Why Is "Into Darkness" So [imagine a different, more accurate past participle here]?
- Thread starter TedShatner10
- Start date
Explained? You can argue it can be inferred by other aspects in the story (i.e., clones of Snoke floating around in vats). But it is NOT explained. That's the reason there's literally dozens upon dozens of pages on the internet and YouTube videos devoted to wondering how the hell it makes any sense.
And, yes, films usually have more than one line of dialogue. Decent films actually have coherent plots with dialogue that enriches the action on-screen. But both Rise of Skywalker and Into Darkness suffer from the same problems. They care more about keeping the action moving than whether the action makes sense within the plot.
Why is it I can make sense of these supposedly nonsensical plots?
guffaw
Recent article to get us closer to back on topic about Star Trek Into Darkness being better than many remember.
My personal takeaway is that it reflects much of my attitude towards Into Darkness already. It's firmly in the middle of the road of Trek films, elevated by excellent character work and weaving in new ideas to past mythology. It's stymied a bit my some odd ball decisions, but overall it's definitely not a film to be reviled; nor is it the greatest ever. It is fun entertainment.
My personal takeaway is that it reflects much of my attitude towards Into Darkness already. It's firmly in the middle of the road of Trek films, elevated by excellent character work and weaving in new ideas to past mythology. It's stymied a bit my some odd ball decisions, but overall it's definitely not a film to be reviled; nor is it the greatest ever. It is fun entertainment.
Good opening, despite the previous stupidity of putting Cadet Kirk as head of the Enterprise, sort of brought it back to a bit more of a sensible situation.
Don't kill Pike, sure remove him from the ship temporarily.
Get rid of Carol Marcus, she added nothing to the film.
Keep the Nimoy cameo, but in some other fashion. If he's not revealing stuff about the future why would he choose to reveal it now.
You can keep Harrison as a super soldier from Khan's ship, just one who was awoken earlier than Khan.
Get rid of the final act with the magic blood and the fist fight on a flying garbage scow. Instead leave Harrison as a conflicted antihero and throw some moral quandary in which ends up with Harrison and the rest of his crew (including Khan) on Ceti Alpha 5. Or if you want to keep Carol Marcus, have her take the McGivers role
Don't kill Pike, sure remove him from the ship temporarily.
Get rid of Carol Marcus, she added nothing to the film.
Keep the Nimoy cameo, but in some other fashion. If he's not revealing stuff about the future why would he choose to reveal it now.
You can keep Harrison as a super soldier from Khan's ship, just one who was awoken earlier than Khan.
Get rid of the final act with the magic blood and the fist fight on a flying garbage scow. Instead leave Harrison as a conflicted antihero and throw some moral quandary in which ends up with Harrison and the rest of his crew (including Khan) on Ceti Alpha 5. Or if you want to keep Carol Marcus, have her take the McGivers role
If only.
If only I had a million dollars I'd be rich.
If only this dumb turn of phrase would be removed from the fan lexicon.
That fight was fantastic. Spock uses a mind meld as a weapon! San Fancisco looked REAL, which is doubly impressive when movies made today can't seem to do CG cities half as well.
And I loved the parallels at the end of the fight, young Spock wailing on the bullies in the '09 movie and adult Spock wailing on Khan here. As well as the tie in to what Khan said earlier - "you can't even break a rule, how can you be expected to break bone?" leading to Spock sickeningly snapping his arm.
Yes. It was an impressive demonstrating of what Spock is like when he looses control. So intense, and reflective of his 09 arc.
This comment to that article gets to the rub: "That is like saying New Coke wasn't as bad as we remembered."
I re-watched the movie. And, for just a moment, if you throw out all of the nerdy, nitpicky Trek fan stuff about transporters that can go from Earth to Qo'Nos or the magic Khan blood that cures death in separate species, and just set it to the side and judge the film as a 2-hour exercise in entertainment, I think another issue (and possibly the biggest sin) with the movie is that it's a dour watch and not really fun.
It repeats the same story beats of (2009), so it's as much a repeat of (2009) as it is The Wrath of Khan/"Space Seed." That's why they need to take Kirk's command away and then give it back to him 20 minutes later in order to repeat the "Is Kirk worthy of being captain of the Enterprise?" arc. They manufacture conflict between Kirk and Spock to repeat the two needing to learn to trust each other, even though we've already been through that in the first movie. The central conflict in all three Kelvin Universe films revolves around villains out for revenge against the Federation with familiar action set-pieces (e.g., brawling atop precarious platforms, the Enterprise being outmatched by dark, foreboding ships). And I'd argue the movie relies on the audience to know who Khan is through knowing the original film series without wanting to do any work establishing who he is in this movie.
But, moreover, all of that is buttressed by a tone which evokes 9/11 (i.e., this version of Khan is arguably a metaphor for the roots of some terrorism, and the idea of nation states using horrible people for their own ends, and then those horrible people coming back around to bite them in the ass), which means that a lot of the plot relies on 23rd century Starfleet being stupid. So, instead of a fun space adventure, it's a film centered around horrible tragedy with dying kids, desperate fathers aiding terrorist attacks, dead Pike, kinda-dead Kirk, and massive destruction within San Francisco. And I'd argue that it doesn't help the characterizations since they're largely passive and reactive to the events happening around them for much of the movie, and in the end have learned exactly the same lessons they should have already learned from (2009).
I'd also argue Into Darkness squandered a lot of the good will that (2009) created, and part of the reason for the drop off in both enthusiasm for the Kelvin films and the box office for Beyond was how disappointed many were with this film.
I'd completely agree on this point, but that's more the length of time between films.
On this point I completely disagree.
Given that it's at the end of the film, it's kind of weird how set photos from it leaked before the film's release. This was when the identity of the villain was unknown and the topic of much speculation. I was like "he's in Starfleet garb and has black hair, it must be Gary Mitchell!"
It's literally the cut to what random thing Kirk is doing before he's called to the story proper. IMHO, it's 100% in-character.
Nah, not for me. I like Kirk and I like Pine's performance, but it was sophomoric at best.
I didn't say it ruined the movie for me. I just maintain that it's really stupid.