Star Trek Into Darkness ::: May 17, 2013

Hilly wrote:

The White Tuxedo wrote:

I don't even like Trek09 on it's own merits. I'm eager to see what I think of STD (my name for the new film). I may find it more "tolerable".

you best copyright STD old sport. Other forums were ahead of you.

I've been calling it that since the title came out.

I've only seen a few episode of TOS and two seasons of TNG, but to my mind TWOK is the only one that really one that really hits the nail on the head in terms of a literal journey into the unknown with the Genesis shenanigans, and the spiritual journey of Kirk actually learning something new. It's what KOTCS should have been, complete with the father/estranged son/amicable ex dynamic.

And even though there are aspects of Shatner's performance that are justifiably lampooned ("You just. Keep. Missing. The... target!"), I think he ultimately delivers the best performance in Trekdom, at least that I've seen. His delivery of the final line really gets to me, you're not watching the Shat, you're watching James T. Kirk.

Also, Horner's score. And Montalban out-weirding Shatner's delivery. And proper Alley!Saavik. Et al.

As for NuTrek, while watching Into Darkness I started thinking about how I'd really love to see Meyer make a film with this version of the crew. Unlike a lot of people here I have no problem with the new cast for the most part.

The White Tuxedo wrote:

Hilly wrote:

The White Tuxedo wrote:

I don't even like Trek09 on it's own merits. I'm eager to see what I think of STD (my name for the new film). I may find it more "tolerable".

you best copyright STD old sport. Other forums were ahead of you.

I've been calling it that since the title came out.

shows how much attention I pay. Still, charge copyright. You'd rake it in from the other forums hand over fist :)

Maybe the next film, in keeping in line with easily mocked acronyms can go for something wrapped around...VD or some such. Don't mind me it's the whisky talking.

--

All you have known, is at an end...resistance...is futile

and so on. A marginal improvement on the first film. Delight in Greenwood's return rapidly disintegrated, lost amongst the flashbang nature of the beast. The Jack Daniels I consumed prior sort...of turned to ice I think. A lot of groaning my end of the row as the film did its best to remake TWOK in its own image and Harrison's...well ID was established. Touche Abrams. Seemed to lack cohesion or maybe after watching TWOK, TSFS and two TOS episodes in the past week I expected something not explosive much of the time. As if we dared not lose our foucs. Lens flare did get irritating, on par with Spock/Uhura. Scotty less irritating, eclipsed by the aforementioned.
Weller channeling his Paxton from ENT. Dying words should've been "Terra Prime forever..." throw everyone for six.
One good touch was the past Enterprise models (including the much derised NX-01) and the real joy for me

Spoiler:

.
As a summer blockbuster it did the job on the tin. Even if the moment from

Spoiler:

All remains to be said...just how big is that damn ship on the inside?

(musically, much a rehash of the last films score. Much more so than anyone could have accused Horner of doing in Star Trek)

next: Star Trek XIII: Son of Kirk.

Now...as you were gents.

http://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie-talk/j-j-abrams-star-trek-too-philosophical-192548009.html

Imagine...George Lucas on one of those inflatable bed things in his Yoda shaped swimming pool. What a bastard.

I know Tux loves Saldana, but this is just gross to me.



Looks more like an ad for an African relief fund charity than a nude photoshoot.

there's...a certain...pfft

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

I know Tux loves Saldana, but this is just gross to me.



Looks more like an ad for an African relief fund charity than a nude photoshoot.

I wouldn't say I love Saldana. She's too thin and it shows up on her face.

Been uploading music from "Shades of Gray" (aka: RIKER'S BRAIN) on my youtube channel.



Why post it here? Because it's got more going on than Giacchino's Trek music. Also...

Riker, after watching STID.

The more I think of this film and Sunday night watching it...the more I want my money back. Two people actually walked out about twenty minutes into it but that might've been with the fact that the Audio Description was on than the TWOK rehash.

Audio description? They have that in cinemas? Shouldn't they make headphones available for those who would need it?

Of course, the plot is probably such that it would help one to know WTF is going on. Would have helped in 2009.

The White Tuxedo wrote:

Audio description? They have that in cinemas? Shouldn't they make headphones available for those who would need it?

Of course, the plot is probably such that it would help one to know WTF is going on. Would have helped in 2009.

they do, but at this cinema it's usually afternoon showings not 9pm as this was. The most common thing that came up on AD (which vanished after about 25mins) was "breathing heavy".

Were it not for AD I wouldn't have known there were annoucements on the Enterprise or such forth which were drowned out by God knows what. I know AD's there for a reason but always funny to see "Alien native language" or "Panicked aliens" and so on

EDIT- I say audio description. Subtitles for the hard of hearing...too tired.

Money, because it's why this movie exists to begin with.

