RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

TrekToday title image

Star Trek Into Darkness Honest Trailer

Posted by T'Bonz - 21/08/13 at 01:08 pm


Share |

Star Trek fans of the “Honest Trailer” series of commentaries can now see one for Star Trek into Darkness.

The five-minute trailer points out the flaws of the movie, in a humorous way.

Source: Screen Junkies

Tags:

  • jerr

    I hope Simon Pegg watches this on see’s some of the real reasons why fans aren’t happy with the movie http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/21/simon-pegg-the-worlds-end_n_3787056.html?utm_hp_ref=entertainment

  • Chris

    By and large, fans ARE happy with the movie.

  • jerr

    I guess the ones at that convention are anomalies, and the folks at Screen Junkies are mistaken

  • Guest

    Of course. And chocolate rations are up!

  • Kang the Unbalanced

    Indeed. I hope he sees that he has something in common with the “haytahs”.
    In that interview Pegg talks about how he loved the original Star Wars trilogy, but hates the prequels. His reasoning is that in the originals, Lucas used special effects to tell stories, and in the prequels, there was nothing but special effects. And that saying it’s for a different audience (kids in this case) is a weak justification for poor quality.

    The fans that criticise STiD give similar reasons for their positions; that storytelling has taken a big backseat to special effects, and that they are constantly being told that this film was made for a different audience, which they strangely enough feel is weak justification for poor quality.
    Oh. Let me also add that people rebut criticism of the prequel trilogy by invoking the almighty numbers; how could they be bad if they made X money and put Y butts in seats.
    I don’t expect him to agree, but I think if Simon thought it through, he’d understand the why some fans don’t like STiD.

  • Theragen Derivative

    The most genuine and believable scene in STD is near the beginning, when Pike calls Kirk into his office to inform him that Starfleet is taking Kirk’s command away because he’s an unbelievably immature douchebag who doesn’t have the discipline, experience, or basic common sense to be trusted to drive around the Federation’s flagship without parking it underwater somewhere.

    Okay, maybe he didn’t say it in exactly those words. ;)

    But the very worst thing about the Abramsverse movies is the way they’ve turned the classic characters from a group of dedicated professionals, who worked their way up through the ranks over the years and earned their positions because they were the best at their respective jobs, into a bunch of spoiled, entitled kids who’ve been handed the top gig in the fleet straight out of the Academy. Take a look at the first movie; by the end of it, every single member of the command crew from Kirk on down, with the exception of Spock and Chekov, has ended up in their familiar positions by ACCIDENT. STD puts Kirk in command of the Enterprise by the accident of circumstance a SECOND time. It promotes the 17-year-old kid into the position of Chief Engineer. Uhura fares the worst of all; all of the charm and cool dignity of Nichelle Nichols’ Uhura has been stripped out of the character and she’s been transformed into a sullen bitch who pushes her way into a posting aboard the Enterprise, regularly walks away from her post, and lets her relationship issues interfere with her duties.

    Prime timeline Kirk may have been young for a starship captain, but he still had years of experience and seasoning under his belt by the time he received the Enterprise (which was just one in a line of starships in TOS, not the flagship). We learned about how he put duty over friendship as a junior officer aboard the Republic (“Court Martial”). We learned what his experience as a lieutenant aboard the Farragut (“Obsession”) taught him about the crucial importance of efficiency, and the ability to make a split-second decision and act upon it. James T. Kirk was a tried and tested officer by the time he was given command of the Enterprise. He was a calm and sober military commander (“Balance of Terror”). We saw his dedication to the safety of his ship and crew on a weekly basis, we saw him lose men under his command, and we saw the pain it caused him. We saw the seriousness with which he took the responsibility he had been given — nothing superseded that, not his oldest friendship (“Where No Man Has Gone Before”) and not his personal safety (“Arena”, “Errand of Mercy”, many others).

    Abramsverse Kirk, by contrast, is a punk. It wasn’t such a problem in the first movie, in which he’s still a cadet who’s been thrust into a command situation by circumstance, but STD brings us back to this crew after they’ve been out in space for a while and have a number of missions under their belt — and the captain of the Enterprise is STILL a punk who doesn’t seem to take anything seriously. Spock cries, flies into fits of rage, and has to dial up a guy from the future via webcam to ask how the movie ends (talk about being handed things unearned!). Uhura stews about problems with her boyfriend in the middle of a crucial mission to find the Federation’s most wanted terrorist (I wanted to echo Kirk and scream “are you really gonna do this right NOW?”). Your average naval cadet of today behaves with more dignity and responsibility than we see from the crew of a 23rd Century starship.

