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

Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies: Kelvin Universe' started by TedShatner10, May 20, 2022.

  1. fireproof78

    fireproof78 Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2014
    Location:
    Journeying onwards
    Scotty is really the only one I found unenjoyable.

    Kirk and Spock, Uhura, McCoy and Sulu, and Chekov are all great, as well as the addition of Marcus, who gives the most interesting challenge to Kirk as he grows.

    Kirk's arc is still my favorite.
     
    Pauln6 likes this.
  2. Set Harth

    Set Harth Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Location:
    Annwn
    She makes an oddly pointless comment at the end: that ten years on it fits nicely into the Trek canon. Uh, yeah, it's in its own timeline? :shrug:
     
  3. F. King Daniel

    F. King Daniel Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2008
    Location:
    A type 13 planet in it's final stage
    I know I've said this before but I've never known a film to depict an extremely tense situation getting completely fucking out of control as well as Into Darkness. Kirk dies. Half of San Francisco is levelled. Spock goes on a berserker revenge rampage... it's mental and brilliant.
     
  4. Ovation

    Ovation Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2003
    Location:
    La Belle Province
    Her comment is entirely correct. Canon is what’s on the screen. Doesn’t matter if it fits with anything else.
     
    burningoil and JHarper like this.
  5. Set Harth

    Set Harth Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Location:
    Annwn
    "Squirrels eat nuts" is also entirely correct.
     
    Richard S. Ta likes this.
  6. ED-209

    ED-209 Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2019
    Location:
    OCP Headquaters.
    If I brought home two easy sluts (in my wildest dreams) and whacked on a bit Bach (the equivalent) I'm pretty sure they'd think I was lame, laugh at me and leave.
     
  7. M'Sharak

    M'Sharak Definitely Herbert. Maybe. Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Location:
    Terra Inlandia
    Look, I know being callously offensive is kind of your brand, but you're not in TNZ now, and there had to be a better way you could have put this.

    Try harder. If you can't manage any improvement, you'll have to get by with just thinking it to yourself and not posting it.
     
    Richard S. Ta likes this.
  8. Daddy Todd

    Daddy Todd Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Location:
    Utah
    I’m watching STID right now, which is my first viewing since seeing it in a theater 10 1/2 years ago. Here’s why I dislike it (not “hate” it)

    Terrible script. Miserable characters. Music desperate to make me care. Benedict Cumberbatch is the least compelling I’ve ever seen him. And magic blood.

    On the plus side, it’s pretty to look at.
     
    Qonundrum and Farscape One like this.
  9. fireproof78

    fireproof78 Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2014
    Location:
    Journeying onwards
    This magic blood argument is so amazingly stubborn despite being very tired.

    I don't agree with the rest but that one is very hard to swallow.
     
  10. Daddy Todd

    Daddy Todd Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Location:
    Utah
    Oh yeah, I forgot a major one: thinly veiled 9/11 trutherism. I just can’t even with that crap.
     
  11. Daddy Todd

    Daddy Todd Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Location:
    Utah
    It bugs me. Sue me.
     
  12. fireproof78

    fireproof78 Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2014
    Location:
    Journeying onwards
    I would but it's almost Thanksgiving.

    Also, you're not alone. What bugs me is that the blood based treatment was the closest to real science Trek had been in years and yet is routinely rejected as "magic. "

    I don't get it.
     
    Ovation and saddestmoon like this.
  13. Daddy Todd

    Daddy Todd Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Location:
    Utah
    That bears next to no similarity to what I just watched in the movie. As far as I know, there’s no real world “blood based treatment” equivalent to “I injected a dead tribble with blood and it came back to life. So then I injected a dead man with (I think he said ‘platelets’) and he also came back to life, even though he was so thoroughly irradiated I had to subsequently keep him in a medically-induced coma for TWO WEEKS to filter the radiation out of his blood.”

    In my view, that’s magic, not medicine.
     
    Farscape One likes this.
  14. fireproof78

    fireproof78 Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2014
    Location:
    Journeying onwards
    Blood doping.

    Platelet therapy. ETA: link to an article discussing such therapies.

    Khan has cells that "refuse to die" per "Space Seed."

