Star Trek Into Darkness (2013) (1 Viewer)

[Quentin]

Nice stuff, Nick. Very funny. 5-8 are, of course, the main issues at the movie's core.

It may not have been any dumber than most Hollywood fare (see the latest Die Hard), but I always have higher hopes going in. Particularly following an IM3 that I found fun and refreshing.

I have the same hopes for Man of Steel and Pacific Rim.

 

[Sam Favate]

Interesting:

http://www.blastr.com/2013-5-21/lindelof-apologizes-star-trek-darkness-underwear-scene

 

[Joseph Bolus]

I finally got to see this movie Monday night. I have to say -- like others here -- that I was somewhat entertained overall, but totally dismayed by the "WOK-inverted" climax. Please understand that I wasn't that upset that the character of Khan was introduced into this universe; it’s just that I expected him to be utilized in a much more original way. I felt like that *was* the case for the first 80% of the movie, but they totally lost me with the last 20% when they started directly lifting dialog and whole scenes from WOK. Inverted characters or not, I felt that was totally unnecessary and went way beyond being a "homage". It was almost to the point of being a "slap in the face" to old-time fans of the franchise.But the points made in this thread regarding the younger generation not having ever viewed WOK seems to be holding up. A fellow co-worker in his 20's viewed the movie over the weekend and *loved* it. When I asked him on Tuesday what he thought about directly lifting scenes from WOK -- but inverting the Kirk/Spock characters -- he just shrugged at me and shook his head. He had no idea what I was talking about! So I have to keep reminding myself that these new movies are not being made for us long-time fans.I’m still giving the movie a 6 out of 10. I really enjoyed the character interaction -- which for the most part felt like "Star Trek" -- and the energy displayed in the action scenes. The movie would have garnered a 9 from me if the final 20% could have provided a more original resolution.

 

[Zack Gibbs]

I was pretty underwhelmed. I still enjoy the character work for almost everyone, save for Kirk. McCoy was a little too cliche at times. I just wish the plots were done as well.

One thing that really bothers me, and no one seems to ever mention this-- Khan manages to crash the ship into San Fransico at the end. (they said Starfleet headquarters so I guess that's where it was). At first I thought the ship was just going to go into the bay but we visibly see the ship hit land and topple several giant skyscrpers, presumably killing what would had to have been tens of thousands of people. But the movie never makes any mention of such terrible consequences. I feel like I must have missed something.

 

[RobertR]

they totally lost me with the last 20% when they started directly lifting dialog and whole scenes from WOK. Inverted characters or not, I felt that was totally unnecessary and went way beyond being a "homage". It was almost to the point of being a "slap in the face" to old-time fans of the franchise.But the points made in this thread regarding the younger generation not having ever viewed WOK seems to be holding up. A fellow co-worker in his 20's viewed the movie over the weekend and *loved* it. When I asked him on Tuesday what he thought about directly lifting scenes from WOK -- but inverting the Kirk/Spock characters -- he just shrugged at me and shook his head. He had no idea what I was talking about! So I have to keep reminding myself that these new movies are not being made for us long-time fans.

Thank you, Joseph. Very good analysis.

 

[Richard V]

I was pretty underwhelmed. I still enjoy the character work for almost everyone, save for Kirk. McCoy was a little too cliche at times. I just wish the plots were done as well.

One thing that really bothers me, and no one seems to ever mention this-- Khan manages to crash the ship into San Fransico at the end. (they said Starfleet headquarters so I guess that's where it was). At first I thought the ship was just going to go into the bay but we visibly see the ship hit land and topple several giant skyscrpers, presumably killing what would had to have been tens of thousands of people. But the movie never makes any mention of such terrible consequences. I feel like I must have missed something.

It's just Hollywood Collateral Damage, acceptable losses, that Tinseltown doesn't have to address.

 

[Brett_B]

Interesting:

http://www.blastr.com/2013-5-21/lindelof-apologizes-star-trek-darkness-underwear-scene

I can't seem to remember, but was there controversy when Zoe Saldana stripped down in the first movie? I really don't see a difference between these 2 scenes.

 

[Richard V]

As an aside, I hated losing Chris Pike.

 

[RobertR]

I can't seem to remember, but was there controversy when Zoe Saldana stripped down in the first movie? I really don't see a difference between these 2 scenes.

I call BS on that article. They knew what they were doing when they put that scene in. It's false "contriteness".

