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

And in Into Darkness he was emotionally manipulated, by both Marcus and Spock. So he made an error. He is still human.

Same thing with his regenerative properties in his body, like his blood.

 

I don't know why "Into the Darkness" is the most hated of the Kelvin Universe movies. I dislike the 2009 movie the most. For me, it was just so badly written.

 

For me, a big part of the problem was that Khan was there at all. I said it at the time, and I'll say it now: what's the point of rebooting the franchise if the very second film you do draws so heavily on the original timeline? Give us an original villain! Make it genetic superman John Harrison if you want to -- just don't make it Khan. (Part of what I adore about Beyond is that it's new and original; it's nothing I've seen on Star Trek before.)

Another problem with making the villain Khan is that it inevitably sets up comparisons to the original Khan. Now, if you want to tell me that Benedict Cumberbatch is a better actor than Ricardo Montalban, I would by no means be sure that you were wrong. But Cumberbatch and Montalban are very different types of actors, and their interpretations of Khan reflect that: Cumberbatch's Khan is steely and implacable, while Montalban's was angry and passionate. Even in the context of alternate universes, they are obviously not the same character. Which wouldn't have bothered me if they weren't supposed to be.

And I'll say it: Khan's not supposed to be white. One of the marvelously subversive things about the character, when he was introduced in the 1960s, was that we were looking at a man who was supposed to be the ultimate human being, and he wasn't white. (To be fair, he wasn't Indian either -- at least Montalban wasn't -- but that's a different issue.) I get that they were trying to avoid the whole "brown peril" thing in Into Darkness, but an obvious way to do that would have been to have a different villain.

Smaller things: what the hell was up with the design of the engine room? It reminded me of the joke engineering section on Galaxy Quest. "This episode was badly written!"

We knew they weren't going to kill off Chris Pine two films in, so why even play that card? And the means of his resurrection were blatantly telegraphed.

Second film in a row that Spock was out of control. It got our attention when that happened on TOS because seeing him out of control was unusual. If he's out of control both times we've seen him, then it looks more like being overemotional is just part of his character.

 

I like ID, but it's the weakest of the three Abrams films just because it was a retread and it didn't need to be. But it's an exciting film, has great acting (apart from the Khan scream) and has that rarity for any ST production, Starfleet hats. Not as many hats as 09, but it has some hats.

 

It felt very lazy story telling wise. Having Benedict beam from Earth to Qo’noS easily seemed way too OP. Not to mention them getting to Klingon space from Earth in under 5 minutes.
Their complete misunderstanding of what a augment is as well. They don’t have ”magic blood” that can cure death. That wasn’t a thing.

However I did like the Vengeance design. Would have been a nice Section 31 ship in DS9.

 

I'm sorry, but . . . as much as I dislike "Into the Darkness", I still believe that the 2009 movie was a lot worse.

 

Except it's not. It's a part of his journey to find balance by being a "child of two worlds." It's a journey for him, not a destination to arrive at.

He also suffered far more tragedy in the Kelvin Films vs. TOS series proper.

Because it is vital to his character arc. His arc is telegraphed perfectly through the film. That he choses death is the salient point, not whether or not he comes back.

I never understood this argument. Is Spock's death less poignant because of Search for Spock? If not, then why is Kirk's?

 

Well, Spock's death was better executed...but also, it spanned two films and bringing him back required significant sacrifice on the part of his friends, whereas when Kirk died (I did find his death sequence well done FWIW, minus the scream), he's back among the living by the end of the film due to a plot device. There's no time to process it or even wonder whether he may be gone for good.

 

I guess I see the point but, for me, it takes nothing away from his choice, especially based upon his attitudes as presented in 09 and ID, that Kirk takes death very personally and has to learn the lesson from 09. His choice is the impact, not whether or not he is going live.

Sorry, I don't find it reasonable to be like "OH, Kirk is dead and will stay dead."

 

I will never understand the hate that some people have with the movie. Star Trek (09) is the pinnacle of the Kelvin movies. But Into Darkness really isn't that far behind it. This movie was well received by critics and audiences alike. The movie made a great deal of money for the Star Trek franchise. On Rotten Tomatoes it is sitting at 84% with 294 reviews by critics. It is currently sitting at 89% with over 250,000 reviews by audiences members. The movie made the most out of any of the Kelvin movies and made 467 million worldwide. This movie was far from a failure. If you enjoy to hate on the movie, your view coincides with about 11% of people who watched it.

