Star Trek Into Darkness

[Zarathustra]

Ha, yeah I thought it was a model, but either way ... there's the damn ship in the briefing room. These Starfleet officers--a Captain and his First Officer--don't notice? Not even for the sake of curiosity? That would be like me walking into a music exec's office and not notice the giant poster for a new Rush album I didn't know about! I don't care if 9/11 is happening outside, I'd notice!

Anyway, the payoff with Khan vs Spock was pretty lame. Classic Spock tells New Spock that Khan was his greatest advisary, whom he beat only at great personal cost. And then Spock beats him 10 minutes later with a cheap trick that a mastermind like Khan should have seen coming. Really? He didn't notice that the missiles were armed? That whizz-bang new Starship doesn't come with sensors? He seriously didn't consider that Spock could just take out the bodies (well, aside from the fact that it seems that would have taken a lot longer than the screen time)?

And then what was the "great personal cost" this time around? Sure, Kirk ends up in the Radiation Chamber of Death Scenes, but Khan didn't put him there. Khan didn't damage the ship. That was the Admiral's doing. And Spock didn't even have to lose his friend for very long, as Scotty informs us in yet another one of his comic relief scenes. Kirk's dead? No problem. No dangerous quest to a new planet that's breaking itself apart in order to rescue your dear friend. No, it's tribbles to the rescue. One joke later, he's back ... almost like it never happened. Personal great cost, my ass.

This entire movie was like that. The crew hadn't earned its Wrath of Khan moment yet. Too soon.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

That is because New Spock obtained unearned knowledge from Old Spock.

It is Abrams' fault, though, for trying to focus on flash and style rather than substance.

The model of the super-ship was the first thing I noticed in that scene. It immediately jumped out at me as a "what was that?".

[sindatur]

Eh, in TWoK, Chekov couldn't count to 6, if he could, the movie never would've happened. Also, he was on a ship that stranded a bunch of Supermen in The Ceti-Alpha system (Apparently with no log record of doing so, since no one ever showed up to check up on them), and it never occurred to him going there unaware might be a problem.

Khan spent the entirety of the movie wanting to/trying to kill Kirk, until he had his chance, and instead of beaming Kirk up with the Genesis device, decides he doesn't want to kill him afterall. Well, until he was no longer capable of doing so, and then he wanted to kill Kirk again.

You can rip all the Trek movies apart if you think hard enough. None of them are as deep or free of plot holes as people like to remember them being

Montalban, yes, was fantastic as a scenery chewing villain, but, there really wasn't any dramatic depth to his acting, that justifies implying Cumberbatch did a lousy job, it was just a different style of Khan.

And as far as Kirk goes, Shatner is awesome as Kirk, but, he's pretty one note as an actor, I was personally surprised by the dramatic performance Pine turned in, I didn't think Pine was that deep an actor.

I like all the movies and Series to one degree or another, they're all different, and the very nature of a 2 hour format for a movie, versus 26 episodes a season for a Series, means the Series can't possibly be compared fairly with the movies, the movies just don't have the kind of screen time to compete for character depth with the Series

[Cail]

My major gripe, aside from the lack of onscreen chemistry between the actors, is the fact that we have two action movies with the ST name on them. There's nothing lingering with the audience after the film other than, "heh, that was a cool explosion".

Trek used to be about something, even if that something was silly or half-baked. These, so far, have been decent sci-fi action films with familiar character names.

[rdhopeca]

I personally liked STID. A lot. But I also liked TWoK. A lot.

That said, this person has a point about what we would say about TWoK today:

www.filmschoolrejects.com/features/if-t ... eaters.php

[Rau Le Creuset]

I just recently watched the wrath of Khan and I don't really understand all the love for Ricardo Montalban in this role. I understand that a lot of people grew up loving him and have grown "accustomed" to his portrayal of Khan but as some one "new" to the star trek universe I found it, for lack of a better word, cheesy. Don't get me wrong a lot of Benedict Cumberbatch's lines were cheesy in into darkness but no one seems to fault Montalban on this either.

