Star Trek: Into Darkness (2013)

[YF19EX]

I was originally very harsh with the 2009 movie due to my close following of the original series all the way through to the Next Generation to Enterprise and every movie in between. It did not "feel" like Star Trek in the traditional sense and Abrams never approached it as such. After sitting back and re-evaluating my perspective, I enjoy the 2009 reboot now as long as I don't try to look at it from the view of a traditional Star Trek fan.

I am very much looking forward to it in 3D IMAX tomorrow. I have managed to avoid every spoiler to the plot in every review and board. Its still a complete mystery to me as all the previews have not hinted one bit about how the story will play out. I am looking forward to seeing the little throwbacks to the older series that Abrams has put through out the movie.

[james0246]

^The IMAX 3-D is quite spectacular. Some of the action sequences are simply beautiful.

[Alchemist007]

Story was ok, but the actors make the movie. 8.5/10 overall.

Saw it in IMAX 3D, last movie I saw 3D was Avatar in RealD, I don't feel there's a difference between the two to watch the more expensive IMAX.

Originally Posted by james0246

Spoiler for ending spoilers...:

btw, does anyone else find the ending with Kahn and the others really stupid? Beyond the fact that Kahn should have simply been put to death for his crimes, keeping the others alive potentially creates a series-wide save point that allows anyone to be put on ice only to be revived with miracle blood later.

Spoiler:

Didn't they abolish the death penalty?

[Ithekro]

Originally Posted by Alchemist007

Story was ok, but the actors make the movie. 8.5/10 overall.

Saw it in IMAX 3D, last movie I saw 3D was Avatar in RealD, I don't feel there's a difference between the two to watch the more expensive IMAX.

Spoiler:

Didn't they abolish the death penalty?

The actors do sell there parts.

Spoiler for penalty:

In Kirk's era the only death sentance left on the books was for breaking General Order 7. Issued by Captain Christopher Pike. No ship is to go to Talos IV. The penalty for doing so is death.

All other things were sent to mental correctional institutions were the success rate at putting back even the harded psychopaths back into society was in the 90s percent range. They only had a few cases they couldn't handle and new medications were being made for them....including one Fleet Captain Garth (who reportedly did get better at some point).

This seems to have been forgotten about by the Deep Space Nine era.

[james0246]

Originally Posted by Alchemist007

Spoiler:

Didn't they abolish the death penalty?

Spoiler for ending spoilers...:

How does that apply to Khan or his people? They were a people out of time, technically already dead (in the eyes of history) and to paraphrase Spock, "we live for technicalities".

I understand why the writers/directors didn't kill them (it fits with the overall message concerning war based on terrorist activities and revenge), but it didn't feel like a real solution, especially for Khan who killed hundreds of thousands of civilians and star fleet personal.

[Bri]

Saw it yesterday. Plot was rather trivial but Abrams really makes the characters come to life, which I consider an achievement for a blockbuster. Cumberbatch delivers with 'the voice'.

Originally Posted by james0246

Spoiler for ending spoilers...:

I understand why the writers/directors didn't kill them (it fits with the overall message concerning war based on terrorist activities and revenge), but it didn't feel like a real solution, especially for Khan who killed hundreds of thousands of civilians and star fleet personal.

Spoiler for ending spoilers:

Khan's genocidal actions were mostly hundreds of years in the past, so there would be no living victims that need closure or vindication. While we, as the viewer, and Spock know Khan is evil, his actions in the movie did not exceed a campaign of revenge against Duncan's Starfleet who held his people hostage. Afaik this Kahn wasn't a conqueror like his previous incarnation and his scientific abilities could be considered an asset.

[Samari]

Originally Posted by james0246

Spoiler for ending spoilers...:

How does that apply to Khan or his people? They were a people out of time, technically already dead (in the eyes of history) and to paraphrase Spock, "we live for technicalities".

I understand why the writers/directors didn't kill them (it fits with the overall message concerning war based on terrorist activities and revenge), but it didn't feel like a real solution, especially for Khan who killed hundreds of thousands of civilians and star fleet personal.

Spoiler:

My friend, it's the future. The death penalty has been abolished. Just because one crazy admiral went berserk and wanted to eradicate them doesn't give the rest of humanity the right to murder them. They could simply send them off into space or place them on a deserted planet defunct of technology. They won't murder them though. This would never happen in any incarnation of Star Trek.

