Review: Star Trek: Into Darkness 514
Spoiler level: minor. This review contains character and actor names and a couple references to scenes without going into their content.
Let’s get this out of the way up front: Star Trek: Into Darkness is a very entertaining film, and you will probably enjoy it.
Into Darkness hits the ground running, quickly reintroducing the rebooted crew and the Enterprise in all its glory. The opening act reminds us of everything we like about the 2009 Star Trek; snappy dialog, direct references to important parts of the original TV show, and cinematography that shows off the power, grace, and majesty of a Federation starship. It also highlights many of the differences between classic Trek and Abrams Trek.
In Abrams Trek, everything is fast. Kirk runs fast, Spock talks fast, crewmembers are always scrambling about the bridge and engineering at top speed, and as soon as a decision is made, action is taken. Tension and conflict arises with immediacy, and is resolved at the same pace. In Abrams Trek, no screentime is wasted. If a section of dialog is a bit technobabbley or it’s just providing background, something shiny will appear to keep your eyes and your attention engaged. In Abrams Trek, the lens flare deserves its own billing. Oh my, the lens flare.
But the big question about the Abrams films, both in 2009 and 2013, is: are they Star Trek? It’s a complicated issue, but one that's worth answering to fans of the various Trek TV series. Let's start by answering a somewhat simpler question: are they sci-fi? Not really. They fit the Hollywood definition of sci-fi — after all, they're flying spaceships and talking to aliens — but of course sci-fi is more than that. It's about ideas; it's about taking some part of life and changing it, then seeing what happens as a result. That's why Leguin, Dick, and Vonnegut are celebrated as sci-fi writers alongside Bradbury, Asimov, and Niven.
Into Darkness and the 2009 Star Trek before it aren't about ideas. They're unrepentantly character-driven. They're space operas. Perhaps more importantly, they're action films. I say this not to be exclusionary, but so we can evaluate in the proper context: as a Trek-themed action movie, Into Darkness is fantastic.
But Trek isn't about action (space opera, sometimes — action, no). It has certainly incorporated action; Kirk didn't get the reputation for always having a torn shirt for nothing. But in the TV shows, the action was punctuation; it was the set-up to the plot, or a way to resolve it once a moral issue had been defeated. In Day of the Dove, we were constantly shown fight scenes, but their purpose was to show the exaggerated hatreds of the characters, and to set up the we-must-work-together ending. And let's be clear: Abrams Trek isn't the first time the movie franchise departed toward action, either. Star Trek 2, widely regarded as the best of the films, was certainly a space opera, and you could make the case that it's an action film. The last three Next Generation films tried to be action films and failed. Abrams Trek tries and succeeds.
So, is it Trek? Well, it doesn't pass the sci-fi test, but let's look at the characters. Christopher Pine's Kirk is an exaggeration of Shatner's Kirk. All the characteristics of Shatner's Kirk are present in Pine's Kirk, but magnified tremendously. On the TV show, Kirk had a reputation as a womanizer. In Abrams Trek, Kirk is shown waking up in bed with space-babes and hitting on almost every female he comes in contact with. A lot of times it's for comedic effect, and succeeds at being funny, but it also feels like a caricature. Zachary Quinto's Spock felt much more natural to me this time around, in some ways. He pulls off Vulcan stoicism well. The only downside is that his emotional control feels like a simple prop; he maintains his facade until the writers need to show how important some event is, then it breaks.
The other familiar crew members each get a brief moment in the spotlight, but the limitations of a two-hour movie prevent any significant depth. Bones exists to crack jokes and repeat his catchphrases. Chekov exists to run around looking overwhelmed. Scotty exists to solve whatever problem is keeping the plot from moving forward. Simon Pegg's Scotty is still jarring, to me. His role as comic relief doesn’t mesh well with my perception of Scotty. (People unfamiliar with the original series probably wouldn't notice, or care; he is funny.) Doohan's Scotty was funny sometimes, but not in such an intentional way. It seems odd to have that character cracking wise. Sulu's screentime is brief, but it's good.
The one character I truly lament is Uhura, though not because of any complaint with Saldana. She serves to highlight one huge difference between Abrams Trek and classic Trek: Abrams Trek is a guy-movie. The majority of Uhura's role in Into Darkness is to be Spock's love-interest. She has one brief moment of being her own person, showing her own strengths — and (very minor spoiler) she fails and has to be rescued by men. Aside from Uhura, there's only one other significant woman character in the film, and her main purpose is to be both eye-candy and a bargaining chip for the men. In fact, thinking back, I'm pretty sure Into Darkness fails the Bechdel test. It bothers me that this happens in a Star Trek film. One of Trek's driving principles is a future of equality; a future free of the sexism and racism and classism we deal with today. It's not always an easy thing to write into a story, especially one limited to two hours — but we should at least try.
But let's step back to the more mundane aspects of the film, for a moment. The visuals are absolutely stunning. The alien planets, outer space, and a futuristic Earth are all fascinating to see. More importantly, Abrams shows us the Enterprise as we've always wanted to see her. Whether it's tearing off into high warp, diving through the atmosphere of a planet, or having the hull torn open by phaser fire, the ship looks amazing. The inside looks amazing, too — engineering looks much more like the belly of an enormously complex spacecraft than ever before. The special effects budget was well spent. ...Mostly. Abrams is known for his use of lens flare, but rather than toning it back, it seems like he's doubling down on that reputation. There are also a few action sequences where camera shaking and flashes of light get a bit excessive. I get that moving the camera really fast around a completely CGI environment helps to mask the imperfections, but there are times where you'll know a whole lot is going on without being exactly sure what. I'd happily take a slightly-less-crazy chase scene if I can get a clear look at it.
The scoring is solid. Into Darkness takes its main theme from the 2009 movie, with a few improvements. It doesn't get in the way. The acting is generally fine, as well. The regulars are more comfortable in the roles; this time around, they're playing themselves as much as they’re playing the original crew. Benedict Cumberbatch brings his talent to a leading role, and he does well with what he was given, but he could have been utilized better. His character exists in two modes — complete stillness and furious action. There’s very little in between, and I think that middle-ground is where Cumberbatch thrives, as on BBC's Sherlock. Still, his character made a far more compelling opponent for Kirk than 2009's Nero.