 

[TravisR]

I call BS on that article. They knew what they were doing when they put that scene in. It's false "contriteness".

If Lindelof wasn't actually sorry, why even bother with a fake sorry? It was a non-story but by mentioning it, it became more of an issue and he's made himself the face of it. If he just said nothing like the equally 'guilty' parties of Abrams or Orci or Kurtzman, it wouldn't even be a thought on anyone's mind.

And as far as I'm concerned, there's absolutely nothing to apologize for.

 

[Citizen87645]

I saw the film the other day. Without thinking too hard about it, I enjoyed the movie. I bristled a little at Spock's anguished scream to the heavens, but perhaps more because of the use of that cliché than the inverted callback to the Wrath of Khan.I'm not as concerned with the characterizations veering from the original series. In particular, Spock going primal doesn't seem like a deviation as we saw that in the previous film during his boyhood when he was pummeling his bully. It's also not a departure from what I know in general about the Vulcan race, as they embraced logic as a way to control their underlying passions. Centuries of discipline keeps them in control 99.9% of the time; a situation like Khan killing your best friend definitely seems like a 0.1% situation that would bring out the other side. And I admit, I like seeing a kick-ass Vulcan.My only real complaint is that the film ended like yet another re-boot. While it makes sense on a certain level that Khan's terrorist acts and Marcus' rogue operation would essentially crystallize Starfleet's mission as an exploratory, rather than military, endeavor I felt a sort of disappointment that things actually hadn't started going like I thought they had.

 

[Citizen87645]

Khan manages to crash the ship into San Fransico at the end. (they said Starfleet headquarters so I guess that's where it was).

Starfleet being based in SF has gone back at least as far as the Next Generation TV show.

 

[PaulDA]

It's NOT a remake of "Wrath of Khan". That's a rather absurd reading of the story. There are about 3 mins. of parallel moments (almost all sequential) that harken back to that film. That's it. The rest of the film uses familiar characters in new situations--just as ANY REBOOT does (or has no one ever compared the Tim Burton Batman films with the Nolan ones?).

As to it being "flawed"--what Star Trek movie isn't? "Wrath of Khan"? Please. How did all the multi-ethnic followers of Khan become lily-white blonds? How did Khan recognize a crew member who wasn't aboard the Enterprise during "Space Seed"? "Magic blood" bothers people, but magic torpedoes don't? I could go on all day (on all the films)... (And I quite enjoy Wrath of Khan, incidentally--but it's hardly lacking in flaws.)

Star Trek Into Darkness contains a moral lesson as sophisticated as any found in any iteration of Star Trek (which is to say, rather superficial, but still worthy of raising). It is clearly critiquing the notions of targeted killing, executions without due process, the wisdom of pre-emptive strikes against a potential enemy, the need to violate basic rights in the name of security… Being that it is a Star Trek movie, it doesn't offer any great insights into these topics (no less, though, than other Trek critiques of other contemporary issues) but even raising these issues at all vaults it ahead of quite a number of films that simply accept the positions of Marcus as a given and run with them.

Abrams' films have not, as yet, "explored the great unknown". That is a fair criticism. But they have done something else that I find equally compelling--they have explored their iconic characters. The 09 film examines the question of nature vs. nurture by altering the circumstances under which Kirk grew up and having Spock cope with emotional blows the original did not face (early loss of his mother, destruction of his homeworld--thus genocide). Some have read Spock's character arc in the 09 film as an analogy for "coming out"--his emotional side as analogous to gays/lesbians.

Into Darkness can be read (as a phrase) as referring to death--the death of Pike and its toll on both Kirk (losing a father figure) and Spock (who melds with Pike and experiences from within what he'd observed and experienced from without--the death of his mother and the bulk of his species). Later on, it applies to Kirk's sacrifice (we may have known Kirk would be revived--this is Star Trek after all, as shown by Scotty and Nomad, Spock and Genesis, Kirk in Amok Time, and many examples from the other series--but Kirk and Spock, in-story, at that moment, did not know). Spock's scream actually makes a lot more sense, contextually, than Kirk's in Wrath of Khan. It fits into his character arc dating back to the last film and culminating into one more loss (he's already explained how difficult it has been for him to cope with previous losses and how they are lurking just below the surface--something we've seen in other Vulcans, including the Original Spock). Moreover, he hasn't attempted the emotional suppression techniques the original Spock has, nor is he as mature and in control as his elder counterpart.