[Mr Hat and Clogs]

Saw this tonight, have to say it was quite awesome. Only quibble I really had was with the Tribble, it seemed kind of hamfisted. They should have just stuck with "his blood is highly regenerative... blah blah." We had the scene at the start of the movie showing it's curative ability, so it only really needed to be mentioned in passing otherwise.

I have a feeling the third movie, if there is one, will be about the Klingon war.

[Samari]

I wonder if Abrams will be working on the next one. Because now he's going to be directing the next Star Wars film.

[james0246]

Originally Posted by Samari

Spoiler:

My friend, it's the future. The death penalty has been abolished. Just because one crazy admiral went berserk and wanted to eradicate them doesn't give the rest of humanity the right to murder them. They could simply send them off into space or place them on a deserted planet defunct of technology. They won't murder them though. This would never happen in any incarnation of Star Trek.

Spoiler for ending spoilers...:

Isn't that what they did in the original series? And how did that turn out?

Honestly indefinite imprisonment isn't that much better of an option that simply killing them (and to be frank, if kept around I expect someone in Star Fleet would later simply try and use them as Admiral Marcus did in this film). If Star Fleet wants to psychologically evaluate and help redeem the augmented humans, then they should do it, otherwise keeping them on ice forever is not a real solution, it's only willfully ignoring the problem.

Originally Posted by Mr Hat and Clogs

I have a feeling the third movie, if there is one, will be about the Klingon war.

God I hope not. We finally got to the point where they can explore and potentially break new ground (new species, new adventures), so I don't want to see a war or any recreations of original adventures (No, seeing Kirk in "The Cage" or something similar is not a net positive for the re-imagined franchise).

That being said, there has to be less of a delay between the films. The 4 year wait between Star Trek and Into Darkness will undoubtedly adversely affect the box-office for the newer film (Into Darkness will probably break 450 million worldwide, but if the film had come out sooner I expect it could have made 650 million just based on the good will garnered from the first film), and since the budget increased by 50 million or so (190-200 million), that means the film has to break at least 275-300 million in the US and 175-200 million overseas to be considered a success (due to funky Hollywood math). Right now, the film is on course to make 90-100 million this weekend (in the US) and somewhere around 150 million overseas, but with a bevy of big titles coming out in mere days (Hangover 3, Epic and Fast and Furious 6), Into Darkness will drop significantly. Thankfully, there will be some strong word of mouth which should keep the film afloat, but it's financial future is very much up in the air right now.

Originally Posted by Samari

I wonder if Abrams will be working on the next one. Because now he's going to be directing the next Star Wars film.

As it is, Abrams simply cannot do the next film. 2015 is the planned release date for Star Wars VII, and the next Star Trek film has to be released by 2016 at the latest (even that might be too long a wait).

[Ithekro]

There is a potenial original plot point for a 'War with the Klingons'. "Errand of Mercy"

Also pre-packages an antagonist for the story. Commander Kor, originally played by the late John Colicos. That character is the most fleshed out of the Original era Klingons, since he appeared in a few episodes of Deep Space Nine as well as his first appearance in "Errand of Mercy" and an episode of the Animated Series. He was also the first Klingon character in Star Trek.

[Alchemist007]

Spoiler:

It was a bit annoying that the Klingons only made a cameo. I mean really?

[KiraYamatoFan]

Originally Posted by Alchemist007

Spoiler:

It was a bit annoying that the Klingons only made a cameo. I mean really?

I thought the same thing too. Considering how the Federation and the Klingon Empire were in a state of war (with sometimes a very fragile ceasefire between belligerents) during most of Kirk's career since the original TV series, we should see more of them.

[Ithekro]

Based on the year, I would say this is just before all that. Remember the Original Series takes place between 2265 and 2270.

[Kyuu]

I actually got to watching it earlier. And well... here's my take (rant):

Spoiler:

1. It felt more like a Star Wars movie, than a Star Trek movie.
2. Swearing. There's no swearing in Star Trek. Period.
3. Scotty = more aggressive version of Mr Bean.
4. That "Khaaaaaaaaaaaan" fanservice. Really?
5. Cliches everywhere... like various, last minute saves from certain death kind of stuff.
6. 9/11. Really? Was 9/11 actually an inspiration for a movie scene? At the very least, show people getting crushed within the buildings upon impact.
7. Complete redesign of the Klingons. What idiot decided to try to make the Klingons look more "fresh"? I'm sorry -- 100 to 200 years is not long enough for evolution to change their appearance from this movie version to that used in other Star Trek movies and TV shows.

