STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

It's not that some don't see it, it's that they don't find it all that convincing.

 

I think Prime Spock has the clearest and deepest lines about Kirk and Spock. Is that a mistake? Yes. Let it happen organically. Don't change Kirk's mind because old Spock told him that Young Spock should be his friend. What bothers me more than this, is that Kirk is too self-centered to have the type of relationship promised in Star Trek (2009) by Leonard Nimoy.

This Kirk knows how to do one thing well: rely on his own instincts to get things done. I said awhile back that they needed the Conference table--why did Kirk stun their ride on the planet? He wasn't briefed on the mission and, therefore, he couldn't tell that was his ride.

Kirk does this all alone now. And that's not the job of a Captain. What's the point of having all this talent on the Enterprise if you never listen to anyone? This is why I say he's not likable. He's arrogant; he thinks he's infallible. And that was fine for the first movie. He's young and we never saw a young Jim Kirk. But somewhere along the way, the rough edges need to be smoothed. How you write that into a script? Apparently, you have him lose as many people as possible on the Enterprise and have him take responsibility for things that are out of his control. He flies off half-cocked and almost loses his ship because he's bent on revenge. Still, he saves everyone by not listening to anyone but himself. Scotty says "don't do it!" and he does it anyway. Does he need to listen to Scotty in that moment? No. But it's consistent with a character that knows only how to do one thing.

I'm a basketball fan so I'm going to make an analogy. This is a superstar that doesn't trust his teammates. The reason Allen Iverson could lead the NBA in scoring all those seasons and never win a Championship, or sniff anywhere near the second of four rounds, is because he never relied on his teammates. He tried to do it all himself. Anyone who tried to get him to not take 30 shots a game (where 18-20 would've been better, using him as a decoy to break down defenses) is because he only knew how to play one way. He's the only player on the court.

Meanwhile, someone like Tim Duncan has 4 rings. He's never led the league in scoring. He's been MVP, but it was controversial when he won it. He's the centerpiece, but other players like playing with him.

Kirk doesn't rely on his team. And, therefore, I never see greatness in him. For all of his abilities, he doesn't know not to stun his ride. He's got the broad strokes--a home-run hitter that can't get on first base--but he doesn't work within the team concept.

With one movie to go, I don't see this changing in time for the next movie (unless we never see the change, the most interesting arc for Kirk). Considering they will probably only do 3 movies, I don't think this is going to be a likable or great Captain. "But that was another life."

 

Or he was in the heat of the moment and got startled by a giant animal? Geez. It seems no one wants these people to act fucking HUMAN.

 

I want someone professional in his job. Training gets rid of things like nerves, because you can rely on the training. You seem to forget they are doing a job.

 

No I don't. The animal was obviously startled and up on two legs McCoy was behind it so Kirk couldn't see him. Just because that type of animal was suppose to be their ride doesn't mean that particular animal was their ride.

Stun or possibly get trampled? I'm going to go with stun every single time and twice on Sunday's.

 

You forget his reaction to McCoy. It's not "I know I was going to get trampled." He instead says, "Oh, Great!" like he didn't know what he had done. Why did McCoy have no idea what he took?

 

Yeah, it's the kind of error you'd expect at best from a talented but very inexperienced officer.

Which to be fair is exactly what NuKirk is. Everything about him really does make sense... except his being a Captain at this stage of his life.

 

Or it could have been "Oh, Great!", I fucked up?

 

That would be inconsistent with the character they are writing.

 

It really isn't. It's inconsistent with how you interpret the character.

 

On the scale of 1 to "not raising shields when the Reliant is approaching under proven bullshit circumstances", it's a 1.

Kirk is imperfect, in any timeline, and no movie can survive a hostile reviewing. Anyone's favourite episode or movie can be similarly selectively nitpicked.

 

Come on now!!! We all know Abramsverse Kirk is the only starship captain from any series or movie to make a major first-year cadet blunder!

