Excerpts From First Overseas Reviews Of Star Trek Into Darkness | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Excerpts From First Overseas Reviews Of Star Trek Into Darkness April 28, 2013

by Geri Schear , Filed under: Star Trek Into Darkness , trackback

The Star Trek Into Darkness movie opens on May 17th in North America (and May 9th in the UK, Australia, German and some other countries). The film has had two gala premiere so far and a handful of reviews have come out of Australia. There aren’t enough reviews yet to form a consensus, but we have compiled some spoiler-free comments from the early reviews below.

 

EARLY INTO DARKNESS REVIEWS

Although it will not open in the US until May 17th, a handful of journalists from Australia have already posted their “Star Trek into Darkness” reviews. So far it is just a handful and the big newspapers and entertainment TV shows have yet to weigh in. There really are too few to form a consensus (only one of the early reviews is linked by review aggregators Rotten Tomatoes and Meta Critic). So far early press response is mostly positive, but there are some mixed as well. But there are perhaps some themes emerging in some of these early reviews. Below are are some of the things being said about Star Trek Into Darkness:

Be advised that while each of the reviews is spoiler-free, the same cannot be said of the comments that follow the articles. Proceed with caution.

Another Abrams action-packed thrill-ride tied to Star Trek history

If there is any universal agreement it is that Star Trek Into Darkness continues the energy of the 2009 Star Trek film and faithfulness to the series that was its inspiration.

“Fantastic fun: a two-hours-plus blockbuster that doesn’t bog down in exposition or sag in the middle. There are reversals and rug-pulls galore, most of them executed with whiplash skill.” Though they go on to admit, “Trouble is, at a certain point peril-fatigue starts to creep in, putting the story (like the overtaxed Enterprise) at the risk of burning out.”  – 4 Stars (out of 5)
Total Film (UK)

“Star Trek Into Darkness” is a hell of a lot of fun, maintaining such constant velocity that by the time you’ve half-formed a criticism in your head it’s swept away by the next plot-twist or action sequence. It still has that urgency that made the first film so appealing, those big, optimistic messages of right vs wrong in a world at war.”
IGN (UK)

Into Darkness is more of what we saw in 2009. It’s a riveting action-adventure in space, complete with interpersonal relationships. The bro-mance between Kirk and Spock is in full force here. Grown men cry. And yes, it looks like a JJ Abrams film."
3 News NZ

Star Trek Into Darkness really is one of the best looking sci-fi movies of our time. It’s more spectacular, more beautiful, more action-packed than just about anything I have seen in recent memory. It was always going to be difficult to follow-up the perfectly rebooted universe of Star Trek with a sequel, but JJ Abrams has raised the table stakes once again for every director looking to make a decent sci-fi.
Gizmodo Australia

CumberLove

Also uniformly praised is Benedict Cumberbatch as John Harrison, for example…

“It’s with John Harrison that the film truly ignites. The narrative weaves around him like a weasel, teasing us with his ambiguous loyalties and indeed, his ambiguous identity…" “Cumberbatch himself has never been better. While he’s proven his ability at volatile emotional-detachment with his role in ‘Sherlock,’ he is, here, a true snake; an expressionless, sliver of a man whose mask only slips when he lunges for his prey. The Enterprise crew look trivial against him, their uniforms retro and goofy against his men’s magazine sleekness. Even Spock, quite the regal figure, looks small next to him."
IGN (UK)

Too much Star Trek? Too American?

It’s not all love for Into Darkness, however. For some reviewers the film was too, well, Star Trek for their taste. Blake Howard from Graffitiwithpunctuation (who admits he is no fan of the franchise still gave the film a healthy 3.5 out of 5 stars), however he had some quibbles (laced with hope for the future)…

“I missed essential references that were transforming some of the more mediocre scenes into significant signposts for fans.”

