J.J. Abrams: 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Had 'Fundamental Story Problems

[Franklin]

Re: J.J. Abrams: 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Had 'Fundamental Story Prob

The idea of Kirk going from selfish, immature, jerk to a sacrificial leader is an arc that appeals to me and I find enjoyable.

I still don't get how Kirk choosing the save the lives of an entire species instead of religiously worshiping the Prime Directive by letting them die like some sanctimonious asshole is supposed to be a bad then he needs to character develop from.

And I don't buy the lying thing either seeing as Kirk Prime occasionally fudged reports in TOS.

It wasn't what Kirk did on Nibiru, it's how he did it. No Kirk we know would've let those people die. However, Kirk's plan in STID was reckless and foolhardy, disguised by bravery and hubris. He bragged to Pike about having never lost a crewman, not knowing that was almost certainly due to luck and not his skill as a commander or leader. His ego was leading him to disaster, a disaster that almost happened when he ran into Marcus and Khan.

Further, I'm not sure of a specific example of TOS Kirk "fudging" a captain's log, at least not so blatantly and flippantly. I think Kirk Prime would've saved the people without them knowing it, and in the logic of the TOS prime directive. After all, the only time the PD is quoted (that I remember) in TOS is in "Bread and Circuses" where Spock says, "No identification of self or mission. No interference with the social development of said planet." Plus, no references to space or more advanced civilizations. The key there is no interference in the social development of the people. It says nothing about having to stand around and watch them die if you can save them within the parameters of the directive.

 

[eyeresist]

Re: J.J. Abrams: 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Had 'Fundamental Story Prob

I think the opening of the film is really strong, since it shows a clear direction for both the leads: Kirk will learn about responsibility, Spock will learn about loyalty.

Then the movie shits itself and turns into a movie about a bad guy with a big ship getting revenge. Spock's arc is forgotten about and instead he punches Khan in the face a lot. At least Kirk dying, while it was rushed and annoying, tied into his story arc.

Maybe I'll have to watch the movie again, as my memory of Spock's arc (such as it was) is fuzzy. I don't think his arc was about loyalty*, it was about learning to accept his feelings. He is "blocked" due to the trauma of losing Vulcan, and somehow the loss of Kirk un-blocks him.


* I think Spock's tattling on Kirk was light comedy, in terms of Spock's POV. Like Data (another Pinnochio character), he is humorously naive and has to learn things humans take for granted. So he has learned that he is expected to lie for his friend, but it's not a key emotional moment for him, and his basic loyalty is never in question.

 

[Paradise City]

Re: J.J. Abrams: 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Had 'Fundamental Story Prob

Pine is a very convincing Kirk. Urban is adequate. Quinto is excellent. What wound me up the most is the cadet to Captain in a couple days in that first film. That's an unnecessary whopper and that kind of sloppy writing antics resolving such key character would've annoyed me watching any other movie in any other genre unless it was comedy. The dislike of it wasn't really rooted in Trek precedent -- except for the portrayal of Scott who reminded me of Shaggy from Scooby Doo. And unlike Doohan, Pegg's Scottish accent seemed like a sketch in a satirical show, Pegg previously being familiar to me as a TV comedy actor. Scott being pulled around in a tube and having a 'sidekick' and all that malarky....yuk.

The second film, I just didn't like BC's Khan compared to Montalban. I thought the writing shoved an English Khan in there and just didn't smooth that character out.

I wouldn't have liked Scott in the JJ film if I was first introduced to that character. So my dislike of the first JJ film isn't dependent on Trek precedence. My dislike of the 2nd film was amplified by my very, very fond memory of Montabaln's Khan but I didn't just like how the writers used BC's Khan even if they used a different name and otherwise kept how the character was portrayed.

My dislike of JJ's films wasn't dependent on Trek precedence. It certainly influenced my dislike, yes, but wasn't dependent on it. And I'm someone who was introduced to Trek via TNG and the TOS films.

 

[Franklin]

Re: J.J. Abrams: 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Had 'Fundamental Story Prob

I think Spock was experiencing survivor's guilt at the beginning of the movie. I remember one reviewer writing that Spock saying he chose to deal with loss by not feeling was a way many Jews said they dealt with the horrors of the Holocaust. Part of his story arc was rediscovering the value of his own life and that he could not hide or repress his feelings for the people around him. At least that's how I saw it.

Spock was always loyal.

 

[BillJ]

Re: J.J. Abrams: 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Had 'Fundamental Story Prob

The idea of Kirk going from selfish, immature, jerk to a sacrificial leader is an arc that appeals to me and I find enjoyable.

