STID 5th anniversary

So, I'm sitting here reading about the complaints over Carol Marcus appearing in her underwear and I've got the tv on and the weather man says "We are going to be seeing some haboobs."

Yeah, go ahead, tell me synchronicity ain't a thang....

 

Synchronicity ain't a thang.... (oh wait)

 

It always amuses me that there is a treatment of the Kelvin films like Star Trek had never had that in it before.

 

What did you think was particularly good about it, let alone better than TUC or First Contact or 09?

 

I like STID. On the surface it's a very exciting film to watch (especially on the big screen) with a lot of drama and great visuals.

I can totally see why people don't care for it though. It's plot doesn't make a great deal of sense when scrutinised and it treads in areas it really shouldn't have with the reactor scene and khaaaan scream.

Ultimately I can accept it on it's own terms for what it is - a sci-fi blockbuster. Do I rate it above the three films you listed? It's a tough call comparing films that are decades old to it, but yes I think I do rank it above TUC and FC (but not by much), and about level with 09.

 

Uhm ... pretty much absolutely, positively, everydamnthing? Ask me what wasn't good about it, I ain't got all day, y'know.

I offered a few sweeping generalizations here.

TUC and FC are pretty low bars to clear, which STiD does effortlessly, turning a few midair somersaults in the process just to show off. As for ST '09, the superior sequel perfects its potential, fixes its flaws, and reminds this lapsed Trek fan why I fell in love with these characters and their world in the first place.

 

I'd pay good money to watch that. Pinafore is a fun musical and Patrick Stewart is incredibly talented.

 

All I remember of this movie is people being flung out the Enterprise at warpspeed and somebody infront of me in the cinema groaning loudly at the Khan reveal, and somebody else shouting "what the fuck did you expect?" and there was laughing. #truestory

 

my love for into darkness is much more tempered, but man do i appreciate your enthusiasm for a film that gets way too much irrational hate.

 

I don't see how the film had coherent, let alone impressive, moral themes, when Kirk randomly goes from wanting to kill Khan to just capture him and the movie then presents that restraint as a mistake; it also is supposedly against taking vengeance but actually just against taking vengeance against those that didn't attack you. Kirk generally seemed a jerk, and the character interactions not nostalgic, from early on for being incensed that Spock would honestly report what Kirk had done and maybe both being surprised that there would be punishment.

 

It is hardly random. Everything Kirk does has set up and payoff, with Spock being the voice of reason to Kirk's insistence upon executing what he thought was a Federation citizen without trial. The movie doesn't present anything as a "mistake" but rather consequences to Kirk's choices. His attitude of jump in head first and to hell with the consequences is shown to be a strength and a liability.

Also, I would not want the character interactions to be nostalgic, beyond faint hints of how Kirk and McCoy banter, or even Spock being the moral check to Kirk's impulsivity. For reference in TOS see moments in "Trouble with Tribbles" were a look from Spock keeps Kirk from telling off a Federation official or in "Conscience of the King" where McCoy calls Kirk out for his choices.

 

As fireproof78 says, there was nothing random about it. Kirk was tempted to vengeance but found his better instincts in time, with help from Spock (who acts as moral counsel in classic Trek fashion, happily no longer the unrecognizable character who advocated letting Nero and crew die in ST '09).

I'm not sure why you think the film presents Kirk's decision as a "mistake" -- I'm guessing because of the people Khan killed? First of all, making the moral choice is not invalidated because it has negative consequences; if anything, it's purer if it comes at a cost. But beyond that, sparing Khan also led to discovering and stopping Marcus's plot to ignite a war with the Klingons, which would have cost many thousands (millions? billions?) of times more lives than were lost to Khan in the film.

As for Kirk being a "jerk" -- he's a jerk in TUC and '09 too, and Picard's a jerk in FC. Yet you cite those as examples of superior Trek films. One movie's "jerk" is another's "character development," and the bottom-line difference is probably whether you liked the film overall or not.

 

He was emotionally compromised. I think I can allow that lapse, especially since Spock in 09 served as advisor to Captain Pike.

That does seem to be a common thread.

 

I think part of it was that he did try to beat Khan and was puzzled that it had no effect, that made him think there must be something unexplained he wasn't getting and he wanted to find out what it was, but I guess he did show restraint, not very clear why.

Yeah, that was a bad moment in the predecessor, trying to present embracing vengeance as growth and becoming more human/likeable.

Specifically that a little later in a key moral decision he orders that Khan be just stunned, that leads to him quickly recovering, just after Marcus is captured and the film not ending with that but with him taking over Marcus's ship and continuing the conflict (and I think the film implies it escalates the conflict).

