After several busy weeks I finally got around to seeing the new AbramsTrek. I didn’t like the first one because it felt like a lame action movie with a Trek skin grafted over it. This is much, much worse. Warning: this will be a spoiler post, so do not proceed if you have not seen the movie and wish to remain unspoiled.
I went in with few expectations, which may have been why I was so pleasantly surprised by the early scenes. The volcano planet story has been done, but I didn’t really mind because at least that felt like a Star Trek story (Prime Directive: right or wrong? Tonight at 11!), and I like the visual richness of the landscape which, unfortunately, we never return to because apparently Starfleet flies around in a big Apple store. I turned off the logic centers of the brain and didn’t ask until much later why the Enterprise would hide under the sea, how they got there in the first place without being detected, and why they were using “cold fusion” (which I forever associate with The Saint, and that’s not a compliment) to violate the Prime Directive from the get-go. It’s okay. Kirk saves Spock. Fine.
Then John Harrison shows up, and I was intrigued. I have always liked the conflict of Starfleet between being missionaries of peace and the flagship of a military fleet. Different Treks have approached this differently–the original series looks much more like a military (albeit a benign one), while TNG, with its children and its various enlisted types, feels more like a floating diplomatic post. DS9 and Voyager swung the pendulum back to be more war-like. I fully support a new version of the show exploiting that conflict, especially in the wake of Eric Bana’s villain from the last move forever altering the nature and history of Starfleet.
And then he’s Khan.
And now I’m angry.
These people went through so much trouble to create a new story. They killed off all the Vulcans. They made Kirk a douchebag. And for what? To tell the same story? Look, I appreciate (even if I don’t agree with) the desire to restart the series and start a new story that’s not beholden to the long history of old. But that means you actually have to do something with it. Tell a new story! Give us new characters! Change their relationships! STII is not just an action movie. It’s about life and death–about learning to face death as we grow older. It’s about feeling out of place in a young man’s world. It’s about Shakespearean-level and Melville-level vengeance, and very old friendships. It’s not a story that can be told–without significant changes–with a younger cast. If you’re going to remake it, you have to do something differently.
I hadn’t lost all hope at the revelation, because it seemed like this Khan might actually be different. In “Space Seed,” Khan has insatiable ambition, but all he really wants is a place to call his own. In the end, he accepts a planet to build from the ground up with his people. By Star Trek II, unexpected circumstances have made what would have been a challenging planet into a barely survivable one. I have never believed that Khan was inherently evil, however. He was made to be a leader and a warrior, and there was no place he could thrive in a time of peace. Part of what makes him such a worthy match for Kirk is that leadership quality. Both he and Kirk lead confidently and successfully, but while Khan does this through intimidation and violence, Kirk leads through compassion and consensus-building with his crew. This parallel is crucial to Khan’s success as a villain. But there’s no parallel here, not even a half-hearted nod at a similarity, because this Kirk really has no leadership abilities. He’s a piss-poor captain, reckless and irrational.
Ultimately, there’s no moral center that holds these people and this movie together. Kirk makes no hard choices. Spock has to convince him that gee, torpedoing a guy on an enemy planet from a distance might not be the most democratic move he’s made. But the fact that Spock has to make this speech at all–a plea for decency–is ridiculous. Kirk should have these qualities in abundance, without prodding. In “Space Seed,” Kirk doesn’t kill Khan and his men, and I wrote before that I believe that choice was because it was men who created them. I think Kirk feels a sense of responsibility on behalf of mankind for their existence. They didn’t ask to come into this world, and they didn’t ask to be the ambitious and brutal people that they are. But they are still human, and I think Kirk believes they have the right to live out their genetic destinies—far from other men, of course. This movie has none of that weight. There is no moral compass, no thought or feeling about the implications of Khan’s existence. Spock is at the ready to kill Khan until he finds out that Kirk may be revived by his precious bodily fluids. Where is his desire for a trial now, for justice? Every thought, every word, serves only the next plot point. There is no thematic glue to hold the events together. And we don’t even know for sure that Khan is evil until Old!Spock’s on the phone reminding us of the last movie.
As for Khan, he’s also, as Eugene described him originally, macho and chauvanistic–he knows he’s superior, and more importantly he’s stuck in the past, both literally and figuratively. In STII, McCoy warns Kirk not to make the same mistake and become part of his own history collection. Khan’s inexperience with the future and unbridled arrogance are something to be exploited, and are ultimately the vulnerabilities that allow Kirk to prevail. But Kirk never exploits Khan’s hubris in STID. This Khan’s undoing isn’t his ego or his violence and our clever heroes taking advantage of that, it’s just…bad luck and a well-placed punch. I love Benedict Cumberbatch, but he’s not Khan. Khan is volatile–he’s calculating, but he gets ahead of himself. Cumberbatch is a quiet villain. In any other movie (even any other Star Trek movie!) his performance and his character would have me spellbound. But he’s not right for this story. Again, I feel that the beginning had a lot of promise. It had a theme I cared about and a fantastic villain. It could have played with terrorism, with the whole purpose of Starfleet’s existence. It could have even, absent a new story, taken Khan in a different direction–made him an ally of Kirk. But no, it merely repeats that which we’ve already seen. The 9/11 parallel is a throwaway. And can I just say that “villain gets captured on purpose as part of lengthy, elaborate secret plan” is officially my least favorite, most overdone trope?
