 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How long do we have to wait before the double-dip 2 disc set comes out?
|
|
|
|
|
|
How long do we have to wait before the double-dip 2 disc set comes out?
Nobody knows.
For reference, the ST09 OST was released in May 2009, and the Deluxe Edition was released 13 months later in June 2010.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The original Praxis was a KEY source of energy for the Klingon Empire in the Prime Timeline. When it exploded it was estimated that the remains of the planet etc would provide the Empire with energy for at least 50 earth years. The Klingon economy was struggling and couldnt handle the disaster, which is why the High Council reached out to the Federation for help. Im sure you all know the rest.
I got that much. It is what pretty much drives the plot. I'm just trying to figure out the practical science of it. How does a planet produce energy for the WHOLE empire? Wouldn't each planet have its own independent source of power? Were they mining it for resources? If so what was going on on Rura Pente? Was Praxis somehow networked or hardwired to all the other planets in Klingon Space? It still doesn't make sense to me. I know it was an allegory to The Soviet Union and Chernobyl but the economics of that scenario doesn't translate to an galactic civilization.
How do any of us know that Kronos only has one moon? Maybe I missed it somewhere. I think JJ was just going for alien visuals---leaving an opportunity to explore this "strange new world" later if the writers choose to go there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So the music that was playing after the end credits space sequence was actually a suite written for the end credits and not tracks edited together from the film? I just thought the piece playing during the space sequence wasn't tracked in eventhough the music didn't sound that much different from the music from the ST09 end credits space sequence.
The end credits of the film was:
1 A new recording of the Courage Theme arrangement very similar to the beginning of the 09 end credits (Unreleased)
2 Most of "London Calling" (OST track 4)
3 The end of "Ode To Harrison" (Unreleased)
4 Star Trek Main Theme (OST track 14)
|
|
|
|
|
|
I loved the first half of the film (I've been saying the pre-credit sequence is the best TOS episode since 1969) but the second half just killed it for me. So I guess I'm down as a hater.
The score is ok. I should like it better than 2009 (and I think I do) because I really didn't like Nero's theme but I loved everything else.
That said my favorite thing in this score is (not surprisingly) the uses of Spock's theme. I just love that theme and how versatile Giacchino made it. He's the first composer (I think) who gave Spock a theme that can be used for action.
I didn't hear anything in the film that jumped out and said "Why isn't this on the CD?" I can understand why the Courage end credits isn't there because it's too similar to 2009. I don't know why the Star Trek Main Theme is there. Funnily enough I made an edit of the 2009 end credits with just that portion. (Did the same for the Spock section.) Sounds almost exactly the same. Same track time too. If they had to do an outtake of the end credits why didn't they use the NEW stuff? Go Williams and give us a Harrison suite?
Oh, Giacchino said he included a quote from TOS in there somewhere. Does anyone know where it is? I pretty much assume it's not on the CD.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IOh, Giacchino said he included a quote from TOS in there somewhere. Does anyone know where it is? I pretty much assume it's not on the CD.
Jason LeBlanc wrote in this thread: "Music from TOS's Amok Time plays for about 15 seconds starting about 2 minutes into San Fran Hustle."
It's on the album but I have not recognized it in the movie.
There it is. (Thanks for the prompt reply and not beating me up over not finding it elsewhere.)
It's funny that this stands out less than the Romulan theme that showed up in Captain America. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Incidentally, I enjoyed the score in the movie but I'm still not a whole-souled believer in Giacchino. He has yet to write something truly sublime.
And you've already seen "Up"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Didn't like the movie that much, but I really enjoyed the score. I would have liked to have heard a new variation on Giacchino's Star Trek theme for the end credits rather than the straight reprise we have here (his variation on the “Enterprising Young Men” edit for the main title is an example of the type of “similar but different” vibe that I was hoping for), but that's just nit-picking what is an otherwise very engaging sequel score. I'm hoping we'll see a Deluxe Edition of this one sometime soon as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
May 22, 2013 - 9:28 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
LeHah
(Member)
|
I didn't *hate* Star Trek Into Darkness and that's really the most praise I can find for it. I suppose that is a step-up considering everyone alive knows I thought the last film was a train wreck for various reasons both legitimate and not. But yes, I went in expecting it to be the science fiction Ishtar and found a mildly distracting summer movie with no brains in its head.
