Into Darkness comparisons (Spoilers)

[beamMe]

I find it funny, because by recreating the climax of another film as the climax of their own film, they indirectly admit that the previous film is far superior to theirs. It's not just a subtle homage, it's a complete lift.

There's a thread full of criticism against the re-use of a stock VFX shot of the exploding Bird of Prey in Star Trek: Generations. But this film re-used an entire part of another film's script.

At least the CLIMAX of a film should be original, shouldn't it?

It's one scene. And that scene isn't the climax in either film.

 

[beamMe]

That's not the same as foreshadowing within the same movie by saying, let's inject this magic blood into a dead tribble I just happen to have rotting in the medical bay for no good reason. That just screamed out plot device to pretty much everyone.

That's why the blood was injected into the movie's plot in the sequence of events right after the title card.
The Tribble-scene was just a reminder for the audience, and a welcome distraction for Kirk as he was losing his argument with Khan.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Exactly so.

 

[sj4iy]

That's not the same as foreshadowing within the same movie by saying, let's inject this magic blood into a dead tribble I just happen to have rotting in the medical bay for no good reason. That just screamed out plot device to pretty much everyone.

That's why the blood was injected into the movie's plot in the sequence of events right after the title card.
The Tribble-scene was just a reminder for the audience, and a welcome distraction for Kirk as he was losing his argument with Khan.

Well, the audience knows about Khan's blood, but McCoy doesn't.

 

[Irishman]

I don't see why adapting a previous work indicates its superiority. If that were so, no work could ever improve on a past work. EDITED to add: if you mean that recreating is what indicates the original's superiority, I might agree--except that I don't think the new scene is at all a recreation of the scene in Khan.

As it is, I don't see the scene as a complete lift at all. The resemblance between the climaxes of the two films is marginal at best: both are set in a similar location and feature a similar sacrifice. The dialogue is almost entirely new. The narrative beats are new. The thematic resonance is new.

STiD, as fun and enjoyable as it was, is NOT superior to TWoK.

Not even equivalent.

sarcasm mode - The new scene, as you call it, is so new that none of us identified it for its similarities to the climax of TWoK. /sarcasm mode

 

[sj4iy]

I don't see why adapting a previous work indicates its superiority. If that were so, no work could ever improve on a past work. EDITED to add: if you mean that recreating is what indicates the original's superiority, I might agree--except that I don't think the new scene is at all a recreation of the scene in Khan.

As it is, I don't see the scene as a complete lift at all. The resemblance between the climaxes of the two films is marginal at best: both are set in a similar location and feature a similar sacrifice. The dialogue is almost entirely new. The narrative beats are new. The thematic resonance is new.

STiD, as fun and enjoyable as it was, is NOT superior to TWoK.

Not even equivalent.

sarcasm mode - The new scene, as you call it, is so new that none of us identified it for its similarities to the climax of TWoK. /sarcasm mode

It's not the same at all in meaning or in context at all. It's actually a great exercise in how just by changing a couple of things, you can create a completely different story. It's like if I said "She's gone"- well, context matters. If the context is that someone's elderly mother passed away, well, that's sad. But if the context is that of someone's daughter, that's much worse. So context matters, and in this case, there is a completely different context in each situation.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I've always thought Wrath of Khan to be extremely overrated. It's enjoyable, but IMO no classic. Into Darkness blows it out of the water.

 

[Tiberius Jim]

Just whipped this up, simply for the LOLZ.

I have it in avatar form if anyone wants it.

 

[M.A.C.O.]

Oh my?!

Found this on tumblr.

 

[The Wormhole]

Just whipped this up, simply for the LOLZ.

I have it in avatar form if anyone wants it.

Holy shit! Took me a moment to realize what you did there. Good one!

Might actually be a fun idea, photoshopping Cumberbatch's face onto various images of Khan, see how it works out. I'd especially be interested to see if it can work with images of Khan from Space Seed.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

I doubt that there's a single "inspiration" here from Star Trek: Insurrection; similarities between films do not demonstrate that elements of one are inspired by the other, particularly when such elements are found in so many other antecedents. Drawing the conclusion of influence from happenstance is a common mistake.

Where else in canonical Star Trek had we seen a rogue/corrupt Admiral with connections to Section 31 as a major/main antagonist besides in Insurrection?

Note: Although Insurrection itself does not explicitly establish a connection between Dougherty and S31, his actions fit the bureau's modus operandi as established by DS9 and Enterprise.

Well, that second paragraph is the key, isn't it? You have to add speculation not mentioned in the film to assert that Dougherty was working for Section 31. If you go purely by what is established on screen, Trek has had several examples in film and TV of rogue or corrupt admirals serving as antagonists for our heroes, and you could easily speculate like you did above that many of them were working for or with Section 31 (and in fact, some novels have).

