Author |
Message |
BJ
Killing With Kindness
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 8:57 pm Posts: 25035 Location: Anchorage,Alaska
|
 Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
Riggs wrote: zingy wrote: Awesome, awesome, awesome. This is the way to review this movie.  no doubt 
_________________The Force Awakens
|
Sat May 18, 2013 4:45 am |
|
 |
Algren
now we know
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 9:31 pm Posts: 68230 Location: Seattle, WA
|
 Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
Yeah, I wish I could keep my reviews short and sweet, but I just can't help myself and I go into every area of the movie. I must try harder to, occasionally, keep them at two lines max.
_________________STOP UIGHUR GENOCIDE IN XINJIANG FIGHT FOR TAIWAN INDEPENDENCE FREE TIBET LIBERATE HONG KONG BOYCOTT MADE IN CHINA
|
Sat May 18, 2013 5:05 am |
|
 |
Price
Gamaur's sex slave
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2005 7:15 pm Posts: 8889 Location: Los Pollos Hermanos
|
 Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
Two lines? You could keep them at zero words and we would like them even more.
_________________
|
Sat May 18, 2013 6:05 am |
|
 |
Algren
now we know
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 9:31 pm Posts: 68230 Location: Seattle, WA
|
 Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
Price wrote: Two lines? You could keep them at zero words and we would like them even more. Do you have a problem with my reviews?
_________________STOP UIGHUR GENOCIDE IN XINJIANG FIGHT FOR TAIWAN INDEPENDENCE FREE TIBET LIBERATE HONG KONG BOYCOTT MADE IN CHINA
|
Sat May 18, 2013 6:08 am |
|
 |
Riggs
We had our time together
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 4:36 am Posts: 13299 Location: Vienna
|
 Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
Algren wrote: Yeah, I wish I could keep my reviews short and sweet, but I just can't help myself and I go into every area of the movie. I must try harder to, occasionally, keep them at two lines max. Sometimes one word is enough to express someones feelings towards a movie. Awesome perfectly describes Into Darkness. Zingy nailed it, there's no way around it. 
|
Sat May 18, 2013 6:31 am |
|
 |
Price
Gamaur's sex slave
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2005 7:15 pm Posts: 8889 Location: Los Pollos Hermanos
|
 Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
Algren wrote: Price wrote: Two lines? You could keep them at zero words and we would like them even more. Do you have a problem with my reviews? Are you being rethorical?
_________________
|
Sat May 18, 2013 12:40 pm |
|
 |
Bradley Witherberry
Extraordinary
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 1:13 pm Posts: 15197 Location: Planet Xatar
|
 Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
Here is the review of STiD from Nordling over at Ain't It Cool News - - accurate and insightful! Quote: SPOILER ALERT: I’m frankly not interested in discussing STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS in vague terms. If I have to get to the meat and marrow of the movie, I have to spoil, and spoil extensively. If you haven’t seen the movie yet, and wish to remain spoiler free, keep on trekkin’.
Nordling here.
Be careful what you wish for.
STAR TREK II: THE WRATH OF KHAN is the greatest movie in the TREK franchise. It’s not even in dispute, really – for longtime fans, it’s the movie that squarely places these characters in our hearts in ways that even the television show couldn’t. It deals with weighty themes and emotions, and it’s one of my Top 10 favorite movies of all time. (I wrote about KHAN last year, so go back and read it, if you’re so inclined.)
THE WRATH OF KHAN is the best thing to happen to STAR TREK, and the worst thing to happen to STAR TREK. Because of its critical success and its success with the fans, WRATH OF KHAN has become the expectation; instead of trying new ideas and themes, the franchise has tried to return to that well, to try to duplicate what was created in the lab, in the hopes that they can achieve that same success. And something essential to TREK, in my opinion, has been lost. Instead of a problem for the Enterprise crew to solve, the films have given us one Big Bad after another, all inspired (if not directly ripping off) by Khan.
I’m fully aware of the difference of the mediums – television, even back in the 1960s, has the luxury of exploring ideas a bit more than a major summer blockbuster, trying to recover millions of dollars, can do. STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS is a hugely budgeted movie, with lavish special effects, set pieces, and scale. It’s a massive investment. So the tried and true, the reticence to take risks with story, is understandable. What I cannot forgive is the cynical nature of freely stealing scenes without any tact or subtext, in the hopes of striking the same kind of resonance, thinking that all fans want is to see THE WRATH OF KHAN over and over. It’s insulting and enraging that JJ Abrams, Damon Lindelof, Alex Kurtzman, and Roberto Orci think so little of the old fans (and the new ones, to be honest) that they think fans won’t recognize when they’re being pandered to.
