Morpheus 02 wrote:
A pretty good article on how a critically lauded, box office hit can have its reputation change so dramatically over the course of a year.
After the initial blush, how do you
see STID a year later? Do you still love it or has contemplation tempered your assessment of the film?
I think Matt Singer at The Dissolve pretty much covers it.
Star Trek Into Darkness is so fast-paced, it actually outruns its own logic problems, another reason why it received such an unusual combination of initial positive reviews and subsequent negative buzz. Almost everyone who saw the movie enjoyed the experience. They only started to see the plot holes after thinking about it, watching it again, or reading the criticism that slowly started to cohere around the film.
I have the opposite response... I actally like it MORE now than a year ago...the whole Khan part and TWOK rip-offs.really put a damper on my enjoyment...
But now REALLY appreciate the TRULY alien world in the beginning of the movie.
And though Bruce Greenwood was in for only like 7 minutes...he showed between this and '09 why his loss would be MEANINGFUL to Kirk. (Should I start a separate Greenwood-Pike appreciation thread?)
ANd we see Pike's influence the way Kirk treats Sulu in giving him temporary command.
And in my second run noticed that the bar where Scotty went...there was one person in the background who was dressed like Caitlin Dar (from ST V), and another with sunglasses like Geordi's VISOR....any I missed there?
Yes, a Bruce Greenwood-Pike thread would be a lot of fun. Personally, I think that Greenwood's Pike is the role model for young Kirk of the type of captain we want Kirk to be, and know that he can become in the future.
For Star Trek Into Darkness, after one year, I still enjoy it a lot. It starts off in a situation that could have just been a stand alone episode in TOS or any other series. It branches off to explore the consequences of Kirk's actions, something that he was often shielded from in TOS. His relationship with Spock is strained because of how the two of them see it.
The action pieces are a bit repetitive, but overall good fun. I like the idea of Starfleet, or parts of it, going darker because they fear another attack. It is very much a social commentary appropriate for our time.
The main thing that keeps me going back is Kirk's character arc. The writers could have stayed away from the controversy of his rapid promotion but instead use it as a way to describe how immature Kirk is in his new role. His story is his willingness to die for the sake of his crew, for the sake of the rules that he argues against, for the sake nothing more than doing the right thing. In the end, he is a better man for it, and possibly closer to TOS Kirk than he was before.
Despite the fast pace, I did enjoy each character getting their moments, but Scotty was more enjoyable for me this time. Uhura also did a great job in dealing with the Klingons as well as a more emotional heartbeat to the film. It is interesting to see the contrast between her and Spock in terms of a relationship.
Peter Weller and Benedict Cumberbatch are excellent as villains. I think that having Cumberbatch be Khan was kind of a mistake, because they could have done more with the darker side of Starfleet. But, his performance is fantastic and Khan is truly villainous in terms of a willingness to use and kill anyone.
Admiral Marcus is a great character, and I like him a lot as a villain. There are echoes of Admiral Cartwright and Admiral Leyton, in Undiscovered Country and DS9 respectively, in his character and motivation. He starts out as filling the mentor role only for us to discover that he uses Kirk just like Khan uses Harewood in the beginning.
Overall, it is a lot of fun, with some interesting moments that are worth discussing.