My thoughts on and gripes with Star Trek Into Darkness

Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies XI+' started by Ometiklan, Jun 6, 2013.

  1. solariabsg25

    solariabsg25 Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2007
    Location:
    Bristol, UK
    I loved this Trek film and all aspects of it.

    But if someone wants to criticise the film then IMHO that's a GOOD thing.

    It shows that as fans we can disagree, we can see things we like, or we don't like. Better for there to be discussion and disagreement than everyone bowing down in awe no matter the plot!

    As to the daring of Kirk being punished, I think that Pike being the one to tear Kirk down a strip rather than some random Admiral was a great choice. I think it's possible Pike may have even secretly agreed with Kirk on the matter, but regs are regs. It also harkens back to Pikes comment in '09 that Starfleet has "lost something." Starfleet needs more Kirks in the chair, and less "yes sir!" officers.
     
  2. Crazy Eddie

    Crazy Eddie Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2006
    Location:
    I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
    When was Star Trek ever NOT teetering on Camp?
    [​IMG]

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

    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...
    [​IMG]

    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.:techman:
     
  3. Charles Phipps

    Charles Phipps Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2011
    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."
     
  4. BillJ

    BillJ Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    alt.nerd.obsessive.pic
    When was it brave?
     
  5. Ovation

    Ovation Vice Admiral Admiral

    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.
     
  6. Crazy Eddie

    Crazy Eddie Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2006
    Location:
    I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
    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.
     
  7. throwback

    throwback Captain Captain

    Joined:
    May 27, 2011
    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.
     
  8. Khaaaaan

    Khaaaaan Ensign Newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2011
    Location:
    London, UK
    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.
     
  9. Commishsleer

    Commishsleer Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2013
    Location:
    CommishSleer
    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
     
  10. teacake

    teacake Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2007
    Location:
    inside teacake
    BEFORE IT RULES THE WORLD!
     
  11. Set Harth

    Set Harth Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Location:
    Morrowind
    For a moment they actually had me convinced they were going to kill off Kirk in the new timeline. :alienblush:

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

    Noname Given Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    May 22, 2001
    Location:
    None Given
    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.
     
  13. Kevman7987

    Kevman7987 Captain Captain

    Joined:
    May 20, 2013
    Location:
    Erie, PA, USA
    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.
     
  14. Commishsleer

    Commishsleer Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2013
    Location:
    CommishSleer
    Its too late - it's got Star Wars in it's grip now!
     
  15. Therin of Andor

    Therin of Andor Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Location:
    New Therin Park, Andor (via Australia)
    She went to "the frontier" - perhaps because she heard that a Starfleet ship would be patrolling the area where Dr Corby went missing.
     
  16. Crazy Eddie

    Crazy Eddie Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2006
    Location:
    I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
    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 :p).
     
  17. Commishsleer

    Commishsleer Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2013
    Location:
    CommishSleer
    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.
     
  18. Crazy Eddie

    Crazy Eddie Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2006
    Location:
    I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
    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.
     
  19. Commishsleer

    Commishsleer Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2013
    Location:
    CommishSleer
    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.
     
  20. Ovation

    Ovation Vice Admiral Admiral

    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.
     

Share This Page