Abrams On Star Trek Into Darkness Flaws

[Trekkin]

The "Khaaaaaan!" scream was a bit much. Everything else was fine.

I agree with this. The Khan scream was a step too far.

And the decision to cut out Khan's shower and Kirk's ass was sacrilege. The Roddenberry Writ of Meagre Garments and Frail Fabrics demanded their inclusion!

Still no legal way to see that 'nerd-off'?

 

[Dales]

I love the lens flares, they make the movie feel more real and less digital.

I like the lens flare too, I always use the term make the film look more raw but I could go with real as well. some other films look extremely took fake or too bright and you are reminded too often that it is fiction.

 

[JWPlatt]

It used to be that lens flares were the effects of amateurish photography.

This isn't even remotely accurate.

Yes it is. And you left out of my quote that it's like pissing in a bottle and calling it art.

But before you object again, I do accept that there are exceptions to almost everything.

 

[Trekkin]

Once upon a time, colour wasn't used in photography, a film camera was only ever tilted or shaken by accident, and Boticelli would have dismissed abstract art as the height of laziness. Even assuming you're right about the 'history' of lens flare ( I'm pretty certain you're not), things change.

One of the things we found out when studying 'what is art?', is that a large part of what separates it from 'mere product' is 'novelty', or originality. So technically, if lens flare was not purposefully used before Abrams pioneered its use, his movies have a better argument for 'art' status than those which didn't due to film-making convention.

Of course, the class did end with 'What is art? Something that is seen as creative and has value. Yes, that is a purposefully ambiguous statement!'

 

[JediKnightButler]

I had no real problems with Khan being in the movie and while some of the parallels with TWOK were obvious, Abrams mixed things up just enough that it could hardly be considered the same movie IMHO. I liked that Khan was somewhat more of a sympathetic character in this version and it was sort of neat that he and Kirk teamed up (briefly). What I liked even more is that they didn't make Kirk naive/ignorant to the fact that Khan was using him to get to Marcus and seize control of the ship. The only thing that sort of annoyed me about STID was that they left us with Kirk as Captain of the Enterprise at the end of the first movie and then after the situation on Nibiru at the beginning, Pike busted him down in rank and took the Enterprise away from him. I thought that that was sort of unnecessary. Other than that, it was a fun movie IMHO.

 

[Jeyl]

I remember when there were rumors that John Harrison was in fact Khan and I thought this would present an interesting opportunity for the character since one of his biggest downfalls in STII was his lack of Starfleet command experience. Now that he's been working as an agent for Starfleet, this could have been a Khan who could stand toe-to-toe with Kirk if not more so since Kirk himself lacks command experience compared to his counterpart. A Starfleet Khan had all the right ingredients to do something different with his skills that the other films made a big deal about... but they don't. They just give him a ship that can shoot at another ship that couldn't fight back.

 

[JWPlatt]

...if lens flare was not purposefully used before Abrams pioneered its use...

It's been done before, including in TOS. I'm not saying it hasn't. But to hyperbolize a little, few, if any, have shone Klieg lights down the barrel of the lens quite so extremely and obsessively as Abrams. I said the same thing I later read in some articles about how it becomes a self-parody and a distraction from the film.

 

[Maurice]

Lens flares started being accepted as part of a cinematographer's toolkit back in the 1960s. See The Graduate and Easy Rider for late 60s examples, Days of Heaven, Alien, and Close Encounters for 70s instances.

That said, the sheer volume of them in the JJ Trek films is off the charts, but that's a "look" he chose, like it or not.

 

[Trekkin]

'Like it or not,' with maybe a dash of 'don't really care if they're there or not,' is pretty much all you can say about it. Which is fine, because God knows there's some purposeful artistic choices that drive me crazy as well (like a knee-jerk hatred of opening narration).

I just found the appeal to film history and the oh-so-nebulous 'Art' to be a bit of a weak justification.

