The way I see it, to enjoy shows like Star Trek, occasionally forgiving some stupid shit is part of the deal.
Into Darkness
- Thread starter ronbrothers
- Start date
The way I see it, to enjoy shows like Star Trek, occasionally forgiving some stupid shit is part of the deal.
For myself (been watching Star Trek since 1969 - I was 6); It is my favorite Star trek feature film (well, it and STII:TWoK depending on my mood.)
Also, I think people claiming they just decided to 'rip off' or 're do' ST:TWoK weren't honestly paying attention. YES - it takes elements from STII:TWoK and uses them (in a sense juxtaposing Kirk and Spock in them); but for me - their usage made sense in the context of the film and the scenes were there for a reason.
The basic plot wasn't hard to follow either, but you need to remember this a very different Star tFleet then what we had in teh Prime Universe. This Star Fleet:
1) Encountered a Romulan starship from 120+ years in the future (the previous Earth Romulan war was 75 years in the past - and this was the first Romulan encounter since then. IE This universe's "Balance of Terror", except Star Fleet was WAY outmatched.)
2) This hip not only decimates a majority of Star Fleet single-handedly; it outright destroys one of the founding worlds (Vulcan) of the Federation.
^^^
Given the above, this new Universe's stance of bigger ships with more firepower; and also Admiral Marcus decision of: "Screw peaceful exploration, space is REALLY DANGEROUS and the hostile aliens REALLY HOSTILE - so we need to do whatever we can to protect Earth and what we have...
Is not an unbelievable response/reaction. neither is his decision to make use of Khan's keen intellect to design bigger/badder starships. (And if you think Khan is 'too primitive' - remember the PU Khan learned enough to commandeer the Enterprise after reading a few tech manuals for a few hours. In the JJ-Verse, he was revived and RECRUITED (IE I'm sure Marcus showed him everything and gave him time to become familiar with the current Federation tech - and turned him loose.) Marcus however also knew Khan for what he was, and kept him in line by effectively holding Khan's crew's well being hostage. Khan being Khan of course did outsmart Marcus, leading to the situation Marcus (and Spock and Kirk) found themselves in during STID. (And again, I don't find Marcus' idea of starting a war with the Klingons because he believes Star Fleet will never be more ready then it is now to confront, defeat, and control the outcome unreasonable given what he's seen and been through.)
JJ-Spock also seems to have more of a fascination with his mortality (because of the loss of his mother, and all those who died in the destruction of Vulcan, and possibly due to him meeting with his much older self.) That's what leads him to mind-meld with Admiral Pike at the moment of Pike's death; and that one act has a profound effect on him that carries on through the remaining events in STID and may explain why he's in general 'more emotional' in STB too.
But given all that I had no problem with his reaction to Kirk's death in STID and I LIKED the scene where Spock screams "Khaaaan!" as again, given everything that's happened to him (which he talks about too) it's not an unreasonable reaction; nor is wanting to make sure Khan is stopped.
As for the whole 'magic blood' bit...is that ant worse (or different) then Spock being saved from permanent blindless in the TOS episode 'Operation Anihalate' in the last 5 minutes from "an extra internal eyelid Vulcans forget that they have..." - or the 'Genesis Device' of ST:III somehow regenerating Spock to a younger version that grows just fast enough to be at the original Spock's exact age; and further, to suddenly age at a normal rate from the point the Genesis planet is destroyed?
Amazing how one of these (both patently ridiculous plot devices) is applauded/accepted, while the second is derided as 'ridiculous/unbelievable'; ESPECIALLY when you look at all the other ridiculous plot contrivances throughout Star Trek's story history.
Yes, STID was connected to BOTH the TOS episode 'Space Seed' and to 'STII:TWoK'; but IMO it was hardly just a 'numbers filled off' ripoff of either. (IMO) Again, it waffles between #1 and #2 (with ST:TWoK") for best Star Trek feature film made, for me at least.
There's a bit of a difference between a dumb plot contrivance in a single episode of an ongoing tv series (tv series have the benefit of things evening out over time) vs one in a major motion picture. And people give a pass to the first Spock resurrection because they spent an entire movie earning it dramatically. The tribble was tacked on to the end of the movie like an afterthought and as such felt like nothing more than a cheap trick to be able to have a big dramatic death scene with absolutely no consequences. In that sense it was primarily comparable not to Spock's death in the original movies, but to Data's death in Nemesis. And both were dumb and dragged their respective movies down.
For me, it's pretty much undeniable that Into Darkness is the least well made of the last three movies. At the same time, though, due to certain character and plot related preferences that I have, as well as Cumberbatch's performance in general, I still actually prefer it to ST09. Beyond just blew them both out of the water, though.
I like Star Trek (2009) it's in my Top 5. However, I really can't stand Into Darkness. It's just a rip off. Lousy writing and totally not Star Trek. The characters are behaving so unlike we know them. It's my very least favourite Star Trek film. Beyond is somewhere in the middle.
