Support NeoGAF

[Matt]

Meh, I'd accept that listing.

Like I said, I think it's a bottom of the barrel in terms of the franchise. That ranking and your ranking both put it in the bottom third.

Looking gorgeous isn't the mark of a good movie or Tron: Legacy would be a good movie.

What about the clip is good? It's just a standard summer blockbuster barrage to the sense.

Being gorgeous is certainly a mark against calling it badly made.

And it keeps the energy up and moving throughout the film without becoming confusing or a narrative mess, which a poorly made film would have.

You can not like it without calling it poorly made. There are lots of movies I hate that I know were made with skill.

 

[Heartfyre]

I don't think people who aren't big Trek fans/are only recent Trek fans appreciate the reasons why the old guard despise Into Darkness so much. It's such a betrayal in content and tone to many of the core tenets of the series' identity that it still raises bile to my throat whenever I torture myself by thinking about it. Seeing some of the reviews portraying Beyond as an apology of sorts gives me some enthusiasm. I look forward to seeing it!

 

[orthodoxy1095]

Being gorgeous is certainly a mark against calling it badly made.

And it keeps the energy up and moving throughout the film without becoming confusing or a narrative mess, which a poorly made film would have.

You can not like it without calling it poorly made. There are lots of movies I hate that I know were made with skill.

A mark against? Perhaps.

But that's a hallmark of JJ Abrams, beautiful, mediocre films.

 

[Matt]

I don't think people who aren't big Trek fans/are only recent Trek fans appreciate the reasons why the old guard despise Into Darkness so much. It's such a betrayal in content and tone to many of the core tenets of the series' identity that it still raises bile to my throat whenever I torture myself by thinking about it. Seeing some of the reviews portraying Beyond as an apology of sorts gives me some enthusiasm. I look forward to seeing it!

It "betrayed" it more then some of the other films? I already gave a few examples of why I think that's not the case.

It really seems like some people forget what happened in these movies.

 

[Matt]

A mark against? Perhaps.

But that's a hallmark of JJ Abrams, beautiful, mediocre films.

Sure...But they are made well. They are generally fun and full of energy. The worst of the Star Trek films are not.

 

[MHWilliams]

I don't think people who aren't big Trek fans/are only recent Trek fans appreciate the reasons why the old guard despise Into Darkness so much. It's such a betrayal in content and tone to many of the core tenets of the series' identity that it still raises bile to my throat whenever I torture myself by thinking about it. Seeing some of the reviews portraying Beyond as an apology of sorts gives me some enthusiasm. I look forward to seeing it!

I'm an old school Trek fan.

The bolded can be said about Nemesis full tilt. Nemesis is an action film wearing Star Trek's clothes. Into Darkness is largely the same, but it's a better action film.

Insurrection is boring. Final Frontier has no redeeming qualities. This is the part that is rather perplexing. It feels like people are relying on nostalgia for those characters or literally forgetting those entire films to make a vindictive point.

FF, Insurrection, and Nemesis are not good films.

 

[G-Fex]

Insurrection is the worst, I'd rank it really low

 

[Raziel]

Into Darkness isn't technically bad at all. It's biggest sin, like Force Awakens, is it re-purposed the plot of a previous movie in the series. Into Darkness had an infinitely better villain though.

 

[-griffy-]

This is not from the Star Trek film directed by the guy what did Fast and Furious movies:

 

[Matt]

I'm an old school Trek fan.

The bolded can be said about Nemesis full tilt. Nemesis is an action film wearing Star Trek's clothes. Into Darkness is largely the same, but it's a better action film.

Insurrection is boring. Final Frontier has no redeeming qualities. This is the part that is rather perplexing. It feels like people are relying nostalgia for those characters or literally forgetting those entire films to make a vindictive point.

Yep.

Did people forget about the dune buggy scene in Nemesis? One of the biggest betrayals of the Prime Directive in the whole franchise, almost certainly the biggest by main characters, and no one mentions the PD at all!?

Did people forget Kirk's crew abandoning him for no reason in V?

Did people forget the braindead, out of character reasoning for everything in Insurrection?

And the list goes on and on. ST has produced some awful movies.

 

[Heartfyre]

It "betrayed" it more then some of the other films? I already gave a few examples of why I think that's not the case.

It really seems like some people forget what happened in these movies.

Yes. Data using blue humour is hardly on the same level as demolishing The Federation and Starfleet's utopian ideals, which were rarely far from front-and-centre. Having an admiral actively wishing to destroy Starfleet is so far removed from what Star Trek stories should and have been about that I can only consider it a betrayal that the script went further than into a paper shredder.