There were a few points where the acting did strike a discordant note for me. To explain why, I'm going to step back for a moment and discuss one of the major themes of the Star Trek reboot. J.J. Abrams and the others running the show constantly use aspects of the original show — props, plots, attitudes, and characters — to inform the reboot. However, they’re very, very consistent about re-interpreting all of those aspects. Everything is close enough to be familiar, but different enough seem new. In most cases, it works; new phasers just look better than old phasers. New Spock is different from Old Spock, but not in a bad way. In Into Darkness, we meet a familiar alien race, and the re-interpretation makes them feel a bit alien again. But it doesn't always work, and this leads me back to the acting. Without spoiling the content, there are a few scenes that are much more direct adaptations of old Star Trek scenes than we saw in the 2009 movie. It is a really interesting and cool concept, but the execution felt very odd, for me. I'll try to describe it: knowing how the scene was "supposed" to go, it felt as though the actors were trying to recreate it, but failing. Obviously, this is not the case; it was clearly planned, scripted, and shot with painstaking care, until they got exactly what they wanted. Still, the similarity hit an uncanny valley between original and re-interpretation. Fortunately for most viewers, anyone who isn’t much of a Trek fan isn't likely to notice or care.
As a long-time Trek fan, Star Trek: Into Darkness occupies a conflicted spot in my mind. At the most basic level, I went to a movie and really enjoyed it. I don't regret the $10 I spent on it, and I suspect most people would feel the same. At the same time, I'm a bit troubled by the direction the franchise is taking. There are a whole generation of kids who are now growing up with a very different perception of Star Trek than I did. To them, it's going to be just another Transformers-style action flick with no lasting importance. There's none of the idealism, optimism, or broadmindedness that was inherent to classic Trek. It's not hard to see why that is; stories like that are much harder to tell on the silver screen, and even when done well, they don't make as much money. They're much better suited to episodic TV. Unfortunately, if we see a new Trek TV series (more likely: when we see a new Trek TV series), you can bet it will be done in the style of the Abrams reboot, and I worry that the true sci-fi stories and the thought-provoking allegories will be subsumed by over-the-top action and relentless special effects. At the same time, I think some Trek is better than no Trek, and the two Abrams films make a better legacy for the franchise than Insurrection and Nemesis. I almost envy non-Trek-fans for not having to resolve the conflict of What Trek Is versus What Trek Isn't.
Bottom line: go see it.
not a fan (Score:2, Informative)
i prefer the older star treks. didn't care for the last one by Abrams and not seeing the others.
Re:not a fan (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, I know how you feel. Star Trek was a rare bastion of (semi)intellectualism on television, technobabble aside. To see all that removed in favor of violence, pretty colors, and snappy writing, makes me feel sort of depressed.
Of course, the reality is that everyone who likes the non-Abrams Trek's tone has options. The current incarnation of Doctor Who on BBC has exactly the same mix of high-concept, technobabble, silliness, and mystery uncovering plots that Star Trek used to have.
Re:not a fan (Score:4, Insightful)
Now all they need to do is bring Tennant back. Matt Smith is decent, but not that great.
Re:not a fan (Score:4, Informative)
Check out the 50th anniversary special this year. I have heard that your wish will granted(temporarily).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:not a fan (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not that it can't be. It's that it isn't. Name one intellectually interesting occurrence in Star Trek(2009), that raises questions of any sort.
Re: (Score:3)
Red matter raises tons of questions! Too bad most of them are inquiries about the sexual proclivities of the writer's mothers.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:not a fan (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, Simon Pegg (Scotty) had this [collider.com] to say about the Lens Flare:
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sure your mind-numbing lack of intellectual curiosity and trivially short attention span makes you everyone's favorite to talk to too.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Back To The Future? (Score:5, Insightful)
What? You haven't seen Bill & Ted's Bogus Journey?
Their final showdown with De Nomolos is one of the few times I've seen someone use time travel properly.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
You are kidding right? he had a fricking TIME MACHINE and he doesn't go to warn everybody, maybe give them plenty of time to move, nope he goes to blow up the federation?
He did not have a "time machine" what he had was an accidental one way trip into the past courtesy of a spawned singularity. He had twenty years to fester his anger against a Federation that failed to save his world and even more so, a Vulcan that refused to try. So no.... that wasn't an open option. With nothing left to live for, his only option is rage.
Re:not a fan (Score:5, Interesting)
Because it's not wrong.
There is no "absolute position". Anything running on inertia can be said to be said to be moving at any velocity you choose depending on your frame of reference, including motionless. Now, planets don't run solely on inertia -- they orbit because of gravity. But gravity folds spacetime, which is still what you're travelling through. Plenty of good reason to think you'll end up at basically the same position relative to the barycenter of the most significant gravity sources of your point of departure.
You wouldn't time travel to the "same location in a different time" because that doesn't exist. The current time is part of the coordinates in the time-space continuum. We ignore that in our everyday lives as we constantly time travel forward, because our position relative to the barycenter of the most significant local gravity source -- the Earth -- does not change substantially.
Where do you think they would go if it isn't the approximate same location as measured from the local planet/solar system/galactic center/appropriate scale alternative? Every other location in the universe save that one seems like an arbitrary choice to me.*
*Okay, I can imagine another location: perhaps if you worked out what would happen if you ran the universe backwards, but without gravity, such that everything is inertia, you could end up there. Seems unlikely though. How often does that sort of thing happen in physics where you basically have to backtrack through an alternate history to determine how real history happened? If we accept that time travel exists, we can accept that it's weird, but I'd go for a simpler answer while we're basically making shit up anyway. I think most people think of this as time travelling back 6 months in time and ending up on the opposite side of the sun, as if the sun were the center of the universe and time a universal constant.
Re:not a fan (Score:5, Insightful)
Can you tell me what's wrong with pretty colors and snappy writing?
Because it's Star Trek, and we expect some depth. The franchise that provided thought provoking (though occasionally asinine) entertainment. That's the core of the franchise, not snappy-but-shallow dialogue and big action. The only thing retained are the characters, or at least a one-dimensional simulation of them.
Change the characters and the name and it's a fine popcorn movie.
Re:not a fan (Score:5, Insightful)
This is infuriating to me. Because you old farts are conflating nostalgia with story. With meaning and message.
The movie is targeted at younger audiences. But it had plenty to say about loyalty, friendship, duty, honor, integrity. Humanity. In a modern and satirical way.
It was plenty god damned Star Trek. Gene would have been proud. But maybe annoyed as much as you at the format.
Get past your hang up that they were duking it out on floating space barges. That was there to entertain you and the people funding the real movie behind the movie. You obviously zoned out and lost interest because the format wasn't what you were use to, wanted, or were expecting.
