One Year Later: Star Trek Into Darkness

[BillJ]

So Khan who wakes up and smells opportunity ("Space Seed") is suppose to act exactly the same as Khan who was woken up and used by Starfleet, and threatened with the lives of those he was exiled with if he didn't cooperate (Star Trek Into Darkness)?

I don't think humans actually work that way.

 

[drt]

The thing is, the general audience hasn't seen "Space Seed", so their familiarity with Khan is the crazed man in TWOK.

Which is really the case for almost all of the Abrams movie characterizations.

I can buy movie Kirk as a cocky rule-breaking frat-boy, since TWOK tells us about the Kobayashi Maru and Carol describes Kirk as "never a boy scout" - however, both of those seem at odds with how Kirk was characterized in the original series, including both Mitchell and psuedo-Finnegan's descriptions of Kirk at the Academy.

 

[BillJ]

I can buy movie Kirk as a cocky rule-breaking frat-boy, since TWOK tells us about the Kobayashi Maru and Carol describes Kirk as "never a boy scout" - however, both of those seem at odds with how Kirk was characterized in the original series, including both Mitchell and psuedo-Finnegan's descriptions of Kirk at the Academy.

I don't really think that TWOK Kirk is at odds with TOS Kirk. People can be different when the circumstances vary. I've known people whose work and private personalities were nothing alike. Just because Kirk was a grim rule follower (to a degree) doesn't mean he didn't have a wild side.

Are there difference between Prime Kirk and Abrams Kirk? I'd say that is very likely as Abrams Kirk never seemed to be part of the Tarsus IV colony and never served aboard the Farragut where half the crew was lost. Prime Kirk never watched an entire world get sucked into a black hole.

Same men genetically who had their command styles tempered by different events growing up.

 

[Ovation]

I can buy movie Kirk as a cocky rule-breaking frat-boy, since TWOK tells us about the Kobayashi Maru and Carol describes Kirk as "never a boy scout" - however, both of those seem at odds with how Kirk was characterized in the original series, including both Mitchell and psuedo-Finnegan's descriptions of Kirk at the Academy.

I don't really think that TWOK Kirk is at odds with TOS Kirk. People can be different when the circumstances vary. I've known people whose work and private personalities were nothing alike. Just because Kirk was a grim rule follower (to a degree) doesn't mean he didn't have a wild side.

Are there difference between Prime Kirk and Abrams Kirk? I'd say that is very likely as Abrams Kirk never seemed to be part of the Tarsus IV colony and never served aboard the Farragut where half the crew was lost. Prime Kirk never watched an entire world get sucked into a black hole.

Same men genetically who had their command styles tempered by different events growing up.

Not to mention entirely different childhoods (one with, one without, a father). That alone should make any differences (real or perceived) between what "prime Kirk" was "supposed to be like" as a youngster and how he turned out in the new timeline irrelevant. Of all the things people bicker over, this should be the least likely source of discord.

 

[BillJ]

Not to mention entirely different childhoods (one with, one without, a father). That alone should make any differences (real or perceived) between what "prime Kirk" was "supposed to be like" as a youngster and how he turned out in the new timeline irrelevant. Of all the things people bicker over, this should be the least likely source of discord.

I wish there was more thoughtful discussions on how the differences in the the timeline lead to differences in the characters themselves. Instead we get "OMG!!! They ruined Star Trek!1!!!"

 

[BigJake]

About the torpedoes:

Damn the torpedoes!

(Sorry. I've just always wanted to say that. Incidentally, I know there are people who take issue with snipping and responding to only the relevant parts of a post, but you needn't worry about that with me. And I hope you don't mind if I do the same.)

What could've been said on screen that would've made all this with the missiles more clear?

But really... damn the torpedoes. In a perfect world I'd prefer they had just skipped the whole thing entirely and found a better plot mechanism*. There's no way loading people into explosive devices to smuggle them doesn't look stupid on its face -- there's a very good reason the Underground Railroad didn't transport people in crates of dynamite -- and the whole business with the torpedoes just introduces too many underlying confusions in too many ways to be worthwhile (particularly when the movie also conspicuously flags up that they have technology that could have just beamed things to the Klingon homeworld and detonated them... kind of like Spock had Khan beam over his own doom at the end).

