• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Star Trek Into Darkness

singveld

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Star Trek Into Darkness: 5 Reasons It’s Better Than The Wrath Of Khan

With just under a week to go until Star Trek Into Darkness lands in UK cinemas, and a raft of very positive reviews already pushing expectation levels up to the max, it is important to recognise that the sequel still fits into a wider canon, regardless of how consciously the pre-release marketing campaign has resisted the explicit links between Abrams’ work and the original series.

This remains a Star Trek film, and though we are seeing a rebooted, or more appropriately, an alternate timeline, no Star Trek fan in their right mind is going to walk into the multiplex and willingly suspend that link. Ahead of the release, as Trekkers, we all want to know where the film fits on the quality scale already established by the other Star Trek films.

Logic put it ahead of The Undiscovered Country, and Insurrection, without too much effort, and most reviewers have heralded the film as one of the finest in the entire series.

I would go one further, and suggest that Into Darkness is even better than the film often held up as the greatest Star Trek film committed to film. I may suffer his wrath, but I have to say that Abrams’ forthcoming sequel is better than Nicholas Meyer’s 1982 classic.

And here’s why…

5. The Acting


Star Trek: The Original Series is a kitsch delight, and it was as camp and flamboyant as it was ground-breaking, but it wasn’t ever the most technically impressive TV show of all time. The production quality was actually quite impressive, and strong story-telling often plugged gaps where finances and capabilities struggled, but there’s no denying that the acting on show was more often than not, a crime against the noble art.

By the time Star Trek II: The Wrath Of Khan came out, you might think Shatner and co would have toned it down a notch, having seen their beloved project canned once on the small screen, but in a curious, and ultimately fatal development, the cast seemed to see the opportunity of further films to hone their craft of over-acting.

The Wrath Of Khan itself is dragged up no end by the performance of Ricardo Montalban as Khan, while everyone else continues their iconic, but not all that great brand of theatricality, especially Shatner.

Into Darkness, on the other hand, features a collection of fine performances – Chris Pine is an exceptional Kirk, Zachary Quinto is great as Spock, and John Cho even handles his meagre responsibilities well, which is to say nothing of Benedict Cumberbatch’s grand-standing performance as John Harrison. The acting across the board in Abrams’ sequel makes The Wrath Of Khan look like an amateur production with a few bells and whistles, and though we can love its charm, the two are ultimately incomparable.

This is a more general point, since Abrams’ action set-pieces are one of his chief assets, and the key to selling a Star Trek story that features a minimum of stars and very little actual trekking at all.

From the opening sequence set on a strange new world, which launches the film with a bang, through to the Klingon chase, and the excellent fire-fight that quickly paints a picture of what John Harrison really is, phasers are set to stun, and Abrams deftly guides us through like a sci-fi pro.

Whether he’s shooting on the grandest scale – as with the chase – or framing hand-to-hand combat (such as the emotionally charged fight at the end of the film that pits good vs evil definitively,) Abrams creative decisions are never misplaced, and he remains committed to reinventing the Star Trek ethos with a modern action agenda.

The effects work is astonishing, but the human choreography in each scene is what really sells the action, and the hand-to-hand combat, particularly involving the unexpectedly brutal Benedict Cumberbatch is a joy to watch.

Wrath Of Khan meanwhile is a more personal affair, of good vs evil, without the same sort of scale, and though it is utterly engaging, to see both approaches married together is all the more entertaining.

That Leonard Nimoy offers the definitive Spock is not an issue for debate here or anywhere else – Nimoy is Spock, just as Spock is Nimoy, and Abrams wasn’t stupid enough to try and scrub away the legacy of the actor entirely, casting him in his new universe as the major link between the two iterations.

Abrams also seems to have identified Spock as the heart of change – every other character seems to be at least partly a walking homage to the performances that came before them, and the same can be said of Quinto’s outward performance as Spock. There is certainly something of the mimic in his performance (though of course there is only so much any actor can bring to a Vulcan) but under the surface, Spock is an entirely different animal in Into Darkness.

The events of the narrative give Quinto the opportunity to push Spock’s human side to the front – yes, the decision to explore the relationship with Uhura is less successful, and feels superfluous (though of course necessary thanks to the last film,) but the sight of Spock wrestling with his human emotions late on in the film unleashes a side of the character we have never seen.

