I don't like Star Trek Into Darkness very much.

[xCompackx]

I gave Star Trek Into Darkness another watch today and I gotta say, I didn't like it. I mean, it's a beautiful looking movie and the special effects are top-notch. It's just the story, tone, and villain that I'm not a fan of. The first Star Trek reboot was great because it was serious yet funny and the plot was straightforward. Then in Into Darkness, you've got betrayal after betrayal, the tone is spastic (there's some really f***ing dark moments and then the funny bits feel awkward because you just saw a bunch of people die), and John Harrison/Khan's motives and character were just bland. Maybe it's just me, but I think I'll stick with the first movie.

[the2ndevil]

Rehash Of Khan is a giant cross of the Space Seed, Wrath Of Khan, and The Undiscovered Country, but without quite getting what made those work.

[Mighty Attack Tribble]

It's incredibly flawed, but I like it. It needs some tighter editing, the supporting cast need more to do, and the Wrath of Khan callback can go to hell, but overall I thought it was okay.

[Hit Girl]

It sucks. Production design is awful. Cinematography is ugly. A completely pointless mention of Section 31, and the inclusion of Khan makes absolutely no sense, nor does the rip off plot.

[mizerable]

It was good until they fight Khan. I hated Cumberbaugh in the role, the emphasis on rehashing WoK and messing up Spock. That whole last third of the movie was so bad, it put the new franchise in jeopardy simply because they were afraid of making risks even though the former reboot risk had paid off.

[Hit Girl]

I don't see any reason why they couldn't have simply done a story where a former Starfleet officer called John Harrison has gone rogue. He was previously working with Admiral Marcus on a secret bioengineering plan to create superhumans to attack the Klingon Empire, but Harrison turned on him when he realised it the specimens would be cannon fodder. They didn't need to mention Khan at all.

[A Platypus Rave]

Jan 9, 2015 1:25:32 GMT -5 Hit Girl said:

I don't see any reason why they couldn't have simply done a story where a former Starfleet officer called John Harrison has gone rogue. He was previously working with Admiral Marcus on a secret bioengineering plan to create superhumans to attack the Klingon Empire, but Harrison turned on him when he realised it the specimens would be cannon fodder. They didn't need to mention Khan at all.

They could have also gone a similar route with finding the Botany Bay but thaw out someone other than Khan... and worked from there instead. Maybe for those that didn't get it show Khan's name on one of the tubes when they're unloading them at the end.

Of course that doesn't give them reasons to remake shots from Wrath of Khan... so I guess they couldn't do that.

All that aside it still doesn't change that Marcus is the head of Starfleet and shouldn't be the villain of the movie... since he's the head and not just a captain or high ranking officer it basically makes ALL of Starfleet the bad guys... which pretty much goes against what the show was supposed to be about.

[Hit Girl]

I feel it defeats the purpose of rebooting a franchise if the new timeline is filled with references only longtime fans would understand. A casual viewer wouldn't have a clue what Section 31 even was, or the significance of Kirk meeting Carol Marcus.

[BorneAgain]

The villains really drag the film down. Marcus is Star Trek insane admiral #348 and Khan is so blatantly a square peg into a round hole. The interesting thing about the latter in both Space Seed and Wrath of Khan was that at times you could sense that Singh could very well be a great man and admirable leader if weren't blinded by his own ambition or desire for revenge. There's a restrained passion veiled behind a calm exterior that when pushed far enough, comes out.

The script and direction in STID make Khan into too much of a cold action movie villain; he seems less a brilliant leader and more of a superman for Kirk and Spock to try and punch.

[Hit Girl]

I'd have had Pike be the villain. It would have shattered Kirk's trust in him. Pike could have argued some shit like the Klingons are so potentially dangerous, he had to take pre-emptive action. That could set up a Klingon storyline in Star Trek 3.0

[Deleted]

I didn't like the first one of this new reboot. So I'm in no rush to see the sequel.

[The Unconquered Sun]

it was the ONLY time i ever felt wrong about seeing Alice Eve in a bikini.

[Cranjis McBasketball]

Don't feel bad, I don't like Star Trek very much or at all.

[543Y2J]

Jan 9, 2015 5:27:58 GMT -5 The Unconquered Sun said:

it was the ONLY time i ever felt wrong about seeing Alice Eve in a bikini.

Yeah you know a movie has screwed up when it can't make Alice Eve in a bikini a good thing. Honest trailers probably said it best

[SHAKEMASTER TV9 is Don Knotts]

It lost me from the opening. A lot of fake excitement. Kirk's running and yelling. Spock is stern and there's a lot of cuts and flashing lights. It's supposed to be a jump right into the action scene that also establishes everyone's character trait, but I just found I boring and barely paid any attention after that.

[Kevin Hamilton]

I like it, but it is very flawed.

[kidglov3s]

Jan 9, 2015 8:21:14 GMT -5 SHAKEMASTER TV9 is Don Knotts said:

It lost me from the opening. A lot of fake excitement. Kirk's running and yelling. Spock is stern and there's a lot of cuts and flashing lights. It's supposed to be a jump right into the action scene that also establishes everyone's character trait, but I just found I boring and barely paid any attention after that.

I watched the movie for the first time last week and about all I remember is how fugly the opening scene was.

[xCompackx]

Jan 9, 2015 8:21:14 GMT -5 SHAKEMASTER TV9 is Don Knotts said:

It lost me from the opening. A lot of fake excitement. Kirk's running and yelling. Spock is stern and there's a lot of cuts and flashing lights. It's supposed to be a jump right into the action scene that also establishes everyone's character trait, but I just found I boring and barely paid any attention after that.

Actually yeah, that opening part is another thing. I don't understand why they thought anyone would buy the possibility of Spock dying 10 or so minutes into the movie. I get that it was supposed to establish Spock's affinity for the rules and Kirk's constant ignoring of them, but that whole volcano scene felt like it should've been the climax to a movie, rather than the start of one.

[Deleted]

I haven't enjoyed a JJ film since MI3 to be honest.

I liked Super 8 and all, but I also felt like I'd seen it before. All the alien shit bored me and the stuff with the kids trying to make the short film was much more interesting.

[Futureraven: Beelzebruv]

Jan 9, 2015 9:35:28 GMT -5 xCompackx said:

Jan 9, 2015 8:21:14 GMT -5 SHAKEMASTER TV9 is Don Knotts said:

It lost me from the opening. A lot of fake excitement. Kirk's running and yelling. Spock is stern and there's a lot of cuts and flashing lights. It's supposed to be a jump right into the action scene that also establishes everyone's character trait, but I just found I boring and barely paid any attention after that.

Actually yeah, that opening part is another thing. I don't understand why they thought anyone would buy the possibility of Spock dying 10 or so minutes into the movie. I get that it was supposed to establish Spock's affinity for the rules and Kirk's constant ignoring of them, but that whole volcano scene felt like it should've been the climax to a movie, rather than the start of one.

Because Wrath of Khan did it, but they do it in another way without understanding why.

Before WoK it had leaked Spock died, but not how, so they faked out people by killing him off in a simulation so people would think that was what the rumours meant.

But they did it in a way as to introduce a new character and flesh her out and establish a running theme of the movie so that even without the real world stuff it's a good scene that belongs in the movie.