I'm an old school Trek fan.

The bolded can be said about Nemesis full tilt. Nemesis is an action film wearing Star Trek's clothes. Into Darkness is largely the same, but it's a better action film.

Insurrection is boring. Final Frontier has no redeeming qualities. This is the part that is rather perplexing. It feels like people are relying on nostalgia for those characters or literally forgetting those entire films to make a vindictive point.

FF, Insurrection, and Nemesis are not good films.

I never implied those films are much better. Same tier. I just happen to find the earlier films' flaws easier to forgive in comparison.

Except FF. Dog-rough-gutter-trash.

 

[kharma45]

I'm sure we can all agree on this, both JJ movies have great music. The music for the opening to 2009, Enterprising Young Men and this from STID https://youtu.be/XfP6o-61e2s

 

[firehawk12]

I don't think that's true.

It is if boxofficemojo is to be believed, at around 240 million adjusted for inflation.

 

[TheXbox]

Into Darkness rules. Stupid af but that's okay because at least it functions as a movie. Can't really say that about most Trek flicks. How anyone could say ID is worse than V or the crap that came after VI is Beyond me.

 

[Matt]

Yes. Data using blue humour is hardly on the same level as demolishing The Federation and Starfleet's utopian ideals, which were rarely far from front-and-centre. Having an admiral actively wishing to destroy Starfleet is so far removed from what Star Trek stories should and have been about that I can only consider it a betrayal that the script went further than into a paper shredder.

Picard ran over Starfleet's ideals in that dune buggy well before JJ got his hands on the franchise.

And Star Trek has always delt with challenges to its ideals, the only place it hasn't was in Gene's mind. The original series had a planetary governor practice eugenics and kill off a portion of the population that didn't measure up to his standards. Sisko helped assassinate a Romulan senator in order to forment interstellar war. Janeway developed a super weapon for the Borg.

One renegade admiral in Starfleet is pretty minor in comparison.

 

[Matt]

It is if boxofficemojo is to be believed, at around 240 million adjusted for inflation.

Which would put it under '09.

 

[firehawk12]

Into Darkness rules. Stupid af but that's okay because at least it functions as a movie. Can't really say that about most Trek flicks. How anyone could say ID is worse than V or the crap that came after VI is Beyond me.

Take away the whole "they just ripped of ST2" thing aside, I think Shatner's vanity project, where Kirk is written so that he beats God, is more interesting than a 9/11 conspiracy theory allegory where an evil George Bush stand-in instigates a terrorist attack in order to try to start a war with a foreign power.

Which would put it under '09.

Ah yeah, it's 10 million higher. I forgot to check it. lol

 

[Matt]

Take away the whole "they just ripped of ST2" thing aside, I think Shatner's vanity project, where Kirk is written so that he beats God, is more interesting than a 9/11 conspiracy theory allegory where an evil George Bush stand-in instigates a terrorist attack in order to try to start a war with a foreign power.

That...Isn't the story of ID. Like, not at all. Not that the story is much better.

Also the Enterprise looks for god in the center of the universe but finds the devil has been done before in Star Trek. It wasn't original.

 

[golem]

Picard ran over Starfleet's ideals in that dune buggy well before JJ got his hands on the franchise.

And Star Trek has always delt with challenges to its ideals, the only place it hasn't was in Gene's mind. The original series had a planetary governor practice eugenics and kill off a portion of the population that didn't measure up to his standards. Sisko helped assassinate a Romulan senator in order to forment interstellar war. Janeway developed a super weapon for the Borg.

One renegade admiral in Starfleet is pretty minor in comparison.

The Starfleet ideals card is really annoying when critiquing Star Trek media. There have always been people in the UFP/Starfleet that have been hungry for power and don't give a shit about ideals. Admiral Cartwright was one of them and there is a whole group of people running around doing whatever in Section 31. Imo STID was a pretty dumb movie, but also quite watchable. I enjoyed it for what it was and no it doesnt trample all over the legacy of Star Trek.

 

[kharma45]

I've never heard anyone try to defend V before. I've now seen it all.

 

[Mifune]

Into Darkness is charmless crud. Final Frontier is most definitely crud but it has a certain creaky charm to it.

I wouldn't wish either of them on my worst enemies to be fair.

