A second viewing of Into Darkness

[Trekkin]

Not all characters need to 'grow' per se. Some can get away with just being the static 'Everyman' audience surrogate (Dave is 2001 comes to mind) and others can essentially stay the same, but reveal that they've always had a few layers (arguably how I see Khan in STID). Then you have characters that are purposefully static as a character trait (for eg. Captain Carrot, The Emperor, Henry from 'Portrait of a Serial Killer' etc.)

It all depends on how they're handled.

 

[Cyke101]

Not all characters need to 'grow' per se. Some can get away with just being the static 'Everyman' audience surrogate (Dave is 2001 comes to mind) and others can essentially stay the same, but reveal that they've always had a few layers (arguably how I see Khan in STID). Then you have characters that are purposefully static as a character trait (for eg. Captain Carrot, The Emperor, Henry from 'Portrait of a Serial Killer' etc.)

It all depends on how they're handled.

2001 doesn't quite compare since it's a one-off and (and 2010 was about a totally different cast altogether, with Dave as a bit player there).

And being the same but peeling back layers isn't staying the same, since it's a fundamental narrative change. If a character acts a certain way to perform a certain function in a story, and that function changes, it will impact the story. Khan being a red herring -- and indeed, a victim of blackmail -- is definitely unlike past iterations of the character. Even with the total third act, Khan isn't the villain that the first act makes him out to be, all because it was Marcus' plot all along.

I'm also speaking of main characters, since they're the focus of the narrative; and everyman characters can grow as well. But generally speaking, a sign of good handling is when a main character at the end of a story is a different person in some way from the beginning of the story. And we get that with Pine Kirk in both movies.

 

[Cinema Geekly]

Marcus' motivation to start a war with the Klingons because of Nero's destruction of Vulcan doesn't make sense. Now if it was false flag event with the Romulans, that would make sense.

Maybe the comics had something to explain why he felt the Klingons were the threat. Something else I don't like with the new production team. They try to fix their films plot holes in the comics. I don't read comics. Maybe they're trying to squeeze too much in the 2hr+ films.

Narada = Al Qaeda

Vulcan = Twin Towers

Klingons = Iraq

Now it should make perfect sense.

We were attacked on 9/11 then we went and preemptively attacked another nation not connected to the first event because they were a danger.

IT didn't make any sense in real life either but at least they were drawing from real life. And at least in the movie they avoided starting a war.

 

[eyeresist]

I could stand less continuity porn myself, so I would agree with that. Tribbles? I hope I never see one of those fuzzy miserable things again.

So I guess you don't want to read my spec script for the new STAR TREK show, "The Tribbling Tribbles"?

It's a buddy pic - "The Tribble with Harry."

Marcus' motivation to start a war with the Klingons because of Nero's destruction of Vulcan doesn't make sense. Now if it was false flag event with the Romulans, that would make sense.

Maybe the comics had something to explain why he felt the Klingons were the threat.

Marcus's justification from the movie:

All-out war with the Klingons is inevitable, Mr. Kirk. If you ask me, it's already begun. Since we first learned of their existence, the Klingon Empire has conquered and occupied two planets that we know of and fired on our ships half a dozen times. They are coming our way.​

Maybe not a great justification (we were discussing this in a recent thread), but it's there.

Here we have a convoluted, pandering story, with less likable versions of Kirk/Spock. Silly script elements are thrown in (magic blood, transwarp beaming) to make it easier for the script writers to advance the story between plot points.

Let me be the umpteenth person to point out how Kirk got his best friend back by magic in TSFS.

I think the only Trek film that's worse is the abysmal Nemesis.

There are several worse Trek films than NEM....

 

[Trekkin]

'Script elements' does not mean what johnjm22 thinks it means. 'Script elements' are stuff like dialogue, character names, scene headings, blocking instructions etc. They're the elements that make it a script, as opposed to any other piece of writing.

Which is why it's funny to see them described as silly things bridging plot points. I'm having images of most of the movie being large B&W words flashing across the screen between set pieces. "CHARACTERS! SCENE HEADERS! TRANSITIONS!"

 

[Timo]

Because if there's one thing that's really hard to buy in a Star Trek movie, it's the proposition that the Klingons might be a big rival power the Federation worries about going to war with.