The rest of the Enterprise crew is barely worth noting. I did enjoy McCoy in the last film, but here’s he’s completely useless. The only thing he does–other than whine–is cheat death offscreen (which is never mentioned again). Really? We can cheat death now and that’s just a plot shortcut? While it’s true that Spock and Kirk always had the limelight in the films, this movie had an opportunity to do things differently. What if Kirk and McCoy had been the stronger pair? They were much closer in the last film. And now that Spock has the emotional range of a desperate housewife, where is the logical center that holds Kirk and McCoy together? As for Scotty, what kind of Enterprise is this where Kirk would fire his best engineer because he warns that the torpedoes could destroy the entire ship?? I don’t care about that Enterprise. I want the one where the captain has confidence in his crew and love for his ship, not slavish devotion to authoritarian commands. Carol Marcus’ only asset–aside from taking off her clothes onscreen–is being someone else’s daughter. And finally Uhura, relegated to the nagging girlfriend whose big scene is a fight with her thoughtless boyfriend. We’ve come a long way, baby.
Lastly, of course, there’s the ultimate role reversal as Kirk sacrifices his life for the ship. I threw up my hands here. This just doesn’t work. Kirk is the captain. It’s his job and his responsibility to give his life for his crew. There is absolutely nothing heroic or interesting or different about this. What made Spock’s sacrifice in STII so powerful was that it wasn’t his job to do that. He did it to save Kirk–out of love and friendship. He claims it’s only logical, but any one man could have been the one to die. It should have been Scotty, or Kirk. But it was Spock because he chose to save his friends. There is no power in Kirk’s death here. In STII, there was twenty years of history that led to that moment. The moment here is completely unearned, as the two characters do not even recognize that they are indeed friends until Kirk’s dying breath. Well I have news for J.J. Abrams: friendship is quiet. It’s not always valiant deaths and noble sacrifices. It’s built on years of kindness and understanding, missteps and forgiveness. Friendship is not a single, over-the-top flourish. You have to earn a death like that. It’s like when they destroyed all of Vulcan just so Spock could finally feel sadness. Where is the movie’s –this franchise’s–soul?
This movie was empty and lazy. And I know what you’ll say: but it’s a silly action movie! But even silly action movies have a moral core and sense of character. Personally, I think Star Trek should look more like Star Trek than Die Hard, but even if it’s meant to pave new ground and look more like the latter, this Kirk doesn’t come close to the emotional range and moral center of John McClane. This feels less like a reboot than an audition for the new Star Wars movies. Well congratulations, Abrams. You nailed the extruded science fiction product thing perfectly.
Yeah, I generally agree.
I’ve never been bothered by the fact that the Abrams Kirk is different from earlier versions: he’s younger, he grew up in different circumstances, together they could make him careless and obnoxious. And I could overlook the fact that Benedict Cumberbatch looks nothing like RM and is a preposterous choice for a man named
Khan Noonien Singh.
I was bothered, though, by the illogical plot (e.g., two starships shooting each other in low Earth orbit — above San Francisco, for God’s sake! — and no one bothers to investigate) and by the blatant rip-offs of Khan. For the “death” scene, you can’t simultaneously wink at the audience and expect any kind of emotional involvement, especially since they already established a blatant plot device to save Kirk. A dramatic death scene and it felt like a waste of time.
This feels less like a reboot than an audition for the new Star Wars movies. Well congratulations, Abrams.
That is exactly what I’ve been saying. And it doubly sucks in that Abrams got the job before this movie even came out. He didn’t even need to keep auditioning! Argh!
I felt like my emotions were being manipulated to an extreme. They’d give me a little of what I want and then take it away, over and over again. We open on an alien planet! Yay! Wait…why is McCoy running away from a bunch of aliens? We have Prime Directive issues, hurray! Wait, Kirk stole a religious artifact?
Maybe Cumberbatch isn’t Khan after all! Oh wait, he is. But wait, he’s joining forces with Kirk! Until Kirk has him shot in the back.
All the little eggs for the old fans just irritated me. McCoy’s experimenting with a dead Tribble? (Chekov’s gun!) Admiral Marcus, portrayed by one of the actors that no movie watcher in their right mind would ever trust. Carol Marcus is a weapons expert?
Oh look, Uhura is going to go kick some ass to save Spock! Except that nothing she does actually does anything except give Spock time to save her.
I had to physically look away during Spock’s “Khaaaaaan!” scene, shrinking into my chair because I was just so embarrassed for Zachary Quinto.