I still don't get how Kirk choosing the save the lives of an entire species instead of religiously worshiping the Prime Directive by letting them die like some sanctimonious asshole is supposed to be a bad then he needs to character develop from.

And I don't buy the lying thing either seeing as Kirk Prime occasionally fudged reports in TOS.

While I agree that Kirk did the right thing - save people instead of hiding behind inflexible dogma - I don't think the movie was saying Kirk did the wrong thing, or that Spock did the wrong thing with his report. They both did what was right: Kirk followed his conscience and Spock followed his logic by not lying.

I think the opening of the film is really strong, since it shows a clear direction for both the leads: Kirk will learn about responsibility, Spock will learn about loyalty.

Then the movie shits itself and turns into a movie about a bad guy with a big ship getting revenge. Spock's arc is forgotten about and instead he punches Khan in the face a lot. At least Kirk dying, while it was rushed and annoying, tied into his story arc.

I think Spock knocking the shit out of Khan does tie into his arc about his place in the universe. Khan's whole "you can't break a rule much less break bone" was a direct slam of Vulcan's pacifist ways.

 

[Trekkin]

Re: J.J. Abrams: 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Had 'Fundamental Story Prob

In the opening, I always thought Pike came across as pissed that Krik didn't take responsibility for his actions, as opposed to just being annoyed about the rule-breaking call. Even when Pike tells him his specific actions (not the general decision to save the Nuburians) were what was particularly stupid and reckless, Kirk tries to duck out of agreeing by just saying it's always worked out for him.

That's why it's kind of a big deal later when (a) he tells Marcus that he should be punished for not killing Khan, (b) when he apologises to the crew for getting them all killed, and (c) when he walks headlong into certain death to try and fix the consequences of his mistakes.

 

[ancient]

Re: J.J. Abrams: 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Had 'Fundamental Story Prob

I think the opening of the film is really strong, since it shows a clear direction for both the leads: Kirk will learn about responsibility, Spock will learn about loyalty.

Then the movie shits itself and turns into a movie about a bad guy with a big ship getting revenge. Spock's arc is forgotten about and instead he punches Khan in the face a lot. At least Kirk dying, while it was rushed and annoying, tied into his story arc.

Maybe I'll have to watch the movie again, as my memory of Spock's arc (such as it was) is fuzzy. I don't think his arc was about loyalty*, it was about learning to accept his feelings. He is "blocked" due to the trauma of losing Vulcan, and somehow the loss of Kirk un-blocks him.


* I think Spock's tattling on Kirk was light comedy, in terms of Spock's POV. Like Data (another Pinnochio character), he is humorously naive and has to learn things humans take for granted. So he has learned that he is expected to lie for his friend, but it's not a key emotional moment for him, and his basic loyalty is never in question.

Ok, that can be the arc then, but it doesn't really work for me. He just snaps & tries to punch Khan a lot. How uplifting.

 

[eyeresist]

Re: J.J. Abrams: 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Had 'Fundamental Story Prob

And unlike Doohan, Pegg's Scottish accent seemed like a sketch in a satirical show

Which is ironic, given Doohan's accent was basically made up.
Pegg's wife is Scottish, and I vaguely recall his father-in-law also helped him with the accent. There is actually a huge variety of regional accents in Britain, most of which would sound very strange to someone used to the relative homogeneity of speech in Hollywood movies.

 

[Franklin]

Re: J.J. Abrams: 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Had 'Fundamental Story Prob

I still don't get how Kirk choosing the save the lives of an entire species instead of religiously worshiping the Prime Directive by letting them die like some sanctimonious asshole is supposed to be a bad then he needs to character develop from.

And I don't buy the lying thing either seeing as Kirk Prime occasionally fudged reports in TOS.

While I agree that Kirk did the right thing - save people instead of hiding behind inflexible dogma - I don't think the movie was saying Kirk did the wrong thing, or that Spock did the wrong thing with his report. They both did what was right: Kirk followed his conscience and Spock followed his logic by not lying.

I think the opening of the film is really strong, since it shows a clear direction for both the leads: Kirk will learn about responsibility, Spock will learn about loyalty.

Then the movie shits itself and turns into a movie about a bad guy with a big ship getting revenge. Spock's arc is forgotten about and instead he punches Khan in the face a lot. At least Kirk dying, while it was rushed and annoying, tied into his story arc.

