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

[fireproof78]

Ok, I know this is opinions that have been debated about for the last 10 years and I tried but I had to respond...

The reveal of Khan's name means nothing to Kirk and Spock, but is only there to be a reveal to the audience.

It's not meant for Kirk and Spock. It's a reclaiming of his title and his power. He goes from Macguffin to power player.

he movie does nothing to set up hostilities between the Klingons and Federation. The entire plot hinges around an admiral wanting a more militarized Starfleet, potentially provoking a war with the Klingons. But there's nothing in the movie to even set that up as a concern. It relies entirely on the audience being aware of the Klingons' reputation and making assumptions.

There doesn't need to be a set up. Marcus is paranoid because a year ago a giant Romulan ship nearly destroyed Earth. His militarization is a direct response to that action. He believes war is coming and Starfleet is ill equipped. That's it.

and the magic Khan blood

Ok, this one still gets under my skin (no pun intended). It's not magic blood. It doesn't cure death. It utilizes Khan's nature ("there's a part of this man that refuses to die" Space Seed) to use a blood based therapy (real world science) to reverse damaged cells. That's it. It's less magical than the damn transporter.

Speaking of contrivances, two Federation starships fight each other within the orbit of the Moon from Earth? Does Starfleet Command hail each ship to find out what's going on?

The Chief of Starfleet Operations has full control of the situation. Why would Command need to get involved when it's the CSO flagship?

 

[Ssosmcin]

Ok, this one still gets under my skin (no pun intended). It's not magic blood. It doesn't cure death. It utilizes Khan's nature ("there's a part of this man that refuses to die" Space Seed) to use a blood based therapy (real world science) to reverse damaged cells. That's it. It's less magical than the damn transporter.

McCoy though injects the blood into the "necrotic tissue" of the tribble. Kirk "died" and he was dead for a good batch of time. Kirk wasn't "refusing to die" he actually died. The blood reversed that. So it was kinda magical... I think there's a valid basis for objection that plot point.

 

[fireproof78]

McCoy though injects the blood into the "necrotic tissue" of the tribble. Kirk "died" and he was dead for a good batch of time. Kirk wasn't "refusing to die" he actually died. The blood reversed that. So it was kinda magical... I think there's a valid basis for objection that plot point.

I was using the terminology that McCoy uses in Space Seed. There is a basis for platelet therapy, blood doping, plasma therapies, and stem cells that they could utilize to promote healing based on Khan's own regenerative nature. The objection can be valid, but I believe that it is also a double standard of what technology is allowed. I at least understand the blood based therapies. If Kirk had been restored by the transporter I doubt there would be an objection. And that's frustrating.

ETA: and yes I know these discussions have gone on for years now. I just...it stands out to me as an odd objection, even if it's valid.

 

[Ssosmcin]

I don't think the technology alone is the issue as the whole notion of killing Kirk for 15 minutes of movie time so they could get an emotional response out of people and mirror TWOK only to reverse it with a blood experiment McCoy was doing at a weird moment: at warp running away from the Vengeance, Bones decides to fart around with a tribble and Khan's blood. I probably would have been more open to it if it wasn't handled in such a clumsy manner with more prior discussion about the simple McCoy took from Khan. Also sitting in the theater, watching Kirk die, I knew he wasn't being killed off, so it was just me ticking down the clock until they did a handwave...

Even Spock's death in 1982 was meant to be permanent when they were filming it and they made an entire movie devoted to bringing him back. So I don't think my issue is with the blood, it's with killing Kirk and trying to pass it off as legit while it was happening.

 

[fireproof78]

I don't think the technology alone is the issue as the whole notion of killing Kirk for 15 minutes of movie time so they could get an emotional response out of people and mirror TWOK only to reverse it with a blood experiment McCoy was doing at a weird moment: at warp running away from the Vengeance, Bones decides to fart around with a tribble and Khan's blood. I probably would have been more open to it if it wasn't handled in such a clumsy manner with more prior discussion about the simple McCoy took from Khan. Also sitting in the theater, watching Kirk die, I knew he wasn't being killed off, so it was just me ticking down the clock until they did a handwave...

Even Spock's death in 1982 was meant to be permanent when they were filming it and they made an entire movie devoted to bringing him back. So I don't think my issue is with the blood, it's with killing Kirk and trying to pass it off as legit while it was happening.

As I said, mileage will vary. His death because of his choice carried the weight for me, not whether he stayed dead. That was not the important part. He deciding that he had to make the choice, that someone had to die, and he opted for it to be him. It showed humility, growth and leadership in this character.

I don't care if a death is permanent or not. Show me the impact upon the character first and foremost. And Into Darkness did exactly that.

 

[Ssosmcin]

Oh and I liked the movie just fine otherwise. It's got a great pace and, I feel, the best score of the three Bad Robot films. The moment when the Enterprise is phasered out of warp is one of my favorite action beats in those films.