Sure it does. Stupid shit has existed in Trek since 1966. In order to be a fan, one has to be forgiving of stupid shit on some level.
A bit vague for my tastes, especially as I think, especially earlier in the film, the characters not behaving quite in the ways we would expect them to is part of the point. Would you care to elaborate?
I feel that Uhura, Kirk and Spock are doing things out of character from the TOS series and movies. I know it's a different timeline, but a complete personality change? Don't know. It felt to me I was watching completely different characters. Beyond is more faithful to the original characters in my opinion.
F.e. the bickering in the ship on their way to Kronos, that would never have happened with the old crew, not like that.
What else did they have to do exactly?
When you're a professional, you don't do that during a dangerous mission. Very out of character.
They weren't doing anything, but talking. Do you think military people just sit in quiet on their way to a mission?
Well, watching Band of Brothers recently, yes, those guys were sitting quitely on a plane when they were about to drop above France on D-Day.
What I find amazing about most of the complaints about the Abrams movies, is that people are peeved when the characters act human. The characters should sit in stone cold silence on the way to a mission. Do people actually hold TNG and the other spinoffs to that standard?
You'll also notice in many movies and books on the subject, that they would fill the time with idle chat or task.
You'll also notice in many movies and books on the subject, that they would fill the time with idle chat or task.
They ARE different characters. Each of them has grown up under altered circumstances from the originals. It would be impossible for them NOT to have differences (some greater than others, depending on circumstantial differences). Kirk, especially, as he grows up without his father--something that would lead to a radically different outcome than having his father around (note--different, not better or worse).
You cannot know this. A) because of what I just wrote above. B) they are younger, less experienced versions of the ones with which you are familiar. We have NEVER seen them (aside from brief glimpses of Spock, and even then, under different circumstances) this early in their careers. Do YOU act the same as you did 10, 15 or 20 years ago? I don't. Don't know many people who do, either.
Again, not the same characters. Plus, you are presuming several things not in evidence--more on that below.
Ah. Well here are a number of significant differences (leaving aside technology).
A) D-Day was an exceptional moment in the war. The kind of "thoughtful silence" expressed there was NOT the norm among soldiers deploying to assignments/battles. The potential for life and death conflict was a certainty for them. Not so for the fictional (important point) characters in the small ship in Into Darkness.
B) You are projecting and presuming that, three centuries from now, people in a multi-purpose institution like Starfleet will be bound by the same disciplinary conventions military forces apply today. Look back three centuries and compare the disciplinary expectations then and now. Much has changed. Why would it not in three hundred more years?
C) With few exceptions, most movie portrayals of the military set in present (or recent) times fail to conform to the reality of actual mission discipline. Why would you hold the portrayal of a fictional institution, three hundred years hence, to standards few, if any, people demand of entertainment (not documentary re-enactments) set in the present?
I'm trying to think of an example of this from TOS and can't come up with a single one. The only thing that even comes to mind Is Uhura singing during Charlie X but that was more like entertainment for the crew / teasing of Spock, not a direct flirtation. What instances are you thinking of?
Allow me to quote from KRAD's Livejournal: One thing I have realized in doing my weekly rewatch of TOS for Tor.com the last year or so is that they did not pull Spock-Uhura out of their asses. There is evidence to be found in "The Man Trap" when Uhura's asking Spock about Vulcan, in "Who Mourns for Adonais?" when Uhura's performing repairs, and in "Is There in Truth No Beauty?" when the Spock/Kollos gestalt quotes Byron's "She Walks in Beauty" at Uhura.
He also mentions "Charlie X", but you already got that one.
He also mentions "Charlie X", but you already got that one.
Kinda agree with this. Actually, If they had re-thought every scene after the space jump to Vengeance it would have been for the better IMO. Would have been nice to meet some of Khan's crew and show the audience why he was such a great leader. Also no magic blood in the entire film would have been nice. Still enjoyed the film but don't watch it very much.
I think that adding Khan to the movie was a mistake, but working with what we have I think it would have been better if Kirk and Khan stayed as allies to take down Marcus. They had no reason outside of writer's fiat to fight each other, so it would be a cool twist for the two of them to become allies and stay allies beyond the end of the film. Kirk would still be pissed at Khan for killing Pike, but Khan was only trying to save the lives of his crew. Kirk would not be able to forgive that, but he could understand it. And then we could avoid the magic blood and Street Fighter II fight between Spock and Khan. Everyone wins.
If they were going to take this approach, then unless they wanted to seriously rewrite the character of Khan, I would have preferred to see him ultimately give Our Heroes the slip along with his crew, perhaps to show up again another day.
Khan may have been willing to work with Kirk, but he never considered him or any other non-augments to be equals.
Khan may have been willing to work with Kirk, but he never considered him or any other non-augments to be equals.
