Ryan Reynolds Posted July 16, 2016 Share Posted July 16, 2016 1 hour ago, MyMovieCanBeatUpYourMovie said: Very true. But I think the view of STID has changed in three years, to its detriment. Testing that, I searched for every mention of Into Darkness that talked about that film's quality in the 24 posted reviews at RT so far. (Apologize in advance for the lengthy post.) The results: " Not only does it follow the very divisive sequel Into Darkness" " The “Star Trek” franchise fell into that trap with its last installment, “Star Trek: Into Darkness” (2013), which went heavy on pathos." " After the forced melodrama of the last instalment, 2013’s Into Darkness" " Star Trek Beyond does some much-needed course correcting after the heaviness, and heavy self-involvement, of Star Trek Into Darkness" " Compared to both Star Trek and Star Trek Into Darkness, Star Trek Beyond is a much more scaled down adventure for the crew, and the McGuffin-centric plot doesn't really lend itself to an array of big twists and turns - but all that serves to allow the film to primarily focus on character. This is why the movie works as well as it does. " " At least in Star Trek Into Darkness it led to a creative retelling of a classic Trek story. I understand why Trekkers wouldn’t want to see a remake in only the second adventure of the new cast, but at least it’s a clever twist, albeit a misguided one. Star Trek Beyond is just a noisy and cluttered spectacle. " " The previous instalment, Star Trek Into Darkness, received a mixed response, with criticism focusing on its dour tone; its uncomfortable, city-demolishing spectacle; and its leaning heavily on Star Trek II: Wrath of Khan, which resulted in a nonsensical plot with unearned character moments." " That’s what Abrams tried to do in his two films, and the underrated “Star Trek Into Darkness,” though it played a bit of a shell game with “Trek” mythology, casting Benedict Cumberbatch as a young Khan who didn’t completely parse as the Khan of legend, was still a movie that took you on a sinister cosmic joyride." " While it fits smoothly with the universe J.J. started, it’s lighter and funnier than Abrams’ movies, with a welcome sense of adventure after Into Darkness’, erm, darkness. " " Roses rarely lose their bloom as quickly as Star Trek Into Darkness. Well received upon its initial release, JJ Abrams’ sequel has since undergone a recalibration and a re-evaluation. " " And the attempts to tackle post-9/11 anxieties - especially in the aptly titled Star Trek Into Darkness - were uncomfortably confrontational, and at least arguably cynical. " " but then shifted into neutral for the humdrum 2013 follow-up,Star Trek Into Darkness, a regimented blockbuster that felt hollow and heavy beneath all its noise and brawn " " I found Star Trek into Darkness quite engaging because it was specifically about this conflict, a parable for the desire for “old-school Star Trek” and action-centric, somewhat militarized “blockbuster Star Trek.” But even while that sequel firmly ended out in favor of “peaceful exploration” over “violence and war,” it bogged itself down in climactic homages and generic blockbuster tropes. " "The overall inconsequential nature of “Star Trek Beyond” stands in stark contrast to 2013’s sprawling “Star Trek Into Darkness,” " " The previous ‘Star Trek’ movie, 2013’s ‘Into Darkness’, was packed with it: a sprawling epic full of new worlds, violent consequences and hefty emotional moments. It was later – just a little unfairly – voted the worst Trek movie ever by some of the series’s most hardcore fans. So, still some positive mentions, but if the reviews posted so far are representative of critics as a whole, I think it would be fair to say opinion has soured somwhat on Into Darkness since its initial release. Still don't think general audiences opinion has changed much since initial release, most liked it not loved it, but haven't thought about it much since 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
filmlover Posted July 16, 2016 Share Posted July 16, 2016 Any time I see STID, my mind tricks me into initially thinking it says STD. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arlborn Posted July 16, 2016 Share Posted July 16, 2016 I loved both St09 and STID, I'm honestly very happy about the positive buzz this one is receiving but I was pretty sure I'd love it since I saw the second trailer anyway even if the reviews were bad! Still, yeah, glad they are good. ... Oh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goffe Posted July 16, 2016 Share Posted July 16, 2016 (edited) that's just convenient, the internet claiming critics have revaluated STiD since its release using something that can't be measured to validate their arguments, very convenient indeed. Edited July 16, 2016 by Goffe 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macleod Posted July 17, 2016 Share Posted July 17, 2016 16 hours ago, Ryan Reynolds said: Still don't think general audiences opinion has changed much since initial release, most liked it not loved it, but haven't thought about it much since Therein lies the problem... