• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Why Is "Into Darkness" So [imagine a different, more accurate past participle here]?

fireproof78 said:
I would prefer Khan be John Harrison as a tool that turns on Marcus
Click to expand...
That's what I would have preferred as well: the story of John Harrison, rogue S31 agent turned terrorist, no Khan.
 
fireproof78 said:
I have gone back and forth, and certainly shared a lot more of my thoughts on this film in this thread and elsewhere. For me, there are two things about this movie that really take away from it being great: one, is the Nimoy conversation, and two is the space jump. Yes, the whole Khan thing bothered me and I would prefer Khan be John Harrison as a tool that turns on Marcus but that is minor to me. To me, the whole series of events from 09 to ID are such strong representations of the extremes that the two main characters can go to. Marcus and Khan represent the worst aspects of humanity (paranoia and pride) while Nero represents the perils of Vulcan emotions run amok (pun slightly intended). We should that both Kirk and Spock are not immune to these extremes, and need the balancing affect of strong leader figures.

Khan is an interesting mirror in particular because he and Kirk share a similar idealized form-they are both genius level intellects who put strong value in their family and name. When Khan says "My name is Khan," he mirrors Kirk in ST 09 "My name is James Tiberius Kirk." The name is not necessarily significant to the person they are speaking too but their claiming their identity, or reclaiming it in Khan's case.

I know many of these themes don't stand out to everyone, and I know that these movies are not something enjoyed by everyone but for me there is a lot of great thematic and character work done that makes them still fun films, even with missteps.
Click to expand...

interesting and well reasoned post. For me it goes simpler than that. They were saying that this is an alternate universe caused by the Vulcan destruction. Fine, great I can do alternate universes. Why are they so adamant about it being an alternate universe but then still streak Khan like the maniac that he was in our universe. They had the opportunity to mix things up and not worry about Canon, yet they had to contact Spock and make Kahn the predicable maniac. It just went against what they sold this era of movies on.
 
tomalak301 said:
interesting and well reasoned post. For me it goes simpler than that. They were saying that this is an alternate universe caused by the Vulcan destruction. Fine, great I can do alternate universes. Why are they so adamant about it being an alternate universe but then still streak Khan like the maniac that he was in our universe. They had the opportunity to mix things up and not worry about Canon, yet they had to contact Spock and make Kahn the predicable maniac. It just went against what they sold this era of movies on.
Click to expand...
Why? Because Khan is considered Star Trek's greatest villain and the writers went back and forth on using him again. I think it wasn't the best choice, but I thoroughly love Pine Kirk and Quinto Spock and so stay invested in the characters despite my annoyance at Khan. But, at the same time, the basic logic is sound; "Khan is still out there." I mean, he is.

I can wish for it to be different all I want but in the end I am more than willing to accept Khan for the characters and the story. Mileage will vary if that is enough.
 
WarpFactorZ said:
We are now at the Final Frontier distance from TMP...
Click to expand...
It's funny how much more efficient Bennett was releasing the 80s movies at a steady biennial pace, probably because he came from the TV movie world where things had to move quicker. Imagine if we had six Kelvin films between 2009-2021.
 
drt said:
It's funny how much more efficient Bennett was releasing the 80s movies at a steady biennial pace, probably because he came from the TV movie world where things had to move quicker. Imagine if we had six Kelvin films between 2009-2021.
Click to expand...
Better world. I'd sacrifice Kurtzman Trek for it.
 
Pine's Kirk is one of the cornerstone's performances of the Kelvin trilogy, along with Quinto. Those who just see Pine's Kirk as "dumb frat boy" Kirk miss all the development Pine puts in to that character. Watching behind the scenes interviews and how Pine was mindful to be both respectful as well as not do just an impression of Shatner as Kirk but bring his own spin to the character. His face tells so many stories in response to each character. Even within Into Darkness, his response to Carol over the course of the film shows growth, from leering at her, to taking a peek, like he tried with Uhura, to listening to her advice, to checking on her the moment they are beamed back. He has so many little moments and they are all so incredible.