* For that matter if they'd skipped the whole thing with thawing out a three hundred year out-of-date guy to build hyper-advanced weaponry (which unavoidably gets us into the "why is he Khan" thing, I know, but there it is), wouldn't have missed it one bit.

However, if audience drama can be better served by Kirk roaming the halls weeping, he will gladly defer to Singer's expertise.

Singer's point is rather more obviously "why bother with it at all?" And that makes sense to me. Frankly it feels like a half-assed gesture toward "yes, we know his promotion to Captain in the last movie was weird." The funny thing is they could easily have had him censured and transferred without any of the weird yo-yo-ing to much the same effect.

About the reviews: Yes, Singer is guessing about trends based on little or no evidence . . . That it's not considered so good now would be a stunning thing to show.

Not particularly, no. Something similar happened to The Matrix: Reloaded, which had initially mostly positive reviews but whose reputation decayed pretty quickly, because in retrospect it was getting by on effects and big action set pieces with a limited sell-by date. It wasn't easy to quantify as it was happening, but it wasn't hard to tell from the tenor of the general cultural conversation that it was happening.

(EDIT: There's a limit to how much I would directly compare the two films, mind you. It's just that the phenomenon is far from unheard of. Also note that numbers of positive reviews are less impressive in an era where half the reviewers sound conspicuously like they're rewriting press releases from the studios. Film reviewing as a profession doesn't have the same prestige or degree of independence it used to.)

 

[drt]

I don't recall Matrix:Reloaded having great reviews, more that they were middle of the road, nor was anyone that fond of it at the time - and the critics hated Revolutions, which is largely just big set pieces.

But maybe the Matrix itself is probably a better example of your point, audiences disliked the sequels so much that I think it has dragged down opinions on the first movie as well.

 

[Lance]

After the initial blush, how do you see STID a year later? Do you still love it or has contemplation tempered your assessment of the film?

I'll repeat what I've said elsewhere.

After not being entirely positively disposed towards STID on release, I've found my enjoyment of the movie has actually increased over time. I like it better now than ever before. I find it a more confident, much tighter and generally more enjoyable movie to rewatch than the 2009 reboot. Largely I think this is down to the production running on full cylinders as a cohesive unit, the cast are strong and know where they're characters are in the mix, and there's a drive and energy to everything that I felt even the earlier 2009 strived to capture but didn't quite do it. Being the second movie has clear benefits in this case.

Having said that, I retain only one bug-bear: Khan. I like Cumberbatch's performance, I like the way 'John Harrison' was carefully developed up to a point, but when he says he's actually Khan it just feels like such a cheap trick. And I actually think it dampens my interest in the character. There's so much intriguing mystery built up in the persona of 'John Harrison' that the sudden revelation that he's just Khan hits me like a dull thud. It's not just that it's Khan, it's that I think John Harrison was shaping up nicely and the reveal of Khan drops the ball on what might otherwise have been a very interesting villain.

But aside from that, STID only gets *better* with every new viewing. To my mind, its on the whole by far the superior of the two reboot movies.

 

[Jeyl]

So Khan who wakes up and smells opportunity ("Space Seed") is suppose to act exactly the same as Khan who was woken up and used by Starfleet, and threatened with the lives of those he was exiled with if he didn't cooperate (Star Trek Into Darkness)?

No I would not. Heck, I even argued that Khan being a part of Starfleet would introduce some interesting elements that the previous Khan didn't have. The biggest weakness that the original Khan had was his complete lack of Starship command experience. He didn't know how all the systems worked and he never used space to his advantage. Since he's a part of star fleet, he's in a position to know more about starships than Kirk does. But since they didn't do that, we have to settle with "Super smart guy just makes modern things better".

And it's not so much how Khan acts in this movie that bothers me when compared to the original Khan, it's the fact that nothing of Khan's history or ambition towards his own future are never brought up. Where is the history of his rule on Earth? Where was his ambition to create an empire away from inferior humans? Where was his book smart expertise? Instead we get this new backstory where he's all about blindingly murdering anyone who isn't as superior as he is.

