Star Trek Into Darkness …it’s …it’s …like
NO OTHER TREK WE’VE EVER SEEN BEFORE!!! 
(Not Safe For Work)
Mmmmmm … pizza rolls 
RLM has spoken and this has been found … wanting … /shrug
OB
I’ve waited a while to chime in on the movie because I had many thoughts on it, and mostly they were all jumbled up. Bottom line, it was alright, not great. Some stuff I didn’t care for, other stuff was great. Scotty was a lot of fun. Admiral Robocop was a pretty good villain. I didn’t really like that they used Khan and ripped off so much from The Wrath of Khan. All in all it was an entertaining way to spend 2 hours, but I do expect a little more from a Star Trek movie.
It does bother me a little bit that all the other characters in these movie look and act fairly close to how they were portrayed in the original Star Trek series and movies, but Khan doesn’t look or act anything like he did in the original. Ricardo Montalban’s Khan is a scenery chewing, speech making, extravagant man. Cumberbatch’s Khan sits without moving and intensely stares at you.
Now, onto the more interesting stuff. I went through a lot of the movie hoping that John Harrison wasn’t really Khan. It’s not really definitively answered, but we can assume in this reality he probably was. It’s fun to imagine that maybe Harrison was actually one of Khan’s other followers, who was the first one woken up and claimed he was Khan. He would still have all the strength and genetic abilities of Khan, and the strong connection to his ‘family’.
Who remember’s Khan’s right hand man from The Wrath of Khan? His name was Joahim, but I don’t know if it was ever said on screen. He had a few lines in the movie, probably the most among Khan’s followers. Here is a picture to refresh your memory:
That guy, looks a lot more like this guy:
Then this guy:
Running with this theory, I have devised a shocking post credits scene twist!
--Interior, room with the stasis chambers we see Harrison in at the end.--
The camera moves in as if we are walking towards the pods. We see the name on one of the pods and it says “John Harrison”. The camera moves down to reveal his face, still in stasis. The camera moves over one pod to reveal the name “Kahn Noonien Singh”. Camera pans down and we see a guy who looks like a young Ricardo Montalban. His eyes open.
Of course the problem with this as my friend pointed out to me is that you would need to do the ‘real’ Khan in the next movie. I think we can all agree that would be a bad idea. So I have devised a post-post credits twist!
--Interior, same room, 10 seconds later--
A door opens, revealing a figure in a robe. He is back-lit and you can not see his face. He walks towards Khan’s pod slowly and pulls out a phaser. He fires the phaser at the pod and vaporizes it. As he turns around to walk out, we see the face of old Spock. “Revenge is a dish best served cold.” he mumbles, and smiles just ever so slightly.
Good stuff. I would have enjoyed that movie more
I have a game I like to play several months after I watch a movie. I try to recreate the flick in my head ( scene for scene if it was good) so I can determine how memorable the script/story was. I watch this movie less than two months ago, but really cannot remember much of the plot. Some of the set pieces and the action flows in, but in general I’ve lost the thread of the flick. Not a good sign. I doubt I’ll be grabbing this DVD/BD for re-watch potential. It was enjoyable popcorn muncher … but not all that memorable.
OB
Yup. I’m with ya. Even just a small tweak like that and I would have been happier…just a wee but of ORIGINAL thinking. But nope.
There was something that troubled me after the movie that took me a while to put my finger on: Did they just discover immortality? Spot of Khan blood and you are right as rain! No one ever needs to die again, ever. Right?
Yup. That’s been talked about in some reviews I’ve seen.
So that means that the plot of Star Trek 3 by definitely has to be same plot as Torchwood Season 4 (Torchwood Miracle Day)
First Viewing… loved it. Saw plot problems…hated the Khan scream… hated the “Star Trek II parallels” but loved it.
Second viewing with friends… liked it a lot less. A lot less.
Third viewing… relised that I liked that it was Star Trek, liked seeing big ships and action. liked Cumberbatches acting… but it was a terrible movie… and a terrible Trek movie. It was really terrible.
Rooster meet Jeffrey Morris, he feels the same way, as do many people. That it doesn’t age well with repeated viewing is a common opinion.
futuredude: Star Trek Into Nonsense: the Degeneration of a Franchise
And the most common (negative) adjective I do see used is “nonsense.” Not only treknet and trekmovie (who tend to be rivals of differing opinion) but MTV alongside many reviewers all used the n word. It just doesn’t work as a self-contained space opera story but only as referential pop culture to an audience casually familiar with Star Trek. Yet this is the most successful Star Trek movie ever thanks to cumulative overseas box office up to a whopping 90 days after release. Somehow longtime fans have to come to terms with the fact Star Trek is currently more mainstream than at any time in its 50 year history.
Some people just don’t know when to stop. That person in this case being Robert Orci.
Also, a fun tidbit:
In fact, while the 2009 reboot is still very popular, Into Darkness was recently voted the fandom’s least favorite movie at a Star Trek convention, with Wrath of Khan topping the poll.
Does anyone know which poll that was?
From what I’ve heard, it was from a panel at a recent Trek convention in Vegas. From what I heard, there were something like 50 people there, so not exactly a representative sample.
True (though what would a representative sample of Star Trek fans look like? I’m not a stats person but I think about these things).
Nevertheless, the guy comes off like a jerk. Ugh.