 

[fireproof78]

I had no real problems with Khan being in the movie and while some of the parallels with TWOK were obvious, Abrams mixed things up just enough that it could hardly be considered the same movie IMHO. I liked that Khan was somewhat more of a sympathetic character in this version and it was sort of neat that he and Kirk teamed up (briefly). What I liked even more is that they didn't make Kirk naive/ignorant to the fact that Khan was using him to get to Marcus and seize control of the ship. The only thing that sort of annoyed me about STID was that they left us with Kirk as Captain of the Enterprise at the end of the first movie and then after the situation on Nibiru at the beginning, Pike busted him down in rank and took the Enterprise away from him. I thought that that was sort of unnecessary. Other than that, it was a fun movie IMHO.

I didn't mind the demotion but that's a minor quibble. I more minded Pike's death.

The rest of your post I agree with. Same villain and one scene don't make it the exact same film.

I thought the character of Khan was interesting, and I enjoyed Admiral Marcus was too much. Just fun, interesting, villains. Casting was top notch on that one.

Also, lens flares, I watched it in 3D and didn't even notice it until I watched behind the scenes stuff.

 

[Dukhat]

Why did it have to be Khan?

What purpose in the storyline did he serve? Why did there need to be 72 torpedoes? Why couldn't Section 31 just have initiated its own supersoldier program and John Harrison was a man who was brought into the program, was used by Admiral Marcus and revolted?

Because it's all about Harrison's motivation. Making him some random supersoldier being used by Marcus isn't really all that much of an interesting premise. And saying that those 72 people are just more random super soldiers that Harrison is trying to save also doesn't give us much reason to care about them. But saying that they're the same people as who we saw in TWOK, one of the most popular Trek movies, and that Harrison is really Khan, one of the most popular Trek villains, gives the audience something to latch on to.

 

[Jeyl]

But saying that they're the same people as who we saw in TWOK, one of the most popular Trek movies, and that Harrison is really Khan, one of the most popular Trek villains, gives the audience something to latch on to.

And when it's not done in a respectable manner, the audience will REALLY latch onto it.

 

[Dukhat]

But saying that they're the same people as who we saw in TWOK, one of the most popular Trek movies, and that Harrison is really Khan, one of the most popular Trek villains, gives the audience something to latch on to.

And when it's not done in a respectable manner, the audience will REALLY latch onto it.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Jeyl]

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Well, would it be fair to say that Khan's character in general was one of the more criticized parts of Into Darkness? We've got criticisms involving white washing, not getting the character right, and having the character be there at all. Having John Harrison revealed to be Khan certainly got people to latch onto him, just not in the way they wanted it to.

 

[Paradise City]

Kahn is given some life in the brig scene. It makes him a two dimensional supersoldier with a 'family' of otherwise unseen torpedoes who are at risk rather than a one dimensional supersoldier. He's not particularly persuasive character though and the writers use him in a sprawling way.

Marcus is the one dimensional character. Weller is a heroic performer but the writers gave him nothing but this one dimensional goon who orchestrates some elaborate false flag involving massacring Starfleet people in response to a limited provocation from a species they've only a sketchy awareness of. He's a disjointed and implausible antagonist that could've been brought to life with just a little bit of dialogue and better background. But they just didn't bother with that.

The Kirk death scene is just completely devoid of interest and obviously a hamsfisted attempt to duplicate the powerful scenes in the 80's movie. Kirk wasn't going to die and Quinto - who is otherwise well cast - looked ridiculous screaming Kahn. Maybe people who never saw the 80's movies got more out of it but I just saw an almost sketch parody of those original scenes.

 

[fireproof78]

Kahn is given some life in the brig scene. It makes him a two dimensional supersoldier with a 'family' of otherwise unseen torpedoes who are at risk rather than a one dimensional supersoldier. He's not particularly persuasive character though and the writers use him in a sprawling way.

Marcus is the one dimensional character. Weller is a heroic performer but the writers gave him nothing but this one dimensional goon who orchestrates some elaborate false flag involving massacring Starfleet people in response to a limited provocation from a species they've only a sketchy awareness of. He's a disjointed and implausible antagonist that could've been brought to life with just a little bit of dialogue and better background. But they just didn't bother with that.

