Sfdebris, who has done a lot of Star Trek reviews in the past, has reviewed Star Trek Into Darkness:
https://sfdebris.com/videos/startrek/film12.php
https://sfdebris.com/videos/startrek/film12.php
Sfdebris reviews Star Trek into Darkness
- Thread starter The Overlord
- Start date
I'm not watching that. I loved Star Trek Into Darkness
I'm enjoying the review, but disagree with Chuck all over the place on this one.
IDIC and all that though
ETA:
So, I watch it, as I do with all SF Debris Star Trek shows. Unfortunately, it continues the long list of critiques that have been going on since the film was first released. Kirk is a jerk and a frat boy and not worthy of being a captain, much less a hero. There is no character development because it is just mindless action scene after mindless action scene. The Warp Core Death scene means nothing because the get out of jail free card is already established. This is nothing new, so my comments will not sound like anything new in rebuttal.But, I'll frame them in a way that hopefully is succinct, and will use the warp core scene to illustrate my own opinion.
Kirk's character development probably could have been handled slightly different, but the overconfident and arrogant ways are exactly why the death scene matters. Kirk has been handed command of the Enterprise, a fact that annoyed many at the end of last film. Ok, here he is shown facing his comeuppance, that he isn't ready. That Marcus giving him back command was nothing more than expecting Kirk to be blindly overconfident and get himself killed. So, when faced with the destruction of his ship and his entire crew, Kirk finally shoulders that responsibility and apologies. He owns it And then, he is forced to put that new found insight in to leadership in to action, by either ordering someone else to die, or sacrificing himself. Kirk doesn't feel worthy of being in command so he is the one to do it-to own his mistake.
If that isn't character development, then respectfully, I don't know what is.
I appreciate Chuck's analysis, but I fundamentally disagree at the core of the arguments.
IDIC and all that though
ETA:
So, I watch it, as I do with all SF Debris Star Trek shows. Unfortunately, it continues the long list of critiques that have been going on since the film was first released. Kirk is a jerk and a frat boy and not worthy of being a captain, much less a hero. There is no character development because it is just mindless action scene after mindless action scene. The Warp Core Death scene means nothing because the get out of jail free card is already established. This is nothing new, so my comments will not sound like anything new in rebuttal.But, I'll frame them in a way that hopefully is succinct, and will use the warp core scene to illustrate my own opinion.
Kirk's character development probably could have been handled slightly different, but the overconfident and arrogant ways are exactly why the death scene matters. Kirk has been handed command of the Enterprise, a fact that annoyed many at the end of last film. Ok, here he is shown facing his comeuppance, that he isn't ready. That Marcus giving him back command was nothing more than expecting Kirk to be blindly overconfident and get himself killed. So, when faced with the destruction of his ship and his entire crew, Kirk finally shoulders that responsibility and apologies. He owns it And then, he is forced to put that new found insight in to leadership in to action, by either ordering someone else to die, or sacrificing himself. Kirk doesn't feel worthy of being in command so he is the one to do it-to own his mistake.
If that isn't character development, then respectfully, I don't know what is.
I appreciate Chuck's analysis, but I fundamentally disagree at the core of the arguments.
Last edited:
Chuck hit the nail on the head when he pointed out that Kirk’s attitude was highly reflective of Robert Orci’s tantrum he pulled on TrekMovie. So glad they didn’t let him direct a film and his resume of bad writing finally caught up to him and now he can’t do the franchise anymore harm.
I haven't watched the review, but the best response to criticism of the character development in the movie I think comes from EC Henry:
I'm amazed every time I see people who say that STID has no themes or character development. Even if you don't like it you can't deny that Kirk does develop over the course of the movie.
In my opinion, it has some of the best character development of any of the movies, on par with TWOK and FC.
I'm amazed every time I see people who say that STID has no themes or character development. Even if you don't like it you can't deny that Kirk does develop over the course of the movie.
In my opinion, it has some of the best character development of any of the movies, on par with TWOK and FC.