“This isn’t the franchise defining ‘middle’ picture that this reviewer was hoping it to be. It’s not the Empire Strikes Back of an Abrams trilogy; and consequently it didn’t quite hit the emotional crescendo of that kind of film…Star Trek Into Darkness isn’t ready to stretch to the unknown pockets of the universe just yet; instead it relishes in the evolution of the key characters in the wake of their defining challenge. It’s a rousing adventure and Abrams has laid the platform for a healthy and long lasting franchise.”
Graffitiwithpunctuation (Australia)

The most unenthusiastic review came from Time Out Australia whose Nick Dent awarded the film a mere 2 (out of 5) stars. Dent’s concerns seem to go beyond just fan-service to the political, specifically with regard to the themes of the film, which he deemed too American, writing…

“Hard-core Trekkies will wet their jumpsuits at the return of friends and foes from the series’ distant past but there’s a sense of been-there, done-that about the proceedings. Exploring the universe with an open mind will have to wait for the next film; this one’s just another playback of America’s obsession with domestic terrorism.”
Time Out (Australia)

Bottom Line: Still Too Early To Tell But (Mostly) Positive So Far

It is too early to say there is a consensus as there is only a handful of reviews out there now but an early theme seems to be that Star Trek Into Darkness is a film for people who love Star Trek or action-adventure films. However, the major outlets (Guardian UK, New York Times, Entertainment Weekly, etc.) have yet to weigh in so the consensus can change over time.

TrekMovie will continue to monitor overseas reviews as the film premieres work their way to North America.

EDITOR’S NOTE: TrekMovie.com First Review Coming May 10.

An update from an earlier post regarding TrekMovie review of Star Trek Into Darkness. As of now TrekMovie’s review of Into Darkness is set to go up on May 10th, which is the embargo date for USA-based outlets (as the film opens wide in North America on May 17th). If Paramount changes its rules then TrekMovie will post a review as soon as allowable.

 

WARNING: SPOILER COMMENT POLICY

If an article is spoiler-free then no comments with spoilers are allowed

For articles with spoilers, comments can discuss spoilers as mentioned in the article.

Violating these rules or discussing potential spoilers not posted at TrekMovie.com and/or linking to other spoilers will result in deletion and instant ban (No Warnings).

Comments

1. RoddenberryRecruit1701 - April 28, 2013

Still, the following fundamental questions remain:

WHO IS JOHN HARRISON?

WHAT IS HIS SIGNIFICANCE AND OBJECTIVE?

HOW CLOSER TO “CAPTAIN” IS JAMES T. KIRK? HOW IS HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH THE REST OF THE CREW?

IS THIS THE END OF THE ORIGINAL ENTERPRISE?

WHAT HAS BECOME OF THE VULCAN RACE?

WHERE WILL THE CAST BE HEADING NEXT?

2. NCC-73515 - April 28, 2013

Will you collect fan reviews?

3. Gilberto - April 28, 2013

So far, so good!

4. Jipeman - April 28, 2013

“Too Star Trek” AND action packed?! Sounds good to me!

5. Anthony Pascale - April 28, 2013

Roddenberry recruit NO ALL CAPS as it is annoying. What you have to say isn’t more important than others

RE: Fan reviews
Once film opens wide we will open fan review section like with 2009. Still debating on if it will open for European dates or May 15 after fan sneaks.

6. Ahmed - April 28, 2013

Seem that the movie is getting mostly good reviews so far which is an encouraging sign, not that bad reviews will stop me from going, mind you ;)

7. Tyr - April 28, 2013

Ugh

8. Commodore Redshirt - April 28, 2013

Nothing I read hear raises a warning flag so I’m still excited.

