• 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!

STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Grade the movie...


  • Total voters
    796
Yes I realize that the movie was based on the tv series based in the 60's. That doesn't mean it has to represent the values of that era.

I did a quick google of "Star Trek: Into Darkness females" and see quite a few posts from women who feel the same.

http://www.hypable.com/2013/05/22/star-trek-into-darkness-female-women-portrayal/

I think the worst part for me is that I felt like they made a half assed effort to give the women some kind of important role to try and cover the fact that they were 2 dimensional characters with no purpose. Blonde girl was meant to be a super smart weapons specialist but she neutralizes the torpedo by ripping out its wires (yea right). Uhara I don't know what she is meant to be but all she does is whine at Spock until the end when she is beamed down for 2 seconds and shoots Khan. It is just so lame.

The other things that bugged me were, why are people still using laptops and mobile phones 300 years in the future. Why is there always a magic button in the midst of everything going to shit that if pressed saves everyone (this happened twice). If the core was out of alignment, why wasn't there some machine that could align it inside the core, without Kirk having to go in and kick it. His death scene was so cheesy I was rolling my eyes. And the dumbest part, the 911 reference at the end.

worst star trek movie ever!

edit: and the whole kirk and spock thing was somewhat homeoerotic.

I am a perfectly modern, extremely feminist woman, and I have no problem with Into Darkness. Star Trek as a series has done wonderful things for feminism.. Yes, to a modern audience, TOS seems a bit sexist from time to time, but the truth is that from the perspective of the 60s it was incredibly avant grade. Saying that Star Trek should completely rearrange its story structure and characters for a modern audience is completely unrealistic and would piss off a bunch of Trekkies (including myself). It's also just over-sensitive. Women don't have to be the hero of every story... Neither do men. It's not some ploy to repress the female species.. Star Trek (TOS and new movies) just happens to be a story whose plot focuses on two men. It's that simple.
P.S. Kirk and Spock have always been borderline homoerotic (that's being generous).. and they always will be. It's the nature of their relationship-- T'hy'la-- and taking that out would be another breach of character.

THIS.

Also, Kirk and Spock are what as known as Ho Yay (as well as being the inspiration for it in recent times.)

As for Star Trek focusing too much on the men, I'd suggest watching this fan show that has two women (a human and a Vulcan) in it that focuses on their friendship hauling cargo from one star to the other:

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mHyGlqsjsQ[/yt]

For my part as a male, (and if Saldana and Eve are in the next movie), I'd like to see both Uhura and Marcus in a scene (set about, say, a shuttlecraft) talking about something other than the guys in their life (perhaps something related to the mission?)
 
I really look back at this movie fondly and enjoyed it a lot.

But for some reason I just don't have an urge to watch it again. Like I'd rate it my third favourite Trek movie, but out of all the movies I'd rather watch Trek 09 and FC the most. Weird.
 
I have a couple of questions I would liked answered.

1. Why was it necessary to put Spock in the volcano?

2. Why is Kirk the only one making decisions in STiD? Where's the Conference table?

3. Why did Khan hide his people in the Torpedoes? Isn't the nature of a torpedo that it would put them in more danger?

4. Why don't they just beam up to the Enterprise? You've got a transporter that can go halfway across the galaxy, but not one that can send a crew to the ship?

Honestly, the whole "I'll demote you until you're Captain again in ten minutes" gave my whiplash. The music choices in this movie drive me up the wall. Scotty and Bones's humor just grates on my nerves. Uhura has more lines, but being an ancillary character to Spock sends this feminist into fits. And if Uhura is nothing more than a pouty girlfriend, what do you think I think of Carol Marcus?

But what bothers me the most in the relationship between Kirk and Spock. There is no love there. All they have done is challenge each other. They hate one-another, yet I am supposed to believe that they are best friends that would go ape if one of them dies. Why? And the "nods" that take full lines out of other scripts because they cannot explain with their own story why Kirk and Spock would do the things they did.

God, the more I watch it the worse it gets. It doesn't tell an interesting tale; this is becoming a dystopia.
 
I have a couple of questions I would liked answered.

1. Why was it necessary to put Spock in the volcano?

The fusion device couldn't be beamed or detonated remotely due to the high activity. It had to be placed directly inside the volcano. The plan was to simply use a shuttle and lower Spock into the volcano long enough to set the bomb and detonate it. The high heat and electromagnetic activity (which does result from erupting volcanoes) caused a number of issues, and plans had to change.

