RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

TrekToday title image

Content filter

Want to find something specific?

Filter content by category

Filter content by date

Star Trek Into Darkness Blu-Ray/DVD Review

Posted by T'Bonz - 04/10/13 at 09:10 am


Share |

STIDDVDBluRay-071913

The Blu-ray/DVD/Digital Movie Set:

Two discs are included in this release of Star Trek into Darkness. The discs come in a plastic case, which is inside of a plastic cover sleeve.

Nibiru

The first disc includes the Blu-ray release of Star Trek into Darkness, and the following special features:

  • Creating the Red Planet. How the red forest and volcano Nibiru sets was made.
  • Attack on Starfleet. How the attack of Harrison on the Starfleet meeting was made.
  • The Klingon Homeworld. The new Klingon look, Qo’noS and the Klingon language.
  • The Enemy of my Enemy. Why Khan was chosen as the villain.
  • Ship to Ship. The spacesuit jump between the Enterprise and the Vengeance.
  • Brawl by the Bay. The flying barge scene.
  • Continuing the Mission. The Starfleet Ceremonial Guard scene.
  • The Mission Continues. J.J. Abrams‘ support for a veterans group.

Harrison

The second disc includes the movie in standard DVD format.

A paper insert includes a code to download or stream the movie, using either Ultraviolet, or from iTunes. The other side of the paper is an advertisement featuring recent or forthcoming Paramount Blu-ray releases.

The iTunes movie download features a commentary with J.J. Abrams, Michael Giacchino, Bryan Burk, Damon Lindelof and others associated with Star Trek into Darkness.

Attack

The Movie:

Star Trek into Darkness begins with Kirk and crew trying to save the primitive inhabitants of Nibiru from a volcanic eruption which would wipe out their civilization. Spock risks his life to do so but is rescued and all seems well until later when Kirk is stripped (temporarily) of his command for breaking the Prime Directive after Spock rats him out.

Then the action turns to London, where a desperate father does something unthinkable to save his terminally ill child, setting off a chain effect of death, destruction and fast-paced action.

The villain is revealed, as are his motives. Kirk and crew find out that the Federation isn’t as pristine as it should be, but in the end, the bad guys get their comeuppance and the good guys save the day, but not without a lot of collateral damage along the way.

The crew is now set to head off to new adventures in the next film.

Klingonandjump

The Review:

Packaging:

The first thing that one notices is the packaging, which is rather attractive. The removable sleeve shows a scene from the movie and it has a clear spot in the shape of the Federation insignia. When the rest of the package is put into the sleeve; Kirk, Uhura, Spock and Harrison/Khan are framed by the Federation insignia.

The Movie and Extras:

Star Trek into Darkness is the story of desperation, betrayal, vengeance and justice. There are plenty of human emotional moments along the way; the desperation of a father trying to save his terminally ill child, Harrison/Khan’s seething anger over the treatment of his “family,” Uhura’s frustration regarding her relationship with Spock, Spock’s pain over the loss of his entire planet and his mother, Kirk’s frustration over doing what he felt was the right thing and being punished for it (temporarily) by the loss of his ship, and Kirk’s anguish over the loss of his father figure Captain Pike.

Fans will recognize familiar lines and references to people, such as Christine Chapel, and other beings, such as Tribbles, from other Trek shows/movies.  Events towards the end of the movie are a twist on the original The Wrath of Khan story.

The story has plenty of action, and is satisfying, but it would have been better to have a unique villain and not a rehash of one of the best Star Trek movies. How do you surpass The Wrath of Khan? You don’t.

The extras are skimpy for this first release, although the ones that are included are interesting. It rather boggles belief that TPTB saw fit to split up all the different extras making it impossible for the fan to get all the extras in one set. Such Ferengi behavior is plain unacceptable. For the commentary, for example, one has to work with the notorious buggy iTunes (buggy if one doesn’t own a Mac or iPad) and much time was spent by this reviewer getting it to work properly including several phone calls to iTunes support when the code didn’t work. There is no good reason other than greed that the commentary couldn’t have been bundled with the movie, not done as a separate download.

It’s one thing to make toys or other items specials for Best Buy or Target or other retailers, but to withhold extras and commentaries? Unbelievable. Want to see Mr. Spock and Mr. Spock? Sorry if you bought the regular release, because only the Target release carries this four minute extra. More than half of the special features for the Star Trek into Darkness release are only available as exclusives from various retailers.

To learn which extras are in which releases, check out TrekCore’s articles here and here.

Once one was able to access the commentary, it was chock full of interesting discussion, and one of the clever things about the commentary was how a small box would appear during certain movie scenes, showing the set without the special effects. The commentary is well worth the watch.

Barge

The Verdict:

If one can get past the lack of extras, the movie is worth purchasing. The story holds up well over repeat viewings and the extras are interesting. Too bad one has to buy several versions to see them all.

Star Trek into Darkness can be purchased here.

Flag

 

Tags:

  • Rad

    Okay, we’ve slammed this movie three ways from Sunday. I hated it in the theater, and recently, had the opportunity to watch it in the privacy of my home. I think the annoyance is based in the lack of cohesion and plausibility; the technical parts of the plot just did not add up to the scale of the CGI. In one scene, we see characters supposedly from the exterior of the window on the bridge, given height of people and pan of the exterior, you would expect certain laws of physical place to follow. A little later, Kirk and Scotty hanging off acres of scaffolding in what is suppose to be an atrium and later, the engineering section. I am willing to make a leap of faith, but it felt almost comical like the “Trek” parody “Galaxy Quest” when Tim Allen’s character groans “who the hell built this thing!”. GQ was a comedy, and viewed as such. Trek was, to the last of my knowledge, a action/adventure drama, yet just on technical merit, it keeps flailing into the absurd.

