not a physical one. And after watching the recent J.J. Abrams interview on the Daily Show, I'm not surprised that the movie really missed the point on what Star Trek is supposed to be about.


----------



## Bagpuss (May 17, 2013)

RangerWickett said:


> [sblock]The Kirk-Spock sacrifice switcheroo mildly pissed me off. You don't get to have a heroic sacrifice of your character if I don't really like the character. Kirk is still all swagger, still has never really lost anything in his adult life. In The Wrath of Khan, Spock dying helped Kirk grow as a character, and it was a powerful scene because you could see that the two characters had a long, deep friendship. In this movie (The Ret of Con), Spock doesn't need to learn any lessons.[/sblock].




[sblock]I have to disagree, Kirk needed to realise that he is ultimately less important than his crew, and Spock had to learn to accept his human emotions. I agree that the fist fight at the end was stupid and very unSpocklike.[/sblock]


----------



## Umbran (May 17, 2013)

RangerWickett said:


> Ending with a ... was very underwhelming too.




Because, in a spoiler-free thread, we want to know what the movie ends with!?!?!!!!!?

Come on, dude!


----------



## RangerWickett (May 17, 2013)

That's not a spoiler. Bruce Willis is dead in Sixth Sense is a spoiler. Geoffery Rush returns at the end of Pirates 2 is a spoiler. Spock dying in Wrath of Khan is a spoiler. 

An action movie ending with a mediocre action scene is not a spoiler.


----------



## EricNoah (May 17, 2013)

I hear at the end 



Spoiler



there are credits.


----------



## Umbran (May 17, 2013)

RangerWickett said:


> That's not a spoiler.




Right.  So failing on, "Being extra vigilant while the thing is new," and, "That's not really a spoiler excuse."

http://www.collegehumor.com/video/6739482/official-spoiler-rules


----------



## EricNoah (May 17, 2013)

Gonna see it tonight! Giggity giggity!  (Sorry, coffee buzz...)


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (May 18, 2013)

EricNoah said:


> I hear at the end
> 
> 
> 
> ...




NOOOOOAAAAHHHHH!!!!! You spoiled me!  I hates it, I hates it forever!


----------



## Morrus (May 18, 2013)

Umbran said:


> Right.  So failing on, "Being extra vigilant while the thing is new," and, "That's not really a spoiler excuse."
> 
> http://www.collegehumor.com/video/6739482/official-spoiler-rules




It's OK, I'm going to PM, email, text, and Facebook him the Doctor's Name as soon as it finishes here tonight.  Should be a good six hours or so before it shows over there.


----------



## EricNoah (May 18, 2013)

My spoiler-free mini-review: 3 out of 4 stars, a very good movie. As before I felt it was just a tad light-weight compared to what I would have preferred; I continue to not be dazzled by Quinto's Spock but am happy with all other performances (Cumberbatch was maybe just a smidge too hammy at times, but a refreshingly hefty villain); and I felt that the choice of telling this particular story, given the wide vista and endless possibilities the last movie opened up by wiping out the original timeline, was a little bit of a waste of that potential.  And I agree that the climax as described by RangerWickett was not a great one - I would have hoped for more outthinking or outmaneuvering of the bad guy (or having the bad guy's fatal flaw undermine himself) than simply out-enduring him.


----------



## EricNoah (May 18, 2013)

Ok, and am I the only one who was VERY distracted by what looked like a beefy guy in a dress on the bridge during much of the battle action??


----------



## RedShirtNo5.1 (May 18, 2013)

EricNoah said:


> Ok, and am I the only one who was VERY distracted by what looked like a beefy guy in a dress on the bridge during much of the battle action??



Navigation Officer Darwin: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1490300/
My assumption was that she is a very butch deltan


----------



## RedShirtNo5.1 (May 18, 2013)

Overall, I pretty much agree with RangerWickett.  Strong for the first half, but act 3 just left me cold.  I didn't feel insulted by the 



Spoiler



Kirk Spock switch, or even that the death scene had to be "earned" since it was serving a different purpose


.  Cumulative plot problems and gratuitousness took its toll.


