Star Trek Into Darkness

Bumping because at a recent Star Trek convention this was voted the worst Star Trek movie ever. Yes they are Trekkies, but they are also onto something. This movie was empty calories. Previous Star Trek movies have at least tried to be something more.

Darkness made the 3rd Bourne movie seem ambitious.

 

I'd be really surprised if I watched Into Darkness again and noticed something that I missed the first time. On the other hand, quite a few of the episodes from all the series (let alone the better movies) have something that comes out on a second (or seventh in the best cases) viewing.

 

It's a different world. The people in my link are more interested in spectacle than in Star Trek character development. You'd better believe that Star Trek's producers were thinking of them when planning Darkness.

http://www.joblo.com/movie-news/mor...sequel-thanks-to-box-office-sales-in-china-02

 

Yes and no. Those movies suck. They were bad at what they tried to do. But I'd rather watch them tha
n Darkness, because I don't care about what Darkness tried to do.

Damn. I'm a Trekkie.

 

I don't care what they do either. I don't care about was it really ST did it go with the star trek banner. I guess I don't think of myself as some sort of blogger or super critic. I just go to enjoy the show. Not to compare it to other shows. I think? I've seen all the ST movies and watched the TV show since birth (no, not mine)

I just know I enjoyed this one as I did the others and pleased that my money was well spent. I enjoyed the performances of many of the actors.

 

I will provide a longer write-up once I have given it more thought, but the screenplay displayed a tenuous grasp of Trek conventions at best. The entire pre-title sequence proves that Abrams and Lindelof don't even properly realize what exactly the Prime Directive entails. That entire mission goes against it, not just the fact that their ship is seen by the pre-Warp civilisation.

 

Let me explain my problem with it.
Whilst the operation in the volcano is going on, Spock's only objection is the possible detection of their shuttle (and later the Enterprise itself) by the indigenous people.
Yet the entire operation itself is a violation of the prime directive. Even if the volcano threatened the survival of the local humanoids, they had no business interfering under the directive. If Spock is really so devoted to protocol, he would know this and object to the undertaking in its entirety, not just the possibility of detection.

So my issue is not with Kirk ignoring the directive (there are indeed plenty of examples of several of the captains who have bent or even broken this rule) but Spock's behavior suggesting that his understanding of the directive is flawed.

 

My issue is the nature of Spock's objections, which were limited to the possibility of discovery and did not include their tampering with the active volcano, which was as much in violation of the directive as any possible sighting of their ship by the natives.
Which means one of three things:

1. We are to believe that Spock is okay with some violations of the P.D. but opposes others;
2. We are to believe that Spock has only a tenuous grasp of what the directive entails;
3. The screenwriters have an incomplete understanding of the directive.

I'm going for option three, since the first two would be total fails in terms of characterization (at least any characterization that aims to be true to the character).

But expanding my appraisal beyond the first scene, I would have to say that I preferred Abrams' first crack at Trek.
Its attempt to pay homage to Khan actually does the character a disservice. The performance itself is fine, but I never felt that I was watching Khan. I wasn't too fond of their choice to mirror one of the best scenes in Wrath just as a gimmick. This movie drowns a bit in failed self-reference, whereas at least in the first movie, there were attempts to tell a new story.

 

Not wanting to hop onto the Lindelof bashing bandwagon too enthusiastically, but it makes perfect sense to me that the same man responsible for Prometheus wrote this. It shares much of the "oh look how clever I am but just don't look too far underneath the hood" traits of the Alien prequel.

 

Simon Pegg goes off -

http://www.dailymercury.com.au/news/simon-pegg-goes-rant-criticising-star-trek-haters/1997373/

Simon, old boy, you made a lot of money from the two Star Trek movies because they weren't Star Trek. If they were Star Trek, they would have sold less and you would be less wealthy.

So count your money and let the Trekkies complain in peace, OK?

Oh, and you are MUCH better than James Montgomery was. Actually, almost all the new actors are better than the originals.

 

I agree that the new cast is actually quite good (though I wouldn't go as far as saying they are better than the original cast).
Which makes it a bit of a shame they don't try to make actual Trek with such a quality group of actors.

 

Well, it's a different kind of acting called for today. Pretty much every 60s TV show looks "unnatural" to us. I suspect in 40 years or so the acting that strikes us as natural (say, on the high quality cable series) will look a bit odd to people just like some of Shatner's mannerisms strike us as strange today (of course they struck a few people as strange when the Original Series was on the air... mainly because acting styles were in transition then)

I've said it before, but one of the things that I think the reboot does fairly well is link the characters to those of TOS. For instance, Scotty is frequently hungry and/or snacking. Given Doohan's appearance on the last movies... good call.

 

Only things I didn't really like:

• Stupid new Start Fleet hats ... too much like the huge Soviet Army hats (and yet Star Fleet seems to overwhelmingly speak English, so it would seem to be more natural if their hats evolved from US Navy hats). And if everyone else is wearing them at the end when Kirk is giving his speech, then why wasn't he? Sure he's got nice hair, but we just watched it for the whole movie - he should have been hatted too.
• 
• Kirk having to climb awkwardly to the place where he could realign the warp core - they don't build maintenance access ladders anymore?
• Spock running after Khan - he just looked weird, as if the hair/makeup was going to fly off or something
• the idea that a"superhuman" from 300 years ago would be able to assist in designing technically advanced weapons

Things that didn't bother me - Duvel's Prime Directive complaints above. See the original series' "The Paradise Syndome" where the Enterprise, and Spock directly, attempt to divert an asteroid from colliding with, and destroying, a planet and it's pre-warp, never been contacted, civilization. Sound familiar? They never even mentioned the Prime Directive in that entire episode.

 

Duvel?

I can live with that I suppose.

 

I think the issue is more in how far you can regard Abrams' take on the series as real Trek.
He'll probably be a much better fit for Star Wars.