It's not that Kirk didnt develop/grow a little in STID. It's the way the writers, director, producers went about it. JJ really didn't want to do a ST09 sequel (he doesn't do sequel in general) and had to be dragged kicking and screaming to do STID. You have Lindeolf, Orci and Kurtzman as the fans turned pro, who all really want to remake TWOK. Nevermind the fact that ST09 borrows heavily from TWOK as well. With no guarantee/certainty that they (this production team) would get to do another film. STID goes ham on adding as many things as they can. The movie undoes Kirk's demotion and death just over 10 minutes after each event occurs in the film. Same goes for the lesson Spock is supposed to learn. If there was a message about character, STID undoes it, as fast as they bring it up.
The window dressing of wars of choice, sanctioned drone strikes killings and 9/11 trutherism and imagery don't really land. The film isn't interested in talking about those issues. Just having them in the film because they're topical and the audience can identify them. More effort was put into making CumberKhan look like an uber, Augment, badass, in this Mission Impossible style film in Trek film.
I'm not going to argue your other points because for the most part they're subjective and while the movie worked for me, it didn't work for you, which is just fine. I'm just curious about this statement:
He took extra time to do his own personal project, that's it. I've never seen anything to suggest he didn't want to come back. In fact, he originally turned down Star Wars out of loyalty to Star Trek and according to rumor, only agreed to direct TFA when CBS and Paramount rejected his plan for a proper Star Trek cinematic universe. Now he's doing another Star Wars movie so I don't think there's any truth in saying he doesn't do sequels.
We know JJ’s pattern is to take an old film and redo it as a “greatest hits” love letter. STID was his first sequel. Paramount, Orci and Kurtzman wanted to move on Kelvin 2 in 2011, but wanted to wait on JJ. Because they had no other director lined up for the project.
JJ didn’t turn down Wars for Trek. He wanted to finish promoting STID in the summer of 2013, before moving on to Wars. I seem to recall JJ was confirmed for episode VII in November of 2013.
JJ didn’t want to do a sequel for Star Wars either. He made his “greatest hits” remake (TFA), filled it with his trademark “mystery boxes” and moved on. The baton passed to Rian Johnson (Looper) for VIII and originally Colin Trevorrow (Jurassic World) for episode IX. Trevorrow was fired because his vision of episode IX clashed with Johnson’s episode VIII. Surrounding the use of Luke Skywalker in a prominent role. Kathleen Kennedy (president of Lucasfilm) allowed Johnson to write and direct TLJ, so she sided with Johnson’s vision for the IP. TLJ came out, divided audiences and Disney was left without a director for IX. JJ was coxed back because they had no one else and they know he produces crowd pleasers.
I recall the debacle over merchandise synergy between the new films and the classic show. And that it had an effect in chasing JJ away. Idk why CBS and Paramount can’t work the rights out for the Trek IP. They have the same parent company but exist under different branches. Branches which compete against one another.
I don't hate STID the way so many others do. It has flaws but it's still way more watchable than Star Trek V or any TNG film (Yes, even First Contact. I wonder what Gene Roddenberry would think about the people who took over after he died turning the Enterprise into a warship?). But here's what bugs me:
A much-criticized point from the first film is Kirk being given the Enterprise as a thank-you gift for saving Earth. Yes, it's a flaw, but it's necessary in order to have him in his familiar position as Captain by the end of the movie. (Are there better ways the writers could've accomplished that? Sure. But these are the people who wrote Transformers.) The best thing to do would be to move on from that and show a competent Captain Kirk in the sequel. But instead, they felt the need to respond to Internet criticism and re-litigate their decision to make Kirk a Captain at the end of the first movie
A much-criticized point from the first film is Kirk being given the Enterprise as a thank-you gift for saving Earth. Yes, it's a flaw, but it's necessary in order to have him in his familiar position as Captain by the end of the movie. (Are there better ways the writers could've accomplished that? Sure. But these are the people who wrote Transformers.) The best thing to do would be to move on from that and show a competent Captain Kirk in the sequel. But instead, they felt the need to respond to Internet criticism and re-litigate their decision to make Kirk a Captain at the end of the first movie
The best way to do that would’ve been a noticeable time skip between ST09 and STID. Maybe 3-5 years later. Instead, ID is one year later. With Kirk still an academy frat boy; who made the legendary career jump from cadet to captain in a single day. We could’ve had a more seasoned and competent Kirk, duel against Khan. But this is Mission Impossible Trek, by the writers of a Transformers 1-2 and Prometheus. Fans turned pro, who were just aching to remake and ape TWOK. Fans who threw temper tantrums at the audience when they got feedback for their film. Surprised everyone didn’t think their remake was the greatest thing ever.