9. The Sinfonian - April 28, 2013

Dent hasn’t done his homework. Worse, his “America’s obsession with domestic terrorism” line is particularly NASTY, especially written so soon after the Boston Marathon Massacre. Were I his editor…. I’d point out to him that many Australians were killed in a terrorist attack not that long ago on the Indonesian island popular for Aussie vacations.
.
Considering Bob Orci’s Cuban and Mexican bona fides, a cast which includes Latina Zoe Saldana, Kiwi Karl Urban, Brits Simon Pegg, Benedict Cumberbatch, and Alice Eve, Russian-born… anyway… Gene Roddenberry would be utterly pleased that even a Star Trek film has quite an international component both on the production, and the casting sides.
.
Looking forward to May 15, 3D IMAX day! We’re doing the ‘sneak’ on the first evening of our three-day Amusement Park Physics Day Physics Road Show presentations, and we’re all excited that the release date falls again so perfectly for us, as it did in 2009. :)

10. mhansen0207 - April 28, 2013

So far so good. When the biggest criticism so far is that it’s too “Star Trek”….well….I fail to see the problem.

11. Dunsel Report - April 28, 2013

Looking forward to the movie, but, #9, I would suggest that his comment is more in the spirit of saying that it’s sad we Americans now spend more time dreaming of terror attacks rather than conquering space.

When Trek came out we were headed into space, but now with the shuttle program closed, the only thing infinite anymore is the detention of Guantanamo inmates.

12. Aix - April 28, 2013

CumberLove just makes his character even more intriguing!!!

13. porthoses bitch - April 28, 2013

Ya’know if it were presented in sock puppet form I’d be tnere.

14. Ryan - April 28, 2013

Too much Star Trek? Isn’t that like saying there’s too much squid in the calamari? It’s such a stupid criticism.

15. Michael Hall - April 28, 2013

Unfortunately, the bulk of the reviews so far suggest a film with a style and {lack of} substance reminiscent of its predecessor. I understand that the bulk of the posters here will have no problem with that, but for me it’s not good news. Yes, I was indeed hoping for something akin to THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK of this reboot trilogy, and if the film doesn’t deliver will sadly regard it as just another wasted opportunity no matter how many one-liners Chris Pine gets off or how much digital gee-whiz the artists at ILM managed to cobble together.

Still, I continue to hope. Roberto Orci may have a hard time believing it, but I do very much want to like this movie.

16. boborci - April 28, 2013

14. HAHA!

Can imagine Bones saying something like that!

17. Borjy - April 28, 2013

2 out of 5? What the…

18. George Zip - April 28, 2013

#1 — I was waiting for a “TUNE IN NEXT WEEK — SAME TREK TIME, SAME TREK CHANNEL!”

19. Anthony Pascale - April 28, 2013

I think some people are unclear on the whole talking about spoilers and talking about sites reporting spoilers thing. This includes alluding to spoilers, talking about talking about spoilers. Don’t try and get cute about it, don’t spoil the movie for other people period!

please re-read the spoiler policy above.

20. Jamesingeneva - April 28, 2013

Haha, subtle hint embedded In there them reviews lol…

Still wish there had been an arg or acknowledgement that there wouldn’t be one. Oh well.

21. porthoses bitch - April 28, 2013

Regarding the reviewer….Have never understood the great love for TESB, I love the stuff on Hoth but it changes after that. Maybe I was just at the age (21). It’s just smug.

Just turned off FX’s “superhero marathon” and put in Superman II, so you have to excuse me the battle for Metropolis is about to start.

22. bmar - April 28, 2013

Boborci – are you on the ’round the world jaunt with the rest of the gang? Tell us of your adventures…

23. Steve-nyc - April 28, 2013

This is going to be an exciting movie — surely one of the 2 or 3 best we’ve ever seen. Anyone who exposes (real or even decoy) spoilers here are jerks.

24. John from Cincinnati - April 28, 2013

Just as I thought. The most negative reviews came from non-Trekker critics complaining about the villain and Trek’s past. Keep in mind, these are people who never liked the franchise to begin with. Who gives a flying hoot what they think? They’re also in the minority.

25. Nony - April 28, 2013

Apologies, Anthony, I didn’t think my comment counted as being spoilery. I was just concerned over the movie getting bad word of mouth from some quarters. I will be more careful (if I’m not banned).