I thoroughly enjoyed the new Khans portrayal minus the "Should have let me sleep" line and "I will walk over your cold corpses" line. But through half of The Wrath of Khan I was laughing at it. Khan is spewing out lines that sound like they are coming from Macbeth or Hamlet.. even my father (a real star trek guy) started laughing. (im not trying to make fun of Twok in anyway just trying to give you my view as someone who didn't grow up with startrek)

It comes down to a few things. Benedict Cumberbatch gave me my first impression of khan.. unlike most others whom their first impression came from Maltaban..

Also I loved Pine's Kirk as much as im liking Shatner's I got some feels when he tells his entire crew he's sorry.

80th post woot!!!
20 more til triple digits!

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Fair criticisms of both movies, then. I can live with that given that often times older movies appear really cheesy 20 years later. The last time I watched the original Star Wars movies I kept thinking to myself "man, these movies didn't age well". *shrug*

[Zarathustra]

I thought Khan was quoting Shakespeare half the time. Sure, there aren't too many people who can get away with that, but for Bad Guy one-liners, I always thought it was cool. Khan is supposed to be a relic from the past, remember.

What was originally cool about Montalbon (which new viewers may not realize) was that he played the original character in the TV show, in an episode where he nearly bested Kirk with his genetic superiority. So the WoK was already kind of a "reboot" in itself ... a bigger, larger version of that. I suppose it was also a sequel to that story. So seeing him many years later in the movie, realistically aged, was pretty a damn cool surprise.

The original had some cheesy moments--heh, that's Star Trek--but it also had wonder, beauty, and absolutely no little guys sitting on rockets for no apparent reason. It juggled deep themes like revenge, Creation, life/death, growing old, and rebirth through our kids (or otherwise). It was not only a movie about men growing older having to face the demons of their past, but the production date itself made use of this timeframe so that our attachment to these characters--and the actors who played them--took advantage of that real passage of time. Seeing these characters age made their nostalgia and angst seem more real. Seeing Kirk tell the woman whom he could have made a life with, "I feel young" was a moment New Trek could never duplicate.

I did like this new movie for its nearly flawless pacing, its "fun factor," and Cumberbatch's performance. The Spock/Khan fight was cool. And I like the character arc of Spock from the volcano through the end where he finally shows his human side (though his acting sucked in that part). But it's not serious science fiction. It does not deal with What It Means To Be Human. It's a popcorn flick.

[Rau Le Creuset]

I thought it dealt with being Human. A lot of it being the recognition of your own faults and limitations. There is an abundance of character growth with Kirk in this film that I think you may be overlooking. this is just the second adaptation of this entire crew.. I don't think it's meant to have the depth and connection the original series had yet.

I have actually seen the episode with Khan in it, I think it's called space seed. I liked that episode.. my only problem was that in the end it came down to a physical contact between kirk and Khan.. and Kirk overpowered him using a metal pole or something. it kind of diminished the threat of Khan imo. Maybe that's one of the reasons I prefer the newer portrayal..

Also The Wrath of Khan was meant to be a "popcorn" flick aswell. I believe they decided to make it in a way to salvage what had become of the series after how poorly received the first film installment was

[wayfriend]

It took a long freakin time, but it was finally in my local Redbox! I liked it, but was not overawed.

My main comment is: for a movie about Khan, Khan wasn't in it very much. And there certainly wasn't the man-vs-man drama that there was in tWoK. Yes, you need to ask what is the point of involving Khan.

Hashi commented on "flash and style rather than substance". I find this new set of movies highly focused on emotion and motivation and relationships, at the expense of science and wonder and adventure. It's Emo Trek. You have to wonder what's the point of being in outer space.

Did anyone else notice that, at the end of the movie, the hipster crew finally BEGINS their five year mission to explore strange new worlds? And that the credit music was the ORIGINAL Star Trek theme?