I certainly don’t have it in for JJ Abrams’ iteration of this franchise, either. I loved 2009’s STAR TREK – although there are plot holes galore in the movie, it wins you over with charm, humor, and most important of all, it gets the characters essentially right. Yes, James Kirk is a bit of an egotistical asshole. But this is a Kirk that has not been tempered with loss, has not come to the maturity that Shatner’s Kirk has, and this Kirk has experienced different things than Original Timeline Kirk. If you squint hard enough, though, you can see the more measured, older man inside. Chris Pine does well with the role he’s been given. So does Zachary Quinto as Spock, Karl Urban as McCoy, Zoe Saldana as Uhura, Simon Pegg as Scotty, John Cho as Sulu, and Anton Yelchin as Chekov.
In STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS, these Starfleet officers haven’t really seen much of the galaxy yet – the five-year mission we all know and love is about to happen, and Kirk expects to be given that mission by Starfleet. But an incident where Kirk breaks the Prime Directive to rescue Spock from an active volcano gets Kirk demoted back to Christopher Pike’s (Bruce Greenwood) First Officer on the Enterprise. Pike feels Kirk isn’t ready for command, but he still sees something in Kirk, and he’s willing to help him through his Starfleet growing pains.
Enter John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch), a mysterious terrorist and turncoat agent who Admiral Marcus (Peter Weller) believes has betrayed the Federation to serve the Klingon Empire. Harrison brutally attacks a Starfleet meeting, killing Pike and sending Kirk into a vengeful rage. Although Spock, Scotty, and the rest of the crew believe Kirk is blinded by emotion, Marcus decides to grant Kirk’s request to pursue Harrison into the Klingon Empire, and to carpet bomb his location with 72 photon torpedoes to make sure the bastard’s dead.
When Harrison reveals himself to Kirk as Khan Noonien Singh, he might as well have said “My name is Anakin Skywalker” for all the meaning it has for Kirk. It means a lot to the audience, though – the re-introduction of one of STAR TREK’s most well-known villains. But there’s no weight, no resonance to the reveal, because there’s no history between them – yet. Khan wants Kirk to know the truth – that he’s simply a pawn in Marcus’ machinations to start a war with the Klingon Empire.
I actually thought this was a fascinating use of the character – this isn’t the Khan of “Space Seed” or WRATH OF KHAN, and he even has a sense of nobility about him as he and Kirk form an uneasy alliance to stop Marcus. I also liked how in this reality, the Federation was quickly becoming more militarized since Vulcan’s destruction, and since TREK has always been somewhat topical, those themes felt especially relevant. I loved Scotty’s plea to Kirk to not undertake the mission – “We’re supposed to be explorers!” – and I think Gene Roddenberry would have approved the symbolic way that STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS addresses the War on Terror.
There are quite a few plot holes racking up at this point, however. Apparently transwarp technology can transport someone from Earth all the way to Q’onos, but the Enterprise can’t even beam Spock up from a volcano that’s less than a mile away. If transporting tech is so advanced, why are there even starships at all? The plots of both Khan and Marcus seem fairly ridiculous once they are closely examined. Even the way Kirk coolly dismisses his breaking of the Prime Directive feels tonally wrong. Yes, Original Series Kirk broke the Prime Directive all the time. But he had the good sense to at least feel bad about it, or look for every possible alternative. But JJ Abrams, like in 2009’s STAR TREK, manages to charm his way through these plot issues, and his action set pieces are riveting and intense. It’s directed just as confidently as the last one. The plot holes are irritating, but they aren’t detracting from the movie. Not yet.
Then Old Spock shows up, and the movie promptly shits the bed. It’s rare when one scene totally derails a movie into ineptitude, but this scene does it. It’s, of course, always welcome to see Leonard Nimoy again, but this scene gives us such unnecessary exposition and takes the audience completely out of the movie that it doesn’t recover.
That’s when the movie became THE WRATH OF RET-KHAN, and lost me completely.
