Why Is "Into Darkness" So [imagine a different, more accurate past participle here]?

I guess I am a continuity nutter that I want things in a visual medium, a franchise that attempts to maintain a narrative continuity albeit imperfectly, to also look about the same from iteration to iteration.

Call me nutters, but Star Wars has managed it nicely.

 

Star Wars is not a gold standard for me. Trek has always updated with the times because it's about our humanity.

And, even so, cosmetic surgery should be small potatoes with a society that has warp drive. Call me crazy.

 

My guess would be Butternut Cucumberpatch as Khan.

My Dad--a veteran-Trekkie and diehard TOS fan--couldn't let that go for quite a while. Any time either Khan or Cumberbatch came up, Dad had to remark how they look exactly alike, and Bennedict Cumberbatch was obviously Indian.

 

The dreadful teaser with the crew freezing(?!) a volcano - to say nothing of the submerged JJprise - was more than enough for me to give this flick the flick.

TGT

 

If Cumberbatch's character had not been Khan and they took out the Kirk death/ rebirth and the Tribbles stuff this would have been a much better film.

 

I love it!!!!! I would like JJ to direct the new film when it happens.

 

Same here.

 

While it was better than 2009 (which imo was a massive, incoherent, exploitative trainwreck and the worst of all the Trek films), Into Darkness still wasn't great.

It's only a remake of TWOK in the last half hour and at least it has a fairly coherent story and some ok character development.

But it still has that terrible stupid bit with Starfleet wanting to demote Kirk to a cadet. Like what? Commander or lieutenant maybe, but cadet? Completely unrealistic. They'd have court marshalled him before doing that in real life.

Also, Spock's reaction to Kirk's death was unconvincing, as they seem to have known each other about six months by that point. More lazy Abrams storytelling trading off TWOK without understanding the context of the originals' long friendship by that film, which did not exist in Into Darkness.

So it's better than 2009 and probably Insurrection, but every other Trek movie is much better.

Benedict Cumberpatch was good playing a Hannibal Lecter version of Khan though. And Peter Weller was good as the latest Badmiral, I guess a descendent of his character in Enterprise: Terra Prime .

 

One, they could have sent him back as a demoted officer, i.e. a commander or lieutenant commander for more advanced schooling. Second, it was Pike driving home that Kirk had massively screwed up and wasn't the hot dog maverick he thought he was.

And finally, it's court-marital, as in a military/martial court.

I think he understood it fine. It's just a reverse as Spock realizes what potential was lost in that moment on top of losing his planet, his mother, his commanding officer/mentor, and now Kirk.

 

Actually it's court-martial. I doubt Kirk and Pike were having marital problems .

 

Damn. You got me. That's what I get lol

 

Indeed. The degree of intense emotional trauma experienced by Quinto/Spock vs Nimoy/Spock at a young age and during a short span of time seems curiously overlooked when assessing this scene (and many others, to be fair). Understandable, I suppose, given the half-century of exposure to one version of Spock vs a then two film exposure.

 

Cadet is not a rank, it's a position. Pike sent him back for retraining with the rank of Commander.

So how long do you need to know someone to be affected by their death? I've known people for months, clicked with them and would be devastated by their passing.

 

The most ironic thing about Into Darkness was how much Peter Wellar looks like Kurtwood Smith, his antagonist as Robocop all those years ago.

 

Because someone threw a bunch of superficially Star Trek-y things in a blender without worrying how they would work and sold it off for some easy latinum.

 

What ruined Into Darkness for me was that so much of it was so familiar... like they took a bunch of the major moments from the previous film, mixed them around a bit and re-used them. The first time I saw it in the theatre, I could not get past the feeling like I had seen half of the movie before:

Both films had:
- Bad guy with a huge ship
- Kirk goes off a cliff
- Kirk chased by a monster / local population
- Main characters go to a club to hang out
- unnecessary underwear scene
- characters have to quickly get from point A to point B and transporters can't be used
- Enterprise emerges from hiding (Titan / underwater)
- attack/crash in San Francisco
- character close to Kirk dies to push his story forward
- Old Spock shows up

 

Star Trek 2009: So good they made it twice.

 

I'll take it.

 

I'd add the space jump to that list . Even though it was a good sequence it was a bit lazy having done something very similar in the previous film.

I would also say the Enterprise rising above the clouds after nearly crashing near the end of the film was the bit lifted from 09, not the underwater scene.