Star Trek Into Darkness ::: May 17, 2013

STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS is to THE WRATH OF KHAN as PEARL HARBOR is to TORA! TORA! TORA!

STAR TREK: INTO DARKNESS

Well, it's more of the same. Now with wholesale lifting of scenes from the original movies and a better villain in Benedict Cumberbatch. It's still stupid, although it at least tries to stay somewhat close to Roddenberry in spirit, with a plot that is focused on the battle within Starfleet between exploring and military defense. As we expected, the script and plot sucks, with huge logic leaps and suspension of disbelief required to remain focused. Just like the reboot, all fluff with no core. Wiz-bang with no heart. A machine film spit out to make loads of money with the Trek name slapped on it and some token references to the past. I watched ST:ID with 2 coworkers. One was a huge Trek nerd, the other ambivalent to the franchise. Neither were impressed.

Plot twist and obvious spoilers here:

Spoiler:

I'd still rather watch this than GENERATIONS, but it's not by much.

1. STAR TREK II: THE WRATH OF KHAN
2. STAR TREK: FIRST CONTACT
2. STAR TREK VI: THE UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY
3. STAR TREK III: THE SEARCH FOR SPOCK
4. STAR TREK IV: THE VOYAGE HOME
5. STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE
6. STAR TREK V: THE FINAL FRONTIER
7. STAR TREK: INTO DARKNESS
8. STAR TREK: GENERATIONS


"Wait, I've seen this movie before. It was better when we could see his chest."

The White Tuxedo wrote:

Still stuns me how the movie gets good reviews from critics. Other films that are this nonsensical get bad reviews.

Me, too. To me, JJ Abrams represents everything that is wrong with Hollywood: as Kevin Smith once said, it's a place where people fail upwards. They don't find success despite their mediocrity, they find it because of their mediocrity.

Was he commenting on himself?? I kid, I kid.

Yeah, Smith is a bit of a wanker, but it's a good story that he tells about working with producer Jon Peters on Superman Lives, in which Peters insisted that Superman wear a black costume becase the red and blue was "too gay", that Brainiac and his gay robot sidekick fight polar bears at the Fortress of Solitude, that Superman fight a giant spider at the film's climax, and that Lex Luthor had a cuddly pet dog from space that could be sold as part of a toy line. Smith went on to point out that most of Peters' ideas wound up in the abomination that was Wild Wild West in some way, shape or form.

Yeah, I've heard that speech. It's one of his all time best rants.

As long as they avoid sperm whales in the next one, I'll be happy.

I felt sorry for Cumberbatch's character (avoiding the obvious spoiler). He was between a rock and a hard place. I wonder if he'll make a comeback at some point.

I don't think these people know much outside of certain things from TOS or Wrath of Khan. The next film might just be some rehash of before. Maybe we'll get the Borg.

Oh, and Carol Marcus knocked up.

The worst part is I still think the film is well cast. I even bought the Spock/Uhura relationship. They're just given such bad material to work with. It's like THE NAKED NOW, where they look like kids trying on their parents clothes.

Thank God Abrams and co. are jumping ship to Star Wars. He's their problem now.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS is to THE WRATH OF KHAN as PEARL HARBOR is to TORA! TORA! TORA!

I think both Star Trek films are better than their WWII counterparts in that comparison, but yep, pretty much.

Star Trek '09 gets a good rap because it was the first time anyone had done swashbuckling, giddy, snappy adventure properly since maybe the first Pirates, or Campbell's Mask of Zorro. Lucas sure as hell hadn't stepped up to the plate. It's not well received in a Star Trek context, it's well received in a genre context, when you look at what was around it (Nolan's films are a-typical, most other comic book films are paint-by-numbers, and there aren't many action-adventure films beyond that assembled in any kind of serviceable manner).

FourDot wrote:

Star Trek '09 gets a good rap because it was the first time anyone had done swashbuckling, giddy, snappy adventure properly since maybe the first Pirates, or Campbell's Mask of Zorro.

Only in spirit, though. One thing I give that flick credit for is it's buoyant tone.

Though PIRATES puts me into a coma. The first one. I've not seen the sequels.

Opening Weekend: $70,165,559

OPENING WEEKEND:

1. STAR TREK (2009): $81,511,630
2. STAR TREK: INTO DARKNESS: $70,165,559
3. STAR TREK: FIRST CONTACT: $45,522,130
4. STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE: $38,197,860
5. STAR TREK III: THE SEARCH FOR SPOCK: $37,314,620
6. STAR TREK: GENERATIONS: $36,269,820
7. STAR TREK IV: THE VOYAGE HOME: $35,815,290
8. STAR TREK II: THE WRATH OF KHAN: $34,571,220
9. STAR TREK V: THE FINAL FRONTIER: $32,582,470
10. STAR TREK: INSURRECTION: $31,458,730
11. STAR TREK VI: THE UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY: $31,007,550
12. STAR TREK: NEMESIS: $23,929,110



DOMESTIC

1. STAR TREK (2009): $279,346,750
2. STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE: $263,464,670
3. STAR TREK IV: THE VOYAGE HOME: $232,770,740
4. STAR TREK II: THE WRATH OF KHAN: $190,150,120
5. STAR TREK III: THE SEARCH FOR SPOCK: $171,144,160
6. STAR TREK: FIRST CONTACT: $136,387,060
7. STAR TREK VI: THE UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY: $127,854,490
8. STAR TREK: GENERATIONS: $118,730,450
9. STAR TREK: INSURRECTION: $100,126,710
10. STAR TREK V: THE FINAL FRONTIER: $97,906,800
11. STAR TREK: INTO DARKNESS: $83,701,981
12. STAR TREK: NEMESIS: $55,908,260




