Star Trek: Into Darkness

[clearspira]

The first film left me leery of number two. Into Darkness convinced me to not even bother with number three even on cable. The trailers didn’t help number three’s case.

The third one is much better than the first two. Different writers. Actually feels like Star Trek, and has a message that wouldn't be out of place in TNG. Makes good use of the ensemble cast, also.

I don't know about ''feels like Trek'' but it is better.

[Darth Wedgius]

Star Trek V got a 1. I don't remember if Trek 09 got a rating, so I'm not even sure if the Kelvin universe gets ratings. Like how the Discovery episodes don't get ratings.

V's obvious condemnation was Shatner's ideas and themes, while Into Darkness speculation centers on how this rendition of Kirk is written so sloppily, from his demeanor to the premise of his captainship.

Is V a worse film? Idunno, you're judging the faults as analyzed in the reviews from completely different directions.

IMHO, Into Darkness is not hugely worse than The Final Frontier, but it is significantly worse.

ST:V had plot holes Godzilla could drive a Death Star through, and it did minor disservices to Sulu and Chekov, maybe more than minor disservice to Scotty, and it didn't do Uhura many favors. And if it had a message, it was probably not really well supported by the actual film. My suggested ordering for anyone getting into the TOS films is Star Trek II,III, IV, the scene with McCoy and his dad in V, and then on to VI.

I think STID treated Kirk and Khan worse than Shatner's film treated the supporting cast, but what sent Star Trek Into Darkness over the edge for me was that it really did have a message and it fumbled it really, really badly. It didn't just not support the message, it badly contradicted it. It was the kind of fumble that in an end zone would be followed by a trip to a very surprised proctologist.

I can see how others would weigh those differently. It's subtle degrees of badditude. And I can't say that my view of Into Darkness isn't colored by my dislike of Orci (I honestly can't tell but I wouldn't be surprised).

[Mindworm]

I was waiting on the review to post much on this because I didn't want to steal Chuck's thunder, but the list of problems with this film is extensive

1) In media res opening is fine, silly adventure is fine. But how (the fuck) and why (the fuck) is the Enterprise under the (fucking) ocean? In general, I'm fine with them violating the prime directive to save a civilization, but the entire PROBLEM is contrived by the Enterprise being a place it shouldn't be-they have fucking matter transporters.

2) In meeting Pike, we see for the first time the problem is that Kirk hasn't grown as a character, and is in fact childish and pathetic-not a man who should be commanding a starship.

3) Kirk's fight with Spock is telling; Not only is Kirk being a brat who refuses to own up to his own actions, it's clear that he and Spock are very different people. Their supposed friendship is a big part of this film, and yet makes no sense because these are two people who don't even understand each other. The only reason they're even supposed to be friends is that the audience knows that Spock and Kirk are friends in the other timeline.

4) I'm kind of okay with Spock's mindmeld with Pike, as creepy as it is. The problem is that it's such a huge deal that it really should be a major theme for the film, else why bother have Spock do this violating act? It barely matters for the rest of the runtime.

5) How convenient that Starfleet decided that Kirk needs literally ALL 72 torpedoes for this mission. Or the fact that they gave him 72 torpedoes of the hundreds they have.

6) Speaking of these Torpedoes, WHY did Starfleet order them not to scan them or open them? This is literally only here so they don't immediately learn that there's people inside these weapons. If they're just advanced new stealth torpedoes, Starfleet should not care if they're examined...oh why bother, this plot point is so dumb.

7) Uhura and Spock get into a distracting petty bullshit argument on a mission to a hostile planet to pick up a hostile human. Their argument lasts all the way up until they're attacked because nobody was minding sensors or weapons. This is the part where you realize nobody in this film is fucking competent so you can no longer care what happens to them.

8) As Chuck pointed out, our hero is an asshole for an extended, overdone beat-down offered against a surrendering prisoner. This worked for Malcolm Reynolds once, but he repeatedly demonstrates redeeming characteristics, while his assholish behavior gets called out. Kirk is constantly an asshole and nobody seems to care. I fucking hate this character.