26. Schultz - April 28, 2013

“Be advised that while each of the reviews is spoiler-free, the same cannot be said of the comments that follow the articles. Proceed with caution.”

Good that I’ve blocked disqus & Co.

I haven’t seen it yet—just 1 1/2 weeks to go—, but from reading these reviews, and from my experience with ST09 and other Abrams-directed films, STID will probably be 3 out of 5. :)

PS: I want a new round of TV Trek.

27. Ran - April 28, 2013

@ 15

Were you really expecting something like TESB? This is JJ and crew, where everything is about the style and none about substance.

28. porthoses bitch - April 28, 2013

It’s not a secret that I’m a big fan of STTMP, and I can remember saying then that no movie reviewer is going to like a movie based on a “failed” TV series. I was pretty much proven right. Reviewers shouldnt let opinions (and expectations) cloud their judgement.

29. Ryan - April 28, 2013

That’s the second time I’ve made Bob laugh. I think I deserve some free tickets or something ; )

30. Red Dead Ryan - April 28, 2013

Nick Dent’s criticisms were over the top and totally insensitive. The guy should be embarrassed with himself.

#24.

I totally agree.

#21.

“The Empire Strikes Back” ranks as not only one of the greatest sequels ever made, but as one of the greatest movies ever, period. It’s an utter classic. The best of the whole saga.

31. porthoses bitch - April 28, 2013

@30 I remember leaving TESB totally pissed at the “cliffhanger” ending. Maybe in ’80 I was still smarting from the general reaction to STTMP. Funny TWOK didn’t leave me that way. Maybe it’s that Nick Meyer killed Spock and the Genisis planet sequence was an after thought.

32. WillH85 - April 28, 2013

I don’t think we can really expect any kind of Star Trek involving exploration unless it’s on TV. If they made a Trek movie about exploration, chances are only Trekkies would go see it and that wouldn’t result in a large box office at all. I’m still hoping that Trek returns to TV and in the hands of someone that can make a great Star Trek and a great TV show.

33. Curious Cadet - April 28, 2013

IGN’s review is telling:

“by the time you’ve half-formed a criticism in your head it’s swept away by the next plot-twist or action sequence.”

It basically says there’s a lot to pick apart, but like the first film, it rolls by so fast it’s hard to remember what it was by the time it’s all over. I suppose this is like a good magic trick, as long as the trick pays off, it doesn’t matter how much slight of hand is required to distract the viewer from the disappointing mechanics.

It also means that when the DVD comes out, it’s going to get nasty around here …

34. Basement Blogger - April 28, 2013

Nick Dent makes this comment ” this one’s just another playback of America’s obsession with domestic terrorism.” A couple of things here. Dent needs to realize that Star Trek has a long history of making political commentary. See “A Private Little War”, “Omega Glory” etc. Heck, Star Trek IV was an environmental movie.

I applaud the Supreme Court for going deeper. The late critic Roger Ebert complained that Star Trek 2009 lacked those philosophical and scientific ideas. Perhaps this Star Trek will change that.

Finally, Dent has to realize with the recent events in Boston, domestic terrorism is a relevant issue. Issues surrounding terrorism today is how doe we treat the suspect? Rights for a citizen or enemy combatant?

35. porthoses bitch - April 28, 2013

@33 DVD, hell……I’m waiting for the foto-novel.

Porthos who has still not forgiven Richard Anoiable for editing scenes out of the STTMP foto-novel.

36. porthoses bitch - April 28, 2013

@33 DVD, hell……I’m waiting for the foto-novel.

Porthos who has still not forgiven Richard Anoiable for editing scenes out of the STTMP foto-novel.

37. Michael Hall - April 28, 2013

“Were you really expecting something like TESB? This is JJ and crew, where everything is about the style and none about substance.”

