I never said the TNG cast were reviewing STID, just the actual crew and characters. Besides it would not be General Grin if he didn't commit a few acts of utter barbarity upon the TNG characters. I'm just waiting for an STID recut!
STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]
- Thread starter Agent Richard07
- Start date
I never said the TNG cast were reviewing STID, just the actual crew and characters. Besides it would not be General Grin if he didn't commit a few acts of utter barbarity upon the TNG characters. I'm just waiting for an STID recut!
And by "hit the mark", you mean "agree with me", right ?
They make some great observations. Contrast Picard's firm belief in a Starfleet officer's first duty to the truth to Kirk's more lax approach what with failing to report an illegal mission to that planet. Kirk was willing to lie through omission and I think that more than anything speaks magnitudes about this character. Furthermore Kirk wanted Spock to cover up and more interestingly Kirk doesn't seem to really worry about telling porkies or being flippant with Starfleet regulations.
It just made me realise how TNG and DS9 are poles apart from the new Trek films. This ain't really a good or bad thing. But STID principles are really funny in a dark dubious way. For instance it's okay to beat up a prisoner because he's the bad guy, it's okay to violate a sovereign nation's territory to capture a wanted criminal/terrorist because it's the Federation; an upholder of justice and righteousness.
So I can understand why so many people enjoy this film because it, on a subconscious level, stirs up emotions about 9/11 and the war on terror. So kudos to the writers for touching upon those subjects, but they could have taken it one step further and addressed the issues of faulty intelligence, false flag terror attacks and dubious intelligence agencies. Imagine if Khan had been ordered by Section 31 to blow up one of their minor installations or a Starfleet installation, but it's only hinted in this different version of STID so you have no idea who the 'good' guys are.
It would have explored in more depth the principle of 'problem, reaction, solution', something which was only hinted at in one scene with admiral Marcus wanting a war with the Klingons and using Khan's terrorist acts as a means for sending a Starfleet ship into their territory. It was a missed opportunity.
If the writers had had the balls to devise a plot concerning a false flag terror attack and the principle of 'problem, reaction, solution' it would have been Trek's best social commentary in years. STID would have entered DS9 territory and STID would be a worthy rival to DS9's finest episode; Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges.
But instead STID had to go out of its way to ensure Khan was a terrorist and an agent who had gone truly rogue. Also we had to go down the megalomaniac admiral route. If only STID could have explored the possibility of there being something rotten and dark inside of Starfleet, something which cannot be easily detected but Khan's acts of terrorism were say a consequence of this.
I mean what if in this universe the Starfleet we know and love is -- behind the scenes -- potentially becoming a force of tyranny due to the Federation's weak position: a destroyed Vulcan, a weakened Starfleet, enemies who surround the Federation. What if a group inside of Starfleet decide the Prime Directive is not enough to protect the Federation? If STID had done that and sacrificed a little action for this kind of intrigue, for me anyway it would have made for a far more superior film and I could have overlooked any flaws.
It would have been, you know, thought-provoking and it would have enough unrelenting action and pace, plus OTT drama for everyone else.
The review to which I linked a few posts earlier addresses a number of points you've raised. In particular he puts the scene where Kirk (ineffectually) beats on Khan into an interesting context.
That is truly a very intelligent analysis of the movie. I don't know how many of the contemporary comparisons Muir makes were intended by the writers, but Muir finds them anyway without making them feel forced or contrived.
I particularly liked the following:
I also agree with Muir that the success in Cumberbatch as Khan came mostly from Cumberbatch's performance than from how the character was written. Muir really gives the best reason for how Cumberbatch could've been just anybody and not Khan. It wouldn't have hurt to give Cumberbatch a few lines to show us that this is indeed the very broadly learned and well-read Khan we've met before.
Muir isn't afraid to point out that title of the movie is dreadful. It's highly commericial and unimaginative (almost cynically so, given it doesn't even describe the movie or its tone at all). The title should've openly and unabashedly captured the core values of the movie. I've been thinking maybe just a simple change of direction to, Star Trek Out of Darkness.
Lol! Try telling that to Spock when he was chasing Khan wanting nothing more to kill him, if that was not vengeance I don't what is!
There was only one hero in this movie, it was not Kirk and it certainly was not Spock, it was Scotty. He was the only character who made a moral stand and who actually questioned what Starfleet was doing. Plus he resigned his commission on a matter of principle. Kirk though went along with Admiral Marcus' plan of violating Klingon territory just to capture Khan.
I sure hoped Kirk considered the billions of lives who would be affected if a Klingon/Federation war had started due to the Enterprise travelling to Qo'noS. Methinks Kirk wanted to avenge Admiral Pike (who could almost be regarded as a kind of mentor or father figure whom Kirk never had) and to hell with the consequences. So much for the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one. In that regard Kirk is no hero.
As for Spock... If he is that uptight about the rules and so stringent about not violating them, then it is incredible why he didn't really question Admiral Marcus' mission that much. He didn't see the big picture and I don't recall him objecting to this mission, so Spock went along with something of questionable legality and morality.
So really that leaves Scotty. Without him the Enterprise would be destroyed and he's probably the only main character who is a hero, and the only one whom I actually respect.
I think you're reading that into the situation. We honestly don't know if Spock set out to kill Khan. Really. Think about it. If he were really trying to kill him out of vengeance, then why did he try the neck pinch on him? Was he going to kill an unconscious Khan? Khan was trying to kill Spock, however, which may have upped the ante of the fight for Spock, who was fighting for his life. Of course, Spock certainly did get a few extra blows in at the end that were unnecessary.
