Abrams On Star Trek Into Darkness Flaws

[fireproof78]

Great points all around.

I am of the opinion that good writing and a good story is where the characters make their own choices, so to speak, and not the writer really making the choice for them; i.e., organic, without bias. "We have to kill Kirk at the end" is not good writing; he just dies at the end of a good story because that's how it flowed. Someone is going to ask, "What about how Spock died at the end of Wrath of Khan? They wanted that to happen!" No, they didn't. They wanted it to happen near the start. It got pushed back as the story was developed.

Not to rain on your parade, by Spock's death scene was changed due to plot details being leaked-some rumors even suggested that GR was behind the leak due to his dissatisfaction with TWOK and its story. I have not been able to verify that.

I find STID to be quite organic, especially in Kirk's death. Given Spock's willingness to die in the volcano at the beginning it would not have surprised me if he had ended up near death. But, Kirk sacrificing himself felt like it flowed better. Kirk had a choice to make and he chose to sacrifice himself.

 

[JWPlatt]

Great points all around.

I am of the opinion that good writing and a good story is where the characters make their own choices, so to speak, and not the writer really making the choice for them; i.e., organic, without bias. "We have to kill Kirk at the end" is not good writing; he just dies at the end of a good story because that's how it flowed. Someone is going to ask, "What about how Spock died at the end of Wrath of Khan? They wanted that to happen!" No, they didn't. They wanted it to happen near the start. It got pushed back as the story was developed.

Not to rain on your parade, by Spock's death scene was changed due to plot details being leaked-some rumors even suggested that GR was behind the leak due to his dissatisfaction with TWOK and its story. I have not been able to verify that.

I find STID to be quite organic, especially in Kirk's death. Given Spock's willingness to die in the volcano at the beginning it would not have surprised me if he had ended up near death. But, Kirk sacrificing himself felt like it flowed better. Kirk had a choice to make and he chose to sacrifice himself.

I only see sunshine. There was more to it than leaking Spock's death. There was a an interview with Nimoy published, or republished, not too long ago that went over all this. He would know. I leave it to others to find again.

 

[Franklin]

Nimoy repeatedly denied he only signed on to TWOK because they were going to kill off Spock. However, he had made it clear that after TMP, he was more or less through with Spock. In 1980, Bennett even wrote the treatment of TWOK without Spock in it.

When Bennett gave the story to Jack Sowards to be turned into a script, it was Sowards who came up with the idea of enticing Nimoy to join in by promising Spock a death scene. It was to be early in the film, but it kept getting pushed back as the story progressed. Nimoy was having a better time doing the film than he thought he'd have, and changed his mind about doing more Trek.

Later, in interviews, Bennett would apparently make it sound as if Spock's death was his idea.

Either way, it was not Nimoy's idea, but it drew him into the film.

Here's the link to the story. Seems credible enough, with quotes and all.

http://spinoff.comicbookresources.c...d-nimoy-ask-for-spock-to-die-in-star-trek-ii/

As far a leaks of Spock's death before TWOK came out, I seem to remember knowing about it before seeing the movie, but how soon before, I can't remember.

Kirk's death in STID seemed quite "organic" to me, if the opposite of that is forced or contrived. It was as if the movie was building to that moment. Kirk realizes what real leadership requires. If the movie was a one-off, it would've been almost like a Greek tragedy. The hero grows that final bit and finds out what real heroism is, but at the cost of his life. Of course, we needed Kirk for more movies (just as we needed Spock), so let's just say death is relative in science fiction. So, Kirk actually could have his cake and eat it, too. Lesson learned and life goes on.

 

[fireproof78]

Great points all around.

I am of the opinion that good writing and a good story is where the characters make their own choices, so to speak, and not the writer really making the choice for them; i.e., organic, without bias. "We have to kill Kirk at the end" is not good writing; he just dies at the end of a good story because that's how it flowed. Someone is going to ask, "What about how Spock died at the end of Wrath of Khan? They wanted that to happen!" No, they didn't. They wanted it to happen near the start. It got pushed back as the story was developed.

Not to rain on your parade, by Spock's death scene was changed due to plot details being leaked-some rumors even suggested that GR was behind the leak due to his dissatisfaction with TWOK and its story. I have not been able to verify that.