Hats off to you, Mr. Pine.
 
drt said:
It's funny how much more efficient Bennett was releasing the 80s movies at a steady biennial pace, probably because he came from the TV movie world where things had to move quicker. Imagine if we had six Kelvin films between 2009-2021.
Click to expand...
Well they're trying to do TV movies on P+ every 2 years, although I suspect the writers' strike has killed the first one (Section 31) dead due to Michelle Yeoh's limited availability. The next one will either be a Discovery movie or that Star Trek: Legacy we keep hearing about.
 
fireproof78 said:
Pine's Kirk is one of the cornerstone's performances of the Kelvin trilogy, along with Quinto. Those who just see Pine's Kirk as "dumb frat boy" Kirk miss all the development Pine puts in to that character. Watching behind the scenes interviews and how Pine was mindful to be both respectful as well as not do just an impression of Shatner as Kirk but bring his own spin to the character. His face tells so many stories in response to each character. Even within Into Darkness, his response to Carol over the course of the film shows growth, from leering at her, to taking a peek, like he tried with Uhura, to listening to her advice, to checking on her the moment they are beamed back. He has so many little moments and they are all so incredible.

Hats off to you, Mr. Pine.
Click to expand...


And in Beyond his responses to the Enterprise being killed bit by bit
 
The other thing that I can't deny about STID is that it is an absolutely gorgeous looking film in every conceivable way. The cast looks amazing, the visual effects are still top-notch, the different environments we see throughout the story are all convincing and beautiful. Even the cinematography and quality of the way the movie was filmed....just all completely gorgeous.
 
I was hyped for the movie since I generally liked Star Trek (2009), but I found Into Darkness to overall be a lazy narrative that becomes worse and worse the more you think about it. The shortcuts it uses to create the plot contrivances are really bad storytelling and I don't think the character moments work at all. Overall, it's a really dumb plot in a dumb movie
  • I don't like what it does with the KIrk-Spock relationship at all. Keeping them distant and still not on the same page in the second movie undercuts Kirk's sacrifice at the end. Part of what sells Spock's sacrifice in The Wrath of Khan is the weight of Kirk's and Spock's relationship. We, as the audience believe that these two have been to hell and back and would do anything for each other. When Kirk sacrifices himself for the ship, Spock's "KHANNNNNNNN!!" scream and vengeance quest against Khan rings hollow, because both he and Kirk aren't close, aren't real friends, and still are somewhat distant.
  • The John Harrison-Khan masquerade makes no sense for the characters within the story. The reveal of Khan's name means nothing to Kirk and Spock, but is only there to be a reveal to the audience. A reveal that most people guessed even before the movie was released.
  • The movie does nothing to set up hostilities between the Klingons and Federation. The entire plot hinges around an admiral wanting a more militarized Starfleet, potentially provoking a war with the Klingons. But there's nothing in the movie to even set that up as a concern. It relies entirely on the audience being aware of the Klingons' reputation and making assumptions.
  • The transwarp beaming, the instantaneous warp drive, and the magic Khan blood are all indicative of plot shortcuts that JJ Abrams uses to move the plot from A to B without having to do any story foundation for those elements, or doing story work like justifying the passage of time or doing the slightest bit of technobabble to justify their use as solutions
  • Speaking of contrivances, two Federation starships fight each other within the orbit of the Moon from Earth? Does Starfleet Command hail each ship to find out what's going on? Do they send some shuttles to investigate? It makes absolutely no sense, but is necessary in order to set up the circumstances of the final action sequences.
  • If you're going to kill Kirk, leave him dead for the end of the film. Deal with the consequences of that decision. Make the characters react to it. But this movie can't even keep him dead for 30 minutes.
  • I don't think either Star Trek (2009) or Into Darkness does a lot to sell Kirk as a leader. Both movies do more to put Spock front and center as the focus of action. And a huge difference between Shatner's Kirk and Pine's Kirk is that Shatner's feels compelled to be in the center seat of the Enterprise. He feels the need to be there in order to affect change. Pine's Kirk is constantly in doubt of whether he should be there.
 
Citiprime said:
I don't think either Star Trek (2009) or Into Darkness does a lot to sell Kirk as a leader. Both movies do more to put Spock front and center as the focus of action. And a huge difference between Shatner's Kirk and Pine's Kirk is that Shatner's feels compelled to be in the center seat of the Enterprise. He feels the need to be there in order to affect change. Pine's Kirk is constantly in doubt of whether he should be there.
Click to expand...