 

[Jarmel]

Take away the whole "they just ripped of ST2" thing aside, I think Shatner's vanity project, where Kirk is written so that he beats God, is more interesting than a 9/11 conspiracy theory allegory where an evil George Bush stand-in instigates a terrorist attack in order to try to start a war with a foreign power.

I think the militarization of the Federation and Starfleet did make sense as a consequnce of the events of '09. You had an entire planet destroyed. That's an even bigger event than 9/11.

In concept I think ID is fine however the execution fucks up any attempt to have a meaningful discussion about escalation or militarization. They were trying to make it relevant to a modern audience, something most good scifi strives for.

However you don't get prizes for efforts or goals.

 

[Heartfyre]

Picard ran over Starfleet's ideals in that dune buggy well before JJ got his hands on the franchise.

And Star Trek has always delt with challenges to its ideals, the only place it hasn't is in Gene's mind. The original series had a planetary governor practice eugenics and kill off a portion of the population that didn't measure up to his standards. Sisko helped assassinate a Romulan senator in order to forment interstellar war.

It's a matter of context. Picard driving a dune buggy in a light-hearted movie opening in such a way that it doesn't factor into the development of the plot of the film is far more forgivable than having the climax of the film hanging on Admiral Marcus' motives, being vapid, moronic, and poorly explained.

The challenges to utopia faced in the series in the past were always presented as conflicts between the directives of Starfleet and the needs of the moment. Never taken lightly, always aware of the consequences, morally and legal. Into Darkness just doesn't give a tribble about any of that, satisfied with being brainless from beginning to end.

 

[firehawk12]

I think the militarization of the Federation and Starfleet did make sense as a consequnce of the events of '09. You had an entire planet destroyed. That's an even bigger event than 9/11.

In concept I think ID is fine however the execution fucks up any attempt to have a meaningful discussion about escalation or militarization.

It doesn't help when that DS9 episode where Sisko assassinates the Romulan is a much more interesting version of this story anyway.

Into Darkness is charmless crud. Final Frontier is most definitely crud but it has a certain creaky charm to it.

I wouldn't wish either of them on my worst enemies to be fair.

"What does God need with a starship?"

That line and the camping scene make the rest of the film, from naked Uhura to horny Scotty, somewhat bearable. Not that'd I'd want to watch V again any time soon.

 

[MHWilliams]

I've never heard anyone try to defend V before. I've now seen it all.

Color me shocked as well. People digging deep to find anything good to say about it.

 

[Matt]

It's a matter of context. Picard driving a dune buggy in a light-hearted movie opening in such a way that it doesn't factor into the development of the plot of the film is far more forgivable than having the climax of the film hanging on Admiral Marcus' motives, being vapid, moronic, and poorly explained.

The challenges to utopia faced in the series in the past were always presented as conflicts between the directives of Starfleet and the needs of the moment. Never taken lightly, always aware of the consequences, morally and legal. Into Darkness just doesn't give a tribble about any of that, satisfied with being brainless from beginning to end.

Marcus had just seen one of the founding planets of the Federation destroyed, and Earth just barely saved. Thinking "we may need to be more militaristic" as a result is actually very understandable. Wrong, of course, but it's not out of nowhere.

Picard suddenly deciding he doesn't give a fuck about the PD, and is fine murdering people in order to drive his fancy new car around is an actual betrayal of everything he had ever said before.

 

[Jarmel]

Something I think ID fucked up and was crucial to the film as a whole was the characters. I didn't feel Kirk progressed as an individual which screws up the entire film. Now if the movie had oriented heavily around Spock, that might have worked as a companion piece to '09 in that '09 was about Kirk's development and ID was about Spock's but the movie puts too much effort and focus around Kirk while not really doing anything noteworthy with it besides retreading the same ground.

 

[twobear]

STID is fine honestly. I've seen it 2 or 3 times and it's certainly not the unwatchable garbage that some people here are calling it. I'd certainly rate it above any of the TNG movies besides First Contact, as well as V easily and III at a push. It might not be a good Star Trek movie but those movies are just boring, unwatchable crap.

 

[MHWilliams]

Something I think ID fucked up and was crucial to the film as a whole was the characters. I didn't feel Kirk progressed as an individual which screws up the entire film. Now if the movie had oriented heavily around Spock, that might have worked as a companion piece to '09 in that '09 was about Kirk's development and ID was about Spock's but the movie puts too much effort and focus around Kirk while not really doing anything noteworthy with it besides retreading the same ground.

I mean, I don't think ID is great by any stretch of the imagination, outside of general direction and cinematography. That's why it's near the bottom part of my list.

