Thursday, December 06, 2012
Star Trek: Into Darkness Trailer
So yeah, it's a terrorist madman...out for vengeance. How disappointing...
award-winning creator of Enter The House Between and author of 32 books including Horror Films FAQ (2013), Horror Films of the 1990s (2011), Horror Films of the 1980s (2007), TV Year (2007), The Rock and Roll Film Encyclopedia (2007), Mercy in Her Eyes: The Films of Mira Nair (2006),, Best in Show: The Films of Christopher Guest and Company (2004), The Unseen Force: The Films of Sam Raimi (2004), An Askew View: The Films of Kevin Smith (2002), The Encyclopedia of Superheroes on Film & Television (2004), Exploring Space:1999 (1997), An Analytical Guide to TV's Battlestar Galactica (1998), Terror Television (2001), Space:1999 - The Forsaken (2003) and Horror Films of the 1970s (2002).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
60 Years Ago: Goldfinger (1964) and the Perfect Bond Movie Model
Unlike many film critics, I do not count Goldfinger (1964) as the absolute “best” James Bond film of all-time. You can check out my rankin...
-
Last year at around this time (or a month earlier, perhaps), I posted galleries of cinematic and TV spaceships from the 1970s, 1980s, 1... -
The robots of the 1950s cinema were generally imposing, huge, terrifying, and of humanoid build. If you encountered these metal men,...
Ugh. I guess the whole "explore strange new worlds, seek out new life and new civilizations,and boldly go where no one has gone before" thing is too quaint and old fashioned for our dark, cynical world of today.
ReplyDeleteHi Neal,
DeleteIt certainly looks that way.
It has always been easier to destroy than to create, and I guess it's easier to make a movie about destruction than something uplifting or inspiring.
But I would argue that audiences need to be inspired now, more than ever. Star Trek could differentiate itself from other franchises by staying true to its identity; its inspiring identity.
But as you note, dark cynical times apparently demand dark, cynical Star Trek movies.
I am really, really glum about this...
best,
John
John, if you check out the slightly longer Japanese trailer, you'll see some extra shots at the end, one of whick will look VERY familiar... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrHlQUXFzfw
ReplyDeleteI just saw that! It looks like they are going for some symmetry between Star Trek II and Star Trek Reboot II, right down to a major character death.
DeleteI wonder...
One's thing for sure, we'll have a lot to speculate about through May 2013...
best,
John
John, I agree with you both regarding this STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS movie trailer. Another Khan or Gary Mitchell. This trailer feels generic, not Star Trek...to boldy go where no man has gone before, too dark. We always seem to have to have a Darth Vader like villian in Star Trek films. However, sometimes to does work in Star Trek, i.e., Wrath of Khan. I hope that the next tralier will be more, maybe Kirk going to the "war zone" will be the exploring part.
ReplyDeleteSGB
Hi SGB,
DeleteIt feels very generic, or "hollow" as SFF said. I hope as we learn more, we see that the film has more depth than these teaser trailer videos suggest.
best,
John
I have to say that I think the depression about Star Trek Into Darkness is premature. Some of the best Star Trek episodes centered around extremely powerful individuals, often supremely powered, and the way the crew got around them (which was not often by brawn alone). The movie may be going dark as many movies do in their set up. Show off the power of the villain and just how much the odds are stacked against the heroes only to have them ultimately triumph. I contend, though, that it's how they triumph that is important here.
ReplyDeleteIt seemed to me TNG took the approach of going action and then going deep with the next movie, but those approaches did turn out fairly odd. The fact that ST movies rely a lot on threatening Earth has been cliche for awhile; the threat heading towards Earth that the crew must stop is definitely played out. Having Earth already heavily compromised or conquered (or nearly so) is at least more variation than we've been getting.
I'd like to see another Trek movie out in space dealing with new races, but that does look like something we'll have to wait on. We'll have a longer trailer in a week or two, so maybe we'll have more hope then.
