Star Trek Into Darkness

[Mal12345]

Funny. Those parts crack me up too, but I'm planning to rewatch many of the episodes because they go deeper than expected as well, depending on the episode.

When Kirk gets himself in a real jam he tends to moralize his way out of it by appealing to some human sense of conscience even aliens apparently possess.

 

[Totenkindly]

Shatner's acting is always good for a laugh.

His acting seems to vary. Sometimes he's decent, sometimes he's just a caricature of himself.

It would have helped if they would have finished the scripts before filming some of the episodes.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

His acting seems to vary. Sometimes he's decent, sometimes he's just a caricature of himself.

It would have helped if they would have finished the scripts before filming some of the episodes.

I didn't know that.

Don't get me wrong, I like Trek, but, um, given what we've come to expect from speculative fiction these days, there is definitely a lot of cheese. Which can be appreciated in it's own way.

I'm most familiar with TOS, and my favorites so far include "Devil in the Dark", and "Balance of Terror". Both of those episodes really play into the idea of space as the final frontier. Being more of a Star Wars fan growing up, back when people had those debates, that's an idea that's really not present in Star Wars, where everyone is well-traveled. I quite like that being explored, the idea that there's a lot of things that are still unknown, even though it's the future.

 

[Totenkindly]

I'm most familiar with TOS, and my favorites so far include "Devil in the Dark", and "Balance of Terror".

Devil in the Dark's one of my favorites too, despite the monster looking like a giant glob of pepperoni and cheese. still, considering the effects quality at the time, that's okay. I think it was a thoughtful, layered episode; those are the best of the old series, where it's dealing with social issues (like two sides to every story sometimes leading to conflict, and how we can negotiate and serve both sides if we care to listen), or just stories that focus on what it means to be human.

Then on occasion, we get something crazy like the Yanks vs <whatever they were>, and a US flag with Kirk waxing patriotically poetic... yjkes. But even that is entertaining in its own way. When I was older, I liked more of the drama of TNG, and then after I had been been invested in TNG for some time, it started to get bland, boring, predictable, kind of toothless; and I missed TOS. Don't get me wrong, Patrick Stewart is an excellent actor, and there were some nice dramatic episodes (like The Most Toys with Saul Rubinek, or The Inner Light), but there was a rawness to TOS that is still appealing.

I read all the James Blish adaptations of TOS when I was probably twelve or so, and years later, that one scene where a female Yeoman is turned into a geometric shape and crushed to death stays with me. That was horrific.

 

[Poindexter Arachnid]

I didn't know that.

Don't get me wrong, I like Trek, but, um, given what we've come to expect from speculative fiction these days, there is definitely a lot of cheese. Which can be appreciated in it's own way.

I'm most familiar with TOS, and my favorites so far include "Devil in the Dark", and "Balance of Terror". Both of those episodes really play into the idea of space as the final frontier. Being more of a Star Wars fan growing up, back when people had those debates, that's an idea that's really not present in Star Wars, where everyone is well-traveled. I quite like that being explored, the idea that there's a lot of things that are still unknown, even though it's the future.

The cheese, charm and surreal feel are elements that made TOS my favorite.
Liked TNG, but it takes itself too seriously for my liking (Note: Patrick Stewart still the man, though).

I'd also recommend the episodes Amok Time, Space Seed, Mirror Mirror, Where No Man Has Gone Before, The Trouble with Tribbles and frequently-cited-as-the-best The City on the Edge of Forever.

The Enemy Within is mandatory viewing if you're searching for classic ham sandwich Shatner.

 

[Polaris]

I saw it with someone, just a couple of nights ago (I'm far from being a Star Trek initiate, but the person I watched it with is a huge fan of the series). A few minutes into the movie, I began to fear that my eardrums would burst in, and almost constructed a pair of earplugs out of the napkin I had picked my nose with. Once I made peace with the fact that I was going to walk away from the film with permanent hearing damage, I found myself being treated to a satisfactory movie experience. I found the music to be much better than that which accompanies most films (one of the tracks seemed a bit out of place, though, because it was written in a key that I strongly associate with pyramids and sandy streets. There I was, without a speck of sand in sight or the slightest hint of Egypt anywhere, and suddenly I found myself on the streets of Agrabah, waiting for Aladdin to come flying off the roof of a building). My favorite part of the film, though, would have to be the part where Captain Kirk's naked butt graces the screen, only to vanish from sight a few milliseconds later. Captain Kirk as portrayed by Chris Pine is a genuine, quintessential Sex God.

