Why Is "Into Darkness" So [imagine a different, more accurate past participle here]?
- Thread starter TedShatner10
- Start date
Audiences don't want to think about what they are watching anymore. If it isn't spoonfed to them, the writers are failures.
I don’t know if it’s really more problematic now but I do know I have less and less patience for the spoon feeding.
And if it isn't, or there is something that you have to work out for yourself, they claim plot hole.
I grew up with the idea that storytelling involved leaving some things for the imagination of the listener / viewer to fill in.
A while back, there was someone here who strongly insisted that that style of storytelling was now obsolete, and that it was the obligation of the director / filmmaker to fill all the gaps and tie up all the loose ends, such that nothing whatsoever was left to the imagination of the audience. Any failure on the part of the filmmaker to do this, said this someone, was to be counted as a plot hole.
Unsurprisingly, not everyone agreed with this thinking.
For myself, it seemed like what they were describing left the viewer to be nothing more than a receptacle of someone else's ideas -- a mere potato absorbing whatever gravy was ladled upon it, never aware of anything but that gravy. Being engaged in the story and (whether consciously or unconsciously) filling in the blanks from one's own imagination just sounds more satisfying.
I grew up similarly to you. I personally love filling in gaps. It's why alternate timelines are both fun to see the possibilities, and also a bit tired to excuse inconsistencies. Coming up with rationalizations of different aspects of a fictional world is one aspect that I always enjoy.
Well, I would hope at least some people are not that intellectually lazy.
I use to think that, and I am less and less convinced that it is not a matter of intellectual laziness any more, but a lack of patience. We live in a very immediate gratification culture, with knowledge at our finger tips, waiting and thinking about possibilities is less satisfying to just looking something up and having it confirmed. It's very much a product of just not wanting to instantaneous gratification.
I'd really rather that was just a coincidence, there's already too much suggestion in SNW that Chris Pike's Enterprise is where Starfleet's best and brightest go to have their careers stall out and/or regress. At least under Kirk, they still got promotions, even if they stuck with the same job.
Well said
Hated by a subset of Star Trek fans is probably more accurate.
General audiences and critics liked it well enough. Stuff that frustrated Trek fans, wouldn't have been an issue to most folks. The majority of complaints largely had to do with Khan and use of TWOK elements, but I'd bet a sizable percentage of people who saw Into Darkness never even saw The Wrath of Khan, or maybe saw it once or twice when they were a kid and barely remembered it. I think we as Trekkies sometimes forget most folks who would consider themselves Star Trek fans don't religiously watch the old stuff, Wrath was thirty years old when Into Darkness came out, that's ancient history for most movies.
Honestly, STAR TREK and ST: INTO DARKNESS are the only movies I ever liked from JJ Abrams.
I liked Mission Impossible 3 too.
I like all the Mission Impossible movies, except for the first one but only because they did the dirty to a beloved character from the original.
Gosh, I'm mixed with the series, I love One, liked 2, hated 3, love 4 Ghost Protocol, hated 5, and liked 6 in the M:I series. I didn't like Phillip Hoffman's role and hated the Rabbit's Foot MacGuffin, to me it was worst M:I movie I'd ever seen.
The first one still pains me because of how it all goes down.
As it stands on its own, it's just not that good. As a reimaging of Khan, it's a hell of a lot worse. It's a movie that never needed to be made.
I like the concept of the Kelvin Universe movies. There are moments that really capture the Kirk, Spock, McCoy chemistry. I would actually love to see them return as prime characters because the characters are well-acted. Sans the lens flare and rehashed stories, of course. But "Into Darkness" just wasn't that good.
I like the concept of the Kelvin Universe movies. There are moments that really capture the Kirk, Spock, McCoy chemistry. I would actually love to see them return as prime characters because the characters are well-acted. Sans the lens flare and rehashed stories, of course. But "Into Darkness" just wasn't that good.