Star Trek Into Darkness (2013)

[Makarov]

Saw it in 2D. This movie was just awesome. I used to think First Contact had the best villain in a trek movie, but this completely tops that.

I will say though...

[Show spoiler]
When they first showed the guy inside the torpedo, I thought it was Data and got excited.

[TheCollector]

Originally Posted by Steve Lilley

The Alice Eve shot?

Thats the one!

[agoofykindasuperman]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Saw it in 2D. This movie was just awesome. I used to think First Contact had the best villain in a trek movie, but this completely tops that.

I will say though...

[Show spoiler]
When they first showed the guy inside the torpedo, I thought it was Data and got excited.

I was hoping for some TNG references in there too! haha But not with the frozen guy.

When we first hear Benedict's voice at the beginning saying "I can save your daughter", I TOTALLY expected to see Cpt. Jean Luc Picard there, but was disappointed. lol I'm no trekkie, but TNG was the only ST series I watched on TV as a kid.

[Jumpman]

Day one purchase for me as well. Kicked me right in the ass last night. I can see the complaints and nitpicking but this film worked like gangbusters to this viewer.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Steve Lilley

He cut way, way back on lens flairs for INTO DARKNESS. There are a few notable ones, but we're talking maybe a handful or so stretched out across the whole movie.

This. JJ's first Trek movie was so overloaded with lens flares it goes beyond parody, like one of those Family Guy jokes that lasts for 5 minutes; Into Darkness has cut WAY back.

As for the film, I think it's shit. No heart, no soul, no sense of consequence, just a shallow rehash of past Trek glories. But as brainless popcorn fodder it excels, and the 15/70 IMAX version was eyeball-meltingly gorgeous.

JJ, please PLEASE PLEASE put the shifting aspect ratio version on the Blu-ray. Don't be a dick like Brad Bird was with Ghost Protocol.

[Steve Lilley]

Originally Posted by TheCollector

Thats the one!

Ha, yeah. It's super weird because it's a longer shot, and the flare is like right on the bottom of her face. Immediately stuck out to me, too.


That's like the one time in the whole movie where it's distracting at all, and it's one shot. But to be fair - it will probably be universally distracting.

[Sigma]

Originally Posted by strumdogg

Ask Simon Pegg about those who criticize lens flare:

I had no idea an actor who specializes in comic relief would be so incredibly sensitive and kinda douchey over a joke. Guess he doesn't have as much of a sense of humor as I thought.

[strumdogg]

Originally Posted by Sigma

I had no idea an actor who specializes in comic relief would be so incredibly sensitive and kinda douchey over a joke. Guess he doesn't have as much of a sense of humor as I thought.

[Underworld54]

I thought the film was terrific and the 3D was really good. It may just be one of the essential day 1 purchases in a long time.

[Sigma]

Originally Posted by strumdogg

I got my first "" response!

[Forever Knight]

Arrow season1, Iron Man 3 and Trek into Darkness in the same month = a solid september.

[Wally Q]

I never want to watch a film written by those hacky three ever again.

[i007spectre]

According to the Trek app a collectable gift set for Into Darkness will be revealed on Sunday the 19th.

[Aerodude73]

Originally Posted by Steve Lilley

Unfortunately, the "Lens Flair" part is also not true.

He cut way, way back on lens flairs for INTO DARKNESS. There are a few notable ones, but we're talking maybe a handful or so stretched out across the whole movie.

I literally left the theater going "Huh. Hardly any lens flairs."

Lol, you need to see the movie again.

Originally Posted by strumdogg

[Show spoiler]

Ask Simon Pegg about those who criticize lens flare:

LMAO - what a dick. He's obviously drinking the JJ Abrams juice.

Originally Posted by Steve Lilley

The Alice Eve shot?

Originally Posted by TheCollector

Thats the one!

Yup, that one came up FROM BELOW her face & almost blinded me.

Originally Posted by Steve Lilley

Ha, yeah. It's super weird because it's a longer shot, and the flare is like right on the bottom of her face. Immediately stuck out to me, too.

That's like the one time in the whole movie where it's distracting at all, and it's one shot. But to be fair - it will probably be universally distracting.

[Steve Lilley]

Originally Posted by Aerodude73

Lol, you need to see the movie again.

I mean, I guess we need to start here:

How many times is TOO MANY times for you? One? It's a subjective topic, so it's impossible to understand where you're coming from unless you define your tastes.

Going from "OMG lens flares all the time11!!!! lol!!11" in STAR TREK to a handful of times overall and one aforementioned really almost antagonistic one in STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS, to me, is an improvement.

As with any aesthetic choice, I don't mind it on principle and I don't even mind it a few times. To be honest, I don't really mind it that much in STAR TREK. It's just part of the look of the movie. But at the same time, I can acknowledge that it does happen quite a bit in that movie, and if you are predisposed to not like it then man are you going to have a hard time with it.

In STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS, it feels like he was doing it just enough to make the two movies feel visually similar in the way that they need to. They're still part of the same filmic universe, after all. For better or worse, he established a very distinct style with the first film. He can't just abandon it outright in the second. Just like STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS has a lot less shaky-cam than the first movie. It's still there, but in smaller doses.

But having seen the first one almost immediately before walking into a theater last night, I can tell you unequivocally: he cut back. Nobody is saying they're gone, just that there are far less of them.

[Agent Bond]

Benedict Cumberbatch is a great actor, but he 's no

[Show spoiler]Khan.

I would've enjoyed the movie better had he, you know,...played somebody else.

[Steve Lilley]

Originally Posted by Agent Bond

Benedict Cumberbatch is a great actor, but he 's no

[Show spoiler]Khan.

I would've enjoyed the movie better had he, you know., ..played somebody else.

You know, I had the same thought for different reasons. I really thought to myself a few times "... why did he sign up for this?" He doesn't really have a ton to do, save for one pretty major exception. A whole lot of his character was undoubtedly stunt persons doing crazy things. However, when I got to the abrupt "Aaaaand we're out" ending, I really felt like there had to be something huge missing for some reason, and I bet it involved him.

[Omegaice]

I guess it would be pointless to come in here & state how pleased I was with the film. Seeing how a majority of the conversation in here is about too much or too little lens flare or that the movie was just plain sh!t.

[blu-ray_girl_fan]

Originally Posted by Omegaice

I guess it would be pointless to come in here & state how pleased I was with the film. Seeing how a majority of the conversation in here is about too much or too little lens flare or that the movie was just plain sh!t.

A lot of the early reviews lean that way, with NY Times going so far as to call it "dumb".

[Omegaice]

Originally Posted by blu-ray_girl_fan

A lot of the early reviews lean that way, with NY Times going so far as to call it "dumb".

I know I read it prior to going to see it in IMAX this morning. I can honestly say that I didn't feel that way about it at all. I'm not a Star Trek "purist" by any means but I do hold Star Trek in a special place in my heart. I enjoyed it & did not feel "dumber" after watching it. This will be a day 1 buy for me just like the last one.