Star Trek: Into Darkness

[Makeshift Python]

Ideas that might be compelling for those invested in the Star Trek Universe, but not for general audiences just wanting a good time at the movies. This is why I think Star Trek simply doesn't belong in cinema at all. What Star Trek movies were prior to Abrams were essentially reunion specials for TOS and TNG, and only half of them were good.

[Nessus]

Eh, it's not an either/or thing.

In fact that's what really bothers me most about movies like this: they seem to thrive on this false dichotomy that a movie can be only smart or fun, but not both. It's called layers. It can be done, and it has been done. Numerous times. People REALLY need to stop using this excuse.

Audiences can be forgiven it because it's not really their job to know better. When filmmakers trot it out though, that's when I get judgy. It was the DVD extras for 'Trek 09 that put me off more than the film itself. JJ did a very good job of presenting himself as someone who wants to be thought of as an intelligent filmmaker, yet openly disdains the kind of work required to actually BE an intelligent filmmaker.

[Karha of Honor]

Ideas that might be compelling for those invested in the Star Trek Universe, but not for general audiences just wanting a good time at the movies. This is why I think Star Trek simply doesn't belong in cinema at all. What Star Trek movies were prior to Abrams were essentially reunion specials for TOS and TNG, and only half of them were good.

Would you hate a talky special effets fest Trek movie about diplomacy that relases in the cinemas in big cities and on streaming at the same time?

[ChiggyvonRichthofen]

On the contrary though, I think it still works as a follow up to ST09. It's still carrying a few threads like dealing with Kirk's motives for joining Starfleet. Now that he's outlived his father, he's wondering if his reasons for joining were right for him, and maybe he was just chasing his lost father. Then there's Spock, who now finds out that his older self has passed and wonders if he should pick up where his older self left off or continue on his own path. In a lot of ways it's complimenting what came before, to show how far Kirk had gone from the cocky 22 year old cadet fratboy to the more seasoned 30 year old captain.

That said, just notice how it doesn't seem to carry over anything from STID, almost as if that second film was so inconsequential. I don't even think Carol Marcus is ever name dropped. In fact, you could easily just watch ST09 and skip to BEYOND as that first film ended with Kirk and crew beginning their adventures in space, and then we catch up with them in the middle of their five year mission. This is also why STID feels like a step backwards. ST09 was supposed to serve as a story of how the crew got together before they started having adventures on a five year mission. Suddenly STID says "nope, not yet" and we have to go through Kirk's arc of earning the chair AGAIN and THEN it ends with them on a five year mission.

I think you have a point there. I can believe that Kirk was a somewhat, hotshot, ladies' man type, even if that isn't exactly what we're told about young Kirk in TOS. What I didn't want to see was that Kirk being given a starship, which is just plain stupid imo.

I actually think Abrams and his writers recognized this and tried to fix it with Into Darkness. As you say, though, that's retreading old ground. Maybe it's going to far to say Beyond ignored the previous two films, but what I like is that they just went ahead and treated them as a functional crew for once. For the first time I felt like Starfleet could actually justify sending this ship and crew out into the galaxy.

Eh, it's not an either/or thing.

In fact that's what really bothers me most about movies like this: they seem to thrive on this false dichotomy that a movie can be only smart or fun, but not both. It's called layers. It can be done, and it has been done. Numerous times. People REALLY need to stop using this excuse.

Audiences can be forgiven it because it's not really their job to know better. When filmmakers trot it out though, that's when I get judgy.

If I remember right, Chuck makes this point in The Wrath of Khan review. People tend to assume that The Motion Picture is the cerebral "Trekkie" film and The Wrath of Khan is the action movie departure from TOS roots. I like slow, artsy, cerebral movies, and TMP is not the worst Trek film by a long shot- but what exactly makes it more intelligent than TWoK?

To be fair, it can be hard to do both. Fans have been pining for the golden days of intelligent Trek for years, and writers and producers have often talked about socially relevant, smart writing being a goal. It may not come down to desire so much as it does talent.

[CharlesPhipps]

Mind you, I was interested in the fact someone apparently thought Praxis being destroyed early was a ripple timeline effect since half the planet depicted in the movie is abandoned industrialized radioactive hell. I felt like that was another interesting plot angle completely ignored.

There's actually an even bigger one than that. Remember that the Klingons lost 47 ships during Nero's escape. What really should have happened straight after that is the Romulans see the Klingons ripe for invasion, do so and successfully start conquering them. Which should put the Federation in a big dilemma. Do they let it all happen stating "prime directive" all the way, or do they wade in on the Klingons side on the logic it's better to have 2 separate powers with different agendas, rather than 1 big power with it's own that's against yours?

Mind you, the Klingons and Romulans are ALLIES right at this point.

Furthermore, the Romulans are actually fairly decent people and honorable while the Klingons are evil savages.

THE MIND BOGGLES.

(I actually like how time changes the characters versus "every culture is the same forever.")

[Makeshift Python]

I think you have a point there. I can believe that Kirk was a somewhat, hotshot, ladies' man type, even if that isn't exactly what we're told about young Kirk in TOS. What I didn't want to see was that Kirk being given a starship, which is just plain stupid imo.

I actually think Abrams and his writers recognized this and tried to fix it with Into Darkness. As you say, though, that's retreading old ground. Maybe it's going to far to say Beyond ignored the previous two films, but what I like is that they just went ahead and treated them as a functional crew for once. For the first time I felt like Starfleet could actually justify sending this ship and crew out into the galaxy.

And I was actually pretty intrigued by that idea at first of putting Kirk down a peg and question whether he actually was ready for the chair, in spite of having to retread that ground. That scene with Pike chewing him out in the office gave me hope, because I wasn't all that enthralled by fratboy Kirk from the first film. Had they pulled it off it would have at least been worth it. So, he's put back into the academy. Five minutes later Pike pulls some strings to make him first officer. Ok. Then five minutes later Pike dies and Kirk is captain again by default... Wow, they really took their time with that.

[CharlesPhipps]

The most intriguing question of the film is:

"Is Kirk worthy of the chair for what he did? Not for saving that race from extinction but for covering it up?"

[Yukaphile]

Well, we know Archer wiped out a species on purpose, and that Starfleet created a Prime Directive to justify it. We also know how far they're willing to go in the future to bend over backwards to satisfy the Prime Directive. So yes. I think this is completely consistent with some of the fanaticism shown in the name of the PD.

[Makeshift Python]

It's funny how Spock is telling Kirk not to come and rescue him so not to "violate" the PD, while he was already doing that anyway by setting the ice bomb in that volcano.

[Lizuka]

JJ did a very good job of presenting himself as someone who wants to be thought of as an intelligent filmmaker, yet openly disdains the kind of work required to actually BE an intelligent filmmaker.

This is one of the reasons I am both super dreading and super looking forward to his adaptation of Your Name. I'm 100% positive he's going to screw it up (for reasons beyond that admittedly, like in part I can't see a studio signing off on the leads interacting so little, in part you can't really advertise it without spoiling it, and in part it'd just be super hard to translate culturally) but I'm kind of eager to see how exactly it gets messed up beyond those issues because I know it's gonna happen.

On the subject of Into Darkness itself though... I really struggle with much of anything good to say about it at a point. And really most of the problems I do have with it also extend to 09 (and really it has some elements Into Darkness improved on - like, as bad as Khan and Admiral Robocop are, they're better than Nero) but they just didn't bother me as much there. Granted while I've seen that movie two or three times I don't really intend to do so again at this point.