    For what the movie franchise earned; take a quarter million and build a set; don’t just rent a brewery and slap a Starfleet logo on it. When Dykstra reimagined the USS Enterprise for Star Trek: The Motion Picture, I was speechless (in a great way). The parts of my beloved star ship were INCREDIBLE, and the loving attention to detail came through in every frame of that movie. That attention to detail allowed the subsequent original cast movies to evolve and age as the sets did without lowing that 4th wall. I felt like I WAS in the star ship. I felt like the crew were all there. This thing that Abrams cobbled together was technically… schlock. That is a brewery. That is an oil refinery. That is something on a gimbal that is suppose to lead to something else but just does not if you think logistically. And why does the transporter room keep changing locations? When did the bridge turbolift turn into a pass-through door to a long corridor that would have you walking into outer space if it were to the scale. The attention to detail is just not there, and that killed it for me.

    This is the new movie franchise for the Twitter generation. “The title is “Star Trek”, if has a Kirk, Spock and McCoy character saying things we kinda remember, look the ship has a flat part and to long parts. Love it.” Really?

  • Worfles

    I wonder if Paramount will respond to the vehement backlash regarding their illogical plan for the extras and release a special “extras” edition in the future that has ALL the special features available. (Probably not, but one can dream). This is the blu-ray format, after all. Other than to rake in more money and leave the fanbase feeling angry cheated, there’s no reason why we were left with a chintzy amount of extras for this release on blu-ray, especially when compared to the release of the first movie. Heck, even the DVD of the first movie had more extras content (featurettes, gag reel, deleted scenes, commentary…) than the blu-ray of Into Darkness, which just boggles the mind. WTF were they thinking??

  • Hakuzen

    Great movie, despite the venom spewed by the commenters on this site.

    Yes there are plotholes, there were also plotholes in Inception, The Matrix & every other great sci-fi movie I can think of. Let’s move on.

  • Theragen Derivative

    If you think Inception and The Matrix were “great sci-fi movies” then no wonder you liked this.

  • Jon

    Hmmm…I am curious…would you consider yourself to be a) a long-time fan (as in from the NOS to TNG days), or b) a more casual fan (as in seen the movies, catch some of the TV shows from time-to-time)?

    And I’d genuinely like to see more explanation on why you consider STID to be a great movie. I can go on and on in a reasoned, well-thought-out exposition as to why I did not like this film, with my primary reason being that there was nothing in it that spoke as “Star Trek” to me. None of discussion of the human condition, none of the moral conundrums, none of the moving scenes…or what little there may have been on any of these topics was so superficial that it just wasn’t effective. The plot holes and other suspension of disbelief moments were there to be sure, but the lack of the former Trek “core” made the latter so much more difficult to swallow.

    And please bear in mind that the above is not “venom” at all but in fact it is simply my opinion. As a long-time fan from the early 1970s, I just did not like this movie. If your opinion differs, great! Please let us know why this movie was so great. Truly, I would like to know…let’s have a fun debate! :)

    For me, I would love to move on, but I do want to (and need to :)) express my opinion in the hopes that the powers-that-be at least take some note so that the next installment can be better! And I am actually enjoying these sorts of discussions (whey they remain civil and respectful of course)…

    Jon

  • Hakuzen

    Hey Jon,

    I am a “Trekker” and not a “Trekkie”, which is to say I started with TNG as a child and watched every Trek since. I wouldn’t call myself a “Trekkie” because I have yet to watch TOS, although I do have the remastered blu-rays waiting for me. My personal ranking of the series is as follows:

    1.) Deep Space Nine
    2.) The Next Generation
    3.) Voyager
    4.) Enterprise

    TOS is not listed because I cannot judge a series I have not seen. Ironically, I’ve seen ALL of the TOS movies and I love them. The poor quality of the original series was just a dealbreaker for me, til recently.

    The thing that’s ironic here is that my favorite Trek series, DS9, got the SAME REACTION that Abrams Trek is now getting. All of the old school trek fans HATED DS9 because they thought it was too dark, too big of a departure from Gene Roddenberry’s vision. The fact that the Defiant was a straight-up warship really pissed alot of trekkies off. Yet I love DS9 with a passion, and have watched it all the way through 4 times now.

    That opinion probably explains my acceptance of Abrams Trek. I enjoy dark, gritty storytelling in sci-fi. Don’t get me wrong, I have a special place in my heart for TNG, and it’s more roddenberry-like feel.. And to be honest, It’s more like DS9 is 1A and TNG is 1B in my book.. I compare it to Ice Cream. I love vanilla, but sometimes I want chocolate. It doesn’t mean I dislike vanilla, I have room for both in my life.

    Specifically regarding STID, I really enjoyed the dark tone and the increased emphasis on relationships between the characters. I LOVED Benedict Cumberbatch’s Khan. I mean, seriously loved it. It’s the shining light of the movie, to me. And yes, I’ve seen the original Wrath of Khan and also loved that, it’s my second favorite TOS movie right behind The Voyage Home.