And in Quinto’s hands, that Spock is irresistible, and just as in The Wrath Of Khan it is he who propels the narrative towards its conclusion, though in entirely different ways.

The Wrath Of Khan is a superficially emotional story – it is a very traditional tale of good vs evil, and the clash of two heavy-weights, but there isn’t a great deal at stake (albeit until Spock decides to save the Enterprise) for the audience. As a spectacle, there is little to really criticise the film, but in comparison to Into Darkness, the narrative is detached, and without that tangible emotional element that gives Abrams’ sequel the edge.

There is way too much humour, admittedly, and the presentation of Scotty (not necessarily the performance) cheapens some of the emotional impact of the finale, but Abrams’ sequel is a world way in emotional terms from the relatively light-hearted romp that was his original Star Trek. And rather than simply going darker, and more detached, as Nolan did for The Dark Knight Rises, Abrams gave us something to really care about, and the result is a Star Trek film that at times really gets under the skin of the audience, and even threatens to inspire a few tears.

The blend between mature content and the explosive set-pieces adds depth, and there is nothing superficial about how entertaining the film is.

This is the big one. Before Into Darkness, Montalban’s Khan sat atop the pile of Star Trek villains without much of a challenge from any direction – there have been other, notable villains and villainous species, but none could challenge Khan in terms of enduring appeal and downright menace.

That was until Benedict Cumberbatch arrived and made Star Trek Into Darkness his own. He is a bristling, cold villain with classical impact and the kind of presence that makes the very best villains so irresistible. And most importantly of all, his snarling outward appearance is matched by a hugely powerful physical threat, that breaks out with stunning effect through the cool, seemingly detached surface.

Harrison is perversely likable, thanks to his professed agenda, and the very personal note to his quest for vengeance, and he definitely skirts the line between anti-hero and villain, just as Hannibal Lecter and Darth Vader did before him. And that is his most enduring and endearing quality, just as it was with Khan before him.

Montalban’s Khan was exceptional, but he was never quite the caged animal, nor the one-man threat that Harrison is, and his plan didn’t quite match Harrison’s for scope and boldness.
 

singveld

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Star Trek Into Darkness is an enjoyable space romp, but avoid the 3D

Good news on the follow up to the brilliant 2009 reboot of Star Trek: for fans of futuristic action spectaculars, the new Star Trek film is well worth ponying up a tenner to see.

I attended a screening of Star Trek Into Darkness in an IMAX cinema, which on the up side, meant I got to enjoy the amazing soundtrack at its immersive best.

As with the last film, sound designer Ben Burtt of Star Wars fame has faithfully recreated and updated the bleeps, bloops and wibley-wibley noises heard on the original TV series. The action-packed opening sequence is so full of explosions, engine noises and more coming at you from all directions, it's destined to be used on home cinema test discs for years.

I don't want to risk spoiling the film for you by talking about the plot too much: let's just say it's very fast-paced with loads of fighting, running, near warp-core breaches fixed in the nick of time and at least five movies' worth of explosions.

I'm not giving anything away to say that Benedict Cumberbatch plays the villain, and very well he does too, although given the hype around his character in the lead-up to the movie's debut I left the cinema feeling he was underused.


At a few points it looks like the film might have something bigger to say about some of today's important issues, such as the role of drones in fighting terrorists and whether evil people deserve a trial or should be quietly offed behind closed doors, but these quickly take a backseat to the action.

I am a massive fan of the original TV series and films, and the reason I can't wholeheartedly get behind Star Trek Into Darkness is because it messes with my childhood memories one time too many. A few knowing references to the old material is always welcome, but this film takes some very famous moments and plays with them for its own ends.


I didn't see the point: it invites unfavourable comparisons from people like me and doesn't add anything for the general audience. Having successfully made the franchise their own with the last film, I would rather the makers had done something entirely original rather than going back to the old well a second time.

But that's not going to bother most people who see this film, and you should go and see it. Star Trek Into Darkness is a breakneck, enjoyable space movie and you don't need to like, or have even seen, other Star Trek movies or episodes to enjoy it. It opens on 9 May in the UK and on 17 May in the US.