My feeling was that the movie did not do anything very daring; nothing with any deep ramifications or implications occurred in it. It felt like the writer was making an effort to stick to canon and take his place alongside the other people who have worked on the Star Trek stories, when, instead, he might have done something ambitious and unprecedented.

I was relieved by the fact that most of the characters had some warmth about them; many of them seemed like people I wouldn't mind being around. Even Spock, who is uber logical and everything, was actually a lovable character. I went into the movie expecting the characters to be dry and mechanical or strained and overwrought (most sci-fi writers are uninterested in or naive about psychology). But for the most part, that isn't what ended up happening.

 

[Mal12345]

I saw it with someone, just a couple of nights ago (I'm far from being a Star Trek initiate, but the person I watched it with is a huge fan of the series). A few minutes into the movie, I began to fear that my eardrums would burst in, and almost constructed a pair of earplugs out of the napkin I had picked my nose with. Once I made peace with the fact that I was going to walk away from the film with permanent hearing damage, I found myself being treated to a satisfactory movie experience. I found the music to be much better than that which accompanies most films (one of the tracks seemed a bit out of place, though, because it was written in a key that I strongly associate with pyramids and sandy streets. There I was, without a speck of sand in sight or the slightest hint of Egypt anywhere, and suddenly I found myself on the streets of Agrabah, waiting for Aladdin to come flying off the roof of a building). My favorite part of the film, though, would have to be the part where Captain Kirk's naked butt graces the screen, only to vanish from sight a few milliseconds later. Captain Kirk as portrayed by Chris Pine is a genuine, quintessential Sex God.

My feeling was that the movie did not do anything very daring; nothing with any deep ramifications or implications occurred in it. It felt like the writer was making an effort to stick to canon and take his place alongside the other people who have worked on the Star Trek stories, when, instead, he might have done something ambitious and unprecedented.

I was relieved by the fact that most of the characters had some warmth about them; many of them seemed like people I wouldn't mind being around. Even Spock, who is uber logical and everything, was actually a lovable character. I went into the movie expecting the characters to be dry and mechanical or strained and overwrought (most sci-fi writers are uninterested in or naive about psychology). But for the most part, that isn't what ended up happening.

For a sci-fi writer/series who is interested in psychology, try Stephen R. Donaldson's Gap Sequence.

 

[Mal12345]

Devil in the Dark's one of my favorites too, despite the monster looking like a giant glob of pepperoni and cheese. still, considering the effects quality at the time, that's okay. I think it was a thoughtful, layered episode; those are the best of the old series, where it's dealing with social issues (like two sides to every story sometimes leading to conflict, and how we can negotiate and serve both sides if we care to listen), or just stories that focus on what it means to be human.

Then on occasion, we get something crazy like the Yanks vs <whatever they were>, and a US flag with Kirk waxing patriotically poetic... yjkes. But even that is entertaining in its own way. When I was older, I liked more of the drama of TNG, and then after I had been been invested in TNG for some time, it started to get bland, boring, predictable, kind of toothless; and I missed TOS. Don't get me wrong, Patrick Stewart is an excellent actor, and there were some nice dramatic episodes (like The Most Toys with Saul Rubinek, or The Inner Light), but there was a rawness to TOS that is still appealing.

I read all the James Blish adaptations of TOS when I was probably twelve or so, and years later, that one scene where a female Yeoman is turned into a geometric shape and crushed to death stays with me. That was horrific.

Horrific? It's not as if he returned her to her female - crushed and mangled - form.

 

[Totenkindly]

For a sci-fi writer/series who is interested in psychology, try Stephen R. Donaldson's Gap Sequence.

Great series.

Horrific? It's not as if he returned her to her female - crushed and mangled - form.