See that picture above? That’s the most iconic, resonant, emotional scene in all of STAR TREK. It’s one friend saying goodbye to another, after years of companionship and camaraderie. Those two men know each other’s strengths and weaknesses. They’ve seen each other at their best and their worst. The scene relies on context and history, but it’s no less effective to newcomers who see it. We have Spock, who dies in the bravest way possible, saving Kirk and the crew of the Enterprise. It is a good death. And in that death, he teaches his old friend Kirk an invaluable lesson – he faces death, finally, after dodging and cheating it for so many years. Kirk, at last, knows what sacrifice really means, and he becomes a better man for it. In 1982, when a character like Spock died, it meant something. Sure, he came back in the next movie, but at the time, audiences had no idea he would return. It felt final, and triumphant. It’s one of my favorite scenes in movie history. So yeah, I’m a little precious about it.
You don’t get to remake That Scene. You can’t, because what that scene means has been set up by years of episodes and a movie, and it has special significance. The fact that it’s now Kirk in the chamber and not Spock doesn’t change anything, and when Kirk dies we already know that it’s not permanent. It’s just an opportunity for Abrams, Lindelof, Kurtzman and Orci to shove fan service down the audience’s throat. There’s no special meaning or weight to it, and when Spock screams “KHAN!” at the top of his lungs, it feels like an insult. It feels like the filmmakers think so little of STAR TREK and the fans; that all we want to see are the same stories over and over.
I don’t blame the cast, who do the best they can with the material – Quinto pretty much embodies Spock at this point, much like Nimoy did, and Pine’s arc in the movie into a more mature captain almost works if not for the script. Every character gets a moment or two to shine. It’s somewhat the fault of JJ Abrams – the action sequences are enjoyable and exciting, but he also has no issue killing a lot of sacred cows. But the screenwriters are the ones who truly earn my anger. The script is truly horrid – full of astounding plot holes (seriously, why all the stressing over Khan’s blood to save Kirk when they have 72 of his superhuman crew with similar healing abilities RIGHT FUCKING THERE), a lack of understanding about the essentials of STAR TREK, and worst of all, a contempt for the audience. And I haven’t even talked about the inert character of Carol Marcus (Alice Eve), who has nothing to do except take off her clothes for Kirk to ogle. STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS boldly goes where so many bad TREK movies have gone before.
This new reality of STAR TREK had such possibilities, as Spock would say. So many stories, told from different perspectives and ideas. It was a license to play in a vast universe, the best sandbox ever. Whether STAR TREK can be salvaged from this remains to be seen; it’s highly likely we’ll see more of these movies. STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS ends where the series begins, but I can’t help thinking that there’s yet more wheel-spinning to come. I’m sure there are audiences out there who have no idea what I’m talking about, and will consider my ranting that of a scorned old school fan. Gene Roddenberry once pitched STAR TREK as “WAGON TRAIN to the stars.” I remember in STAND BY ME, Gordie says, “WAGON TRAIN's a really cool show, but did you notice they never get anywhere? They just keep wagon training.” If the directing and the lousy writing of STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS are any indication, we won’t be going anywhere new for a long time. Seeking out new life, indeed.
Nordling, out.
|
Sat May 18, 2013 3:40 pm |
|
 |
David
Pure Phase
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 7:33 am Posts: 34865 Location: Maryland
|
 Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
No one can ever die in this timeline again. Bones has synthesized a virtual fountain of youth.
_________________   1. The Lost City of Z - 2. A Cure for Wellness - 3. Phantom Thread - 4. T2 Trainspotting - 5. Detroit - 6. Good Time - 7. The Beguiled - 8. The Florida Project - 9. Logan and 10. Molly's Game
|
Sat May 18, 2013 3:47 pm |
|
 |
Libs
Sbil
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 3:38 pm Posts: 48677 Location: Arlington, VA
|
 Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
Personally, I found it to be a fairly significant dropoff from the '09 film, which I really loved. That said, this is still a suitably entertaining summer blockbuster and worth a recommendation. B
|
Sat May 18, 2013 5:10 pm |
|
 |
Jedi Master Carr
Extraordinary
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 9:51 pm Posts: 11637
|
 Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
I give it an A-, I really enjoyed it and liked it more than Iron Man 3.
|
Sat May 18, 2013 5:11 pm |
|
 |
Lafin Atchu
The Incredible Hulk
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2013 9:02 pm Posts: 519 Location: Golden State
|
 Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
David wrote: An entertaining and satisfying science-fiction action film, though perhaps a bit deflating, too, considering the glowing response to the prior film and the longer than expected four-year wait for the Enterprise's next big-screen adventure. This is not an inspired sequel in which each character, theme, and visual idea reaches a new and powerful height, which I suspect many hoped for, so much as a conservative and pleasant extension of the last film's various charms. The forceful and magnetic presence of Benedict Cumberbatch as antagonist "John Harrison" elevates the picture, though I wish his character were more nuanced on the page. Chris Pine still feels perfectly cast as Captain Jim Kirk, though one hopes a hypothetical third film finds more to do with the character than once again position him as a hotshot horn-dog in the first act who learns the meaning of community and leadership under fire.
