That's an interesting thought. But I have to differ in that it's a meaningfull arc for Kirk. The basic idea - sometimes there simply is no third way out - is intruiging enough, despite it already been handeled pretty well in TWOK.
Where I absolutely disagree is that it needed Kirk to sacrifize himself. The whole "real sacrifice" really only works if there is no resurrection at the end! (That's also one of the problems for TSFS, because it heavily undercuts the main theme of TWOK, though it has the benefit of at least happening one movie later, and not 20 minutes of runtime later). In my opinion, it would have been enough if Kirk would have learned that lesson. If there was such a situation, and someone needed to make the sacrifize. Hell, if they would have gone the "Kirk & Khan team-up to escape the klingons"-route the full way, the could have had that scene where Kirk prepares to sacrifize himself, and in the last second Khan switches in, does the deed himself, and extracts the promise from Kirk that he will also save Khan's old crew, not just the Enterprise's.
But as soon as you as a storytelling truly decide to go the "sacrifice" storyline, there really is no coming back. Then it needs to be treated with the weight and respect it deserves. Even good ol' Jesus himself didn't just walk away after his crucifiction and merrily continued his way as a carpenter/religious leader!
In that way, Into Darkness (and Transformers 2) wanted to go swimming, but didn't want to get wet. So they both killed and ressurected their leaders, Kirk and Optimus Prime, but without any lasting consequences.
As a viewer, this is a cardinal sin not to be forgiven. You don't open that can of worms, unless you are willing to go through. You can't half-ass sacrificing yourself, and that's what happened. Hell, even the Transformers cartoon handled it better, with lasting consequences, and the weight an act like that deserves.
I'm going to be honest here and admit I'm not a transformers fan so I'm not really getting the comparisons.
Just FYI. Also I respectfully disagree with that thought. If someone goes into a situation expecting to lose their life and does, but is brought back, that's still a sacrifice on their part. They didn't know they would be brought back, they weren't expecting it. Anyway I didn't say his sacrifice was necessary, but being put in the position to make that choice was in my opinion essential to Kirk's arc. Kirk is not Captain Picard, while this IS an alternate universe, he is still going to be Kirk and Kirk in TOS was always the one who would do the most dangerous tasks before he asked his crew to do so. If they had him Picard out and delegate, it would not be true to who Kirk is, in either universe, as I see it.
Also your comment about it
already being handled well in TWOK tells me you might be seeing these movies as perhaps a remake (I could be wrong?) and not what they are, which is basically an alternate reality based on a 'What would happen If' scenario JJ started in the 09 movie. And that is this, 'What would happen to Kirk if instead of being raised by loving parents, and being inspired to join Starfleet because of said Father, he was abused growing up due to his step-father and absent mother. How would that affect how Kirk turned out?' Viewed through that lens ST09 and STID are stories explaining all this.
I get that some people maybe don't want that story, but I love the fact they spread it out over two movies and not one. Not to mention that would've been impractical to try to squeeze into one movie. I prefer movies to build upon the previous, which is another reason I didn't like Beyond. I could also say I've seen a lot of origin movies that span more than one film. Iron Man comes to mind, though I think instead of calling them both origin movies I would call them developing the character. That's just good storytelling. ST 09 how did Kirk become Captain, STID how did Kirk grow into the Captain we all know/love. It was obvious at the end of the 09 film that this was not the Captain Kirk we were used to. I remember hearing everyone bitch about how a cadet was made a Captain, and ranting about Kirk being this immature ass. My answer, well yes, that is the point. I thought it was much better that they dealt with that in the next film instead of ignoring it. No doubt if they had we'd still be hearing about it. Which brings up my next point about movie tie-ins....
I think that was the only choice Lin could have made. Again, because I think Into Darkness veered so off into the ridiculous, there was no possible way to recover from it. You can't really delve into Kirk's resurrection, without adressing that the means to resurrect anyone still lay around. There is no possible way to adress the klingon conflict after the epilogue in Into Darkness takes place a year or so later - a time in which the conflict of "Into Darkness" with the klingons apparently got solved for the moment (otherwise there would have been immediate danger), so they needed to built up a completely new and unique threat for the new movie anyway. And all the other characters had no way to go anywhere either - Spock now has gotten in a fit of rage two(!) times after losing close ones (though apparently Kirks' death hurt him more than his mother's
), where can you go afterwards with that, except for into a completely new and different direction?
Wher Lin dropped the ball simply was the main thread of "Beyond" itself. Had the challenge of Krall not been
this generic and forgettable - all the nice and quiet character scenes would have gone down much better
I disagree, they could have referenced STID in a hundred ways that wouldn't affect the story they did tell with Beyond whether or not you feel it was ridiculous.(I don't
) They didn't have to make a story based on STID, but they could have the characters quip about events that happened in it. Just like they did with Spock and Spock Primes death and Kirk's line about what he was born into. Speaking of, I don't think that line would have had as much impact if the events of STID hadn't happened. That was the lesson Kirk had learned in STID, better to die saving lives. In 09 he didn't understand his Father's choice, in Beyond he's already been there and can speak to it.
An awesome tie in I wish they had made, was that at the end of STID we see Kirk who had lost a lot of his confidence that he should be Captain, they should have tied that into him trying to be made a Vice Admiral since they gave him no other reason to have done so. To be clear I'm referencing the line he says to Spock about how Spock should be the one in the Captain's seat and not him. Though what was it, two years down the line, that would probably be a stretch unless they shortened the time frame. Would've have been more interesting character development at least. It was one of those things they barely hinted at in STID and was never dealt with. There were a lot of things like that, they could have tied in, but they just didn't. I just wanted more Character meat and less scenes of alien planet.
Also Spock's rage made sense to me, but I will admit, only because I'm an original TOS fan. I know they are Thy'la or however you spell that or will become that. Not to mention, Kirk was his BFF and he'd already lost so much, once someone loses that much and then they lose that last person, they crack. It made sense to me. But like I said that's because, 'Jim, I have been and always shall be, yours.' Also this Spock is not Prime Spock, he has a lot more trouble with his emotions, partly because of what he's lost. It makes sense to me
Krall was such a disappointment, as far as bad guys go. I remember before the movie came out they were saying this film would be about Federation ideals etc along with Krall's line 'this is where the frontier pushes back.' I was expecting them to come across some corner of the galaxy that had powers that be, that were anathema to the Federation and how they dealt with it. And Edris Elba, what a waste of good resources.