Hi Matthew,
DeleteI agree with you that the jury is still out. I hope that my fears are wrong. I'll be the first to say so, if that's the case. I would be very happy to be wrong in this situation.
But my fears are -- we now know -- not wrong about at least one thing: the driving impetus of the villain is revenge. And we have just seen that as Nero's driving impulse.
I agree with you that Star Trek can focus on powerful, dangerous individuals and grave threats. But how many times in 79 episodes did the episodes concern revenge as the driving impulse?
This is a big universe, and there are a lot of reasons why someone could do something terrible.
To use revenge again -- after using it in 2009 -- is a sign of creative desperation, if you ask me.
Great comment!
best,
John
Honestly, though, a Trek film hewing closer to the original principles of the show wouldn't make for a very entertaining or gripping film, certainly not as a summer tentpole. That's better done in a serial format. I think that Abrams has done a fantastic job in reigniting interest in the franchise and it was a gutsy move to recast the original crew, and he did a great job.
ReplyDeleteHi Tony,
DeleteWhy wouldn't the Doomsday Machine, or the Obsession creature, or The Immunity Syndrome Amoeba, or the Organian Peace Treaty, or some combination of those stories, make for an entertaining or gripping movie?
I understand what you are saying, and I agree with you that Abrams did a fantastic job with casting the crew. I give him lots of credit for Trek 2009. I reviewed it very positively.
But why do we have to see another villain just out for revenge, AGAIN?
There are other, better villainous motivations out there than revenge. The Klingons want more territory, for instance, and are willing to start wars to get it. That at least isn't a "revenge" story.
Dr. Korby believes that organic life-forms are polluting or destroying the universe, and that his androids could replace key figures and set the galaxy right. Why isn't that a great premise for a summer tentpole movie?
I'm just intensely disappointed that, immediately following the revenge-hungry Nero (who immediately followed the revenge-hungry Shinzon...), we're getting Revenge Hungry Cumberbatch villain.
Great comment!
Best,
John
In the trailer it looks like that is a federation starship crashing and it has the 1701 rising up out of the ocean.
ReplyDeleteSGB
Today December 6th the Star Trek into Darkness trailer is released a day before the 1979 release of Star Trek The Motion Picture December 7th.
ReplyDeleteSGB
That's right! TMP premiered December 7th, 1979....
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGood grief... There wasn't a singular thing I enjoyed in that trailer. There wasn't a scene I really look forward to seeing [except for maybe the crashing ship on a special effects level but that's it].
DeleteYou can only hope they are holding back the best parts of the film for a future trailer [as they so often do], but that is generally depressing.
So now I have this to look forward to along with four more years of this President. Good grief Charlie Brown... Politics and popular culture are descending into darkness indeed.
BTW, have you seen the Japanese trailer, it even suggests the final moments of Kirk and Spock at the glass as Spock dies in the The Wrath Of Khan. It may be purely speculative and that brief image could be completely deceptive, but if it is an alternate re-tread of a sort it would further disappoint for that reason. But your driving point about revenge is the singular most unexciting and boring aspect of the the film's ideas should the story not execute well.
I had to re-submit with a few minor spelling corrections. Darn auto-correct!
I'm wondering how much of this storyline was demanded by Paramount who knew that "Star Trek II" was one of the most popular and well received of the original films. They wanted a Khan revisit. They wanted a mirror story (and with the reset time line you could have it). They wanted a guaranteed blockbuster.
ReplyDeleteI wonder how much leeway Abrams and Co were actually given. Paramount has given the creators of Star Trek some pretty wonky guidelines in the past. I wouldn't surprise me if this was one of them.
Interesting enough point roman.
ReplyDeleteBy the way John and company, if Dark Knight Rises and Star Trek Into Darkness isn't dark enough you'll also get a third dose of dark with Thor The Dark World. Ugh.