And all along I kept thinking about how much better the film would have been. If Cumberbatch had truly been some terrorist named Harrison who actually had some valid issues with Starfleet that might have lent some shades of gray to his character, it might have been really interesting. If Kirk had actually had to suffer a real consequence for his actions and had truly been tempted to take Harrison’s side. Or if they’d used the Enterprise to explore and build, I don’t know, some sort of cohesion between the crew that didn’t result from hero worship because Kirk saved the day on his own.
But no, we got Khan with magic life-restoring blood (that you might as well call Midi-chlorians), a war crazed admiral with an eeeevil space ship (obviously, because everything here is black, whereas on the Enterprise it’s Apple White), the death scene from ST:II backwards, and a ridiculous fight on wandering hovercraft through San Francisco. Oh, and Leonard Nimoy doing a cameo, “Remember, I intend to stay true to my promise not to share anything about your future (which my very existence here has already completely invalidated) except…well, I won’t.
I spent the next couple of minutes trying to figure out how, “Khan is a victim of two-dimensional thinking” was going to help. So I might have missed how Nimoy-Spock’s words could have helped Quinto-Spock in any way.
Anyway, when I walked out of the theater I was mostly overwhelmed by sadness. So much potential, so utterly wasted. But hey, I figure now I don’t need to bother to see Star Wars VII.
Thanks a lot, Abrams!
The Wrath of Torie, but I wonder though how to make a Star Trek movie nowadays. Either you take 150 millions then you get something like this tailored for the three brain cells of the average cinema-going teenager or you go for a lower sum and then you probably have difficulties to get wide release and your investment back with profit.
Once in 1979 in the wake of Kubrick’s 2001 there was a Star Trek film which featured no phaser shot, long stretches of people watching screens and a lengthy dialogue scene plus philosophical ending. You two didn’t like it though I’d say you overlook its main topics. Then came the 80s and the films were more generic, there were mostly some villains and a few action scenes, but it was well made genre fiction with logically structured plots and character motivations. With the 90s however CGI took hold and the budgets escalated. Insurrection and Nemesis already have the feeling of a JamesBondMarvelComic film with weapons of mass destruction, evil opponents and gratuitous action scenes which are not necessary for the plot.
AbramsTrek is the logical endpoint of this development. I think the discussion about plot holes and badly drawn characters misses the point. This isn’t Star Trek, it’s first and foremost an action film which today means a string of action sequences which are loosely glued together by a plot and characters. First comes the thought “What would look great” then comes the attempt to string the explosions together. You can see this especially in the explanatory sequence which comes in both Abrams films roughly after the middle and in which Spock or Khan dump a load of information on the viewers with the writers hoping that nobody cares enough to think through what was just told.
The only difference between these summer blockbusters is the sprinkling of a pastiche of recognizable themes, characters, sentences and other more or less insider jokes on an essentially always identical string of absurd action scenes.
@ 1 Matt
Yeah, I like that despite the space firefight and the crashing Enterprise there is no law enforcement out there investigating…
@ 2 Toryx
Re: the beginning, I think they were trying to show that Kirk stole something so the natives would chase him away from the volcano (where they were hanging out??) so that Spock could drop his payload without an audience. This doesn’t make any MORE sense, but I was willing to let it go, because hey! Prime Directive!
The what if? is exactly the conversation I had after the movie. I was actually really digging it for 30 minutes or so, and they could have had me if they had told an original story–with a John Harrison and militarism angle–instead of throwing a bunch of wink, wink, nudge, nudge fanservice moments that just made me angry. I didn’t think they’d reuse the 2-dimensional thinking thing, but I did think that they would catch him by being CLEVER rather than just “beam me down! PUNCH!”
@ 3 Lubitsch
I’m not sure if you realize it but you’re agreeing with me.
My take on Star Trek movies is this: they can’t be the same kind of heavy philosophical ponderings that sometimes made TOS or even TNG so thoughtful and slow. A movie is a different medium, and in the post-Star Wars, post-Indiana Jones age audiences expect a lot of action and a lot of momentum. That said, you can tell a Star Trek story in an action movie. They did it in STII, and they did it in First Contact. What holds those movies together is the essence of Trek–a moral compass and a few strong thematic ideas, with events naturally propelling forward because of willful characters making actual choices that have consequences.
One of the things that still works for me about the earlier movies (even the bad ones) is the acknowledgement that time has passed. Kirk and the gang are not the same young men that went boldly into the unknown. They are struggling to remain relevant in a increasingly mechanized and slick-ified world, and I don’t think I’m giving the filmmakers too much credit when I say that it’s probably an intentional metanarrative about the trajectory that science fiction had taken in the previous 20 years. Those movies were a kind of reboot in themselves. They told fundamentally different stories–not about exploration (except V… ugggh) but about who these people would be in the future they created, living with the effects of the choices they made in that original series.
I think–well, thought–that it was very possible to accomplish this once more. To reboot the series in the context of all of this progress (or “progress” depending on how you feel), and show these characters in different situations. Wouldn’t a Khan woken up in a time of instability and war have a very different fate? Wouldn’t a Kirk prone to volatility and violence and loneliness find himself more drawn to McCoy’s cynicism than Spock’s idealism? Wouldn’t a Starfleet left vulnerable and weak make different choices about what its flagship would do?