We also know that Abramsverse Kirk is the only starship captain in any series or movie that has a huge ego and thinks that he knows better than Starfleet Command!

 

Meh, there's imperfect and imperfect. TOS Kirk had a believable skillset for a Starship Captain, perfect or not. (And TWOK Kirk's errors came from rustiness*.)

Spoiler: * Also...

For my money there's a substantial air of desperation in the 'Failure to Zig-Zag / Raise the Shields' continuity tailgunning that's become fashionable since NuTrek decided to put itself in the same frame with TWOK. Intriguingly, a lot of this kind of stuff echoes in tone and specifics the over-the-top early fanrage against TWOK to which posters like yourself have been prone to compare dissent from NuTrek. Isn't that ironic? Don't you think?

NuTrek Kirk does have a believable skillset and make believable errors for an inexperienced officer. But he doesn't have a believable skillset for a Starship Captain. He's crafted this way, that's his arc in STiD: he starts out being unable to admit error or accept the qualities and judgments of his fellow officers (major gaps in a Starship Captain's character), and by the end of the film learns to do so.

The only thing about that picture that really doesn't make sense is why he's Captain of a Starship in the first place. It's a hard question to avoid when the whole character arc is built around his not having the qualities of a Captain.

Oh, and:

"Hostile reviewing"? I've gone out of my way to be fair in my assessment of NuTrek's elements whether I particularly like them or not, so I'll thank you to knock this kind of nonsense off.

 

I'm not sure what this means. Haven't people been vilifying Abrams Trek for things earlier Trek also did since the 2009 film?
[ The most mind-bendingly hilarious example of which is still ( IMO ) a certain poster taking issue with the content of the "these are the voyages" speech. ]

 

It means that when they put Khan in the film and mirror-imaged a specific sequence out of TWOK, the creative team of STiD encouraged comparisons between their movie and the earlier film which have happened, and which some people are plainly quite defensive about.

(EDIT: Of course it can be fairly said that many, many other Trek films have made the mistake of trying to be Wrath, as pointed out here. But directly cribbing from Wrath is at a new level.)

 

Kirk is a starship captain for reasons both in and out of universe.

It's Star Trek, sans :TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT. It requires Captain (not Commander, Lieutenant, Ensign or Chief Petty Officer) Kirk to be in the chair. It was always going to be thus.

In-story: Blame Pike and Nero. Nero wiped out a bunch of ships (and a considerable number of officers) and Pike was in such a hurry to inject the "look before you leap" element he got Kirk in the chair. Too soon, as it turned out. I get that the reversal was lightning quick in the sequel, but imperfect execution does not mean it was not addressed. Part of that quick reversal, though, reflects Marcus' belief that Kirk could be easily manipulated--a more experienced captain might well have taken the time to examine things a bit more fully BEFORE taking off from Earth. So Kirk is twice put in the chair by people who value the fact that he's not like everyone (anyone?) else in Starfleet--one naively and one nefariously. It's not Kirk's fault they keep giving him the chair.

My sense is that a lot of the complaints made about the way Kirk "gets the chair" are the result of the compressed nature of film vs. TV series storytelling. This is not to say the films are perfect and people are too stubborn to accept it (I quite like them, but they're not in my top 100 films of all time or anything). And not all the criticisms of the film can be explained by this reasoning. However, I do think a substantial amount of criticism is levelled at certain story elements being necessarily compressed (which is a separate point than done well).

I find it refreshing that the characters are not yet as cohesive a unit as in TOS. They are, after all, a decade or so younger and less experienced. But that's me.

 

This exactly. If someone is set against something, then every minor nitpick is a glaring lack of competence. There's no way around that mindset.

 

FFS. Nobody spends money on seeing a movie if they're "set against" it entertaining them, and major character arcs are not a "minor nitpick," and this aggression will not stand, man, that rug really tied the room together.

 

Shut the fuck up, Donny.

 

I guess I can't argue with the Dude.