 

[fireproof78]

Oh and I liked the movie just fine otherwise. It's got a great pace and, I feel, the best score of the three Bad Robot films. The moment when the Enterprise is phasered out of warp is one of my favorite action beats in those films.

I agree but again, the blood thing seems like an odd quibble, when what else was McCoy supposed to do? He was working things as he does.

 

[Ssosmcin]

Well, as I said, I think it would have landed better if it was presented better. McCoy gets a blood sample, we don't hear about it until he's randomly futzing with a tribble. And we only know about it because Kirk happens to mention it while talking about something entirely unrelated. This research comes out of nowhere.

Had Bones mentioned - and I'm only talking a line or two - about "I can't wait to see what's in his blood" and then another line somewhere along the way where Bones is excitedly mentioning something special about it only to be cut off by Kirk who is more focused on something else, then you'd have two seeds planted. It can play out as before:

"Bones what are you doing with that tribble?"
"If you'd actually listen to me when I talk..."

Setting up a plot twist plays fair with the audience and this could have been doing more gracefully.

But that's just me. As you say, mileage varies, and some people have issues with plot turns while others don't. I have a bigger issue with the transporter that can beam Khan from Earth to Klingon space.

 

[fireproof78]

Well, as I said, I think it would have landed better if it was presented better. McCoy gets a blood sample, we don't hear about it until he's randomly futzing with a tribble. And we only know about it because Kirk happens to mention it while talking about something entirely unrelated. This research comes out of nowhere.

Had Bones mentioned - and I'm only talking a line or two - about "I can't wait to see what's in his blood" and then another line somewhere along the way where Bones is excitedly mentioning something special about it only to be cut off by Kirk who is more focused on something else, then you'd have two seeds planted. It can play out as before:

"Bones what are you doing with that tribble?"
"If you'd actually listen to me when I talk..."

Setting up a plot twist plays fair with the audience and this could have been doing more gracefully.

But that's just me. As you say, mileage varies, and some people have issues with plot turns while others don't. I have a bigger issue with the transporter that can beam Khan from Earth to Klingon space.

So it's less an issue of idea and more an issue with presentation?

I guess I have gotten so used to awkward and clumsy interactions, especially with myself and other people, that the scene reads fine to me. But, sure it could be smoothed out. I just don't think it takes away from the overall film, and certainly don't find the blood to be "magic."

 

[drt]

But that's just me. As you say, mileage varies, and some people have issues with plot turns while others don't. I have a bigger issue with the transporter that can beam Khan from Earth to Klingon space.

In the novelization, Foster had it as a daisy-chained sequence of transporters, which definitely works a bit better.

 

[Dee1891]

Why isn't 2009's "Star Trek" more hated? I thought that movie was the worst in the Kelvin timeline franchise.

 

[Set Harth]

I thought it was the best.

 

[fireproof78]

09 is definitely my favorite for a lot of reasons. I still put it up above the other two.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Definitely 2009 is the best. I love that movie so much. Into Darkness has it's flaws but it's an epic ride, IMHO. Beyond is fine, but it's Just Another Movie (like the latest Ant Man, or whatever) rather than the big event of the first two.

Why is nobody furious at TOS or TNG for long range beaming? It's long, long established and now they use it people are mad? I'm mad they DON'T use it as standard in Discovery's 32nd century.

 

[fireproof78]

Why is nobody furious at TOS or TNG for long range beaming? It's long, long established and now they use it people are mad? I'

From what I've gathered the anger is directed at the presentation rather than the precedent.

 

[Citiprime]

Bluntly, Kirk isn't particularly supposed to yet be the leader we hope he can be in the first two films. In the first film he gets thrown into the captain's seat with insufficient experience due to extraordinary circumstances, and in the second film the fact that he arguably never should have been thrown into the captain's seat to begin with comes back to bite him in the ass. And yet, the three films do show him maturing into the captain we know that he, in at least one other timeline, can be.

I don't disagree. I just don't think it's an interesting or good change, nor do I think it's a change that should have taken 3 films for Pine's Kirk to figure out.

It's not meant for Kirk and Spock. It's a reclaiming of his title and his power. He goes from Macguffin to power player.

There is literally no reason for the Khan character to be in the movie. NONE. If Cumberbatch's character had remained "John Harrison," it would have made no difference to the plot. Khan's existence in The Wrath of Khan is instrumental to the overall theme of that movie of consequences. The consequences of Kirk choosing the life of a Starfleet captain over being a father. The consequences of leaving Khan on Ceti Alpha V. And ultimately the consequences of Spock's sacrifice to save the Enterprise.

Khan's existence in Into Darkness is not integral to the plot, since he's not really the main villain of the movie. And he has no connection to Kirk or Spock within the Kelvin Universe. The only significance Khan has to the plot of the movie is the nostalgia of fans knowing his importance from The Wrath of Khan.