What I protest is this odd lionization of FF, Nemesis, and Insurrection.

 

[kharma45]

STID is fine honestly. I've seen it 2 or 3 times and it's certainly not the unwatchable garbage that some people here are calling it. I'd certainly rate it above any of the TNG movies besides First Contact, as well as V easily and III at a push. It might not be a good Star Trek movie but those movies are just boring, unwatchable crap.

If STID hadn't tried to do a very poor homage to the Spock death from WOK I think we'd see a lot kinder views on it. That was the real stinker decision from it.

 

[Jarmel]

If STID hadn't tried to do a very poor homage to the Spock death from WOK I think we'd see a lot kinder views on it. That was the real stinker decision from it.

It was a really well shot and well acted scene though.


But yea that was the icing on the shit cake.

 

[firehawk12]

Something I think ID fucked up and was crucial to the film as a whole was the characters. I didn't feel Kirk progressed as an individual which screws up the entire film. Now if the movie had oriented heavily around Spock, that might have worked as a companion piece to '09 in that '09 was about Kirk's development and ID was about Spock's but the movie puts too much effort and focus around Kirk while not really doing anything noteworthy with it besides retreading the same ground.

I think what makes it even worse is that they didn't even have the balls to go all the way with the ripoff and just kill off Kirk. I'm not saying I would have wanted "Search for Kirk" to be the follow up movie, but the movie just ends with "oh hey magic blood that cures death" and it makes his sacrifice kind of pointless.

I mean, I don't think ID is great by any stretch of the imagination, outside of general direction and cinematography.

What I protest is this odd lionization of FF, Nemesis, and Insurrection.

I can't speak for anyone else, but ID reminded me that there's 5 minutes of ST5 that I do actually like. It's basically the last time you have a quiet moment between the three main characters.

 

[kharma45]

It was a really well shot and well acted scene though.


But yea that was the icing on the shit cake.

Bar the Khan scream from Spock, it's very cringe.

 

[Jarmel]

Bar the Khan scream from Spock, it's very cringe.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-bMLs-ceP5o

I thought the Khan scream was the worst part of it. Pine put in work.

 

[twobear]

If STID hadn't tried to do a very poor homage to the Spock death from WOK I think we'd see a lot kinder views on it. That was the real stinker decision from it.

Yes, willfully comparing it to Wrath of Khan was a mistake, and honestly, is probably what's causing a lot of the stinkeye from Trekkies.

 

[Heartfyre]

Marcus had just seen one of the founding planets of the Federation destroyed, and Earth just barely saved. Thinking "we may need to be more militaristic" as a result is actually very understandable. Wrong, of course, but it's not out of nowhere.

Picard suddenly deciding he doesn't give a fuck about the PD, and is fine murdering people in order to drive his fancy new car around is an actual betrayal of everything he had ever said before.

I get the impression that you're playing a bit of Devil's Advocate here and that you don't like Into Darkness much more than I do, but I'll say this: Star Trek has had a lot of different writers and directors in its long history, and it couldn't possibly be consistent across so many productions. Overall, I'd not rank any of the highs of the films over the highs of the TV series, and, unfortunately, the same is true of the lows. Into Darkness, being the most-recent Star Trek thing until this month, took the series in a direction I despised, and seeing these reviews, it appears that my concerns have been addressed in the next one. I can continue with my life, trying to block out as much of that film as possible, and hope to Christ they move on from the Kelvin Timeline sooner rather than later, since if it threatens to spawn something like Admiral Marcus and his translucent ideals again, it'll just do more harm than good to the series as a whole.

 

[Baroquemantic]

I knew this was going to be great.

 

[Xe4]

I'm so happy to see this. I hope it's better than the wrath of kahn into darkness, as that got good reviews as well. Still, really looking forward to it.

 

[Matt]

I get the impression that you're playing a bit of Devil's Advocate here and that you don't like Into Darkness much more than I do, but I'll say this: Star Trek has had a lot of different writers and directors in its long history, and it couldn't possibly be consistent across so many productions. Overall, I'd not rank any of the highs of the films over the highs of the TV series, and, unfortunately, the same is true of the lows. Into Darkness, being the most-recent Star Trek thing until this month, took the series in a direction I despised, and seeing these reviews, it appears that my concerns have been addressed in the next one. I can continue with my life, trying to block out as much of that film as possible, and hope to Christ they move on from the Kelvin Timeline sooner rather than later, since if it threatens to spawn something like Admiral Marcus and his translucent ideals again, it'll just do more harm than good to the series as a whole.