    Into Darkness was not perfect, I did notice some pretty gaping plotholes at times; and the scene towards the end where they were fighting on that moving floating platform bothered me a little bit. The positives simply outweight the negatives to me, but again I am an admitted fan of the darker trek ~ALA Deep Space Nine.

    I would rate STID a 7.5 / 10, or an 8 / 10 if I wanted to be generous. Not perfect, but still a great movie.

    I appreciate the intelligence behind your post, so I wanted to reply; even if we won’t agree. I respect your opinion and I would love to see a return to traditional Trek at some point, but in the mean time, I’m happy we’re getting Star Trek in it’s current incarnation.

  • ahki

    Star Trek Burnout, you need to find a new show or start making your own. This Star Trek was made for the next generation of viewers, not for the viewers from the ’60s. If we followed the views of the TOS viewers from ’60s and even ’70s, we would not have TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT, or the many movies after Wrath of Khan. These JJ Abrams movies are for those that did not watch the original shows. This is a new introduction for a new generation of Star Trek viewers. They threw in a few bones for the original viewers of TOS, but have started anew since the views and tastes of this younger viewership today is widely more advanced in sensibilities, information, and compassion than the ego’s of yesteryear.

  • ahki

    To Star Trek Burnouts, you need to find a new show or start making your own movies.
    This Star Trek was made for the next generation of viewers, not for the
    viewers from the ’60s. If we followed the views of the TOS viewers
    from ’60s and even ’70s, we would not have TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT, or the
    many movies after Wrath of Khan. These JJ Abrams movies are for those
    that did not watch the original shows. This is a new introduction for a
    new generation of Star Trek viewers. Yes, they throw in a few bones for the
    original viewers of TOS, but they have started anew since the views and
    tastes of this younger viewership today is widely more advanced in
    sensibilities, information, and compassion than the ego’s of yesteryear. (You do have the option to go back and replay the TOS episodes, for EVER; unless in 30 years you might then come visit and see Star Trek XXI when it comes out. To bad you will miss all the Star Trek movies in between).

  • Jon

    Alright…finally a good discussion without the snark! :)

    I did very much enjoy DS9 for the most part…it was Voyager that was difficult to watch oftentimes…the plots just seemed so mundane and/or repetitive. I still watched, but without much enthusiasm. At the time, I found Babylon 5 more satisfying…certainly a “darker” show and then some…

    But I would say that most of my “Trek” friends did continue to watch DS9 and liked it for the most part…I don’t recall them actively disliking it as most of these same folks who I maintain touch with did with STID.

    I do find it quite fascinating (to coin a phrase) that you and I could see Cumberbatch as Kahn so vastly different. I (and my wife) practically walked out of the theater when he said he was “Khan”…we were that put off by it. I consider this to be (as I stated in another thread) the biggest miscasting of all time. And it’s not just the race being so very wrong…the character as written for STID bore absolutely not one iota of resemblance to the Khan character as originally conceived and then brought to vigourous life by the late Mr. Montalban. Where was the enormous ego, the towering arrogance, or the smoldering, just-under-the-surface rage that defined the character? I didn’t see any of this in “nuKhan.” I’m sure Cumberbatch is a fine actor, but as I said in another thread…his being cast as Khan is like casting me as Malcolm X (I’m just your average Caucasian, Jewish guy). I could be the best actor in the world, but I doubt I would be accepted as playing the role of Malcom X :) .

    If the character was just written as another genetically enhanced person (not Khan), that would have been a much better route to pursue by the writers rather than trying to shoe-horn in an unnecessary reference to TOS, IMHO.

    Other stuff that didn’t float my boat:

    1. Bad set designs, especially engineering (A brewery? Really?). And the bridge was so disjointed…nothing appealing about it all for me.
    2. Lack of colors…all of the sets and special effects seemed to be variations of grey, white and blue…very little other colors. Compare and contrast to the beautiful opening to TNG from Season 3 onward…Just wait ’til you see that on the Blu-Ray sets! :)
    3. Illogical stuff such as Enterprise underwater, beaming across the galaxy, magic blood, English accented Dr. Marcus with father who has no accent, aforementioned Khan as English person, etc., etc. I can overlook some such plotholes and/or leaps of faith if the movie is otherwise good, but this movie was not so these sorts of things look that much worse…
    4. People dieing left and right with no meaning. Compare with the scene in WoK when Scotty brings his dying nephew to the bridge and everyone gasps…brings it all home and then some…none of that in STID even though thousands must have died in the wrecking of SF and of course all of the random folks sucked out of the Enterprise. The audience has no connection…

    If I were to rate STID…I’d give at best a 2/10. I’m seriously considering re-watching STV again to see which I might rate as worse. I haven’t rewatched STV in probably 20 years :)! I might borrow a friend’s copy of STID in the future, but no plans on buying it. And note that this will be the first time I have not bought a Trek movie for my home collection.

    Gotta go…but thanks for the discussion. Looking forward to hear your take on it all.

  • alfredodedarc

    In other words, this Star Trek is for the folks who think Michael Bay’s movies are ‘high art’….
    No challenge, just lots and lots of explosions?
    I mean, they couldn’t even resist ripping off their first movie with the ship to ship excursion…

  • Theragen Derivative

    Somebody else in this thread mentioned “the Twitter Generation”. Thanks for showing up to represent.

