Star Trek Into Darkness - Spoiler Free

[RedShirtNo5.1]

Overall, I pretty much agree with RangerWickett. Strong for the first half, but act 3 just left me cold. I didn't feel insulted by the

Spoiler

Kirk Spock switch, or even that the death scene had to be "earned" since it was serving a different purpose

. Cumulative plot problems and gratuitousness took its toll.

 

[delericho]

The triumph over the villain needs to be a moral and ideological one, not a physical one.

That's a very good point.

I enjoyed the film a great deal, but you're right about the resolution being a bit underwhelming. And what you suggest would have been more satisfying.

 

[MarkB]

The triumph over the villain needs to be a moral and ideological one, not a physical one.

[sblock]Wasn't it, though? First, Spock manages to turn the tables on Khan by giving him his own torpedoes to destroy himself with, without sacrificing the lives of those inside, and then in the finale he masters his rage and chooses to take Khan alive.

Not to mention Kirk's sacrifice of himself in order to save his crew and however many innocents the Enterprise would have landed upon. If that's not a moral and ideological victory, I don't know what is.[/sblock]

 

[Rune]

[sblock]Wasn't it, though? First, Spock manages to turn the tables on Khan by giving him his own torpedoes to destroy himself with, without sacrificing the lives of those inside, and then in the finale he masters his rage and chooses to take Khan alive.

Not to mention Kirk's sacrifice of himself in order to save his crew and however many innocents the Enterprise would have landed upon. If that's not a moral and ideological victory, I don't know what is.[/sblock]

Not only that, but these were themes that were set up to be explored throughout the entire movie. I was very satisfied with the movie on these counts.

 

[dogoftheunderworld]

Not only that, but these were themes that were set up to be explored throughout the entire movie. I was very satisfied with the movie on these counts.

I agree with both MarkB & Rune, I thought the ultimate resolution was very much more of a social-conscious victory.

 

[Mallus]

Ok, and am I the only one who was VERY distracted by what looked like a beefy guy in a dress on the bridge during much of the battle action??

Distracted? No. I thought she was awesome. It's about time there was a woman who wasn't eye-candy for straight white guys on the bridge of the Enterprise. Why it almost makes Trek look progressive again!

As for the movie... I can't decide if I want to call it Stardate: Zero Dark Thirty or Mass Effect the Movie feat. Star Trek.

Either way, I enjoyed it a lot. It wasn't quite the burst of pure movie magic Star Trek 2009 was, but in many ways it was a better film, and a nice return to Star Trek as ham-fisted (but cool) political allegory. Anyone who says Into Darkness isn't Trek-y enough missed something (like the ham-fisted, but cool, political allegory).

My only complaint is the action sequences in the 3rd act ran on too long. The acting and dialog are so good --well, grading on the summer blockbuster curve-- for most of the movie, I was getting bored during the final bits. I was like, "enough with the running and CGI, can we get back to the talking, please?"

 

[Hand of Evil]

I was a bit disappointed...acting was great, best is still think Karl Urban was the perfect cast for Bones. It was the story that was off. [sblock]
Stop re-doing epic scenes from prior movies and move on to doing new ones!
This Khan did not have the charisma that Ricardo Montalban brought to the character, he was not iconic.
[/sblock]

 

[RedShirtNo5.1]

Why it almost makes Trek look progressive again!

I'm vaguely conflicted about that. On the one hand, I liked the bridge crew. Yet it's undercut by Alice Eve's main contribution to the movie being an underwear shot. And I'm similarly conflicted in that I appreciated Scotty's comment about exploration, yet the movie itself is still 180 degrees from that.

 

[Mallus]

Yet it's undercut by Alice Eve's main contribution to the movie being an underwear shot. And I'm similarly conflicted in that I appreciated Scotty's comment about exploration, yet the movie itself is still 180 degrees from that.

Definitely agree on the first point. As for exploration -- that would be nice, but I'm happy the movie was about something, ie had a central, ham-fisted political message.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Yet it's undercut by Alice Eve's main contribution to the movie being an underwear shot.

I find it impossible to have any issue whatever with any Alice Eve underwear shot.

And I'm similarly conflicted in that I appreciated Scotty's comment about exploration, yet the movie itself is still 180 degrees from that.

insightful commentary upon race, religion, class warfare, the Human Condition - that all may be great "Star Trek" but it would make for a short-lived movie franchise. Not all Trek is deep thought and award-winning sci-fi. It's also rife with badly written and badly acted schlock, with monster-of-the-week series episodes, evocatively dressed native slave women, and even the occasional shootout or fistfight for little better motivation than to fill some screen time. The stories that are suitable to a weekly series are not necessarily suitable to a movie franchise that is aimed at the demographic that LIKES a lot of CGI, phaser-fire, fist fights and chase scenes.

I personally have more of an issue with the change in design and especially scale of the Enterprise than with the story and plot being presented. But that's just me.