Nope, not really playing devil's advocate. I don't think ID is great, and I was pretty disappointed in it, but I do feel it's a better film than TMP, V, Generations, Insurrection, and Nemesis. It fits into the middle level with III and First Contact.

What I am confused by in your response, and I actually am confused not trying to be argumentative is that: Marcus was one of the bad guys. The movie wasn't about him being right, or Starfleet's entire modus operandi changing. Marcus was in the wrong, that was made clear.

So is your problem that no one like Marcus should exist in Star Trek's future, period? Because if so I can't agree. First of all, we already had a story of a Starfleet admiral trying to take control in order to protect the Federation in DS9's Homefront/Paradise Lost. So this wasn't new territory for the franchise. Secondly, this "everyone in the future is perfect and there are no conflicts" idea of "drama" that Gene had is generally regarded as boring and awful, and Star Trek was better off when he got his hands away from the franchise.

Do you disagree?

 

[JdFoX187]

It's always funny how Star Trek threads always start off about the new movie, but end up with an ongoing debate over the quality of Into Darkness before devolving further into a series of lists ranking the films. It's like poetry.

 

[Saucycarpdog]

Kralls design looks so generic and uninteresting.

Yes yes I know that Star Trek aliens have always been like this because the old TV series had a TV budget and they want to stay true to spirit of the old series but it's 2016. I think the alien girl has a way better design in comparison.

/rant

 

[Dash_Riprock]

It's always funny how Star Trek threads always start off about the new movie, but end up with an ongoing debate over the quality of Into Darkness before devolving further into a series of lists ranking the films. It's like poetry.

Eh its the same with Star Wars threads, and don't even get me started with how EVERY SINGLE comic movie thread devolves into hating on AoU, IM3, and of course, Thor 2: The Dark World.

 

[Schlorgan]

It's always funny how Star Trek threads always start off about the new movie, but end up with an ongoing debate over the quality of Into Darkness before devolving further into a series of lists ranking the films. It's like poetry.

It's like poetry, it rhymes.

Got my tickets for Saturday. I always had hope for it since I found out Pegg was co-writing (more since I found out that Kurtzman and Orci weren't writing it). Glad to hear it turned out good. I think it has a good chance of doing better financially than the last two with good word-of-mouth.

If this does well for Paramount, I just want them to give Lin Transformers.

 

[Scoops]

My list:

"Legendary Tier"

1. Wrath of Khan

"Great Tier"

2. Undiscovered Country
3. First Contact
4. Star Trek (2009)
5. The Voyage Home

"Good/Watchable Tier"

6. Search for Spock
7. Into Darkness

"Should've been an Episode/Meh tier"

8. Nemesis
9. Generations
10. Insurrection
11. The Motion Picture

"Dog dung tier"

12. Final Frontier

 

[User 479360]

Better than expected to be honest.

For some reason, I just can't muster up any excitement for this thing. I'm not a Trekker, granted, but I enjoyed the first film and thought the second was solid.

 

[Future Foundation]

It's always funny how Star Trek threads always start off about the new movie, but end up with an ongoing debate over the quality of Into Darkness before devolving further into a series of lists ranking the films. It's like poetry.

Is there a Star Trek Cycle (like the Kanye Cycle)? Because if not, a case could be made for it.

If this does well for Paramount, I just want them to give Lin Transformers.

This might be as close as we get to a FF/Transformers crossover, and I'm with it.

 

[Matt]

My list:

"Legendary Tier"

1. Wrath of Khan

"Great Tier"

2. Undiscovered Country
3. First Contact
4. Star Trek (2009)
5. The Voyage Home

"Good/Watchable Tier"

6. Search for Spock
7. Into Darkness

"Should've been an Episode/Meh tier"

8. Nemesis
9. Generations
10. Insurrection
11. The Motion Picture

"Dog dung tier"

12. Final Frontier

Pretty close to mine, except FC is a tier too high. Can someone explain their love of that one to me?

 

[Schlorgan]

This might be as close as we get to a FF/Transformers crossover, and I'm with it.

I think he'd do a much better job than Bay ever could.

 

[shintoki]

Loving these reviews. Some seem to be holding that it is more like an episode of the classic show against it, but after ID. I feel like that is exactly what they need. A fun adventure.

Based Lin.

 

[Timu]

At what point does RT post the review "consensus"?

Normally a few days later.