If you saw the last film, its really more of the same. They minimized the weakest points of the 2009 film (Scotty's alien buddy is mostly absent this time, thank the fuck Christ) and adapted the characters into more formed if not complete figures that have some semblance of their original characters (which leads one to ask why bother rebooting?)
The biggest strength I can find with it is that despite the BIG VILLAIN REVEAL (stomps foot three times) half way through the film - the film isn't a Star Trek II remake. It has more to do with my favorite Original Series episode "Obsession", where Kirk hunts down a sentient cloud vapor thats been killing people for years. Its a thin Moby Dick analogy, which the franchise will overuse as the years ago on but unlike the rest of its incarnations, Kirk actually learns something in this film and in that TOS episode. The big moral is basically "your desire for revenge will be what undoes everything else" and its learned by more than one character in this film. And thats something that should be applauded as its actual character growth and less about yet another action scene.
But then you have the writers...
The writers on these last two Trek movies are akin to surgeons who opens you up, poke around to find the problem, doesn't fix or change anything and then refuses to stitch you up. Robert Orci, Damon Lindelof and Alex Kurtzman have every idea of what they want to do but no idea how to go about it. The result is an intriguing first half that explosively decompresses in the second half. Once the audience finds out that Harrison is Khan, it comes apart in such a spectacular fashion, I am at a loss to think of an equal. First off, and perhaps most importantly, theres no reason for it to *actually* be Khan, The writers essentially robbed themselves of creating their first "heavy" character (Lets face it, Nero in 2009 was a very bad/stupid foil and is a thinly cloaked attempt to legitimize the reboot by using a TNG bad guy) by making him the most recognized villain in the series (who is suddenly British? Why? ask people with functioning synapses) and thus robbing it of any individuality. There is no reason for Khan in the story except to pander to people who sort of know who he is but not enough to be angry about it (As someone else brilliantly pointed out: see also General Zod in Superman movies). Its the writing equivalent of product promotion.
There is also a 9/11 analogy involved this time around. Basically that the events of the previous movie push Starfleet into being a more military force and later on there is a ship that crashes into a city and so on. Now, how each person deals with this sort of plot point is on them but for me, it doesn't work. Its many years too late and its blundered about as badly as it was in 2006's Superman Returns. The United States no longer self-identifies with the 9/11 events in so much as needing direct analogy; we're in a post-9/11 world, not a current one. And so, as art should be a product of its time, I'm at a loss as to what the meaning was to do this. A good friend of mine suggested this film was about how the events of 9/11 didn't matter as much as our response to it - a point which I agree on - but even then, its a point which is nearly a decade too old. Why are we being told this *now*? And its especially redundant since an entire season of Enterprise dealt with this in 2003. They're ten years too late once again.
(And for those keeping score, the three writers behind this newest film are responsible for the following: Cowboys & Aliens, Prometheus, the Lost TV series, the Michael Bay Transformers series, The Island, The Legend Of Zorro and one of them produced the horrible movie Eagle Eye. Has the human imagination ever before produced such a wasteland of unmitigated shit? Coleman Francis's films are suddenly looking a bit better.)
