The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Star Trek XI: The Movie > Star Trek Into Darkness
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 05-25-2013, 03:19 PM
NCC-73515's Avatar
NCC-73515 NCC-73515 is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Heidelberg, Germany
Posts: 7,226
Default

Ah please, they gave him a good reason! He's not the bad guy, Marcus is!
__________________


"English! I thought I dreamed hearing it!"?
Khan, Space Seed (TOS)

Brought to you in living color by NCC.
-= first fan member =-

Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 05-27-2013, 07:46 AM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,077
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by martok2112 View Post
Howdy, friend Kevin.

Yeah, I actually did my best to avoid spoilers (although I did end up getting the identity of the main bad guy spoiled when I looked at imdb just shortly before seeing the movie), so that might've been why I was, at first, a little taken aback by some of the territory the movie (re)visited, but going in with those notions a second time really helped me to enjoy it even more.
I went to see it again today myself and I would agree with that, it definitely played smoother on a second viewing than it did first time.

Which I'm positive is the experience I had back in 2009 with the last film. I do think it still has a couple of logic questions that still popped into my head more immediately than the 2009 film did but it's not like that's unheard of in 'Star Trek'!

This time around I actually found myself wondering if I did think that it was better than the 2009 film and I think I may actually come around to thinking of it that way. Certainly the first 75/80 mins I think are quite strong and build on the first film. I don't think it loses it's way totally after that point (I'm thinking of when the USS Vengeance turns up) but I think that's when it starts to then become more about the spectacle (which is certainly well done as well) than maybe fully resolving the ideas and themes it starts off with other than the development of the Kirk/Spock relationship. And I realised I haven't got a problem with the TWOK-ish elements here because they use the notion of it to a different purpose within that friendship.

I'll probably leave it at two viewings prior to the Blu ray now, as there's other films coming out I want to catch. But I wouldn't rule out a third if I can squeeze one in. I won't match the four times of the 2009 film though I don't imagine.
__________________
'If the Apocalypse starts, beep me!' - Buffy Summers
'The sky's the limit.....' Jean-Luc Picard, 'All Good Things'


courtesy of Saquist
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 05-28-2013, 02:52 AM
DNA-1842's Avatar
DNA-1842 DNA-1842 is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland, Europe, Terra - ZZ9 PluralZAlpha
Posts: 3,594
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enterprise Captain View Post
I loved the scene but what pulled me out of it was that I knew they were going to use Khan's blood to bring him back. On a side note why couldn't they have just used the blood of one of the 72 augments they had onboard? You could see Kirk's resurrection coming from a mile away. I agree that leaving him dead in this film would have lead to fans assuming the next film will be "The Search for Kirk" but that's why killing Kirk and leaving him dead would have been a very bold move and would have made that scene that much more powerful. Though we would have to wait for the next one with out Kirk to find out he wasn't coming back. I honestly thought in ST2009 that the destruction of Vulcan was going to be reset some how and I was pleasantly surprised when that didn't happen. Unfortunately the after effects of that event from the perspective of the Vulcan people can't really be explored in these films and that exploration would be more suited to a TV series.
I suppose they didn't use blood from one of the other seventy-odd superhumans because at that point they only knew about the properties of Khan's blood. There was no guarantee that any of the others shared that trait. They didn't necessarily need Khan, or even need him alive, but he was the only known source of regenerative blood.

If Spock had disintegrated him then the story dictates that one of the other augments possessed the same regenerative properties.

At this point I'd love a new Trek series that explores the loss of Vulcan.

Preferably set in the Primeverse 25th century or so, but crossing universes into nuTrek in some fashion.
__________________
Gronda Gronda to all Zarking Hoopy Froods! Bowties are cool.
I Am A Friend Of


(And an indirectly founding patron of the Elizadolots Avatar Thingy.)
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 05-28-2013, 04:15 AM
Enterprise Captain's Avatar
Enterprise Captain Enterprise Captain is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Toronto, ON Canada
Posts: 1,070
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DNA-1842 View Post
I suppose they didn't use blood from one of the other seventy-odd superhumans because at that point they only knew about the properties of Khan's blood. There was no guarantee that any of the others shared that trait. They didn't necessarily need Khan, or even need him alive, but he was the only known source of regenerative blood.