B  This is pretty much exactly how I felt about this film.
|
Sat May 18, 2013 5:18 pm |
|
 |
Bradley Witherberry
Extraordinary
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 1:13 pm Posts: 15197 Location: Planet Xatar
|
 Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
David wrote: No one can ever die in this timeline again. Bones has synthesized a virtual fountain of youth. While we're at it... how did Khan Noonien Singh turn into a white guy? 
|
Sat May 18, 2013 6:18 pm |
|
 |
Dr. Lecter
You must have big rats
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:28 pm Posts: 92093 Location: Bonn, Germany
|
 Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
Bradley Witherberry wrote: David wrote: No one can ever die in this timeline again. Bones has synthesized a virtual fountain of youth. While we're at it... how did Khan Noonien Singh turn into a white guy?  Why does his ethnicity matter? The "original" Khan was a Mexican playing an Indian...
_________________The greatest thing on earth is to love and to be loved in return!
|
Sat May 18, 2013 6:42 pm |
|
 |
Algren
now we know
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 9:31 pm Posts: 68230 Location: Seattle, WA
|
 Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
Price wrote: Algren wrote: Price wrote: Two lines? You could keep them at zero words and we would like them even more. Do you have a problem with my reviews? Are you being rethorical? You mean rhetorical? No, I wasn't being rhetorical. I want to know why you dislike my film reviews/comments on a movie I've seen.
_________________STOP UIGHUR GENOCIDE IN XINJIANG FIGHT FOR TAIWAN INDEPENDENCE FREE TIBET LIBERATE HONG KONG BOYCOTT MADE IN CHINA
|
Sat May 18, 2013 9:32 pm |
|
 |
Jmart
Superman: The Movie
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 8:47 am Posts: 21230 Location: Massachusetts
|
 Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
It's a step down from the original (new), but it's also incredibly entertaining. Those were the fastest 123 minutes in quite some time. However, I'm still trying to decide whether or not the third act twist is either incredibly clever or incredibly lazy. I can see how it could piss off fans of the original second film, but...ALTERNATE TIMELINES BITCHES! YOU JUST GOT LINDELOFFED! (A-)
_________________My DVD Collection Marty McGee (1989-2005)
If I’m not here, I’m on Letterboxd.
|
Sat May 18, 2013 10:33 pm |
|
 |
David
Pure Phase
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 7:33 am Posts: 34865 Location: Maryland
|
 Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
Question/bitchy comment: wouldn't Bones' ruse to fool Khan into believing the Enterprise had returned his crew require 72 extra, empty torpedo shells? Seems doubtful they would have so many on-board on the Enterprise.
_________________   1. The Lost City of Z - 2. A Cure for Wellness - 3. Phantom Thread - 4. T2 Trainspotting - 5. Detroit - 6. Good Time - 7. The Beguiled - 8. The Florida Project - 9. Logan and 10. Molly's Game
|
Sat May 18, 2013 10:36 pm |
|
 |
Keyser Söze
Quality is a great business plan
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 9:21 pm Posts: 6716
|
 Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
I would rate it A-. Very entertaining with solid acting by entire cast. Cumberbatch was excellent especially his VOICE.
BTW why was there a desperation to get khan back to enterprise to revive kirk when they had his crew in the ship?
_________________ The world is all about mind and matter, I don't mind and U don't matter
I used to be shawman.
|
Sat May 18, 2013 10:38 pm |
|
 |
Jmart
Superman: The Movie
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 8:47 am Posts: 21230 Location: Massachusetts
|
 Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
Keyser Söze wrote: BTW why was there a desperation to get khan back to enterprise to revive kirk when they had his crew in the ship? His blood. David wrote: Question/bitchy comment: wouldn't Bones' ruse to fool Khan into believing the Enterprise had returned his crew require 72 extra, empty torpedo shells? Seems doubtful they would have so many on-board on the Enterprise. I don't think so. They just took out the cryogenic beds and armed them.