Ok, this one still gets under my skin (no pun intended). It's not magic blood. It doesn't cure death. It utilizes Khan's nature ("there's a part of this man that refuses to die" Space Seed) to use a blood based therapy (real world science) to reverse damaged cells. That's it. It's less magical than the damn transporter.

Kirk is dead. He is pronounced dead. The problem is not necessarily the solution. The problem is that Abrams doesn't really want to spend any time trying to justifying the solution, just like he doesn't want to spend any time justifying the passage of time being at warp or doing any exposition for any of the plotting that requires more than a cursory line of dialogue.

It's the equivalent of him doing: "Somehow, Palpatine returned," in Rise of Skywalker. If he would lay just the barest of foundation for these things within the story, it wouldn't be a problem. But because he doesn't, then it's just a magical occurrence that without explanation creates huge implications within the fictional universe.

The Chief of Starfleet Operations has full control of the situation. Why would Command need to get involved when it's the CSO flagship?

So two Federation starships firing at each other near Earth wouldn't raise any red flags? That makes zero sense. The only reason we have to go with that is because it's the only way to justify a starship crashing into San Francisco while Starfleet Command stupidly does nothing to stop it.

 

[fireproof78]

There is literally no reason for the Khan character to be in the movie. NONE.

Nope, there's not.

And?

I can either accept and engage the film as is, or be angry at it and reject it. I choose to accept it and engage the film.

Mileage will vary.

Kirk is dead. He is pronounced dead. The problem is not necessarily the solution. The problem is that Abrams doesn't really want to spend any time trying to justifying the solution, just like he doesn't want to spend any time justifying the passage of time being at warp or doing any exposition for any of the plotting that requires more than a cursory line of dialogue.

I mean...again...in the movie it makes sense to me. It makes sense from a Trek worldbuilding standpoint. It makes sense from a science standpoint in a way that transporters do not.

But because he doesn't, then it's just a magical occurrence that without explanation creates huge implications within the fictional universe.

The transporters are way worse.

So two Federation starships firing at each other near Earth wouldn't raise any red flags? That makes zero sense. The only reason we have to go with that is because it's the only way to justify a starship crashing into San Francisco while Starfleet Command stupidly does nothing to stop it.

It makes sense to me if Marcus is in control of the response, which he is demonstrated to be right until Khan kills him.

 

[M'Sharak]

Why isn't 2009's "Star Trek" more hated? I thought that movie was the worst in the Kelvin timeline franchise.

Okay, I think you've gone to this well a time or two too many:

27 June 2022:

I once wrote an article why I had such a big problem with 2009's "Star Trek". It proved to be quite a long article.

If you've got a link to the article, then other people might be able to understand why, too?

17 June 2022:

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.

17 June 2022:

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

30 July 2022:

My question is . . . why is anyone supposed to regard "Into the Darkness" as the worst of the Kelvin Universe movies? Personally, I think the 2009 movie, "Star Trek" is the worst, especially when it features a third-year cadet becoming the captain of Starfleet's flagship by the end of the movie.

2 August 2022:

I've already read the comments. I still believe the 2009 movie is the worst of the Kelvin franchise.

Yes. We've been reading the comments. I think everyone's got that part.

However, as this thread is specifically about a different movie, perhaps you could provide a link to that article you mentioned writing, and post it in a thread which IS about the 2009 movie?

Just a thought.

29 September 2022:

... the first Kelvin Universe movie ... Especially since I think it's the worst of the bunch.

This, too, has become a Grievance Checklist item.

You never seem to want to discuss why you believe it to be so, and you seem to have made a point of dropping that statement repeatedly into discussions which are not about the first movie.

I'd recommend finding a new shtick. This one's been worn out.

Then--months after the article is originally mentioned--we finally got a link...

3 October 2022:

A Second Look at "STAR TREK" - LADY LAVINIA'S DOMAIN — LiveJournal

I've quoted @Dee1891 's post and added it to the Review & Discussion thread for the 2009 movie:

https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/the...-thread-spoilers.90455/page-136#post-14283614

But it still was conspicuously posted in a thread NOT about the 2009 movie. I had to quote/post it to the correct thread for you.
​

So now, here we are again, with you doing a drive-by slap at a movie you don't like, in a thread which is not about that movie.

This time will earn you a warning for Spamming. All comments concerning this matter are to be taken to PM.

 

[Set Harth]

It's the equivalent of him doing: "Somehow, Palpatine returned," in Rise of Skywalker. If he would lay just the barest of foundation for these things within the story, it wouldn't be a problem.

Palpatine's return was explained by other things in the story, including but not limited to other dialogue. ( Amazingly, films usually have more than one line of dialogue! )

 

[Gingerbread Demon]

Why isn't 2009's "Star Trek" more hated? I thought that movie was the worst in the Kelvin timeline franchise.

May I ask why?