If Spock had disintegrated him then the story dictates that one of the other augments possessed the same regenerative properties.
That's fair. I half expect to see Khan in the next film in some sort of status chamber with his blood being harvested as he is pretty much the cure for death in this universe.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 05-28-2013, 05:26 AM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,282
Default

Indeed. In ENT the joke was at least funny, Klingons have the blood of Khan in them. But KhanKirk? Nah.
I guess expecting Khan again, for the fourth time in a row, is not that crazy. They got away with copying Khan twice so why not stick with something that works and do it again.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 05-30-2013, 11:25 PM
samwiseb samwiseb is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,207
Default

I liked it. Haven't really had time lately to talk about it, but I liked it.

It did not meet all my expectations. However it did do a lot of what I anticipated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kevin View Post
I tend to feel that Abrams and Co by the terms of the ending, actually tried to give 'new' viewers a sort of two movie 'Foundation Course' in the iconic parts of Trek (Who are the crew? What is the ship? Who are Klingons, Romulans, the Prime Directive etc) to sort of contextualize 'their' iteration of Star Trek before sending the crew out on the Five Year Mission.
This has been my outlook on it as well. Even though it ends in a place where I kind of assumed the characters already were by the end of the last film.

I particularly liked the Prime Directive stuff because (I think) this is the first time since TOS that it's been presented in a simple matter-of-fact "Yes we have it, it's there, we never leave home without it, but at the same time this story isn't really about it" manner. And then the discussion of what Starfleet is... they found a way to make it topical so that general audiences would identify with it.

I think it succeeds in being the thematic Star Trek 101 movie I was expecting. But unlike most successful sequels (The Empire Strikes Back, X-Men 2, Spider-Man 2, Terminator 2, Godfather 2), it does not escalate the themes of the original to the next level. Nor is it slow enough or thoughtful enough to build upon its predecessor emotionally.

The only thing I really didn't like was Spock's "Khan!" cry. It didn't seem in character at all, and for me it never will.

There were also signs that the Abrams aesthetic is wearing out its welcome. When the resurrected ship was about to resurface above the clouds, I found myself thinking "Oh god, not that theme again. Oh you're going to do it, aren't you? Oh damn you, you're totally going to do it. Come on, this isn't the first movie anymore!" And then the title sequence at the end seemed like an unpleasant reminder that not enough had changed with this movie.

On the other hand Nimoy's cameo, while fairly inconsequential (I'm still waiting to hear why he agreed to it), was handled much better than I was led to believe.

I see no reason why this film couldn't be just as good as the last one, however I think the familiarity of it this time makes it less. It's the same reason VOY can never be TNG, no matter how accomplished some of its episodes might seem in and of themselves.

So I liked it, but it's not enough. They need to do more, push further. This isn't the gutsy movie that temporally detonated a canon, swallowed a planet and took Winona Ryder with it.

We already know Abrams most likely won't direct next time. It's pointless to speculate what that means, however the STID script at least acknowledges these people are supposed to be explorers. What chance the next film could be the one that gets back to exploring? The score's now 2 out of 12 by my count for 'exploration' themed ST movies (and STV isn't one of the two).
__________________


Last edited by samwiseb : 05-30-2013 at 11:29 PM. Reason: Like Hell I'm acknowledging I edited this. I always articulate my words successfully the first time. :p
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 05-31-2013, 12:02 AM
omegaman's Avatar
omegaman omegaman is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Penrith NSW Australia
Posts: 4,609
Default

The next movie won't be about exploration. I'm 100 percent sure of that. There will be a villain or multiple villains guaranteed.
__________________
TREK IS TREK. WHATEVER THE TIMELINE!

