Ten Forward

By now I expect most people here have seen the Star Trek Into Darkness teaser and have Opinions. I figured I would start off a thread to discuss it, if you're feeling speculative or perhaps merely full of rage, or even ambivalent.

If you haven't seen it yet, the Japanese cut of the trailer with some additional footage is here:

If this is all some clever, or overt, misdirection, then I'm kind of onboard. Abrams knows what we all expect, and when he's good, he can manage to subvert that in some surprising and interesting ways. But sometimes he also goes for the obvious choices, which is less satisfying. Anyway, I had hoped to avoid any spoilers for this, but that is kind of ridiculous and I'm finding myself getting caught up in the mystery. So what do you all think?

So now they're saying that Cumberbatch is somebody called John Harrison, which was the name used for generic crewman in a bunch of TOS scripts (but never on screen). It's all just misdirection after misdirection. That or they've stolen the script for The Incredibles with Kirk as Mr. Incredible and Cumberbatch as Syndrome. It's also now been revealed that Alice Eve will be playing Carol Marcus, which is either more misdirection or points more to a Khan plot.

On top of everything else, Abrams swore he heard the complaints of just about everybody and would cut down on the lens flare. But obviously there's so much of it in this movie that they couldn't find enough shots without it to make a trailer. Abrams is going to screw the franchise so hard, it will never recover.

All I'm really expecting from the next film is more of the same from J.J. - a turn off your brain and eat popcorn while watching pretty things explode movie.

If "John Harrison" is going to seek revenge for having been left for dead, then it's clear that he hadn't read the Star Fleet Handbook which is handed out to every recruit and cadet. On page 238, the section dealing with Red Shirts, the introductory lines make all expectations clear.

Red Shirt status - Usually the blob's first bite. The first function of red shirted crew members is to serve as delaying fodder to give the top officers more time to either come up with a solution or to get away. Promotion to Gold or Blue Shirt status usually depends on luck as much as on skill, talent and ability.

They showed a different and new trailer for this before The Hobbit, that gives a little more narrative and story. It felt STRONGLY like a Khan repeat. I'm sure "John Harrison" is just some misdirection. I am still hoping they won't go that route (and if they do, I'm not sure why they aren't playing it up instead of playing it down), but I generally expect to be disappointed with JJ Abrams.

The other trailers before The Hobbit were Oblivion, Pacific Rim, After Earth, and Man of Steel. I was shocked at how similar they all were and how much they kind of blended into one another. They really are churning these things out by the dozen nowadays. It feels like 1996 all over again, what with space blockbuster action movies no one will remember next year.

I'm really hoping this does not turn out to be a Khan retread. I still hope it won't be a retread at all. Why create an alternate timeline where you can shed 40 years worth of canon, just to play it safe by retelling a familiar story?

That being said, I would say, if they were going to do a remake I would realy rather see them remake an episode like "Where No Man Has Gone Before". It would fit into the action movie formula of having a big, bad villain to rail against, while the friend against friend part would add a little human drama. Also,an advantage would be that it would be a less obvious retread than Khan. Most people other than hard core fans wouldn't know who Gary Mitchell is. Plus,I think it would be kinda cool to see the Enterprise plunging into the galactic barrier on the big screen.

Still, I hope that it is an original story idea, with a new character.

I've see the Hobbit linked trailer also. The only part of the trailer that sparked interest in me is Pike talking about learning humlility. IF he is speaking to Kirk and ht estory is about this Kirk learning a little humility then there is the possibility of a story.
Sadly, I also, yesterday, went to an IMAX presentation of the Hobbit (to compare and contrast the 24 vs 48 frame presentations) and I saw the 9 minute sneak peak of Into Darkness.
SPOILERS FOR THE SNEAK PEEK FOLLOW
/
/
Really? It's going to be this dumb?
Plot convient no transporter to get Kirka false problem.
Federation crew using a solution that *toady* we could do better with our tech. (They're no need to send Spok into a volcano - a drone can do that.)
A volcano is threatneing an entire planet? you know JJ planet's are really really big.
Hiding the Enterprise under water from the primative natives? What orbit isn't good enough?

Only a few details discussed below so should be safe for those thinking about seeing this movie.

Harlen Ellison has written a screenplay for Isaac Asimov's I, Robot. This screenplay will never be made into a movie. I've read it. Science fiction fans would enjoy it and Asimov fans would be glad that it was faithful to Asimov's words. That's not good enough for the budget this movie would require. The general movie audience would not connect with this one. It took that Will Smith rousing shoot-em-up vehicle to bring the notion of Asimov's words to the big screen. Star Trek had what it took to bring in the audience but the magic faded. Star Trek had been unable to change with the audience's expectations and the ways that it tried alienated many, if not most, of its long time fans. Has anyone in this group uttered a positive comment about Star Trek Nemesis? My thought after seeing it for the first, and only, time was 'Have I just seen the end of the Star Trek Franchise?' Then came J. J. Abrams' Star Trek and the franchise had an audience again. I was entertained by the movie but I thought of it more as a J. J. Abrams movie set in the Star Trek universe. My comment above tells what I had expected from this new movie.

Into Darkness entertained me in ways that J.J.'s first Star Trek didn't. That Indiana Jones opening segment seems like pure silliness at first but it is relevant to the rest of the story. If we cannot be sure about our dealings with our own society, why should we think we'd be sure in playing god with other societies? Questions raised within this story are the same questions we've raised in discussing re-watched episodes here. What should be done - what the Prime Directive says to do, the moral thing to do, or that which seems right, that which you know is right, to do in a given situation? Then there is the question of Star Fleet's direction. Should it be fleet geared for exploration in the hope of establishing peaceful relations with newly contacted advanced civilizations - but ready, if needed, to defend itself? Or, should it be a war fleet standing ready to fight against known and suspected enemies? This has been debated more than once within the Star trek universe. We have discussed the issue here.