This is a classical dilemma with cinema as it develops over the ages. Look at good movies Charlton Heston movies from the 1950s. They wouldn't sell shit today if re-shot and re-done in the same style and format. It does not support fantasy very well. Masume Shirow had this same problem with Ghost in the Shell and decided to take a break, or get out of cinema because of that same problem. He griped a lot about Innocence this way.
Re:not a fan (Score:5, Insightful)
Bravo. I wish I had mod-points.
I saw a movie that explored:
The potential effects of interfering with an early-stage civilization. (Prime Directive 101)
The needs of the many and the one.
Xenophobia and the militaristic response to it.
The relative nature of ethical decisions.
The fragility of the utopian Federation image.
Humanity's ongoing battle with it's base drives.
It may have been heavy-handed in places but all of this is pure Trek. I've much more sympathy with those who compained that it revisits old territory a bit too often. This is Trek with a new coat of paint and an adrenaline shot to the heart. Silly, brilliant, thought-provoking and exciting. It leaves the door open for new fans and has enough intellectual fodder for those who want to wonder about the aforementioned issues.
Re:not a fan (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that the franchise used to have depth and technobabble. Serious social issues were explored in an entertaining way. The current reboot is basically devoid of that depth.
Re:not a fan (Score:5, Interesting)
> Serious social issues were explored in an entertaining way.
Dam straight. ST:TNG was a good social commentary disguised as sci-fi. The original did a good job too.
That's what the heart of Science Fiction is: Exploring the social consequences, implications and ramifications of how technology effects people's lives. The "classic" Sci-Fi writers (Isaac) Asimov, (Robert) Heinlein, (Arthur) Clarke are some of the BEST _precisely_ because they explored these social issues at a deep level. Great Sci-Fi encourages and rewards deep thinking.
For any series that reboots / remakes / re-cash-grab one would expect a bit more BACK story in the first place. i.e. WHY did Star Fleet invent the Prime Directive in the first place? HOW did they come to that "non-interference" was the only "valid" choice. If you are going to invent artificial rules on xeno-politics then at least treat the viewer as having some intelligence. Hell, if ST:TNG could do it for 7 years, there is no reason why a movie can't. In about 10 years humans will finally meet aliens and we'll get to see some wildly different perspectives on intelligent species communication that will make ST look like a joke / toy in comparison.
Is the new Star Trek a sci-fi? Hell no, not even close.
Is it a decent action flick. Yeah. It was entertaining; if one ignores the one-dimensional characters, plots holes, then mildly yes. There is a time and a place for "dumb sci-fi". The ONLY credit I give to the new Star Trek is that it made it accessible to the general populace. "Coolness" should never depend on "popularity".
Re: (Score:3)
> Serious social issues were explored in an entertaining way.
Dam straight. ST:TNG was a good social commentary disguised as sci-fi. The original did a good job too.
That's what the heart of Science Fiction is: Exploring the social consequences, implications and ramifications of how technology effects people's lives. The "classic" Sci-Fi writers (Isaac) Asimov, (Robert) Heinlein, (Arthur) Clarke are some of the BEST _precisely_ because they explored these social issues at a deep level. Great Sci-Fi encourages and rewards deep thinking.
There is a persistent myth of TOS as being some all progressive vision of the future. It's a myth that ignored the basic fact that the original series was:
1. Highly critical of the Anti-War movement of the 60's as Kirk defends American involvement in the war.
2. Sexist in it's portrayal of women. Janice Lester is a villain because she refuses to accept Starfleet's determination that women aren't fit to be Starfleet captains and takes direct action to correct that "flaw" in her person. Nichelle Nichols may heap praise on her role now, but in the 60's she nearly quit her role, because of the treatment of her character which did not improve until the modern movies.
3. Pretentious to the point of anvilicious in it's treatment of social issues. Moral and ethical failings are those of those "weird aliens" never that of Kirk or it's Federation, a general pandering to the myth of American "exceptionalism". As Kirk's Federation is clearly meant to be the United States writ large.
4. Generally a promoter of a '40's 50's worldview which makes sense sense Roddenberry was of a 40's 50's generation.
Re:not a fan (Score:4, Insightful)
Except that the franchise used to have depth and technobabble. Serious social issues were explored in an entertaining way. The current reboot is basically devoid of that depth.
Actually to be truly fair, all of the Star Trek series varied tremendously in depth and quality. Quite a few of those episodes in all of the Trek series were quite frankly, awful. Awful in the terms of science, of story, and of characterization. Trek's popularity had nothing to do with it's science, it's actors, nor it's authors, because there were other shows that did better in all three. The secret of Trek's success was twofold, 1. It was created in an era of unequaled optimism and promise and 2. It was a show that allowed many to project what they were looking for in vision.
Re:not a fan (Score:5, Interesting)
You may want to listen to the content of that 'endless discussion' sometime. There's very few significant topics that weren't addressed somewhere in the Star Trek franchise. And it had a somewhat novel way of addressing them - often from the point of view on non-humans. Sure, that had been done before - but not on that scale.
Very few entertainment franchises, and certainly none as successful as Star Trek, have addressed the breadth of topics that it has.
Re: (Score:3)
As bad and as cheesy as Star Trek (in any of the series of that franchise or the movies for that matter) got, it was by far and away better than the standard "science fiction" fare that was produced and arguably is still being produced in Hollywood. Classics like "Plan 9 from Outer Space", "Santa Claus Conquers the Martians", and "It Came from Outer Space" were more typical and the real standard that Star Trek needs to be compared against as those were contemporary (at least when Roddenberry was running th
Re:not a fan (Score:4, Interesting)
Firefly was arguably superior.
Re:not a fan (Score:5, Interesting)
You mean the scene where Kirk says, "oh it will fit..." is classic? How many times have we seen a scene like this? Only now it has lens flare and 3d effects! Yes that is just wonderful!
The problem is that Abrams took it in the wrong direction. Lets compare this to say Oblvion? At least there some interesting questions were asked with kick ass graphics! IMO this is the direction of SciFi. Or what about even Cloud Atlas! Not the fastest moving of things, but pretty decent actually. No Abrams is selling us the crack in movies we know as Transformer-ietes. In about a decade the Star Trek movies will be dated like Miami Vice is today! Compare that to Magmum Pi. Same era and pretty darn dated, but it is a good watch even to this day.
Re: (Score:3)
Pretty colours and 'snappy' writing are not themselves bad, the bad part is when they are used instead of rather than in addition to actual storytelling.
