Star Trek Into Darkness [ Spoilers ]

[yorost]

I'm not seeing what's wrong, they look like Klingons to me. The top guy looks like Worf and General Chang had a baby.

[rumborak]

Chang was already the least Klingon-looking Klingon in ST. JJ Abrams crossed Chang with a shower curtain hanger and arrived at whatever that is.
And those gimp masks? What's up with those?

[yorost]

Why do the masks matter?

[BlackInk]

Yeah I see no problem with the Klingons. Of course I haven't seen anything Star Trek but the JJ's movies.

[rumborak]

Why do the masks matter?

Because it's just yet another thing that's un-Klingon. I can't think of a single occasion in any Star Trek where a Klingon ever covered his face. And for a race that is obsessed with personal honor in battle, hiding your face would be the last thing they'd do.
The thing is, had the plot not pointed out that they were supposedly Klingons, I don't think anyone would have identified them as such. And when you're at the point where the key alien race has become unrecognizable, you've done a bad job asa director.

[sueño]

benefits of having no Star Trek background      

[rumborak]

And that attempted split between trying to please you and me is part of the problem I think. Paramount wants to make money with Star Trek, thus they need to make any new movie in line with the run-of-the-mill summer blockbuster. Obviously that's the reason Abrams even got the deal to begin with.
I just with someone in Paramount had the vision to say "let's just make a medium-budget ST movie for Trekkies". I am sure they'd get good actors still, even they aren't raking in the big bucks.

[Kotowboy]

The Klingons in TOS look nothing like we know them today.

And this is a TOS movie.

[rumborak]

The Klingons looked like they did in TOS because they had no budget. After TOS they fleshed out the Klingons more than any other culture in terms of attributes. Abrams simply decided they doesn't apply to him.

[Nick]

The scene took place in an uninhabited and brutal part of the Klingon homeworld, and as such I think the masks can easily be passed off as something used to deal with part of that habitat.

[BlobVanDam]

The scene took place in an uninhabited and brutal part of the Klingon homeworld, and as such I think the masks can easily be passed off as something used to deal with part of that habitat.

I believe a deleted scene from Star Trek 2009 shows Klingons on Rura Penthe also wearing the masks, so it's just a feature of the new Klingons. I think JJ just thought masks were kind of cool, just like he apparently thinks bald bad guys with tattoos and piercings are cool.

The Klingons in TOS look nothing like we know them today.

And this is a TOS movie.

And yet the Klingons weren't based on the Klingons in TOS either. TOS was a product of its time, so they had limitations of technology and budget to work with. With that in mind, you have to accept certain things based on intent, rather than execution, especially if you want to adapt them to a big budget movie in 2013.

You accept that in the Trek universe, a Gorn didn't look like a guy in a rubber mask, and the Enterprise didn't look like a wooden set painted to sell colour televisions. And Klingons weren't supposed to look like middle aged men in black face makeup with fluff glued to their faces.

They're also not supposed to look like brown versions of the Romulans in the last movie, who in turn were not supposed to look like Nosferatu. The Klingons in Trek were one of the most iconic and recognizable races in the 47 year history of the franchise, and I actually had high hopes there was no way to mess that up. JJ loves to prove us wrong though.

[jammindude]

Well...as a 35+ year Trekkie, I thought they were completely awesome, and I want more of the same please. 

[BlackInk]

I always assumed they had the masks so that that there could be a "reveal" when one took it off.

I just with someone in Paramount had the vision to say "let's just make a medium-budget ST movie for Trekkies". I am sure they'd get good actors still, even they aren't raking in the big bucks.

I and a lot of other people would hate that. Only making a movie for trekkies would re-alienate 90% of the audience gained by the new movies.

[Kotowboy]

JJ even said that Into Darkness was a film for everyone and not just trekkies.

And that doesn't bother me.

*shrug*

[ZirconBlue]

I always assumed they had the masks so that that there could be a "reveal" when one took it off.

I just with someone in Paramount had the vision to say "let's just make a medium-budget ST movie for Trekkies". I am sure they'd get good actors still, even they aren't raking in the big bucks.

I and a lot of other people would hate that. Only making a movie for trekkies would re-alienate 90% of the audience gained by the new movies.

Indeed.  A "medium-budget ST movie for Trekkies" had zero chance of being made, because they already made quite a few of those, and they were getting less and less lucrative with each passing year.  I seem to recall that Star Trek (2009) made more money in it's opening weekend than Nemesis made in it's entire run. 