It almost makes we wonder if the first two Abrams movies are merely the prologue to some sort of "real" Star Trek series which is yet to come. It would explain so much. The Benebatch Khan we see is the prehistory of Khan before Space Seed happens. We get to see the proto-Klingons before the Federation and Klingons go to war. We get a newly rebuilt Enterprise, too.

Oh -- and for you people picking holes in plots, how did you miss this? The Federation now has the ability to raise the dead!!!!! There hasn't been a plot-bomb like that since the Federation learned how to time travel.

[Zarathustra]

Oh -- and for you people picking holes in plots, how did you miss this? The Federation now has the ability to raise the dead!!!!! There hasn't been a plot-bomb like that since the Federation learned how to time travel.

Genesis probe ... Spock

[I'm Murrin]

That's kind of a difficult situation to recreate. In the Into Darkness universe, though, the Federation can cure any illness and resurrect the dead just by drawing blood from any one of the dozens of supermen they have on ice.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

They also have the ability to teleport people across interstellar distances without the use of a ship. Its only limitation is that you need to know that your destination coordinates are a safe place to which to jump. If the cost of making those devices is significantly less than that of a ship--which it should be, given their moneyless economy--then ships are no longer necessary, other than ones for scouting and surveying.

Old Spock might have taken a vow not to reveal any information to New Spock but you know damned well that he informed Starfleet Command about threats of which they need to be aware. His limited dissemination of information could save thousands or millions of lives.

[Cail]

Oh -- and for you people picking holes in plots, how did you miss this? The Federation now has the ability to raise the dead!!!!! There hasn't been a plot-bomb like that since the Federation learned how to time travel.

Genesis probe ... Spock

Pretty sure they did the same in TNG with the transporter buffer.....But it's been a while, I may be misremembering.

[sindatur]

Oh -- and for you people picking holes in plots, how did you miss this? The Federation now has the ability to raise the dead!!!!! There hasn't been a plot-bomb like that since the Federation learned how to time travel.

Genesis probe ... Spock

Pretty sure they did the same in TNG with the transporter buffer.....But it's been a while, I may be misremembering.

Yea, Star Trek is riddled with bringing people back to life.

Reset Buttons, God-like Beings, Genesis Probe, Alternate universes, transporter shenanigans, etc. Some Trek Plots have revolved around the need to kill a main cast member (To remove a parasite or invading entity) and then resuscitate them.

Khan blood doesn't really change anything. And...Did it bring Kirk back from the dead, or merely heal his Radiation sickness before he died. Augment blood having great healing properties, really isn't anything new or Universe changing, and it seems to me Kirk wasn't actually dead when he was cured, so, he was only healed, not brought back from the dead

[wayfriend]

My impression was that Kirk was dead. Because IIRC McCoy declared that the Tribble was dead before he injected Khan's blood into it.

This doesn't bode well for ever killing Khan, come to think of it.

I never did say ... but I was happy that Tribbles were included in ST:ID. Perhaps Mudd will make an appearance someday - another perfectly cast character from the original series whom I cannot imagine trying to recreate.

[sindatur]

My impression was that Kirk was dead. Because IIRC McCoy declared that the Tribble was dead before he injected Khan's blood into it.

This doesn't bode well for ever killing Khan, come to think of it.

I never did say ... but I was happy that Tribbles were included in ST:ID. Perhaps Mudd will make an appearance someday - another perfectly cast character from the original series whom I cannot imagine trying to recreate.

I'll have to check the DVD, but, I swear McCoy put him on ice before he actually died.

Mudd, probably unlikely, since he was referenced in STiD (It was Harry Mudd's shuttle they took to Qu'onos)

[Cail]

Pretty much sums it up.

[Sorus]

"They had a script for Star Trek that wasn't really working for them. I think the studio was worried that it might have been a little too Star Trek-y," he said of the original draft.

Does anyone have a sound-proof room I can borrow for five minutes?

[Cail]

"They had a script for Star Trek that wasn't really working for them. I think the studio was worried that it might have been a little too Star Trek-y," he said of the original draft.

Does anyone have a sound-proof room I can borrow for five minutes?

Lol....Right?