It's not a perfect film, by any stretch, and of course people are free to dislike it. But disliking it for something it actually isn't (a remake of Wrath of Khan) seems rather silly. And those in various fora who decry it for not being "real Star Trek"--well, I defy anyone to define what "real Star Trek" means to a majority's satisfaction. This film has a moral critique of contemporary issues (a Star Trek staple), ends on a note of optimism (check), has all the requisite elements (Kirk and crew, the Enterprise and a healthy dose of impossible technology--check).

I have seen every iteration of Trek (been watching since 1973). I've read over 100 of the novels, dozens of the comics. I have my favourites (movies and series). There is no way anyone can question my credentials as a fan. And I've found Abrams' take on Star Trek quite entertaining and refreshingly fun.

 

[Gary Seven]

I find it a stretch to find any kind of social commentary in this film, any more than any action film out there. Unlike the series which often dealt with man's frailties ("you simple tell yourself, I will not kill... today", for example). I did not find such commentary superficial as you, particularly for TV of that era.

Agreed this is not a remake of TWOK, as more a combo of influences from TWOK and the Undiscovered Country. Either way, this constant twisting of what was has gotten tedious. I hope the next movie is more science fiction than action thriller and original in plot and themes.

Oh, and Starfleet was established in SF in STTMP.

 

[PaulDA]

Spock and Scotty's objections to Kirk's initial desire to simply follow Marcus' orders in the heat of the moment are, to me, just as compelling as that speech about not killing…today in A Taste of Armageddon. In a way, I find it more compelling because it allows for character growth on the part of Kirk (who sets aside his own impulse for revenge, after giving it some thought) rather than just presenting a Kirk who has the correct stance ready at hand. It's easy to be the one with the right answer. It's more difficult to acknowledge your first impulse might not be correct and then taking action to correct it--the latter shows us character growth, the former simply states he's reached maturity. The younger Kirk is still growing into the one in TOS. This change in his perspective shows us this rather than simply telling us.

Now, don't get me wrong, I quite like that episode (I've even used it in a class as an example of pop culture reflecting the concerns of the day) but I'd hardly call it a sophisticated lesson.

 

[Gary Seven]

Now, don't get me wrong, I quite like that episode (I've even used it in a class as an example of pop culture reflecting the concerns of the day) but I'd hardly call it a sophisticated lesson.

True... certainly by today's (or yesterday's) standards but for 1966 TV, it was pretty remarkable. Consider what else was on at the time.

I did like Kirk's character growth in the movie... it was one of the few positives in the film.

 

[PaulDA]

True... certainly by today's (or yesterday's) standards but for 1966 TV, it was pretty remarkable. Consider what else was on at the time.

I did like Kirk's character growth in the movie... it was one of the few positives in the film.

Fair enough. Within its own time, it stood out, and in history, context is king. What I have more trouble with is the notion that it was sophisticated in an absolute sense, regardless of its context. That, to me, is a sign of rose-coloured glasses.

In any event, I don't begrudge anyone who didn't like the Abrams Trek movies, but I do think any criticism of a work of art (fine or commercial) should be focused on actual shortcomings, rather than a hyperbolic tendency to dismiss something as something it isn't.

 

[Gary Seven]

I think they tried to raise the level of sophistication in STTMP. We had a story by a noted sci-fi author, Alan Dean Foster and Isaac Asimov as scientific consultant that dealt with philosophical implications of man vs. machine. Unfortunately, this movie was plagued with behind the scenes production problems and politics that brought production values down and an unfinished film. Despite that, it is still my favorite ST film.

I would like the franchise to go back in that direction and I think it could be successfully done with the right production team. It would be nice to be able to leave the theater discussing social (and/or political) aspects of a ST film we had just seen rather than how good the effects were. But the Hollywood blockbuster formula may prevent that from happening and I think that is a shame.

 

[Citizen87645]

I would like the franchise to go back in that direction and I think it could be successfully done with the right production team. It would be nice to be able to leave the theater discussing social (and/or political) aspects of a ST film we had just seen rather than how good the effects were. But the Hollywood blockbuster formula may prevent that from happening and I think that is a shame.

Yeah, I doubt many execs would be seeing dollar signs with that pitch.

 

[Nelson Au]

The next movie will be about a giant machine that swallows planets and Kirk discovers another starship destroyed by it. And it's surviving commander tells Kirk it's on it's way to Earth. And he has to stop it. The execs will love that. Lots of destruction along the way. And Carol will be expecting little David Marcus whose home on Earth.