Well, more or less every time Trek previously did this alternate universe shtick, things became the opposite of their main timeline version. We'd really need to see whether Klingons in this corner of the multiverse are sissies or homicidal maniacs before deciding, and ST:ID wasn't showing.

We did see Klingons as the baddies in the big SF Academy simulation exam. But that just makes it three times in a row that these poor peace-loving souls have been victimized: by Starfleet prejudice, by Nero, and now by Khan/Marcus.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[ancient]

I cared almost as much about the Klingon bikers as I did about the unseen inhabitants of Veridian IV. Who? Exactly.

The Kurtzman/Orci writing team has always been more focused on rushing to the next spectacle or plot point than on strong character motivation. See ST09, Transformers & Amazing Spiderman 2 for other examples of their half-hearted character motivations. Character show up, quickly shout a few words of explanation as to why they will now initiate a conflict, then the conflict happens. This style doesn't really do anything for me, I like to go on the journey, have some build-up.

 

[Trekkin]

Klingon bikers? Did you accidentally put on DS9? This is also the completely wrong crowd to try and pull the 'You wouldn't remember who was in danger at the end of Generations' card.

The Klingons were not the characters that were in immediate peril throughout most of the movie, the main characters were. The main characters were who you were supposed to care about. Stopping Marcus attacking the Klingons was the equivalent to stopping Khan getting Genesis in TWOK. You're immediate concern is that he will kill the crew, the wider concern is he might kill unseen 'masses' in the future. It's the 'wider scope' aspect. Also, guess who else's motivations and abilities were conveyed near-purely through exposition?

I do wonder, how did you go with 'The Wounded' where it's a big deal that the never-before-seen Cardassians might be in danger and could start another war if attacked? They didn't even get the NuKlingons moment of displaying how they could kill every human in sight before Khan showed up.

 

[eyeresist]

The Kurtzman/Orci writing team has always been more focused on rushing to the next spectacle or plot point than on strong character motivation. See ST09, Transformers & Amazing Spiderman 2 for other examples of their half-hearted character motivations. Character show up, quickly shout a few words of explanation as to why they will now initiate a conflict, then the conflict happens. This style doesn't really do anything for me, I like to go on the journey, have some build-up.

I agree that JJ's style is aggressive, noisy and overly flashy, BUT if you care to look behind the lens flares you will find a lot of great dialogue and character development. It is there; you just have to work for it.

 

[BillJ]

The Kurtzman/Orci writing team has always been more focused on rushing to the next spectacle or plot point than on strong character motivation. See ST09, Transformers & Amazing Spiderman 2 for other examples of their half-hearted character motivations. Character show up, quickly shout a few words of explanation as to why they will now initiate a conflict, then the conflict happens. This style doesn't really do anything for me, I like to go on the journey, have some build-up.

I agree that JJ's style is aggressive, noisy and overly flashy, BUT if you care to look behind the lens flares you will find a lot of great dialogue and character development. It is there; you just have to work for it.

Well, if you call paying attention "working for it".

 

[eyeresist]

Well, if you call paying attention "working for it".

Some people do seem to find it painful.


(Reminds me of Lynch's "confusing" version of Dune; just pay attention to the two infodumps at the beginning, and it's child's play to follow.)

 

[fireproof78]

Well, if you call paying attention "working for it".

Some people do seem to find it painful.


(Reminds me of Lynch's "confusing" version of Dune; just pay attention to the two infodumps at the beginning, and it's child's play to follow.)

This is my opinion as well, both for Dune and STID.

Personally, I think the characters in STID are more interesting that, say, INS or NEM, as I actually feel like the characters go through some massive change, rather than surface level difficulties.

I regard STID's social commentary as interesting as TUC, in terms of commenting on contemporary issues, but a little bit less on-the-nose.

There are several elements can be read in STID, but I think the one that stood out to me was Kirk's continuing arc, and the commentary on drone strikes to kill citizens. Also, Marcus is a war-monger, or war hawk, a position that is often articulated in contemporary politics.

There is so much more psychology underlying these characters than appear at first blush. I think labeling STID "mindless action" is limiting engagement with the material. On the surface, yes, it is a very action oriented film-so was TOS for its day and age. Deeper is the social commentary and deeper still is the continuing consequences of Kirk and Spock's arcs.

 

[BruntFCA]

I have only seen ITD once when it was first released and really didn't care for it. But I saw the DVD for $2 and I had to grab it, I'm hoping to enjoy it more this time