----------



## delericho (May 18, 2013)

RangerWickett said:


> The triumph over the villain needs to be a moral and ideological one, not a physical one.




That's a very good point.

I enjoyed the film a great deal, but you're right about the resolution being a bit underwhelming. And what you suggest would have been more satisfying.


----------



## MarkB (May 18, 2013)

RangerWickett said:


> The triumph over the villain needs to be a moral and ideological one, not a physical one.




[sblock]Wasn't it, though? First, Spock manages to turn the tables on Khan by giving him his own torpedoes to destroy himself with, without sacrificing the lives of those inside, and then in the finale he masters his rage and chooses to take Khan alive.

Not to mention Kirk's sacrifice of himself in order to save his crew and however many innocents the _Enterprise_ would have landed upon. If that's not a moral and ideological victory, I don't know what is.[/sblock]


----------



## Rune (May 18, 2013)

MarkB said:


> [sblock]Wasn't it, though? First, Spock manages to turn the tables on Khan by giving him his own torpedoes to destroy himself with, without sacrificing the lives of those inside, and then in the finale he masters his rage and chooses to take Khan alive.
> 
> Not to mention Kirk's sacrifice of himself in order to save his crew and however many innocents the _Enterprise_ would have landed upon. If that's not a moral and ideological victory, I don't know what is.[/sblock]




Not only that, but these were themes that were set up to be explored throughout the entire movie.  I was very satisfied with the movie on these counts.


----------



## dogoftheunderworld (May 18, 2013)

Rune said:


> Not only that, but these were themes that were set up to be explored throughout the entire movie.  I was very satisfied with the movie on these counts.




I agree with both MarkB & Rune, I thought the ultimate resolution was very much more of a social-conscious victory.


----------



## Mallus (May 18, 2013)

EricNoah said:


> Ok, and am I the only one who was VERY distracted by what looked like a beefy guy in a dress on the bridge during much of the battle action??



Distracted? No. I thought she was awesome. It's about time there was a woman who wasn't eye-candy for straight white guys on the bridge of the Enterprise. Why it almost makes Trek look progressive again!

As for the movie... I can't decide if I want to call it Stardate: Zero Dark Thirty or Mass Effect the Movie feat. Star Trek. 

Either way, I enjoyed it a lot. It wasn't quite the burst of pure movie magic Star Trek 2009 was, but in many ways it was a better film, and a nice return to Star Trek as ham-fisted (but cool) political allegory. Anyone who says Into Darkness isn't Trek-y enough missed something (like the ham-fisted, but cool, political allegory). 

My only complaint is the action sequences in the 3rd act ran on too long. The acting and dialog are so good --well, grading on the summer blockbuster curve-- for most of the movie, I was getting bored during the final bits. I was like, "enough with the running and CGI, can we get back to the talking, please?"


----------



## Hand of Evil (May 19, 2013)

I was a bit disappointed...acting was great, best is still think Karl Urban was the perfect cast for Bones.  It was the story that was off. [sblock] 
Stop re-doing epic scenes from prior movies and move on to doing new ones!  
This Khan did not have the charisma that Ricardo Montalban brought to the character, he was not iconic. 
[/sblock]


----------



## RedShirtNo5.1 (May 19, 2013)

Mallus said:


> Why it almost makes Trek look progressive again!



I'm vaguely conflicted about that.  On the one hand, I liked the bridge crew.  Yet it's undercut by Alice Eve's main contribution to the movie being an underwear shot.  And I'm similarly conflicted in that I appreciated Scotty's comment about exploration, yet the movie itself is still 180 degrees from that.


----------



## Mallus (May 19, 2013)

RedShirtNo5.1 said:


> Yet it's undercut by Alice Eve's main contribution to the movie being an underwear shot.  And I'm similarly conflicted in that I appreciated Scotty's comment about exploration, yet the movie itself is still 180 degrees from that.



