STAR TREK: INTO DARKNESS (no spoilers)

[moviePig]

Despite viral intimations to the contrary, the new STAR TREK does
*not* boldly go where no Trek has gone before. This outing is no more
nor less than a souped up TV episode of the original series -- and
that's not necessarily bad, as fans (and I was one) will be
entertained for its 2-plus hours. Still, it'd be wrong to impute any
intellectual challenge to the script -- it's all winks and big-budget
peril (...often simultaneously: "If we can't restore power to the
shields, we'll be incinerated!"). What *I* continue to find
interesting, meanwhile, is the prospect that big techno-fantasies like
this are actually *better* for their 3D being post-processed. Sure,
there are depth artifacts, but there's also an overall freedom to the
imagery that true stereoscopic fidelity might logistically fetter.
For the same money, what we get to see isn't as realistic, but I'm
guessing there's a lot more of it. For Trek fans/semi-fans,
recommended.

- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com

[RichA]

Can we know stop worshiping ass---- Abrams like he was some kind of
god?

[moviePig]

On May 17, 6:26 pm, RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Can we now stop worshiping ass---- Abrams like he was some kind of
> god?

That's a bit like can we stop beating our collective wife. I.e.,
although I don't pay close attention, I'm not aware of any regular
here who worships Abrams...

[nick]

On May 17, 6:26 pm, RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Can we know stop worshiping ass---- Abrams like he was some kind of
> god?

As soon as we stop the Mayor of Toronto from doing drugs with crack
addicts.

[nick]

So is it for Trek fans or did Abrams, as the doubters are saying, use
the Trek property to plug in his own space opera ideas or even do Star
Wars with different names? I didn't get much of a Star Trek vibe from
the first one and I'm not getting a Star Trek vibe from the trailer.

[trotsky]

Definitely the latter, which he specifically said in his interview with
Jon Stewart on TDS.

Make no mistake, this is simply an action movie with the Star Trek
characters as a backdrop. As an action movie it's spectacular, but if
you expect any new ground with the characters you won't get, and if you
expect any cerebral qualities of the original show you won't get it.
They did mysteriously throw in a Tribble presumably as a nod to the
show, and there is a bit of Klingon dialogue. I enjoyed it quite a bit,
but it definitely is a spectacle for the theater, and might be nearly as
much fun on home video.



--
Never post something on the internet unless you have a point of
reference. You will look like a moron otherwise.

[moviePig]

> you expect any new ground with the characters you won't get it, and if you

> expect any cerebral qualities of the original show you won't get it.
> They did mysteriously throw in a Tribble presumably as a nod to the
> show, and there is a bit of Klingon dialogue.  I enjoyed it quite a bit,
> but it definitely is a spectacle for the theater, and might be nearly as
> much fun on home video.

...if your home video has 3D, I agree. Where I felt let down by the
ultimate non-content of Abrams's SUPER 8, here I at least had the Kirk/
Spock/McCoy constellation to assure me of this story's importance to
the universe. (Gripe: the tribble actually comprised a plot-point
that was slightly confused by our knowledge of tribbles.) It's for
Trek fans ...but who isn't one, really?

[Russell Watson]

I thought beneath the IMAX 3D whiz-bang hyper-kinetic gimmickry that it
was Trek enough for what you can expect a big budget feature film to be
these days. I'm not sure exactly how "cerebral" it has to be to qualify
for some folks. It isn't totally dumb as it has character elements
relating to the nature of good and evil in people that gives you
something to think about. I saw elements of "By Any Other name" in it.
It is also a coming of age story for the characters, much like "Skyfall"
was for Bond, where in the end he has become the version we all know
from the original films.

[trotsky]

On 5/18/13 8:27 AM, moviePig wrote:

> ...if your home video has 3D, I agree. Where I felt let down by the
> ultimate non-content of Abrams's SUPER 8, here I at least had the Kirk/
> Spock/McCoy constellation to assure me of this story's importance to
> the universe. (Gripe: the tribble actually comprised a plot-point
> that was slightly confused by our knowledge of tribbles.) It's for
> Trek fans ...but who isn't one, really?

Agreed on the tribble. I waited all the way until the end of the
credits because of that goddamned thing.

[Russell Watson]

On 5/18/2013 12:03 PM, trotsky wrote:
> On 5/18/13 8:27 AM, moviePig wrote:
>
>> ...if your home video has 3D, I agree. Where I felt let down by the
>> ultimate non-content of Abrams's SUPER 8, here I at least had the Kirk/
>> Spock/McCoy constellation to assure me of this story's importance to
>> the universe. (Gripe: the tribble actually comprised a plot-point
>> that was slightly confused by our knowledge of tribbles.) It's for
>> Trek fans ...but who isn't one, really?
>
>
> Agreed on the tribble. I waited all the way until the end of the
> credits because of that goddamned thing.
>
>

Is there something after the credits?