You've got an imagination. Feel free to use it.

 

[Mal12345]

Great series.



You've got an imagination. Feel free to use it.

Hmm, I'm not quite sure how to envision it. This may require a visit to rotten.com, me thinks.

 

[Mal12345]

Devil in the Dark's one of my favorites too, despite the monster looking like a giant glob of pepperoni and cheese. still, considering the effects quality at the time, that's okay. I think it was a thoughtful, layered episode; those are the best of the old series, where it's dealing with social issues (like two sides to every story sometimes leading to conflict, and how we can negotiate and serve both sides if we care to listen), or just stories that focus on what it means to be human.

Then on occasion, we get something crazy like the Yanks vs <whatever they were>, and a US flag with Kirk waxing patriotically poetic... yjkes. But even that is entertaining in its own way. When I was older, I liked more of the drama of TNG, and then after I had been been invested in TNG for some time, it started to get bland, boring, predictable, kind of toothless; and I missed TOS. Don't get me wrong, Patrick Stewart is an excellent actor, and there were some nice dramatic episodes (like The Most Toys with Saul Rubinek, or The Inner Light), but there was a rawness to TOS that is still appealing.

I read all the James Blish adaptations of TOS when I was probably twelve or so, and years later, that one scene where a female Yeoman is turned into a geometric shape and crushed to death stays with me. That was horrific.

I just recalled, those aliens called themselves the Kelvin, and they were from the Andromeda galaxy. They are more like what I would expect from intelligent aliens - not caring a single whit about humankind.

 

[Aquarelle]

I liked it a lot-- I don't care what you people say. I'm a big Star Trek fan, but not really of TOS-- so these last two movies have been great for me to actually enjoy TOS characters. I've always liked the TOS characters actually, but I think having grown up with TNG, TOS has always just seemed so low-tech and campy to me, that I couldn't really get into it. Yeah, the Enterprise seemed way too technologically advanced to be set in TOS time (compared to the TV show and older TOS movies) but whatever, I like it better that way, so there. I also really enjoyed the nods to "another Star Trek film." I liked the twist on it.

The only things I didn't like about this movie were

the Admiral's daughter.... she just showed up randomly on the Enterprise without being assigned, and it happened to be her father they were up against? How convenient. I kept thinking she was going to be in on his plot somehow, but nope.

and

the Klingons-- what the heck! Why did they make them look different than BOTH the TOS Klingons and later series Klingons? With the alternate timeline they could have used either make-up style, so they already had two to choose from, and yet they invented a third? Poor Klingons, they must have some serious genetic manipulation in their species to go through all these strange facial-structure changes.

Those are pretty minor complaints though. Overall, I say well done.

 

[Mal12345]

I liked it a lot-- I don't care what you people say. I'm a big Star Trek fan, but not really of TOS-- so these last two movies have been great for me to actually enjoy TOS characters. I've always liked the TOS characters actually, but I think having grown up with TNG, TOS has always just seemed so low-tech and campy to me, that I couldn't really get into it. Yeah, the Enterprise seemed way too technologically advanced to be set in TOS time (compared to the TV show and older TOS movies) but whatever, I like it better that way, so there. I also really enjoyed the nods to "another Star Trek film." I liked the twist on it.

That's the spirit!

The only things I didn't like about this movie were

the Admiral's daughter.... she just showed up randomly on the Enterprise without being assigned, and it happened to be her father they were up against? How convenient. I kept thinking she was going to be in on his plot somehow, but nope.

and

the Klingons-- what the heck! Why did they make them look different than BOTH the TOS Klingons and later series Klingons? With the alternate timeline they could have used either make-up style, so they already had two to choose from, and yet they invented a third? Poor Klingons, they must have some serious genetic manipulation in their species to go through all these strange facial-structure changes.

Those are pretty minor complaints though. Overall, I say well done.

Is that last a real spoiler? Anyway, the TNG Klingons were created by genetically modifying the TOS Klingons. They were specifically created to be tougher warriors. Abrams is simply going against canon in every way possible in order to create a more entertaining (money-making) flick.