I find STID to be quite organic, especially in Kirk's death. Given Spock's willingness to die in the volcano at the beginning it would not have surprised me if he had ended up near death. But, Kirk sacrificing himself felt like it flowed better. Kirk had a choice to make and he chose to sacrifice himself.

I only see sunshine. There was more to it than leaking Spock's death. There was a an interview with Nimoy published, or republished, not too long ago that went over all this. He would know. I leave it to others to find again.

That's fair. I also read "I Am Spock" and "Star Trek Memories" which captured some of the BTS drama of the leaked plot details.

I'm not saying that the only reason the death scene was moved back was due to the leaked details. As with all art, it was a process with a number of contextual factors, not just story ones.

Regardless, the end result was a death scene for Nimoy, which was a motivation for him to return, despite all the furor at the studio over his distancing himself from the character of Spock.

 

[eyeresist]

All that's needed is dialogue that the Klingon's conquered significant parts of a neighbouring species and that there's intelligence suggesting that they are prepared to mount an invasion of the Federation. The other Starfleet brass are doves who are livin' in cloud cuckoo land but Marcus is on the ball with this.

All this is said or implied.

You could also depict Marcus as being more conflicted about destroying the Enterprise but then deciding he has to do it. In the film, Marcus is havin' a swell time murdering the young crew! He ain't doin' much wrestling with his conscience that's for darn sure.

Well, he is the villain, not an admirable character! And I think he is obviously a guy who prides himself on making hard decisions and doing dirty work without hesitation. That's his character.
Also, the mission he sent Kirk on was supposed to be a death sentence, so Marcus is desperately mopping up not only to keep his plan on track, but also to save his own skin.

Problem is Admiral Marcus never given just that speech, it was completely missing.

Here we go again:

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.

 

[Trekkin]

In a way, he's a foil to Khan. In Space Seed, one of the things Khan looked down upon in the crew and McGivers was that they were 'soft.' As a superior specimens, he saw himself as abov such things and thought he could use it against them. Then the episode proceeds to show how he's totally wrong.

Funnily enough, TWOK sorta undermines that by having Kirk's mercy retroactively being the complete wrong decision, and Khan's eventual affection for MCGivers (and her subsequent loss) doing quiet a bit of damage to his psyche. Oh well.

 

[JWPlatt]

This is making Admiral Marcus sound like Col. Nathan R. "You can't handle the truth" Jessup in A Few Good Men. I haven't seen the movie, but i have seen the courtroom scene a number of times. Is there a similarity between the characters?

 

[Paradise City]

All this is said or implied.

Minor skirmishes only and implied isn't good enough.

Well, he is the villain, not an admirable character! And I think he is obviously a guy who prides himself on making hard decisions and doing dirty work without hesitation. That's his character.

He's a cartoon villain and a product of woefully lazy writing.

Also, the mission he sent Kirk on was supposed to be a death sentence, so Marcus is desperately mopping up not only to keep his plan on track, but also to save his own skin.

He sacrifices the Enterprise for no good reason. It's not hard to put in a reason and make it plausible but that doesn't happen here.

 

[Jedi_Master]

From the linked article.

“We got into trouble on the second Star Trek film with some of the fans,” he said. “There were too many nods to the Wrath of Khan. I’ll cop to that.”

The first sentence is indeed true, although he isn't acknowledging that the "some" fans have a legitimate case, just that he got into trouble with those fans.

The second sentence is also true. It is refreshing to see an artist honestly acknowledge flaws in his work.

 

[Campe]

Sorry for the delayed response. Real life and stuff...

What's interesting is you could actually have your Khan references that way. Have someone tell Admiral Marcus that they're just creating another Khan Noonien Singh. That's all that needed to be said.

I think, overall, it would have been a far more interesting story. Harrison, who maybe was career Starfleet, one of their finest in security, with a family background in the fleet was recruited by Section 31 and then realized the atrocities he's been made to commit.

You want an even more personal connection for the audience to grab hold to? -- He and Kirk were friends at the Academy.

Hell, you want to make it an even more personal connection for Star Trek fanboys? -- make him Gary Mitchell.

Then at the end, as opposed to "killing" Kirk and having Harrison/Mitchell and Spock racing across San Francisco, Harrison/Mitchell sacrifices himself to stop Admiral Marcus. Movie written. Problems solved. You have your classic Star Trek connection. You have your Khan reference but it's not over the top. Hell, Carol could still be there and serve the same purpose, but she be that "blonde technician" that in the Prime Universe Mitchell references, but instead, she and Mitchell hooked up.

