PDA

View Full Version : Review: Star Trek Into Darkness



gunnut
20 Jun 13,, 01:16
Yes, I am a trekkie. I know it's hard to tell, but you can spot the tell tale signs if you look hard enough...:tongue:

Anyways, I saw the new reboot of Star Trek a few weeks ago, not on opening weekend. I was lazy that day.

I wasn't terribly impressed by the first movie of the reboot series. That movie was more about Spock and setting the stage for the "alternate universe" in which this new Star Trek resides. Zach Quinto was fantastic as Mr. Spock. However, Kirk was lackluster. As we all know, Kirk makes Star Trek.

JJ Abrams redeemed himself with this movie. Kirk had a much more pronounced role. We started to see the Kirk that we all loved in the original series. He was young, brash, fiercely loyal, with an incorruptable sense of justice. He was a man's man. Every man wanted to be him. The audience could really put themselves in his shoes and relate to him.

Zach Quinto was again fantastic as Mr. Spock. His time was reduced but still played a prominent role in the movie. He was the cooler head that grounds Kirk's penchant to shoot first and ask questions later. His friendship with Kirk was developed further in this movie.

Dr. McCoy also had reduced screen time. His character suffered the most from Kirk's increased screen time. We did not see his character develop in any significant fashion. But that's just fine, as this movie is pretty much devoted to develop Kirk's character and their friendship.

We can skip Sulu and Chekov as they did not have prominent roles in this movie.

Simon Pegg's Mr. Scott was the comedian, something the original Mr. Scott wasn't. His role was not all that big but injected some humor into an otherwise fairly serious movie.

Since this movie has been out for a few weeks, I will assume people have either watched it already, or know enough about it that I won't spoil it by revealing critical plot information. But just in case you don't want me to ruin the movie for you, stop reading here!!!

SPOILER!!!
This movie was a tribute to Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. The character of Khan was discovered by the Enterprise in her deep space missing in the original movie. This movie explained it by way of Star Fleet intelligence looking for any tactical advantage against the Klingons and the Romulans in its top secret deep space missions. Instead of Kirk, it was Star Fleet spooks who found Khan and his people. They wanted to use Khan against the Romulans and Klingons in case of war. Of course Khan didn't like to be used, so he hatched a plan to retrieve all his people from Star Fleet, using Kirk, in order to start a new colony of super humans.

A new character was introduced, Dr. Marcus. Those of you who are familiar with Star Trek II would recall Kirk's son was also Dr. Marcus. That Dr. Marcus was not this Dr. Marcus, but her son. Yes, it looks like Kirk's baby mama will be a regular part of the movie. She became a part of his crew at the end of the movie.
/SPOILER!!!

I would give this movie a 9 out of 10. I was so satisfied with the treatment of the characters and the pace of this movie I would have given it a 10 out of 10. However there were some giant plotholes: photon torpedo from the neutral zone to the Klingon homeworld? need to capture Khan to use his super blood to save Kirk's life when there are 72 other super humans in stasis, waiting to be harvested? Enterprise hiding under water? These things just annoyed me to no end.

As a comparison, I would give the first Star Trek reboot a 6, maybe 7, out of 10. Time travel? Mystery Red Matter that can collapse an entire planet, but sits just fine in some weightless liquid? Kirk gets marooned on a planet which just happened to be where Scotty was stationed at? Zach Quinto single-handedly saved the first move from noisy mediocrity.


By the way, the law of Star Trek movies still holds: even numbered Star Trek movies are better than odd numbered Star Trek movies.

There is only one exception - Star Trek: Nemesis.

Officer of Engineers
20 Jun 13,, 01:29
Apparently, in the 24th Century, everyone forgotten the concept of a hand grenade.

gunnut
20 Jun 13,, 01:37
Apparently, in the 24th Century, everyone forgotten the concept of a hand grenade.

I think photon grenades were mentioned in some episodes or tech manual. But you are right, we have never seen hand-tossed explosive device portrayed in the series or movies. I guess it's just not "futuristic."

Officer of Engineers
20 Jun 13,, 01:58
Would have ended movie had Khan just torpedoed the Captains' Meeting than to try to shoot it up with phaser fire ... that behaved ... like a freaking .22. .50 cals would have done a better job.

kato
20 Jun 13,, 02:25
I think photon grenades were mentioned in some episodes or tech manual. But you are right, we have never seen hand-tossed explosive device portrayed in the series or movies.
Eh, I wouldn't say that. From a quick look over to Memory Alpha:

In TOS Klingons in one episode had hand-thrown "sonic grenades" (explosive) that even had a proper presegmented fragmentation body wrapped around them (and looked as if someone had bought a slightly oversized toy frag grenade to use for the prop...).
ENT had hand-thrown stun grenades.
DS9 had "plasma grenades" used by Bajorans (hand-thrown, used in a Heydrich-style assassination attempt) and "pressure grenades" used by Cardassians (usually employed as mines/IEDs though). VOY had "plasma grenades" mentioned in one episode too.
"Photon Grenades" were mentioned in TNG and VOY and appeared onscreen in TOS. These were mortar-launched spherical shells the size of a hand grenade with a ballistic arc. The weapon system was used in TOS, resembled something like a collapsible commando mortar along with an ammo box containing about 10 or so shells. Blast effect resembled a large-scale thermobaric (or small nuclear) weapon with a comment inscene that the firing distance the mortar is used at (1200m) was supposedly at the lower end of its safe distance.