I to varying degrees agree or disagree with the rest of your points, but I feel this one in particular merits some response.

I'm sure I don't need to tell you that Pine's Kirk and Shatner's Kirk, while sharing the same name and multiple other traits, are fundamentally different people who in particular had different upbringings. Pine's Kirk in particular was raised after his father sacrificed himself, and as alluded to in Beyond, that's shaped who he's become.

To me it only makes sense that Pine's Kirk would suffer Imposter Syndrome in ways that Shatner's Kirk never had to deal with. I'd say the whole point of the ending of Beyond (one of them anyway) is that through the events of the film Pine's Kirk comes to a better understanding of and peace with who he is.

Bluntly, Kirk isn't particularly supposed to yet be the leader we hope he can be in the first two films. In the first film he gets thrown into the captain's seat with insufficient experience due to extraordinary circumstances, and in the second film the fact that he arguably never should have been thrown into the captain's seat to begin with comes back to bite him in the ass. And yet, the three films do show him maturing into the captain we know that he, in at least one other timeline, can be.
 
DonIago said:
Bluntly, Kirk isn't particularly supposed to yet be the leader we hope he can be in the first two films. In the first film he gets thrown into the captain's seat with insufficient experience due to extraordinary circumstances, and in the second film the fact that he arguably never should have been thrown into the captain's seat to begin with comes back to bite him in the ass. And yet, the three films do show him maturing into the captain we know that he, in at least one other timeline, can be.
Click to expand...
Exactly. And it's a great journey.
 
Citiprime said:
I was hyped for the movie since I generally liked Star Trek (2009), but I found Into Darkness to overall be a lazy narrative that becomes worse and worse the more you think about it. The shortcuts it uses to create the plot contrivances are really bad storytelling and I don't think the character moments work at all. Overall, it's a really dumb plot in a dumb movie
  • I don't like what it does with the KIrk-Spock relationship at all. Keeping them distant and still not on the same page in the second movie undercuts Kirk's sacrifice at the end. Part of what sells Spock's sacrifice in The Wrath of Khan is the weight of Kirk's and Spock's relationship. We, as the audience believe that these two have been to hell and back and would do anything for each other. When Kirk sacrifices himself for the ship, Spock's "KHANNNNNNNN!!" scream and vengeance quest against Khan rings hollow, because both he and Kirk aren't close, aren't real friends, and still are somewhat distant.
  • The John Harrison-Khan masquerade makes no sense for the characters within the story. The reveal of Khan's name means nothing to Kirk and Spock, but is only there to be a reveal to the audience. A reveal that most people guessed even before the movie was released.
  • The movie does nothing to set up hostilities between the Klingons and Federation. The entire plot hinges around an admiral wanting a more militarized Starfleet, potentially provoking a war with the Klingons. But there's nothing in the movie to even set that up as a concern. It relies entirely on the audience being aware of the Klingons' reputation and making assumptions.
  • The transwarp beaming, the instantaneous warp drive, and the magic Khan blood are all indicative of plot shortcuts that JJ Abrams uses to move the plot from A to B without having to do any story foundation for those elements, or doing story work like justifying the passage of time or doing the slightest bit of technobabble to justify their use as solutions
  • Speaking of contrivances, two Federation starships fight each other within the orbit of the Moon from Earth? Does Starfleet Command hail each ship to find out what's going on? Do they send some shuttles to investigate? It makes absolutely no sense, but is necessary in order to set up the circumstances of the final action sequences.
  • If you're going to kill Kirk, leave him dead for the end of the film. Deal with the consequences of that decision. Make the characters react to it. But this movie can't even keep him dead for 30 minutes.
  • I don't think either Star Trek (2009) or Into Darkness does a lot to sell Kirk as a leader. Both movies do more to put Spock front and center as the focus of action. And a huge difference between Shatner's Kirk and Pine's Kirk is that Shatner's feels compelled to be in the center seat of the Enterprise. He feels the need to be there in order to affect change. Pine's Kirk is constantly in doubt of whether he should be there.
Click to expand...

I agree with all your points bar the last one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top