    I know thus poor horse is mince meat but this is as magical, if not less so, than the transporter.
     
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2023
    saddestmoon and Qonundrum like this.
  15. drt

    drt Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2013
    There are also a number of experimental stem cell therapies that have been shown to specifically reverse radiation damage.

    It's just funny to me that a franchise where 95% of the technology is magic bullshit that something we can actually do today is a bridge too far.
     
  16. Qonundrum

    Qonundrum Vice Admiral Admiral

    The points I'll agree with are:

    * Music desperate to make me care.

    This seems to be common in shows nowdays - if it wasn't trite by 2013, it's beyond so now. More and more often, music ceases to complement a scene but to be it. It can easily be bombastic and designed to do the work that isn't being put into the scripts and told by the actors as the characters. IMHO, that's akin to a cheat and should be insulting to the audience. Plus, it's also insulting to those with hearing problems, who'd rather hear the actors speak - otherwise, just train a bunch of dogs to bark on cue as it won't make any difference. Actually, it would, since service dogs are used for people with various health conditions and many would see that as being more important. I could go on, but is the storytelling about the characters' situations and interactions, or about the "ethereal" music? (It's a word I'm seeing people use more often, but I'd use words other than ethereal because it's faux spirituality at best.)

    * Benedict Cumberbatch is the least compelling I’ve ever seen him

    Excellent actor, yes, but miscast. At times, he's surprisingly wooden when not being unintentionally comical. His reveal of "Khan" only solidifies the script opting to dig up the old character instead of doing something new wasn't a good idea. He was far better as John Harrison before the "oh-so-big epic reveal" that had me stifling a laugh in the theater. The movie trying to ape cherrypicked bits of Khan wasn't doing much.

    * Terrible script

    It starts out really good, IMHO, there is much promise and - indeed - some originality, but it starts to lose out once it's all about the "Khan". It was as completely unnecessary as it was completely risible, especially as Khan and Kirk are now pals for a brief while*. All just to change Khan's backstory**. Does the movie series still need to cling to TOS even more than TNG ever had in season one? The fact that this movie felt a need to - for crowd-pleasing spectacle - rip up a city on Earth*** also suggests lazy and cheap scripting, in a show whose very mission has sod all to do with Earth but we'll reboot the thing and haul 'em to Earth for as many flicks in a row as possible. TOS and its follow-up film from 1982 didn't need to hightail it back to Earth for dramaaaaaaaaatic effect. Hell, the film didn't even have the characters meet for the audience expectation of a boxing match and the movie didn't turn into doodoo as a result of eschewing that.

    * I suppose it works better if you remember it's a parallel timeline completely independent of the original. Or it's just silly scripting
    ** a rearrangement that has some sense, but - again - is as much fanwanky as it is pointless.
    *** using a ship named "USS Vengeance" and is a shade of black instead of the usual grays. Apparently, if you believe the image search, some initial concept artwork also had an edgier and spiky design adornments as well, as if it were a novelty fish-catching gear, if not novelty beer opener as a gag gift for anyone not allowed to drink alcohol (people with pancreas or liver disorders, some diabetics, alcoholics, etc). Glad those weren't used in the final design of "it's so much bigger than the hero, like muh David versus Goliath!" routine. It's not good when the scene of the Excelsior in TSFS felt more dramatic and it was roughly the same size as Enterprise... ​
     
    Daddy Todd likes this.
  17. Qonundrum

    Qonundrum Vice Admiral Admiral

    I think it has to do with perception. It's easier to buy into ludicrous and unproven concepts if the audience doesn't know real life issues, or if it's told with sincerity*. We accept warp drive despite the implausibility, only because we know the speed of sound is a milestone that can be broken. We accept teleportation, and most of us haven't heard of "quantum entanglement" yet, which was used to "beam" data between two microchips in a successful experiment from 2019. But that's just wordplay involving the transmission of electrons in their same state that's little better than "3d printer replicates something" when that's just turning unformed lumpy matter into designed matter. Transporters turn matter into energy then recompose it as matter at a destination spot. Replicators convert energy directly into matter, based on information describing the item to the device. Both devices somehow go between the two disparate concepts. Energy is only the means for doing the work upon the matter, anyway. If, one day, we can transport simple objects or even beings by scanning them into a detailed radio pattern and distributing them via a beam (like wifi on meth) and reconstitute it a few hundred miles away, I doubt many will complain... but I digress.