The comedy in this movie felt right. From the reaction of a member of the Bridge Crew when told to put on a red shirt, to the banter between the sacred trinity (Kirk, Spock and McCoy), it approached the feeling of the original crew movies. While the explosions and broken things went beyond what I've known in Star Trek over the years, I can accept that they are what modern movie audiences expect and I didn't feel that they detracted from my enjoyment of the story. And about that quiet little scene near the end. While that could have been setting the stage for a future story, it was a pleasant little Star Trek moment for me. What is the moral thing to do and what is the right thing to do given the situation?

I'm sure others will disagree with my reaction, but I'm comfortable with having enjoyed this movie. Where do I rank it among the Star Trek movies? Fourth, after First Contact, The Voyage Home, and Wrath of Khan. Where do I rank it among movies overall? I don't know. After thinking about it, I'd say that First Contact is Seventh, after August Rush, Wind, Contact, Searching For Bobby Fischer, In Bruges, and Ghost Dog. Other movies would be between First Contact and The Voyage Home. Will I buy it when it's released on home video? Yes.

As I said above, I felt that J.J.'s Star Trek was a J.J. movie set in the Star Trek universe. With Into Darkness, I feel that J.J. has given us a Star Trek movie. It's not necessarily a Star Trek story for me and my generation, but he did entertain me this time and he gave me things to think about. That's all I ask of Star Trek. If it takes J.J. and his shiny red ball to keep Star Trek alive for now, than so be it. I'll listen to his stories while he shows us pretty things exploding.

Okay, I've seen it twice now ( in IMAX 3D...a format I never thought a Star Trek movie would be in ) and as a big noisy action packed popcorn flick, it works. Huge scientific gaffes? Of course. Plot holes large enough to fit J.J.'s ginormous Enterprise through? Absolutely. Derivative? By it's very nature, emphatically yes. An entertaining ride, surely. Is it the Star Trek I grew up watching and loving? No. Do I enjoy it for what it is? Yes.

Without giving details away, I sometimes felt I was watching a mash-up of Star Trek's II and VI, but I felt there were enough clever twists and turns to keep me from feeling like I'd seen it all before ( even though at times there was dialogue I probably could have recited along with the actors ). I also enjoyed the fan-wank moments; echoes of McCoy's "Shut up, Spock we're rescuing you!" line from "The Immunity Syndrome", the mentions of Daystrom, Mudd and Chapel, Dr.Boyce's name appearing on a medical monitor towards the end, the exploded ( presumably ) moon Praxis in orbit around Kronos - btw; I thought it was spelled Qo'nos -, the models of the Phoenix, NX-01, and Matt Jefferies ring ship at Starfleet,etc. The visuals were fantastic and things 'blowed up real good'. I was glad J.J. toned down the lens flares a bit, but I still have problems accepting Budgineering, and the NIF laboratory as the warp core. These settings look too comtemporary to me and take away from the sleek, clean future presented in TOS ( and promised by the revamped bridge and even the exterior of the Enterprise ).

I thought Chris Pine did a wonderful job as Kirk, especially in his scenes with Bruce Greenwood as Pike. I could feel his gratitude and pain. Quinto's Spock I enjoy, but I do feel he's a trifle more emotional at times than he should be. I try to remind myself that this Spock is considerably younger than his TOS counterpart, and has been through a lot of trauma in the last two movies, but his losing control so often, and so publicly just feel somehow wrong. I have considered that at a similar age in TOS ( in "The Cage" ) he was more expressive, but really, that was just more of a character not being nailed down yet, rather than a conscious decision on the part of Roddenberry and Nimoy.

For the one SPOILER I will discuss here at this time;

I still have a hard time believing that the Enterprise and Vengeance, being as far away as the Moon during the battle, somehow drift close enough to Earth to suddenly be pulled down by it's gravity. Without warp drive ( or even impulse engines at that point in the film ) the Moon is still pretty far away from Earth. If it's pull was that strong, we'd never be able to keep anything in orbit. That's not my only problem with the science and plotting of the film, but that one really bugs me, and since it's been in the trailers, I feel it's safe to discuss.

I have been avoiding this thread sooooo carefully because I have been ridiculously busy since it was released (on my birthday--and the last movie with that honor was Episode I, THANKS HOLLYWOOD). But I have finally, FINALLY seen the movie.

Uggggh. Toryx, we definitely need some drinks for this one. I am going to try to find some time to write a post about it, either formally or just on this thread, because I have such a mess of reactions and feelings at the moment and I want some time to let them settle. The short answer is that I actually really enjoyed it for the first half hour or so, until I realized that my fears had come to pass about what I thought it was all along and then I got really angry.

Since there are mixed feelings here about "into Darkness", I thought I'd post two links to reviews offering differing opinions of the film.

Toryx and Torie should find the second one quite entertaining:

http://trekmovie.com/2013/05/14/mark-altmans-review-of-star-trek-into-darkness/

http://io9.com/star-trek-into-darkness-the-spoiler-faq-508927844

No matter what your opinion of the movie, the second article is downright hilarious.

The news for me wasn't that I hated STID. After all, I hated Star Trek (2009), so that's pretty much what I expected. (My review of that film is here: http://krblack.livejournal.com/143876.html)

The news was how much I hated STID. Even a month later, I feel like there's something I need to purge from my system. These days (staring down the barrel of my 40th birthday), I can forget bad movies and even good ones pretty fast if I don't write something down about them, but I just keep coming back to STID. Unfortunately, the thought of writing about it bores me terribly--when you push at something, you want there to be something to push back. This, above all else, is why I was moved to start my own TOS rewatch on G+. (Which is how I found you people!)