    Bruce Greenwood’s Chris Pike, who so rightfully dresses down the punk Starfleet put in command of its flagship, is the only believable, likable character in this mess. Maybe it shouldn’t be surprising that STD flushes him down the toilet by the end of the first act.

  • jon

    Saw this yesterday…and it certainly is “honest.” I am one of the old school fans who, much as it pains me to say it, did not like this movie at all. I enjoyed, for the most part, the ’09 movie, but this movie sets the franchise significantly backwards and I wonder if it can even recover…it was that bad for reasons I don’t have the time right now to describe (I could write volumes and certainly many others already have)…

    Chris: Do some internet searches…I think you’ll quickly see that the fandom is very much split on this movie with a sizable number in the “not happy” camp.

    When the dust settles, this movie will not be remembered well if at all. It may carry the name “Star Trek” in its title and contain characters with names from Star Trek, but at its core (the most important part that in any good remake/re-imagining must remain), it is not “Star Trek.”

  • James

    I’m with you and the 88% who rated it fresh on rotten tomatoes. Not to mention prominent Trekkies like Mark Altman and Wil Wheaton. STID will go down as one of the best trek movies of all time.

  • Curtis Kopeschny

    Agreed. I’m a long time Trek fan and loved the movie. Sometimes Trek fans need to lighten up a bit.

  • Jon

    Curtis,

    Funny…I remember telling a few Trek fans who nitpicked some of the TOS films when they were first released to “lighten up.” :) I particularly remember telling a friend who was down on TVH (STIV) (again, while it was still in the theaters) to do so as I loved (and still do) that film even though I know it wasn’t perfect. Am I just getting old finally ? :)

    Seriously and as we are both long time fans (I’ve been watching since the early 1970s), I would be very curious as to what you saw in this movie that garners your high praise for it. Most of my long-time Trek fans/friends are pretty much in agreement with me that this movie was not only embarrassingly terrible but also will severely impact their desire to stick with the franchise for the future if this is the direction that will continue. The people/friends I know who did like the film would mostly fall into the “casual” and/or peripheral fan category (i.e. have had only a passing interest and/or knowledge of Trek previously).

    No disrespect intended and without getting into a nitpicky back and forth, I am genuinely curious as to what another long-time fan who loved this movie thinks as I just am having trouble understanding how 2 people with a similar knowledge of a given product can come to such disparate viewpoints. That’s all :) .

    Cheers,

    Jon

  • Kang the Unbalanced

    Oy vey.
    I concur. The weaknesses of the 2009 film were outweighed by the characters, and their growth over the course of the film. By the end you could see that this was our crew; wet behind the ears and still a work in progress, but clearly recognizeable. STiD shits all over that character growth. The beginning of STiD makes it look like after the end of the last film the entire crew went on the biggest week-long spring break hookers-and-blow party ever and lost IQ points and years of maturity.
    Honestly,if they had left the Star Trek characters and universe out of it entirely, they could have kept the “military using false flag operations to justify a war” storyline and the elements of the Harrison character and had a decent science fiction adventure. The rest was just frosting on the dog turd.

  • Old Trek rules

    Don’t mistake popularity for being good. New Kids on the Block were popular, Spice GIrls were popular, but neither were really good. JJ’s films are going to be remembered for big budget special effects, not for the stories. Uhura telling her commanding officer to “hold on a minute” so she can yell at her boyfriend who also happens to be second in command. is this Trek or is this some early 20′s soap opera like 90210?

  • Blue Thunder

    I second that motion. The dark side of Star Trek fandom has poisoned and permeated it long enough.

  • Mike

    Oh please… you are the dark side of Trek fandom.

  • Rtz

    Exactly – I think what they basically did was take the most recognizable ‘trait’ of each character and make that their only feature. In other words, characters became caricatures.

    Kirk = womanizing brat
    Spock = angst (wait, where did that come from???)

    Bones = wisecracking
    Scotty = funny accent
    and on and on…

  • SJStar

    Oh please… you are the turd side of Trek fandom.