It's movie time!!!!!

[Runaz]

About to watch startrek: into darkness ill try to give my thoughts without spoilers

[Runaz]

So in as few words as I can... OMG I'm going to go wach it again

[Baldwin Praji]

I saw the movie last night.....I LOVED it. There were a few plot holes, but I can overlook that.

[Dr. Collin McGee]

I finally got to see Star Trek: Into Darkness and I it didn't like it much at all... with each passing frame, they seemed to prove to me how much they don't understand the foundation of the franchise. I probably won't be going to anymore Abrams helmed Star Trek. Or, even more succinct anything that those lousy writers of his produce. It's sad for me, I was looking to enjoying new Trek stories, but they don't know how to tell them. They simply and clumsily reshuffle an old story, into something that really, logically makes no sense. i.e. There was absolutely no logical sense in having the Enterprise hiding underwater on an unexplored planet. Hiding it in SPACE, would seem to work nicely... LOL

[VADM pRett]

kid3366 wrote:

I finally got to see Star Trek: Into Darkness and I it didn't like it much at all... with each passing frame, they seemed to prove to me how much they don't understand the foundation of the franchise.

I am interested what makes you think they don't understand the franchise at all? Yes, this isn't your or my papa's "Star Trek," but that doesn't make it not Trek. I have some lifetime friends who got caught up in the noise and "ZOMGLensFlare!" and failed to notice the message in the movie.

Objectively, the more common complaints I've seen about Abrams' movies I could easily apply to episodes from probably every series, and even other franchise films.

[Morgan Shackelford]

Capt pRett wrote:

I am interested what makes you think they don't understand the franchise at all?

I tend to agree on some level - it's not a Star Trek movie; it's an action movie with a Star Trek setting. That's not to say I didn't enjoy it a great deal, and will gladly go see any other installments, but a message? What's the message? I mean, for there to be a message there has to be a subtext; for there to be a subtext, there has to be a cohesive plot.

Using as few words as possible, try and imagine describing the plot of the movie to someone who hasn't seen it. With a good story, it's easy to do. If I asked you to describe the plot of Episode 4 or Indiana Jones in a single sentence, you could do it. You really can't with this film.

It's plot is incredibly ... convoluted. There are great things about the movie that I enjoy, the casting in particular is great, but the characters are more like caricatures and the plot truly has more holes than a sieve - you don't notice them so much when you're watching though, because the dialogue and action move so quickly they get lost in the mix. I could go into specifics but I don't want spoilers up for anyone who hasn't had a chance to see it yet.

But you're right, plot holes aren't damning enough for this not be tossed aside as not 'sticking to the vision' of Roddenberry. This universe Abrams has created isn't really linked to any of the series, and the series are where you get to really see the vision of Trek play out. The writing on TOS, TNG, and DS9 are fairly excellent. Abrams is working without that net to back up his characters; and they come across as shallow.

He missed an opportunity. Rather than try and create his own iconic image or scene, he borrowed one, and while I, as a fan, appreciate the homage, the movie suffered for lack of good writing.

RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE

[Gerron Vek]

There were several instances in that movie where I made a conscious decision to ignore a plot hole. I just smiled and went with it. Could I be super critical about it? yes. Did the problems hinder my enjoyment of the movie? Nope.

Heck,. When Khan pulled out his minigun phaser rifle all I could think was someone in the movie staff had been playing alot of STO. When McCoy was playing with that tribble I could see a mile off where it was going and did not care how cheep it was. I loved the action and over the top musical scores. I liked the role reversal near the end of the movie where Kirk sacrifices himself. In fact I thought Kirk fixing the problem looked alot more realistic than the way Spock did it in Wrath of Khan.

My two criticism about the whole movie was the forced exchange between kirk and Spock from when Spock learns Kirk is dying until he does die. The musical score had no tension to it and the whole 'Khaaaan!' thing made me roll my eyes. The other problem I had was Spock calling up older Spock. I got over it pretty quickly though.

In hindsight I can pick i all apart but when I was watching it I really liked it and would like to see it again.

[VADM pRett]

I'm very happy I follow Wil Wheaton on Facebook; this gives me an opportunity to post a link to his review of the movie, and this accomplishes two things.