The next TV Series should be called STARFLEET!
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 05-31-2013, 11:07 AM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,077
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by samwiseb View Post
This has been my outlook on it as well. Even though it ends in a place where I kind of assumed the characters already were by the end of the last film.
Agreed. There's probably a fair question why they did it over two films. But I think that it covers all the kind of 'Trek 101' material that way, whereas doing it all in one film would have been overstuffed.

Quote:
I particularly liked the Prime Directive stuff because (I think) this is the first time since TOS that it's been presented in a simple matter-of-fact "Yes we have it, it's there, we never leave home without it, but at the same time this story isn't really about it" manner. And then the discussion of what Starfleet is... they found a way to make it topical so that general audiences would identify with it.
Yes, I felt that some of the conversation pieces early in the film were well enough done that it's a shame the back half of the film had to give way to the inevitable spectacle.

Quote:
I think it succeeds in being the thematic Star Trek 101 movie I was expecting. But unlike most successful sequels (The Empire Strikes Back, X-Men 2, Spider-Man 2, Terminator 2, Godfather 2), it does not escalate the themes of the original to the next level. Nor is it slow enough or thoughtful enough to build upon its predecessor emotionally.
I think that's fair comment.

Quote:
We already know Abrams most likely won't direct next time. It's pointless to speculate what that means, however the STID script at least acknowledges these people are supposed to be explorers. What chance the next film could be the one that gets back to exploring? The score's now 2 out of 12 by my count for 'exploration' themed ST movies (and STV isn't one of the two).
I would go so far as to suggest that if Abrams doesn't return as director (which I personally would have liked at the very least as I'm still not that big on the Star Wars project yet) then it's likely that while Abrams and Co will remain onboard as consultants and producers that probably in addition to a new director we'll see new writers as well.

A fresh rotation of key people seems suitable with Abrams likely vacating the big chair. I think they'll take the position that they've 'laid the groundwork' for their alternate timeline and that it's now time to let other people develop that on and into the stories that will take place during the alternate version of the Five Year Mission that the crew finally embark on at the end of the film.

But in all probability that will still involve having a definable 'villain' in some format. But since it's too early to say who'll take over it's pointless to speculate very much farther about how the third film will go.
__________________
'If the Apocalypse starts, beep me!' - Buffy Summers
'The sky's the limit.....' Jean-Luc Picard, 'All Good Things'


courtesy of Saquist
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 05-31-2013, 11:50 AM
samwiseb samwiseb is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,207
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kevin View Post
I would go so far as to suggest that if Abrams doesn't return as director (which I personally would have liked at the very least as I'm still not that big on the Star Wars project yet) then it's likely that while Abrams and Co will remain onboard as consultants and producers that probably in addition to a new director we'll see new writers as well.

A fresh rotation of key people seems suitable with Abrams likely vacating the big chair. I think they'll take the position that they've 'laid the groundwork' for their alternate timeline and that it's now time to let other people develop that on and into the stories that will take place during the alternate version of the Five Year Mission that the crew finally embark on at the end of the film.

But in all probability that will still involve having a definable 'villain' in some format. But since it's too early to say who'll take over it's pointless to speculate very much farther about how the third film will go.
All of this makes sense. Certainly all the ingredients ARE there for them to make the decision to look at it that way. But I also feel like they've at least partly failed to come through for me on my predictions with this last film... so I'm a little more reluctant to commit to any assumptions about where they're going.

I would like to think though that a ST film could have a villain and still be about exploration. So far First Contact and The Undiscovered Country come the closest to breaking the mold with their villains. Neither are exploration films, although they are Trek-worthy stories in 'most' respects.

I''m not really on board yet for the SW thing either. They want to do an 'arc' movie every other year and a standalone film every year in between? That's too much. Can't they just focus on Marvel?
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 05-31-2013, 12:23 PM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,077
Default

It's Disney. They can't develop anything on their own anymore so they just use that huge bank account to buy the rest and then saturate it to hell! It'll happen in the end for Marvel and Star Wars.
__________________
'If the Apocalypse starts, beep me!' - Buffy Summers
'The sky's the limit.....' Jean-Luc Picard, 'All Good Things'


courtesy of Saquist
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:51 AM.


Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.