[RichA]

Careful. If it's proven false, you could end up in the lawsuit along
with the Toronto Star, which has been out to get Ford ever since he
took the position formerly held by that that prancing, mincing fool
Miller. I still have photos of the 120 day-long garbage strike Miller
let happen (which KILLED tourism), while he hung around with queers
and let the unions run the city into the financial ground.

[moviePig]

Queers and unions and spendthrifts, oh my...

[moviePig]

On May 18, 12:05 pm, Russell Watson <russell-wat...@comcast.net>
wrote:

I wondered, too, and await Trotsky's answer...

[moviePig]

On May 18, 11:29 am, Russell Watson <russell-wat...@comcast.net>
wrote:

> I thought beneath the IMAX 3D whiz-bang hyper-kinetic gimmickry that it
> was Trek enough for what you can expect a big budget feature film to be
> these days. I'm not sure exactly how "cerebral" it has to be to qualify
> for some folks. It isn't totally dumb as it has character elements
> relating to the nature of good and evil in people that gives you
> something to think about. I saw elements of "By Any Other name" in it.
> It is also a coming of age story for the characters, much like "Skyfall"
> was for Bond, where in the end he has become the version we all know
> from the original films.

I wonder if that "coming of age" plateau might not be as mature as
Abrams is comfortable with. (I'm thinking of you, SUPER 8...)

[trotsky]

Just a Paramount logo.

[reilloc]

On 5/17/2013 5:26 PM, RichA wrote:
> Can we know stop worshiping ass---- Abrams like he was some kind of
> god?
>

The river Temarc in winter.

LNC

[moviePig]

Sokath, his eyes uncovered (...but only after a bunch of Googling).

[Russell Watson]

On 5/18/2013 3:16 PM, trotsky wrote:
> On 5/18/13 11:05 AM, Russell Watson wrote:
>> On 5/18/2013 12:03 PM, trotsky wrote:
>>> On 5/18/13 8:27 AM, moviePig wrote:
>>>
>>>> ...if your home video has 3D, I agree. Where I felt let down by the
>>>> ultimate non-content of Abrams's SUPER 8, here I at least had the Kirk/
>>>> Spock/McCoy constellation to assure me of this story's importance to
>>>> the universe. (Gripe: the tribble actually comprised a plot-point
>>>> that was slightly confused by our knowledge of tribbles.) It's for
>>>> Trek fans ...but who isn't one, really?
>>>
>>>
>>> Agreed on the tribble. I waited all the way until the end of the
>>> credits because of that goddamned thing.
>>>
>>>
>> Is there something after the credits?
>
>
> Just a Paramount logo.
>
>

Ah... good deal. We opted out of hanging around assuming there wouldn't
be but after your comment I was afraid we may have missed a medical bay
full of purring furballs or something. Stayed for the one after "Iron
Man 3" since they are a known quantity in that franchise, and was
disappointed to see it was just a silly exchange between 2 characters
and not some insight into what's coming up in future installments. Which
I guess means nothing new...

[reilloc]

Coincidentally, I'd agreed to go see this yesterday and did. It was
terrible. It dragged on and on and on and there was absolutely nothing
new. Nothing. It made me realize, even more, how movies are just a
business and nothing else. I think your recommendation, for Trek
fans/semi-fans,is not inaccurate; however, it's a "for the record"
recommendation. So that segment of the population can be able to say it
saw the movie. Nobody's going to take anything positive away from having
undergone the activity.

LNC

[nick]

Since the characters were such invincible superheroes (aside from the
expendabe nobodies on the Enterprise that die without anyone noticing
or caring too much), there was no sense of threat or menace and for
Starfleet officers, they were an awfully immature lot. I'm not much
up on my military chains of command and codes of ethics but would the
second in command on a navy vessel be allowed to date the
communications officer?

[trotsky]

The script was credited to three of the movie's producers. I got the
impression that they wrote a treatment, got the green light, and
literally wrote the script as they went along.

[Scott]

You (and apparently others) act like this is some new original Star Trek
TV series. It is a Star Trek movie. Name one other Star Trek
movie that breaks "new ground with the characters" or has the "cerebral
qualities of the original show". I, for one, will sit back and enjoy
the ride, just as I did with Wrath Of Kahn and Undiscovered Country,
since that is what Abrams seems to be doing. I saw Star Trek as a
homage in similar vein to Galaxy Quest. I expect Into Darkness to
continue that vein.