 

[Mal12345]

Here is a very unsympathetic review of STID. I obviously don't agree with it. And Rich Evans (the guy sitting on the table) gives a stuttering plot synopsis which is totally off-the-wall. I think their inability to understand the plot explains this bad review.

http://redlettermedia.com/half-in-the-bag-star-trek-into-darkness/

 

[Totenkindly]

Here is a very unsympathetic review of STID. I obviously don't agree with it. And Rich Evans (the guy sitting on the table) gives a stuttering plot synopsis which is totally off-the-wall. I think their inability to understand the plot explains this bad review.

http://redlettermedia.com/half-in-the-bag-star-trek-into-darkness/

Is this really a 45 minute review? (I can't see the vid right now, just read what little is on the page.)

You must be dedicated, to watch 45 minutes of criticism you disagree with.

 

[Mal12345]

Is this really a 45 minute review? (I can't see the vid right now, just read what little is on the page.)

You must be dedicated, to watch 45 minutes of criticism you disagree with.

Actually, I stopped the vid at the 20 minute mark, about in the middle of Rich Evans' mangled plot synopsis. I'll finish watching it later. I have something more important to do (a free $80 chip to play at an online casino).

 

[Totenkindly]

The only things I didn't like about this movie were

Aquarelle: the Admiral's daughter.... she just showed up randomly on the Enterprise without being assigned, and it happened to be her father they were up against? How convenient. I kept thinking she was going to be in on his plot somehow, but nope.

Jennifer: I don't recall exactly, but I thought she assigned herself purposefully on that ship due to the torpedoes/concerns over them. She wasn't on the manifest. He didn't know she was on the ship. It seems that she is not her father's daughter. She lied about her name so that her dad wouldn't know she was there.

Of course, it didn't matter anyway. he beamed her off regardless and they were back where they started, except of course she managed to help figure out what was IN the torpedoes.

and

Aquarelle: the Klingons-- what the heck! Why did they make them look different than BOTH the TOS Klingons and later series Klingons? With the alternate timeline they could have used either make-up style, so they already had two to choose from, and yet they invented a third? Poor Klingons, they must have some serious genetic manipulation in their species to go through all these strange facial-structure changes.

Jennifer: I'm pragmatic. Makeup/Effects improvements from TOS to TNG is something I never really had an issue with, I just imagine the old Klingons to look like the new ones, it's a production rather than story issue. The Klingons here did look a little different though, and there's no longer an out for "tech improvements" -- and only about 50 years between this and TNG? Not good. That's not much time for species mutation.

This is another minor issue to me, though. I had more hangups on plot contrivances and cribbing.

Actually, I stopped the vid at the 20 minute mark, about in the middle of Rich Evans' mangled plot synopsis. I'll finish watching it later. I have something more important to do (a free $80 chip to play at an online casino).

Heck, that would trump even a GOOD Trek review!

 

[Mal12345]

They did bring up one good point in the review:

If those "missiles" (photon torpedoes) are super-weapons, why is it necessary to fire all 72 of them at a single target?

 

[Totenkindly]

They did bring up one good point in the review:

If those "missiles" (photon torpedoes) are super-weapons, why is it necessary to fire all 72 of them at a single target?

A: 'cause if killing something ONCE is good, killing it SEVENTY-TWO times is even better!!!!

You know, I just had a hard time wondering where the number 72 came from. Isn't that an odd number? Why would a starship need 72 of anything? You think that might have run a bell in someone's head? Especially if they were, well, in the know about Harrison? I'm so confused. I need to watch the movie again, just to get the details right for the background.

 

[Mal12345]

A: 'cause if killing something ONCE is good, killing it SEVENTY-TWO times is even better!!!!

You know, I just had a hard time wondering where the number 72 came from. Isn't that an odd number? Why would a starship need 72 of anything? You think that might have run a bell in someone's head? Especially if they were, well, in the know about Harrison? I'm so confused. I need to watch the movie again, just to get the details right for the background.

You mean, where did they get the number 72 in the first place? I didn't consider it, but really, it's up to Kirk to question it since they are being loaded onto his starship, and he conveniently didn't question anything.

And there was also this:

How was a tribble brought back to life by human blood?