  • 1moreRobot

    “They threw in a few bones for the original viewers of TOS, but have started anew since the views and tastes of this younger viewership today is widely more advanced in sensibilities, information, and compassion than the ego’s of yesteryear.”

    :D HAHAHA. You’ve got to be kidding me. You do know what was going on in this country in the later part of the 20th century, don’t you? What a self-absorbed, ignorant comment — not at all the impression you seem to be going for.

  • ahki

    1moreRobot, I just think that the old Star Trek people are just a bunch of phonies. They cry about their old TOS show and how it’s being killed by JJ and such, but that’s all they do. They have failed at making the world a better place, with their self-absorbed point-of-views, that I am glad to see a fresh start to the series. Maybe, hopefully, the new viewers after TOS will make a difference in society this time around?!?

  • Mike

    You think it’s unlikely they’ll repackage the same material and sell it together in the future? Hmmm… I don’t.

  • Theragen Derivative

    I have a co-worker who sounds a lot like you. 22 years old, first job out of college, thinks his entire generation is God’s gift to the planet…. and they’re getting ready to fire his ass for a bad attitude laced with general incompetence.

  • milojthatch

    I think the venom is well justified personally. Let’s leave the “Star Trek” equation out a moment and just view it as a film. I feel that the points made in the How It Should Have Ended video hit a lot of it on the head. For all the “build up,” JJ-Kahn’s big reveal had zero emotional impact. Ok, the audience (mostly) knows who Kahn is, but Kirk and Co. clearly don’t. It was a flaw and disservice to the Kahn character for Orci and Kurtzman to write a story around a generic character and then after, try and fit a specific character into that role. look, if they wanted to make a Kahn movie then they should have written the dang thing around him from the start!

    Then (and this is a flaw from the first film, carried over), they’ve basically made starships (and a big point of Star Trek) obsolete. Why build big, expensive ships that take weeks, months or years to get from point A to point B when you can now just transport whoever from across the universe is seconds? Lastly, JJ-Dr. McCoy basically cured death. Thanks to JJ-Kahn’s “magic blood” (I still can’t believe that phrase was actually used in the film!), unless someone is decapitated or flies out of an air lock and lost, there better not be a single death in the next film. Why would there need to be now, just put some of the “magic blood” into the dead person and they come back to life!

    The crazy thing for me isn’t even that this was put into the film, but that JJ-Trek fans actually defend this stupid plot point. Really? You guys are defending Orci and Kurtzman paint themselves into a corner? I mean, wow! Any sense of danger just died, and no “magic blood” is going to bring it back to life!

    It’s not just bad Star Trek, it’s just a bad movie.

  • milojthatch

    See, here’s the thing, despite DS9 being “dark,” it was still more optimistic than JJ-Trek, and definitely made a hell of a lot more sense. Personally, I think the kids today get too caught up in “how dark and edgy” a film is and have forgotten (are never figured out) about the most import elements: story and character. Just my two cents…

    For what it’s worth, this fan is a fan of all Trek except for JJ-Trek. (Real) Kirk, Picard, Janeway, Archer or Sisco, I love them all equally!

  • milojthatch

    1moreRobot: Basically. Look, I’m a kid of the 80s and 90s, but I know better than to say something like that about those older than me. It’s just rings with the same arrogance that JJ Abrams and co seem to have sadly.

  • milojthatch

    ahki: I’m (sadly) part of the new generation of adults, and so far, my generation is more pathetic than our parents ever were. I actually think my generation is far more self absorbed than previous generations. We didn’t deal with the Great Depression, we didn’t deal with WWII, or Vietnam, or the Civil Right movement. Rather, our parents, wanting a better life for us, have shielded us from the horrors of life in ways their parents didn’t, and now many of my generation has no clue about anything. Instead it’s become an instantaneous, I want it now, the world owes me a living World.

    Oh ya, and for the record, it’s not just strictly TOS fans that don’t like JJ-Trek. There are a lot of fans like me that liked it all (TOS to Enterprise) but just can’t get on board the JJ jet plane.

  • milojthatch

    I’ve been fighting this dumb reboot since 2009, and by now I think we all know the basic arguments to and for.

    JJ-fans: It’s the greatest Star Trek ever! It’s Star Trek for *our* generation!

    Classic Star Trek fans: No plot, no character build up, all bark and no bite, “Trek” in name only, and no moral questions worthy of the name “Star Trek.”

    Look, I get that some of you actually like this crap. Good for you, I’m happy that the powers that be made a “Trek” down at your level. For the rest of us, while we can get on with our lives, it’s still a bitter pill that something so many of us have put so much time into has been mistreated like this. I me for me personally, I’ve been a Star Trek fan for more of my life than not. I started as a fan at the ripe old age of 9 and I’m 3 today. 21 years of fandom! Many fans have been fans even longer than that. And yet I still feel like JJ Abrams (and the studio for letting this happen) basically came in and pushed me out of an airlock. It’s like for my many years of fandom, my reward is a big middle finger. Thank you Paramount, I love how “loyal” you are to the fans that have been lining your pocket books all these years on Trek toys, DVD’s and Videos, conventions, attractions, collectable plates, and whatever else. THAT might be the thing that rubs me the wrong way the most. I mean my gosh, even all through the less than stellar rating of Enterprise and after it was axed and there was no new productions, fans of the classic franchise were loyal with their pocket books.