This is a movie I would have loved far more than what we got.

Would you really want Harrison (as Harrison or Khan) to be the hero of the movie? Makes no sense to me, at least. It had to be Kirk who made the sacrifice and defeated both Marcus's plan and Khan. If Harrison takes himself out stopping Marcus, Kirk's been neutered as a hero.

I mean, its a fair point and all, but perhaps it's a different lesson learned here than is learned in the screen version of STID. And that's why I suggested the Harrison being Mitchell thing. Perhaps at some point, Kirk is faced with the impossible choice of killing Marcus himself or having Mitchell do it. It teaches him the lesson of sacrifice. Instead of pulling from Trek II, it pulls from Trek III and a little of the second pilot.

Khan was also shorthand for the fans for how dangerous he really was. Abrams said part of the reason Cumberbatch got the part was he had a really interesting take on Khan. It could be Khan was to be played more "Khan-like" (unsympathetic character, passionate, conniving), but the Khan we see at least tries to evoke empathy with the audience for his plight, he's more inscrutable than passionate, and more calculated than conniving. He's also not psychotic and borderline irrational as he is in TWOK.

And for the thousandth time, I thought it was quite neat that Khan played such an important role at a critical moment in the lives of both Kirks, with each Kirk learning something important about himself and coming out of it a better person for the encounter.

That's fine and all but it still doesn't answer the question I raised:

Why did it have to be Khan?

I'm not saying your argument doesn't have merit. It has a lot of it. I'm not saying Into Darkness was a bad film. It wasn't. There are a lot of aspects of the movie I really like.

I'm just saying I personally think the film lacked an internal motivation for the appearance of a preexisting character other than to say, "Oooh, it's Khan! I've heard of that guy!" I just would have preferred either a character that wasn't "the most dangerous adversary the Enterprise ever faced" or a storyline that actually called for him to be there. In that regard, the film doesn't do that as well as it could for me. And in the end, that's fine. It was still an enjoyable two hours!

 

[fireproof78]

All this is said or implied.

Minor skirmishes only and implied isn't good enough.

Well, he is the villain, not an admirable character! And I think he is obviously a guy who prides himself on making hard decisions and doing dirty work without hesitation. That's his character.

He's a cartoon villain and a product of woefully lazy writing.

Also, the mission he sent Kirk on was supposed to be a death sentence, so Marcus is desperately mopping up not only to keep his plan on track, but also to save his own skin.

He sacrifices the Enterprise for no good reason. It's not hard to put in a reason and make it plausible but that doesn't happen here.

I thought he had a reason-to start his war.

Cartoonish or not, I thought he was an engaging and interesting character, especially as an reaction to the Narada's attack in 09.

I think the larger implication is more interesting. Marcus is paranoid, to the point of attacking first rather risk an attack on Earth again. Of course, it backfires, but I can understand his point of view.

Not sure why it has to be more than implied. I don't need long exposition to understand character motivation.

 

[JWPlatt]

All this is said or implied.

Minor skirmishes only and implied isn't good enough.

Well, he is the villain, not an admirable character! And I think he is obviously a guy who prides himself on making hard decisions and doing dirty work without hesitation. That's his character.

He's a cartoon villain and a product of woefully lazy writing.

Also, the mission he sent Kirk on was supposed to be a death sentence, so Marcus is desperately mopping up not only to keep his plan on track, but also to save his own skin.

He sacrifices the Enterprise for no good reason. It's not hard to put in a reason and make it plausible but that doesn't happen here.

Writing "it's not hard to put in a reason and make it plausible" demands an example. Otherwise it's just as lazy as the accused, making the claim suspect. I'm sure you can understand that by your requirement to eyeresist that just saying so "isn't good enough."

 

[Paradise City]

All this is said or implied.

Minor skirmishes only and implied isn't good enough.

He's a cartoon villain and a product of woefully lazy writing.

Also, the mission he sent Kirk on was supposed to be a death sentence, so Marcus is desperately mopping up not only to keep his plan on track, but also to save his own skin.

He sacrifices the Enterprise for no good reason. It's not hard to put in a reason and make it plausible but that doesn't happen here.