Nevertheless, I did enjoy the iMax experience. At the very least, the last 4-5 minutes... now that felt more like Star Trek. Overall, as a movie, it's acceptable and enjoyable on its own. It's just that -- so much of that typical Hollywood crap these days.

Seriously. Hollywood really needs to rework itself from the ground up.

[Blaat]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Based on the year, I would say this is just before all that. Remember the Original Series takes place between 2265 and 2270.

The conflict between the Federation and Klingon has been ongoing for seventy years according to Spock in Star Trek VI, which means it started around 2223.

[Ithekro]

And they mention the problems with the Klingon Empire since contact.

But, there is another change to Star Trek's timeline that may have altered all that. Actaully two changes that might be linked and then expounded when Nero arrived. The first was the change in First Contact. The next was Star Trek: Enterprise. While it is possible that the events in both happened in the original timeline we know from TOS though Star Trek Nemisis, it is also entirely possible that the changes in the Timeline had set this Universe on different path from the original one way before Nero arrived.

Spoiler for What is Canon? and Into Darkness:

In the scene were Kirk is trying to get permission to go to the Klingon Homeworld from the Admiral, there are a set of models on the counter. They lead up from rockets, to the Pheonix, and the NX-01 Enterprise, as well as the Ring ship Enterprise and the USS Kelvin. This means that in this universe, Star Trek: Enterprise happended. That also means that the Borg coming to stop First Contact with the Vulcans also happened. An event that Captain Picard did not clearn up very well. Though in Voyager's time the events of that First Contact were known by the former Borg unit 7 of 9. So having that be the only break point is not entirely possible.

Plus there is the Mirror Universe episode in Enterprise were the records on USS Defiant have what happens to Captain Archer shown. He is listed at having become an Admiral and later President of the United Federation of Planets. He was also present for when the USS Enterprise was commissioned under Captain Robert April. He died the following day. In the leadup to "Into Darkness" the USS Enterprise encounters Robert April, who was in command of another USS Enterprise prior to Captain Pike's ship being launched in 2258. I don't think we are given any specifics on this Enterprise. It sort of keeps the timeline intact, and sort of doesn't. Captain April is an older man, but not so old as to have been a Starfleet Captain before Nero arrived in this Timeline in 2233. So it is possible they commissioned another ship called Enterprise in that time and after it was destroyed or decommissioned, built this new, huge, USS Enterprise, NCC-1701 (there are now several instances of people next to various point on the hull, so it can now be properly scaled by those that do such things).

Admiral Archer would be a very old man, even in 2233. That Mr. Scott is said to have transwarp beamed Archer's dog at one point suggests he was still alive, at least up to 2257, before Scotty was shipped out to Delta Vega as punishment. Or his last dog outlived him by several years only to be transwarp beamed to someplace. The old timeline has the USS Enterprise commissioned in 2245 from the San Francisco Shipyard under Robert April. The new timeline has the newly complete ship sets out to Vulcan in 2258 under Captain Pike. It is assumed it is newly built in the Riverside Shipyard since at least 2255 when Kirk sees it under construction. While it is possible that was a giant refit, we have no evidence of that. Just that Robert April was captain of a USS Enterprise sometime prior to Captain Pike, and that is probably wasn't the NX-01.

The technology has changed a little. Warp travel is different for instance. In Archer's era is was difficult to fight at warp, but it could be done. In the new version, fighting at warp is considered impossible, yet Khan figured something out so that USS Vengence can not only catch USS Enterprise, but also shoot her up at Warp speeds. (one assumes photon torpedoes since those were suppose to be warp capable by the movie era and Next Generation periods.) A quick note: All sequences in the V'Ger cloud in Star Trek: The Motion Picture, are done at warp speed. This means the Klingons fought the cloud at warp speed and that the entire close in pass over V'Ger by USS Enterprise was at warp speed. V'Ger would not have slowed down just to let them fly around it.

Maybe one day there will be a expanded and detailed timeline for the new version of things that includes the thing that happened between Frist Contact in 2063 and the First Five-Year Mission of Captian James T. Kirk (Chris Pine).