    And so how does the studio repay that loyalty? By bringing in a man who doesn’t get us, doesn’t care to get us, and is whining because CBS tv isn’t willing to have *his* Kirk be the only face on new merchandise! I don’t care if you like these new films, it would be nice if at least some JJ-fans could appreciate the disappointment the other half of this fandom is feeling right now. Is that so much to ask?

    It would have been nice if the classic franchise had at least been given a chance to properly wrap up. Instead, the “end” of the original franchise is the open-ended “Nemesis” and the rushed into production “These Are The Voyages…”. And it’s not that I want to knock either of those titles (like many fans have), it’s just that it would be nice to have a more clear end before we get tossed aside in favor of a new fan base. It really would have been nice on the studio’s part. I just feel like a faithful spouse who has been replaced by a younger lover after years and year of loyalty. *sigh*

  • Theragen Derivative

    I don’t think we’ve seen the end of the classic franchise. Sooner or later, Trek will return to adventures set in the “prime” timeline, because sooner or later The Powers That Be are going to figure out that tossing over 40 years’ worth of fandom to try to hook in the people who go to see “Paranormal Activity 15″ simply is not a recipe for the long-term health of what has historically been their biggest cash cow. These new Prime Timeline adventures will probably take the form of a new TV series, since CBS handles that end of Trek and has stood as a firewall against Bad Robot’s attempt to scrub the market of the real thing. The Paramount end can be left to figure out how much money it wants to spend trying to shore up the diminishing returns of the film end, figuring out the mood of the 140-characters-or-less crowd from year to year.

    But JJ-fans, by their nature as casual viewers, won’t really be disappointed by JJ Trek’s inevitable chug to a stop. Nobody really gives a shit about the reboot, when you get right down to it; the established fans overwhelmingly hate it (those who didn’t in ’09 certainly do now), the gosh-I-always-hated-Star-Trek-before-but-this-movie-was-COOL fans mostly forget about Trek and move on to the next week’s blockbuster after they’ve seen it (and the reboot certainly isn’t a gateway to the larger Trek universe or its merchandise for them since, after all, that’s Old, Boring Trek), and it’s just another job for the people who are making it. Chris Pine will not be playing Captain Kirk ten years from now. Abrams used Trek as nothing more than a stepping stone to Star Wars and hopes to forget he ever had to slum around in it.

    I’m only a few years older than you, and I remember when TNG premiered. There was certainly the divide between “classic” and “new” fans then, and I was already in the classic camp, but I watched the new show and came to accept it. After all, TNG had been launched by Roddenberry and Justman themselves, and after they were gone the show, and DS9 after it, were run by people who clearly loved TOS and saw it as their touchstone.

    The TOS/TNG divide was fairly deep, and lasted a little while, but it was nothing like the current divide between JJ Trek and everything else. Trek was all one big, unified, continuing universe then, it stuck to core ideas and ethics throughout its incarnations, and its writers and producers didn’t show up on America Online to tell us to “FUCK OFF” if we didn’t like it. Trek will return to this model, or it will die. Simple as that.

  • Guest

    So…all the NASA guys and engineers and so on who have proudly admitted to being Trek fans since the ’60s never made “a difference in society?”

    You’d best be trolling.

  • ahki

    Nope, it’s just your crowd that pathetic, don’t bring the world with your group. And, Do Tell Me I Don’t Know What VietNam Was Like! When I turned 21, I had over a hundred friends in my community, by age 28, over half of them were gone from AIDS, by age 31, there are now only 3 of us left. Those trekkies from yesteryear cry about their issues but do nothing about it, hide it away in a sanitized dream world, while Great Men Like JJ and Orci put those pains on the screen and don’t cure them by the end of the show. You old guys are like Khan, thinking your better than us “Trekkers”, no wonder we would never ask any of your group for help. You bad-mouth our JJ Star Trek, which I can guess you wish it to fail, so there will be no more Star Trek, but your own?! “I am expressing multiple attitudes simultaneously.”

  • Kang the Unbalanced

    TL; DR.

    Kidding. But I agree with what you say about this being for the Twitter ge– SQUIRREL!!

  • Kang the Unbalanced

    Another part of the continuity, the unity of Trek when TNG was birthed is the many Trek veterans oinvolved in making it, not the least of which was Gene Roddenberry himself. TNG was always intended to be a continuation, a way to update the show without wiping it completely out and starting all over again. In fact ALL of the prime series and movies were made by people who were involved in prior Trek and understood it.
    This time around? Umm… I think they may have talked to John Eaves at one point… and of course the original cast members were courted… but those oh-so-inferior television and “lesser” non-blockbuster people were not.
    This last film wiped out the goodwill and hope for the franchise that the 2009 film had built.

    Therefore, fuck JJ Abrams, fuck Bad Robot, fuck all his little pet monkeys he drags around with him, and for that matter fuck Paramount for burning their cash cow for a quick buck.

  • Kang the Unbalanced

    Good, yes. Great, no. Don’t mention any titles, I’d like to see if Hakuzen can name any of the truly and indisputably great science fiction movies.