Expecting? Not really! I don’t think anyone was so openly critical of Trek 2009 on this site as myself (and publicly tangled with Bob Orci on any number of occasions as a result). But this IS five years later, and a different film. The theme of terrorism projected into the Star Trek future has potential, as does the idea of Starfleet rediscovering its core values of peaceful exploration and scientific discovery. I also thought the last trailer looked terrific; maybe one of the best trailers for a Trek movie, ever. That said, given my disappointment in 2009 it would be a stretch to say that I’m even hopeful at this point. But I’m certainly willing to give INTO DARKNESS a fair chance.

38. Kev - April 28, 2013

Mr. Anthony when Sfdebris does a general review of this film with Confused Matthew (like he’s probably going to do next month) are you going to post it here like you did with the star trek 09 review he did?

I mean I trust his opinion far more than IGN or any other mainstream source honestly and I think alot of others when hearing or seeing his work would agree, that he’s far more trustworthy in that regard and I’m just curious if that was a one time deal here.

39. Marja - April 28, 2013

# 5, Anthony,

Personally I’m fine with reviews after the Euro release dates – I’ve read *all* the spoilers and they have not dampened my enthusiasm one iota!

That said, it might be best to wait until May 16 or 18 …

Failing that, a big ol’ SPOILERS headline should do for the Euro release reviews.

Fan reviews look like a lot of fun; as usual, I’ll be here to defend Spock/Uhura, because [Bob Orci I hope you see this] I absolutely love this couple and what they do for the dynamic of the crew of Enterprise.

40. Marja - April 29, 2013

10 & 14, Agreed, LOL!

15, 27, 30, I don’t get all this love for TESB and how great it was as sci-fi. Like Trek 2009, it was a really good sci-fi adventure flick. It wasn’t super-deep. And its weaponry was reedeekulus [The elephant-like “tanks” so easily defeated by Luke, et. al.] It is my favorite of the SWars trilogy [even though – sob! – Han and Leia are separated] b/c its director, Irv Kirschner, was the best one of the SW films. Also the Hero’s Journey allegory was fabulous.

Sounds to me (from ST2009) like Kirk is on the same journey.

41. Shatterhand - April 29, 2013

Knowing what I know so far (having seen the spoilers spreading like wildfire throughout Tumblr…seriously, avoid any Star Trek-related tags there if you’re at all afraid of being spoiled), I’m pleased to see a mostly positive set of press reviews. I just hope the public reviews will be just as positive.

42. Star Trek: Nemesis blows, is the point - April 29, 2013

The ninth paragraph in the Gizmodo Australia review cites a non-Trek TV show. They could have just as easily fit Star Trek: The Next Generation into that statement. Of course, I’m sure their readership knows the cited TV show better than TNG.

43. Elias Javalis - April 29, 2013

“Been there done that” is cause and effect for us dude – alas star trek essential…!

44. Trekluver - April 29, 2013

It’s been a while since I’ve commented on TrekMovie, but #15 has compelled me to respond:

To you sir, saying the 2009 film lacked substance is not very fair criticism, considering the first five minutes involved one of the most touching moments in all of Star Trek. But even if we said it was fair criticism for that movie, I think it’s evident from the trailers that in STID John Harrison is the type of antagonist who likes to mess with the protagonist’s emotions. That to me equates lots of substance by the time the credits roll. It may not end up being as substance filled as TESB, but then again, does Star Trek really need to be copying Star Wars?

Also, good to see you around here again Mr. Orci! I want to personally say, thank you very much for all of the hard work you and the rest of the crew have put into making this movie into another amazing “Trek.”

45. Son of Jello - April 29, 2013

31 porthoses bitch

It was the Genisis planet with Spock in his sunglasses case was a late decision.

46. sean - April 29, 2013

Yeah it’s interesting that the more critical reviews seem to indicate the film is too Star Trek-like, which is a funny thing to complain about in a Star Trek movie. Callbacks and winks are part-and-parcel to reboots these days, especially in the comic/sci-fi genres. Heck, this is Doctor Who’s 50th anniversary year, and the recent slate of episodes airing lately have been jam-packed with references to the classic series. You can get too fan-service-y I suppose, but as long as folks who don’t get the references can still enjoy the movie I don’t see a problem.

