My thoughts on and gripes with Star Trek Into Darkness

When was Star Trek ever NOT teetering on Camp?


"Shore Leave" and "This Side of Paradise" were both FIRST season episodes.

Which is setting the bar stupendously low as it is, and a context that hasn't existed since Trek went off the air.

Put that another way: if ST09 was competing in theatres with, say, Lost in Space and Thunderbirds it would have blown both of them out of the water and would have been lauded as more thoughtful and more intelligent with far better characterization and story development. Unfortunately, it's now in a genre that includes movies like District 9, Total Recall, Avatar, The Avengers, Iron Man and War of the Worlds and is playing to an audience that grew up with Star Wars and the Matrix Trilogy on DVD.

Basically, Star Trek was never as smart as its original adopters 40 years ago thought it was, and those of us who didn't see it in the 60s never thought it was that clever to begin with. But again, even between the original fans and those who came later, the real appear of Star Trek is Kirk, Spock, McCoy...


and to an increasing extent, Uhura.

That's kind of my point. TOS' notable accomplishment was being the first sci-fi show to take itself (relatively) seriously. That's not exactly an accomplishment today; EVERYONE does that.

It's the same dilemma faced by child actors. You can't really build a career that depends on you being cute and adorable; by the time you grow up, you need to be able to make it as an actor. Star Trek is the same way: TOS was "clever" at a time when nobody else was. Fortunately it was also pretty well characterized, and THAT'S something you can keep going for decades.

You say that as if the surviving Beatles aren't still making music.

 

Star Trek was a progressive show and a brave one, but yeah it was also camp and silly and actioney just as often.

Anytime people argue it's cerebral, I say, "Nazi planet."

 

When was it brave?

 

You defeat your own argument with the Beatles analogy. No one is saying that ALL of TOS is of a kind (in terms of themes and attitudes) with the Abrams films. But they are of a kind with a significant portion of TOS. As such, it becomes rather disingenuous to argue that Abrams Trek is "not real Trek" (as many do) just because it fails to be "of a kind" with the specific subset of characteristics that defined some, though not all, of TOS--particularly when it very much succeeds at being "of a kind" of another specific subset.

 

Plato's Stepchildren.

Well said. And IMO, it's of a kind with some of the more entertaining aspects of TOS, which weren't all that original or thought provoking even for their time.

Or am I the only one who remembers that "Balance of Terror", one of the better first season episodes, was a blatant ripoff of "The Enemy Below"? At least Into Darkness has the benefit of ripping off other Star Trek movies; if they'd gone "Starship Red October" with John Harrison commanding the Vengeance, I might have been slightly annoyed.

 

Since seeing the film, I have had the time to read and research, and I have come to the conclusion that what I don't like about this movie is what I don't like about some of the blockbusters being released today.

 

Overrated perhaps, but desirable.

For me, it was a fairly lazy ending. Kirk could have done all manner of other things as an act of self sacrifice to demonstrate his 'growing up'.

It seemed that the only reason they killed him was just to have the rebooted core/radiation scene. As mentioned previously, we all know Kirk (as the main protagonist) can't die. Why bother to do this? Just to watch Spock be upset? The solution to his death was sloppy and short sighted.

Don't get me wrong I thought it was a good action film. Looked and sounded great. I just get the feeling that if you are going to go to the trouble of a reboot, you might as well have new/original ideas.

 

I really don't think you know much about TOS then IMO.
What's your definition of a sophisticated science fiction series or film. TOS had stories written by science fiction writers.
Certainly none of the subsequent Star Trek series were more cerebral. No science fiction series in general, then or now.
I think I've watched most science fiction series and movies since TOS until the last couple of years we're frankly is mostly magic and vampires

 

BEFORE IT RULES THE WORLD!

 

For a moment they actually had me convinced they were going to kill off Kirk in the new timeline.

Which would have been extremely bold, and thus did not actually happen.

 

Um - remember - Christine Chapel CAME ON the original Enterprise (in TOS) because they were going to the planet where her fiancee (Roger Corby) was lost (see the TOS episode "What Are Little Girls Made Of"). After they found the android Corby (and she lost him again) - she decided to stay on the ship.

My point? The character was often motivated into career choices via emotial issues if you go by that episode.

 

And if you remember her behavior where Spock was concerned, maybe she stayed on-board because she always hoped she'd have a chance with him.

 

Its too late - it's got Star Wars in it's grip now!

 

CSI: New York had stories written by criminologists.

Nuff said.

For that matter, none of TOS was quite as cerebral or as dramatically solid as "The Cage," with the possible exception of "Corbomite Maneuver."

Actually, the next time Star Trek pulled out a real dose of deeply thought-provoking science fiction was The Motion Picture. That was also, IMO, the LAST time.

The Man Trap
Catspaw
Who Mourns for Adonais
Obsession
Plato's Stepchildren
Shore Leave
Wolf in the Fold

Yeah, I've never seen a TOS episode about magic and/or vampires (I mean, unless you think that changing vampires into aliens suddenly makes your story more cerebral ).

 

I cringe at my quote. I as usual wasn't very articulate. I just mean that most recent so called science fiction shows involve magic and vampires and the like.

I'm also not saying that TOS was pure science-fiction. Mostly it was not - mostly it was allegory.

Still if you ignore the drama, science simplification and character interaction there were episodes like the Domesday Machine, the time-travel episodes, Operation Annihilate, Charlie X, What Are Little Girls Made Of, All Our Yesterdays and even Spock's Brain. These are IMO science-fiction episodes.

And I'm not so familiar with the other series by episode name but VOY 'Year of Hell' and just the Borg themselves are sci-fi.

 

And COMPARED TO THOSE, Into Darkness was actually pretty cerebral.

Sure. Just not overly sophisticated ones in hindsight. Very good for their time, but competition back then was slim to nonexistent.

OTOH, the last two Star Trek movies have been chock full of drama, science simplification and character interaction including a flashy little bit of time travel craziness.

It just seems to me ST09 and STID both fit right in with TOS. The perception that it doesn't seem to be as visionary or as groundbreaking as TOS is because TOS is no longer visionary or groundbreaking by 2013 standards.

And except for the gratuitous use of the reset button at the end, "Year of Hell" has alot of the same strengths as ST09 and STID.

You're basically trying to compare a 2013 movie to the PERCEPTION of the RELATIVE qualities of a 1968 TV series. That comparison falls apart the moment you try to imagine how Into Darkness would have been received if it had been released in 1968. And not even just the special effects; picture the storyline from ST09 or STID superimposed on the 1968 visuals and sets, TOS music, TOS special effects. Set all those things equal, and THEN compare STID to the original series.

 

I just can't see the Prime crew doing the things that the nucrew do in STID. I can't imagine Prime Kirk following Marcus' orders. And I just can't imagine Shatner Kirk ever allowing the enemy to use him as a hostage. It defies my imagination.

I'm also interested in the names of the sophisticated science fiction series that put TOS to shame.

 

I can't imaging the new crew behaving the way they did with the same number of years of experience under their belts as the old crew. A lot of people seem to forget everyone is nearly a decade younger than in the original. People can change considerably over a decade.

 

NuKirk didn't either.

You can't imagine Day of the Dove, Space Seed or Star Trek V and VI?

Your imagination is shockingly limited.

Hell, compared to TOS even Stargate manages to come off as intelligent. Like I said, the 1960s didn't exactly set the bar very high.