  • Kang the Unbalanced

    I like most of the new crew. Or did, in the prior film where they actually bore some resemblance. I like that Pike played a greater part in the formation of the crew and Kirk’s character (what there is of it) in these films. I do think the idea of inverting the situation and making it the Wrath of Kirk was an interesting dramatic premise, but the execution of it was somewhere between Attack of the Clones and an elementary school play. I think the political commentary is about the best-handled part of the film, and Peter Weller was of course fantastic to watch.

  • Kang the Unbalanced

    Ah. So the war on terror justifies even poor filmmaking. I’ll keep that in mind.

  • Kang the Unbalanced

    I’ve had my meds today. Have you had yours?

  • Kang the Unbalanced

    Us older Trek fans, and by that I mean those with an emotional age greater than twelve, might want to point something out to you. Many fans of Star Trek, who by the way like a lot of other things including girls and being outside, have indeed made their own stories and films, most of which are not Star Trek. Many of those who wrote Star Trek stories back in the olden days of the dinosaurs have gone on to write novels, films, television programs. Many Trek fans who made their own Trek films in their jammies with Daddy’s handicam have gone on to work on screens small and large, and even stage if you kool kids are familiar with that sort of obsolete mode of entertainment. And I hope I don’t have to point out again the engineers and scientists who were directly inspired by things they saw on Star Trek. This is what three generations of fans — those who were adults at the time of TOS, their children who grew up watching reruns of TOS, and their childrens’ children who started with the later series.
    Might I ask what exactly these two Star Trek films made for the newer, younger, hipper generation have inspired you to do?

  • milojthatch

    I hope so. According to the folks over at Enterprise Season 5 on NetFlix have said that there are major shake up right now at both Paramount and CBS TV and that if anything might happen, it won’t till that shake up is done. The fact that CBS TV has been so protective of the six shows is both blessing and a curse. They aren’t making new shows, not even animated, but on the other hand, they were the ones who have protected the shows from JJ Abrams. So, I guess we are just paying the waiting game right now. *sigh*

  • milojthatch

    Peter Weller already did an amazing job on Enterprise. A really good actor. I also agree, I like the idea of using Pike more. I always wanted to see more of Pike and that pre-Kirk Enterprise crew to the point I’d love to see a new show set in that era, even if it was animated. I really enjoyed the Marvel comics from the 90′s about Pike. I just don’t feel Orci and Kurtzamn have a very good handle on the character.

  • milojthatch

    I grew up in LA and went to high school in Santa Monica, so as you can imagine, I’m part of a rather big crowd.

    Arrogance, from any age, is still arrogance. Don’t knock your ancestors. Without them, you wouldn’t be here. Yes, those before us made mistakes, but you know what? We aren’t that much better. At the end of the day, it’s the same mistake: pride. When you start thinking you are better than someone else, you set yourself up for a fall. I’m sad so many of your friends have died from AIDS, but you know what? I’m also smart enough to know that many who suffer from that made flawed choices that lead them to that natural consequence. Not everyone with AIDS has, I’ve known people in my life back in the day that ended up with AIDS due to bad medical practices while visiting the doctor. However, most who have it brought it upon themselves. It’s tragic, I’m sad so many have died, but in this life each of us have agency to make choices, and once we make those choices, most of them can’t be un-made.

    That in fact, may be one of the biggest issues with our generation, I don’t feel most on the Millenniasl understand that truth very well. Like I said, our parents have shielded us from the crap of the World to the point that many of us don’t seem to know how to deal with it when bad things happen. No man or woman is above natural consequences.

    As for JJ and Orci, what have they done that makes them great men? Have they cured AIDS? Have they volunteered at a local school to read to the kids there? Maybe they donated money to a homeless shelter? You lessen the term “great” when you put it in front of their names.

  • milojthatch

    In the last decade, it’s kind of starting to feel like that. Movie and shows are so bleak these days, it’s depressing!

  • JWPlatt

    “Great Men Like JJ and Orci put those pains on the screen and don’t cure them by the end of the show.”

    Ahem. They brought Kirk back to life by the end of the movie. Nice job discrediting yourself. It took the original series crew an entire movie to bring back Spock with far more emotional impact invested from 18 years of character history at the time of “Search for Spock” (1984) which itself was two years after “The Wrath of Kahn.”. So now who is into instant gratification?

  • James

    I’m a TOS fan. The new movies seem like the fun wagon train to the stars that I remember and not the portentious reality plays of TNG, let alone the reheated dinner that was ‘Enterprise’.

  • James

    Interesting comment! I love Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones, Dexter and fringe. But you’re right, they are depressing. Even more so when you wait for the season finale and get this:

    warning – link has spoilers for Dexter’s final episode:

    http://ryesofthegeek.wordpress.com/2013/09/30/final-season-blues/

  • James

    As for JJ and Orci, what have they done that makes them great men?

    One word: Fringe.

  • James

    One of the trailers for the ’09 movie said that this was ‘not your fathers Trek’. They were wrong in my opinion. The 2009 reboot is far closer in terms of spirit to the gaudy, fun sci-fi action format espoused by classic Trek. For more reasons why this movie is close in spirit to TOS, check out this review:

    http://ryesofthegeek.wordpress.com/2013/05/15/star-trek-film-review/

  • James

    I think both those movies were pretty good as well. For ‘great’ sci fi from the last decade or so, I’d go with ‘The Dark Night’, District 9, Minority Report and possibly Moon.

    I urge everyone to go and see ‘Gravity’.