9) Massive starship battle takes place in a parallel orbit to the fucking moon. Nobody from Starfleet headquarters is hailing them, no starships asking if the Enterprise requires assistance...These people often have real-time conversations with people who are many lightyears away and the fucking main shipyards of the fucking Federation are on Mars. Yes, this sort of shit happened in both Generations and in The Final Frontier, and it was bullshit in both those films too.

10) The Kobayashi Maru was a theme of the previous film where the "death in the reactor" scene happens. What's the theme of this film that builds up to the death? Uhm...well Spock did do that mind-meld thing, but it doesn't seem to matter, so the death of Kirk in this film is just cheap drama and not part of a larger tale they seem to be telling.

11) They really need to make it clear in the story that Khan's blood doesn't just reverse death. Because that's really what it looks like it does, and that's a technology that makes the entire universe collapse on itself. And somehow they came up with this magic anti-death technology 300 years ago and it's never once been replicated shut up.

12) Kirk makes a speech about how revenge isn't right, when just getting revenge would have fixed every fucking problem they had. He's a hateful asshole and has never once done anything I'd consider peace-loving or even attempting to disarm a situation, so...I'm mostly just angry with him for talking at this point.

Your points can be easily answered:

1) is trailer bait

2) & 3) are idiot writers, with 3) also containing a fundamental misunderstanding of the characters

4) is idiot writing and amorality (on the part of the writers, they should know better. Plus one of the main writers is a man who loves p**sing on the memory of the 11/9 victims)

5) is shoehorning in a plot point a writer decided, on no evidence, would be cool

6) the writers needed I can't believe it's not Kirk and friends to open the caskets but couldn't think of a way to logically get them to open then. See point 5 above for why this was so

7) idiot writing by a man who was too lazy to find an expert and ask them (eg a military adivsor or even a friend who had been in combat)

8) idiot writing thinking being a bully is the same as being a hero

9) like 6 writers painted themselves into a logical corner because of "it's COOOOOOOOOOOL!!!!11!!1!!1!1!1!" and were too lazy to work their way out of it

10) lazy idiot writers who thought copying other, better films would substitute for plotting, characterisation or an arc

11) see 6 & 9. They wanted I can't believe it's not Kirk for the third film (probably because they were paying Pine anyway) but also wanted him dead

12) lazy idiot writing. Like with Ayn Rand's hero's in Atlas Shrugged being allowed do every single thing that Rand pronounced was "objectively" evil (I'm currently re-reading Daylight Atheism's beat down of that book).

[Worffan101]

Yes, Beyond is actually really well-written and clever. Its Kirk feels like an adult, much more like the classic version; it splits the team up into well-chosen pairs (Kirk with Chekov, mentor/Ensign Newbie; Spock and McCoy, emotion and logic; Sulu and Uhura, two junior officers thrust into a tense situation; and Scotty with the new character because Pegg ran out of ideas and decided to fall back on his reliable talent of dialect comedy, which, frankly, works tolerably well but is nothing special); the villain, while nothing to write home about, is at least challenging and has a somewhat interesting backstory; the plot hinges upon the heroes using their heads and finding a clever science solution because it's established early on that brute force won't work; the visuals for the space station are really something special, that was fantastic; and while the ending is kinda a let-down it's at least a decent ending and gets across what I felt were effective themes.

It was ironically more like Wrath of Khan than Into Darkness. I'd give it a 7 or 8 out of 10, imperfect but really good, whereas I'd give ST09 a 4 or 5, and Into Whiteness a 0.

[bronnt]

1) In media res opening is fine, silly adventure is fine. But how (the fuck) and why (the fuck) is the Enterprise under the (fucking) ocean? In general, I'm fine with them violating the prime directive to save a civilization, but the entire PROBLEM is contrived by the Enterprise being a place it shouldn't be-they have fucking matter transporters.

