Film Score Monthly
FSM HOME MESSAGE BOARD FSM CDs FSM ONLINE RESOURCES FUN STUFF ABOUT US  SEARCH FSM   
Search Terms: 
Search Within:   search tips 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
 Posted:   Jun 2, 2013 - 5:00 PM   
 By:   solium   (Member)

I thought for a moment I was watching a parody.

JJ Trek was a parody from day one. Don't know why ppl don't see that.

Edit: There was no reason to keep Cumberbatch's character a secret other than they knew it would bring a lot of negative press. Because they knew it was a cheap knock off.

Myers didn't have to "hide" the villain in WOK. Because he knew their take wasn't a cheap knock off.
(of Space Seed.) Hell, his name is in the title of the movie!

 
 Posted:   Jun 2, 2013 - 5:34 PM   
 By:   SchiffyM   (Member)

There was no reason to keep Cumberbatch's character a secret

For my son, a "Trek" newbie, Cumberbatch's pronouncement of his real name meant absolutely nothing. For me, my response was "Really? Why?" So I don't really see how this alleged bombshell revelation was supposed to resonate with anybody.

 
 Posted:   Jun 2, 2013 - 9:09 PM   
 By:   johnmullin   (Member)

Myers didn't have to "hide" the villain in WOK. Because he knew their take wasn't a cheap knock off.
(of Space Seed.) Hell, his name is in the title of the movie!


This is tit for tat, but Meyer didn't actually want that to be the subtitle. His script was called STAR TREK II: THE UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY. In his book, "A View From The Bridge" he claims that someone in Paramount marketing insisted that the title be changed to "THE VENGEANCE OF KHAN." At the time, the third (sixth) STAR WARS movie was on the horizon and the title was thought to be REVENGE OF THE JEDI. Ultimately, Paramount altered the TREK II title to WRATH OF KHAN and Lucas decided to call the Star Wars movie RETURN OF THE JEDI anyway. Still...

 
 Posted:   Jun 2, 2013 - 9:34 PM   
 By:   JeffM   (Member)

Saw the movie for the first time this afternoon.

Count me in as a fan of both the movie and the music!

 
 Posted:   Jun 2, 2013 - 10:04 PM   
 By:   Senn555   (Member)

Saw the movie for the first time this afternoon.

Count me in as a fan of both the movie and the music!


No no no, you're not supposed to say that, dude. You'll incur the wrath of all of the haters who blow a gasket at the mere thought of J.J. Abrams!

 
 Posted:   Jun 2, 2013 - 10:13 PM   
 By:   Zoragoth   (Member)

Andy Dursin's very well-written analysis as this site has encouraged me to just wait til this one hits the local second-run theater.

I did enjoy the first Abrams movie, though I thought it was pretty iffy as TREK, a little too hip and hyped up and cool and caffeinated for its own good.

I will lower my expectations and am confident I will enjoy the good stuff this new one has to offer, for all its faults.

 
 Posted:   Jun 2, 2013 - 11:00 PM   
 By:   Sigerson Holmes   (Member)

So I don't really see how this alleged bombshell revelation was supposed to resonate with anybody.


I quite agree. It seems to have been concocted for the sole purpose of punishing OS Trekkers for wishing this new episode could fit in neatly with the already established earlier/later events.

 
 Posted:   Jun 3, 2013 - 4:52 AM   
 By:   solium   (Member)

Myers didn't have to "hide" the villain in WOK. Because he knew their take wasn't a cheap knock off.
(of Space Seed.) Hell, his name is in the title of the movie!


This is tit for tat, but Meyer didn't actually want that to be the subtitle. His script was called STAR TREK II: THE UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY. In his book, "A View From The Bridge" he claims that someone in Paramount marketing insisted that the title be changed to "THE VENGEANCE OF KHAN." At the time, the third (sixth) STAR WARS movie was on the horizon and the title was thought to be REVENGE OF THE JEDI. Ultimately, Paramount altered the TREK II title to WRATH OF KHAN and Lucas decided to call the Star Wars movie RETURN OF THE JEDI anyway. Still...


Yes, that's all very true. (Forgot about Myer's original title) But I'm sure Khan would have remained prominent in the advertising for the film.

 
 
 Posted:   Jun 3, 2013 - 4:54 AM   
 By:   Spymaster   (Member)

For my son, a "Trek" newbie, Cumberbatch's pronouncement of his real name meant absolutely nothing. For me, my response was "Really? Why?" So I don't really see how this alleged bombshell revelation was supposed to resonate with anybody.

Exactly. It doesn't even resonate with Kirk who doesn't have the faintest idea who he is! Indeed, new Spock has to ask old Spock!

For a rebooted series that's alledgedly trying not to get bogged down in Trek lore, I'm afraid they've already run aground.

It would have been a far more satisfying film without the Khan character/Space Seed/TWOK references.

 
 Posted:   Jun 3, 2013 - 5:04 AM   
 By:   Sigerson Holmes   (Member)

For my son, a "Trek" newbie, Cumberbatch's pronouncement of his real name meant absolutely nothing. For me, my response was "Really? Why?" So I don't really see how this alleged bombshell revelation was supposed to resonate with anybody.


Couldn't Cumberbatch at least have turned out to be someone more original, like maybe . . . this guy?