    But that's just it. Sci-fi is using real science as a springboard to extrapolate from. Fantasy just creates and does things willy-nilly, with no basis or backing**. In both genres, the ideas, items, and execution still need to have their own set of rules to keep suspension of disbelief and immersion in the universe told to us going. Is it that exciting to see something be able to do anything on a whim as needed? Nope.

    * No self-aware or meta jokes. If the show won't take itself seriously, the audience won't take the show seriously either. Even sitcoms, the good ones, have a balance
    **One less-discussed example of fantasy in TNG is the dermal healer that Dr Crusher uses. Just wave it over the skin and the cut disappears instantly, wheeeeeee! Considering the blue light, maybe that's UV light that kills the bacteria trying to infect the person too, why not...​
     
  18. fireproof78

    fireproof78 Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2014
    Location:
    Journeying onwards
    I guess this is where I struggle because Star Trek is full of such magical ideas couched in small science that only become worse as time went on. So, while I don't think ID is the best film and has weak points, the "magic" of it seems no more magical than the transporter, other medical tools, or regerenative effects, like the dermal regenerator.

    Now, I know that everyone's suspension of disbelief is different from person to person and certainly doesn't make Into Darkness above criticism. I am just always quite interested in where the line exists for "that's too magical" in a SF property that uses a lot of different magical things.
     
    Qonundrum likes this.
  19. Farscape One

    Farscape One Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2017
    Location:
    Farscape One
    Why is INTO DARKNESS so hated? I don't even know where to begin.

    Bad script - there are more holes in the plot than swiss cheese.

    Benedict Cumberbatch as Khan - great actor, but terrible choice for this part.

    Trying to reuse the TWOK death scene - one of the reasons why Spock's death was so impactful was because of the earned bond of friendship and brotherhood between Kirk and Spock. Spock and Kirk in this movie... it just isn't really earned between here and the previous movie.

    The Enterprise rising from the ocean - WTF?! Seriously, what the hell were the director and writers thinking?! Starfleet starships don't go underwater! This is STAR TREK, not SEAQUEST.

    Khan's magic blood - nothing in "SPACE SEED" or the ENT episodes that dealt with the Augments indicated their blood could do what this movie did. McCoy's statement in "SPACE SEED" about 'something inside him just refuses to die' is more an admiration of how resilient his body seems to be. It was never said he had super blood or the like. (Heart valve action and lung capacity both being better does not mean the blood itself was superior.)

    But more than that... using that gimmick just cheapens whatever 'impact' was supposed to make us feel when Kirk 'died'. He was brought back within the same movie... hell, within the same half hour. It took a full movie AND the sacrifice of Kirk's son and the Enterprise to bring back Spock, plus there were going to be career consequences for ALL of them in bringing back Spock... at least, until they saved Earth from the whale probe. THAT at least felt like an earned revival, not this 'get brought back from death quick' scheme with the magic blood.


    This is by far the worst movie in the franchise.
     
    suarezguy and Daddy Todd like this.
  20. fireproof78

    fireproof78 Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2014
    Location:
    Journeying onwards
    The idea that it "cheapens the impact" is a nonstarter for me. I agree the script has plot holes. I agree that Khan was a poor choice. I think the space jump was dumb and the Scotty leaving the Enterprise only to return was equally dumb.

    But, the idea of Kirk's sacrifice being cheapened is one I cannot begin to fathom. He goes from thinking he is above the fray, that the rules don't apply so long as he doesn't lose a crewmember, and cooks the book to support his ego. That at the end he has the same damn choice as his father, and chooses to sacrifice himself in the name of his crew, like Spock had done in the name of the Prime Directive, moves me every single time. Because it's Kirk's story, Kirk's choice and he doesn't know that McCoy will save him.

    If he stays dead he will only know the ship was saved, but not the rest.



    "Ain't it a bitch."

    :weep:
     
    Ovation and Qonundrum like this.