Who said any one was "supposed to" regard any of them as anything? A lot of fans just don't like that movie.
Why Is "Into Darkness" So [imagine a different, more accurate past participle here]?
- Thread starter TedShatner10
- Start date
Who said any one was "supposed to" regard any of them as anything? A lot of fans just don't like that movie.
No, I saw it. And I hated it then.
It's a lazy film. It repeats most of the plot points and set pieces from ST09. Kirk is too foolhardy to be Captain and learns how to be responsible... again. He does another space dive sequence... again. Spock loses his temper and starts beating someone up... again. Leonard Nimoy has a cameo as OG Spock... again.
And then at the end it starts regurgitating the ending of TWOK, only in reverse, not realizing or caring that Spock's death in that film was so touching because of all the shared history that he and Kirk had. The new guys barely knew or liked each other. Plus, there's absolutely no point in doing a poignant death scene when you're going to reverse it 15 minutes later. Yeah, they reversed Spock's death, too, but when they killed off Spock in TWOK, they actually meant it.
The magic blood stuff, the interplanetary transporter, taking the ship underwater for no reason, the gratuitousness of Alice Eve stripping down to her underwear for no reason, the pointlessness of them pretending that Benedict Cumberbatch wasn't playing Khan in the entire leadup to the film, the 9/11 parallels... It's just an aggressively dumb movie.
People can dislike this film all they want but please research blood based and platelet based treatments before the whole "magic blood" nonsense poison's the mind.
Yes, there is. Because the character doesn't know they are going to survive.
Okay. If you saw it and didn't like it, then you saw it and didn't like it. But that means you're clearly not part of that majority of which I was speaking in the bit you quoted above.
The audience certainly does.
On what are basing your assertion that the majority of the people who say they didn't like it didn't watch it?
Well, main character dying is not usually expected.
A main character dying and coming back is painfully predictable in a WoK rip off.
So what? It's like that with most drama.
I find it bewildering when people seem to think that the audience being clued in to the fact that the hero can't die is a new thing. It goes back millennia and it's part of an implicit, subconscious agreement between those watching and those being watched. Killing characters isn't the clever part and that's not usually what audiences watch a story for. The clever part is how the characters get out of a given situation and survive.
It's like people griping about SNW lacking tension because they know Spock can't die or the Enterprise can't be destroyed. Like only certain death and destruction can legitimise drama.
Aside from a few isolated moments that are there to pay homage to TWOK, ID is nothing like a rip off. A few isolated moments, that's all, but otherwise the movie is a very different beast.
Double!
Probably because they tend to repeat such shallow and inaccurate criticisms - eg calling it a "WoK rip off", that it's as if they've not seen it.
I find it an extremely accurate description of the quite shallow movie that I assure you I've seen. In the theatre even.
None of the movie themes mirror WoK, though. The reason for the sacrifice was entirely different. The plot, despite Khan and Carol appearing, has nothing to do with the WoK storyline.
Is any of that really dumber than (to name but a few):
* A torpedo which instantly terraforms a planet and creates abundant life
* A ship conducting planetary surveys failing to notice that the entire planet next to the one they're surveying is missing
* Kirk having a son he's never mentioned before
* Ships being rendered helpless through a five-digit code
* Scotty bringing a dead cadet to the bridge
* Khan being turned into a ham, and a moron who doesn't understand tactics which were old hat in WWII
Last edited:
Yes.
Because when a movie works, you're much more forgiving of the dumb stuff. TWOK works. STID doesn't.
True. Except you’ve got the movies backwards in terms of which works better. Other than that, totally agree.
You’ve got a funny idea of the word ‘accurate’. The movie shares two characters with TWOK and one reversed character death (which wasn’t a TWOK thing anyway). Other than that they are totally different.
A rip off implies copying themes or plots. ID is it's own story.
Also, a main character dying and coming back is in many stories, so, no, not a TWOK rip off.
Yeah, sorry, the Genesis Torpedo is dumber than blood based therapies.
The dead character doesn’t even come back in TWOK. Dead and given a funeral then shot at Genesis.
I'm not convinced these two statements really belong in the same argument, but YMMV.
Speaking only for myself, I didn't think TWoK worked well when I saw it on the original release, and the intervening four decades haven't done much to change that impression. There are parts of it that I liked but, taken as a whole, I feel it falls far short of earning the "BEST STAR TREK MOVIE EVAR" label.
Credit where credit is due: I found it more entertaining than TMP, but that's not a very high bar to clear.
This is six years old. It's pretty damn interesting:
Star Trek Into Darkness reconsidered: A decadent Los Angeles panorama
Star Trek Into Darkness reconsidered: A decadent Los Angeles panorama