[Scott]

On 18-May-13 19:22, Russell Watson wrote:

> Ah... good deal. We opted out of hanging around assuming there wouldn't
> be but after your comment I was afraid we may have missed a medical bay
> full of purring furballs or something. Stayed for the one after "Iron
> Man 3" since they are a known quantity in that franchise, and was
> disappointed to see it was just a silly exchange between 2 characters
> and not some insight into what's coming up in future installments. Which
> I guess means nothing new...

A "silly exchange"? <eyes rolling>

[nick]

One thing I didn't get, and something Scott Mendelson addressed in his
"post mortem" on Star Trek's underperformance at the box office this
weekend, is why was the identity of the villain so downplayed in the
film's promotion? It's the most famous Trek villain and it's almost a
spoiler violation to mention who it is, which is why I won't because I
bet a lot of people who haven't seen Star Trek Into Darkness yet don't
even know who it is.

[Jim T.]

Geez, *that* guy again? My expectations keep getting lower and lower.
But maybe that's a good thing.

[iL_WeReo]

In article <iirip891l67hcgejn...@4ax.com>, Jim T. <x@y.z>
wrote:

I wish i could afford a ticket.
--
It was consensual. �If you read the posts you'd see those kids were
coming on to ME. �The camp had an open door policy and I wasn't about
to discourage them. �You won't find a judge in the country who
wouldn't toss that case out on its own merits! �It's really not
surprising because I am AWL that matters! -Scot Lifshine Sat, Sep 30 2006

[trotsky]

I found that weird, too. I looked at the imdb credits before seeing the
movie, and the spoiler you are talking about was right in the credits!
It's almost as if someone said "the plot doesn't make a whole lot of
sense, so who cares."

[moviePig]

I forgive the IMDb that 'spoiler'. Anyone doing that much poking
around ahead of time renounces their virginity. (But I do consider it
a spoiler, as it's the movie's major wink moment for Trekkies.)

[nick]

I counted a few wink moments to the Trekkies but if it's the one I'm
thinking of, one person in our audience laughed. It wasn't a Trekkie
audience.

Is the identity of the bad guy a "spoiler" or, if you want to be
conspiratorial about it, a case of controversy avoidance re:
ethnnicity and casting decisions?

[moviePig]

My initial reaction to that is, "Ridiculous." But I guess I have to
add, "I hope"

[trotsky]

I assume you're trying to be funny by referring to looking at an imdb
listing as 'doing that much poking around..."

[moviePig]

On May 20, 1:10 pm, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
> On 5/20/13 7:28 AM, moviePig wrote:
>
> > On May 20, 8:02 am, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
> >> I found that weird, too.  I looked at the imdb credits before seeing the
> >> movie, and the spoiler you are talking about was right in the credits!
> >> It's almost as if someone said "the plot doesn't make a whole lot of
> >> sense, so who cares."
>
> > I forgive the IMDb that 'spoiler'.  Anyone doing that much poking
> > around ahead of time renounces their virginity.  (But I do consider it
> > a spoiler, as it's the movie's major wink moment for Trekkies.)
>
> I assume you're trying to be funny by referring to looking at an imdb
> listing as 'doing that much poking around..."

Not really. I think that looking at character names invites trouble.
In fact, so can looking at *actor* names. Anyone who really wants a
"clean" viewing has to practice a little delayed gratification
(...which is already sometimes not enough). I understand the
tradeoffs, but certainly not for a movie one's already sure to see...

[trotsky]

On 5/20/13 12:48 PM, moviePig wrote:
> On May 20, 1:10 pm, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
>> On 5/20/13 7:28 AM, moviePig wrote:
>>
>>> On May 20, 8:02 am, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
>>>> I found that weird, too. I looked at the imdb credits before seeing the
>>>> movie, and the spoiler you are talking about was right in the credits!
>>>> It's almost as if someone said "the plot doesn't make a whole lot of
>>>> sense, so who cares."
>>
>>> I forgive the IMDb that 'spoiler'. Anyone doing that much poking
>>> around ahead of time renounces their virginity. (But I do consider it
>>> a spoiler, as it's the movie's major wink moment for Trekkies.)
>>
>> I assume you're trying to be funny by referring to looking at an imdb
>> listing as 'doing that much poking around..."
>
> Not really. I think that looking at character names invites trouble.

Reading reviews is important but "looking at character names invites
trouble." Okay, you go with that.

