Abrams On Star Trek Into Darkness Flaws

I simply meant the social commentary that you mentioned. Like I said, the hesitance to bring it up was silly.

I also accidentally edited out the sentence where I basically said I agreed with your interpretation. To quote a bald fat man "d'oh."

 

I'm inclined to agree. Personally, I enjoy Marcus' near psychotic paranoia, and his willingness to go to war over slight provocations.

It's a more interesting take on the consequences of Nero's attack than treating it with a shrug.

 

Weller makes a great larger-than-life villain. Really, he's this movie's Khan.

 

Waddaya talkin' about? There's no resemblance between Peter Wellers performance in Star Trek and Ricardo Montal-





... Oh, dang it.

 

Exactly.

The Abrams films have been accused of not doing what Trek does — comment on our society. But ItD did, and in the way you stated above. Frankly, it did it as well or about on par with many of TOS (looking at you "A Private Little War" and "A Taste of Armageddon.")

While we can quibble about the execution, ItD was about something —*despite what the critics say.

 

The problem with Into Darkness was that it had too many ties to previous Trek? And they've now learned from those mistakes when making the new Star Wars movies even though those films have 3 characters who were in the movies over 30 years ago, have something that looks like a death star and a baddie that looks like Darth Vader. Hmmmm......

 

Given that Ep. 7 is a direct continuation of six previously established films with their own history, and Into Darkness was a sequel that was trying to make its own history, I don't think that is as contradictory as it might seem on the face of it.

 

It almost commented on society, but never followed through with any thoughts of its own. It includes loads of modern topics and goes no where with them. Kirk decides breaking borders, and sending drones weapons, and following illegal orders is bad, but so what, why did he decide it? Was it purely pear pressure from his friends, nothing more? As far as we know that really is all there was to it for him.

 

I actually like that it is left opened end, though his speech at the end of the film alludes to the influence of Pike in making his decision, recognizing that his actions were neither legal nor moral.

It could have been more on the nose, but I actually prefer the more subtle approach. It allows viewers to draw their own conclusions, if they draw any at all.

 

^^ He learns about his responsibilities, to the rule of law and to his crew.

 

One person's opinion.

Also, my opinion, but still...