TNG (and iirc DS9) occasionally had phasers set to overload and tossed as impromptu hand grenades, exploding after a few seconds.

kato
20 Jun 13,, 02:49
A new character was introduced, Dr. Marcus. Those of you who are familiar with Star Trek II would recall Kirk's son was also Dr. Marcus. That Dr. Marcus was not this Dr. Marcus, but her son.
Uh, Dr. Carol Marcus was in ST II. Rather prominently. Portrayed by Bibi Besch, who was rather disappointed that she didn't feature in subsequent ST movies.

Dr. David Marcus was her son with Kirk, worked as a postdoc in her research team and was initially only introduced as such. Carol Marcus didn't particularly like Star Fleet btw (that's why she never told Kirk about his son, to keep the boy out of that kind of life), and would never have joined Kirk as a crew member in any capacity >_>

DOR
20 Jun 13,, 03:22
gunnut,

Trekker, not trekkie.


The casting is inspired, right down the line. The original series defined the characters, and the actors became those characters. The uncanny resemblance and good-enough-not-to-notice portrayals have made this version, IMHO, a winner.

The plot, however, sucks.

bonehead
20 Jun 13,, 03:45
The special effects and characters are very good. I was horrified horever that they are only on the second movie and are recycling plots. For the love of God, come up with new story lines.
I watched through all the closing credits and not once did Scotties protégé point up and say, "the plane, the plane!" If you are going to milk Ricardo's fine work at least give him some credit.

gunnut
20 Jun 13,, 08:45
Uh, Dr. Carol Marcus was in ST II. Rather prominently. Portrayed by Bibi Besch, who was rather disappointed that she didn't feature in subsequent ST movies.

Dr. David Marcus was her son with Kirk, worked as a postdoc in her research team and was initially only introduced as such. Carol Marcus didn't particularly like Star Fleet btw (that's why she never told Kirk about his son, to keep the boy out of that kind of life), and would never have joined Kirk as a crew member in any capacity >_>

Yes, but this is alternate timeline, with Vulcan destroyed and Spock's mom dead.

Carol Marcus in The Wrath of Khan was a biologist, I believe. This Carol Marcus was a weapon specialist.

gunnut
20 Jun 13,, 08:49
gunnut,

Trekker, not trekkie.

Real trekkies call themselves trekkies. Trekkers are those who take themselves too seriously. :biggrin:



The casting is inspired, right down the line. The original series defined the characters, and the actors became those characters. The uncanny resemblance and good-enough-not-to-notice portrayals have made this version, IMHO, a winner.

The plot, however, sucks.

All action movies pretty much have the same plot. There are only so many different stories to be told while still selling tickets. I'm just happy the characters were not ruined by this "reboot" like what happened to Battlestar Galactica.

I'm a simple man. I can understand simple plots. Game of Thrones plot is killing my brain cells right now.

tankie
20 Jun 13,, 08:55
Must try n watch it ,,makes note to ones'self ,,make it so :whome:

Parihaka
20 Jun 13,, 09:03
Characters are I agree better fleshed out in this one but I enjoyed the plot line better in the first, it was more in character with the original series than this one was. I like the cheese and improbable plot lines. The pink forest/volcano opening was exactly what I look for in a Star Trek plot, the slate grey dark quality remainder I expect from Batman, not the crew of the Starship Enterprise.

bolo121
21 Jun 13,, 18:23
Meh

Crappy action sequences. Same complaint as OOE on Khan shooting up the captains meeting.
Not a single duke it out no holds barred space battle :frown:

Enterprise almost destroyed for the umpteenth time.
Alice eve looked hot Zoe Saldana needs to get a few meals into her.

Benedict Cumberbatch was outstanding and way way better than the useless cheese ridden plot.

gunnut
21 Jun 13,, 19:31
Meh

Crappy action sequences. Same complaint as OOE on Khan shooting up the captains meeting.
Not a single duke it out no holds barred space battle :frown:

Enterprise almost destroyed for the umpteenth time.
Alice eve looked hot Zoe Saldana needs to get a few meals into her.

Benedict Cumberbatch was outstanding and way way better than the useless cheese ridden plot.

That's true with most Hollywood lead actresses.

astralis
21 Jun 13,, 20:35
well, i liked the gratuitous part where alice eve takes off her clothes.