STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

[flemm]

Khan doesn't even flinch when he's accused of wanting to commit genocide on those he considers inferior, unlike Khan in "Space Seed" who tried to justify his past actions.
We see what destruction he alone can cause, first on Qo'nos, then onboard the Vengeance. Just imagine what 72 of those people could do.

He's a pretty generic super-charged heartless killer, really. Cumberbatch was good, and it works fine. But there's nothing there that I would describe as terrifying.

Adequate villainy for a movie like this is more how I would describe it. Doubtless the skull crush was intended to seem a little extreme, but... meh.

Which isn't to say the original Khan was "better." It's hard for me to really compare because I only saw that episode decades removed from its original context.

 

[EnsignRicky]

While pounding Khan in the face, Spock should so totally have shouted: I, have had, enough, of you!!!

 

[Therin of Andor]

It had a consistent theme to pull it together, but it lacks an essential element of the best Trek which is an idea at its center. You can't fault it too much for that though, because very few of the movies have managed to do that - really only TMP had a philosophical concept which drove the story action.

Both of Bad Robot's movies have focused squared on the "Nature vs Nurture" conundrum. And it continues to support, if not drive, the story action. How very different is Kirk in the two timelines?

And we have one Spock who was bonded to a Vulcan girl, played no-speaks with his father for 18(?) years, and embraced his human half in later years, versus a Spock who is in a romantic relationship with a human woman, loses his mother and his homeworld but maintains a positive relationship with his father, and embraces his human half at a much earlier age.

How don't those scenarios provoke philosophical conversations in the grand Star Trek tradition?

 

[ConRefit79]

While pounding Khan in the face, Spock should so totally have shouted: I, have had, enough, of you!!!

I was just ready for it to end long before then. I mean how did they go from lunar orbit to falling to earth so quickly? Not to mention from the Neutral Zone to earth in 3 minutes.

 

[Amaris]

While pounding Khan in the face, Spock should so totally have shouted: I, have had, enough, of you!!!

I was just ready for it to end long before then. I mean how did they go from lunar orbit to falling to earth so quickly? Not to mention from the Neutral Zone to earth in 3 minutes.

The movie answers these questions.

 

[Ubik]

Ahah it doesn't "feel like Star Trek" to you. However, the fact is, that it IS Star Trek, despite how you feel it should or shouldn't be. Like it or not, it is Star Trek, and there is a lot of Star Trek in there, not a "little".

All that said, point is, there is a lot of Star Trek in this Star Trek film, not a "little"

Whatever dude. Just be thankful they're making something you enjoy as "Star Trek".

You're still trying to frame his definition as subjective. It is Star Trek, in every objective sense of the word. Subjectively, your mileage may vary, but that doesn't change the fact that it is Star Trek.

When someone says, "It doesn't feel like Star Trek," what they mean is, "It doesn't feel like GOOD Star Trek," which is a perfectly valid statement.

I too am torn about this movie. As a fun, witty, action-adventure, it's quite a good movie. It's entertaining as hell, funny, tense, emotional, all those things you want from a space adventure spectacle.

But since when is the Star Trek property an action property? I honestly don't get it. None of the Star Trek shows are primarily action shows, and most of the movies are not primarily action movies. Even First Contact is more of a horror/thriller than an action movie (and a slow, thoughtful one at that.)

So why have Paramount and Abrams taken something that was really quite unique, and made it so common and mainstream? Sure, it's entertaining action, but entertaining action movie spectacles are a dime a dozen. These reboots don't feel like Star Trek, because they';re in a different genre than the franchise has been for almost 50 years. Wrath of Khan is not an action movie - the action is slow and dialogue-driven. This adrenaline rush stuff is standard Hollywood fare, but Star Trek has rarely had to rely on it before. The reason it doesn't feel like Star Trek is because now it feels like everything else. It feels less special, and more standard. Exciting and entertaining, absolutely. But standard.

It's funny. Lately, James Bond and Batman have rejuvenated their respective franchises and regained respect and popularity by becoming more serious, more complex, and more adult. Star Trek has rejuvenated its franchise and regained respect and popularity by doing the exact opposite - becoming simpler and more juvenile. I wonder why that is.

 

[Chi'pok]

Ok, I have now seen the movie. I am actually still nauseated from all of the up and down camera work... glad I didn't see it in IMAX or 3-D.

I thought it was kind of a mess. It had the makings of a great film. But...

Likes:
*The effects were outstanding (with one exception).
*The jokes were good.
*The shoutouts were ok (some seemed forced).
*Enterprise looked fantastic. I'm glad we got several beauty shots.

Dislikes:
*NuSpock's behavior; started out pretty well; but by the last act... well, I'm not sure I buy it... I understand the desire to have him become more balanced; it just didn't really gell for me.
*The new warp effect; bring back the TMP effect.
*The back of the Enterprise (shuttle coming into the ship); it looks off scale; TMP Enterprise looked so much better (IMNSHO)
*The word for word dialogue from previous Treks... big let down for me. Especially the "big scene."