But the filmmakers aren’t interested in testing new ground with Trek. They’re interested only in another Transformers/newStarWars extruded science fiction product, where the great gods of storytelling roll the dice to decide what happens next rather than let their characters make choices that propel the action.
I don’t think film was at all inevitable. It was the result of a conscious stupefying of a very smart, complex, and rich universe.
OK, I haven’t seen it, and based on all the reviews I’m not likely to. The only way I will is if my oldest daughter gives me the DVD for Christmas/birthday, and I’m seriously considering specifically telling her not to. The first movie mostly annoyed me, but it was a so-so SF action blockbuster, even if it wasn’t Star Trek. Everything I’ve read about this one just makes me mad.
Now, everybody dumps on Abrams and he has a lot to answer for: lens flare, the way Chris Pine plays Kirk, the Apple Store look, and so on. But a lot of the blame also has to be given to Orci and Kurtzman. They’re the ones coming up with these massive plot holes, things happening because plot, the “Easter eggs” (cue Inigo Montoya; and how much of this “nudge, nudge, wink, wink” here is because of the ST fans saying the last movie didn’t seem to understand Star Trek? This isn’t what we meant, guys). Take a look at their credits. It’s three-quarters reboots and screen adaptations. Gaaah!
As for Abrams and Star Wars, can he really screw it up any worse than George Lucas already has?
We agree on disliking the film, but I think there’s a fundamental difference even between a later Star Trek film like e.g. First Contact and STID, so the schism doesn’t go back to the late 70s early 80s but to the early-mid 90s. Even such a rather action oriented film as First Contact essentially had surprisingly few of it. There was a) a very short introductory battle with the Borg cube b) the invasion of the ship by the Borg with one gunfight and the holodeck shooting as the main action events and c) the final fight with Data plus the missed shot at the warp vehicle. All this stuff serves the story, there’s just one sequence that is here because it is merely supposed to look cool and that’s the one on the deflector dish.
Now STID. We have a chase by the natives (thinly motivated), Spock being released into a fiery vulcano (badly motivated), a jump of the cliff and the rising of the Enterprise out of the sea (how did it get there unnoticed?). Then there’s a terrorist bombing, Khan’s attack on the headquarters, the space battle with the Klingons (why is it here?) then the ground battle with the Klingons (and why that?). Then the battle with the Vengeance and the video game flight (ridiculous) from the Enterprise to the Vengeance. The shootout on the Vengeance, the explosion and both ships going down. Then the race to the Enterprise core through the chaos including a cliffhanger par excellence (why not have three people hang on the arm of a fourth?). Kirk saves the day, but the Vengeance crashes into San Francisco, kills thousands of people and then Spock hunts Khan and we have a fistfight on very fast moving vehicles (which would blow everyone off even if they are Vulcan or genetically engineered).
You think among all this stuff blowing up it’s of ANY importance which turns the plot takes or how the characters develop? I had exactly zero hopes for this film. I think we can be happy that the old movies were made when it was still possible to tell stories in a relatively high budgeted sci-fi film. Nowadays this seems to be impossible. Structurally the single action episodes dominate the film while in the earlier films the stories dominated.
I also diagree with the notion that movies are a different medium. There are lots of movies which need no momentum or action, but the 150million dollar plus ones indeed do nowadays. But why not have a lean 10 million dollar film a la Duet or The Drumhead? The only Star Trek film that ever tried to avoid the cliches was the first one see, for some good comments here http://reflectionsonfilmandtelevision.blogspot.de/2009/04/cult-movie-review-star-trek-motion.html or take the book by Justin Busch on Robert Wise which has a lengthy chapter on TMP. I’d love to see a film that hasn’t any bloody space battles in it. But a change of people alone won’t do it, we need another mentality.
I posted these links in ten forward, but I’ll repost it here since they are germaine and may have been overlooked :
Toryx and Torie should find the second one quite entertaining:
http://trekmovie.com/2013/05/14/mark-altmans-review-of-star-trek-into-darkness/
http://io9.com/star-trek-into-darkness-the-spoiler-faq-508927844
No matter what your opinion of the movie, the second article is downright hilarious.
I actually liked the underwater Enterprise. It was a clear, early signal that the brain must be shut off and left in the theater lobby for the duration of the film….
—
The movie does violence to the very concept of the characters of Spock and, particularly, Kirk.
Original Spock was a deeply private, highly skilled professional who would not—COULD NOT—engage publicly in a lover’s quarrel while on an away mission, or pronounce admissions of tenderness and personal weakness. The notion of it as anathema to his core. What worked so well is we knew these conditions exist without being told.
…But, I guess since the action never stops long enough for a moment of private contemplation, a children’s quarrel in the back seat of a shuttlecraft under fire is all we can hope for in terms of character development.
The treatment of Kirk is even worse. Even in TOS, Kirk was understood a masterful tactician and resourceful commander, his brashness itself was a ploy and a decoy to provoke an underestimate of his abilities. He would never spread his hands and confess he was out of options to his crew, who looked to him for leadership and inspiration.