 

Well, I don't like it when a movie tries to jerk me around by pretending they're killing off a character they obviously have no intention of killing off. That's manipulative.

I thought some of us explained it pretty clearly. And as for me, I wouldn't say I hate it; it doesn't hold that big of a space in my emotions. I don't like it. I do not find it satisfying.

Again, speaking just for me: I never wanted to hate any of the Trek movies. I wanted to like all of them. Why would I pay theater prices, and waste hours out of my life, for a hate-watch? I have better things to do.

I believe that's called the "Bandwagon Fallacy," or "Appeal to Popularity": most viewers disagree with you, so you're wrong. That's not how it works, and especially not when it comes to matters of taste. If you and I like different movies, that doesn't mean either of us is wrong; it just means we have different likes and dislikes. Most people who saw Bridesmaids thought it was really funny; I thought it was gross. Doesn't mean they're wrong, doesn't mean I'm wrong. Means we like different things.

 

Mileage will vary. I found it moving. And I never expect Kirk to stay dead.

 

I found it moving (as I said earlier, I don't have an issue with the execution of the death itself...pun intended), but I also somewhat cynically figured they wouldn't really let him die. I did wonder whether they'd keep him dead through the end of the film, and I think I felt as though they played it safe by not leaving us hanging on that front.

There's no time to reflect upon it though. Our Heroes don't feel any sense of loss, much less are they required to especially do anything to bring him back. Which is why Spock's death is so much more impactful. We got to see Our Heroes grief-stricken, and we got to see that there were consequences, which ID evaded.

And maybe it's the evasion of consequences that makes ID feel like a bad film to some people. It starts with Kirk violating the PD (I don't want to derail us by discussing whether it was the right decision), and Kirk's relieved of command, but before we even have time to process what that might mean for the future he's back in command.

Just imagine what people might have thought of ID if the film had ended with Kirk dead and Khan fleeing, and knowing that if Our Heroes didn't capture Khan or come up with another solution in the next film then that would be the end of Kirk...and since this was an alternate timeline, Kirk could be dead.

Or, alternately, and perhaps not as successfully, what if the film had ended with the suggestion that Khan's blood had changed Kirk in ways that might factor into the next film?

 

It would miss the entire point of the film.

 

^Which point is that, exactly?

 

Kirk's need for growth to become Captain Kirk as a leader, not just a captain.

 

Kirk needed to go through the ranks proper.

 

Watched it again last night. Still my favourite of all the Trek movies (gap grows with my second choice on each rewatch). No hate here.

 

Because the movie didn't need to piggyback on old characters to actually be good.

In the theater, back in the day, I had my popcorn and cola and blister pack of no-doz just in case.

The movie started out decently enough, and John Harriman was proving to be an interesting adversary.

By the time we get to Khan and Kirk jettisoning out of Enterprise to the oversized ship, they seemed a little too chummy. But I wasn't completely drawn out of the film.

John being "Khan" wasn't exactly stellar, but I did appreciate and like the adjusted timeline for this alternate universe.

Cumberbatch seemed more comfortable in the role as John. Once he reveals his true name, I felt embarrassed in the theater as I was the only person laughing audibly at the sort of overacting that isn't even "scene chewing".

I loved the double-double cross subplot as well as the exploration of terrorism, something Trek hadn't done very well at all in the past. It could have been better, but it was a decent start.

Naturally, Earth must be threatened all the time now for audiences to get "the feels" or whatever. Having the oversized ship ("Vengeance", really?) crash into CGI San Francisco was a bit naff.

Spock and Khan doing fisticuffs on a shuttle while flying over San Francisco was more naff.

Kirk somehow repositioning a very heavy, precision-based instrument by... kicking it... was even more naff.

Magic Khan blood rescuing the tribble was even more more naff, and is small universe schlock too... even 1950s sci-fi didn't do schlock of that nature. On the plus side, 1950s sci-fi had some amusing ideas involving radiation...

I was used to modern films being postmodern with the 4th wall breaks, but playing role-reversal with Spock screening "KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!" as the lamest callbacks of all time...

In short, the first half was fairly solid. The disappointment for the second half from long time fans over playing around with character names, combined with the first time viewer wondering just what all these disjointed scenes are about (e.g. "KHAAAAAAAAAAN!")

That, and as far as ripoffs of TWOK go, people were shrieking with "Nemesis" over being a partial remake of that too... influences can be inevitable, but the final product still needs to feel like its own thing. In that regard, NEM did a better job at trying to not be a homage for homage's sake.