I did a review in another thread, and thought I would throw it up here. I have discussed my views on this film, ad nauseum, and this is the most concise version of my thoughts on the movie, to date:
"Acting, good. Kirk as a character, a caricature of himself. It fails to answer why Kirk would have anymore friendship for Spock, then he does for Scotty or Uhura, Chekov or Sulu. They all faced death together with Nero. Is it emotional transference from the Mind-Meld with Prime Spock? The fact that Spock lost a mother, where Kirk lost his father? We are left to guess. Admiral Marcus is twirling his mustache the moment he is on-screen. The movie is dark and violent, talks about revenge, as if they needed a treatise on that in Trek movies, since every villain since Kirk faced down Khan the first time, has had some humanoid we cannot reason with, who needs to kill Enterprise and crew to achieve their madman goals. Cumberbatch's performance in Into Darkness, over-the-top, and over-blown. The movie is violent, did I mention that? They have been trying to re-do Khan for ages, and finally got their chance, and reeks of trying to do the arch-nemesis of Trek. The fallout from the Nero attack, our counter-terrorism argument, like 4 minutes of a 2-and-a-half hour movie. More flimsy plotting--Kirk is a Captain, then Cadet, then Commander, and Captain again in 18 minutes. Seriously, I timed it. Again, no consequences. The movie is violent, too. Did I mention that? Bra and panties back for STiD. Did I mention the movie was violent? The most unforgivable about a CGI gore-fest? That they ripped off some very popular Trek history to make it feel like a Star Trek movie. Do something new, please. No Greatest hits."
It was telegraphed. The scene where Khan says "I can save her. Your daughter, I can save her," and then seeing McCoy inject Khan's blood into the dead Tribble, I didn't know someone was going to die. But, when Kirk is laying there, I am muttering "Khan's blood." Over and over again. To the point I didn't even listen to the death scene until Spock yells "KHHHHHAAAAAAANNNN!" and it jolted me out of my trance, enough for me to roll my eyes, at the fact they actually put that on-screen. Someone thought, through writing and production and filming and editing and distribution, it was a good idea to yell "KHHHHHAAAAAAANNNN!" again. It was anti-climatic. It was the Joker in a Batman movie--the arch-nemesis of Star Trek. The movie fails in terms of its central characterization (Kirk and Spock) and is stale material. From the ripped off lines from II, to the treatise on revenge, to Kirk's arc in STiD that mirrors the SAME arc in ST '09, nothing new here. Stale, made less so by the brooding acting, the fast-pace (which will stop being chic one day and make this film VERY dated), and the violence. Did I mention the violence?
"Acting, good. Kirk as a character, a caricature of himself. It fails to answer why Kirk would have anymore friendship for Spock, then he does for Scotty or Uhura, Chekov or Sulu. They all faced death together with Nero. Is it emotional transference from the Mind-Meld with Prime Spock? The fact that Spock lost a mother, where Kirk lost his father? We are left to guess. Admiral Marcus is twirling his mustache the moment he is on-screen. The movie is dark and violent, talks about revenge, as if they needed a treatise on that in Trek movies, since every villain since Kirk faced down Khan the first time, has had some humanoid we cannot reason with, who needs to kill Enterprise and crew to achieve their madman goals. Cumberbatch's performance in Into Darkness, over-the-top, and over-blown. The movie is violent, did I mention that? They have been trying to re-do Khan for ages, and finally got their chance, and reeks of trying to do the arch-nemesis of Trek. The fallout from the Nero attack, our counter-terrorism argument, like 4 minutes of a 2-and-a-half hour movie. More flimsy plotting--Kirk is a Captain, then Cadet, then Commander, and Captain again in 18 minutes. Seriously, I timed it. Again, no consequences. The movie is violent, too. Did I mention that? Bra and panties back for STiD. Did I mention the movie was violent? The most unforgivable about a CGI gore-fest? That they ripped off some very popular Trek history to make it feel like a Star Trek movie. Do something new, please. No Greatest hits."
It was telegraphed. The scene where Khan says "I can save her. Your daughter, I can save her," and then seeing McCoy inject Khan's blood into the dead Tribble, I didn't know someone was going to die. But, when Kirk is laying there, I am muttering "Khan's blood." Over and over again. To the point I didn't even listen to the death scene until Spock yells "KHHHHHAAAAAAANNNN!" and it jolted me out of my trance, enough for me to roll my eyes, at the fact they actually put that on-screen. Someone thought, through writing and production and filming and editing and distribution, it was a good idea to yell "KHHHHHAAAAAAANNNN!" again. It was anti-climatic. It was the Joker in a Batman movie--the arch-nemesis of Star Trek. The movie fails in terms of its central characterization (Kirk and Spock) and is stale material. From the ripped off lines from II, to the treatise on revenge, to Kirk's arc in STiD that mirrors the SAME arc in ST '09, nothing new here. Stale, made less so by the brooding acting, the fast-pace (which will stop being chic one day and make this film VERY dated), and the violence. Did I mention the violence?
Last edited:
Similar threads