47. Michael Hall - April 29, 2013

@44–

Never said or even implied that I wanted Trek to copy or in any way be beholden to the STAR WARS franchise. Heaven forbid. What I did say was that I hoped INTO DARKNESS would fulfill a similar role in the Abrams trilogy that EMPIRE did in Lucas’–it broadened and darkened the themes and mythos of the SW universe kicking the saga’s visual and kinetic sweep to a whole new level. If you like, please feel free to substitute what THE DARK KNIGHT did for Batman, or CASINO ROYALE for James Bond.

As for the substance (or lack thereof) in Trek 2009, after literally dozens of postings here and elsewhere I have no desire whatsoever to reopen that particular vat of Budwiser. :-). Let us respectfully agree to disagree, and look towards the future.

48. afterace - April 29, 2013

I just noticed the movie opens on May 31st in my country. WHY?

49. baby - April 29, 2013

48

its happens, all countries have diffeent dates. people who live in the uk get to see the film 1 week earlier than people in the usa

50. ironhyde - April 29, 2013

I don’t think that review suggested it was too Star Trek. I think it said that it was a redundant movie, retreading the same old things we’ve seen a million times, rather than trying something new and taking us somewhere we haven’t been so many times. #14, 16 It’s more like saying I ordered a seafood chowder and the only meat in it is squid.

51. Jeyl - April 29, 2013

Well, it’s better than the reviews that Star Trek the Video Game has been getting. The only problem I’ll have with this movie is if everyone decides, “Hey, our more Earth bound Star Trek worked. Let’s make the next one more Earth focused!”.

52. Charles_Xavier - April 29, 2013

I was attending the Moscow premiere…

Sorry to disappoint you, but I do nor share the perspective of those reviews.
In fact now, after INTO DARKNESS, the “original” from 2009, looks like a much better film, and a much original take.

Sorry, but be prepared for a disappointment.

53. Colin - April 29, 2013

I have been reading what has been released on this film to date by those who have seen it. The film doesn’t appeal to me as a fan of the franchise. If I have a burning curiosity to know the details of the film, I can read the novelization of this film by Alan Dean Foster. For me, personally, I have developed impressions of the original characters from watching the first series and the subsequent movies. I find it jarring how the characters are portrayed in the JJ Abrams universe; I like the characters as they were, not as they are now.

54. The Gorn - April 29, 2013

I disagree Charles.

I also saw the movie at the Sydney premiere. I was concerned that the (fantastic) VFX and pursuit of box office revenue would overshadow the unique character drama that is classic Trek. I am very pleased to say that this was a hero’s journey in the spirit of, and worthy of the original and any referential elements are (mostly) there to resonate rather than duplicate. The cast give a particularly passionate performance.

It’s not perfect, but I found myself much more engaged than in Trek 2009 and came away with far greater respect and affection for the characters than I had 4 years ago. The movie seems to have been put together with more love than I gave it credit for going in.

55. Captain_Paxo - April 29, 2013

Hi Anthony,

You probably know this is but Empire posted a pre-review reaction on Thursday (I believe the full review is coming today) – and they also mentioned it on their Friday podcast, worth a listen!

http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=37290
http://www.empireonline.com/podcast/

W

56. Mad Mann - April 29, 2013

“Too much Star Trek in a Star Trek movie?” What an idiot.

Anyway, it sounds like this is just more of the same: which is a very good thing that it did dip in quality from the first. BUT I know that Lindelof said many times they were going for a Dark Knight or Empire Strikes Back type of second installment of the trilogy, which they seemed to fail to do so. Oh well, looking forward to the movie all the same.