[Kotowboy]

Into Darkness definitely did.

[Kotowboy]

 

I watched nemesis again recently and meh... I still really like it.

I can understand why others dislike it but I prefer it to Insurrection.

It had some good ideas - it just needed a good director.

[BlobVanDam]

I always assumed they had the masks so that that there could be a "reveal" when one took it off.

I just with someone in Paramount had the vision to say "let's just make a medium-budget ST movie for Trekkies". I am sure they'd get good actors still, even they aren't raking in the big bucks.

I and a lot of other people would hate that. Only making a movie for trekkies would re-alienate 90% of the audience gained by the new movies.

How dare they make a Trek movie for Trekkies! They should continue making Trek movies for the people who don't like Trek at all. Because movies should be all about satisfying the lowest common denominator just for money.
If only JJ was an actual fan, he could have tried to do both more successfully, instead of seemingly intentionally doing the opposite just because he can.

Indeed.  A "medium-budget ST movie for Trekkies" had zero chance of being made, because they already made quite a few of those, and they were getting less and less lucrative with each passing year.  I seem to recall that Star Trek (2009) made more money in it's opening weekend than Nemesis made in it's entire run. 

That's because Nemesis was shit, even to the most diehard Trek fans. It got beaten for #1 spot at the box office by a J-Lo movie! It barely even broke even, if at all. That's probably why no more were ever made.
But they have proven before that you could make a Trek movie on a lower budget that was financially successful, and satisfied the fans. But if we're arguing the merit of a movie based on money, then the point of Star Trek is lost entirely anyway.

I can accept a dumbed down movie to appeal to a broader demographic if it helps the franchise survive, because Trek has rarely worked great in movie form anyway, but when they finally bring Trek back to TV, I want a real scifi series in the true spirit of Trek, so I don't want JJ anywhere near it. I think that's already been shot down at this point though.

Hopefully JJ will be occupied with Star Wars from here on. What he did with Star Trek will be perfect for Star Wars (and I don't mean that at all negatively). He can clearly nail the light action/adventure aspect, that was pretty lacking in the prequels, and made the originals so great. And I have high hopes for his involvement with Ep VII.

[yorost]

Hopefully JJ will be occupied with Star Wars from here on. What he did with Star Trek will be perfect for Star Wars (and I don't mean that at all negatively). He can clearly nail the light action/adventure aspect, that was pretty lacking in the prequels, and made the originals so great. And I have high hopes for his involvement with Ep VII.

That's funny, because I believe he already said he was not going to do Star Wars the same way he has done Star Trek.

[BlobVanDam]

Hopefully JJ will be occupied with Star Wars from here on. What he did with Star Trek will be perfect for Star Wars (and I don't mean that at all negatively). He can clearly nail the light action/adventure aspect, that was pretty lacking in the prequels, and made the originals so great. And I have high hopes for his involvement with Ep VII.

That's funny, because I believe he already said he was not going to do Star Wars the same way he has done Star Trek.

The thing with Star Wars is that there are several things that have to be done the Star Wars way to remain consistent to the tone of that universe, so you couldn't do it the same way he did Trek. They're different animals entirely. Star Trek was never as unified and cohesive in style as Star Wars in that way. So I don't think that will refer to the aspects I'm expecting he'll carry over. Because it seemed clear to me he was trying to make Star Trek more of a Star Wars movie.

[Kotowboy]

I'll be the first one to hold my hands up and agree that box-office gross does not equate to quality but

Star Trek Into Darkness is on $430m worldwide at the moment

making it the biggest Trek film of all time.

 

https://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=startrek12.htm  - For those of us who are into facts and figures.

[BlackInk]

The movie is making far less money than I thought it would. Not because I liked it but because it's a pretty big and well marketed movie, also it's a sequel to the pretty much loved 2009 movie. And it has a 8.2/10 score on IMDb and is at #191 on the top 250 movies of all time. People who has seen it seems to generally like it but I guess less people care about Star Trek than I thought.

[kirksnosehair]

The movie is making far less money than I thought it would. Not because I liked it but because it's a pretty big and well marketed movie, also it's a sequel to the pretty much loved 2009 movie. And it has a 8.2/10 score on IMDb and is at #191 on the top 250 movies of all time. People who has seen it seems to generally like it but I guess less people care about Star Trek than I thought.

I have seen every Star Trek film and have been a huge fan of Star Trek pretty much since it came into existence.  I thought the first JJ Abram's reboot movie was excellent, but I found "Into Darkness" to be pretty average.  Not a bad movie, per se....just....I don't know....I suppose I would have preferred that they not borrow so heavily from the Khan story and do something more original.