It was Kirk’s uncanny ability to pull victory from defeat that actually made him the superior commander to Spock, and what really made their teamwork shine. Spock provided the data and support; Kirk ran with this.
The new incarnation has done away with the need for Kirk. Spock is now the full-on action figure, and if he needs inspiration he can always call on the deus ex machina of Spock Prime to find out how it should all turn out.
Once was a time when the Enterprise herself was a character in her own right, with both Kirk and Scotty basically in love with her. So when we saw her burn up , wrecked in another one of Kirk’s inspired saves, we knew the sacrifice had cost him something of his soul or youth. Now she’s just a shabby scrap of tin, a can waiting to be kicked down the road.
I guess my biggest complaint about the new incarnation is it doesn’t understand the mechanisms of what made TOS iconic and lasting. it sure as hell wasn’t the 60s-era sets and FX. Without that understanding, it cannot be ST.
@ 8 Lemnoc
Yer, these are some very crucial points. Though I wouldn’t mind if they change characters completely and it’s also not necessary for the result to “feel” like Star Trek. As long as it produces a good result. Which is obviously not the case.
I think the characterization of Kirk indeed pisses me off the most. The original Kirk was not bedding green aliens every week and going gung-ho with firing phasers into each battle. You can easily recognize people who know nothing about the series when they state this. While Spock obviously was the more interesting character, Shatner and the writers sketched a man with a deep responsibility for his crew and for his ship who avoided unnecessary dangers like hell and often bluffed or outwitted his enemies. What we get with Abrams is essentially a cocky teenager who most often survives through sheer luck and the mercy of the screenwriters. Pine is now just two years than Shatner was at the beginning of the series, but you have the feeling their characters are two decades of experience apart. Obviously this is supposed to make it easier for the teeny public to identify with the character and imagine they could do this stuff as well and in fact don’t need any special skills, just the tenacity to hang on. I deeply resent this unearned heroism.
@9 Lubitsch
Yes, well said; I think it deeply misunderstands the nature of Kirk, which I think you can get at just by an attentive viewing of the second TOS pilot, where Mitchell calls him a “stack of books with legs” and Spock gets irked by a wildly reckless (and therefore unpredictable) chess move. And again, when his compassion for Mitchell is at odds with the steel of his decisions.
I mean, fundamentally, if you’re going to tinker with the nature of these characters to the point of rendering them unrecognizable, why bother with a reboot? Just do a revisioning of the Federation universe… plenty of captains and crew out there.
Roddenberry imagined the command chair as a lonely and uncomfortable place. That isolation created, in fact, the very purpose and role for the doctor, to serve as the one person to whom the captain might admit uncertainty. So, stripped of that, small wonder there is so little for the excellent Karl Urban to do here as McCoy (while I admit his characterization is the most spot-on and likable in the reimagining). The powerful friendship between the captain and his first officer was something organic that only happened through and over time, and is probably testament as much to the acting choices of Nimoy and Shatner as to the screenwriters who understood the captain needed a command foil.
I think if, in the reimaging, they just made Kirk a lonely boy with a wild heart… and just made Spock a cold professional who does his job flawlessly, with the occasional arched eyebrow… they would have enough of the formula that would make the rest work, regardless of its excesses and plot holes. We, the fans, could stitch in the rest. Without that, though, the rest doesn’t matter and is rendered inert and insincere.
You know, if only Kirk had had a moment where he John Harrison appear confused and ill-at-ease, a moment where he yanked down the trousers of an arrogant supreme admiral and made the man swallow hard, where Kirk made some hard, human choices from his core—where we actually wanted to cheer the guy rather than be carried along, cringing—this might’ve been a likable film, its flaws forgiven.
I guess I saw the film differently. Yes, there were things that could have done without, like Spock’s scream and that fight on top of the airborne vehicle, but some of the things that have drawn criticism here worked for me. As I saw it, that opening sequence does fit in with the rest of the movie in that the movie as a whole addresses the question ‘If we can’t be sure about our dealings with ourselves and our society, why should we feel that we can mess with other races and cultures?’ It has been pointed out (correctly) that the characters seem to have no moral compass. I saw this as part of the story and the reason for the title. Star Fleet had no moral compass here and it hadn’t had it since Spock Prime and Nero made their mark. Who would make a young man with incomplete training and less experience the captain of a top of the line starship? This Star Fleet did, and we see in this movie that this Star Fleet had slipped even farther into darkness. Khan did what he did at the beginning primarily because he wanted to protect his fellow sleepers. I know his actions were extreme from our point of view but I got the feeling that between his awakening and the beginning of the movie his movements and exposure had been limited and he had been encountering those who had slipped the deepest into darkness. I can see him feeling that all of Star Fleet was under their control.
I wondered if Khan wouldn’t have turned on Kirk and the Enterprise if Kirk hadn’t turned on him first. But then I realized that Kirk couldn’t have ignored Khan killing Admiral Marcus, so that moment of wonder was a moot point. I did like that Scotty apologized to that security guard for what he was about to do. That showed that there were some points of light during that time of darkness.