I guess so, I thought Kirk's flaws & his conflict with Spock in TUC was more extreme and yet also a lot more reasonable/understandable/even somewhat valid and especially so was how he was shown to recognize and overcome his flaws.
I thought in ID "You didn't cover up my breaking of rules? How could you ya traitor!" and "I'm being punished for breaking rules?" made the character pretty unlikeable, especially with him not having decades of having good judgment to only break rules when doing so was necessary/essential while OTOH in TUC he did have decades of negative interactions with Klingons to base his hostility around.

 

STID Retrospective

The movie acts as a metaphor for America’s descent into moral ambiguity following the terrorist attacks of 9/11. The hunt for John Harrison is analagous to the search for Bin Laden and the debate about whether to launch photon torpedoes at the Klingon home world is relevant to current debates regarding the morality of drone strikes.

The film concludes with Kirk realising that he lost perspective following the terrorist attack on Starfleet. He then rededicates himself to science and peaceful exploration and begins the famous five year mission, to explore strange new worlds and to seek out new life. The title “Into Darkness” refers to the moral state of American foreign policy following 9/11 (fear, vengeance, anger, and violence) and the final scenes state that it’s time row back from this.

Star Trek Into Darkness opens with Kirk debating on whether to violate the prime directive in order to rescue Spock whose life hangs in the balance as he tries to save an entire civilisation from an erupting volcano. I think Roddenberry would be proud of these aspects of the film.

Much like the first film, Into Darkness moves at a fast pace and has a lot of leavening humour courtesy of Simon Pegg as Scotty. The special effects work is outstanding, particularly the scenes with Spock in the volcano. I also really enjoyed the beautiful musical score from Michael Giacchino who cleverly riffs on existing themes from Jerry Goldsmith and Alexander Courage. He also cements his own Star Trek theme, providing a musical identity for the modern movies.

Chris Pine was excellent as Kirk and the film showed a Kirk who was quite similar to the portrayal in Season One of the original series. There were some great moments between Kirk and Spock, in particular I enjoyed the scene where Kirk confesses to Spock that he has no idea of what to do and you could really sense the burden of command. Cumberpatch was excellent as the villan, although I thought the casual viewer might have needed a little more back-story to really appreciate his character.

I enjoyed the plot of the film, although how much you enjoy it might depend on your appreciation of homage.

I didn’t quite enjoy the film as much as the 2009 movie – it tried hard to pull on the heartstrings in some scenes, but it never achieved the big emotional impact like the death of Kirks father in ST09 for instance. I also thought that the last thirty minutes were very much in the mold of a generic action movie and I would have preferred some more talky character scenes. Some of the dialog in the early part of the movie was well written and the actors rose to the challenge well.

All in all though, I think that this is JJ Abrams best directed movie, and the story flowed very well. I felt that the vignettes in the opening sequences of the previous movie led to a staccato feel to that film. Star Trek Into Darkness was an action romp in the vein of Indiana Jones rather than the bleak and brooding Dark Night that the trailers had suggested.

 

STID is better than FC, because...

STID doesn’t end it’s so-vaunted-we’re-comparing-ourselves-to-Moby-Dick ‘when seeking revenge, dig two graves’ story, by having the Kirk snap spine of a completely helpless Khan with his bare hands.

Also, Kirk’s restraint was not presented as a mistake. It’s just shown as being a harder and higher road than the ones Marcus and Khan chose. He has a whole speech about it.

I’m also confused as to why the characters would talk to each other ‘nostgiacally.’ It’s not like they did that in TOS, because, well...they were usually talking about shit that was happening right now.

The whole ‘vocally yearning for yesteryear’ stuff didn’t start until the movies, and it’s something that Spock Prime actually does do a little in 09. The crew’s habit of doing it was also usually meant to be a bad thing, coz it usually meant Kirk was on the verge of some midlife crisis-inspired stupidly.

That’s why his last speech in TUC is kicking nostalgia to the curb, and speaking only about the future.

You know, this post ended up longer than it really should be.

 

I didn't see that in the presentation at all.

I don't think the film implies that at all. I think, as Kirk noted, that he was helping Khan, even if accidentally, to achieve his goals. Kirk was overconfident and ended up with some pretty harsh consequences. Call it a mistake if you like, but I don't think the film frames it that way, or implies that Kirk's actions somehow escalated the conflict with Khan. Khan just crushed a guy's head in his hands. I'm pretty sure he was already angry and escalated.

That's part of his journey and what makes him an interesting character, even if unlikable at times. Going from 09 to ST ID to Beyond shows a clear character development. That's the best part of the Kelvin films is Kirk.