STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

[throwback]

A study of DNA can reveal a person's lineage. A study of teeth can reveal where they grew up. A search of the word Sikh on Google generates images of men and women who look nothing like the actor playing Khan. Like it or not, there are physiological differences in the appearance of people that identifies where they are from.

I believe to be true that we don't know for certain that Harrison is Khan because there is no canonical footage of the discovery, retrieval, and manipulation of Khan and his people by the Federation. My options are, do I accept what I am told by Harrison or do I not accept what I am told by Harrison? Is there evidence from the films to support either option? Are we shown Kirk's crew attempting to verify this man's claim? Like I said above, DNA can be used to trace lineage.

 

[CTarnak]

Saw it at Sydney premiere. I thought it was like a slightly weaker version of the '09 movie. I think of it as if they put Wrath of Khan, Nemesis, ST09 and Broken Bow into a blender and said go with it.

It had some fantastic scenes between Kirk and Spock that made the whole thing worthwhile, particularly the nods to Wrath of Khan. The crash into San Fran is spectacular. Benedict steals the show.

My favourite comedy beat from the film was when Kirk explicitly says to Chekov "Now go and put on a red shirt". Could have been incredibly dopey, but it worked for me somehow. Peter Weller has a model of the NX Enterprise on his desk, among other older Enterprises.

The music was fantastic, especially Khan's theme, and they do a great action packed version of Spock Prime's theme during the final chase section in San Fran.

I think it suffered from a lot of the complaints that people had about the latter era of Trek episodes too, namely:
· Reset Button
· Magic DNA
· Convenient Transporter/Warp Drive Failures (every single action sequence)
· Evil Starfleet Admiral TM

Other things that bugged me:
· A round trip from Earth to Kronos (rather than Qo'nos) and back to Earth took 1 day. That's not right is it?
· They refer to the Enterprise's "Aft Nacelle". Huh?
· Getting Khan's blood and keeping him alive is a major plot point, even though McCoy has access to all 72 other super soldiers, who presumably also have magic blood.
· Uhura can speak Klingon fluently when she can't in ST6 (I know, new timeline, whatevs).
· The Klingons have odd external bones or metal in their ridges. For no apparent reason.
· There's some kind of robot/android dude on the bridge with no explanation (he's pretty cool though)

This probably sounds pretty negative, but I did really enjoy the film. Some great action and some really touching scenes. However, there were parts of it that were as clunky as a run of the mill Enterprise episode. I just expected a little more.

 

[The Rock]

Spoiler: An idea....

Since JJ has brought Khan back, I say he should just go all out for the next movie and put the Borg in it.

At this point, it's like, why not?

 

[section9]

So JJ and Co. were smart enough to leave Cumberbatch alive to come back as the series' Vader. Okay.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

But does he say his name is Khan or Khan Noonien Singh?

He evidently identifies himself as "Khan;" Spock Prime refers to "Khan Noonian Singh."


Which, BTW, is consistent with the way he withheld his full identity in "Space Seed."

I mean, I won't lose sleep over it either but it is disappointing. There are so many Indian actors that are perfect for the badass tyrant role, and we get Captain Britishguy WhiteMan?

Well, he was never positively identified as Indian to begin with. McGivers said "From the northern India area, I'd guess. Probably a Sikh." She was an historian, not an ethnologist. My impression was that he was Mexican.

lol Dennis, yes, a Mexican named Khan. Sure

I got a Japanese friend named Sullivan and a European-American relative named Wu. So?

 

[Therin of Andor]

Kronos (rather than Qo'nos)

The ship in ST VI was "Kronos One", IIRC.

Uhura can speak Klingon fluently when she can't in ST6 (I know, new timeline, whatevs)

Exactly.

There's some kind of robot/android dude on the bridge with no explanation (he's pretty cool though)

Why does it need explanation?

The Klingons have odd external bones or metal in their ridges. For no apparent reason.

Piercings.

ENT's Orion males had piercings, too. No explanation. No explanation needed.

ST III's Klingons had hair decorations. So did VOY's Kazons. No explanation. No explanation needed.

 

[marksound]

I'm always amazed at how narrow-minded some Trekkies can be while claiming "enlightenment."

Amazed? I meant amused.

 

[Sky]

Who was claiming enlightenment?

Anyhow, it's kind of sad that when someone has a critical comment, people start sniping at the commenter right away.

