Skip to main content

Star Trek Into Darkness

Hang on, I need some spoiler space first…

I KNEW IT!  I FUCKING KNEW IT WAS HIM!

So yeah, this was pretty damn great.  The magic vampire blood ending was telegraphed a mile away, but it was all worth it for Spock channelling his inner Shatner and bellowing the name we all knew he had to at some point.  And the rest of the gloriously lens-flared action spectacle stands up just fine with the rest of the series.  Other than the silly reset button ending, there was literally nothing else I did not love about this movie.  JJ Abrams, you magnificent bastard, don’t fuck up Star Wars, although judging by Trek I’m sure you won’t. 

Comments

  1. I have to disagree, it wasn't that great of a movie. You could replace John Harrison with any other disgruntled starfleet person and it still would have been the same movie.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I found the second half of the movie majorly disappointing, I don't agree with Kirk and Spock swerve of swapping roles.... that should of ALWAYS been Kirk's line. I frigging loved Benedict Cumberbatch acting as Khan though.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I enjoyed it, but not as much as I did the first Abrams reboot. I loved the nearly constant references to the original Star Trek canon, Benedict Cumberbatch was AWESOME as Khan, and I was marking out *hard* at Nimoy's cameo. But, I really didn't care for the Kirk/Spock switcharoo and outright theft of the Wrath of Khan ending - if you're going to remake the film, then remake it. If you're going to "reimagine" it, then do that. But christ...don't just lift the ending and switch characters. Spock yelling "KHAN" a la Shatner just bothered me. I still have a sour taste about it.


    Also so Iron Man 3 yesterday. Better than the 2nd, not as good as the 1st, and not as good as the new Trek film.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Good point about the ending confrontation.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The thing was, Kirk and Khan couldn't face off in a fight since (as we saw) Khan clearly wins without breaking a sweat. Khan against a Vulcan, however, is a much closer fight. I actually liked the dichotomy between the two movies of fiery Kirk using his mind to beat Khan, while logical Spock is the one who resorts to a brawl.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I've already seen it twice and I think I liked it even more the 2 go-round. I have every confidence that he will return the grit & emotion to Star Wars. I love JJ

    ReplyDelete
  7. Just got back from it. Yeah, pretty damn awesome, and my geek senses went into overload with the scream of KAAAHHHHHNNN!!!!! Well actually, it began to kick in when the mention of "radiation" and I knew they were gonna flip the script on Wrath of Khan in regards to Jim and Spock, which I really liked. And Cumberbatch knocked it out of the fucking park.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Enter "Alice Eve Topless" into Dailymotions search engine and you'll be a very happy man.

    ReplyDelete
  9. It was just ok. Felt more like Star Trek Origins: Khan than a sequel. There really was no reason why he should have been in the movie, or that it should have been kept a secret. '09 Trek>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>STID

    ReplyDelete
  10. Somehow I knew this film was going to be up Scott's alley.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I thought Cumberbatch did a great job. As a fan of alternate history, I'm fine with the twists on WOK. I do think the first film was better.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Box Office Mojo is reporting that the movie is opening far short of expectations, in a range that would "normally be cause for panic:"

    http://boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=3685&p=.htm

    What went wrong?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Maybe the fact the it's fucking Star Trek?

    ReplyDelete
  14. I enjoyed the film a lot initially, but the more it began reusing elements from Wrath of Khan, I began to like it less. I think having Kirk sacrifice himself and be saved by the miracle blood was cheap and the guy sitting behind me said "are you fucking kidding me?" when Spock yelled "KHAAAAAN".

    The sacrifice of Spock meant so much more in the Wrath of Khan. The point of the film is that Kirk never had to face death, he never faced a no win scenario, he never had to fully face the consequences of his actions as next week on the show everything was forgotten. A man from his past outsmarted him and Kirk had to rely on his experience edge to beat Khan. But even then Khan trapped him in a situation where there was no way to win. Kirk faced his mortality and lost his best friend.



    Into Darkness doesn't have that depth to it. To be fair, the film puts into question whether Kirk can make the big decisions to keep his crew alive and his sacrifice does show his willingness to do so, the miracle blood cheapens it.



    This film is a fun action film though, so even though I don't like the idea of Spock beating up Khan, I do understand that action hero convention requires a fist fight to end the film. However, I think they could've ended the film's action phase with Spock outsmarting Khan by arming the torpedoes. It would be a better homage to the original Khan movie in that sense.