57. Trekluver - April 29, 2013

@47

Ah. If that’s what you mean by comparing the two, then I agree with you. Let’s hope that Into Darkness definitely brings a new edge to the rebooted franchise.

And as for substance, well… the Budwiser factory aside, we can respectfully agree to disagree. :)

58. Admiral Waugh - April 29, 2013

This spoiler policy is awful. Did you do this in the ST:IX posts?

59. Commodore Adams - April 29, 2013

“this one’s just another playback of America’s obsession with domestic terrorism.”

He’s right, Americans are far too obsessed with terrorism and terror and all that stuff. I could go on for paragraph after paragraph about why that is so, but I don’t want to use this post to spew hatred.

What Nick Dent of Time Out Australia has to realize is Star Trek is not some quirky British sci-fi like Dr. Who, Star Trek is American sci-fi and even though it is supposed to represent a more worldly view, it will always represent America’s interests first. I hate Dr. Who, honestly I can not express how much I hate that crappy crappy show, its too fucking weird and quirky for my tastes just like Farscape. Im a Star Trek, Stargate, Battlestar, and Firefly fan, good ole American sci fi….well Stargate was both an American and Canadian effort, lets not forget that, and together we make some good stuff.

Anyway. I loved the 2009 movie I am sure I will enjoy Into Darkness even more.

60. Colin - April 29, 2013

I don’t think one needs to devote pages to describing that fear. Here are a few words: bulletproof vest for children.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/04/28/1931851/schools-bulletproof-vests/

61. NuFan - April 29, 2013

If the critics are going to say it’s too Star Trek, what are the haters going to have left to lie about?

62. Gary Makin - April 29, 2013

Empire gives it four stars.

http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/reviewcomplete.asp?FID=136708

63. Michael Foote - April 29, 2013

I always find it funny that Empire is considered so good now. I remember reviews that had headlines of “The Empire Strikes Out” and such. Funny what a few years can do.

64. Sybok's Secret Brother - April 29, 2013

I”m jazzed to go see this – it’s getting a fairly positive response and I am OK with the fanwank… been too long since I had my last fix of new trek – about 4 years I think…

@59 – Our government is the one obsessed. Many of us are working to undo what has been wrought, but this is how the wealthy like it.

65. Phil - April 29, 2013

@63. That’s relative to the franchise, of course. None of the Star Wars movies will ever be referred to as ‘the classics’…

66. Classy M - April 29, 2013

Gary Barlow, of the group Take That, just tweeted to his 2.8 million followers, “New Star Trek film looks amazing !” It all helps put bums on seats.

67. Connor - April 29, 2013

“…there’s a sense of been-there, done-that about the proceedings.” – Time Out (Australia)

Exploring the universe with an open mind will have to wait for the next film…” – Time Out (Australia)
——————-

Out of all the quotes in the article, I think the above two lines are very revealing. You can take them in a positive and negative manner. I really do not know what to say. Both of the above lines are sticking out like an elephant in the room.

68. Shatterhand - April 29, 2013

#61: Oh, trust me…there is plenty being talked about in less spoiler-free environments that is giving haters all the fuel they need.

69. Red Dead Ryan - April 29, 2013

#60.

Not sure why you’re posting that here, unless you’re trying to derail the thread with heated political trolling….

#’s 63 + 65.

Wrong. Both “A New Hope” and “The Empire Strikes Back” are widely considered a couple the greatest sci-fi movies of all time. Especially the latter.

70. Random Thots - April 29, 2013

Some (one) people need to tone down the language in future comments. Vulgarities like f**k are inappropriate.

TESB had substance? I just thot it was a fun movie.

“too much Star Trek”… ROFL. Prometheus didn’t do well at the box office cuz most people didn’t understand the references to the original Alien movies of almost 30 years ago. I enjoyed it cuz I’ve seen the originals several times. My daughter has only seen parts of “Aliens” and thot Prom was confusing. All that to say this – same thing with Star Trek. If ya ain’t watched the shows, ya ain’t gonna get some of the subtle refs.