1) It sums up my feelings pretty well

2) It doesn't put spoilers in this thread

Wil Wheaton's review (CAUTION: Spoilers!)

[Dr. Collin McGee]

I'm honestly glad that you gentlemen liked the film... I just didn't and believe me it irks me. I found the script and plot paper thin and just flat out illogical in so many ways. I'm not insulting your taste or right to have enjoyed it. That wasn't remotely on my mind. I'm definitely not trying to say that people shouldn't see it. For my viewing taste, I felt as if the writers were sitting in their mom's basement getting high and fanboy "what if'ing". They then tried to build a cohesive storyline to get them to those points. Which, I deem as a failure.
Mr. Roddenberry was trying to create characters in the classic epic mold. By definition, these are characters that are heir to the same human foibles as us all, but transcend them. This is the type of literature I grew up reading and that's why I enjoy Star Trek. The current writers of Star Trek seem to only understand the word "epic" as an adjective, not as a noun. This creates a disconnect for me. Thus, it makes no since for me to even bother with their offering.
I hope this doesn't sound defensive, I didn't intend that either. Although, I have found it extremely odd, that folks that like this movie simply won't allow me to dislike this movie. LOL Well, I hope this wasn't a rant, but that's how I feel about ST: ID.

That is all.

Warp Speed!

[VADM pRett]

I never said you weren't allowed to dislike it; if that is the message I sent, then I apologize.

I will disagree with your perspective on Mr. Roddenbury's intent; I'm not saying you're wrong, just that I disagree. Again, Wil expressed it much better than I could have:

"And this leads me to answer another criticism I’ve heard frequently: Into Darkness doesn’t live up to the ideals Gene Roddenberry instilled in the Original Series and The Next Generation. Again, I can’t disagree with this more strongly. In the original series, against a backdrop of the Cold War, just a few years after the Cuban Missile Crisis, Star Trek did stories about the dangers of unchecked militarization, the dangers of seeing only black and white in a conflict, and the power of the human spirit to put aside petty differences to work together to save us all. Against the backdrop of the civil rights movement, Star Trek dared to show a multicultural crew of men and women working together as equals to bravely explore the unknown. This is the legacy we attempted to live up to in The Next Generation, and though we didn’t always succeed, we still told stories about finding peace in the midst of war, standing up for truth at all costs, and most of all the strength of the family. It is on our shoulders that DS9, Voyager, Enterprise, and the first Star Trek reboot all stood, and Into Darkness does a fine job of respecting this heritage. And even though it doesn’t give us the same moral punch as Tapestry or Darmok or The Doomsday Machine or A Taste of Armageddon, (which it can’t, due to blockbuster film economics among other things), it still addresses a subject that is very relevant to our lives today."

[VADM JT Kerry]

I look at it this way. It is an alternate time line branching from our own, but in our past. This was to show that certain events throughout history are so important to that history that they will happen one way or another - the theme here is the debate between destiny and free will. This was setup in the first film. Old Spock is now in the role of the "Fates" who in classic Greek mythos directs the free will of the individual towards their destiny.

There is a lot of controversy over the history or the late 20th and early 21st Centuries in the Star Trek canon over this villain and those associated with him. And, this is a reboot of TOS. Abrahms was showing us that no matter which time line or how hard you try to change it - through time travel or whatever - certain events are destined to happen now matter how they become distored by the changes of time travel.

It is also the lens I have taken with the history. Time travel is a BIG piece in the way the game is being developed in association with the canon of Star Trek.

There is my take on it. I liked the movie, btu I can tell that this will probably be Abrams last, through his interviews. He's tired of dealing with 2 companies to do what most do with a franchise - merchandising - to make residual revenue. It may be a long time before another will be done.

JT

[Wupteedo]

Finally got a chance to see it last weekend. I have to agree that one of the writers probably plays STO as some of the missions look somewhat familiar. It had it moments and some chuckles as well, but at the end of the day, mind-candy with a Star Trek theme. It's not mine, nor my sons Star Trek. Can't wait to see what he does with Star Wars. BTW, if there was any intelligence at Disney, I would of given Star Wars to Kevin Smith (Dogma, Clerks, Chasing Amy).

However, I would cough up 1500 Zen to be flying the "updated" version of the Vengeance.