Star Trek Into Darkness (spoiler review)

I had that same question after seeing ST09. There were some wonderful moments in that movie (even if you weren't a big fan), that at times I wondered, "how are they going to top this?!"

Well, after seeing STiD, and comparing the two, they topped the fuck out of it.

I don't think there's any comparison between the two and I'm mystified that a review exists on earth who things the former film is better by any measure.

the mere absence of slapstick alone is enough to elevate this one, and there is so very much more done right than just that.

I'll go ahead and say that while I refuse to pick between this one and TWOK (as it's apples and oranges) that this film is well superior to any other Trek film in existence.

I'm really having trouble understanding how some people think. What were the standout moments for you guys - the bits that inspired a sense of awe, or any strong emotion? I can't think of any.

Kirks "sorry" as the Vengeance prepares to destroy them.

Kirk swallowing his pride and preparing to sacrifice himself for his crew.

The TWoK mirror, whilst not as effective as TWoK's, put a lump in my throat.

Spock and Khan both unleashed.

Kirk and Spock getting chewed out.

The start of the 5 year mission.

There are many of us who would say, "only if you weren't a big fan."

Not many, a handful, and comprised tellingly of the most socially inept subset of the board, which is really saying something considering the nature of this board.

To impugn the fact you can't be a fan of Star Trek and like the new movies is reflective of your limitations, not the people who enjoyed the movies lack of comprehension.

I love the whinage.

You can't like that if you like that...

Take a look in the mirror, you may notice something Wong about you.

For me, Kirk came across as an erratic mess way beyond what the story demanded, the WoK rip-off was nothing short of embarrassing, and Pine's delivery at the end was weak.

I can remember several parts of JJ09 that I found impressive, but not much from this. Although maybe I'll rejudge if I watch it again.

Perhaps.
But it's been long established that many of that "many" aren't fans of Star Trek...

Why would they "fix" something that Abrams put there deliberately? Modern lenses have coatings designed to eliminate or minimize lens flares (Joss Whedon requested old lenses be used for Firefly because he wanted the occasional lens flare).

When I rewatched JJTrek09 a couple of weeks ago, the lens flares really annoyed me. More than they did the first time I saw the movie.

There were so many of them that they had to have been done deliberately.

I'm planning to see this tonight...we're going to the drive-in for the Star Trek/Iron Man 3 double feature.

The lines must be so horrible for STiD. I'm guessing/hoping the best time to catch it is the first show of the day on (a) Tuesday or (a) Wednesday.

1. The sequence where Kirk has to decide to break the rules to save his friend, from Spock's original "let me die" protest to Kirk's "what's the worst that could happen?" conclusion.

2. The entire sequence in Pike's office.

3. The debate between Kirk and Spock about summary execution followed by the debate with Scotty about the missiles

4. the exchange with Khan as he's in the brig (with the previously noted qualms about explaining his appearance)

5. the attack at warp speed sequence

6. the whole movement from Kirk's offer to surrender himself (classic Kirk moment) through to his "changing the rules" by recruiting Khan...and including Spock's own rule-changing

7. The "mirror" sequence

8. McCoy's save (not so much for the life that was saved as that it was a classic "McCoy the medical genius" moment

9. Everything from Kirk's recovery through to the classic theme over the credits.


If that sounds like virtually the whole movie...well...yeah...

actually, I'd say there are many moments which are emotionally MORE powerful for the diehard fan than they would be for the general audience.

McCoy the medical genius? I mean, that tribble scene was foreshadowing for morons.

that and Khan's child-save early on. Still, to me this was the McCoy we know from TOS...sees the tribble move, intuitively understands in a microsecond what he needs to do and starts barking out orders. Sure, to the audience the solution is pretty obvious (which belies any criticism that it was a "ghost in the machine" moment) but it played well as a heroic moment for Bones, in my opinion.

am i the only one who didn't mind the magic blood? it was set up properly by khan and bones. there is no deus ex machina. and it saves us the whole genesis BS which is IMHO the biggest can of worms in all trek.