The last Star Trek movie did not have any interesting conflict driving the plot, it was bad guy who was essentially mentally ill and in possession of advanced technology. Not a lot of complex decision-making involved, and the resolution was a time travel deus ex machina.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:not a fan (Score:4, Insightful)
Probably make me dislike Star Trek as much as I'm beginning to dislike Doctor Who. Which is ironic, considering my favorite Tennant episodes were written by Moffat, but now that he's in control, it feels like every episode has to be more over-the-top than the one before it, especially in series 7.5.
Re: (Score:3)
It's the "Blockbuster" mentality...Give Trekkers a good story and they are happy...but to attract the Mundanes (What SF Fans call Muggles), you need flash rather than substance...and this film delivers flash in excess.
And is it just me, but does anyone else read Christopher Pike when the see Christopher Pine's name written?
Re:not a fan (Score:4, Insightful)
The current incarnation of Doctor Who on BBC has exactly the same mix of high-concept, technobabble, silliness, and mystery uncovering plots that Star Trek used to have.
Couldn't disagree more. Stephen Moffat seems to have decided that the best way to write Doctor Who is as a series of fairy stories for young girls. Thus, you have a very young actor playing the Doctor as Harry Potter, the Sonic Screwdriver is his magic wand (just what does it do, anyway? everything?) and nearly every episode ends with a deus ex machina, where the Doctor claps his hands together and everything going back to normal, the whole thing explained away with some timey-wimey gibberish. It's almost nothing like Star Trek and it's barely anything to do with Doctor Who. As a fan of the original series, the current one has gotten so bad that it's nigh unwatchable.
Re:not a fan (Score:4, Interesting)
And Firefly was a bit higher on the scale, while Max Headroom may actually have been the zenith...
Re: (Score:3)
I don't consider these movies Trek. Trek was about societies working together to solve problems and striving to become better--not about action scenes and explosions.
Re: (Score:3)
I guess it depends on your age. My perception is that originally star trek was indeed about flying around, shooting the crap out of things and being faintly rude to each other.
It was next generation that started all the peace missions and transporting elderly statesperson from planet a to planet b stuff as well as the "well we have this horribly beweaponed space ship thing but it hurts us more than it hurts you if we have to use it for anything other than being serene". Jeeez, they even had a councillor! on
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: not a fan (Score:3)
I really liked the new engine room. It looks like what I would imagine a starship's engine room to look like -- no pretty swirly light tubes, just raw engineering.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, it was an old brewery. Otherwise, spot on.
Re: (Score:3)
Not MY Star Trek... (Score:5, Funny)
Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
You're trying to claim that the original StarTrek wasn't a chauvinistic, womanising series in which Uhura was portrayed as an independant woman?
Seriously... What?
You can many points about how this differs from the original StarTrek, but that sure as hell isn't one of them.
Personally, I think this StarTrek is probably the most StarTrek that StarTrek has been in a long time.
Re:Really? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but "progressive for its time" is not the same as "uhura was an independent woman".
Re: (Score:3)
Another Uhura story that I heard was that there was an episode where all of the senior officers were down on the planet and Uhura was left in command. The network nixed that one pretty quick: "A woman?! A BLACK woman!? In charge of a starship!? I don't think so!"
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah I'm fairly certain JJ noticed this and is playing it up. It wasn't until next gen and later voyager that we see equality TRULY take hold in star fleet. I even see DS9 as a transition between the two, the idea that women can be soldiers and fight as hard as any man on the station. Next Gen was still very much in the lip-service to equality phase....
Again, more of an element that Star Trek reflects more of current culture than some imaginary future culture.
Re:Really? (Score:5, Informative)
The problem is that you're comparing Star Trek (1966 - 1969) to television from this century.
Seriously, compare the role of Uhura to anything else that was on the air or in the theatres at that time.
She wasn't the mom or the maid. She wasn't blonde. She was a female character in a position of responsibility, even if her job was just to repeat everything the computer says, and did things which were more important than baking cookies for the male characters or screaming whenever the villain showed up.
You didn't see much of that on "The Lucy Show", "The Jackie Gleason Show", "The Beverley Hillbillies", "Hogan's Heroes", "Hawaii Five-O", "Casino Royale", "Thoroughly Modern Millie", or "Lost in Space".
But don't listen to me, listen to what Dr. Martin Luther King had to say about it [npr.org].
Re:Really? (Score:5, Funny)
She wasn't the mom or the maid. She wasn't blonde. She was a female character in a position of responsibility... ..."The Beverley Hillbillies"
You didn't see much of that on
Miss Hathaway was all that. Of course, TBH paralleled TOS in many ways, with the characters mapping closely:
Jed Clampett - Kirk
Jethro - Generic red shirt
Granny - combination of McCoy and Scotty
Elly Mae Clampett - Nurse Chapel
Miss Hathaway - Spock
Mr. Drysdale - Kahn
If you can't see this connection, you are probably sober.
Re:Really? (Score:5, Interesting)
The first episode of Star Trek, The Man Trap,certainly reflected women in a negative light, as demon who will suck you dry as quickly as they say they love you. Predators who are only interested in what they can get, and will give only as much as they have to bleed you dry. When they are done with you they will just find another, and when they are done with them, and you are rejuvenated, they will deal with you. Yes very misogynistic.
But Star Trek changed with new episodes and new series. While this is called the reboot, really ST:TNG did that, by advancing time and creating a new reality in line with what we in the late 80's saw our hopes to be. Then DS9 and Voyager continued to match Star Trek to out expectation of a universe accesible to everyone.
Though they were criticisms, the series and film continued the story, until Enterprise. I think that they messed up on Enterprise because no one really wants a starship that is broken, we saw that from the films, and the earth that was presented certainly wasn't the earth that would be expected given the very rich and varied mythology of the show. The way to deal with the past was not to go to the past, but to jump to another future, as was done with TNG.
That said what Abrams is doing is not a reboot. BSG was a reboot. The new Doctor Who is a reboot. What this Star Trek is more akin to the new Charlie's Angles, a brazen attempt to generate huge amounts of cash based on old ideas. This is, as some characterized the remake of Indiana Jones, purely physical and sexual assault.