As to the bad guy in this film, and I realize that I'm against the grain on this but Cumberpatch was awful. He over enunciates every word, acting only with how he moves his mouth. When Hugo Weaving did this for the Matrix movies, it was with a bit of camp in mind but this is played straight and without anything "behind it". This time, it reminded me a lot of Bruce Payne's bad guy in the hilariously awful Dungeons & Dragons movie: overly preening and as threatening as a case of indigestion. I am not threatened because someone has a deep voice, I am threatened by *presence*, which this character (and actor, by proxy) had none of. Kahn in the original incarnation was more about physicality and intellect while Benedict is simply a talking metrosexual head. As a character and as a bit of acting, Into Darkness understands nothing about what Khan is suppose to be - which is telling of the story as a whole. If you can't get the villain right, wheres the jeopardy? (Hollywood: when guys go to an action movie, the villain shouldn't be someone your girlfriend finds attractive. We're not threatened by boyish men whos faces and jawlines look as streamlined as a speedboat. Character actors with years of experience on stage and screen carry way more weight than a thirty-something model beauty. Remember William Sadler in Die Hard 2? Or what about Christopher Walken? )
And I walked out of the theater thinking of that line from Star Trek VI: "Is it possible, that we two, you and I, have become so old and inflexible that we have outlived our usefulness?".
With these last two films defining the series (and directed by someone who has repeatedly said isn't into Star Trek either) I do not know if Star Trek is "my thing" anymore. I don't think I can identify or even agree with the story choices and writing style these films are going in. To borrow from a Chris Hedge's book subtitle, these films seen to be "the end of literacy and the triumph of spectacle". Yes, this film did have something to it - something to actually SAY - but it wasn't nearly enough; the movies before 2009 (well, perhaps not Nemesis or First Contact, we can argue about that later) had stronger moral statements. This is more about "lets make things explode in space and if we have time, we can squeeze some moral stuff in". The message is the thing, always - and though it had more message than the last film, that isn't nearly enough to call it Star Trek either.
I'm not as angry as I was when I left the theater in 2009 but maybe I've simply grown so disappointed, anything would look better now?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's funny that this stands out less than the Romulan theme that showed up in Captain America.
But was the use of the Romulan theme intentional or just coincidence?
I'm sure it was coincidence. But it was still funny. I know I'm not the only person that it jumped out at.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't *hate* Star Trek Into Darkness and that's really the most praise I can find for it. I suppose that is a step-up considering everyone alive knows I thought the last film was a train wreck for various reasons both legitimate and not. But yes, I went in expecting it to be the science fiction Ishtar and found a mildly distracting summer movie with no brains in its head.
If you saw the last film, its really more of the same. They minimized the weakest points of the 2009 film (Scotty's alien buddy is mostly absent this time, thank the fuck Christ) and adapted the characters into more formed if not complete figures that have some semblance of their original characters (which leads one to ask why bother rebooting?)
The biggest strength I can find with it is that despite the BIG VILLAIN REVEAL (stomps foot three times) half way through the film - the film isn't a Star Trek II remake. It has more to do with my favorite Original Series episode "Obsession", where Kirk hunts down a sentient cloud vapor thats been killing people for years. Its a thin Moby Dick analogy, which the franchise will overuse as the years ago on but unlike the rest of its incarnations, Kirk actually learns something in this film and in that TOS episode. The big moral is basically "your desire for revenge will be what undoes everything else" and its learned by more than one character in this film. And thats something that should be applauded as its actual character growth and less about yet another action scene.
But then you have the writers...
The writers on these last two Trek movies are akin to surgeons who opens you up, poke around to find the problem, doesn't fix or change anything and then refuses to stitch you up. Robert Orci, Damon Lindelof and Alex Kurtzman have every idea of what they want to do but no idea how to go about it. The result is an intriguing first half that explosively decompresses in the second half. Once the audience finds out that Harrison is Khan, it comes apart in such a spectacular fashion, I am at a loss to think of an equal. First off, and perhaps most importantly, theres no reason for it to *actually* be Khan, The writers essentially robbed themselves of creating their first "heavy" character (Lets face it, Nero in 2009 was a very bad/stupid foil and is a thinly cloaked attempt to legitimize the reboot by using a TNG bad guy) by making him the most recognized villain in the series (who is suddenly British? Why? ask people with functioning synapses) and thus robbing it of any individuality. There is no reason for Khan in the story except to pander to people who sort of know who he is but not enough to be angry about it (As someone else brilliantly pointed out: see also General Zod in Superman movies). Its the writing equivalent of product promotion.