Torie’s comments about Spock’s death in STII being heroic because the action leading to it was based on years of trust and friendship is true – for that other timeline. In that situation, it was an event that signified what their friendship had become. I liked the twist of the event in this movie. Not only had the role of the players changed, the role of the event changed. Here, it was the landmark of the beginning of their friendship. Spock came to understand Kirk’s attempts at it and Kirk’s actions had demonstrated that he was getting an understanding of Spock’s values. Earlier in the movie the interaction between them had been just as it was at the end of Star Trek (2009). Spock’s ‘I shall defer to your judgement’ at the end of this movie felt more like an exchange between friends. Their friendship this time around will be different, but it is in place now.
The magic blood in this one didn’t bother me because it seemed a bit more possible than a magic torpedo being able to (with junk science built into it) create a liveable planet out of a nebula then reduce all that had been a Vulcan to a single cell then regrow him to almost the same person.
This was a Khan story, but it wasn’t Wrath of Khan and it wasn’t Space Seed. It was a new Khan story but with elements of those other stories because that’s the time works in the Star Trek universe. Remember how many times Dr. Crusher broke that glass in Cause and Effect? If you think about it, there are a lot of other story elements out there to be explored in this timeline. Who, if anybody, goes to Talos IV? Nomad and the Doomsday Device are still out there. Though, I’d rather these explorations take place in fan fiction and in officially sanctioned fiction and leave the movies to explore new frontiers.
“The powerful friendship between the captain and his first officer was something organic that only happened through and over time, and is probably testament as much to the acting choices of Nimoy and Shatner as to the screenwriters who understood the captain needed a command foil.”
It was that, and it was also deliberately written in by Roddenberry, based on suggestions from Isaac Asimov that the two be shown as close comrades. (scroll down) I wish they’d done more with that idea of giving Kirk a lot more intriguing stuff to do.
—i liked the movie—but it is not star trek–aside from some good performances by the actors–gene would have never approved of this–too much earth–it is supposed to be ‘to boldly go…’–now to satisfy a larger audience–it’s about fighting bad guys–i hope this changes and we start exploring the universe again—-
@13 “gene would have never approved of this–”
You are correct. He also did not approve of “The Wrath Of Khan” or any of the other Trek movies he was not directly involved in ( he even had problems with “The Voyage Home” which was probably closest to being in the spirit of the original series ). He maintained until his death that “Star Trek The Motion Picture” was the truest to the original series, ignoring it’s massive flaws.
In one sense he was right. There were no massive space battles and the story was mostly about trying to understand and come to a peaceful resolution with the massive V’ger. Destruction was only considered as a last resort ( and that scene was only included in the “Special Extended Version” or the 2001 “Director’s Cut” ). However, in most ways, he was wrong. The Motion Picture lacked most of the things that made TOS so popular, mainly the chemistry between the main characters.
Roddenberry would not have liked “Into Darkness” for several reasons; the gratuitous violence, the nonsensical science, covert agents in Starfleet, a non-utopian Earth and, especially post “Next Generation”, the conflicts between the main characters. Although I may not like or agree with everything about the Abrams movies, I much prefer the characters who dare to disagree with each other and have flaws over the sometimes bland ‘perfect humans’ that Gene envisioned in the 24th century.
As has been said before in other threads, somewhere along the line, GR began to believe his own hype and forget that what made Star Trek great was not the vision of a utopian future provided by a prophet, but rather thoughtful ideas couched in entertaining stories driven by likable and relatable characters… characters who had flaws we could identify with, but showed us a better way by striving to rise above them. I do think that Abrams Trek does show glimmers of this trait, even if it is often buried under layers of glitz and nonsense and things that ‘blow up real good’.
Well, as I mentioned in the forum, after watching Abram’s movies, I think that ST: TMP is even better. I watched it the week after watching Into Darkness and enjoyed it more than I ever had before. It’s like the antithesis to the Abram’s movies and although it certainly does have problems it has a heck of a lot more of the spirit of Star Trek than even the first 30 minutes of Into Darkness had.
To me, one of the biggest sins of both this and the last movie is that Zachary Quinto’s character is not Spock. He may even be a Vulcan, as we’ve seen terrible “emotional” acting Vulcans before: Kirstie Alley, and to a lesser extent, Kim Catrell. But Spock, as played by Leonard Nemoy, was simply not like those others. Having the Spock character engraged in the last movie and yelling “Khan!!” now just goes to show how little like Star Trek this really is.
I posted this on Facebook regarding “Man Of Steel” and tangentially, “Into Darkness”. Thought I’d repost here to see if anyone else had an opinion:
“Trent and I saw “Man Of Steel” today in Imax 3-D. Very good and interesting reboot.. Some interesting alterations to the Superman legend ( and Henry Cavill is certainly easy on the eyes ).