It would almost worth making a special trip to an IMAX cinema to see the film for the sound alone, were it not for the irritating 3D. Rather than shooting it in 3D, JJ Abrams shot the film in 2D and converted it afterwards.

He has said that the film uses new post-conversion techniques to achieve a much better look compared to normal conversions, and sometimes it works well. When the Enterprise shoots into warp speed, for example, or during a spaceship battle that bears an uncanny resemblance to the one at the end of Return of the Jedi, the 3D pulls you into the action and it feels like you're on a fairground ride.

But whenever there's lots of lens flare in a scene, which is often, it's sometimes pushed into the foreground. I found the end result mostly very distracting: see this film in 2D.
 
Last edited:

singveld

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
See the reboot of wrath of the khan, 2D is enough for this show. not worth 3D at all.

GV to screen Star Trek with English subtitles

SINGAPORE - From May 10 onwards, fans can watch sneaks of Star Trek: Into the Darkness at Golden Village (GV) cinemas before the movie opens on May 16.

Movie goers with hearing disabilities will rejoice as Star Trek: Into the Darkness will be released in 2D format with English subtitles. This will be a first for GV cinemas.

GV will be showing two daily sessions of Star Trek: Into the Darkness in 2D format with English subtitles from May 16, exclusively at their flagship location, GV VivoCity.
 

singveld

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Film review: Star Trek Into Darkness - JJ Abrams' Starfleet return will underwhelm even the Trekkies

The cheers and whoops that greeted the 2009 relaunch of the Star Trek series contained in them, I thought, a big bass note of relief. For JJ Abrams had taken on the tricky task not only of appeasing a notoriously judgemental fanbase but of winning over a new generation of cinemagoers to whom a 1960s cult TV serial meant virtually squat.

Abrams’s film was respectful of but not slavish towards the tradition, acknowledging its epic proportions without pretending that any of it was Homer. Some smart casting and a better than average script ensured that intergalactic harmony was promisingly established between old school and new.

Four years on, this follow-up shows how quickly the shine can get knocked off. Star Trek Into Darkness is no disaster – it has too much competence on its side for that. Abrams understands the dynamics of the blockbuster, that ability to blend the outsize with the intimate, and he has got the same writing team (Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman, plus newcomer Damon Lindelof) to keep the ship steady. Once again, the conflict is scaled at a human level, turning on a moral debate between what is expedient and what is right. Once again, the Starship crew are sporting those viscose mustard- coloured V-necks that used to clad William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy et al. But there’s something missing, some vital creative spark to spring it from the crepuscular realm of the so-so and its border territory, the so-what.

As if to answer the burden of expectation, the film plunges us immediately into a set-piece of chaotic urgency. Spock (Zachary Quinto) is beamed down into the roaring heart of a volcano that will incinerate a whole planet unless he can put it out. Hellfires rage around him while the crew of the Enterprise make anxious faces at one another. It actually plays like the climax of a movie rather than its opening. When the danger approaches meltdown Captain Kirk (Chris Pine) contravenes Starfleet regulations by allowing the chalk-faced natives to clap eyes on the Starship rising from the ocean to rescue Spock from fiery doom. But Jim Kirk doesn’t bother about protocol, he just wants to save the life of his friend and first officer, though he omits this violation in his debrief to the authorities.

So imagine the captain’s outrage when the authorities get wind of his little misdemeanour – from Spock himself! There’s gratitude: you save a fellow from certain death, then he goes and shops you for flouting the rules. Vulcans, as Spock explains, cannot lie, but that’s no comfort to Kirk as he’s stripped of his command and demoted to a subordinate role under his mentor (Bruce Greenwood, who has quietly become one of the most engaging character actors around – see also The Place Beyond the Pines).

In truth, the relationship between Kirk and Spock is the heart and soul of Star Trek, being an ambiguous compound of rivalry, warmth and interspecies misunderstanding. As played by Pine, Kirk is a hothead and a daredevil who relies largely on instinct. Spock, of course, is the logician nonpareil, and Quinto has just the right expression of intellectual bemusement when faced with the muddle of human emotion. One of the best moments here comes when Kirk, about to part with his first officer, goes all misty-eyed. “Truth is, I’m gonna miss you,” he says, echoing one of the movies’ universal refrains of buddyhood, and looks to Spock’s reciprocation of the sentiment. But Spock just stares back, impassive, and poor old Jim’s left hanging, like the high-five that gets no returning smack.

Their sundering is short-lived, because news arrives from London of a major terrorist attack that has devastated its towered skyline. (Our capital in the 23rd century now resembles Dubai on steroids – thank God we won’t be around to see it.) It seems this is the fiendish handiwork of one John Harrison, played in Brit-thesp mode by Benedict Cumberbatch, his resonant basso profundo carrying the same frisson of sophisticated menace that won Alan Rickman similar roles 20-odd years ago. Harrison proceeds to lay waste to a Starfleet pow-wow in San Francisco, the cue for Kirk and Spock to reunite and pursue him to his hideout on the planet Kronos.

At which point the film enters the deep space of secret identities, interstellar debris and the notable reprise of a plot from an earlier instalment of the Star Trek canon. Let’s draw a veil over that one, even if it’s been already whipped away by internet rumour and eager fan-chatter. There’s still room for a little interaction between Kirk’s faithful crew, chiefly Scotty (Simon Pegg), Uhura (Zoe Saldana), and the ever-moaning Bones (Karl Urban), while Alice Eve freshens up the cast as an unlikely weapons expert and a possible love interest for Kirk. Spock gamely puts forward the counter-argument to the crew’s avowed mission to destroy the fugitive Harrison: is it not morally incumbent on them to capture the suspect and bring him to trial instead?

That fine discrimination gets rather lost amid a welter of juddering explosions, collapsing scenery and technical glitches aboard the Enterprise, which generally involve the poor engineer Chekov (Anton Yelchin) scurrying about below decks and frantically explaining to the bridge that – well, who knows what? There’s not a great deal of suspense here. However frantic the scramble, however frequent the panic stations, do we believe that the Starship is heading into anything but the next sequel?

Star Trek Into Darkness gets the job done without ever threatening to raise one’s pulse. It’s a thoroughly professional entertainment. But if someone said you could never watch another one, what would be your response? Would you say “I’m going to miss you”, or would you take the Spock line, and give it your best blank stare?
 

singveld

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
[video=youtube;sNFDh83RwTk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNFDh83RwTk&feature=share&list=UU7v3-2K1N84V67IF-WTRG-Q[/video]
 

singveld

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
[video=youtube;TMd1RBYTFLc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMd1RBYTFLc&feature=share&list=UU7v3-2K1N84V67IF-WTRG-Q[/video]
 

singveld

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
[video=youtube;YfMoRkCs1y0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfMoRkCs1y0&feature=share&list=UUCqEeDAUf4Mg0GgEN658tkA[/video]
 

singveld

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
[video=youtube;b8gNRvu7NeE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8gNRvu7NeE&feature=share&list=UUTD8DtdOyVQ8XqADuixvH_g[/video]
 

singveld

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
[video=youtube;aqbLgm2w0UA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqbLgm2w0UA&feature=share&list=UUTD8DtdOyVQ8XqADuixvH_g[/video]
 

singveld

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
[video=youtube;CsPBlKt8su0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsPBlKt8su0&feature=share&list=UUMVCs1F_XGueuaD9AfgTWmg[/video]
 

singveld

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
[video=youtube;HDFPWFM0aF0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDFPWFM0aF0&feature=share&list=UUwTcFaOYFjIbxHjrmP0ptxw[/video]
 

Thick Face Black Heart

Alfrescian (InfP)
Generous Asset
The original star trek was great. Each sequel got more and more boring and more and more ridiculous. I gave up after number 3.


I will never forgive the producers of the star trek 2009 movie for brutally raping Spock's character and turning him into a rampant, emotional fuckstick whose inability to tolerate even the slightest insults (about his parentage) constitutes a complete disgrace to the proudly logical Vulcan Race.

All the main characters had one theme in common -- they were poor shadows of their adult selves, and behaved like petty juveniles. After watching the 2009 movie, one cannot fathom how such infantile arseholes can grow up to become the legendary Kirk, Spock, McCoy that we have grown to love.

Star Trek 2009 is mass rape on the entire classical star trek canon.
 
Top