Yeah, I mean I didn’t like Into Darkness that much either but to call it the worst Star Trek film is harsh and not really fair. There are others that are much worse!
This is an interesting analysis of fandom or possibly even a better analysis of the fanatic mentality. By definition a fanatic is a person with single-minded, extreme, and excessive zeal.
IMO that state of mind is (excuse the phrase) illogical. The very nature of single-minded behavior breeds an inability to entertain possibilities. The core triumvirate of the original series (Kirk / Spock / McCoy) generated a perceptive mind, cognitive / logic / passion. The decisions were not always correct but they were sensitive and thotfull, creating a contemplative environment.
I gravitate to the reflective realm. I crave the deeper meaning. As silly as the episode ‘Spock’s Brain’ is, it contains a valuable message. Lost knowledge is detrimental to society and survival. Simply stealing or using it keeps us complacent and dependent. Without the challenge to understand or learn we become mechanical and without dynamic will. We are encased in a comfortable servitude until that mechanism breaks down.
As bad as Star Trek V is considered at least Shatner tried to defend it with poetry and human spirit. “Why does Captain Kirk climb the mountain? Because of the challenge. Because he is in love with the mountain.” Bill didn’t just say, “Fuck you if you don’t like it.”
Orci stated, “Pitch me a better story.” Dude. C’mon. If you’re serious, will my lawyer need to be present?
It seems there are two different things people are talking at each other about.
Group 1 is arguing the question “Is STID the worst Star Trek film?” while Group 2 is arguing the question “Is STID the worst Star Trek film?” These are distinctly different and I shall try to describe why.
Group 1 is asking if, of all the Star Trek films, this movie is the least enjoyable to watch/worst on the standards of bad movies. Star Trek V, for example, could be an example of a film that embodies the spirit of Star Trek (exploration (physical and existential), the nature of existence, big ideas) while not being a good movie in the sense that the pacing had problems, there was regrettable dialog, the visuals didn’t blend organically leading to disconnects, etc.
Group 2, on the other hand, is asking whether or not STID is the one that has the worst properties of ‘Star Trek’-ness. Paced well with good acting and snappy dialog, it can arguably be a good movie in the sense of movies overall, but you could argue that the ‘Star Trek’-ness is lacking because there’s almost no exploration, the characters don’t appear to materially progress (this is directly in comparison to the 2009 movie where you got to see the characters develop), and so on.
This is my take on this; these two arguments are being made in response to their alternates and it feels like non-sequiturs to half the people talking because everyone is assuming they’re all on the same page.
Thoughts?
Agreed. Some of it is bitchin’ for bitchin’ sake. STID is on par with any action film of the day; Fast and the Furious, World War Z, The Lone Ranger, Oblivion, G.I. Joe Retaliation, etc. The problem with action films is that there is so much whiz bang that the story and characters can and do suffer. Characters are put in harm’s way to imbue sympathy from the audience and others in the story. Problem is that it is often not believable since you’ve got to know the characters for 10 minutes. With STID the writers are playing on what you know of these established characters and in this case established plot (Space Seed / WoK). Problem is these are new characters and a new plot. When you drop little homages, it confuses and frustrates.
That’s what all my bitchin’ written last year summed. Write something new. Stop going back to the well. Build new relationships and stop giving nods to what has happened before. You can do that with visual cues and production. Spend time on building this crew’s new dynamic.
It seems to me that JJ and company are using the Star Trek brand and franchise oddly.
It is like watching teenagers doing donuts and brake stands in their father’s Cadillac. Smoking and squealing tires! Crowd of friends fist pumping and rebel yelling from the side of the parking lot.
Fun as hell I’m sure, but not really what the thing was designed for.
Dad’s Caddy could take these kids on a life affirming and horizon broadening road trip of epic proportions ( maybe they could even bury a bottle of Champage in the desert ). Meet new places, people and get in adventures.
/shrug I suppose it’s easier ( and safer ) to just crank up the stereo, light up the rubber and down a six pack.
Of course safe and easy are not what I prefer in my scifi.
OB
Your mileage may vary.
I appreciate that someone sees the subtle difference in these two things. I’m not a Trek purist my any means, and I would tend to overlook a film not fitting with it’s source material if the film turned out really well. In my mind Into Darkness is neither the worst Star Trek film, or the worst film out of the 12 Star Trek big screen adventures. I also don’t think it’s a very good example of either. Yeah, it does kind of feel like they are just using the brand to tell a bland space adventure with a Star Trek skin over everything. For me, and I stress, FOR ME, I don’t think it crosses quite into the ‘insulting’ territory that some people seem to think it is. It’s more… disappointing.
If Into Darkness was a masterpiece of film storytelling but trashed the Star Trek name, I would give it as pass. It’s not. There are plot holes everywhere, the villains’ motivations are shaky at best. The direction was good, but it doesn’t make up for the fact that the basic arc of the main characters (Kirk and Spock) is reused for the last movie. It’s not a particularly well written film.
If Into Darkness was a very true to the original Star Trek, carried the spirit of the series, I could treat it better as well. Star Trek The Motion Picture for example, I think fits this. Slow, boring, but very true to the core of Star Trek.
Bottom line, I think it fails in both ways, as a film, and as a Star Trek film.
Mission Log Podcast just interviewed Bob Orci. It was insightful and entertaining. I highly recommend a listen.
http://www.missionlogpodcast.com/supplemental/
It helped me see Star Trek Into Darkness in a new light.