 

[CTarnak]

I liked it overall, mostly! I just thought some of those things were unecessary affectations. It's making it different for the sake of making it different. It's no big deal, just wasn't to my personal taste.

The android guy was cool, design wise, but it's kind of a big deal to have an android Starfleet officer this early in the timeline (if he was an android). So I guess I just think "Is this a point of significance for Starfleet? Or are the writers just putting a robot in because it might look cool?". Probably wasn't fair to list this as a criticism, more a point of interest.

Good point about Kronos One, I forgot about that. I still like the Klingon spelling.

 

[DarthTom]

Who is the 'android guy,' everyone keeps referencing?

 

[CTarnak]

There's this guy standing camera left of the Captain's chair on the Enterprise, with blue eyes, and almost like a port on the back of his head, with a modulated robot-like voice. He could just be an alien, but he was more robot-like than Data. He has one line and about 15 seconds of screen time, but he was pretty striking.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Who was claiming enlightenment?

Anyhow, it's kind of sad that when someone has a critical comment, people start sniping at the commenter right away.

It's because what many fans think is worthwhile criticism is worse than "kind of sad."

 

[Art Vandelay]

[...] Funnily enough, when the next incarnation of Trek comes along, people tend to find the second-to-last one more tolerable. You don't see as much hatred for ST:TMP or "Enterprise" these days.

Thing is, I liked every incarnation of Trek up until Trek 09. Some more (TNG, ENT, DS9), some less (VOY). (Although I tend to try and forget Nemesis exists.) There is no series/film that I used to denigrate and then grew softer towards as new things came along. Indeed, my deep affection for ST:TMP was love at first sight.

The thing with Trek pre-2008 is that it didn't need to be wall-to-wall action. It didn't have to be marketed as the next Dark Knight. 90% of the promotional artwork for Into Darkness had me going: "This is supposed to be Trek? Why are the characters armed to the teeth with huge ego-shooter guns?" I guess that's a sign of the times.

When in the past they did bad science (Genesis or Threshold), Braga at least had the decency to hang his head in shame. Nowadays, we have Spock proclaiming that supernovas can destroy whole galaxies. We have transporters that only require a quick firmware update to achieve limitless range. And no idea of what rank means, either. Kirk is insubordinate, commandeers the ship, gets to be captain on a technicality? Bah - he destroyed that evil Romulan, so let's have this heroic Cadet skip the ranks of Ensign, Lieutenant j.g., Lieutenant, Lieutenant Commander and Commander altogether and make him Captain. And while we're at it, let's not give him some science vessel, let him have the flagship of the Federation. That's not Trek, that's "Marvel's Kirk & Spock".

When you get a sandbox like the Trekverse to play in, stick to the rules. Bend them if you must, us fans are willing to look the other way in case of minor or mid-sized infractions. It's this careless, indifferent "anything goes, who gives a f**k" attitude the writers seem to have that drives me up the wall and makes me yearn for the Trek "of old".

I guess I wouldn't be so bitter if we had a "proper" TV series doing what Trek is best at (character-heavy plays), and the action films were special events. Now all we have is this monster movie franchise, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Wrong thread, I suppose. But boy did it feel good to vent. I miss Star Trek so very much.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Who is the 'android guy,' everyone keeps referencing?

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1395532/ (click for pic of actor)

Joseph Gatt plays a character named for him, "Gatt2000". He has pale eyes, a mechanical voice, and a circular "hole" in the back of his skull.

 

[KirkusOveractus]

When you get a sandbox like the Trekverse to play in, stick to the rules. Bend them if you must, us fans are willing to look the other way in case of minor or mid-sized infractions. It's this careless, indifferent "anything goes, who gives a f**k" attitude the writers seem to have that drives me up the wall and makes me yearn for the Trek "of old".

I guess I wouldn't be so bitter if we had a "proper" TV series doing what Trek is best at (character-heavy plays), and the action films were special events. Now all we have is this monster movie franchise, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Wrong thread, I suppose. But boy did it feel good to vent. I miss Star Trek so very much.