2. Why is Kirk the only one making decisions in STiD? Where's the Conference table?
Kirk's not the only one making decisions; Spock makes a number of decisions, as does Sulu, Chekov, McCoy, and Uhura. They just don't use a conference table.

3. Why did Khan hide his people in the Torpedoes? Isn't the nature of a torpedo that it would put them in more danger?
As Khan explains in the film, his plan was to smuggle them out from under Section 31's nose. Admiral Marcus discovered this. This is why there were fields masking the internals of the torpedoes.

4. Why don't they just beam up to the Enterprise? You've got a transporter that can go halfway across the galaxy, but not one that can send a crew to the ship?
Who is "they"? That aside, the transwarp beaming formula was confiscated shortly after it was used (this is explained in the movie), so that only the higher levels of Section 31 even know of its existence.

All of these things are explained in the film.

Honestly, the whole "I'll demote you until you're Captain again in ten minutes" gave my whiplash. The music choices in this movie drive me up the wall. Scotty and Bones's humor just grates on my nerves. Uhura has more lines, but being an ancillary character to Spock sends this feminist into fits. And if Uhura is nothing more than a pouty girlfriend, what do you think I think of Carol Marcus?

But what bothers me the most in the relationship between Kirk and Spock. There is no love there. All they have done is challenge each other. They hate one-another, yet I am supposed to believe that they are best friends that would go ape if one of them dies. Why? And the "nods" that take full lines out of other scripts because they cannot explain with their own story why Kirk and Spock would do the things they did.

God, the more I watch it the worse it gets. It doesn't tell an interesting tale; this is becoming a dystopia.
I disagree with your opinions here. This movie feels like, if anything, pure Star Trek at its best. Character clashes, swashbuckling adventure, a strong theme of morality underlying everyone's motivation, a healthy dose of nostalgia from callbacks, and fantastic visuals to keep you on your toes.

By the way, as a feminist myself, I can honestly say that Uhura's character has never been stronger, than in these movies. I am rather surprised that you do not see that.
 
God, the more I watch it the worse it gets. It doesn't tell an interesting tale; this is becoming a dystopia.

Then you might want to quit watching. I know I don't like "Spock's Brain" and "Threshold", so I don't revisit them so I can complain about them. :shrug:
 
By the way, as a feminist myself, I can honestly say that Uhura's character has never been stronger, than in these movies. I am rather surprised that you do not see that.
Being a feminist doesn't mean that your opinion on the handling of nuUhura is more relevant than Havent's. To state that she is stronger and then tell him he just can't see it seems a bit imperious.

I'm not saying she is or isn't, just that both opinions can be correct. :)
 
By the way, as a feminist myself, I can honestly say that Uhura's character has never been stronger, than in these movies. I am rather surprised that you do not see that.
Being a feminist doesn't mean that your opinion on the handling of nuUhura is more relevant than Havent's. To state that she is stronger and then tell him he just can't see it seems a bit imperious.

I'm not saying she is or isn't, just that both opinions can be correct. :)

In this case, that's the point I'm making. He uses his feminism as a point that the movie is terrible. My comment is to show that his feminism isn't the only feminism, and some of us see her actions as empowerment rather than submission.
 
By the way, as a feminist myself, I can honestly say that Uhura's character has never been stronger, than in these movies. I am rather surprised that you do not see that.
Being a feminist doesn't mean that your opinion on the handling of nuUhura is more relevant than Havent's. To state that she is stronger and then tell him he just can't see it seems a bit imperious.

I'm not saying she is or isn't, just that both opinions can be correct. :)

In this case, that's the point I'm making. He uses his feminism as a point that the movie is terrible. My comment is to show that his feminism isn't the only feminism, and some of us see her actions as empowerment rather than submission.

I have a question for you: does she have one scene that doesn't have to do with her relationship to Spock? She starts off in the turbolift talking about Pike's death and ends up telling Kirk that she's frustrated with Spock. She tells Kirk to tell Spock that his cold fusion device detonated, yet she takes off the earpiece and throws it because she's mad at Spock. She broods and doesn't confront him. They are going into enemy territory and she is so distracted she has to get out her feelings instead of choosing a more appropriate time. She's not focused on the mission, and it almost gets them killed. And in terms of writing, all she does is let Spock express his feelings. She fails to convince the Klingons and needs someone else to save her.