There would have been so many ways to use these actors in different characters. What would, god help us, the children of Riker and Deanna look like and do? The DS9 timeline is not popular, but there were some interesting life forms. Everyone is complaining about the mythology and timeline, but that is not the problem. The problem is the characters of Star Trek is stuck in the 60's. Trying to make them fit what we have today is not rational. The black woman is not automatically the telephone operator. The white man is not automatically the leader. It seems that the movie is made to promote the nostalgia that so many feel, that the 60's, when everyone knew their place, was better.
Re: (Score:3)
That said what Abrams is doing is not a reboot... The new Doctor Who is a reboot.
In what sense is Trek not a reboot, but new Who is?
Re: (Score:3)
I remember watching an interview of Nichelle where she talks about how she was unhappy about how she was still getting a relatively uninteresting part, and considered quitting. Apparently she changed her tune when MLK told her that, even if her part was not equal to most men in the show, it was still far better than anything else a black woman would do back then in television. I guess that when MLK tells you that keeping your job is helping black women everywhere, you'd have to be a big jerk to quit.
Re: (Score:3)
The first episode of Star Trek, The Man Trap,certainly reflected women in a negative light, as demon who will suck you dry as quickly as they say they love you. Predators who are only interested in what they can get, and will give only as much as they have to bleed you dry. When they are done with you they will just find another, and when they are done with them, and you are rejuvenated, they will deal with you. Yes very misogynistic.
Manage to fast-forward past the scene where the creature assumes a male form in order to try to put the drop on Rand and Uhura, did you?
Thanks for playing!
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
You're other points are also invalid, but this one:
Stood out as the worst for me. Why would they step out of a space shuttle if the planted didn't have a breathable atmosphere?
Good review; disappointing about role of women (Score:3)
Guy movie? (Score:5, Interesting)
I think it's an interesting comment about the women in the film.
This is one of only a handful of sci-fi movies that many of my female friends and acquaintances have actually enjoyed recently. I've received so many good reviews of it from women that I was hesitant to go and see it myself because I thought it was going to be too targeted towards the female audience.
Soulskill (i'm presuming) is a guy, so I find it interesting that you're offended on their behalf and yet a lot of women don't seem to mind it at all.
Note that I'm passing no judgement there, it's just an interesting observation for me.
Re:Guy movie? (Score:5, Interesting)
> Soulskill (i'm presuming) is a guy, so I find it interesting that you're offended on their behalf and yet a lot of women don't seem to mind it at all.
You are doing a common mistake here: You assume that a society to be given men power over women is backed by men and opposed to by women.
While usually such social norms are usually enforced by both genders. Sometimes mothers will be the force behind their daughters being chaste and neglecting their interests. And behind their sons prefering stupid helpless women. In groups with a chauvinistic culture I experienced that it are usually the women that bully any men into chauvinistic behaviour, by ridiculing those not "manly" enough to behave disrespectively towards women.
It's not "men" against "women". It's people wanting a 19th century role model against those that want a fair society.
Re:Guy movie? (Score:5, Insightful)
Then again, most females seem to enjoy the blatantly misogynistic stalker-rapist fantasy that is the Twilight Saga...
6 word review. (Score:5, Funny)
See "The Wrath of Khan" instead.
Re: (Score:3)
It would be interesting to compare the reactions of those watching The Wrath of Khan first and THEN Into Darkness to those watching them in the opposite order.
I'm just guessing here, but I have a feeling that those watching The Wrath of Khan first (and appreciating it - i.e. not in it for the pretty faces, tits and special effects) would score Into Darkness worse than the others.
Re:All but Nemesis are watchable... (Score:5, Funny)
Nemesis is just... bad.
So bad in fact that after that they stopped making Star Trek movies.
Nemesis was not really a Star Trek movie. It was just a movie with Star Trek actors in a Sci-Fi setting.
I like to think Nemesis was a holodeck malfunction: Shortly after the credits finish there should've been a scene where Data, Geordi (visored), Dr. Pulaski, and Wharf and a security team (dressed circa season 2) force open the doors of a deactivated and visually damaged holodeck to find a dead Tom Hardy dressed in standard issue command uniform. Dr. Pulaski checks him over, and looks a Wharf and shakes her head. Data taps his comm badge and says "Data to Picard. I'm sorry, sir. We were too late to save Lt. Shinzon."
Not Science Fiction - not Trek (Score:5, Insightful)
Star Wars does not do that. It is fantasy happening in space. Abrams will do a great job with that franchise. To be honest, I hope the next Star Trek series is a long time coming (if its too soon, we'll get the Abrams treatment - which would suck), so we can go back to the best of Trek : true science fiction with multiple plots going on in a single episode.
Re: (Score:2)
Star Wars is mythic fiction set in space. You could even call it a space western. Calling it fantasy is probably something that fans of actual fantasy works would find objectionable.
Much of Trek is also little more than space western and this is exactly how Roddenberry originally sold it too.
A lot of this usual sort of "our fiction is better than your fiction" is mostly nonsense. It's empty pretense.
Re:Not Science Fiction - not Trek (Score:5, Interesting)
Much of Trek is also little more than space western and this is exactly how Roddenberry originally sold it too.
While it was pitched that way it actually dealt heavily with various political and ethical issues. That was what made it great, sure there was technobabble and bits of "space western" mixed in but overall it was speculation about the future and the present.
The "new trek" is just action movies IN SPACE which makes it "sci-fi" in the eyes of Hollywood.
Don't worry... (Score:2)
There's a very easy way to avoid all sorts of "conflict[s] of What Trek Is versus What Trek Isn't" - don't watch it.
meh (Score:2)
I would rather have no Trek for ~20-ish years than bad Trek. Bad Trek lowers the standards and takes a shit on the legacy of TOS, TNG, DS9, etc..
IMHO The best two of the "Main Universe" movies were Wrath of Khan and First Contact. Both had a lot of tense action and fantastic (for the time) special effects, but they still had fantastic writing
Re:meh (Score:4, Insightful)
Watch TOS again. Most of the episodes were truly terrible. TNG was not too bad after season two, and DS9 was fine until the last season. The TOS movies however were much better.
Re: (Score:2)
Watch TOS again. Most of the episodes were truly terrible. .
Yes they were. The acting was terrible, the sets and special effects were cheap and cheezy, but somehow, that was part of the charm. The new Star Trek, just like the new Dr. Who, is too slick and polished and lacks the quirky character of the original.
Re:meh (Score:4, Insightful)
That is called nostalgia. Watch this, enjoy it and you will complain when it gets rebooted again just the same.
Re:meh (Score:5, Insightful)
I *am* watching the original series again (on hulu) and to the contrary, I'm surprised on how well they hold up.