OPENING WEEKEND:

1. STAR TREK (2009): $81,511,630
2. STAR TREK: FIRST CONTACT: $45,522,130
3. STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE: $38,197,860
4. STAR TREK III: THE SEARCH FOR SPOCK: $37,314,620
5. STAR TREK: GENERATIONS: $36,269,820
6. STAR TREK IV: THE VOYAGE HOME: $35,815,290
7. STAR TREK II: THE WRATH OF KHAN: $34,571,220
8. STAR TREK V: THE FINAL FRONTIER: $32,582,470
9. STAR TREK: INSURRECTION: $31,458,730
10. STAR TREK VI: THE UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY: $31,007,550
11. STAR TREK: NEMESIS: $23,929,110
12. STAR TREK: INTO DARKNESS: N/A



DOMESTIC

1. STAR TREK (2009): $279,346,750
2. STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE: $263,464,670
3. STAR TREK IV: THE VOYAGE HOME: $232,770,740
4. STAR TREK II: THE WRATH OF KHAN: $190,150,120
5. STAR TREK III: THE SEARCH FOR SPOCK: $171,144,160
6. STAR TREK: FIRST CONTACT: $136,387,060
7. STAR TREK VI: THE UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY: $127,854,490
8. STAR TREK: GENERATIONS: $118,730,450
9. STAR TREK: INSURRECTION: $100,126,710
10. STAR TREK V: THE FINAL FRONTIER: $97,906,800
11. STAR TREK: NEMESIS: $55,908,260
12. STAR TREK: INTO DARKNESS: $13,536,422



INTERNATIONAL

1. STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE: $181,736,110
2. STAR TREK (2009): $138,681,630
3. STAR TREK: FIRST CONTACT: $80,029,790
4. STAR TREK: GENERATIONS: $66,527,090
5. STAR TREK: INSURRECTION: $60,486,590
6. STAR TREK IV: THE VOYAGE HOME: $49,404,350
7. STAR TREK II: THE WRATH OF KHAN: $43,583,300
8. STAR TREK VI: THE UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY: $37,560,070
9. STAR TREK V: THE FINAL FRONTIER: $33,752,620
10. STAR TREK: NEMESIS: $31,096,340
11. STAR TREK: INTO DARKNESS: $31,700,000
12. STAR TREK III: THE SEARCH FOR SPOCK: $23,561,950



WORLDWIDE

1. STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE: $445,203,980
2. STAR TREK (2009): $418,028,390
3. STAR TREK IV: THE VOYAGE HOME: $282,177,220
4. STAR TREK II: THE WRATH OF KHAN: $233,735,820
5. STAR TREK: FIRST CONTACT: $216,416,850
6. STAR TREK III: THE SEARCH FOR SPOCK: $194,708,340
7. STAR TREK: GENERATIONS: $185,257,540
8. STAR TREK VI: THE UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY: $165,414,560
9. STAR TREK: INSURRECTION: $160,613,300
10. STAR TREK V: THE FINAL FRONTIER: $131,661,300
11. STAR TREK: NEMESIS: $87,004,600
12. STAR TREK: INTO DARKNESS: $45,236,422

All adjusted based on dollar inflation through the Consumer Price Index

Paramount is probably hoping for over $500 million worldwide ($300 Stateside, $200 international). I wouldn't expect anything much higher.

FourDot wrote:

[Into Darkness, however, uses existing Trek lore as a crutch and goes nowhere interesting with it.

Honestly, I think "goes nowhere with it" summarises both Abrams' films.

There's a scene in the 2009 film where the heroes perform a special parachute jump onto a tiny platform aboard a giant mining consturct pumping a MacGuffin into a planet to make it explode. It should be an exciting sequence, but it's just boring.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

FourDot wrote:

[Into Darkness, however, uses existing Trek lore as a crutch and goes nowhere interesting with it.

Honestly, I think "goes nowhere with it" summarises both Abrams' films.

There's a scene in the 2009 film where the heroes perform a special parachute jump onto a tiny platform aboard a giant mining consturct pumping a MacGuffin into a planet to make it explode. It should be an exciting sequence, but it's just boring.

And the whole operation was for nothing because the drill was already finished.

To be fair, disabling the drill allowed the transporter to work and beam up a couple of vulcans. However, that only opens up the next problem where Chekov can beam up two officers free falling, yet he couldn't beam the elders if they moved?

Python wrote:

To be fair, disabling the drill allowed the transporter to work and beam up a couple of vulcans. However, that only opens up the next problem where Chekov can beam up two officers free falling, yet he couldn't beam the elders if they moved?

Yeah, I know about the transport thing.

Unless it makes more on Sat and Sun, STID is looking to have a lower opening weekend than the last film. Will be interesting to see how it does in the long run.

The White Tuxedo wrote:

And the whole operation was for nothing because the drill was already finished.

I don't even remember that bit.

I just remember it being like the sequence in SKYFALL where Bond drives the digger bucket into the train carriage, crosses the digger arm and leaps into the carriage just as the back end is torn away, then adjusts his cuffs as if it nothing out of the ordinary. You're supposed to be sitting there with a mile-wide grin on your face at the sight, simply because it was so spectacular, however much you had to suspend your disbelief. It's meant to be entertaining, it's meant to be fun. Even if you don't like the overall film, you can at least appreciate the way the film-makers tried to come up with something new and commit it to film.

But the space-jump scene had none of that. I barely even noticed it, and it was the scene that was essentially the biggest stunt in the film. That's never a good sign.

I don't even remember the majority of the movie. I haven't watched it all the way through since theatres. I remember it being stupid. I did catch a bit of it playing on a TV in an electronics store and it was all cringe-worthy. The only thing I really like about it is the production values. It's awesome to have a Trek movie with some actual money thrown behind it. The costumes and sets and CGI and so on. Too bad it's so awful.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

But the space-jump scene had none of that. I barely even noticed it, and it was the scene that was essentially the biggest stunt in the film. That's never a good sign.

The whole film has a 900mph ADHD tone, so it all blends together in an extremely bright slop. Plus, none of the action sequences have any real meaning to them because the actions people take in this film make no sense anyway or are barely motivated.

Still stuns me how the movie gets good reviews from critics. Other films that are this nonsensical get bad reviews.