 

[Nebusj]

Having said that, I retain only one bug-bear: Khan. I like Cumberbatch's performance, I like the way 'John Harrison' was carefully developed up to a point, but when he says he's actually Khan it just feels like such a cheap trick. And I actually think it dampens my interest in the character. There's so much intriguing mystery built up in the persona of 'John Harrison' that the sudden revelation that he's just Khan hits me like a dull thud. It's not just that it's Khan, it's that I think John Harrison was shaping up nicely and the reveal of Khan drops the ball on what might otherwise have been a very interesting villain.

I felt deflated at the Khan revelation (I had, indeed, avoided spoilers, I'm proud to say). After that thud, though, I started getting back into it because I liked how the film was setting up Khan as an Ambiguously Good Guy, which made for a very nice dramatization of how an individual in different circumstances can be a different person. And, yeah, NuTrek is all about that, but Khan made the comparisons more pointed, possibly because we had gotten to see Khan in both ``Space Seed'' and after the near-breaking strain of the destruction of Ceti Alpha VI, and now we got to see him under a weird and different strain. The contrast was sharper and I found him mighty interesting for that.

(The film did lose me at the Wrath of Khan remix, I admit; the movie was doing so very well being itself up to that point.)

 

[Sindatur]

The idea that someone thought they liked a movie while watching it in the Theatre, and then realized they didn't like it is kinda strange to me.

Certainly there have been movies or TV shows, that when I first gave them a try, they didn't appeal to me all that much, but, on a second viewing I liked them more (either because I was in the right mindset to enjoy it the second time, or it was years later, and I changed as a person, etc). And certainly, there are movies and TV shows that you just don't like as much the second (or more times) viewing.

But, to sit there only thinking you're enjoying it while watching it, and then thinking about it afterwards and deciding you didn't like it afterall, is just incomprehensible to me?

I, too, agree, they should have left John Harrison as John Harrison, and not had him turn out to be Khan, but, that didn't ruin the movie for me, and I still love it as much as I loved it in the Theater, and it's still in the top few of my favorite Trek Films

 

[BigJake]

The idea that someone thought they liked a movie while watching it in the Theatre, and then realized they didn't like it is kinda strange to me.

Don't see why. If a movie is constructed to deliver short-term fairground-ride-style thrills but not much more, then further thought about it and further viewings of it will tend to underwhelm. Happens all the time.

I don't recall Matrix:Reloaded having great reviews, more that they were middle of the road, nor was anyone that fond of it at the time

Well, it got a lot of very "meh" reviews that waffled on about how it "didn't live up to every expectation" but was still a "fun thrill ride" and would then for some reason rate it 9/10 or four stars of five anyway. (A pattern reminiscent of video game journalism which I've since learned to look for in order to detect bullshitting in reviews.)

and the critics hated Revolutions, which is largely just big set pieces.

Actually Revolutions got initially positive reviews too on balance, though the positivity was even more noticeably forced and decayed even faster.

But maybe the Matrix itself is probably a better example of your point, audiences disliked the sequels so much that I think it has dragged down opinions on the first movie as well.

Certainly enthusiasm for the overall franchise went into a nosedive after that last movie.

 

[Harvey]

Revolutions has a 47 on Metacritic and a 36 on Rotten Tomatoes. The reviews look pretty bad to me.

 

[BigJake]

The aggregators show all the reviews they've collected over the movie's lifespan. So anything that pops up when it's released in a new format or something will be there. The RT scores include a bunch of reviews from 2012, for instance (for either Revolutions or Reloaded, can't quite recall which at the mome).

 

[Sindatur]

The idea that someone thought they liked a movie while watching it in the Theatre, and then realized they didn't like it is kinda strange to me.

Don't see why. If a movie is constructed to deliver short-term fairground-ride-style thrills but not much more, then further thought about it and further viewings of it will tend to underwhelm. Happens all the time.

Sure, if you watch it again, it may not entertain you the second time (Because the Plot wasn't rich enough, or for whatever reason). But, that's not what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about someone who sat there in the theater, entertained and thought it was good/great (IE: Got what they paid for), and then on the way home or the next day, or the next week, decide they didn't like it afterall. That makes no sense to me. It makes sense that you might decide it wasn't subjectively a good movie afterall, because you thought about plotholes or incoherency or whatever, but, not that you decide after you already enjoyed it, that you didn't really enjoy it.