In the last movie, every time Spock left the bridge, there's Uhura running to the turbolift, looking in his direction. It bothered me, but her ability to tell Romulan languages apart, she decodes the Klingon message that led to Kirk saving the day--she had things to do--she belonged on the bridge.

Did Sulu or Chekov act so unprofessionally? Sulu gets some badass lines in this one, telling Spock off and he tells Harrison they are coming after him. Chekov works with Scotty to come up with a plan to save the Enterprise. She has more lines in this movie than the original character, but she doesn't do anything that shows she is competent to be on the bridge.

God, the more I watch it the worse it gets. It doesn't tell an interesting tale; this is becoming a dystopia.

Then you might want to quit watching. I know I don't like "Spock's Brain" and "Threshold", so I don't revisit them so I can complain about them. :shrug:

That was not my intention. My intention was to see what I missed upon my original viewing because my memory isn't perfect. I have seen it a sum total of 4 times.
 
Last edited:
Being a feminist doesn't mean that your opinion on the handling of nuUhura is more relevant than Havent's. To state that she is stronger and then tell him he just can't see it seems a bit imperious.

I'm not saying she is or isn't, just that both opinions can be correct. :)

In this case, that's the point I'm making. He uses his feminism as a point that the movie is terrible. My comment is to show that his feminism isn't the only feminism, and some of us see her actions as empowerment rather than submission.

I have a question for you: does she have one scene that doesn't have to do with her relationship to Spock?
Does going out alone to talk to the Klingons count as one such scene? I think it does.

She fails to convince the Klingons and needs someone else to save her.
Kirk died so thoroughly that he had to be brought back to life by someone else. Pike bought the farm, and Spock almost kicked the bucket in the teaser. Before Kirk died, he got demoted and lost his command. Scotty got fired. Marcus got his head squished. There's quite a bit of failure to go around in this film, and I'm not sure how all the failure is being heaped on the shoulders of Uhura or the female characters.

If Uhura's not getting the spotlight, it's probably because she wasn't one of the main characters on the original show, either.
 
In this case, that's the point I'm making. He uses his feminism as a point that the movie is terrible. My comment is to show that his feminism isn't the only feminism, and some of us see her actions as empowerment rather than submission.

I have a question for you: does she have one scene that doesn't have to do with her relationship to Spock?
Does going out alone to talk to the Klingons count as one such scene? I think it does.

She fails to convince the Klingons and needs someone else to save her.
Kirk died so thoroughly that he had to be brought back to life by someone else. Pike bought the farm, and Spock almost kicked the bucket in the teaser. Before Kirk died, he got demoted and lost his command. Scotty got fired. Marcus got his head squished. There's quite a bit of failure to go around in this film, and I'm not sure how all the failure is being heaped on the shoulders of Uhura or the female characters.

If Uhura's not getting the spotlight, it's probably because she wasn't one of the main characters on the original show, either.

She's not focused on the mission, and it almost gets them killed. And in terms of writing, all she does is let Spock express his feelings. She fails to convince the Klingons and needs someone else to save her.

They wouldn't be in that situation without her conversation with Spock.
 
I have a question for you: does she have one scene that doesn't have to do with her relationship to Spock?
Does going out alone to talk to the Klingons count as one such scene? I think it does.

Kirk died so thoroughly that he had to be brought back to life by someone else. Pike bought the farm, and Spock almost kicked the bucket in the teaser. Before Kirk died, he got demoted and lost his command. Scotty got fired. Marcus got his head squished. There's quite a bit of failure to go around in this film, and I'm not sure how all the failure is being heaped on the shoulders of Uhura or the female characters.

If Uhura's not getting the spotlight, it's probably because she wasn't one of the main characters on the original show, either.

She's not focused on the mission, and it almost gets them killed. And in terms of writing, all she does is let Spock express his feelings. She fails to convince the Klingons and needs someone else to save her.

They wouldn't be in that situation without her conversation with Spock.

Wait, what???? You're saying that because Uhura's mind is on her relationship with Spock, that she botches the conversation with the Klingons????
 
Does going out alone to talk to the Klingons count as one such scene? I think it does.

Kirk died so thoroughly that he had to be brought back to life by someone else. Pike bought the farm, and Spock almost kicked the bucket in the teaser. Before Kirk died, he got demoted and lost his command. Scotty got fired. Marcus got his head squished. There's quite a bit of failure to go around in this film, and I'm not sure how all the failure is being heaped on the shoulders of Uhura or the female characters.