_________________My DVD Collection Marty McGee (1989-2005)
If I’m not here, I’m on Letterboxd.
|
Sat May 18, 2013 10:48 pm |
|
 |
Dr. Lecter
You must have big rats
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:28 pm Posts: 92093 Location: Bonn, Germany
|
 Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
Jmart wrote: Keyser Söze wrote: BTW why was there a desperation to get khan back to enterprise to revive kirk when they had his crew in the ship? His blood. Keyser's point was that Khan's crew has the same blood, one can presume. A fair point, too.
_________________The greatest thing on earth is to love and to be loved in return!
|
Sat May 18, 2013 11:24 pm |
|
 |
Shack
Devil's Advocate
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 2:30 am Posts: 40261
|
 Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
The 2009 Star Trek reboot went over strongly with audiences for its charisma and fun blockbuster execution, adapting the familiar Trek names to modern summer style. In retrospect the storyline and characters/performances from that film, didn’t resonate as much. Their inclusion necessary to get to the action scenes. The problem for Star Trek Into Darkness is with this Trek’s universe and style less fresh the second time around, it needs to lean on the characters and story to make another memorable mark. Chris Pine’s Kirk performance is fine, but with another name this character can be plugged into a number of other action films. Pine coming off as more boy than man hurts the film more in this installment when he’s an established captain. Zachary Quinto’s Spock is the real heart of the film. The issue is Star Trek Into Darkness is so committed to its full throttle summer blockbuster plot and delivery, that what this journey means to its characters feels secondary and added on. Though the first and last acts contain scenes expressing the Spock and Kirk relationship and their willingness to sacrifice, in between that the Enterprise’s actions are motivated by surviving and defeating the bad guy(s), a more shallow sequence of events. How insignificant the Zoe Saldana/Uhura strained relationship arc with Spock feels, is an example of how Star Trek Into Darkness is action-first. That’s not entirely a bad thing. Star Trek Into Darkness is a fast moving film, thanks to how much of the film consists of one action-filled mission in space, giving the film the impression of an extra long television show episode. Charismatic supporting characters like Simon Pegg’s Scotty, Karl Urban’s Bones, Anton Yelchin’s Chekov, help make the ride more fun. Benedict Cumberbatch’s Khan’s menacing delivery and control make him a villain up to the task. Star Trek Into Darkness delivers on most of its promises. However its characters and arcs feel as if from the rental shop. They’re plugged into an action filled plot and universe, then returned to the store to be largely forgotten about. As for the action itself, while strong, unlike films such as Michael Bay’s resume and the Fast & Furious series, they aren’t unique or memorable enough on their own compared to the standard summer playbook. Star Trek Into Darkness is almost too carefully designed to appeal to its summer audience and release date and it shows. It is more Misson: Impossible III than it is Super 8, the former largely a well executed film, but calculated and easy to forget. In MI:3 and the two Star Trek films, Abrams has yet to translate the artful craftsmanship and willingness to move a plot slowly that he did in Super 8. Star Trek Into Darkness is a worthwhile blockbuster film. However I am not begging to see more from this universe and characters. http://jrodgermoviereviews.wordpress.co ... rams-2013/
_________________Shack’s top 50 tv shows - viewtopic.php?f=8&t=90227
|
Sun May 19, 2013 12:37 am |
|
 |
Jmart
Superman: The Movie
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 8:47 am Posts: 21230 Location: Massachusetts
|
 Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
Dr. Lecter wrote: Jmart wrote: Keyser Söze wrote: BTW why was there a desperation to get khan back to enterprise to revive kirk when they had his crew in the ship? His blood. Keyser's point was that Khan's crew has the same blood, one can presume. A fair point, too. Because Bones said he didn't understand the process to bring them out of the sleep since the technology "hadn't been necessary since warp was invented". He didn't want to accidentally kill someone, which is why he kept the guy that he took out of the cryogenic bed in a medically induced coma. I guess they could've waited for the person to thaw and then draw out the blood, but there was also a race against time to retain Kirk's mental capacities. Khan was the only option. OR It's a convenient way to keep Khan alive so he can be in another sequel.
_________________My DVD Collection Marty McGee (1989-2005)
If I’m not here, I’m on Letterboxd.
|
Sun May 19, 2013 12:51 am |
|
 |
Algren
now we know
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 9:31 pm Posts: 68230 Location: Seattle, WA
|
 Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
It seems like everyone is enjoying this. I'm glad.