The Kirk death scene is just completely devoid of interest and obviously a hamsfisted attempt to duplicate the powerful scenes in the 80's movie. Kirk wasn't going to die and Quinto - who is otherwise well cast - looked ridiculous screaming Kahn. Maybe people who never saw the 80's movies got more out of it but I just saw an almost sketch parody of those original scenes.

Se, I'm the opposite. I would be willing to have STID just for Kirk's arc and character development in that movie.

Kirk isn't going to die? So what? Main characters never die, save for select moments in entertainment. I didn't go in to expecting Kirk to die, but that isn't what sells the scene. What sells it is Kirk's willingness to sacrifice himself for the sake of his crew.

Also, I love Marcus, and think he is an interesting, war-monger, who sees threats behind every planet and is taking steps to crush enemies before they become enemies. It's an extremist point of view, but in light of contemporary events, especially in the US and at the time of film's release, make it more interesting.

I have seen TWOK a number of times since I was 8 or 9. That doesn't diminish my enjoyment of STID. Obviously, and clearly, people's experience will vary.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Well, would it be fair to say that Khan's character in general was one of the more criticized parts of Into Darkness? We've got criticisms involving white washing,

Been that way since 1982.

http://www.thebeerdrifter.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Khan.jpg

Maybe people should stop putting faith in a historian whose largely observations of his ethnicity occurred after seeing him in a cryotube with no possible way to prove that said observations weren't pulled out of her ass.

Especially since said observations seemed to go away in the 15 years between the TV episode likely barely anyone outside Trekkies remembers and the movie where most people likely remember him from.

 

[Lance]

On the face of it, Star Trek Into Darkness had the potential to do what Star Trek has always done as far back as the 1960s, what Gene Roddenberry always said it did: shine a light on the social issues of our time under the guise of a science fiction allegory. The fundamental story behind STID, the core of the plot as it were, is a post War On Terror story of who can we trust, and how do we adapt to a world after a cataclysmic change. The idea of a 'rogue element' within Starfleet working overtly to undermine the organisation, nay even society itself, and (most tellingly) the assassination/terrorist attack on the Admiralty, are all powerful ideas for such a story. On this level, 'John Harrison' is a fundamentalist terrorist, and the great moral dilemma for Captain Kirk is whether to trust Harrison, or to follow Marcus' orders. In some ways the story writes itself. It's a very traditional, very Star Trek-y idea. I can't help feeling that shoe-horning Khan into that plot did not do the story much of a service, and may in fact have detracted from letting it reach a fuller potential than it actually did. Because the moment you make the villain Khan, then all the baggage that is associated with that character is brought to the fore, good and bad; and instead of it being an allegory of current events ('sleeper cells full of lone wolf agents take down a society from within -- how does Kirk respond to that moral dilemma?'), we are instead invited to just say, ''Hey, cool, it's Khan!'', and laugh along at all the TWOK allusions.

I haven't yet met anybody who doesn't think removing Khan from the equation could have resulted in a stronger movie. And I say that as somebody who liked Star Trek Into Darkness and who thought Cumberbatch was great as the villain. I just feel that the villain who he was playing shouldn't have been Khan.

 

[Paradise City]

There doesn't seem to be any seismic upheaval that warrants Marcus' serial killer conduct which is bafflingly one dimensional and underwritten. He's not plausible in the way Admiral Leyton is in DS9. Now in DS9, there's a society in crisis in pre apocalyptic, mode and Leyton's maverick Admiral act is well-written. All it needed to do with ID was improve the background with some good dialogue and well thought out background but it just wasn't done.

 

[Trekkin]

In a matter of hours, the Federation literally had one of their largest members near-wiped from existence by one guy with one super weapon. Less than a day later, said guy was minutes away from wiping out Earth.

The Dominion were good at being bad, but even they never managed quiet so much carnage in such a short time. Their greatest achievements were bombarding some major cities and taking over Betazed. On the other hand, if Kirk hadn't snuck aboard the Enterprise and given Pike the heads up about the attack, there's a good chance that most of the Federations core world's would have been gone before anyone could do anything about it.

A reminder of your own impotence like that tends to freak people out, especially those who might not be the most stable, moral, or trusting to begin with - like say, a long-time s31 agent?