Relax folks. It's just a trailer. I will admit John's got a point, and assuming it's about revenge, it's a bit redundant, but other than that, we know almost nothing. I remember when the first stills from the original reboot came out and fans were howling about how it looked like a picture from an Abercrombie and Fitch catalog. There were no shortage of derisive comments of how shallow and annoying the reboot would undoubtedly be. Well, at least in my opinion, it ended up being enormously entertaining. Despite the fact he looked like he did in fact come from an A&F catalog, Chris Pine made a terrific Kirk. The rest of the cast was solid.
ReplyDeleteJohn makes a solid point, but it's one that, even if it comes to pass, it will end up being a missed opportunity rather than a reason to dislike the movie itself. The movie will stand or fall on its own merits, and we won't know what those are for quite a while now.
Hi BT,
DeleteI agree with you. I'm not ready to write off the movie yet.
But I do feel its upper range in terms of quality has been, essentially decapitated.
In other words, as I've said before, Star Trek Into Darkness may be the greatest revenge movie ever made.
But it will still be about revenge. That caps expectations and heights, as far as I'm concerned.
The special effects could be wonderful and the acting fantastic, but at a narrative level, we're still going where Wrath of Khan, Insurrection, Nemesis and Trek 09 already went.
I really do feel this kneecaps the movie. I'll still be in line to see it the first day, and hoping for the best.
But the revenge aspect is enormously disappointing. It's a regurgitation of what we've already seen in many, many Trek films.
I'm afraid the times of the blockbuster leave Star Trek no route of escape on the big screen. I never watched this stuff because there were spectacular action acenes, self contained comedy sequences for cheap laughs and certainly not because there were evil villains twirling their moustaches while destroying something for some reasons. However these are the demands of a zillion dollar movie and the authors have written exactly this kind of trash throughout their careers, why should they suddenly come up with something better?
ReplyDeleteThe classic films managed to avoid these pitfalls pretty well, Kruge is admittedly a cardboard villain, Final Frontier picks up too many cheap gags, but beyond that there's ironically only Khan as potential cliche who however successfully lives on the screen by his charisma. When the TNG era arrived, digital effects and their "benefits" for storytelling came in at the same time and while Generations is still an interesting though obviously failed high concept film, already the super villain and the threat to a planet creep in. First Contact also dangerously toys with the superfluous concept of a villain, the Borg Queen and again it's about destroying the world, but the surrounding elements are strong enough though the scene on the deflector dish is - as spectacular as it may be - already a hint of gratuitous actions scenes to come. With Insurrection begins the unavoidable decline into evil villain/action/comedy territory and Abrams finally sheds even the pretense of having any ambitions or doing Star Trek - except in name with characters who sound vaguely familiar.
There really isn't anything to look forward to for a Trek fan because under Abrams there's just an empty shell left. As for the revenge theme ... I hope these hacks manage at least a plausible reason for revenge. In Nemesis the villain was created and massively abused by the Romulans and he plans revenge on the Federation (?), in the 2009er film Spock tries to help the Romulans, fails and Nero wants to destroy the Federation (?). Can't the authors at least manage to write some basic motivations and situations?
Armin,
DeleteYou make some excellent points, so far as the revenge not really making sense in either Nemesis or the 2009 movie.
Star Trek Into Darkness may be visually-gorgeous, even stunning. It may have wonderful moments, but like I said, we have to "cap" expectations now that we know it is ANOTHER revenge story.
How many revenge stories does one franchise need? There are so many other motivations for conflict. It's just ridiculous that the writers can't come up with a new idea.
So disappointing.
You accurately reflect why I'm fine about the new series but just don't see it necessarily as Star Trek. I have my doubt about Abrams and company too. I have my reservations with them. I've yet to see something I've loved by the man save for that lost pilot. So I guess I have.
ReplyDeleteBut I do have my reservations about the whole thing.
You also capture some of the uses with the films. And in many ways your opening line about covers it. But I will definitely see it. I'm sure I'll enjoy aspects of it like any fast food meal. Just my gut feeling about it.
It's just not the star trek I loved and that's fine. I ave enjoyed the thread and the conversation by contributors here. Cheers.