I think Spock knocking the shit out of Khan does tie into his arc about his place in the universe. Khan's whole "you can't break a rule much less break bone" was a direct slam of Vulcan's pacifist ways.

Spock going to town on Khan was not completely out of character for the situation, either. He blew up in a blind rage on the school boy and Kirk in ST09. Sulu isn't the only one McCoy doesn't want to ever piss off.

 

[BillJ]

Re: J.J. Abrams: 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Had 'Fundamental Story Prob

Ok, that can be the arc then, but it doesn't really work for me. He just snaps & tries to punch Khan a lot. How uplifting.

Is he suppose to talk to Khan?

 

[ancient]

Re: J.J. Abrams: 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Had 'Fundamental Story Prob

Ok, that can be the arc then, but it doesn't really work for me. He just snaps & tries to punch Khan a lot. How uplifting.

Is he suppose to talk to Khan?

When Uhura is the one who resolves the situation after Spock throws a hissy fit & basically fails to do anything effective, I wouldn't call that a grand bit of character development.

Frankly, I don't really care for this Spock and his crazy rage problems. And his arc here basically ends with him flying into yet another crazy rage.

 

[ancient]

Re: J.J. Abrams: 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Had 'Fundamental Story Prob

I think the opening of the film is really strong, since it shows a clear direction for both the leads: Kirk will learn about responsibility, Spock will learn about loyalty.

Then the movie shits itself and turns into a movie about a bad guy with a big ship getting revenge. Spock's arc is forgotten about and instead he punches Khan in the face a lot. At least Kirk dying, while it was rushed and annoying, tied into his story arc.

Maybe I'll have to watch the movie again, as my memory of Spock's arc (such as it was) is fuzzy. I don't think his arc was about loyalty*, it was about learning to accept his feelings. He is "blocked" due to the trauma of losing Vulcan, and somehow the loss of Kirk un-blocks him.


* I think Spock's tattling on Kirk was light comedy, in terms of Spock's POV. Like Data (another Pinnochio character), he is humorously naive and has to learn things humans take for granted. So he has learned that he is expected to lie for his friend, but it's not a key emotional moment for him, and his basic loyalty is never in question.

Sorry, maybe I wasn't really clear there. I saw Spock & Kirk as basically mirroring each other - so Spock would learn about doing things more like Kirk - bending the rules for the sake of loyalty. Which he doesn't. I don't think Spock learned anything in this movie, except maybe giving in to hate and punching a guy a lot will make you feel real good.

 

[Trekkin]

Re: J.J. Abrams: 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Had 'Fundamental Story Prob

I think we're ultimately meant to see Spock's reaction as a bad thing- it's why he had to be stopped, remember? The only reason he reacted like he did was because he'd been repressing everything until it damn-near literally exploded out of him, and that reaction nearly resulted in him permanently killing Kirk.

The 'moral' to the story was about '...the darkness looking back at you' after all. In TWOK, Khan killed all his friends on his little quest (and was willing to endanger them in Space Seed). In STID, Kirk and Spock nearly did the same. It's just unlike Joachim, Spock was willing to listen to Uhura.

 

[fireproof78]

Re: J.J. Abrams: 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Had 'Fundamental Story Prob

I think we're ultimately meant to see Spock's reaction as a bad thing- it's why he had to be stopped, remember? The only reason he reacted like he did was because he'd been repressing everything until it damn-near literally exploded out of him, and that reaction nearly resulted in him permanently killing Kirk.

The 'moral' to the story was about '...the darkness looking back at you' after all. In TWOK, Khan killed all his friends on his little quest (and was willing to endanger them in Space Seed). In STID, Kirk and Spock nearly did the same. It's just unlike Joachim, Spock was willing to listen to Uhura.

Precisely so. The idea that Spock's arc ended with punching Khan is narratively false. Spock's arc is about balancing his emotions. He is afraid to embrace them after the loss of Vulcan, knowing that it is a pain he cannot deal with. Then, that pain is shoved violently back in to his face by the loss of Kirk, a friend he just realized was his friend (never know what you have until its gone).

With Spock, it's about healthy expression, and not allowing the darkness to consume you. The same with Kirk not following orders and killing Khan and violating the law.

Might not be the best resolution, but it presented a side of Spock that is rarely explored, so again, interesting to me.

As for Kirk's decision on Nibiru, I read it, as others have stated, that he is cocky and willing to break the rules because he sees fit to do so. There is no acceptance of responsibility or the possibility that someone might have to die. Kirk's sacrifice is him learning that reality.