Mixed reaction:
*The plot: ok, I can buy the remixed version of Khan (esp. since Cumberbatch really did do an outstanding job), but it was all so jumpy. We went from one action sequence to another so quickly, the audience isn't really given time to absorb what's happening. Yes, there's exposition about the villain and his "family" (I liked Khan's explanation because it gave the audience a sustained episode of Cumberbatch's voice and delivery). I certainly felt that Khan was more of a threat than Marcus and his paranoid delusions (how do these people maintain positions at Starfleet?)

Audience reaction: fairly packed auditorium sized theater in downtown Silver Spring, Md. Some teenagers, some older people, and some people who brought toddlers (why?); they laughed at the jokes; I didn't hear any great gasps at the big reveal.

Final grade: C-

 

[ConRefit79]

While pounding Khan in the face, Spock should so totally have shouted: I, have had, enough, of you!!!

I was just ready for it to end long before then. I mean how did they go from lunar orbit to falling to earth so quickly? Not to mention from the Neutral Zone to earth in 3 minutes.

The movie answers these questions.

No it doesn't. They just thought it would be cool to have the ship fall to Earth and be saved.

 

[Lord Garth FOI]

Wondering if Spock senior might swap him some magic blood find himself a wormhole to his time period and inject a certain beloved Captain with the magic juice

 

[ConRefit79]

Wondering if Spock senior might swap him some magic blood find himself a wormhole to his time period and inject a certain beloved Captain with the magic juice

 

[Therin of Andor]

So why have Paramount and Abrams taken something that was really quite unique, and made it so common and mainstream?

Because not enough people were watching "Insurrection", "Voyager", "Nemesis" or "Enterprise".

Lately, James Bond and Batman have rejuvenated their respective franchises and regained respect and popularity by becoming more serious, more complex, and more adult. Star Trek has rejuvenated its franchise and regained respect and popularity by doing the exact opposite - becoming simpler and more juvenile. I wonder why that is.

Because gadget-ridden James Bond films - and particularly the garish and ludicrous "Batman and Robin" - had got loopier and loopier, so they pulled those franchises back to serious mode to be refreshed. "Nemesis" and "Enterprise" were criticized as being too serious so they went lighter and broader when being refreshed.

We've seen it with Star Trek before. After the seriousness of Khan's wrath and the business of resurrecting Spock, ST IV embraced comedy.

 

[Kruezerman]

When someone says, "It doesn't feel like Star Trek," what they mean is, "It doesn't feel like GOOD Star Trek," which is a perfectly valid statement.

But what defines "good?"

I too am torn about this movie. As a fun, witty, action-adventure, it's quite a good movie. It's entertaining as hell, funny, tense, emotional, all those things you want from a space adventure spectacle.

But since when is the Star Trek property an action property? I honestly don't get it. None of the Star Trek shows are primarily action shows, and most of the movies are not primarily action movies. Even First Contact is more of a horror/thriller than an action movie (and a slow, thoughtful one at that.)

TWOK was very action-y, First Contact even more so (and to be honest, kinda dumb, blind action at that). DS9 was, for a good portion, a war show. TOS had fistfights and TNG had everything above. No, Star Trek is not "pure" action, but a very large portion is. Honestly, it was never this high-brow show, never. It tried to be at times, but it failed miserably.

So why have Paramount and Abrams taken something that was really quite unique, and made it so common and mainstream?

Because it's popular and critically good again? Ya know, like it used to be? I don't know about you, but I want to share the awesome that is Star Trek with everyone, not keep it in a box where it will gather dust and die.

Sure, it's entertaining action, but entertaining action movie spectacles are a dime a dozen. These reboots don't feel like Star Trek, because they';re in a different genre than the franchise has been for almost 50 years. Wrath of Khan is not an action movie - the action is slow and dialogue-driven. This adrenaline rush stuff is standard Hollywood fare, but Star Trek has rarely had to rely on it before. The reason it doesn't feel like Star Trek is because now it feels like everything else. It feels less special, and more standard. Exciting and entertaining, absolutely. But standard.

This Trek is both, adrenaline and dialogue. Especially this one.

It's funny. Lately, James Bond and Batman have rejuvenated their respective franchises and regained respect and popularity by becoming more serious, more complex, and more adult. Star Trek has rejuvenated its franchise and regained respect and popularity by doing the exact opposite - becoming simpler and more juvenile. I wonder why that is.

Well you're dead wrong. If anything, it grew up and grew out of it's old chains.

 

[Amaris]

Whatever dude. Just be thankful they're making something you enjoy as "Star Trek".

You're still trying to frame his definition as subjective. It is Star Trek, in every objective sense of the word. Subjectively, your mileage may vary, but that doesn't change the fact that it is Star Trek.

When someone says, "It doesn't feel like Star Trek," what they mean is, "It doesn't feel like GOOD Star Trek," which is a perfectly valid statement.
...

Though it's still wholly subjective as a form of taste. One can say "I don't like it, it doesn't feel like good Star Trek," and that's fine, but there are people using it to say that it doesn't qualify as Star Trek, because of some nebulous idea of what they think Star Trek is supposed to represent.