  • The_Comic

    This was a poor instalment and the fact that it has been released with so few extras seems to stab in the back all of its defenders. For anyone who is missing the commentary I do have a transcript and a few key quotes are included below.
    “We needed somewhere for Khan to go so the Enterprise could like chase him, we originally chose Risa because Alex wanted more chicks in the picture but we overruled him and so we chose Kronos, which was kinda cool. Just, don’t ask us how Khan was supposed to kill Admiral Marcus from there, its only a fkn movie”
    “When we meant unoccupied territory on Kronos, we actually meant highly industrial and also occupied, damn that autocorrect!”
    “I remember Alex came into the writers room all sweaty and said he’d love to see Alice Eve’s boobs, so I said ‘just put it in the script’, the nerds will think star trek is cool again and everyone else will think they are watching Fast 8 or Trans4mers for 2 minutes, Alex agreed it was such a cool idea, it was the fastest page ever written, well that and the whole thing”
    “Its crucial here that when Khan reveals who he is, no one else in the room has a clue, that adds loads of dramatic tension, its also a reference to the fact that Chekov didn’t appear in the original series episode Space Seed which means we are clever”
    “Super blood… Super blood? that actually stayed in the script!!! hell I owe Karl Urban an apology that was just a placeholder until we thought of a real story conclusion, man we should have watched this movie before we agreed to do the commentary we could look like real idiots”
    “Its so cool that Leonard Nimoy agreed to do this cameo and explain to Spock that the way to defeat Khan was to just let him have what he wanted and then use it against him… which didn’t happen in Wrath of Khan or Space Seed, but then who the hell will remember that shit?”
    “I love the subtlety of the writing for Spock in these scene its like if you look at Zachary’s face you could almost believe that Spock was feeling an emotion, we really really get the character”
    “Look forward to star trek 3 in which a villain hellbent on revenge will attack earth with a super weapon, if you think we are rehashing old material we are not, its an incredibly clever high brow analogy for post 9/11 America, Alex has already written page one, I wont be giving too much away by saying its a space jump featuring Alice and Zoe… midway through the jump their tops come off so we can see their bras, so freaking cool.”

  • Kang the Unbalanced

    I’ve been pretty outspoken about liking the 2009 film a lot, and yes, it was a very promising start. I forgave points of story logic and some middle fingers at physics and science in general because it gave us a good origin story for the principal members, and explored Kirk’s character from a new and radically different direction. Star Trek Into Yiffin’ To Beastie Boys not only failed to deliver, it took a huge, smelly dump over the good aspects previous film, and ramped up the weak points to 11. This makes me wonder if Trek ’09 was a fluke, and JJ’s three script stooges have no earthly idea what they did that made it good.
    And I don’t think you deserve to be downvoted for trying to contribute to the discussion in an adult fashion.

  • Kang the Unbalanced

    Odd, my sarcasm detector must be malfunctioning, the readings are all over the place.

  • Kang the Unbalanced

    I’m not sure I’d go with Dark Knight as a sci fi film, it’s definitely a great crime film, worthy of the same shelf space as Scorsese and Mann. (Side note: In 1986 I never, EVER thought I’d regard Michael Mann as top-tier director.)
    For great sci fi I’m hard pressed to name any in recent years. Moon is terrific, and definitely up there with the likes of Silent Running and Alien, but doesn’t quite reach the heights of say 2001, Forbidden Planet, Blade Runner (Final Cut only, please), or, yes, the original Star Wars. Source Code, though! Damn that’s a good film. One of the tightest and most theoretically accurate mindfucks I’ve seen.

    Gravity is definitely on my list. From what I’ve seen and heard, after forty-five years 2001 may finally have a rival.

  • The_Comic

    Hi Kang,

    I totally agree with you re Trek 2009, I really enjoyed it too and
    Into Darkness was my most anticipated film this year. I agree with you that elements of
    2009 were lacking but that broadly speaking it was a good start. As you said
    what followed was either a rehash of 2009, Kirk love scene, Pike pep talk,
    Spock tantrum, attack on Earth, superfluous Klingon scenes, space jump or a script
    for script downmake of Wrath of Khan. In a nutshell Spock learned that he loved
    Kirk because he was cross when Kirk died, meanwhile two maniacs on the Starfleet
    payroll use ridiculous technologies (and I say that based on the established
    laws of that universe) against each other in overcomplicated muddled post 9/11
    allegory. Meanwhile Rush, starring Chris Helmsworth, was outstanding.

    I disagree with Star Wars as science fiction though, As I see it its
    fairy tale with blasters and robots and not about the technology. I take to
    task your omission of Planet of the Apes. I thought Moon was OK but having been
    spoiled by Star Trek, episodes like DS9s Whispers for example, I just felt I’d
    seen it done before, and better.

    I think sadly you are right about Trek 2009 being a fluke, which
    is a real shame as I thought the franchise was due for bigger and better
    things.

    The script for Into Darkness, which took 5 years to come out
    (Trek 2009 was bumped from Christmas 2008 release) did not reflect quality
    writing, that the writers themselves respond to such criticism with the eloquent
    turn of phrase “Fck Off” tells me all I need to know about the pride they have
    in their work, the fans, legitimate questions and or criticism and the range of
    their vocabulary in general.