A couple things here:

1. The wonderful thing about universes based in science fiction is that there are no rules. People who complained about the 2009 movie being about Kirk and Spock and not "moving forward and further into the future of Trek" (which is a gross misunderstanding of Star Trek, IMO) now want the "old Star Trek" back. Which ties into my second point:

2. Star Trek had more than its share of the character-heavy, dialogue ridden stories with the crew sitting in a room to talk. It stopped being successful. And if you have any company with major money being spent, it wants a return. No return, no more product like it. Star Trek had to change, like it or lump it. And those who refuse to accept change are also ignoring another fundamental point of Star Trek, again, IMO.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The thing with Trek pre-2008 is that it didn't need to be wall-to-wall action. It didn't have to be marketed as the next Dark Knight.

And ultimately it didn't "need" to continue, because it failed.

 

[Art Vandelay]

A couple things here:

1. The wonderful thing about universes based in science fiction is that there are no rules. People who complained about the 2009 movie being about Kirk and Spock and not "moving forward and further into the future of Trek" (which is a gross misunderstanding of Star Trek, IMO) now want the "old Star Trek" back. Which ties into my second point:

2. Star Trek had more than its share of the character-heavy, dialogue ridden stories with the crew sitting in a room to talk. It stopped being successful. And if you have any company with major money being spent, it wants a return. No return, no more product like it. Star Trek had to change, like it or lump it. And those who refuse to accept change are also ignoring another fundamental point of Star Trek, again, IMO.

1. I have no problem with Trek going into its own past. I liked Enterprise from the get-go. (They truly couldn't have skipped even further ahead. The problem with going beyond the 24th century is - what advances can you make that aren't ludicrous, like Warp 15 or what have you.)

2. Change can be good. DS9 was radically different, and yet it is my favourite series. However, if all you do to Trek is make it dumber and louder so it appeals to blockbuster audiences, you're not really changing it. You're equalising, aiming at the lowest common denominator. It might be massively successful, but to all those flocking into theatres it's really just the flavour of the week before Iron Man 3 or what have you comes along. I postulate that Trek can change, make money and be good storytelling at the same time. (Which it isn't in its current state.)

 

[section9]

A couple things here:

1. The wonderful thing about universes based in science fiction is that there are no rules. People who complained about the 2009 movie being about Kirk and Spock and not "moving forward and further into the future of Trek" (which is a gross misunderstanding of Star Trek, IMO) now want the "old Star Trek" back. Which ties into my second point:

2. Star Trek had more than its share of the character-heavy, dialogue ridden stories with the crew sitting in a room to talk. It stopped being successful. And if you have any company with major money being spent, it wants a return. No return, no more product like it. Star Trek had to change, like it or lump it. And those who refuse to accept change are also ignoring another fundamental point of Star Trek, again, IMO.

1. I have no problem with Trek going into its own past. I liked Enterprise from the get-go. (They truly couldn't have skipped even further ahead. The problem with going beyond the 24th century is - what advances can you make that aren't ludicrous, like Warp 15 or what have you.)

2. Change can be good. DS9 was radically different, and yet it is my favourite series. However, if all you do to Trek is make it dumber and louder so it appeals to blockbuster audiences, you're not really changing it. You're equalising, aiming at the lowest common denominator. It might be massively successful, but to all those flocking into theatres it's really just the flavour of the week before Iron Man 3 or what have you comes along. I postulate that Trek can change, make money and be good storytelling at the same time. (Which it isn't in its current state.)

Plus, DS9 had something no other part of the franchise had:

Senator Vreenak.

'Nuff said.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I postulate that Trek can change, make money and be good storytelling at the same time.

I postulate that I can grow wings and fly to Mars.

I was just over at IMDB - the furor over Cumberbatch playing Khan is becoming preposterous enough that I think the Onion can get a video out of it now.

 

[KirkusOveractus]

Art: BTW, are you in importing or exporting?

Anyway, I understand your points completely. The problem is that although those things you mentioned can work and do well, Star Trek had a reputation for trying to do all those things but stumble and fall at trying. At this stage, if they tried that formula (which in Trek's case was overused) and failed, we would not have seen any new Star Trek again for probably a long, long, long time.

At this stage, they did what worked, and it did that in spades. People I know saw the 2009 movie and loved it, and are now borrowing my DVDs of TOS. The best thing is happening in that they are digging the series immensely, and they definitely would not have touched it before seeing the movie.

The main thing, to me, is that Trek had tried for the route of moneymaker and good storyteller in a movie, but it didn't work as much as hoped for the general public (which, like it or not, is how a movie succeeds).