SEMI – SPOILER BELOW
I do have the same question after the ending of this movie as I did after watching “Star Trek Into Darkness”; What about all the deaths and destruction to the cities caused by the climactic battles of both movies? I guess the result of living in a post-9/11 world is that it’s hard to ignore the realistic consequences of the action depicted in these kinds of films now. It’s kinda like “Immediate crisis averted! All’s well that ends well!” ( particularly when the scriptwriters have the main characters just sort of pick up and go on with their lives afterwards, with nary a thought given to the aftermath ). I know they’re just movies, but it’s something to think about.”
I saw Man Of Steel this afternoon and I had the same reaction to all the destruction. As I said either here or in Ten Forward, I could have done with less of the destruction in Into Darkness. The amount of destruction (at least in screen time) seemed about six times greater in Man Of Steel. That, along with a few confusing movements of the characters, is leading me in the direction of not getting this one when it comes to DVD which is a shame because there were a lot of little things that I really liked within the movie. One of those things, which I think I can say without giving anything away, was that General Zod was given a moment where he was able to step away from being a cardboard evil-doer and let you really understand his motive. (Zod did not get this in Superman or Superman II) I also liked how this added to the Batman like feel in the Man of Steel’s relationship with his adoptive planet.
Back to your question. At least in Into Darkness we saw (briefly) a memorial service which I saw as being for everyone who died in the terror attack and battle. In Man Of Steel, we got a cementing of the Batman feel, and we saw a feel-good flashback of Clark with Ma and Pa Kent.
Another comment on Man Of Steel.
The day after seeing it, I realized that I could remember nothing of the music. Come on. Superman is the iconic American Hero and he’s presented with unremarkable music?
Sorry to be chiming in late on STID and MOS, but while I’ve been away, I revised a book! So that’s good, right?
Despite the many many flaws in STID, and my utter disappointment that they went back to the well and had to bring Khan into it, I did enjoy much of the film–particularly the characters, humor, and dialogue. But any emotional weight in the film was stolen from Star Trek II, and was sorely misplaced. There just wasn’t any resonance there, and I wish they had fulfilled the promise of their alternate timeline to tell us new stories instead of poor remixes of Star Trek’s greatest hits.
Man of Steel didn’t even entertain me. It had some nice effects and a few neat ideas, but it takes more than it gives to the Superman mythology, and it’s not just a terrible Superman film but a crap film, period. Even more than in STID, characters behave only to advance the flimsy plot from action sequence to action sequence, and Ludon is completely right on the film score being generic and forgettable. I feel like I shouldn’t be bored during a Superman film, let alone any superhero film, but I couldn’t wait for it to be over.
If you give me good characters to care about, I’ll overlook almost any flaw in the plot (STID), but when you focus on excessive world building and mindless action and violence, you lose me (MOS).
I’m so glad that when reboots and remakes and special editions get made, the original films aren’t wiped out of existence… Unless you’re George Lucas.
Man of Steel certainly adds to the discussion in an interesting way. I kind of enjoyed the movie, but I’m not really a Superman fan so the changes to the mythology didn’t bother me any.
On the other hand, the same kind of thing that bothered me about STID bothered me about Man of Steel, the apparent need to interject action in place of story-telling. I was mildly entertained but I did grow quite bored with the mindless destruction.
Ultimately, I think STID and MoS are pretty much the same. I simply disliked STID more because I have considerably greater investment in the Star Trek characters than I do with Superman characters.
What interests me most is that MoS makes me understand people who really liked STID a lot better because now the situation is reversed.
@21 Toryx
One notable difference between Superman and Star Trek is that Superman fans are used to the character being revised, updated, reimagined, etc in comics, movies, and TV, while still retaining his core nature. Star Trek—the original series—hasn’t been through anything like that, though the franchise certainly has, with mixed feedback.
I don’t mind changes to the Superman mythology at all; I like most of the different TV incarnations, from The Adventures of Superman to Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman and all the animated series. All I need is for that character to make sense in the context of his new story, and I need to care about him, and MoS doesn’t deliver that. Because the writers didn’t care about or understand the character, they just wanted to blow stuff up.
Some very belated thoughts on this film, nothing too profound.
First off I have to confess I mostly enjoyed watching it and walked away thinking I’d spent two hours reasonably well, which was more than I got out of the first Abrams Trek movie. I think the first movie was horrible mostly because it wasn’t even really a movie, more like a series of outrageous coincidences designed to assemble the cast and slot them into their designated roles by the end, after which the real storytelling could finally start.
Second, the casting of Benedict Cumberbatch maybe was a good choice from the standpoint of laziness. The fellow’s most prominent role lately has been playing an ice-cold supergenius so having him play another ice-cold supergenius is a neat shortcut to characterization. I also wonder if there wasn’t just a bit of a reaction against the Anthony-Quinn-style casting of a Mexican actor as a villain with an Indian name. You’d have to cast Edgar Winter to get someone whiter than Cumberbatch and the movie doesn’t even pretend to explain why he’s named “Khan”.