If Uhura's not getting the spotlight, it's probably because she wasn't one of the main characters on the original show, either.

She's not focused on the mission, and it almost gets them killed. And in terms of writing, all she does is let Spock express his feelings. She fails to convince the Klingons and needs someone else to save her.

They wouldn't be in that situation without her conversation with Spock.

Wait, what???? You're saying that because Uhura's mind is on her relationship with Spock, that she botches the conversation with the Klingons????

No, the conversation with Spock leads to them being attacked without warning. They wouldn't have been caught off-guard if the relationship wasn't the only thing on her mind.
 
By the way, as a feminist myself, I can honestly say that Uhura's character has never been stronger, than in these movies. I am rather surprised that you do not see that.
Being a feminist doesn't mean that your opinion on the handling of nuUhura is more relevant than Havent's. To state that she is stronger and then tell him he just can't see it seems a bit imperious.

I'm not saying she is or isn't, just that both opinions can be correct. :)

In this case, that's the point I'm making. He uses his feminism as a point that the movie is terrible. My comment is to show that his feminism isn't the only feminism, and some of us see her actions as empowerment rather than submission.

Plus it's kind of hard to see Uhura as weak in a movie where she stabs a Klingon in the nads*.

*No it wasn't his leg as last I checked Klingons have there legs in the same place as humans and she stabbed the general area where a males private parts are located.
 
I have a question for you: does she have one scene that doesn't have to do with her relationship to Spock?

Yes; Her scene with the Klingons, and the scene where Kirk is dying at the end. Of course, her relationship doesn't maker her submissive, she's an equal, so I'm not sure why her relationship with Spock somehow denotes that she's less than the person she is because she has a loved one in close proximity to her.

She starts off in the turbolift talking about Pike's death and ends up telling Kirk that she's frustrated with Spock. She tells Kirk to tell Spock that his cold fusion device detonated, yet she takes off the earpiece and throws it because she's mad at Spock.

Yes, we call these emotions. Humans have them. Note that Kirk also talks about Spock. Are they having a lover's quarrel as well? Or is it that they both know something's wrong with their mutual friend?

She broods and doesn't confront him.

Hold on, there. She does. According to the dialogue, she has tried to confront him on the issue a number of times. It's Spock who won't discuss it.

They are going into enemy territory and she is so distracted she has to get out her feelings instead of choosing a more appropriate time. She's not focused on the mission, and it almost gets them killed.

You're interpreting a scene by which you are misremembering. The reason she was speaking to Spock at that moment was because he seemed to have a death wish. He was refusing to discuss it with her. Keep in mind that even though Jim Kirk first asked whether they were going to discuss it there, even he opened up a few moments later agreeing with her, so it was on his mind as well. Between the two of them, Spock finally opened up about it, and he continued the discussion. You're laying the blame on Uhura, when they were all losing focus. Why should she get the blame when they all share in it?

Keep in mind that even professionals have lapses of judgment. This is nothing new. Our heroes aren't perfect automatons who always make the right choices. If anything, STID is a great example of our heroes making wrong choices, and having to own up to them. Spock and Uhura's conflict fits into the overall theme of the film.

And in terms of writing, all she does is let Spock express his feelings. She fails to convince the Klingons and needs someone else to save her.

Apparently there are scenes of the movie of which I am not aware, because at no time do I see Spock as the reason she is about to be stabbed. Let's not blame the victim for the aggressor's actions, please. The Klingon was going to kill her anyway. What she did was buy time, and she did a damned good job of being strong and independent when she walked right up to a group of aggressive, violent Klingons who had no qualms about ending a human life. She was courageous, if anything.

If that Klingon would have had honor, she would have been fine, so let's not ignore that either.

In the last movie, every time Spock left the bridge, there's Uhura running to the turbolift, looking in his direction. It bothered me, but her ability to tell Romulan languages apart, she decodes the Klingon message that led to Kirk saving the day--she had things to do--she belonged on the bridge.

Did Sulu or Chekov act so unprofessionally? Sulu gets some badass lines in this one, telling Spock off and he tells Harrison they are coming after him. Chekov works with Scotty to come up with a plan to save the Enterprise. She has more lines in this movie than the original character, but she doesn't do anything that shows she is competent to be on the bridge.

James T. Kirk.
Spock.