Last edited:
Point of order-Kirk went from Lieutenant to Captain
He may have been a cadet but he still held a rank and was put in to the chain of command by Pike as the executive officer.This is an unfortunate truth, and one I see in Star Trek fandom quite often. TWOK must be redone
Now, in the review, Chuck had a great pitch that I personally like, and I speak as someone who highly enjoys ST ID, far more than any TNG film. He pitched that Kirk can start out as the impulsive guy, and still receive the reprimand. But, use that as an opportunity to realize that he is being outsmarted at every turn by Khan and has to think before he acts.
Regardless, I am not surprised that Orci and Kurtzman got the feedback they did. TWOK's shadow needs to be cast aside and it took this film to demonstrate that in some way. I am hoping Kurtzman took that lesson to heart in some way.
Which is what BEYOND basically does, and really feels like the only proper follow up to ST09. In fact, because it ignores so much of STID you might as well treat it as such, as it only carries on threads that started in ST09 with Kirk questioning his motives for joining and Spock's existential crisis when learning about his older self's passing.
I like the idea STID has of confronting Kirk's impulsive behavior and questioning whether he was truly ready for the chair, but the film handles it so poorly that I never feel that growth is all that authentic. Part of why I embraced BEYOND so much at the time it came out was that all the growing pains for Kirk was finally put aside and he felt more like the Kirk I was familiar with, and was proof that Pine's casting was truly inspired. I was originally against his casting in 07. And though I didn't like how he was written in ST09 and STID, I saw the kind of swagger Pine brought that felt like Kirk.
Because Khan and revenge.
Ah yes, a totally different Khan who wants revenge on someone else for completely different reasons to WoK.
Don't confuse me with the details. My mind is made up
There is a lot to like in STID but a lot to loathe. I kind of wish they would have a military advisor on hand to tell them when command decisions have all the subtlety of a four year old. I suppose it's not just Kirk's attitude that devolves the movies but the other characters being set up as 'sensible' antagonists whose ideas are always poor and unsuccessful compared to Kirk's irresponsible high risk grandstanding.
I so wish Cumberbatch had been Garth. I would have applauded their ingenuity instead of it feeling so derivative.
I so wish Cumberbatch had been Garth. I would have applauded their ingenuity instead of it feeling so derivative.
Don't confuse me with the details. My mind is made up
Khan is Khan - STID
Krall is Khan - BEY
Nero is Khan - ST09
Shinzon is Khan - NEM
Ru'afo is Khan - INS
Picard is Khan - FC
6 movies in a row of guys wanting revenge.
To say nothing of enemy ship showdowns:
Reliant, Borg Cube, Son'a vessels, Scimitar, Narada, Vengeance, the Bees.
And nebulas: Mutara, Briar Patch, Bassen Rift, Necro Cloud.
And hammy screams of rage: TWOK, FC, INS, ST09, STID.
I guess it's not so bad. Trek pirating from itself. It's not like Star Wars. Where the aesthetic design and tech never changes Except for the prequels but we don't talk about them. And the frequent appearance of giant spherical super weapons, with the same design flaws as the original. Waiting on episode IX (ROTJ 2.0) to continue that tradition.
I jest as always. Of course.
Star Trek is nothing if not consistent.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