Yes, they are a bit cheesy, but for example 'the enemy within' made a pretty good point about good and evil - that the distinction is false - that we need the animal half of our nature in order to be effective.
Or the menagerie, with its central take-away that truly immersive VR is a drug, and that with it we may face destruction of our civilization from ppl wanting to retreat back into it and letting the world go to hell. We are probably going to be facing *that* particular dilemma in the next five years, if we aren't facing it already, here in america.
so lay off on the original series - for its time, it put up on the small screen a great deal of philosophy that otherwise would not have permeated popular culture.
Re:meh (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a good reason that the middle ages spoke Latin and that we still teach Greek plays. Once something has been done well it is difficult to beat it. 60's idealism driven Star Trek is very unlikely soil for our miserable in-looking times to beat.
Re: (Score:3)
for example 'the enemy within' made a pretty good point about good and evil [...] Or the menagerie, with its central take-away that truly immersive VR is a drug
Spock's Brain. Whenever somebody brings up the nobility of Star Trek, I just remind them of "Spock's Brain."
There are a few great Star Trek episodes, with meaning and purpose. But there's also Spock's Brain, Return of the Archons, Operation: Annihilate!, Catspaw, Friday's Child, Who Mourns for Adonais, Gamesters of Triskellion, Omega Glory, Bread and Circuses, The Enterprise Incident, Spectre of the Gun, For the World is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky, All Our Yesterdays, etc.
Re: (Score:3)
Au contraire--I'm actually a fan.
What I get annoyed with is the whole, "Star Trek explored all sorts of socially relevant topics." I don't deny this--but it did so fairly rarely. Hell, "Roseanne" and "Home Improvement" had the occasional "Very Special Episode" that explored socially relevant topics.
I don't hate those episodes listed. To me, they are examples of non-socially-relevant episodes--and I could list quite a few others. One of my favorite episodes is "A Piece of the Action." Short of "Don't le
Two words: "FIRE EVERYTHING!" (Score:2)
I seriously doubt I'll see this new atrocity in the theatre. I may just wait for someone else to rent it so I don't have to pay a penny. J.J. Abrahms and associates make pretty good television shows (liked Fringe very much) but I am dubious at best about their movies.
JJ Abram's FAILED Star Trek reboot. (Score:2, Insightful)
JJ may have made a popular movie, but it wasn't Trek, and it wasn't a successful reboot.
Re:JJ Abram's FAILED Star Trek reboot. (Score:4, Informative)
was a failure in several key areas, like believable physics
Yeah, because that's where Star Trek used to really shine.
ITT: (Score:5, Insightful)
-- science fiction is defined so narrowly that pretty much the only thing that qualifies is technical documentation;
-- old guys whine about the "perversion" of Star Trek into some sort of "jocky action film"
-- People miss the fucking point by 3 country miles.
News flash: Star Trek was never as good as you remember. It was never about "ideas," it was never "sci fi" in the narrow definition presented above, it was never NOT a caricature, and the reason it was never "cool" is because it was a plodding, meandering mess with shitty dialogue and poor production values.
If you don't like the new movies, that's fine, but stop pretending like the old Star Trek was some sort of masterpiece. It wasn't. The fact that geeks like it is more a testament to its imaginative world building than to its rigorous scientific accuracy, devotion to ideas, or fair & balanced treatment of characters. Maybe the reason you liked the boring old series so much and can derive no joy from a departure from the original formula is because you're boring, too.
And full disclosure: I watched the original & tng, and have seen most of the movies. I'm quite familiar with Star Trek, and I always enjoyed it - but I never reached the level of zealous worship apparently required to be a "fan." Christ, people. Get a grip. It was fine entertainment, but it was far from perfect, and wasn't as good as you like to remember it - that's nostalgia at work.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
My you do enjoy broadcasting your superior view of the world and how we should just be getting on with being entertained. The original trek does have the reputation for taking an idea about humanity and throwing it into a fantasy scenario where we could see the idea evaluated. So enjoy your empty action movies by all means but some people would like to see a bit more than that.
No he's being honest (Score:3)
The problem isn't people not liking the movie, it is people hating on it, often without even seeing it, because they feel like they SHOULDN'T like it. It is similar to the hipster attitude: Star Trek can't be good because it's popular and popular can't be good. The Onion had a hilariously spot on piece on the first one called "Trekkies Bash New Star Trek Film As 'Fun, Watchable'." There was plenty of that happening. Trekkies hating on it as being "not Star Trek" or getting mad because it was "mainstream" wi
Re: (Score:3)
Old trek fan here. I recently watched Star Trek 5 to some Plinkett and Rifftrax commentaries, and got a good laugh at it. Yet, to me, that cheesy movie, arguably the worst of all the star trek films, embodies the spirit of trek whereas the 2009 version does not.
It was about the collective drive to explore the unknown (and well, fly around in cheesy rocket boots) whereas the 2009 trek was about punching a bad guy in the face (and the enterprise being powered by beer brewing tanks). Mind you, I had a good tim
Re: (Score:3)
Dealing with false gods, pacifism vs fighting (the "The City on the Edge of Forever" time travel to pre WWII ep), environmentalism (The Devil in the Dark, ie 'Dammit Jim, I'm a doctor not a bricklayer!'), oh, and the friggin prime directive (colonialism anyone?).
Yeah it had crappy production values but to say it wasn't about 'ideas' really misses a lot.
What happened to Spock's emotions? (Score:2)
No doubt, the 2009 Trek reboot was rollicking good action fun with a bit of insider snark thrown in. What I've never understood, though, is how Spock managed to turn out so differently - clearly the "new" Spock has little control over his emotions, and apparently, little desire to control them. It was always that tension that made the half-breed human more human than the real humans in some circumstances. And although the new Kirk is a bit over the top, he was always meant to be - Roddenberry intended hi
Re: (Score:3)
No doubt, the 2009 Trek reboot was rollicking good action fun with a bit of insider snark thrown in. What I've never understood, though, is how Spock managed to turn out so differently - clearly the "new" Spock has little control over his emotions, and apparently, little desire to control them. It was always that tension that made the half-breed human more human than the real humans in some circumstances.
Anyway, it seems Spock's lust handily outstrips his logic, and we're left with the most improbably romance in history. (In the immortal words of the Trek take-off Galaxy Quest (which may well be the best "StarTrek" movie yet), "That's just *wrong*...)