In regards to "Magic Blood," I'll say what I said elsewhere:

We've seen people broken into their quantum components and teleported great distances, we've seen starships move at hundreds, even thousands of times the speed of light, we've seen godlike beings playing with humans like they were toys, we've seen diseases that destroy DNA, aging crew members until they look ancient, only to be restored to youth by the previously mentioned quantum teleportation device, we've seen a torpedo that causes a dead planet to be completely changed into a living biosphere in a matter of minutes, yet in this movie, someone uses blood that has been genetically modified to resuscitate recently dead tissue, and that's "magic."

That's why I prefer Cheerleader Blood.
It's not magic when it's the Cheerleader.
Why now?
Shit, Cheerleader wasn't even engineered, she got zapped by an eclipse.

I loved every bit of this movie. I loved it to pieces. The "plot holes" and "WTF" moments were minor and forgivable.

This is my favorite Star Trek movie yet.

I guess it depends where you are. When I saw it on base last Sunday, the theater sold out, but last night, barely half the seats were filled (although it could've been because the latter was just normal ol' 2D).

Well, I'll be seeing this tomorrow afternoon in IMAX 3-D.

I'm sure I'll enjoy it - too many reviewers have praised it as being an entertaining thrill ride for me to think it won't be a very good popcorn flick.

But what will help me to enjoy it more will be to realize going in that it isn't Star Trek. It's the version of Star Trek that Abrams has said in interviews that he personally finds interesting. Which is to say that it's really Star Wars masquerading as Star Trek. Which means I'm in total agreement with Aurora's observation in the OP that this is JJ's dry run for Wars VII.

All of which is fine - action adventure has ALWAYS been an element of Trek. It's just never been the primary element. To be sure, TOS had it's fair share of action, space battles, phaser pew-pew, and hotties in scandalously skimpy outfits. Perhaps there would have been more of it given bigger budgets. Unfortunately, as I and Scorp have observed before, big-screen Trek in today's ADHD world is never going to be anything other than giant FX shoot-em-ups. Therefore I won't be deluding myself into thinking that I'm going to see the slower, thought-provoking sci-fi that we remember TOS to be. It ain't gonna be Conscience of the King.

also, on the blood thing. Folks rightly note that logically, you should assume every-time someone dies you pop out a vial andsave them.

Thing is, the supply is limited, likely no longer accessible, and at most you could say this is a line of research that someday might produce such a serum.

By contrast, the logical implication of transporters is that they are a perpetual youth machine. there's no logical reason that you couldn't put old Spock in a transporter, enter the physical pattern saved from when he was young, and "beam out" a young Spock. Even restore one who was on the brink of death.

But they don't routinely do that do they? the writers ignore this for obvious reasons. Even if there was a "magic blood serum" available to raise the dead routinely logically implied by this movie - which it isn't - then it would only be following a longstanding precedent to ignore it.

JohnM disagrees!

I'd forgotten about the "firing at warp" sequence. Okay, that was good. The rest - not so much.

ST09 refers to Star Trek (2009). It's also known as STXI.
ST:INS, or just INS, refers to the 1998 TNG film, Star Trek: Insurrection.

Fuck me, it was awesome.

There, I said it.

Having said it, I still have a huge problem with the villain being Khan. There's just no reason for it.

There was never any reason for Khan being the villain in TWOK either. Why couldn't the Reliant detect the fact that an entire planet was missing from the star system? Why didn't Chekov remember until the very last moment who was marooned in that star system? He was there 15 years ago, after all. He knew who was who and what was what. It makes no sense. There are many gaping plot holes in TWOK. That being said, I loved TWOK, and I love STiD. It captures the spirit of Trek in a way I didn't think was possible, and I'm glad for it. I will forgive the plot holes and inconsistencies, just as you old as bastards did when TWOK was released.

Man.

We had a literal mile long line to wait in just to get into the drive-in...that place was mobbed.

We ended up not staying for Iron Man 3 after all, but we both really enjoyed Star Trek.

I went in expecting to hate it, but it was all handled better than it's been implied. Honestly, it almost seems like I must have seen a different movie than some of the other people who have posted.

Anyone who hasn't...go see it and make up your own mind...it might not be exactly what you expect from reviews.