I will see this when it arrives here on May 28, but I won't have watched the first.
_________________STOP UIGHUR GENOCIDE IN XINJIANG FIGHT FOR TAIWAN INDEPENDENCE FREE TIBET LIBERATE HONG KONG BOYCOTT MADE IN CHINA
|
Sun May 19, 2013 1:57 am |
|
 |
BJ
Killing With Kindness
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 8:57 pm Posts: 25035 Location: Anchorage,Alaska
|
 Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
A really awesome post from BO.com that reflects my fealings on the act three twist philyb Posted 18 May 2013 - 08:16 PM
RE: the ending and scene Spoiler In WoK, Spock’s definitive declaration of friendship, and his death, are the culmination of a decades’ long relationship between him and Kirk. They both know already that Spock has always been his friend, that their friendship has defined them, but for whatever reason it’s never been said out loud. Now, in his final moments, Spock wants to say it. He wants it on the record, so to speak. But he’s only stating the obvious.
This time, in the altered timeline, these two guys haven’t got that history. What they’ve got is frustration and misunderstanding and cross purposes and, for Kirk, a heads up from Spock Prime that they’re supposed to be life long friends. So he doesn’t quite get that it’s just not happening, and Spock – who’s never had a friend, doesn’t know what to do with a friend, doesn’t know how to be a friend – he’s just doing what he knows how to do, what he’s been taught is the right thing to do, and is genuinely shocked when it keeps backfiring on him. There’s a part of him that wants the friendship, knows he needs the friendship, even feels the friendship, but he’s not capable of articulating that in any way.
So Kirk’s death is a catalyst, it’s the light bulb going on, it’s the you don’t know what you’ve got ’til it’s gone moment, where finally he understands. It doesn’t matter that we, the audience, know that the death won’t stick. Spock and Kirk have no reason to think it won’t. So that is a real moment for them, and it’s hugely powerful, I think. Spock’s death in WoK is the coda to their shared lives … but Kirk’s death in ID is the defining moment that propels them into that legendary friendship.
For Spock’s sake, Kirk wants him to understand that he put his career on the line to save him because he matters, because some things are more important than the rules. But for his own sake too he needs Spock to understand that, or what was the point? And the fact that Spock does get it, and says so, that’s his reward. That’s him knowing he didn’t do what he did for nothing. That Spock Prime was right.
So it’s not about being unoriginal, it’s not about disrespecting the source material, it’s about reinterpreting, reimagining, taking a pivotal moment in history and bending it around the fact that nothing in this timeline will be precisely as it was in the original.
Which would be the whole point. I find it just as powerful if not more so than WoK in delivery and intent. It was the third act that place the film in BJs favorite film of the year territory.
_________________The Force Awakens
|
Sun May 19, 2013 2:03 am |
|
 |
BJ
Killing With Kindness
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 8:57 pm Posts: 25035 Location: Anchorage,Alaska
|
 Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
Algren wrote: It seems like everyone is enjoying this. I'm glad.
I will see this when it arrives here on May 28, but I won't have watched the first. It's awesome yo, I hope you like it 
_________________The Force Awakens
|
Sun May 19, 2013 2:04 am |
|
 |
BJ
Killing With Kindness
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 8:57 pm Posts: 25035 Location: Anchorage,Alaska
|
 Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
Jmart wrote: Dr. Lecter wrote: Jmart wrote: Keyser Söze wrote: BTW why was there a desperation to get khan back to enterprise to revive kirk when they had his crew in the ship? His blood. Keyser's point was that Khan's crew has the same blood, one can presume. A fair point, too. Because Bones said he didn't understand the process to bring them out of the sleep since the technology "hadn't been necessary since warp was invented". He didn't want to accidentally kill someone, which is why he kept the guy that he took out of the cryogenic bed in a medically induced coma. I guess they could've waited for the person to thaw and then draw out the blood, but there was also a race against time to retain Kirk's mental capacities. Khan was the only option. OR It's a convenient way to keep Khan alive so he can be in another sequel. 100% agreed on each point. I see that this is not sitting well with many, but a quick deduction of all that is said by Bones would make one understand why he would want Khan. I don't view it as a plot hole.
_________________The Force Awakens
|
Sun May 19, 2013 2:08 am |
|
|
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 45 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
|