 
 Posted:   Jun 3, 2013 - 5:11 AM   
 By:   Sigerson Holmes   (Member)

For my son, a "Trek" newbie, Cumberbatch's pronouncement of his real name meant absolutely nothing. For me, my response was "Really? Why?" So I don't really see how this alleged bombshell revelation was supposed to resonate with anybody.


Couldn't Cumberbatch at least have turned out to be someone more original, like maybe . . . this guy?






"I'm Cumby, dammit."

 
 Posted:   Jun 3, 2013 - 5:27 AM   
 By:   Scott M (Oldsmith)   (Member)



Exactly. It doesn't even resonate with Kirk who doesn't have the faintest idea who he is! Indeed, new Spock has to ask old Spock!

For a rebooted series that's alledgedly trying not to get bogged down in Trek lore, I'm afraid they've already run aground..


What made the Khan reveal so pointless to me was that it never needed to be a secret. Had they just introduced him in a straightforward fashion, and none of this "JJ Abrams misdirection/secrecy" in the press, I think it would have worked much better.

I do agree that this film has much more Trek Lore in there, something I thought they were trying to avoid. I also agree that "John Harrison" could have been his own character and been great.

 
 Posted:   Jun 3, 2013 - 6:04 AM   
 By:   Francis   (Member)

Am I the only one who thought Benedict Cumberbatch was an excellent choice to play Khan and sells it well with his fast 'Sherlock' speech and intimidating posture? He easily beats the last three Trek movie villains IMO. My only criticism of the Khan character was that the writers obviously couldn't write for a character with superior intellect because the plot is anything but clever. The movie however is fast paced enough and lens flary to make me overlook that.

I was not bothered by the 'reveal' of Khan as it was done ok, obviously different timeline and you are not supposed to go "hey that's Khan!!!! Ricardo freakin' Montalban!', I think this Khan is a different beast altogether but for the fans it at least raises expectations for the character. As I commented on the other side of the board, why they kept him alive after the destruction and deaths he caused, I didn't buy for one second.

So the introduction of Khan into the movie I don't mind, however doing a variation on that other famous scene from TWOK that to me totally didn't work and felt forced, I don't get why they had to do that for this movie... I read a review (can't remember which one) that called Into Darkness basically on the level of 'fan fiction' and it's scenes like this which support that notion.

Hasn't the crew of the new lens flary enterprise rehashed enough Trek history and isn't it time for them to have a truly original adventure? Or are the writers and producers not confident enough their version of the TOS universe will hold up?

 
 Posted:   Jun 3, 2013 - 6:43 AM   
 By:   solium   (Member)

I read a review (can't remember which one) that called Into Darkness basically on the level of 'fan fiction' and it's scenes like this which support that notion.


And there you go! I also don't ever remember ppl dismissing such dribble just so they can find some reason to "like" the film. JJ Trek gets a pass on almost everything, where as no one made excuses for TMP or STV.

 
 Posted:   Jun 3, 2013 - 6:52 AM   
 By:   WillGoldNewtonBarryGrusin   (Member)

I still consider this movie to be much more involving and fun than the usual blockbuster/mainstream/event movies of the last decade.


 
 Posted:   Jun 3, 2013 - 7:04 AM   
 By:   Jeyl   (Member)

I still consider this movie to be much more involving and fun than the usual blockbuster/mainstream/event movies of the last decade.

Yeah, all those Harry Potter movies were absolute crap.

 
 Posted:   Jun 3, 2013 - 7:07 AM   
 By:   WillGoldNewtonBarryGrusin   (Member)

I still consider this movie to be much more involving and fun than the usual blockbuster/mainstream/event movies of the last decade.

Yeah, all those Harry Potter movies were absolute crap.


I liked those, too.

 
 Posted:   Jun 3, 2013 - 9:00 AM   
 By:   Other Tallguy   (Member)

I read a review (can't remember which one) that called Into Darkness basically on the level of 'fan fiction' and it's scenes like this which support that notion.


And there you go! I also don't ever remember ppl dismissing such dribble just so they can find some reason to "like" the film. JJ Trek gets a pass on almost everything, where as no one made excuses for TMP or STV.


TMP needs no excuses. It's a terrific film. It's the Corbomite Maneuver to Wrath of Khan's Balance of Terror.

 
 Posted:   Jun 3, 2013 - 9:06 AM   
 By:   WillGoldNewtonBarryGrusin   (Member)

I read a review (can't remember which one) that called Into Darkness basically on the level of 'fan fiction' and it's scenes like this which support that notion.


And there you go! I also don't ever remember ppl dismissing such dribble just so they can find some reason to "like" the film. JJ Trek gets a pass on almost everything, where as no one made excuses for TMP or STV.


TMP needs no excuses. It's a terrific film. It's the Corbomite Maneuver to Wrath of Khan's Balance of Terror.


I also love TMP.

Still, I always have to defend and excuse the movie.

Heck, there are also more of us who at least like STAR TREK V.

I just find it very weird that Abrams now becomes the whipping boy for making terrific movies. So what if some things do not work for everyone? At least he´s trying to give the audience more than the usual summer blockbuster.

I´ll take STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS over IRON MAN 3 or FAST AND THE FURIOUS any day.

 
 Posted:   Jun 3, 2013 - 9:15 AM   
 By:   LeHah   (Member)

At least he´s trying to give the audience more than the usual summer blockbuster.

You're welcome to like the film but I do not see in anyway how someone can make a defense using those words to describe it.

 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
© 2014 Film Score Monthly. All Rights Reserved.