 

[Quinton O'Connor]

Re: J.J. Abrams: 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Had 'Fundamental Story Prob

^ +1

I think that so many people who don't like these movies grew up with TNG, not TOS, and have Picard stuck in their minds as the "ideal" captain.

Kor

Certainly doesn't apply to me, at least. I grew up with 90s Trek. I watched the TOS films over and over as a kid, but didn't get into TOS itself until a few years ago. Love the nuTOS movies, heh.

But yeah, maybe there's some truth to that overall.

 

[eyeresist]

Re: J.J. Abrams: 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Had 'Fundamental Story Prob

I think we're ultimately meant to see Spock's reaction as a bad thing- it's why he had to be stopped, remember? The only reason he reacted like he did was because he'd been repressing everything until it damn-near literally exploded out of him, and that reaction nearly resulted in him permanently killing Kirk.

So he was "compromised" - again.
I hope that in Beyond we discover that he is practicing meditation, in order to live with his volatile emotions.

 

[Franklin]

Re: J.J. Abrams: 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Had 'Fundamental Story Prob

I think we're ultimately meant to see Spock's reaction as a bad thing- it's why he had to be stopped, remember? The only reason he reacted like he did was because he'd been repressing everything until it damn-near literally exploded out of him, and that reaction nearly resulted in him permanently killing Kirk.

So he was "compromised" - again.
I hope that in Beyond we discover that he is practicing meditation, in order to live with his volatile emotions.

I'm reminded of what Spock Prime said to McCoy in TWOK when the doctor went on a rant about Genesis: You must learn to govern your passions. They will be your undoing.

Then again: THE WOMEN!

 

[Yanks]

Re: J.J. Abrams: 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Had 'Fundamental Story Prob

JJ isn't the problem with nuTrek. It's been the writing. STID just amplified what we all blindly accepted in ST09 (25 year revenge story - really?, Vulcan gone - really?, Spock/Uhura romance - really?). The casting was fantastic, the visuals and music were higher than top-notch. They gave us a proper engineering plant and cut down on the shaky cam and lens flares. The problem with STID, as JJ knew all along was the frakin story. Just think how epic ID could have been had we not had to have 72 torpedoes, a Khan reveal that only pissed off the faithful and meant nothing to the new trek fans, super life reviving blood and the rip-off reversal scene in engineering? They could have told the same story with Harri-Khan as an Augment from Enterprise without infuriating the "hard core" fans and the new fans wouldn't have known any difference. ID could have easily been in the "top 3" in my trek movie ranking. All Pegg, Jung & Lin have to do is give us some real writing with a new story and all will be well. I believe Paramount understands this because they canned the writers from the first two, I'm more optimistic that the third will much more enjoyable. I'm afraid actually that we will be saying we miss JJ in the directors chair when it's all said and done.

Maybe they should have written Khan into the Enterprise chamber to give his life for his and the Enterprise crew as redemption for his alternate universe self and victory against the corrupt Admiral. That might have been more interesting and compelling - something akin to "in another life I could have called you friend." Well, they get their chance.

Kirk's story arc demanded that he be the one who sacrificed himself. This story was not about Khan or his redemption (especially for an alternate universe self he knows nothing about).

The movie had an ambitious story, that's for sure. For the most part, in my opinion, they pulled it off. And, STID was no more like TWOK than TVH was. I have no idea why the "fan base" would be pissed off they used Khan. He's hardly an icon or inviolable. Using him was kind of neat because he is now part of crucial times in the development of the lives of both Kirks.

That's the problem... "Kirk's story arc" shouldn't have included doing exactly what Spock did in TWoK. What they could have done to give a nod to that iconic scene, was something like have Spock do everything he did, but Kirk used anti-radiation meds and wore a suit and was OK. Then Spock can stay in character instead of loosing control and blaming Khan for everything.

STID just amplified what we all blindly accepted in ST09 (25 year revenge story - really?, Vulcan gone - really?, Spock/Uhura romance - really?).

Saying "really?" is not any kind of cogent criticism.

Got the point across... it wasn't meant to be a critique of ST09, just making a point about the "story".

a Khan reveal that only pissed off the faithful and meant nothing to the new trek fans, super life reviving blood and the rip-off reversal scene in engineering? They could have told the same story with Harri-Khan as an Augment from Enterprise without infuriating the "hard core" fans

Obviously not all Trek fans were pissed off.

Obviously many where. Your comment is nothing more than argumentative.