There is also a 9/11 analogy involved this time around. Basically that the events of the previous movie push Starfleet into being a more military force and later on there is a ship that crashes into a city and so on. Now, how each person deals with this sort of plot point is on them but for me, it doesn't work. Its many years too late and its blundered about as badly as it was in 2006's Superman Returns. The United States no longer self-identifies with the 9/11 events in so much as needing direct analogy; we're in a post-9/11 world, not a current one. And so, as art should be a product of its time, I'm at a loss as to what the meaning was to do this. A good friend of mine suggested this film was about how the events of 9/11 didn't matter as much as our response to it - a point which I agree on - but even then, its a point which is nearly a decade too old. Why are we being told this *now*? And its especially redundant since an entire season of Enterprise dealt with this in 2003. They're ten years too late once again.
(And for those keeping score, the three writers behind this newest film are responsible for the following: Cowboys & Aliens, Prometheus, the Lost TV series, the Michael Bay Transformers series, The Island, The Legend Of Zorro and one of them produced the horrible movie Eagle Eye. Has the human imagination ever before produced such a wasteland of unmitigated shit? Coleman Francis's films are suddenly looking a bit better.)
As to the bad guy in this film, and I realize that I'm against the grain on this but Cumberpatch was awful. He over enunciates every word, acting only with how he moves his mouth. When Hugo Weaving did this for the Matrix movies, it was with a bit of camp in mind but this is played straight and without anything "behind it". This time, it reminded me a lot of Bruce Payne's bad guy in the hilariously awful Dungeons & Dragons movie: overly preening and as threatening as a case of indigestion. I am not threatened because someone has a deep voice, I am threatened by *presence*, which this character (and actor, by proxy) had none of. Kahn in the original incarnation was more about physicality and intellect while Benedict is simply a talking metrosexual head. As a character and as a bit of acting, Into Darkness understands nothing about what Khan is suppose to be - which is telling of the story as a whole. If you can't get the villain right, wheres the jeopardy? (Hollywood: when guys go to an action movie, the villain shouldn't be someone your girlfriend finds attractive. We're not threatened by boyish men whos faces and jawlines look as streamlined as a speedboat. Character actors with years of experience on stage and screen carry way more weight than a thirty-something model beauty. Remember William Sadler in Die Hard 2? Or what about Christopher Walken? )
And I walked out of the theater thinking of that line from Star Trek VI: "Is it possible, that we two, you and I, have become so old and inflexible that we have outlived our usefulness?".
With these last two films defining the series (and directed by someone who has repeatedly said isn't into Star Trek either) I do not know if Star Trek is "my thing" anymore. I don't think I can identify or even agree with the story choices and writing style these films are going in. To borrow from a Chris Hedge's book subtitle, these films seen to be "the end of literacy and the triumph of spectacle". Yes, this film did have something to it - something to actually SAY - but it wasn't nearly enough; the movies before 2009 (well, perhaps not Nemesis or First Contact, we can argue about that later) had stronger moral statements. This is more about "lets make things explode in space and if we have time, we can squeeze some moral stuff in". The message is the thing, always - and though it had more message than the last film, that isn't nearly enough to call it Star Trek either.
I'm not as angry as I was when I left the theater in 2009 but maybe I've simply grown so disappointed, anything would look better now?
LeHah, this is by far the most adept review of the film yet. Refreshing to read, since the usual airhead critics, among them Peter Travers, seem not to have seen the same movie you and I saw. I do understand this is a thread about the film score, and perhaps LeHah, you could also paste this review into one of the non-score threads, but man is this movie ever frustrating! And I actually loved the reboot. As a fan since about 1973, at the age of 5 or 6, I should have hated the first film, but I loved what they did to reboot it (with the exception of the useless Nero).
I almost want to ditch every J. J. Abrams movie or TV series I own, I'm that angered by the idiotic script to this film. I won't, because I really loved SUPER 8 and am a big LOST fan. But I do feel like it.
That...
said...
I do really love the score, as subtle as it isn't. I chalk that more up to the film than to Giacchino, who had to give this weightless, emotionless, depthless film some of each of those things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