[Samari]

Spoiler for ...:

I came across an interesting perspective from a reviewer, which I'm surprised I didn't pick up on. Abram's Khan essentially isn't the Khan that was in TOS. And seeing as how old Spock acknowledges and talks to younger Spock about his experiences with Khan, it's kind of an issue. Why isn't he the same? Well, it seems that in this film Khan is portrayed to be a man with aspirations of genocide that wants to squash everyone else because of their inferiority. Whilst Khan from TOS wanted to rule and actually gave the crew of the Enterprise a chance to live, albeit in servitude. I think the TOS Khan is a much more interesting villain between the two. If his name really was John Harrison or something else, then it wouldn't be a problem. But since it's Khan...yeah it's a potential problem. It doesn't ruin the film for me though, and it won't be a problem for people that haven't seen Space Seed either.

[relentlessflame]

Originally Posted by Samari

Spoiler for ...:

I came across an interesting perspective from a reviewer, which I'm surprised I didn't pick up on. Abram's Khan essentially isn't the Khan that was in TOS. And seeing as how old Spock acknowledges and talks to younger Spock about his experiences with Khan, it's kind of an issue. Why isn't he the same? Well, it seems that in this film Khan is portrayed to be a man with aspirations of genocide that wants to squash everyone else because of their inferiority. Whilst Khan from TOS wanted to rule and actually gave the crew of the Enterprise a chance to live, albeit in servitude. I think the TOS Khan is a much more interesting villain between the two. If his name really was John Harrison or something else, then it wouldn't be a problem. But since it's Khan...yeah it's a potential problem. It doesn't ruin the film for me though, and it won't be a problem for people that haven't seen Space Seed either.

Spoiler for Reply to plot point from the movie:

Well, there's the point that they don't look the same/have the same voice/etc., but this you have to accept as artistic license. But in terms of their motivations, this is a bit of a "nature vs. nurture" point. The idea here is that the circumstances behind Khan's revival changed, and this in turn changed his ambitions and point of view. Many things in this timeline were created with that principle in mind.

But also, I would say... this is also a bit of an cultural issue for the audience of the movies. In 2013, a villain who wants to enslave "inferior" people just doesn't make sense to today's generation. In fact, slavery itself probably doesn't make sense to most of them in this futuristic context. If you have technology, why do you need people? The ship was specially designed so that it could be run with a minimal crew (and particularly by Khan alone), so why would he want or need slaves? (Even the idea of wanting to "reign" like some sort of king from the middle ages seems really old-fashioned.)

We can go back to the original point that in alternate dimension, perhaps the thought would occur to him, but I think his attitude here makes more sense: he can just get rid of those who are in his way, because he doesn't need them anyway. Continuity is important to some degree, but I think it's more important for the audience of today to be able to relate to the motivations of the characters, and in that sense Abram's Khan is (arguably at least) a more believable villain.

[Ithekro]

Originally Posted by Samari

Spoiler for ...:

I came across an interesting perspective from a reviewer, which I'm surprised I didn't pick up on. Abram's Khan essentially isn't the Khan that was in TOS. And seeing as how old Spock acknowledges and talks to younger Spock about his experiences with Khan, it's kind of an issue. Why isn't he the same? Well, it seems that in this film Khan is portrayed to be a man with aspirations of genocide that wants to squash everyone else because of their inferiority. Whilst Khan from TOS wanted to rule and actually gave the crew of the Enterprise a chance to live, albeit in servitude. I think the TOS Khan is a much more interesting villain between the two. If his name really was John Harrison or something else, then it wouldn't be a problem. But since it's Khan...yeah it's a potential problem. It doesn't ruin the film for me though, and it won't be a problem for people that haven't seen Space Seed either.

Timelines are a funny thing. They can make sense and they can still be total weird.

Spoiler for Into Darkness:

In this film, the Augments are picked up in 2258 following the destruction of Vulcan. Only Kahn is woke up and used to make weapons and tactics for a war with the Klingons. He has had resentment and vengance on his mind since they took his people from him. He was beyond the idea of ruling people by this point.

In "Space Seed", Kirk finds the Augments around 2266 and treated Kahn well. Kahn decides he and his people can go and use this starship and their superior (everything) to take over the Galaxy. What use is it to rule if you have no subjects? Kirk eventually defeats him and offers him a planet to rule instead of taking him back to the Federation for trail or anything else. Only cruel fate turn Kahn to vengance against Kirk in this timeline. Without the destruction of Ceti Alpha VI, Kahn and his followers probably would have been busy for a long time building up their civilization from scratch. There may have been resentment, but the appeal of proving them all wrong by making a viable world would probably been enough for Kahn's ego.