I love the spectacle of ID. It's sad we'll likely never get a Trek as good looking again.
Why Is "Into Darkness" So [imagine a different, more accurate past participle here]?
- Thread starter TedShatner10
- Start date
I also love it as a movie, and it’s extremely re-watchable - more so than Beyond (which I also enjoyed for a completely different set of reasons).
At the time, I liked that ST:ID tackled a somewhat controversial story - the militarization of our culture and suppression of human rights in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks - and got very little credit for it.
But due to my partner's love for the movie, I have seen it over and over, in whole and in bits and pieces, in the last five years or so. And as cool as parts of it still are, quite honestly, it's a dreadful movie. The story is nonsense, the plot absolutely arbitrary gibberish in both sweep and detail. It is ponderous, and slow. The reviewer I linked to above touches on some of its failings, although they're not really really reviewing the film in this case so much as using it to springboard commentary about other subjects.
There's a popular Trekkie game where every plot and story failing of some awful episode are presented one by one and explained away in whatever respect is necessary in order for the defender to maintain that the script works when it in fact does not. Well, you can do that all day with ST:ID, if you like, do it for a week, and it doesn't succeed in really salvaging the flick even a little bit.
But due to my partner's love for the movie, I have seen it over and over, in whole and in bits and pieces, in the last five years or so. And as cool as parts of it still are, quite honestly, it's a dreadful movie. The story is nonsense, the plot absolutely arbitrary gibberish in both sweep and detail. It is ponderous, and slow. The reviewer I linked to above touches on some of its failings, although they're not really really reviewing the film in this case so much as using it to springboard commentary about other subjects.
There's a popular Trekkie game where every plot and story failing of some awful episode are presented one by one and explained away in whatever respect is necessary in order for the defender to maintain that the script works when it in fact does not. Well, you can do that all day with ST:ID, if you like, do it for a week, and it doesn't succeed in really salvaging the flick even a little bit.
I find the film quite enjoyable. It's commentary is welcome and Kirk's arc is good. But, the space jump really messes up the pacing. Too bad.
Same. And the performances are excellent in my opinion . So while there's parts I skip the parts I enjoy are all the better for the performances.
Honestly, I just wish Spock didn't yell "Khaaaaan!" and Kirk's death wasn't undone so easily. Otherwise I love ID.
The Khan Yell and the Space jump are the only two things I really hold against the film.
Spock’s yell is more relevant and appropriate, in story, than Kirk’s. Whether it works or not for the viewer is far less decisive. The blood therapy my wife’s biotech employer is currently developing would have appeared nearly as miraculous as what we see in Into Darkness if it were portrayed on film 30-35 years ago. The complaint about “magic blood” is the least credible of any leveled at the movie.
The space jump loses much of its effectiveness if one has seen 09. By itself it’s reasonably good, but nothing special.
I think the best part of it was how Kirk is able to say "Done it before" and Khan is actually impressed. It's one aspect of that scene that I appreciate, and again it's largely character related. Kirk's whole story, start to finish, is very well done. His death scene still gets me emotional.
Nah.
https://ew.com/article/2016/07/19/star-trek-darkness-decadent-los-angeles-panorama/
That was a pretty interesting article. Gets a bit wrong about the Crystal Cathedral, but.
There's something to be said for movie-as-spectacle. And until reading here on the board, the theme(s) bypassed me because of the spectacle (and noise! I had to cover my ears in the theater).
Why is it so tinted teal? Really obvious in the photos. The writer makes a good point, it is so colorful in the opening set-piece, but becomes monochrome. Is that tied to the theme of a bleak future if militarism and terrorism reign? Or was it just a thing? I rarely movie, so wouldn't know.
It acted as if it was being against militarization, hawkishness in general but all it actually said and stood for was just don't attack who didn't attack you which I felt was a very underwhelming stand and message in 2012-13 (4 years after the presidential election of a politician who had opposed the Iraq war from the start).
I'd rank Into Darkness in my top three Treks. It's so beautiful I have a tin poster hanging on my wall of the Enterprise facing off against the Vengeance in front of the space dust
I like the movie. I think it's a lot of fun. I can see how the last act might not be for everyone, but I've always been a sucker for call backs and nostalgia.
I'm totally aware of its flaws, but I still enjoy it. For my money, Into Darkness is more enjoyable than TFF and any TNG film (including First Contact).
I honestly hated it passionately overall when I first saw it in 2013.
Over the years though I've mellowed on it.
Cumberbatch is brilliant as a villain (but not KHAAAAANNN!!) and the effects, storyflow and other things stll hold on.
Kirk getting humbled, Sulu on the Captain's Chair, USS Vengeance, Robocop Admiral.. I like those things now.
Over the years though I've mellowed on it.
Cumberbatch is brilliant as a villain (but not KHAAAAANNN!!) and the effects, storyflow and other things stll hold on.
Kirk getting humbled, Sulu on the Captain's Chair, USS Vengeance, Robocop Admiral.. I like those things now.