    It's a fun fun film, but its aping of Khan forces me to compare it to Khan and it just makes me want to watch Wrath again.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I love the battles in Wrath of Khan. Each action is meaningful, has a purpose. I just wish those scenes could be played out with modern cool effects. Like I loved when the Vengeance caught up when the Enterprise and shot it out of warp. Total nerdgasm there.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Agree with most of your post but not quite sure about the Spock beating up Khan part -- If getting his skull nearly crushed by Khan (fortunate save by his girlfriend) is you're idea of winning the fight what would be your vision for him losing? Khan chopping off his nuts and feeding them to him?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Keeping Khan a secret.

    ReplyDelete
  18. The first film made 385 mil.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Iron Man 3 came out two weeks ago.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I was fine with the roles being switched, since the movie built up Kirk's recklessness and Spock's lack of humanity towards Kirk.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Blockbuster cannibalism; being sandwiched between IM3 and Fast Six in a loaded May may not have been the wisest choice. After the huge critical and commercial success of the first, they may have liked their chances, but there's only so much attention all these films can get in one release window.

    ReplyDelete
  22. 7th highest grossing film in 2009, over $200m at the box office. People liked fucking Star Trek the last go-round.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Yeah, I remember her being topless, but Ray Liotta is present, therefore, cannot fap.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Just saw it. Fun, fluff entertainment.



    Here's a thought for JJ, how about a completely original story without so many homages? Seriously. All the Khan stuff makes me simply want to watch SS2.

    ReplyDelete
  25. You'll have to forgive me as I don't watch commercials, but pretty much all I knew about ST:ID was that it was a retelling of Wrath of Khan. They kept that out of the marketing?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Maybe they never heard of Star Trek: Nemesis? They should be passing the champaign after an $84m opening.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I just saw a story that STID's 3D screens only accounted for 29% of the take. The two main reasons I think STID didn't do as well as everyone hoped, 1. They waited too long to make it, and 2. Not revealing Khan in the marketing.

    ReplyDelete
  28. They kept a secret. It wasn't mentioned in any trailer and the filmmakers kept insisting that it was just some dude named John Harrison whenever they did press.

    ReplyDelete
  29. The 3D in ST:ID was a post-process, not real 3D. I think, at this point, people only. Care about 3D if its a) real 3D, and b) in the 3D wheelhouse (ie, not Great Gatsby).

    ReplyDelete
  30. I would have liked it a lot more if they just replaced Khan with some generic patsy character. Khan was completely unnecessary to the plot. Marcus and the conspiracy plot was more than enough to carry the film.

    ReplyDelete
  31. This is where I'm coming from as well.

    Khan worked with the original cast because it was the sequel to "Space Seed". Plus, Montalban had a certain flare that added more depth to the character. I love Benedict Cumberpatch in Sherlock, but he was "Generic Heel #2" in this for me. The Spock "Khaaaaaannnnn!!!" made me squirm in my seat. Not quite Vader yelling "Noooo!!!!", but close.

    As I said, I enjoyed it as a fun summer action flick, but hardly a film we'll be talking about for years like ST2.

    ReplyDelete
  32. The scene where new Spock calls old Spock to ask what the big deal about Khan was so so so bad. When you have to explain why we should give a shit about Khan, it's a problem.

    Cumberbatch should have been one of Khan's crew instead of Khan himself. And at the end of the movie, when they were showing the 72 cryo tubes, they pan over one that reads Khan Noonien Singh.

    ReplyDelete
  33. When Cumberbatch introduces himself, it's interesting that he never actually referred to himself as 'Khan Noonien Singh,' just as 'Khan.' Perhaps he is just the son of the REAL Noonien Singh and we'll get him in a sequel.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Old Spock uses his full name in his scene. My guess is that they wanted to downplay the fact that a white dude was playing an Indian as much as possible.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I would've eliminated Khan altogether. Maybe have Marcus build a Super-Enterprise using secret Klingon plans and have that be the reason for his betrayal of the federation. Keep it Klingons vs. Team Kirk in and around a planet in the neutral zone. Then, do the Batman Begins ending where they uncover these cryo-pods and you show one of the names to be Khan. That gives a proper set up for the next flick and can set up more of a "Space Seed" re-do combined with ST2. If you're not a big fan of the originals (or are younger) you're like, why am I supposed to be impressed by this Khan guy aside from the fact that he's got super strength?