Definitely agree on the first point. As for exploration -- that would be nice, but I'm happy the movie was about something, ie had a central, ham-fisted political  message.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (May 19, 2013)

RedShirtNo5.1 said:


> Yet it's undercut by Alice Eve's main contribution to the movie being an underwear shot.



I find it impossible to have any issue whatever with any Alice Eve underwear shot.







> And I'm similarly conflicted in that I appreciated Scotty's comment about exploration, yet the movie itself is still 180 degrees from that.



insightful commentary upon race, religion, class warfare, the Human Condition - that all may be great "Star Trek" but it would make for a short-lived movie franchise.  Not all Trek is deep thought and award-winning sci-fi.  It's also rife with badly written and badly acted schlock, with monster-of-the-week series episodes, evocatively dressed native slave women, and even the occasional shootout or fistfight for little better motivation than to fill some screen time.  The stories that are suitable to a weekly series are not necessarily suitable to a movie franchise that is aimed at the demographic that LIKES a lot of CGI, phaser-fire, fist fights and chase scenes.

I personally have more of an issue with the change in design and especially scale of the Enterprise than with the story and plot being presented.  But that's just me.


----------



## Mark CMG (May 20, 2013)

I saw Star Trek Into Darkness today and enjoyed it quite a bit.   I like the use of familiar elements being used in new ways.


----------



## Water Bob (May 21, 2013)

Saw the film today and freakin' LOVED it.  They put some of the "Trek" back into "Trek"!  I'd say it's the second best Trek film ever made.  The *Wrath of Khan* still holds the title.  *Into Darkness* makes J.J. Abram's first Trek film a better movie.

Big Thumbs Up.


----------



## Zaukrie (May 21, 2013)

Very entertaining.


----------



## tomBitonti (May 21, 2013)

I enjoyed it, but the movie rather did not seem to be very well thought out (in a worse than usual sense):

Spoiler:



Spoiler



A meeting of senior staff in a time of crisis in an exposed location?  Would we do that even now?  With transporters, how long would the firefight have lasted?  The neutral zone is 20 minutes from Kronos?  Standing up on a stage is a good way to engage in a firefight?  Debris field?  *That* dense?  When much of the fight was in warp far far away?  They ended up so close to earth when they seemed to be trucking along in warp with a ways to go?  Kirk can call Scotty on Earth from the neutral zone with no latency?  A big ship with a small crew doesn't have a very capable suite of intruder detectors?

And, did anyone else find the scale to be a bit off?  The ship interiors seems quite a bit larger than possible, and the dreadnought crash seemed to make it a lot bigger than it should have been.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (May 24, 2013)

Just popped in to provide a link: the most brilliant deconstruction of STID ever written.

Warning: spoilers.  Duh.


----------



## Serpine (May 27, 2013)

I overall enjoyed it, other then groaning a bit at a few of the redone elements. What I kept wondering though was 



Spoiler



why nobody on the crew even mentioned the notion of getting the "magic" blood from one of the other 72 sleepers that they happened to have handy


.


----------



## tomBitonti (May 27, 2013)

Serpine said:


> I overall enjoyed it, other then groaning a bit at a few of the redone elements. What I kept wondering though was
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I wondered about that too.  



Spoiler



Maybe the problem of not knowing the correct way to defrost them.  There is a bit of dialog earlier about how that is dangerous without the correct codes.  But, they take one out anyways!  Maybe the defrost takes too long, or maybe only Kahn as potent blood, or maybe they don't know if the other blood will work. Or maybe (rant) the producers are tuning our neurons to accept that entertainment is not compatible with rational thought.



Thx!

TomB


----------



## jonesy (May 27, 2013)

Trying to explain the plot holes in this movie just creates more plot holes. It's like the whole extended Star Wars canon.


----------



## Janx (May 28, 2013)

jonesy said:


> Trying to explain the plot holes in this movie just creates more plot holes. It's like the whole extended Star Wars canon.




I think a person has to just enjoy a thing, without looking too closely.

Read the rant that somebody posted.  And that person was right on all their points of the stupid things in the movie.

But if I let that kind of thinking dominate, I just wouldn't enjoy Trek at all.


----------