I was just ready for it to end long before then. I mean how did they go from lunar orbit to falling to earth so quickly? Not to mention from the Neutral Zone to earth in 3 minutes.

The movie answers these questions.

No it doesn't. They just thought it would be cool to have the ship fall to Earth and be saved.

Yes, it really does. I recommend a second viewing.

 

[mattman8907]

do you the vengeance could be salvagable or do you think it was destroyed completely by starfleet?

 

[Brent]

do you the vengeance could be salvagable or do you think it was destroyed completely by starfleet?

I'd scrap it, I think Starfleet is now headed back into exploring, and they don't want it to be a militarized Starfleet, hence sending Kirk on a 5 year explore mission. I'd take the technology learned from that ship, and perhaps integrate it into a new series of ships, but with the goal being defense, not offense.

 

[ConRefit79]

You're still trying to frame his definition as subjective. It is Star Trek, in every objective sense of the word. Subjectively, your mileage may vary, but that doesn't change the fact that it is Star Trek.

When someone says, "It doesn't feel like Star Trek," what they mean is, "It doesn't feel like GOOD Star Trek," which is a perfectly valid statement.
...

Though it's still wholly subjective as a form of taste. One can say "I don't like it, it doesn't feel like good Star Trek," and that's fine, but there are people using it to say that it doesn't qualify as Star Trek, because of some nebulous idea of what they think Star Trek is supposed to represent.

The movie answers these questions.

No it doesn't. They just thought it would be cool to have the ship fall to Earth and be saved.

Yes, it really does. I recommend a second viewing.

If you mean about the other ship having faster warp drive it still doesn't make sense. It's Star Wars, the other side of the galaxy by now, too fast. Now going to the Neutral zone it felt like there was a break to where some time has passed. But but when they go back to earth, the moments come off as only minutes of actual time.

Then both ships appear to be in lunar orbit. But some how the explosion pushed them from there and the ship fell to earth. You do realize it took Apollo 2 days to make the trip? This was just a shock wave then the gravity or Earth.

 

[Iamnotspock]

When someone says, "It doesn't feel like Star Trek," what they mean is, "It doesn't feel like GOOD Star Trek," which is a perfectly valid statement.

No, what they mean is, "It doesn't feel like the Star Trek I'm used to and I don't like it."

 

[Ubik]

You're still trying to frame his definition as subjective. It is Star Trek, in every objective sense of the word. Subjectively, your mileage may vary, but that doesn't change the fact that it is Star Trek.

When someone says, "It doesn't feel like Star Trek," what they mean is, "It doesn't feel like GOOD Star Trek," which is a perfectly valid statement.
...

Though it's still wholly subjective as a form of taste. One can say "I don't like it, it doesn't feel like good Star Trek," and that's fine, but there are people using it to say that it doesn't qualify as Star Trek, because of some nebulous idea of what they think Star Trek is supposed to represent.

The movie answers these questions.

No it doesn't. They just thought it would be cool to have the ship fall to Earth and be saved.

Yes, it really does. I recommend a second viewing.

Well, sure, of course it's subjective, but I honestly do believe there is some level of objectivity when it comes to analyzing a work of art's level of ambition. TOS, TNG, and DS9 all feel very different from one another, but they are all masterful shows in their own right because they all have high ambition to mean something, to say something, to do something new. Voyager and Enterprise were largely failures not due simply to individual tastes - there is a factual lack of originality and ambition in the storytelling of those two shows.

Likewise, Wrath of Khan, Search for Spock, Voyage Home, Undiscovered Country, and First Contact, to somewhat varying degrees, are all more or less agreed to be the best of the bunch, due to their desire to tell a new and interesting kind of story.

Now, Abrams has changed the "feel" of Star Trek once again, just as the creators did when TNG started, and DS9, and etc - but this time, much like with the creation of Voyager and Enterprise, there is not an equally high level of ambition to do something thematically interesting or risky. He's good at the entertaining, but he lacks the will to risk. God forbid he make a movie that tries to do something we've not seen in Star Trek before on a storytelling level. It's not that he's incapable (I assume.) It's that he doesn't have the interest.

 

[Brent]

When someone says, "It doesn't feel like Star Trek," what they mean is, "It doesn't feel like GOOD Star Trek," which is a perfectly valid statement.

No, what the mean is, "It doesn't feel like the Star Trek I'm used to and I don't like it."

J is right, they are using the "It doesn't feel like Star Trek" to invalidate the movies as being Star Trek at all. Which is factually an incorrect thing to say.

The feel of Star Trek has evolved over time, and a feeling does not validate or invalidate a piece of work as a Star Trek IP.

 

[ConRefit79]

When someone says, "It doesn't feel like Star Trek," what they mean is, "It doesn't feel like GOOD Star Trek," which is a perfectly valid statement.

No, what the mean is, "It doesn't feel like the Star Trek I'm used to and I don't like it."

And there is nothing wrong with that. After all many people who grew up with Star Wars felt like Lucas raped their childhood with the prequels.