    ReplyDelete
  36. But JJ has to get off to his vague marketing by making a mystery out of nothing (the monsters in Cloverfield / Super 8 most notably).

    I think one of the interesting things about this reboot series is that a lot of the older Star Trek fans don't seem to like it for various reasons (new timeline, the spirit of exploration is missing, etc.) and the people who seem to be going are just average movie goers.



    I was always a Next Gen fan myself, so after not particularly liking the first of the new series, I'll be skipping this one.

    ReplyDelete
  37. "Then, do the Batman Begins ending where they uncover these cryo-pods and you show one of the names to be Khan."

    That is what I was thinking in the above post. It also didn't help that Cumberbatch was so generic. The only time I found him interesting was when he was teaming up with Kirk.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Yes, Cumberpatch played it too straight. Khan was a more playful adversary in the originals. I always thought of it as "mental chess" with Kirk even though he was also physically superior. Cumberpatch needed to ham it up more.

    ReplyDelete
  39. I'm not of those huge Trek fans, I fucking LOVED '09 Trek. The only Trek I've actually seen is '09, STID, and Wrath of Khan.


    And I've never had a problem with the marketing of Cloverfield and Super 8. STID was the first film that JJ's obsession with secrecy hurt it.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Originally, Benicio Del Toro was supposed to play Khan. I have a feeling he would have blown Cumberbatch out of the water.

    ReplyDelete
  41. You had me at Benicio.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Nemesis had a myriad of problems such as a terrible release date being wedged between Die Another Day and The Two Towers, having to follow the "just OK" ST: Insurrection after a four year gap, and some bad reviews from it being edited heavily for time.

    I've always wondered why the latter two Next Gen era movies used original villains when you had villains like Q, Moriarty, and Lore, as well as the peripheral action of the Dominion War over on DS9, to work with.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Insurrection and Nemesis were two giant stinkers and a huge black mark on the legacy of TNG.

    ReplyDelete
  44. The only reason I brought up 3D was because of the extra charge, which the first Trek didn't have. Even at only 30%, that's still a bump in money not attributed to the original, which means that falling short of the first film's opening is even weaker because the attendance for the first was that much stronger to outpace it even without 3D.

    ReplyDelete
  45. The diagnosis from Box Office Mojo seems to go along my line of thinking:

    "While it's usually unfair to knock a movie for opening in line with its
    predecessor, it certainly feels like the "disappointment" label is
    applicable in this case. All signs suggest the 2009 Trek is very
    well-liked (it has a strong 8.0 rating on IMDb) and Paramount's
    marketing did a decent job walking the sequel tightrope (a balanced
    approach of promising more-of-the-same and offering something new).
    Additionally, there was four years of ticket price inflation and the
    addition of 3D and IMAX premiums. Based on historical comparisons, this
    should have added up to around $100 million for the four-day weekend,
    which was what Paramount was publicly forecasting going in to the
    weekend.

    A few theories have been thrown out regarding the
    underwhelming opening, including the lack of definition surrounding the
    villain and the lengthy time between sequels (four years is generally
    too long). It seems more likely, though, that it fell victim to the
    incredibly competitive May schedule. There's only so much money to go
    around, and following the strong performances of Iron Man 3 and The Great Gatsby—and a week ahead of a jam-packed Memorial Day—Star Trek Into Darkness just wasn't a compelling enough proposition for casual moviegoers.

    Trek's demographics tell an interesting story that contributes to that theory:
    the audience skewed heavily male (64 percent) and older (73 percent
    over the age of 25). In comparison, the first movie did a better job
    reaching women (only 60 percent male) and younger audiences (only 65
    percent over 25)."

    ReplyDelete
  46. I wouldn't call Insurrection bad, but like the second X-Files movie, the stakes are just too low for what should be an epic film. It would make a fine 2-part episode for TNG or Voyager, but it just doesn't have the grand feeling of First Contact or the better TOS movies.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Sorry, miracle blood isn't cheap or a cop-out. It's set-up to pay off later on, and the very nature of McCoy's work indicates he has some awareness that it can do something... he's just not sure what.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Selling Khan doesn't mean anything to non Star Trek fans. I

    ReplyDelete
  49. Hell, it was set-up from the early sequence where Khan brings that officer's daughter back to life. I don't think it's a cheap cop-out if it's established, and it was both there and with McCoy analyzing it later.

    ReplyDelete
  50. I just meant it shouldn't have boiled down to a fistfight.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment