Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Star Trek Into Darkness

This is topic Star Trek Into Darkness in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=001948

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 05-10-2013, 08:51 PM:

I've just watched the second movie of the Star Trek semi-reboot. The presentation itself was pretty much flawless for what you might expect from a standard 2K 3D presentation. Even the RealD XL setup was doing its job right, there was almost no ghosting visible and the picture was sharp and bright.

J.J. Abrams take on Star Trek might not be every Trekkie's favorite, but I think it is still a huge improvement to where the original movie series headed.

This movie recycles many aspect from Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, in some ways it could almost be called a remake of the original.

Like many recent sci-fi action movies, it layers a lot of rather unbelievable action scenes on top of each other. If you're all to easily distracted by that, you might consider watching another movie. Still, I enjoyed watching it as it was exciting until the end. I even liked the almost slapstick-alike humor, which consisted mainly of references to the old series and movies.

The production of this movie might deserve a special note:
I don't know what the deal was and who smoked what exactly, but the movie was shot on a mix of 35mm, digital and IMAX cameras. Although I was watching the digital 3D/scope version, it was still quite visible: You have large amounts of grain in one shot, a little grain in another and no visible grain in yet another shot. No matter what the original lenses were, all shots have one thing in common: massive amounts of "anamorphic" lens flares... in 3D. Together with a huge amount of glare, this has been elevated into some kind of new art form in this movie.

Posted by Stu Jamieson (Member # 4626) on 05-11-2013, 07:21 PM:

I agree on the lens flare thing. Personally, I like lens flares, I think they're pretty cool, but in space they're cool; on the bridge of the Enterprise they're less cool; and in your face 3D-style is mega uncool! Abrams seriously needs to reign these things in, especially for 3D. Anyhow......

Star Trek: Into Darkness is directed by J.J. Abrams but you could be forgiven for thinking it was Michael Bay such is it's flagrant exuberance, melodrama and general style-over-substance schtick.

The film begins with a preposterous opener whereby the Enterprise crew are tasked with concealing their starship from a primitive indigenous population so as not to taint their destiny with objects of the future. And yet their formal mission is to save this civilisation from an entirely natural catastrophic disaster. It seems Starfleet is happy for fledgling civilisations to have a future as long as it is one of the bureaucrats choosing. That this is also the position of Mr Spock, the penultimate logician, betrays the lack of overall intelligence in the script.

The script proves it's ineptitude time and again with it's laughably hammy dialogue and signposting of events and narrative devices which will clearly play a critical part in the climax of the film. The symbolism employed throughout is similarly brick subtle - the good white Enterprise versus the evil black Enterprise, for instance.

The script is also slavishly (and unabashedly) moulded by the desire to create tension and drama. For example, the Enterprise's transporter's propensity for success seems to be determined by the dramatic tension that success (or failure) creates. On more than one occasion the transporter can't be used because it would break the tension of an action sequence and yet within minutes it is used specifically to increase the tension of the very same scenario. The reasons which govern the ability of the transporter to be used in any given moment seems mighty fickle.

Sure, such things are necessary parts of script structure and they would play just fine if only their implementation were not so bleeding obvious. The films connections to Wrath of Khan from the original franchise are entirely appropriate in this regard. (Yes, I know my dislike for that fan favourite puts me at odds with Trekkers.)

The action sequences themselves, however, are expertly handled and provide plenty of seat-of-your-pants style thrills so the film deserves worthy marks for those. And the new cast of the Enterprise are a likeable bunch if you can get over the idea of a starship crewed by adolescent minds. Overall, though, Star Trek: Into Darkness (where does that title fit in anyway?) is a major disappointment. With his previous Trek film, Abrams showed that he was capable of producing a solidly satisfying Trek adventure; a shame then that this film is entirely shadowed by its predecessor.

5 out of 10

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 05-17-2013, 03:34 PM:

CINEMA: 13th Avenue Warren, Wichita, KS
AUDITORIUM: 14
PRESENTATION: Dolby Digital Cinema 2K/Dolby 7.1 Surround/THX
PRESENTATION PROBLEMS: None [Cool]

RATING: Three stars (out of four)

Two old farts sitting in front of me...empty seat in between them...are talking loudly to each other before the show and well into the trailers. Thankfully, they shut up before the feature. One just celebrated his 45th wedding anniversary, the other noted he's been married "only 43".

Which brings up the question...When is "old fart" going to become politically incorrect? They've taken every other profile slur away us. When are we going to see "Old Fart is a hurtful term" commercials?

THE PLOT: A guy blows up an archive. Wackiness ensues.

I agree with Stu on the Michael Bay comparison. I can see why the deeply Trek faithful are upset. In fact, "Star Wars" fans should be absolutely horrified if they see this when thinking what JJ's going to do with their franchise. But in any case, I seriously enjoyed this. This was a shit ton of fun.

I really recommend seeing this without reading up on it to see how they've resurrected old material and just enjoy the silliness.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-17-2013, 03:45 PM:

quote: Sam Graham
When is "old fart" going to become politically incorrect? They've taken every other profile slur away us. When are we going to see "Old Fart is a hurtful term" commercials?

Sam - see this video (specifically, around 0:45), it will put it in perspective.

George Carlin - "Old Fuck"

Posted by Elise Brandt (Member # 5552) on 05-19-2013, 12:18 PM:

[thumbsup]

Mike, was just about to link to the same thing but didn't know how! Thanks [Big Grin]

Posted by Steven J Hart (Member # 2340) on 05-19-2013, 05:15 PM:

My wife, kids (boys aged 7 & 10) and I all enjoyed the hell out of this despite all the flaws in the story. The characters are a lot of fun - virtual reboots of the original cast, but this Kirk is much less annoying than Shatner's. The action scenes and effects are the film, so if you save any deep thinking for other movies and just enjoy the ride its great. I found the lens flares very obvious, but not too distracting - but we watched in 2D.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 05-21-2013, 07:21 PM:

I was hoping Honolulu would get a theatre with Dolby Atmos and it did when the Titan XC ihouse at Consolidated Ward Centre 16 opened STAR TRECK INTO DARKNESS with that sound system last Wednesday. I just saw the movie today and I thought Dolby Atmos is one of the best things to happen with theatre sound in a very long time. Although the sound and the 3-D was fantastic, I am sorry I cannot say the same for the movie . I though the movie did not make too much sense and I had a difficult time with it. I thought the last STAR TRECK film Abrams directed was excellent but not this one. Allthough the movie sucked in my opinion I did enjoy the excellent sound mix in Dolby Atmos

-Claude

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 05-22-2013, 12:20 PM:

quote:
STAR TRECK

I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-22-2013, 02:29 PM:

I'm quite surprised that it wasn't "Track".

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 05-22-2013, 04:49 PM:

I'm actually quite surprised you thought it wasn't Dreck [Wink]

Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 05-22-2013, 05:13 PM:

Star Wreck: In the Pirkinning

I downloaded and watched this a couple of years ago. It's surprisingly not bad (considering what it is).

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 05-27-2013, 01:13 AM:

Saw this in 70mm IMAX 3D, and I enjoyed it a lot. The story was good and well paced. The effects were great, sound was great, 3D wasn't too "in-your-face", and the 15/70 footage looked amazing as always. Good fun.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-27-2013, 12:17 PM:

Cinema: Santikos Palladium AVX, Richmond, TX (Houston suburb)
Screen: #3
Format: Barco 4K digital projection, 7.1 LPCM surround
Presentation Problems: Dialog channel badly setup or damaged.
Rating: 2.5 stars out of 4

This Star Trek installment has its entertaining moments, but is seriously flawed just like the previous movie. I won't give away much other than saying the movie-makers made some bad choices in how they chose to reuse material from the Star Trek movies of the 1980's. I rolled my eyes at a couple key scenes near the end. One scene of Captain Kirk hanging from some steel beams trying to kick a power source back into alignment was unintentionally funny. It really looked stupid.

The movie was fairly good until it got to the British actor's big character reveal. Then it got predictable and pretty silly. I think people who aren't all that familiar with the Trek movie storylines would enjoy this movie quite a bit more.

I absolutely hate the end title sequences on these new Star Trek movies. The planetary scenes are so garish and Las Vegas-like that they should have been painted onto velvet. And the rapidly changing camera moves around the CGI planets make them seem very small -like maybe the size of ping pong balls or something. Definitely not planets. Whoever is designing these sequences needs to lay off the crystal meth.

We watched this movie in a newly opened Santikos complex on the Western outskirts of Houston. The theater's six largest screens (more than 80') are equipped with Dolby Atmos. Unfortunately the Friday we visited Star Trek: Into Darkness had been moved onto smaller screens. Epic (mixed in Dolby Atmos), Hangover III (non-Atmos) and Fast & Furious 6 (non-Atmos) took over the big houses.

We watched the movie in 4K/2D in house #3. That screen was reasonably large, but sort of flat ratio, kind of curved and stretched wall to wall & floor to ceiling to mimic the IMAX Digital look. No masking. The movie was letterboxed across it. Projection was bright and sharp. But the picture would have looked better on a properly designed common height screen with masking and curtains. Note: Warren Theaters' IMAX Digital screens have curtains.

The big presentation problem: audio. It would have been pretty good if not for a badly set up or damaged center channel. The audio from the left, right, surrounds and sub-bass channels all were properly loud and dynamic. The sub-bass channel had some really good slam to it (like when the Enterprise would go to warp). If anything the rest of the channels were kind of bright (little too much treble). We had a hard time hearing the dialog. The problem was immediately present in the movie trailer pack. It didn't get any better during the movie. The dialog we were hearing seemed like it was coming out of the right channel mostly, and at a low level. Sometimes it would come more out of the left. Never from center and never at a proper volume.

I'm hoping Warren Theaters will pony up some dough for Dolby Atmos installations at their theaters. With the Moore Warren 14 getting so much news coverage from the recent EF-5 tornado strike, and the role it played being a triage center for victims, it would kind of make sense for Dolby to maybe call Warren and see what it can do for helping the theater get back to its proper form and maybe do some upgrades.

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 06-12-2013, 02:13 AM:

Saw it on a tiny screen (Auditorium 7) at Regal Perimeter Point 10 Atlanta. Movie was letterboxed with no masking on the top and bottom of a common width screen. But hey, at least the picture was bright and clear. I have had a problem at 50% of the Regal bigger screens with adequate bulb brightness in recent months. So I no longer even bother asking which screen a movie is in. I am just fed up with movie theaters and do not have the energy to pick my favorite auditoriums anymore.

In any case, I saw it in 2D. I have been a fan of the original series since I was a 6 year old kid. But let's face it, the movies made with the original cast were mostly crap with the exception of Star Trek 2 and Star Trek 6(which still had some cheesy acting by some of the supporting cast members). As movies, I think the Abrams movies are done better.

I was a little annoyed they recycled the Trek 2 plot, but the pacing of the movie was good and I still gotta say I love how they recast the series. I still can't get over how good Karl Urban is as Bones. I wish they would expand his role just a tad more.

I don't see the Bay comparisons here. What I did not care for is something afflicting most action movies these days where the amount of thrown around set pieces defy any sense of credibility. Our principals hardly get injured considering how they get fall from great heights and how they get thrown around. Also, I wish they kept the SPock romance a little more subtle.

Overall,I enjoyed the movie. The only big flaw for me was the incompetent way the bad guy would try to kill all the principal starfleet bigwigs.