Just off the top of my head:

- Admiral Cartwright in STVI: TUC
- Admiral Pressman in TNG Pegasus
- Future Admiral Janeway in VOY Endgame (briefly until joined by Capt. Janeway)
- Ret. Admiral Norah Satie in TNG The Drumhead
- Admiral Leyton in DS9 Homefront/Paradise Lost
- Admiral Jameson in TNG Too Short a Season
- Admirals Quinn and Savar in TNG Conspiracy (to be fair, they did have a really bad case of crabs)
- Admiral Stocker in TOS The Deadly Years (more incompetent than rogue, but he did violate the Neutral Zone)
- Admiral Ross in DS9 Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges (as mentioned, he actually was working with Section 31)

I'm sure there are more I'm missing. If anything, the "admiral as adversary" thing is a cliche in Trek rather than something unique. And that's not even counting all the admirals who were just dicks or incompetent but not necessarily rogue or corrupt, which would be a whole other long list of lesser antagonists for the crews.

 

[The Wormhole]

Indeed, some even think Admiral Pressman was with Section 31 since in TATV Riker makes reference to a "specialized division of Starfleet Security" or something like that.

 

[EnsignRicky]

Life From Lifelessness.

Khan Literally Is Genesis.

 

[F. King Daniel]

We also saw a ton of crazy captains in TOS. Tracy, Garth, Decker... Starfleet must hire borderline sociopaths. Or maybe it's something in the (replicated) food?

 

[The Wormhole]

We also saw a ton of crazy captains in TOS. Tracy, Garth, Decker... Starfleet must hire borderline sociopaths. Or maybe it's something in the (replicated) food?

Decker was actually a Commodore, and therfore would be placed in among the Admirals. Commodore is after all, a flag rank. And besides, he was only "crazy" because he'd just witnessed the death of his entire crew.

 

[Mjolnir2000]

I didn't want to put Into Darkness vs Wrath of Khan as the title of this thread, for fear of spoiling anything for anyone who hasn't seen STID yet.
I have to get this off my chest. I'm sick and tired of hearing that this movie was a Wrath of Khan ripoff from some fans. These 2 films couldn't be further apart from each other.
yes, ONE damn scene was lifted from TWOK, and yes Khan is used here. But there, the similarities end.
TWOK was about a Kirk who was facing the realism of aging, growing old in his life. Khan was out for revenge against Kirk for leaving him stranded on dead planet. Spock discovers the sacrifices one must make.
STID is about a young upstart Kirk, who through the course of the film, learns what you must truly do to earn to sit in the Captain's chair. This Spock is still going through the pain of losing his planet, of learning what it means to stay alive, and builds his friendship with Kirk through the film.
the film also deals with the effects from the 09 trek, with starfleet beefing itself up, and using Khan for its own means to an end. In the end, that blows up in its face. This Khan was pushed even further over the edge, than i think Prime Khan was.
So, really, these two films stand apart. They told completely different stories.

No one is saying they're identical plots (well, some people might be, but most aren't). If they were identical, then STID might have actually made some sense.

It's a ripoff in that the writers were (IMHO) banking on nostalgia and gimmicks to transfer the perceived quality of WoK over to STID. Apart from the genetic engineering, Harrison was a very different character from Khan. Making him turn out to be Khan was jarring for me as a viewer, and in some ways an admission that the character as written didn't hold up on it's own. I mean they even have to call Leonard Nimoy later in the film so that he can tell the audience how dangerous Khan is, I'm assuming because the script prior to that point hadn't done a particularly good job of establishing the fact. Similarly, the stolen scene pretty much took me completely out of the film because I knew why it was in there. And maybe that could have worked in a universe without WoK, but then you have Spock do the scream, and it's just so awkward and forced in that even if this were the first ST film I'd ever seen, it still would have felt wrong.

So the problem isn't that STID is WoK. The problem is that STID tried to take the best known elements of WoK, mixed them in with some stuff from TUC and one too many fight scenes and yes, some stuff that was legitimately new and interesting, and ultimately failed to do anything particularly well. You want to reboot Trek? Then don't revisit stuff we've all seen before. It probably won't be as good, and it'll distract from the the stuff you're doing that's actually fresh.

 

[publiusr]

I think you can safely call this the polar opposite of the "motionless picture" at least.

 

[Belz...]

I've always thought Wrath of Khan to be extremely overrated.

It does have its flaws, but it's the movie that got me really into Star Trek, and remained my all-time favourite movie for almost two decades. Give it some props.

 

[Set Harth]

I mean they even have to call Leonard Nimoy later in the film so that he can tell the audience how dangerous Khan is, I'm assuming because the script prior to that point hadn't done a particularly good job of establishing the fact.

Well, he was certainly dangerous to the Klingons, Pike, and whoever got blowed up...