 

[Harvey]

The aggregators show all the reviews they've collected over the movie's lifespan. So anything that pops up when it's released in a new format or something will be there. The RT scores include a bunch of reviews from 2012, for instance (for either Revolutions or Reloaded, can't quite recall which at the mome).

I don't believe that Metacritic adds new reviews. All the reviews for the third Matrix look contemporary with the theatrical release to me.

Also, sorted by date, Rotten Tomatoes has very few reviews written after the theatrical release (out of 11 pages of reviews, less than 1 qualifies).

 

[MakeshiftPython]

The idea that someone thought they liked a movie while watching it in the Theatre, and then realized they didn't like it is kinda strange to me.

Certainly there have been movies or TV shows, that when I first gave them a try, they didn't appeal to me all that much, but, on a second viewing I liked them more (either because I was in the right mindset to enjoy it the second time, or it was years later, and I changed as a person, etc). And certainly, there are movies and TV shows that you just don't like as much the second (or more times) viewing.

But, to sit there only thinking you're enjoying it while watching it, and then thinking about it afterwards and deciding you didn't like it afterall, is just incomprehensible to me?

I, too, agree, they should have left John Harrison as John Harrison, and not had him turn out to be Khan, but, that didn't ruin the movie for me, and I still love it as much as I loved it in the Theater, and it's still in the top few of my favorite Trek Films

You never saw a movie you enjoyed at first but later revisited and saw how it's not holding up? I've had that experience a few. I think the most damning was watching WEDDING CRASHERS. I thought it was the most hilarious comedy film I had seen all year in the theater and I had been raving about it to my friends after seeing it. Once it was released on DVD, of course I purchased it. I pop it in and nothing about it is clicking for me. All the jokes I thought were funny in the theater were now flat and uncomfortable. I never felt so underwhelmed watching a film I previously enjoyed on this level.

In that case the situation was unique. Other times it was with the Star Wars prequels, DIE ANOTHER DAY, SUPERMAN RETURNS, ect. Let me requote you on something:

The idea that someone thought they liked a movies while watching it in the Theatre, and then realized they didn't like it is kinda strange to me.

That's not how it works. Just because I dislike the movie I mentioned above now doesn't mean I actually disliked in theater. I very much acknowledge that I enjoyed those films in the theater and nothing is going to change it. The only question is why did I enjoy it in theater but later to find them underwhelming seeing them on DVD? I don't know about everyone else, but from my experience with those films I've learned that in the past I used to get really swept up by the hype to such an extent that there was no way the bad in those films was going to undermine my enjoyment of watching them unless it was the worst of the worst. It's not until I've distanced myself from all the hype and such that I got to watch those films objectively and see what was actually working and what wasn't.

Because of those experiences I don't let myself get hyped up too much but I make sure to at least try to enjoy the films. I just don't want to get that bad feeling I get again after popping in the DVD. The last time I probably had that experience was with SUPERMAN RETURNS.

 

[BigJake]

I'm talking about someone who sat there in the theater, entertained and thought it was good/great (IE: Got what they paid for), and then on the way home or the next day, or the next week, decide they didn't like it afterall.

If subsequently-noticed flaws or crappiness are bad enough, they would certainly sour one on the movie as a whole. The Dark Knight Rises seems to have that effect on a few viewers, I've noticed.

 

[BillJ]

There are very few movies I've changed my mind on after seeing initially in the theater. I enjoyed Pulp Fiction, but thought it had zero rewatch value. I love Anchorman, after initially being disappointed. I like Nemesis more now than when I first saw it in the theater.

 

[BigJake]

Also, sorted by date, Rotten Tomatoes has very few reviews written after the theatrical release (out of 11 pages of reviews, less than 1 qualifies).

They were released in 2003. For Reloaded I count 15 reviews added in 2005 or after on the first page of reviews alone, for Revolutions at least ten.

Metacritic doesn't show when reviews were added in any obvious way, so it's harder to tell.