(I agree that using Khan can be argued as problematic, but it's not what "broke" the movie. I'd say Khan's sudden hard turn into full-on evil after Prime Spock's unexpected info dump is STID's biggest problem, plot-wise. It's the writer's heavy hand rather than organic character development.)

I agree. I actually accepted Cumby's Khan, probably because I didn't have a choice, but if you look at most of the story problems in STID, they all are there as a result of Khan being in the movie and the writer infatuation with TWoK.

As much as I'm not a huge fan of this, it's better than Spock balling like a baby over someone he's been at odds with for half the time they've known each other.

You mean V'ger, right?

You aren't comparing Spock's linking with pure logic coupled with his recent quest to achieve Kolinar in TMP with loosing emotional control, throwing tantrums, running down and beating Khan to an inch of his death in ID are you?

JJ isn't the problem with nuTrek. It's been the writing. STID just amplified what we all blindly accepted in ST09 (25 year revenge story - really?, Vulcan gone - really?, Spock/Uhura romance - really?). The casting was fantastic, the visuals and music were higher than top-notch. They gave us a proper engineering plant and cut down on the shaky cam and lens flares. The problem with STID, as JJ knew all along was the frakin story. Just think how epic ID could have been had we not had to have 72 torpedoes, a Khan reveal that only pissed off the faithful and meant nothing to the new trek fans, super life reviving blood and the rip-off reversal scene in engineering? They could have told the same story with Harri-Khan as an Augment from Enterprise without infuriating the "hard core" fans and the new fans wouldn't have known any difference. ID could have easily been in the "top 3" in my trek movie ranking. All Pegg, Jung & Lin have to do is give us some real writing with a new story and all will be well. I believe Paramount understands this because they canned the writers from the first two, I'm more optimistic that the third will much more enjoyable. I'm afraid actually that we will be saying we miss JJ in the directors chair when it's all said and done.

Wow, there is a lot to unpack here. First of all, 09 is a fun film, and I have no problems with any of the plot points. Vulcan destroyed was a shock, and Nero is probably one of the most fascinating villains that Trek has had in a long while (save maybe Weller's character in Terra Prime).

Secondly, the TWOK reversal is by and far one of my favorite moments in STID, and (at the same time) one of my few enjoyable moments for me in TWOK. The idea of Kirk going from selfish, immature, jerk to a sacrificial leader is an arc that appeals to me and I find enjoyable.

I'm glad you enjoyed it. Personally I shut down when I watched the reversal in the theater. I would argue that that "arc" is WAY to quick in the new timeline. Spocks yelling of Khan was more comical to me that moving.

I agree that Khan was unnecessary, and would have worked as a super soldier Augment that Marcus was producing to fight Klingons-bigger, faster, stronger, etc. Though, Marcus' rationale worked for me as well, so it is a weak point but not a breaking point.

It makes sense. They could have brought Cold Station 12 into the story etc...

Missing Abrams? No, I have confidence in Lin and his ability to manage a production like this. I think he will do just fine in his production.

I didn't mean is as a hit on the new team, my cut is that JJ bring lots of energy and ability to the directed/producing part of the pie. I hope we don't see a huge drop off in that department when we watch 'Beyond'.

STID certainly had some missed opportunities, so I can understand misgivings or negative reaction to it. But, I don't hold 2 seconds of Spock's emotional outburst against it. It's a tale of people discovering themselves-Kirk how to be a leader, Spock how to be in a relationship after a severe loss (both with Kirk as a friend and Uhura as a romantic partner) and the potential extremes those paths can take.

And, I miss Captain Pike. Stupid STID making me cry three times!

Again, I don't begrudge anyone for their opinion. Like I said, I was really enjoying the ride until the writers forgot who Spock is. But that's just me.

I too wish Pike was still alive.

As much as I'm not a huge fan of this, it's better than Spock balling like a baby over someone he's been at odds with for half the time they've known each other.

As much as I like STID, excellent point there. Had they known each other sixteen years instead of two.........

It really stood out to me.

 

[Ryan8bit]

Re: J.J. Abrams: 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Had 'Fundamental Story Prob

I think we're ultimately meant to see Spock's reaction as a bad thing- it's why he had to be stopped, remember?

I thought he had to be stopped because they needed Khan's blood. Not sure if Uhura would've stopped him otherwise.

 

[Jedi_Master]

Re: J.J. Abrams: 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Had 'Fundamental Story Prob

Trekkies couldn't come up with a million angry fans.

You know how you get a million Trekkie fans to show up - to anything?
You offer them free Star Wars tickets.