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trifle Posted July 17, 2016 Share Posted July 17, 2016 So now people are complaining about 88% with 22 fresh reviews to 3 rotten ones? It is going to be certified fresh, and the critics this year trash anything familiar that isn't animation, imho. I'll take 88%. Besides, this movie looks great, and I'd go see it regardless of what the critics say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Beezy Posted July 17, 2016 Share Posted July 17, 2016 23 hours ago, Goffe said: that's just convenient, the internet claiming critics have revaluated STiD since its release using something that can't be measured to validate their arguments, very convenient indeed. You know what is measurable? Time. And with time opinions frequently change with further and more in depth analysis. Three years is plenty of time to reevaluate. I don't understand why that's a hard concept to grasp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elessar Posted July 17, 2016 Share Posted July 17, 2016 Personally, i don't "analyse" movies. It's a gut reaction. I like something, or i don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Beezy Posted July 17, 2016 Share Posted July 17, 2016 1 minute ago, Elessar said: Personally, i don't "analyse" movies. It's a gut reaction. I like something, or i don't. Gut reaction only really applies to a first time viewing. And more often than not on subsequent viewings you keep picking up on things you didn't quite catch or remember from the first time, which can sour or enhance your gut reaction opinion. That's where, for a lot of critics quoted up above, opinions soured on STID. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goffe Posted July 17, 2016 Share Posted July 17, 2016 I don't understand why that's a hard concept to grasp. It is not, but how exactly do you know people revaluated STiD? for all I know, nothing has dramatically changed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UrosepsisFace Posted July 17, 2016 Share Posted July 17, 2016 My gut reaction was to dislike STID. Not that I originally thought it was a bad movie, but my expectations for it were so high and ST09, imo, was just so perfect. I even remember being extremely happy with the movie until the final scenes and then walking away from the theater feeling disappointed. I just watched STID again this weekend, and my disappointment is gone. I absolutely love it now. I hope this happens again when I watch TFA prior to Star Wars VIII. Funny how expectations work, but screw it, I'm super excited for Star Trek Beyond and I'm expecting it to be even better than the previous two! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elessar Posted July 17, 2016 Share Posted July 17, 2016 Yes, expectations can screw with you. It did happen to me too a few times where i was meh the first time but then actually digged the movie very much the 2nd time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Beezy Posted July 17, 2016 Share Posted July 17, 2016 1 hour ago, Goffe said: It is not, but how exactly do you know people revaluated STiD? for all I know, nothing has dramatically changed. Well... how exactly do you know nothing dramatically has changed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MyMovieCanBeatUpYourMovie Posted July 17, 2016 Share Posted July 17, 2016 1 hour ago, Goffe said: It is not, but how exactly do you know people revaluated STiD? for all I know, nothing has dramatically changed. This is way too labor-intensive for me, but if you want to see if critical reaction has changed, you would need to look at all the reviewers from RT from back in 2013 who gave Into Darkness a positive review, and see what those same reviewers say about STID in their reviews for Beyond. If a significant number of them are now criticizing it, probably a good indication opinion has shifted on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goffe Posted July 17, 2016 Share Posted July 17, 2016 (edited) On 16/07/2016 at 3:34 AM, MyMovieCanBeatUpYourMovie said: Very true. But I think the view of STID has changed in three years, to its detriment. Testing that, I searched for every mention of Into Darkness that talked about that film's quality in the 24 posted reviews at RT so far. (Apologize in advance for the lengthy post.) The results: " Not only does it follow the very divisive sequel Into Darkness" " The “Star Trek” franchise fell into that trap with its last installment, “Star Trek: Into Darkness” (2013), which went heavy on pathos." " After the forced melodrama of the last instalment, 2013’s Into Darkness" " Star Trek Beyond does some much-needed course correcting after the heaviness, and heavy self-involvement, of Star Trek Into Darkness" " Compared to both Star Trek and Star Trek Into Darkness, Star Trek Beyond is a much more scaled down adventure for the crew, and the McGuffin-centric plot doesn't really lend itself to an array of big twists and turns - but all that serves to allow the film to primarily focus on character. This is why the movie works as well as it does. " " At least in Star Trek Into Darkness it led to a creative retelling of a classic Trek story. I understand why Trekkers wouldn’t want to see a remake in only the second adventure of the new cast, but at least it’s a clever