My thought is that that we will see a story arc where Spock is highly emotional (now), experiences Pon Farr for the first time where something bad happens, this pushes him to fully embrace logic, then he gradually realizes that there has to be a balance. My guess, having yet to watch Into Darkness, it that we will see this over several movies.
Brain Dead Action Trumps Philosophy & Ethics (Score:5, Insightful)
Unsurprisingly I'm pretty sure I heard JJ Abrams tell Jon Stewart that "he never liked Star Trek" [thedailyshow.com] on The Daily Show. Well, now he's had a chance to kill it by turning it 100% into a modern day blockbuster action flick and shirking any attempt to tackle an interesting philosophical or ethical dilemma as the main plot. As the modern reemergence of comic book and super hero movies have shown, those films are a dime a dozen that anyone can do. Tackling something deeper while still holding our attention is the hard part. The Watchmen was a good candidate for it but fell short. I'm sure JJ Abrams would rather cover up the complicated parts that question good versus evil with another lens flare.
Re:Brain Dead Action Trumps Philosophy & Ethic (Score:4, Insightful)
JJ Abrams tell Jon Stewart that "he never liked Star Trek" on The Daily Show. Well, now he's had a chance to kill it by turning it 100% into a modern day blockbuster action flick and shirking any attempt to tackle an interesting philosophical or ethical dilemma as the main plot. As the modern reemergence of comic book and super hero movies have shown, those films are a dime a dozen that anyone can do. Tackling something deeper while still holding our attention is the hard part. The Watchmen was a good candidate for it but fell short. I'm sure JJ Abrams would rather cover up the complicated parts that question good versus evil with another lens flare.
Where are the mod points when you need them? You hit the problem squarely on the head with the JJ Abrams reboots. Star Trek has been reduced to an action flick. Something that will be forgotten in a month. A lot of action, pretty visuals, with a big fat void in the middle. I've seen both now and they are utterly forgettable.
Re:Brain Dead Action Trumps Philosophy & Ethic (Score:5, Insightful)
When was Trek EVER "about philosophy, ethics, tolerance, gray areas and real world problems?"
Seriously, what fucking alternate universe did you watch Star Trek in?
I guess you never watched TOS or NG. Episodes brought to light issues that paralleled the prevailing topics of the time such as racism, transgender, homosexuality, bi-racial relationships, the cold war, what defines humanity, etc, etc, etc.
Re: (Score:3)
Mine, AC.
Like all good science-fiction, Star Trek -- even in its original 1960s incarnation -- confronted topics of the day like racism (the black/white people) or class-ism/able-ism (the psychokinetic pseudo-Greek civilization). It explored the human condition. Yes, there was action, but it was just a component of good storytelling. Watch a season of ST:DS9 and you'll see that most of it is about the characters and how they relate to the circumstances around them. It's not just about firing phasers at
Its science fiction (Score:2)
sci-fi is more than that. It's about ideas; it's about taking some part of life and changing it, then seeing what happens as a result.
So this movie count as science fiction. Took something i enjoyed in life, like the philosophy [themcluster.com] of Star Trek (i'd say, most of the series had plenty of it) and changed it to a mindless action flick. Some transmutations could turns lead into gold, but others go in the other direction.
Fail (Score:5, Interesting)
"It's a movie with all the same strengths and weaknesses of its predecessor, and if it worked before, it'll work again."
It is nothing of the sort. They went a long way toward throwing away the tremendous gains of the 2009 "new" Start Trek movie.
The first movie took great pains to give them a brand NEW Star Trek world with all the possibilities that implies. It breaks all necessary ties with the past, and gave them a new start.
So what did they do? They made the second movie a blatant derivative of "The Wrath of Khan".
With all that possibility, they came close to throwing it all away. As it is, it was WAY too similar to that other Khan movie.
Pardon me, but I go to movies to see new things. This wasn't it. My rating: FAIL.
WTF?! (Score:5, Interesting)
Why do people keep saying that JJ Trek 1 was a good movie? No, no it wasn't. Ignore whether it was Trek or not. Ignore whether it was SciFi or not. It was a bad movie. The casting was great (except for Chekov), the performances were great. The sets were... like watching how Apple would design something...
But the plot. Ugh. The entire time I was thinking about how I saw that exact scene in some other movie. Hey, JJ, you know the Spinning Blades of Doom (TM)? Yeah, Galaxy Quest was making fun of you with that, not encouraging you. Sure, make Kirk the youngest CO ever. I'm cool with that. Right up until, apparently, there's not a single officer on the entire ship... except for Spock... and you can just bring up his mommy issues to take command.
I'm not a Trekkie. This isn't about not liking how things are now. I find much of Old Trek to be unwatchable. That was just a crap movie, and I saw absolutely nothing to make me want to watch this new one, and every reason to just skip it.
Pass.
Not your fathers Star Trek! (Score:5, Interesting)
not just "new trek" and "old trek" (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think it's a matter of how Abrams' Trek compares unfavorably to the scientific and philosophical "Old Trek". This is not an entirely accurate characterization of Old Trek, and completely ignores the substantial difference between Old Trek and Middle Trek. Whereas Original Kirk often resolved things with a directed phaser burst or clunky fight scene, the series of the Berman era, starting with ST:TNG, went too far the other way, preferring to move the plot forward with endless meetings and discussions and existential crisis and long meaningful stares. (Side note, I think this was primarily because meetings are cheaper to film than fight scenes, but feel free to disagree.) This is where the technobabble reached a peak, as babbling nonsense to get out of a predicament is viewed as somehow more cerebral than kicking ass. Or actually coming up with a plausible predicament with a plausible solution.
And as we know, Berman's Super Talking Trek eventually collapsed in upon itself. Personally, I've seen every single episode of TOS several times, but I stopped watching each of TNG, DS9, and Voyager before they played out. And I only ever saw perhaps four episodes of Enterprise. (Of which, one was the arguably decent follow-on to "mirror mirror".) Why? Because with a few exceptions, it was boring as hell. The same endless discussions scored by the same eight bars of cello and viola until you want to claw your eyes out. It was an exercise in frustration.
I submit that Abrams' trek was meant as a direct counter to the Super Talking Trek of the Berman era. It's not necessarily TOS reinterpreted as a space opera, because, let's face it, a lot of TOS *was* space opera, just with less money and lower technology. Abrams' Trek takes the action qualities of TOS and gives it a huge boost of technology and caffeine, without losing sight of TOS beginnings: Horatio Hornblower in space. I haven't seen Into Darkness yet, but noticed the "wooden ships and iron men" feel to the battle scenes in the trailer, which Previous Trek had seldom been able to convey. I really don't have a problem with that.
