Star Trek: Into Darkness

[Jonathan101]

My issue with criticism of the Carol Marcus bikini scene is that it was probably intended to be a throwaway joke about Kirk being a bit of a perv and, yes, probably a bit of juvenile fan service, yet too many people seem to think that this defines the character of Carol Marcus, as if the only reason she was in that film was to do that one particular scene even though she does in fact serve a purpose in the story and was, presumably, meant to re-appear in future instalments since in the normal timeline she has Kirks' baby.

Basically, even if it's a bad and tasteless scene, it seems like the actress and the character are tread upon for it in order to get at Abrams and Orci.

As an aside, the deleted Cumberbatch shower scene (yeah, it's not as revealing admittedly, but it's still there).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D43Sx-P ... gs=pl%2Cwn

[CharlesPhipps]

Famously, Russell Johnson (The Professor in Giligan's Island) was hired because they wanted someone actually handsome for female viewers to look at.

And it is unfortunate the scene overshadows her because I liked the character of Louise Marcus and wanted to see her in the next movie.

[thisithis]

Star Trek: Into Darkness Is one of those films that looked good for few and bad for others, but slowly got worse for the ones that thought it was good. The that thought it was bad already knew it sucked.

[Karha of Honor]

My issue with criticism of the Carol Marcus bikini scene is that it was probably intended to be a throwaway joke about Kirk being a bit of a perv and, yes, probably a bit of juvenile fan service, yet too many people seem to think that this defines the character of Carol Marcus, as if the only reason she was in that film was to do that one particular scene even though she does in fact serve a purpose in the story and was, presumably, meant to re-appear in future instalments since in the normal timeline she has Kirks' baby.

Basically, even if it's a bad and tasteless scene, it seems like the actress and the character are tread upon for it in order to get at Abrams and Orci.

As an aside, the deleted Cumberbatch shower scene (yeah, it's not as revealing admittedly, but it's still there).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D43Sx-P ... gs=pl%2Cwn

At least Abrams is a proper SJW now so this goes into the same box as the Kimmel blackface.

[ChiggyvonRichthofen]

It seems to me that Chuck really goes out of his way to trash episodes just a little bit more for Christmas than he would at another time. He might have the same opinion every other day of the year while also being a little less harsh.

For me though, this is one of those reviews that expresses the problems I have with a work better than I could myself. It's also no surprise at all to me that Chuck's opinion of Into Darkness has lowered over time.

As for what exactly Kirk did wrong- It's all in how he did it. Every single Trek series has had problems with understanding the importance of the chain of command, respect for authority, and obeying orders. Michael in Discovery might be the single worst example of it thus far, and her being let anywhere near a starship after what she pulled is a complete absurdity. For whatever reason Shatner's Kirk has the cowboy reputation, but if anything he disobeyed orders less than any other captain.

The difference with Pine's Kirk in the first two movies is that he's a total douchebag about it. As Chuck pointed out, he's not standing true to his principles or making touch calls on the borderline of the rules. Heck he hasn't even gone rogue. He's just an immature punk who thinks he's above it all. And the really annoying part about it is that he's actually rewarded for it and that Starfleet and the films themselves go out of their way to ensure that Kirk looks like exactly what he thinks he is. This Kirk isn't even an adult.

Finally, as far as the Carol Marcus scene. I'd liken it to the f-bombs in Discovery. Lots of films show off skin and lots of films have profanity, but if you're going to do it, do it because it comes naturally as part of the story. Or at the very least, incorporate it into the story so that you aren't taking time away from your film to do this one thing. Trek handles this stuff with the grace and elegance of a teetotaler who decides to get drunk for the first time.

[Mindworm]

Yes, I'm one of the few who don't like Pegg's Scotty.

You're not the only one. Pegg's a great comic actor but he can't pull off Scotty even if you put a gun to his head. Mainly because Scotty wasn't a comic part (except in Star Trek 5: The Search for Shatner's Ego). If you looked at ToS and films Scotty you see a man who knew what he was doing in engineering, able to give advice and suggestions outside his specific area which were useful and helpful, and, most importantly, was a very capable commander during the crises that he had to step into the big chair. He may not have wanted the command but he was capable enough to take it and knew he was.

Pegg Scotty outside of engineering was not capable of any of that, plus his character was written as comic relief for a large part.

And I think a large part of why Pegg couldn't be Scotty is due to what Doohan was able to bring to the part. James Doohan fought in the Second World War commanding soldiers and facing personal danger while managing to get through it. Combine that experience with his undoubted acting talent, and you've a Scotty that Pegg (or very few other modern actors*) couldn't pull off. The same problem beset the recent Dad's Army fim.

* Thankfully, I'd rather have a whole load of actors who can't play leaders than a whole load of young people dead because of war.

[Durandal_1707]

I don't feel like reading all 12 pages of this thread, so forgive me if someone's already pointed this out, but the main thing that bothers me about both of the first two rebooted Trek movies is this: Think about 9/11. Two buildings got destroyed, a few thousand people killed. Think of the effect it had on our society. Think of the way it still haunts our country almost two decades later. Think of all the consequences that event has had.

In this movie, they flattened an entire skyline, and in the first one they destroyed an entire planet. These are both events orders of magnitude worse than 9/11, and each time, it's seemingly forgotten five minutes later. Both of these movies should have ended with a somber funeral scene, not with "Yay! Kirk Saved The Day! Happy End!"

I actually breathed a sigh of relief watching Star Trek Beyond once it became clear that it wasn't going to end with that really cool M. C. Escher space station getting blown up and nobody giving a shit.

[Nikas Zekeval]

Okay, even if you can explain why Khan LOOKS different in this movie and nothing like Montalban, there's zero explanation of why his characterization is completely different. With Montalban, Khan was a passionate, regal, proud man of elegance and sophistication. He carried himself with theatricality and authority, and made people subservient to him. Cumberbatch's Khan is the complete opposite. He's a cold blooded scene chewing sociopath with no grace or elegance whatsoever. You look at both performances and they are absolutely nothing alike.

I think actually there's scenes where Khan is actually demonstrating some of his regality. He takes Kirk's punches with aplomb and tries very much to be a man who is reasonable...to a point.

I’ll admit that I haven’t watched this all the way through. Turned it on at home part way through, caught the beginning right after things ended, and didn’t have the stomach to catch up to where I came in.

This scene struck me as Kirk looking very pathetic. Not only willing to do this, but being so pathetic at it. Frankly he felt like a two year old throwing a temper tantrum.

The first film left me leery of number two. Into Darkness convinced me to not even bother with number three even on cable. The trailers didn’t help number three’s case.

Though I’d disagree with the making of summation. This wasn’t taking a shit. ID was a cargo cult film of WoK. They cleared a runway, don’t worry about the bumps. And made hangers, a tower, radios, and even a plane from bamboo. And then wondered why C-47s didn’t arrive with fans willing to praise them and buy merchandise. Sure some of the details weren’t the same, but it wasn’t that big a deal, right?

[CharlesPhipps]

I took it differently.

Kirk wants to hurt Khan. But Khan is as powerful as a Vulcan so his attacks are pathetic and Khan probably barely feels anything. Khan is hoping he'll get it out of his system but doesn't realize (or care) how greviously he's wronged Kirk.

[Durandal_1707]

The first film left me leery of number two. Into Darkness convinced me to not even bother with number three even on cable. The trailers didn’t help number three’s case.

The third one is much better than the first two. Different writers. Actually feels like Star Trek, and has a message that wouldn't be out of place in TNG. Makes good use of the ensemble cast, also.