twist, albeit a misguided one. Star Trek Beyond is just a noisy and cluttered spectacle. " " The previous instalment, Star Trek Into Darkness, received a mixed response, with criticism focusing on its dour tone; its uncomfortable, city-demolishing spectacle; and its leaning heavily on Star Trek II: Wrath of Khan, which resulted in a nonsensical plot with unearned character moments." " That’s what Abrams tried to do in his two films, and the underrated “Star Trek Into Darkness,” though it played a bit of a shell game with “Trek” mythology, casting Benedict Cumberbatch as a young Khan who didn’t completely parse as the Khan of legend, was still a movie that took you on a sinister cosmic joyride." " While it fits smoothly with the universe J.J. started, it’s lighter and funnier than Abrams’ movies, with a welcome sense of adventure after Into Darkness’, erm, darkness. " " Roses rarely lose their bloom as quickly as Star Trek Into Darkness. Well received upon its initial release, JJ Abrams’ sequel has since undergone a recalibration and a re-evaluation. " " And the attempts to tackle post-9/11 anxieties - especially in the aptly titled Star Trek Into Darkness - were uncomfortably confrontational, and at least arguably cynical. " " but then shifted into neutral for the humdrum 2013 follow-up,Star Trek Into Darkness, a regimented blockbuster that felt hollow and heavy beneath all its noise and brawn " " I found Star Trek into Darkness quite engaging because it was specifically about this conflict, a parable for the desire for “old-school Star Trek” and action-centric, somewhat militarized “blockbuster Star Trek.” But even while that sequel firmly ended out in favor of “peaceful exploration” over “violence and war,” it bogged itself down in climactic homages and generic blockbuster tropes. " "The overall inconsequential nature of “Star Trek Beyond” stands in stark contrast to 2013’s sprawling “Star Trek Into Darkness,” " " The previous ‘Star Trek’ movie, 2013’s ‘Into Darkness’, was packed with it: a sprawling epic full of new worlds, violent consequences and hefty emotional moments. It was later – just a little unfairly – voted the worst Trek movie ever by some of the series’s most hardcore fans. So, still some positive mentions, but if the reviews posted so far are representative of critics as a whole, I think it would be fair to say opinion has soured somewhat on Into Darkness since its initial release. 8 Did you even read the reviews that you quoted here? a bunch of them didn't even criticize Star Trek Into Darkness. Time Out actually says Beyond is "So it’s a genuine pleasure to report that ‘Star Trek Beyond’ is not ambitious in the slightest" and STiD is packed with "a sprawling epic full of new worlds, violent consequences and hefty emotional moments"http://www.timeout.com/london/film/star-trek-beyond Variety review calls STiD underrated and "was still a movie that took you on a sinister cosmic joyride" compared to Beyond. Describes beyond "What is forgettable, perhaps, is everything else about the movie"http://variety.com/2016/film/reviews/star-trek-beyond-review-chris-pine-anton-yelchin-1201814942/ Forbes review lol, Beyond review's headline says the movie fails to engage, then the author goes on to say that he found STiD "quite engaging"http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2016/07/15/review-star-trek-beyond-fails-to-engage CinemaBlend review doesn't actually criticize STiD negatively, it only says Beyond is "scaled down" and that "McGuffin-centric plot doesn't really lend itself to an array of big twists and turns".http://www.cinemablend.com/reviews/1534810/star-trek-beyond (I'll put the rest in a spoiler tag because the post is already rather long) Spoiler Heck, I have seen some of these reviews claiming STiD was not well received because those dem fanboys who voted it the worst Trek. Solid evidence right there, not. Besides, how do you know the people below didn't hate STiD to begin with? that's your point, right? that people reavaluated STiD over the course of 3 years. GameRadar+ - with a welcome sense of adventure after Into Darkness’, erm, darkness.http://www.gamesradar.com/star-trek-beyond-review/ Empire - Roses rarely lose their bloom as quickly as Star Trek Into Darkness. Well received upon its initial release, JJ Abrams’ sequel has since undergone a recalibration and a re-evaluation. It was famously voted worst Trek movie ever by one group of Trekkers, and has been criticised for being too dark, for its karaoke-style riffing on previous Trek films such as The Wrath Of Khan, and for simply not feeling like a Star Trek movie.http://www.empireonline.com/movies/star-trek-beyond/review/ The Telegraph - After the forced melodrama of the last instalment, 2013’s Into Darkness – which Trekkies voted their least favourite ever – it's understandable that this one felt the need to retrench, seeking safety in self-containment. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/2016/07/15/star-trek-beyond-review/ Digital Spy - The previous installment, Star Trek Into Darkness, received a mixed response, with criticism focusing on its dour tone; its uncomfortable, city-demolishing spectacle; and its leaning heavily on Star Trek II: Wrath of Khan, which resulted in a nonsensical plot with unearned character moments. http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/star-trek/review/a801479/star-trek-beyond-review/ The Daily Beast - Directed by Fast & Furious franchise savior Justin Lin from a script by Simon Pegg and Doug Jung, the J.J. Abrams-produced Star Trek Beyond does some much-needed course correcting after the heaviness, and heavy self-involvement, of Star Trek Into Darkness. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/07/15/star-trek-beyond-review-you-will-mourn-anton-yelchin-but-find-hope-in-its-unifying-message.html IGN Pakistan -Not only does it follow the very divisive sequel Into Darkness, but it’s also being released amid the mega-franchise’s50th anniversary celebration.http://pk.ign.com/star-trek-3/3750/review/star-trek-beyond-review Newsday – The “Star Trek” franchise fell into that trap with its last installment, “Star Trek: Into Darkness” (2013), which went heavy on pathos.http://www.newsday.com/entertainment/movies/star-trek-beyond-review-justin-lin-reboot-loads-of-fun-1.12049810 THR - Star Trek Into Darkness, a regimented blockbuster that felt hollow and heavy beneath all its noise and brawnhttp://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/star-trek-beyond-film-review-911141 Crave E Online - And the attempts to tackle post-9/11 anxieties - especially in the aptly titled Star Trek Into Darkness - were uncomfortably confrontational, and at least arguably cynical. http://www.craveonline.com/entertainment/1010369-star-trek-beyond-review-officially-darkness#FrDYkFWlI3yipDPO.99 Can you spot the pattern? I certainly can, I seriously doubt any of those people ever liked STiD to begin with. I would be willing to bet my own money on it. 5 Edited July 17, 2016 by Goffe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goffe Posted July 17, 2016 Share Posted July 17, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, MyMovieCanBeatUpYourMovie said: you would need to look at all the reviewers from RT from back in 2013 who gave Into Darkness a positive review, and see what those same reviewers say about STID in their reviews for Beyond. I did that and do you know what I found? None of those media outlets, none of them used the same reviewer to review STiD and Beyond, except CraveOline and THR. Edited July 17, 2016 by Goffe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goffe Posted July 17, 2016 Share Posted July 17, 2016 1 hour ago, Jay Beezy said: Well... how exactly do you know nothing dramatically has changed? well, you're the one that has to prove anything, you're the one claiming people have reevaluated STiD, not me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
filmlover Posted July 17, 2016 Share Posted July 17, 2016 Jay Beezy sure loves his conspiracy theories. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MyMovieCanBeatUpYourMovie Posted July 17, 2016 Share Posted July 17, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Goffe said: Did you even read the reviews that you quoted here? a bunch of them didn't even criticize Star Trek Into Darkness. Not the entire reviews. (Who has time for that?) But I did read all the excerpts I posted, which is why I said, "So, still some positive mentions." One of those excerpts even cites the very thing we're arguing about: "Roses rarely lose their bloom as quickly as Star Trek Into Darkness. Well received upon its initial release, JJAbrams’ sequel has since undergone a recalibration and a re-evaluation. " That's my sense as well, but I concede it's hard to prove it in any concrete way without finding a good number of reviewers who have changed their mind and written about it. Edited July 17, 2016 by MyMovieCanBeatUpYourMovie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arlborn Posted July 17, 2016 Share Posted July 17, 2016 (edited) Regarding this whole reevaluating debate, I should say that two new positive reviews were added today and the review of Drew McWeeny at HitFix, which was a straight high-praising A by the way, directly addressed this debate: Quote That’s what made Star Trek Into Darkness so confounding. I think there’s great energy to the filmmaking, which I liked when I first saw it, but I’ve never seen a movie more tied in knots to try to trick an audience, and for so little payoff. The moment they decided to make a movie that hinged on Khan as a villain, they painted themselves into a narrative corner, and they never figured out how to get out of it. I thought the film was nearly impossible to review, because it was so much technical skill and so many great actors all in search of a story worth telling. It may not have helped that Roberto Orci’s own politics ended up wedged into the film’s “false flag” storyline, which might have worked if that had been the whole film, but which feels wildly out of place wrapped around the slavishly inverted Wrath Of Khan remake. One thing is clear with some distance from both of those films. The first one is a keeper, and the second one simply isn’t. Well, there you go, that's one critic I suppose. PS: I still really enjoy STID myself. Edited July 17, 2016 by Arlborn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