1) is trailer bait

Every time I think about that scene it gets dumber and dumber. Somehow a starship that is never meant to land somehow flew through the atmosphere and got itself down underneath the ocean without anyone on the planet seeing it. The water displacement from dropping a massive starship in the water doesn't crate massive waves that might kill hundreds or thousands of innocents (or maybe it did and the writers and crew don't just care). They're also somehow launching shuttles while submerged without that flooding the shuttle bays. Or maybe they're just beaming the shuttles out of the Enterprise to above the water's surface?

It's all so stupid and provides no discernible advantage. You can have the Enterprise in orbit above that particular village, where even if line of sight is necessary for transporters (which it never has been before), you can get close enough. And they can stay at a range where primitive villagers will never see your ship with the naked eye. You can still launch shuttles from up there. And there's no reason your ENTIRE crew has to be on the planet.

And it's all there to set up a dilemma where Kirk has to choose between his "friend" (even though there's no real evidence that these two are friends) and the PD. As if they couldn't think of a creative way to establish that dilemma while the crew's actions are still somewhat reasonable.

The inevitable counter-argument is that people don't always act in the most logical manners so I shouldn't expect characters in a movie to always take the most logical actions-this is why characters in horror movies sometimes do stupid shit that gets them killed. But this was a HUGE contrivance where it's such an outlandish idea that inevitably took tons of planning and coordination between a ton of different people to get the Enterprise down under the water, and there's no evidence that it was even slightly necessary. A ton of effort went into a non-solution for a non-problem.

And I just wrote close to 400 words to point out all the problems with one specific plotpoint in the opening scene. There's so many issues with this film that nobody put a moment's thought into. These are the sorts of issues that wouldn't show up in a fucking fanfic.

[Admiral X]

One actually doesn't need to disbelieve in strong women while also believing in fanservice.

And yet funny how its never the men who the director finds ways to reveal their bodies to the audience isn't it? I must admit I never used to agree with the likes of Linkara and Jim Stirling when they pointed this sort of thing out, but as I get older I really am starting to notice it everywhere. Once seen it cannot be unseen.

Wasn't Kirk in his tighty whities in the first Abrams Trek movie during the scene with the green woman?

[Yukaphile]

That was in the midst of sexual activities being viewed from the male perspective, so doesn't count.

[Admiral X]

Sounds like an excuse to me.

[clearspira]

One actually doesn't need to disbelieve in strong women while also believing in fanservice.

And yet funny how its never the men who the director finds ways to reveal their bodies to the audience isn't it? I must admit I never used to agree with the likes of Linkara and Jim Stirling when they pointed this sort of thing out, but as I get older I really am starting to notice it everywhere. Once seen it cannot be unseen.

Wasn't Kirk in his tighty whities in the first Abrams Trek movie during the scene with the green woman?

The difference though is that Kirk didn't get a loving full body shot that hung on him for several seconds. His underwear was an incidental part of the scene.
And that is what I mean by saying that I finally realise what people like Linkara have been saying for years. Its not the fanservice itself, because you can easily find male equivalents, its the fact that male fanservice is almost never the whole point of the scene as it is with women. Or to put it another way: ''show her in her underwear'' was a discussion that several people must have had in a meeting room at some point, including colour and style of said underwear, the correct lighting to use, and how best to aim the camera.

Like I say, once you see it, you can't unsee it. I watched Suicide Squad only a couple of hours ago (I liked it unlike most it seems) and let me ask you: which character's ass got the most attention from the camera during the suiting up montage do you think? Hint: it wasn't Big Willy's.

[Admiral X]

The difference though is that Kirk didn't get a loving full body shot that hung on him for several seconds.

It's been a while since I watched it, but I seem to remember him being on screen in his undies for at least several seconds.

His underwear was an incidental part of the scene.

Riiiigght.... I'm sure Chris Pine being in his undies wasn't meant as fan service for anyone. You remind me of a reviewer who bitched about not being able to see dick in Riddick in exchange for some brief side-boob from Dahl, in spite of the fact we saw way more of Riddick than Dahl.