Star Trek: Into Darkness Possible SPOILERS

[Capt_Kirk]

I liked the first movie but, The classic Trek was based mostly on the chemistry and commeradery of crew. The reboot is all about action. If you want action and eye candy this is good. If you like commeradery, You'll have to unpack the classic DVD's.

[Klosterheim]

I read some of the reviews on rotten tomatoes.

It seems the best positive reviews admit to the movie having major plot flaws and some characters not getting enough details.

They all say about how great the movie is and special effects and 3D are so wonderful. Then they turn around and say it could be great if the screenplay was more finely tuned, to correct obvious plot flaws.

They say how great Cumberbatch is, but then say Khan's too one-dimensional.

Then there is the Spielberg ripoff moment.

Negative: They say they changed certain characters' traits, history and occupation.

I'm saying the positive aspects talk me out of going to the theater.

Everyone seems to love the movie as a big blockbuster, but they praise it not being intelligent, they don't want new, exploration or thinking science-fiction.

Even Star Trek TV fans love it and they liked all the references to past canon.

To me though, it seems like they just threw random quotes and events from previous movies and shows.

It seems that they even reused stuff from the 2009 one.

I'm just surprised that so many watchers don't care if it is only an action movie.

Also, instead of being new, it's a reboot of TWoK and Space Seed.

How many times does Star Trek need rebooted?

I could accept Star Trek 2009 if Star Trek 2013 was fresh and at least 75% original.

Need a 100% new story. J.J. Abrams only gives 100% homage to past films and series.

[Bruce Banner]

Well, that Bennidict guy was on Letterman and said his character's name. I forgot it already but it was neither Khan or Gary Mitchell.

John Harrison.

But that's not the character's real name.

[mego73]

Well, that Bennidict guy was on Letterman and said his character's name. I forgot it already but it was neither Khan or Gary Mitchell.

[hedrap]

This flick feels like it had much involvement from the studio, because the story is hackneyed as all can be.

There is no logical reason to make this guy Khan, other than Lindelof believing he's the only true singular villain of Trek.

Certainly in the sense of all the ideas that it represented and I feel like one of the reasons that Star Trek doesn't have a lot of iconic villains is because of just the fundamental design of the franchise. It's not like when there's a new Iron Man movie you're asking ‘who's the bad guy?' I think there's the Klingons and then there's Khan. Those are the greats. And then in the Next Generation there's the Borg. But the Klingons and the Borg are both races of people, there's only really one individual. And I think that for me coming out of that movie, firstly naming a movie ‘the Wrath of Khan' and not really knowing who that was and he had a Wrath! So it was obviously going to be a bad thing! And that just sort of infused it with a power.

This is either a coverup for the studio demanding it be Khan, or he's a bigger idiot than I realized.

How does he not know Khan was the villain for the sequel because Montalban was riding high from Fantasy Island? Meyer can say all he wants about what he liked about Space Seed, but make Montalban the Squire of Gothos, and that would have been the villain.

I'm no longer surprised Abrams jumped to Wars. He only took on Trek because he wanted out of Lost and had an inroad for the opportunity.

[johnmiic]

Rather than squat on the film it would be more honest to say I have no enthusiasm for it. Some of these commercials even give me the impression Abrams is channeling Irwin Allen rather than Star Wars. When it plays out and I can see it for a discount price I might go see it.

[Bruce Banner]

Mild spoilers follow.

Saw the movie earlier today.

The story is engaging, the acting is (mostly) good, and there are some awesome action set pieces.

It was great to see more of the JJ Abrams version of Klingons, and the movie also incorporated some other established ST elements such as Section 31.
Some neat nods and references to various other classic ST species and characters, too.

In essence, it's kind of Space Seed and TWOK combined and given the alternate ST universe treatment.

All in all, a better and more satisfying film than the first one, and not so much an exercise of style over substance.

Although if you didn't like the first film, it's a fair bet to assume you won't like this one.

Also, the 3D in this movie is genuinely impressive, and is definitely one of the better 3D experiences of recent years.