As far as the behavior of Kirk and Spock goes throughout the movie, to paraphrase Kirk from TVH, we weren't really seeing them at their best. Scotty is definitely the primary hero of the movie (and he resigned his position on the Enterprise, not his commission). But for Kirk and Spock, it was about the journey to their better selves and mutual trust in each other. Spock did have reservations about the goal of the mission and expressed them to Kirk, who finally realized Spock was right and Harrison had to be taken alive to face justice.
You have an odd definition of "hero", if beating the villain doesn't qualify, and deciding not to commit murder doesn't qualify either.
That's not true. Kirk makes a stand as well. Later, but still.
Kirk sits on the Bridge, looks over to Spock, his conscience, and makes a decision to capture Harrison for trial, rather than send those advanced torpedoes to Kronos as he was ordered to.
Right there, he took a principal based stand, and looked past the rage he had up until that point.
That makes Kirk a hero of the piece to me.
Right there, he took a principal based stand, and looked past the rage he had up until that point.
That makes Kirk a hero of the piece to me.
Yes to the regeneration question, but he also was the one who transmitted to Admiral Marcus about who made him do it.
Fanboy gag video; look at me not giving a fuck.
It was almost the movie in microcosm. Is there anything you wouldn't do for your family? As far as why he did it goes, I'm sure if he hadn't followed through on his end of the deal Harrison said he'd kill his family (including the dog, this is Khan, after all). He was desperate to save his daughter, basically made a deal with the devil, and the devil took his due.
The scene also prevents anyone from saying at the end of the movie that Khan's "magic" blood came out of nowhere as a plot device. Its healing properties were established in that opening scene. So, the last part of the movie is saved from being a cheat.
Last edited:
I suppose that argument could work, if the nature of the child's disease was explained. However, it wasn't. The scenes with the family were perfunctory handled, and I felt that they were a plot device.
For myself, I see another revenge film. I have to ask myself, is Star Trek capable of doing a film where revenge is not a theme? I know that revenge doesn't need much explanation, which is why it works well across the cultural and language barrier. Still, there must be other themes that do equally well.
(The issue with drone strikes I think has less to do with its methodology, and more with its impact which I think gets lost. One of the concerns with warfare is how a civilian population responds to being attacked. Studies have shown that a civilian population will become more galvanized against an attacker after an attack which results in the deaths of non-combatants. Our drone strikes aren't precise - wedding parties and children are being killed. These strikes are influencing how people in those regions view the American military, and, by extension, the American government. If ST: ID was about the impact of drone strikes, I think it would be useful for the script writers to have placed Khan in a populated area, where the possibility of killing civilians would be a factor in whether or not one should launch an attack. [Why is Star Trek not using drones for combat? Is there a policy in Starfleet which forbids the use of drones?])
For myself, I see another revenge film. I have to ask myself, is Star Trek capable of doing a film where revenge is not a theme? I know that revenge doesn't need much explanation, which is why it works well across the cultural and language barrier. Still, there must be other themes that do equally well.
(The issue with drone strikes I think has less to do with its methodology, and more with its impact which I think gets lost. One of the concerns with warfare is how a civilian population responds to being attacked. Studies have shown that a civilian population will become more galvanized against an attacker after an attack which results in the deaths of non-combatants. Our drone strikes aren't precise - wedding parties and children are being killed. These strikes are influencing how people in those regions view the American military, and, by extension, the American government. If ST: ID was about the impact of drone strikes, I think it would be useful for the script writers to have placed Khan in a populated area, where the possibility of killing civilians would be a factor in whether or not one should launch an attack. [Why is Star Trek not using drones for combat? Is there a policy in Starfleet which forbids the use of drones?])
Not only "could" that argument work, it does work.
The scenes work perfectly to establish the curative nature of Khan's blood. Any more detailed explanation is completely unnecessary.
Of course those scenes were "a plot device." What else were they supposed to be?
I don't care if Spock wanted vengeance or not. He had to stop Khan. Khan was dangerous. And Starfleet's best had already failed to stop him. It was Spock's duty to stop Khan.
If Khan was defenceless and then Spock proceeded to batter him to death then I'd agree with you. Spock really need to stop Khan no matter what. I'm actually surprised that Khan was trying to get away. Surely he would have wanted vengeance on Spock for killing his crew.
Scotty was a hero and so was Carol Marcus and Kirk. Well Spock is pretty much a hero (not TNG perfect) but a hero none the less. A hero to me is not a football or basketball star but a person who is prepared to risk death/injury to save someone/many someones or something very important
You wanted to know which disease she had specifically ? What difference would that make ?
None, as Kirk was brought BACK FROM THE DEAD, rendering the poorly kid plot point entirely redundant. You could lose that aspect and lose nothing as McCoy injects the tribble in an entirely unrelated scene.
If it had been brought up as a reason as to why McCoy decided to inject the tribble with Khan's blood it would have been pretty clever but as it stands you have one scene which sets up nothing and another which comes out of nowhere.
It does not logically follow that if Khan can save a poorly child he can resurrect the dead.
None whatsoever.
That scene was for the audience. The power of his blood is telling us right up front that there's something different about Harrison. The scene also shows just what kind of cold, hard, manipulative bastard Harrison is. Even the girl who was saved will be affected by Harrison. She was a pawn, too. Think she'll have a care-free life going into her old age carrying the memory of what her father did to save her?
As far as it not being logical that Harrion's blood can save Kirk just because it saved the girl, this has been hashed over a lot on these boards, but a world of transporters, warp speed, and all kinds of other pseudo-science is far less believable when you think about it than invoking a theory from cryonics that says as long as the brain has not completely lost its ability to function, a "dead" person can be resuscitated. McCoy told Kirk he wasn't "that" dead. Maybe that was only half a joke.
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Poll
