Star Trek Into Darkness.

[Francisco Martins]

3D didnt bother me at all besides the few times when it wasnt aligned. Brilliant looking film and one of the best Treks in a while. Only disappointment was that the picture quality wasn't as mindblowingly sharp as Dark Knight Rises in the IMAX segments, probably because of the 3D processing.

[KH Martin]

When did everyone get too snobbish to enjoy a good popcorn flick? There's a whole lot of shitting on this movie for no reason. It was a perfectly enjoyable film. I wonder how many of you guys would have, if transported to 1984, bemoan the story of Terminator or a similar film in your crumdgenly state.

THE TERMINATOR was a breath of semi-fresh air, unpretentious and knowing where best to steal from ( THE OUTER LIMITS.)

 

The Abrams things are just a kitbash, slapped together from other movies and recycling old Trek bits in the wrong context.

 

For me, even a 'popcorn flick' should be able to accurately tell you how far away the moon is (which this film gets wrong, substituting kilometers for miles.) This plays so fast & loose with reason that it reminded me of MESSAGE FROM SPACE, japan's answer to STAR WARS, which had people walking around on the hull in deep space without spacesuits because the director wanted space to seem like a friendly place.

 

in a review of WRATH OF KHAN, David Gerrold said that scientifically the movie was about as accurate as the 1803 Farmer's Almanac. That still puts it a ways ahead of this thing, plus it had real characterization -- from a filmmaker who was at that time at the top of his game on the writing side -- which plussed up what was already good movie, along with a memorable (if wholly derivative) score.

 

If your idea of a popcorn movie is TRANSFORMERS, then I guess this is just fine ... I couldn't even get through the first one of those. If I want to see a dumb movie, I'll watch a movie that KNOWS it is bad and intentionally revels in it, like ACTION JACKSON.

 

Am really hoping that the next restart of TREK will relegate the Abrams pics to the same niche we see the Joel Schumacher Batman films occupying ... the nether regions.

[Pat Murray]

There's nothing wrong with mindless popcorn movies. I enjoyed Olympus Has Fallen, but I, like many others, prefer my Star Trek to be about something. Not just, start with action scene pew, pew, pew, introduce characters and deal with aftermath of opening actions scene, enter villain, pew, pew, pew, our heros are down and out, heros go on journey to defeat villain, pew, pew, pew, villain's weakness is finally figured out, finish with dragged out chase scene between hero(s) and villain, pew, pew, pew, catch hero, tell lame jokes. The end.

[Darrell Ayer]

Mr. Holland,

I liked the film and the 3D conversion was pretty okay. I actually went back to see it in 3D on a recommendation as I don't like post conversions.

 

As far as K.H. Martin and Pat Murray,

Perhaps you guys need to actually see Star Trek Into Darkness, J.J. Abrams has done a great job taking what made the original series transcendent and made it entertaining for everyone. There is a solid allegory to how we can improve as a people, there are great character moments in this series. It both pays lip service to the original and then does it's own thing. While I appreciate your love for the distance of the moon from earth, it plays no part in the narrative and is splitting hairs. I'm sure you screamed in theaters when the Kessel Run was won by Parsecs.

 

While you two may not like what I am saying or even feel that I am picking on you, I am not. I just think screaming fanboyism belongs on a Star Trek message board. I'm also not saying that people shouldn't be negative about bad screenwriting or filmmaking. We all saw Prometheus and Terminator 3, and we all know about characters being poorly written, or movies that bore you with action. What I'm saying is stop hating for hating's sake. Take off the rose colored glasses and watch some original Trek and see these movies again, you'll see how well it represents the 60's Trek really well and updates it for today.

Edited May 27, 2013 by Darrell Ayer

[KH Martin]

If you don't think the kind of sloppiness I mentioned is indicative of how inept the screenwriting is, fine, wallow in it.

 

As for your other comments ...

 

My wife is a Cumberbatch fan and has been ill, so to cheer her up I bit the bullet and took her to see it. Yes, I actually paid to see an Abrams film (the earlier one I only caught on dvd.) She actually hated STiD worse than I did (I'd give it a D+, which is WAY up from the last one) and she isn't even a fan, but went so far as to say, 'this is NOT Star Trek.'

 

I rewatch TOS regularly, and the earlier films as well. I do so because I find them engaging and entertaining. Even the lousiest TOS episodes still have the remarkable chemistry of the three leads, something this thing can't even begin to approach, thought they do keep trying. But Bruce Greenwood and Cumberbatch, even with little screen time and very little in the way of decent material, absolutely wipe the floor with the rest of this cast. Chris Pine may have a fine career in light comedy (think of Redford before BUTCH, when he was doing BAREFOOT IN THE PARK), but his best game is not enough here, and it makes me think his Jack Ryan is going to be godawful.

 

The fact that these things are treading over old ground in a new universe is indicative of creative backpedaling ... they wanted the freedom to begin anew, but instead play it safe, which in this verse with this cast seems kind of embarrassing, to say nothing of bone-stick stupid. That's not 'hating for hate's sake,' that's an observation, tinged with emotion over having my time wasted.