    I can say categorically that STID didn’t make sense, its
    illogical, poorly structured and lacks genuine drama, peril and character
    motivation, it’s the Phantom Menace of the Star Trek universe. I am not asking
    why Khan? I am asking why does Khan do the things he does? If you accept STID
    we now have the technology to transport anywhere at will, we can resurrect
    anyone with a blood transfusion, but we cant create a fake ID that stands up to
    any level of scrutiny. Its like Starfleet is a time travel belt buckle away
    from achieving the technological level of the Q continuum.

    Ive yet to hear anyone just explain the simplest of plot
    points or character motivations the argument for the film seems to be that I am
    simply too old to enjoy it or that I am obsessed with TOS or perhaps that it is
    simply too intelligent and politically astute a movie for me to get it, all of
    which are easily condensed to the single phrase

    “Yes emperor, your new cloak is lovely”

    I challenge anyone out there to educate me and answer the
    following 10 questions

    Why does Khan beam to Kronos? His mission is to kill Marcus,
    how does this achieve that goal?

    Why would flying to Jupiter to look at a new class of
    Starship convince Kirk that Khan was right to carry out his attacks?

    Why doesn’t McCoy use blood from any of the genetic supermen
    on board to cure Kirk of radiation poisoning, and why is he experimenting on Tribbles
    during a crisis situation?

    Marcus wants to destroy the Enterprise, why is that? If he
    is so deranged why isn’t he proud of his achievements is he crazy or isn’t he?

    Why did Khan hide his men in torpedoes, why not wake them up?
    and is a torpedo really a safe place to hide anyone, and given they were still in the same
    torpedos during the movie, what exactly convinced Khan that Marcus had killed
    them all?

    What was the point of the demotion, instant reinstatement?
    How did this affect the characters or change the story? Who learned anything
    from this?

    Why is Carol Marcus on board again? She faked her
    credentials so she could look at her dad’s special torpedo (Frued having a
    field day), which she knew was sinister because he didn’t tell her about it,
    begging the question… How did she know about it? Yet the extent of her weapons
    expertise was to cock up her one job in the whole movie… disarming a weapon.

    Why is Starfleet working on single person subspace
    transporters, giant vessels requiring one pilot and long range warp capable
    torpedos. They seem to fit very different strategys. And given they have all
    three why didn’t they just destroy the Klingons, or tell the Klingons how
    tooled up they were and scare them off?

    What was going on with the Leonard Nimoy cameo? He told young
    Spock what exactly? Lure Khan into a nearby Nebula because his starship skills
    are so new, 12 months in Starfleet probably stopped that bit of learning.
    Injure Khan such that he blows himself up in a desperate last act of vengeance,
    no that didn’t happen either. Worth having that chat then…

    At what point did Marcus tell Khan the reason he was using a
    man from the 1980s to design 23rd century technology was on account
    of his “savagery” and what exactly is savage about reducing the crew compliment
    of a starship and creating long range torpedos? Both are actually pretty
    unsavage aren’t they, ruthless and cost effective yes but not savage. If Khan
    had reintroduced the flick knife or the nail bomb into Starfleet weaponry, that
    would have been savage.

    STID, is comically similar to the abbreviation STD, on reflection
    its funny how similar they are to each other. One is an annoying pain in the
    arse, the other is a disease.

  • alfredodedarc

    Phor all of the phans of this new whatever- it- is- named- Star- Trek, here are some phun phinancial phacts.
    Of the 10 movies released before the Abramsverse movies, only 2 failed to make money by the end of domestic release.
    Of the 2 made by Abrams, neither film has been profitable- and even counting the foreign release [at 50% of the sales, which is high] for STID, it is still in the red.
    Hopefully, this will drive Trek back to TV where it belongs- under steadier. more devoted hands.
    We aren’t burned out.
    We have been burned.

  • Kang the Unbalanced

    Oh fuck!!! How could I leave out Planet of the Apes!!! Rod Serling’s ghost will flick cigarette ashes at me.
    I’m sure there are more, I’m just a little fuzzy at the moment… one of the orderlies had a tranquilizer dart.

    As for the rest;

    Khan brought with him the forgotten knowledge of the Board with a Nail Through It.
    We all know why Carol Marcus was on board. To sell underwear.

    KumberKhan beamed to “Kronos”, not Qo’noS. Instead of travelling to the homeworld of the Klingon empire, he beamed to a planet full of Klingon impersonators. No wonder! It all makes so much more sense now!
    I hope I’ve cleared these things up for you. That way, perhaps you can explain them to me when the sedation wears off.

  • The_Comic

    Nail in plank… got it. While you are on this roll Kang, can you explain the Title for me Star Trek Into Darkness? What Darkness do they trek into, given the unprecedented amount of time the Enterprise spends in planetary atmospheres its the ‘brightest’ Trek ever. Thematically its no darker than any other Trek. Its the worst movie title since attack of the clones, in which clones come to the rescue of the film’s heroes.

  • Kang the Unbalanced

    Sure! It’s the uh… darkness… of… the um… screenwriters’ lack of imagination? That’s got to be it. That or it was the only thing they could think of after the studio rejected “Star trek Into Boobies”.

  • Blue Thunder

    Classic Star Trek fans: No plot, no character build up, all bark and no bite, “Trek” in name only, and no moral questions worthy of the name “Star Trek.”

    That description best fits Star Trek Continues and anything else that Farragut Films has released.