But the lens flare, that has to go. What idiot thought that up?
I mean really, if Roddenberry and Coon and Fontana and the rest had access to something that looked like a decent space suit and the ability to film EVAs and descents into volcanos and small vehicles dogfighting in space, and the Enterprise in atmosphere, don't you think they would have used them?
Wrath of Khaaaaaaaaan! (Score:3)
Is this review from 2009? (Score:3)
This isn't a review of the latest movie. Its just a rehash of the same arguments everyone had when the 2009 movie came out. News flash: its still not like the old trek you (think?) you knew and loved. Its still just an action movie in space. It still has lens flare. Its made by the same guy so why would you expect it to be any different?
If you do like action movies in space, Into Darkness is an excellent movie. Personally I found it very entertaining and worth the ticket price. (Although I thought the "KHAAAAN!!" moment was weak sauce compared to the original.)
They are ALL flawed (Score:5, Insightful)
TOS was pretty good and the remasters are pretty cool to watch if for nothing other than how tacky they are. That being said, about half of the episodes are really, really cheesy. Some of the costumes are downright hilarious, like they raided the Hollywood studio equivalent of a Goodwill store. But hey, it's the original, and still quite watchable. We all know the characters, no need to go into that.
TNG was really very good in it's time, but I DARE you to watch it now. Wow, just horrific stuff. Bad acting, all the "men" have vaginas, way way overly PC, and the episodes flog you non-stop with the fucking morality angle. Ugh. Almost every actor way overacts, including Patrick Stewart, who is the star of the whole ordeal. He's excellent, if a little preachy and theatrical. But again, I just dare you to watch it.
DS9 is probably my favorite these days, as it's not too ancient, doesn't get too high & mighty, and the Ferengi presence makes for some good comedy. Still, the Bajor angle wears you down, and you just want to smack Kira around with her Bajor this Bajor that, Bajor...SHUT UP!!!!. You almost start rooting for the Cardassians. Sisko, and especially Quark and Garak steal the show. Keiko, Julian, and Odo are mostly annoying. The Cardassians are delightfully evil; I love me some Gul Dukat.
Voyager: Holy shit, this is a frickin' train-wreck in space. Like a train-wreck, it's a terrifyingly horrible thing to witness, but hard to look away. Being Trek, I have to watch it. It's really an unintentional comedy, and even watching it alone, I end up howling with laughter. Usually my dog will start biting me because I'm scaring the hell out of her as I'm doubled over in fits of laughter. You've got a helium addict for a captain (as I type this I'm laughing my ass off), the spastic half Klingon woman as the engineer, the 1st officer Tonto, the Hologram Doctor you just want to kick in the nuts he's so annoying, the Neelix cook dude (what the fuck is that?), and his Carol-Brady-hairdo sporting girlfriend playing the ???, fuck, I don't know what. This series is the very height of technobabble, and the plots and scripts are just downright ludicrous. I'm going to watch one after I post this, because they're funny as all hell.
Now there's Enterprise, which is pretty good actually. It takes a while to get rolling, and the last several episodes are for shit, but overall, it's pretty good as long as the T&A doesn't offend you: it's really blatant. The stars of this series are definitely the Vulcan science officer T'Pol's breasts and her ass, as this is what the camera is usually focused on. Could be worse. The doctor, Phlox, is excellent: actually, he's my favorite character. It's not without its share of annoying characters, however. Here we go: The WORST has got to be Hoshi, the Korean actress cast as a Japanese (of course) communication officer. At first you think: "Hey, at least she's kind of cute." But then the whining starts. And the pouting. Oh the pouting. Please just STOP IT, HOSHI. Ugh, she is such a bummer. Malcom, the security officer is OK sometimes, but definitely neurotic. Then the hotheaded engineer, who again, grows on you, but is mostly annoying. I liked Scott Bakula (for the most part) as the captain, but the fatal flaw is that NOBODY LISTENS TO HIM, and he rarely kicks their asses, electing to let it slide. Some really cool alien species show up here and there.
So, there's my take on the Star Trek series. Which should really be called Time Trek, because it seems half of the episodes are about time travel. I liked the 1st reboot for what it was (mindless action in space), but really people, ALL of the Trek iterations are pretty bad, so take off those rose tinted glasses and lighten up.
Re: (Score:3)
No, he is very sparing with the technobabble but it is absolutely B.S. when it gets used... completely unrealistic. Not that the original technobable was good. I think they may have been trying to be intentionally humorous there.
The plot was simple. But the meaning behind the characters interaction with the plot was deep enough if your not completely mentally retarded. You will enjoy that. It had a Star Trek message in it.
Re:Did they get rid of the fake lens flares? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Did they get rid of the fake lens flares? (Score:4, Informative)
Well, here's the thing, as a photographer I know that lens flare is an anomaly created by refraction of light. Generally, you try to reduce this effect as it "breaks the 4th wall" and force you as a viewer to recognize that this is a filmed event. You do this by altering lighting and camera position. Only occasionally has it even been used in a sparingly and creative way.
Now when you see it every couple of minutes, and know it was digitally inserted, that sort of just makes no sense. It's like a kid that got his hand on iMovie and had to use it's whole palette of effects as often as possible to prove their high tech. It's sort of like the instagram craze. By artificially making it look old, apparently that's cool. JJ Abrams was interviewed about this. He said it was his unique visual style, and by artificially inserting flairs he thinks it makes it look like the crew had no time to setup the shot correctly, because there's just so much action bursting off the screen. So not only is he overusing an effect, but he's artifically inserting it, to make it appear that he didn't have time to light his sets properly, and that apparently (to him) makes it EVEN MORE incredible.
Doesn't work for me though. I think it's stupid and distracting. Like when you some badly compressed gradients in black or compression artifacts on "so-called" HD cable tv. Once you start seeing it you can't look away. I don't think there's anything artistic about striving to make it look like you suck at lighting a shot.
Re: (Score:3)
Now when you see it every couple of minutes, and know it was digitally inserted, that sort of just makes no sense.
I thought they were all, or at least most, done in-camera.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, I remember seeing some kind of making-of short around the time the first one came out and they were talking about how the cinematographer managed to capture all the lens flares "to get this great look." I could be wrong, but they may not have been fake.
Re: (Score:3)
Bad science is annoying, but not as annoying as being inconsistant with the bad science so that none of the new magical