There’s squid in calamari???

Keenser in a dress uniform!! Meesa likes!! (from one of the pix in a previous TrekMovie posting)

Budgineering!! Woohoo!! Love it!! (Been to the Engine Room on a cruise ship? Not nearly as pretty as the rest of the ship.)

Substance?? Phooey!! So long as it’s as fun to watch as either of the Expendables movies.

71. Jack - April 29, 2013

I haven’t seen the movie and therefore have no opinion — but Dent’s asking why Star Trek needs a terrorist bombing on Earth and the fx devastation of a city(ies) (a movie mainstay for years – regardless of current events) when the crew could be out there hoppin’ galaxies?

Here’s the line after the quote above:

“Do 2013 audiences really want Trek to show them London bombings or star cruisers levelling half of downtown San Francisco? Does every tentpole movie have to come with a side of apocalypse?”

Heck, if I was the lawyer for the bombing kid, I’d try some cockamamie argument about Hollywood movies depicting the destruction of cities as freakin’ awesome.

72. Kenji - April 29, 2013

Yahoo! I am going to review it for my local paper. Will be back here with thoughts (no spoilers) asap

73. Praetor Tal - April 29, 2013

@58

I’ve been visiting this site since just about the beginning, and I don’t remember a similar spoiler policy from ST09. Paramount gag notwithstanding, it seems to me that once the film has been screen publicly, the details are public, and available for discussion. But then maybe in the past five years, Anthony has made contacts he’s trying not to annoy by bucking the gag.

74. Anthony Pascale - April 30, 2013

there are no contracts or gags beyond any embargo for our own review at TrekMovie (same as all other US bases websites).

The spoiler policy is an attempt to have a safe place for ppl who havent gone out of their way to spoil themselves. If you start posting things here you will essentially make that decision for them. You will force them.

I will look into finding a way to accommadate the fans who want to talk spoilers some other way.

75. Keachick - April 30, 2013

Hollywood has been blowing up (parts of) American cities since the 90’s (perhaps even before that). Example – Independence Day.

The truth is that when I first saw pictures of the planes flying into the Twin Towers on a TV screen in a retail shop, I thought they were showing a movie. It was only when the scenes were repeated and the shop assistant turned up the sound a bit more that we heard that it was for real. It actually happened. This was really a case of life imitating “art”…

76. Christopher Valin - May 1, 2013

Anthony, can’t you just post an article with huge spoiler warnings in the teaser so nobody will click past the break? I love your site and have since I found it way before Star Trek ’09 came out, and I can understand you not wanting to jeopardize your insider status with boborci and others. But one of the reasons I’ve always loved this site is that we’ve been able to discuss spoilers and pretty much anything else Trek-related here.

I also get that you want to keep the comments sections safe. But why wouldn’t giving all your readers fair warning before clicking on a spoiler article be enough?

77. Lore Soong - May 1, 2013

Too American? Star Trek IS American. Why is there anything wrong with that?? And that comment about terrorism is a low blow. Maybe we wouldn’t be obssessed if cowards would stop sneak bombing civilians on our streets. Geez…. sorry to be political but that’s rude. Anyway, I’m looking forward to this movie. You can’t go wrong with Ben as a bad guy. And Kirk, Spock, and the gang… well ’nuff said. I’m ready for the ride, lens flares and all!!

78. Anonymouse - May 5, 2013

All I can say is that if Abrams didn’t fix the hideous Alternate Timeline Fiasco, there’s no point in me even seeing the movie. IMHO, he murdered Trek when he did that.

79. andrew sampson - May 10, 2013

abrams et al took 3 yrs to come up with this drivel ?
whole thing was tired and predictable.
villain and conclusion telegraphed at lightspeed for any viewer with two brain cells.
with nothing to tie them to old trek lore, abrams took the easy way out and rehashed an old storyline.
it didn’t even look good.

TrekMovie.com is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.