As far as Star Wars goes, I'm interested in JJ Abram's take on it because I don't think it's possible to butcher the franchise any more than the prequels already have.  In other words, it can only get better from here.

[Kotowboy]

The movie is making far less money than I thought it would. Not because I liked it but because it's a pretty big and well marketed movie, also it's a sequel to the pretty much loved 2009 movie. And it has a 8.2/10 score on IMDb and is at #191 on the top 250 movies of all time. People who has seen it seems to generally like it but I guess less people care about Star Trek than I thought.

It may be a slow burner. I don't think it's even opened in some countries yet.

[BlobVanDam]

I'll be the first one to hold my hands up and agree that box-office gross does not equate to quality but...

Star Trek Into Darkness also agrees that box office gross doesn't equate to quality.

[Kotowboy]

Well done.

[kirksnosehair]

So, anyway, since this came out on Comcast's On Demand service a few days ago, the wife and I decided to see it again on our new 70" LED/LCD television.  I have to admit the film was much better the second time around.  Still doesn't quite live up to the first JJ film, but I quite enjoyed it.  Of course, seeing it in my own home theater, lounging on the chaise with my wife and the dogs was definitely a plus 

[Cool Chris]

I am surprised you liked the 2009 Trek as much as you did. I admit I was exhausted when I saw it, but don't have any desire to give it a second look to see if I was just having an off day.

If only JJ was an actual fan, he could have tried to do both more successfully, instead of seemingly intentionally doing the opposite just because he can.

You don't have to be a fan of a franchise to make a quality movie. Nick Meyer basically knew nothing about Star Trek going in to ST2, but once he started working with it, he got what Star Trek was about, and was able to make a quality movie that Trekkers and even non-Trekkers seem to enjoy.

[kirksnosehair]

I am surprised you liked the 2009 Trek as much as you did. I admit I was exhausted when I saw it, but don't have any desire to give it a second look to see if I was just having an off day.

I caught it pretty recently on cable (HBO I think) and really enjoyed it.  And then my wife told me (right after we got the new 70" installed) that "Into Darkness" was available On Demand and I thought that would be a good inaugural flick for the new TV.  So, it was kinda cool to see both films pretty much back-to-back like that.

[Dream Team]

My wife rented this from Redbox, so I accidentally saw the first half. The thing that stuck out to me the most is how poor Quinto's acting is compared to Nimoy, it's almost laughably bad. The choice of actor to portray Scotty was also poor IMO. Had to leave the room. (saw it once in the theater and have no desire to ever again watch this butchery of one of TOS' greatest moments)

[Kotowboy]

Funny that pretty much everyone has been praising Quinto as Spock.

I dislike Pegg anyway so he doesn't get my vote. I'd have chosen Chris Doohan. He's in the bloody film anyway...Just cast him as Scotty.

[King Postwhore]

My wife rented this from Redbox, so I accidentally saw the first half. The thing that stuck out to me the most is how poor Quinto's acting is compared to Nimoy, it's almost laughably bad. The choice of actor to portray Scotty was also poor IMO. Had to leave the room. (saw it once in the theater and have no desire to ever again watch this butchery of one of TOS' greatest moments)

I don't think I've ever read a positive post from you.   Movies, Sports, life, how to drink milk, the weather.  It's all bad.

[Kotowboy]

Just watched this again on DVD.


Still love it.









Edit : only Just Realised that both films are 12. Thought (2009) was PG. The More Ya Know y'know ?

[BlobVanDam]

If only JJ was an actual fan, he could have tried to do both more successfully, instead of seemingly intentionally doing the opposite just because he can.

You don't have to be a fan of a franchise to make a quality movie. Nick Meyer basically knew nothing about Star Trek going in to ST2, but once he started working with it, he got what Star Trek was about, and was able to make a quality movie that Trekkers and even non-Trekkers seem to enjoy.

True, I just wish he actually displayed some respect for the franchise, instead of seemingly doing things intentionally to spite that.

Funny that pretty much everyone has been praising Quinto as Spock.

Nothing funny about it. He was perfectly cast. Any issues I have there is with the writing for him, but not his performance. He's not as good as Nimoy of course, but he does a great job of capturing the subtlety of Spock's delivery without being in any danger of parody like some of the other characters.

[chrisbDTM]

i love karl urban's impression of bones. i thought he did a very good job as well.