Writing "it's not hard to put in a reason and make it plausible" demands an example. Otherwise it's just as lazy as the accused, making the claim suspect. I'm sure you can understand that by your requirement to eyeresist that just saying so "isn't good enough."

Eh, you don't have to be writer to criticise a movie plot. Otherwise noone would criticise any film ever.

Anyway, I've described examples of how you can flesh out these characters earlier on in the thread. And that was just off the cuff. I'm not repeating myself constantly for people who are closing their eyes pretending that Marcus is something other than a hollow vessel, devoid of plausibility.

High quality cinema abounds with rich characteristisations. I'm not even asking for that. I'm asking for an effort on behalf of the writers and what we got delivered to us was just this lazily written one dimensional cartoon villain with the writers praying that the slap bang FX would mean the audience wouldn't notice, Wellers undoubted talents notwithstanding.

 

[JWPlatt]

Eh, you don't have to be writer to criticise a movie plot. Otherwise noone would criticise any film ever.

I strongly agree with this statement. I say the same thing to critics of criticism who say we must make movies ourselves to earn the right to criticize them. And I generally call those people Defenders of Mediocrity who are "bad for the brand" by lowering expectations and providing excuses for the studios; i.e., apologists. I think that might be close to where you are coming from.

Looking back at the thread, I don't disagree with many of your complaints and assessments, though there is a touch of counterproductive extremism from my point of view. I would like to see more detail in your solutions that match the level and quantity of complaints you have. The details do make things more convincing that way. Rather than attempting to disprove your case, I'm interested in seeing you prove it with better ideas and detail. I understand it might not be worth your time to do in-depth comparative analyses when there are real life priorities. Our posts are probably a futile effort in effecting the changes we'd like to see. But hey, critics make the same demands of art that we make of our own posts here. They can always be better.

 

[Timby]

As far a leaks of Spock's death before TWOK came out, I seem to remember knowing about it before seeing the movie, but how soon before, I can't remember.

Roddenberry had the right to review all script drafts (though the studio didn't have to listen to his input); when it became clear that Spock's death was going to survive to the finished, shooting script, he blew a gasket and leaked it out to a bunch of fanzines.

 

[Trekkin]

I don't miss the info dumps - thanks to Nemesis, I now get a violent twitch at the merest hint of one. 'Implying' and then showing how they're dangerous is fine with me. I'm meant to think Marcus is a little crazy and paranoid, so it doesn't matter if they're shown to be anywhere near as dangerous as he claims they are.

The events of ENT are still part of this timeline. So even Trekkies would like to argue that things did totally change in the 20-ish years between 09's prologue and the main setting, the 100-ish years of bad blood between Klingons and humans has still been established. No doubt there was an even longer violent history with other members of the Federation.

 

[Nebusj]

That's fine and all but it still doesn't answer the question I raised:

Why did it have to be Khan?

Why did it have to be Marcus?

I think having it be Khan was fine, and really quite interesting. The New Enterprise team has no idea who they're dealing with, or how dangerous he could be, which makes him almost perfectly resemble Hitchcock's example of suspense [1]. That he isn't the real big bad, or that his goals aren't the obvious ones, also makes for a good subversion of audience expectations, and makes the character's three appearances an interesting triptych as he's seen in very different circumstances.

[1] Two characters sitting at a table. Neither knows there's a time bomb underneath the table. The audience does.

 

[Maurice]

What many people seem to miss is that it doesn't matter if Marcus is right or even of the Klingons are a threat. This is a post-9/11 Starfleet where people have freaked out, overreacted, and see WMDs where there aren't any. The whole point of the movie is how people react to a tragedy, and frequently dive unintentionally and headlong "into darkness" themselves in their desire to assure such a thing never happens again.

The script has many many flaws, but this isn't one of them.

 

[Trekkin]

I was avoiding the 'well, in the real world...' thing because I was a bit worried about starting a political pissing contest. I suppose that was a silly view considering no one worries about discussing the political stuff that's in TUC or the other series.

 

[Maurice]

^^^Dunno if that was in reference to my post, but I certainly wasn't talking about "in the real world"; just saying what that story theme is and why I don't believe the credibility of the Klingon threat matters to a character like Marcus, who sees everything in terms of "I'll do anything to stop that from happening again."