These two men were more unprofessional than the rest of the crew combined. Why the hate on for Uhura? Seriously, you're laying blame at her feet that simply does not belong there. You seem to get upset at her for being human. It's as if you've never seen human beings react to stress, or watch as a loved one was put right in death's path.

It's almost like you're afraid Uhura can't cry, worry, or have fear, because it will make her look weak. Guess what? Kirk cries, worries, and has fears. Spock cries, worries, and has fears. Why can't Uhura? What makes her different that she can't fear for her lover? He certainly fears for her, and even says so. He cries for his best friend, and goes to get revenge. Professional? We still talking about that? Eh?

Cut Uhura some slack. She's not perfect. She's a human being, with human frailties. Just because she's a woman doesn't mean she has to be super strong all the time. She's allowed to cry, too.

In this case, that's the point I'm making. He uses his feminism as a point that the movie is terrible.
Gah, you're right. I totally missed that. I apologize for my post. :alienblush:

No need for an apology! :)

Plus it's kind of hard to see Uhura as weak in a movie where she stabs a Klingon in the nads*.

*No it wasn't his leg as last I checked Klingons have there legs in the same place as humans and she stabbed the general area where a males private parts are located.

She has good aim!
 
No, the conversation with Spock leads to them being attacked without warning. They wouldn't have been caught off-guard if the relationship wasn't the only thing on her mind.

I really think you're reaching for something to complain about.
 
No, the conversation with Spock leads to them being attacked without warning. They wouldn't have been caught off-guard if the relationship wasn't the only thing on her mind.

I really think you're reaching for something to complain about.

x10

Uhura is, at best, a secondary character (tertiary is often equally appropriate). That's it. That's all she has been and, really, that's all she ever NEEDS to be for Star Trek. Can a good Trek story be told where she is the primary character? Sure. That can be done for any of the characters. But it should never be expected, let alone required. Star Trek (no : followed by an acronym) has two lead characters, two secondary characters, three secondary/tertiary characters and scores of minor/incidental characters. It was not conceived as an "ensemble piece" and while it can be written that way, it seems a lot more forced than when done in the :TNG, etc. versions. And when TNG went to movies, the ensemble format began to crumble (though, to me, that often felt as forced as the reverse with TOS).

As such, in a film franchise, the non-leads are rather limited in the scope they can occupy. In a series, there would be a lot more room for non-lead characters to shine and gain in importance. In order for that to change, they'd have to go with a LOTR model and have a gigantic story spread over three very long films to give room to everyone to have a meatier role--I wouldn't hold my breath (a return to TV with a new set of actors is far more likely, relatively speaking--I don't see that happening anytime soon either).

Is Uhura the strongest female character on film in the past year? Hardly. Is this fact a catastrophic setback for women's rights and feminism as an ideology? No. It is simply a film where the two leads are male, all the female characters are supporting characters of varying importance and, well, c'est la vie.
 
No, the conversation with Spock leads to them being attacked without warning. They wouldn't have been caught off-guard if the relationship wasn't the only thing on her mind.

I really think you're reaching for something to complain about.

x10

Uhura is, at best, a secondary character (tertiary is often equally appropriate). That's it. That's all she has been and, really, that's all she ever NEEDS to be for Star Trek. Can a good Trek story be told where she is the primary character? Sure. That can be done for any of the characters. But it should never be expected, let alone required. Star Trek (no : followed by an acronym) has two lead characters, two secondary characters, three secondary/tertiary characters and scores of minor/incidental characters. It was not conceived as an "ensemble piece" and while it can be written that way, it seems a lot more forced than when done in the :TNG, etc. versions. And when TNG went to movies, the ensemble format began to crumble (though, to me, that often felt as forced as the reverse with TOS).

As such, in a film franchise, the non-leads are rather limited in the scope they can occupy. In a series, there would be a lot more room for non-lead characters to shine and gain in importance. In order for that to change, they'd have to go with a LOTR model and have a gigantic story spread over three very long films to give room to everyone to have a meatier role--I wouldn't hold my breath (a return to TV with a new set of actors is far more likely, relatively speaking--I don't see that happening anytime soon either).

Is Uhura the strongest female character on film in the past year? Hardly. Is this fact a catastrophic setback for women's rights and feminism as an ideology? No. It is simply a film where the two leads are male, all the female characters are supporting characters of varying importance and, well, c'est la vie.

Totally nailed it.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top