[reilloc]

On 5/20/2013 2:04 PM, trotsky wrote:
> On 5/20/13 12:48 PM, moviePig wrote:
>> On May 20, 1:10 pm, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
>>> On 5/20/13 7:28 AM, moviePig wrote:
>>>
>>>> On May 20, 8:02 am, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>> I found that weird, too. I looked at the imdb credits before
>>>>> seeing the
>>>>> movie, and the spoiler you are talking about was right in the credits!
>>>>> It's almost as if someone said "the plot doesn't make a whole lot of
>>>>> sense, so who cares."
>>>
>>>> I forgive the IMDb that 'spoiler'. Anyone doing that much poking
>>>> around ahead of time renounces their virginity. (But I do consider it
>>>> a spoiler, as it's the movie's major wink moment for Trekkies.)
>>>
>>> I assume you're trying to be funny by referring to looking at an imdb
>>> listing as 'doing that much poking around..."
>>
>> Not really. I think that looking at character names invites trouble.
>
>
> Reading reviews is important but "looking at character names invites
> trouble." Okay, you go with that.
>

Considering you often sound like a guy with a pick axe in his head, he's
got a point--no pun intended.

LNC

[moviePig]

On May 20, 3:04 pm, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
> On 5/20/13 12:48 PM, moviePig wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 20, 1:10 pm, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
> >> On 5/20/13 7:28 AM, moviePig wrote:
>
> >>> On May 20, 8:02 am, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
> >>>> I found that weird, too.  I looked at the imdb credits before seeing the
> >>>> movie, and the spoiler you are talking about was right in the credits!
> >>>> It's almost as if someone said "the plot doesn't make a whole lot of
> >>>> sense, so who cares."
>
> >>> I forgive the IMDb that 'spoiler'.  Anyone doing that much poking
> >>> around ahead of time renounces their virginity.  (But I do consider it
> >>> a spoiler, as it's the movie's major wink moment for Trekkies.)
>
> >> I assume you're trying to be funny by referring to looking at an imdb
> >> listing as 'doing that much poking around..."
>
> > Not really.  I think that looking at character names invites trouble.
>
> Reading reviews is important but "looking at character names invites
> trouble."  Okay, you go with that.

Reading *opinions* is *useful*, though skill's often required to skirt
spoilers. (But you know all this so well that I suspect if I weren't
writing it you would be.)

[Russell Watson]

I know people who have already checked IMDb to see if they can ascertain
who the as yet unidentified black superhero is supposed to be in the
promos for "Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D." but they are even being
Cage-y about that. For anyone who might not know Marvel, that was a
deliberate pun on the commonly held belief that he will turn out to be
Luke Cage, Power Man.

[nick]

But why should I want a "clean" viewing. What's wrong with checking
the IMDb to see if upcoming features have actors/talent, etc. whose
careers you're interested in?

(The exception here is TV shows, which can be problematic, because the
IMDb page might have something like John Smith (2009-2013) hinting the
possibility that John Smith might be getting killed off this season,
so in general, with tv shows I'm watching I won't go to the IMDb page
until it's finished its run.)

[moviePig]

Well, usually it's inconsequential, even by my standards. But
sometimes there are surprise cameos... or, ahem, surprise character
names. Again, we're talking about a movie you've already committed to
see.

[bermuda999]

On Monday, May 20, 2013 1:48:40 PM UTC-4, moviePig wrote:

> I think that looking at character names invites trouble.
> In fact, so can looking at *actor* names. Anyone who really wants a
> "clean" viewing has to practice a little delayed gratification
> (...which is already sometimes not enough). I understand the
> tradeoffs, but certainly not for a movie one's already sure to see...

There was, of course, a major to-do when Conan O'Brian ran a spoof scene a week before STID opened, followed by seemingly real credits:

http://comicbook.com/blog/2013/05/07/star-trek-into-darkness-was-the-john-harrison-twist-just-spoiled-on-conan/

Which Conan rebutted the following night:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OucfdQWqQGk

[nick]

But with this "surprise character name", there's spoilers, and then
there's marketing decision spoilers . . . Google Benicio del Toro and
see what part he turned down a year ago.

[moviePig]

Yeah, Paramount doubtless wants it both ways: fan-hive buzz *and*
total secrecy.

--

[moviePig]

On May 21, 7:45 am, bermuda999 <bermuda...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Monday, May 20, 2013 1:48:40 PM UTC-4, moviePig wrote:
> > I think that looking at character names invites trouble.
> > In fact, so can looking at *actor* names.  Anyone who really wants a
> > "clean" viewing has to practice a little delayed gratification
> > (...which is already sometimes not enough).  I understand the
> > tradeoffs, but certainly not for a movie one's already sure to see...
>
> There was, of course, a major to-do when Conan O'Brian ran a spoof scene a week before STID opened, followed by seemingly real credits:
>

> http://comicbook.com/blog/2013/05/07/star-trek-into-darkness-was-the-...

>
> Which Conan rebutted the following night:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OucfdQWqQGk

I assume the current wisdom (oxymoron alert) is that he or his staff
committed a major faux pas and then went the extra mile to make
amends. To which I'd say: good for him ...shit happens.

--