_

[Hector]

This new Trek is all about big time special effects action and not scientific yapping because they want it to finally be a global hit that appeals to foreign markets, unlike the previous Trek movies...which had almost no appeal overseas...

http://movies.yahoo.com/news/star-trek-darkness-heading-where-none-gone-foreign-124423696.html

Around the world, Chris Pine will be more famous than Willian Shatner, incredible, isn't it...

[ctc]

>There are literally a million plus stories he could've pulled from the star trek history from any of the franchises.

....many of which HAVEN'T been done over and over. Khan was cool, but some of the later ones, not so much. (Like the DS9 evil Starfleet guy.) Howzabout we finally get the scoop on the Gorn, or Tholians? I'd love to see the Iotians come back, (the gangster guys) or maybe some of them web handed angry dudes from TNG:

"Engineering, we need more power!"

"I'm WORKING on it Captain! Keep your Grizlark-damned pants on before I come up there and slap you stupid!"

There's SO MUCH there they could use.

Don C.

[Capt_Kirk]

if this is REALLY the movie premise then Abrams needs to be de-throwned. Anyone could've remade a classic movie. Plus There are literally a million plus stories he could've pulled from the star trek history from any of the franchises. If this is true. I feel SO violated as a Trek fan : (

[ctc]

>It's like J.J. Abrams buried Star Trek in the "Pet Semetary" and it came out of the sour ground nasty and evil. Ha! Ha!

I don't know if I'd chastise it THAT much.... but they have moved it a few steps closer to everything else.

If it WAS the evil "Pet Semetary" version I'd probably be more excited to see it.

Don C.

[Klosterheim]

Too much Star Wars in this Star Trek.

Too much 21st Century in the 23rd Century.

People are supposed to be enlightened and have better behavior and morals in 23rd Century, this alternate version does not.

Not enough mystery.

This is like a very expensive, non canon, fan film that went bad.

Those clips and trailers are bad, except one where the inertia control is offline.

It's like J.J. Abrams buried Star Trek in the "Pet Semetary" and it came out of the sour ground nasty and evil. Ha! Ha!

Not enough originality.

No new science ideas introduced.

[Mikey]

Bald Klingons don't phase me.

Makes them look more mean and skinheadish

When you really think about it seems most klingon would shave their heads because long hair would get in the way in battle

[ctc]

>as much as so many people go one about Abrams bringing the ST franchise back to life, it just seems derivative of like, well, everything.
>(Cue CTC)

*blahblahblah* done before *blahblahblah* reruns....

>the more I see the promos for it, the less interested I become

That's my take too; but I think you have to be careful. It's likely the ads are hitting the main, standard beats so's to not scare the audience with anything new or different. The last ad I saw was doubtless set up to look like the last Bond film on purpose, 'cos that flick did reasonably well and they're looking to evoke some of that warmth.

The bald Klingons don't phase me. They look more like the ones from the first movie. Plus; I'd imagine fashion changes over a hundred years or so. Bald might be in right now on the Klingon homeworld.

*As an aside: that's one of the things that's ALWAYS bothered me about sci-fi in general. Alien societies always seem to be locked in cultural stasis; monomonolithic (except for the inevitable rebel faction) with limited liesure activities. (usually a strange instrument, and maybe a sport of some kind....) Humans too; although you generally get mixed ethnicities.... something ELSE perpetually absent from the aliens.

That's why I really liked the space hippie episode of the original Trek; it showed that there WAS a counterculture, that there were folks who disagreed with the dominant power of the seriese, and that they didn't neccessarily feel the need to amass an army to express that discontent.

>I have seen a pic of what it really looks like. It's garbage

It certainly is an odd one.... I kinda like the more primitive look to it. If the new Trek is suppoed to be a pre-Trek I'd like more of that; to contrast the later shows. To me though, the ship has a touch of the Klingon in the design; with the diamond shapes and cattle prod lookin' front..

Don C.

[domino]

I waited for the first one to hit dvd and I will do the same with this one. I have to agree with Mikey, the more I see the promos for it, the less interested I become. I did enjoy the first one but it didn't feel like Star Trek to me though.