The deliberate parallelism between The Wrath of Khan and the plot of Into the Darkness was already skating dangerously close to the line between homage and parody before Spock’s “KHAAAAN!” which toppled the movie right over that line. Worse, it comes too soon. Spock’s death in The Wrath of Khan is the climax of the movie. The action is, in a sense, merely preliminary. In Into the Darkness this is reversed. Kirk’s death kicks off a prolonged action sequence that feels just a bit aimless and pointless. Just where is Khan going at the end?
It sadly makes some sense that McCoy gets really short shrift in this film after being almost the star of the 2009 movie. I got the sense that McCoy’s friendship with Kirk in the 2009 film was a sort of substitute for the Kirk-Spock friendship which is the backbone of classic Star Trek. Once that friendship gets established (however poorly) there’s no longer much need for McCoy except as a supporting player.
Uhura is useless–doubly so because twice in the film events seem to be arranged to give her a heroic role, only to cheat her both times.
Finally, a response to Lubitsch’s astute remark:
The biggest problem I had with Abrams’s Star Trek was that everyone, especially Kirk, felt so…unformed. They felt like kids wearing their moms’ and dads’ uniforms, as though all you needed to do to get into Starfleet and serve on its flagship is show up. Of the main cast, only McCoy comes across like maybe he’s been around a bit. Only Bruce Greenwood’s Pike comes across as a truly experienced and professional man and he’s on screen for maybe ten minutes at most. The original “Star Trek” didn’t go nuts with backstory but even so you got the definite sense of Captain Kirk as a soldier who’d risen through the ranks and had done much already, not all of which he was proud of. You got the same sense about Capt. Picard in TNG Trek, maybe even more so. It’s sad to see a version of Kirk who’s so immature.
I hear they tried to honor the tradition of a Mexican actor playing an Indian character by pursuing Benicio del Toro for the Khan role, but he turned it down.
Some more comments on the music. A few of the cues in the fourth cut on the STID soundtrack CD (London Calling) were moments that caught my attention when watching the movie. Subtle moments, when done right, can have all the power of a fanfare. I’m not saying these moments made this a great score, just that they are part of what I liked about the movie. For me, one of the best subtle moments in movie music was in Searching For Bobby Fischer – that little spot of music when the teacher (Ben Kingsley) tells Josh about the chess certificate. That little bit can easily be missed on the first viewing but once you’ve noticed it, it can have the strength of that wonderful John Williams passage heard when Luke looks at the sunset in the first Star Wars movie.
Now, I can expand on my complaint about the music in Man Of Steel. Michael Gircchino’s scores for Star Trek and Into Darkness at least feel like they fit within the Star Trek universe. John Williams’ score for Superman fit the myth of the Man of Steel. What we got in Man Of Steel may have been good for an action adventure but it just didn’t fit the myth. I realized this the other day when I finally got around to watching How To Train Your Dragon. Here was music that set the mood of a viking village then took me along for a ride on the dragon’s back. As with Williams and Gircchino’s scores, this music almost became a character in the story. Afterward, I thought about the music almost as much as I thought about what the characters did within the story. There was none of that from Man Of Steel. With such a strong myth, there should have been.
Hey Guys and Gals, Let’s see if I can make way back here shall we?
Anyway I saw this movie on opening weekend and my brain is still screaming ‘It Burns! It Burns!’
Even if I ignored that this was supposed to be a Star Trek story and treated as generic action SF summer movie, I would still hate it. The plot makes absolutely no friggin sense at all. So Adm. Marcus’ brilliant plan is to seacrh and find people from two hundred years in the past, train them up on the latest tech and then because they are all so super-geniuses they’ll make him weapons and ships that no one can counter and he’ll go all General Jack D Ripper on the Klingon Empire and kill’em all and be the hero, did I get that right? And Khan,. angry and abused by Marcus, hating Marcus for it and knowing marcus’ evil plot is to start a war with the Klingons, his big plan is, I’ll shoot up a room, maybe killing marcus maybe not cause area suppression fire is a lousy assassination, tool, and then scamper off to the Klingon home world, giving Marcus the fig leaf he needs to start a war. But before he does that he swaps out the warhead of the nifty super nice torpedoes and replaces them with his beloved people, cause that’s sucha better idea than I don;t know say taking your nifty super portable transporter and beaming you and your people to someplace hidden, secret and safe and plotting revenge from there? Guess I’m not a genius.
And none of that gets me to casting…gee if you’re going with Kahn you could have you know gotten an actor of Indian ancestry maybe. You know this is not the 60s, right? (I love me some Cumberbatch but he’s the wrong actor for the part and frankly the script is beneath him.)
To be fair I don’t think it’s explicitly stated anywhere in this new film that “Khan” is supposed to be from the Indian subcontinent. Maybe in this alternate timeline he’s really named “Caan”?
@Monoceros4 #27
That’s a nice shot. But (not discounting the nontrivial possibility that AbramsTrek is too incompetently done to remember its own flimsy premises), the timelines branch right before Jim Kirk’s birth. Khan’s a meat popsicle from the late 20th century. So it has to be the same guy…