INTERNATIONAL

1. STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE: $181,736,110
2. STAR TREK (2009): $138,681,630
3. STAR TREK: INTO DARKNESS: $80,500,000
4. STAR TREK: FIRST CONTACT: $80,029,790
5. STAR TREK: GENERATIONS: $66,527,090
6. STAR TREK: INSURRECTION: $60,486,590
7. STAR TREK IV: THE VOYAGE HOME: $49,404,350
8. STAR TREK II: THE WRATH OF KHAN: $43,583,300
9. STAR TREK VI: THE UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY: $37,560,070
10. STAR TREK V: THE FINAL FRONTIER: $33,752,620
11. STAR TREK: NEMESIS: $31,096,340
12. STAR TREK III: THE SEARCH FOR SPOCK: $23,561,950



WORLDWIDE

1. STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE: $445,203,980
2. STAR TREK (2009): $418,028,390
3. STAR TREK IV: THE VOYAGE HOME: $282,177,220
4. STAR TREK II: THE WRATH OF KHAN: $233,735,820
5. STAR TREK: FIRST CONTACT: $216,416,850
6. STAR TREK III: THE SEARCH FOR SPOCK: $194,708,340
7. STAR TREK: GENERATIONS: $185,257,540
8. STAR TREK VI: THE UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY: $165,414,560
9. STAR TREK: INTO DARKNESS: $164,201,981
10. STAR TREK: INSURRECTION: $160,613,300
11. STAR TREK V: THE FINAL FRONTIER: $131,661,300
12. STAR TREK: NEMESIS: $87,004,600

Even with much higher grosses overseas, Paramount can't be too happy with this. They just lost one of their big tentpole franchises in Marvel and were booted out of the top 2 grossing studios for the first time since 2006. ST:ID is their summer tentpole and it's not really performing like one.

STID was just horribly marketed. Imagine if Paramount hadn't gone along with Abrams mystery box approach and proudly proclaimed Khan being the next villain, it would have at least generated more interest. I know Abrams was traumatized over his stupid Superman script getting leaked online, but this is not the way to do it.

As for the film itself, I just watched it today...

I kinda liked it, though it had me rolling my eyes a couple of times it felt like an improvement from the first film, for whatever that's worth. Things I liked...


Spoiler Alert:


Positives:
- The military vs exploration aspect. As Tubes said, very Roddenberry. The last film felt like it was leaning towards that latter with that "humanitarian peaceful armada" stuff.
- The film acknowledges that Kirk didn't earn the chair in the last film, so he has grow the fuck up. That alone gets points from me.
- Scotty is no longer Jar Jar. He's still a comic relief, but they toned it down to my surprise and there were moments where the film treated him more as a person and less as the goofy engineer that gets into crazy shenanigans. Like when he refuses to authorize dangerous torpedoes on his ship and resigns on that principal.
- I do like the angle with Section 31 finding Khan and exploiting him, but I'm still mixed about certain aspects which I will get onto...

The Negatives:

-Section 31 finding Khan and using him sounds like an interesting route, but a lot of it ends up very convoluted and the fact that they merely used him to build weapons is pretty dumb. Khan is intelligent, but how is he any help when it comes to weapons 300 years past his days? That's like bringing Napoleon into the 21st century to help our military tactics.
- This film does not know how gravity works.
- Of course these guys are pulling the same shit Berman and Braga use where it takes no time to travel all the way to "Kronos" (and that's how it's spelled in the subtitles, oops!)
- The climax including TWOK stuff with the radiation chamber and such. Sorry movie, but with this and Khan it's a little bit too much.
- Spock yelling "Khan". Oh fuck. For a moment I found the scene effective, and then he has to scream that fucking name and kill whatever good there was in that moment between him and a dying Kirk.


Too bored to talk about the rest. Overall I found it watchable as a summer blockbuster fluff. It feels more like Trek than the last film, but enough. If I had to rank them from the gut...

THE WRATH OF KHAN
THE UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY
FIRST CONTACT
THE VOYAGE HOME
THE SEARCH FOR SPOCK
INTO DARKNESS
GENERATIONS
THE MOTION PICTURE
INSURRECTION
THE FINAL FRONTIER
NUTREK
NEMESIS

Yeah, it ranks right in the middle, but that doesn't mean much. I genuinely like the five films above, after SPOCK it's problematic.

While I like that they commented on Kirk's immaturity, he really doesn't learn anything. Every crazy and illogical decision he makes, he gets away with. Which puts him in the exact same place he was in the beginning of the movie. If this is supposed to be Kirk's maturity test, it didn't do a very good job.

It's PEARL HARBOR. Entertainment and explosions over intelligence. They didnt even really use Carol Marcus well. Like there's no actual romance there at all. No relationship really. Missed opportunity that. TWOK is like the most mature Trek film. It's whole theme is maturity and moving on. The main characters are all over 50 years old! Its amazing how AOKL can be homaging the movie so much, idolize it so much and make a movie so rampantly immature.

The thing that also distracted me was how the film didn't understand space, warp speed, or even its own terms. The same shit in the 2009 film. Wanna go to "Kronos"? Just takes five minutes from Earth. Apparently the edge of the Neutral Zone is located... right next to "Kronos". No, it's literally right next to it, in plain sight. Admiral Marcus wants to go to war with Klingons because they're a major threat that needs to be taken out, Kirk was able to go as far as enter the atmosphere of "Kronos" before encountering any patrol ships. How are the the Klingons supposed to be a threat when their security is that bad?

A lot of the interesting bits I liked were too rushed. Like Kirk going on this mission for revenge and to kill "Harrison, which stirs up conflict between him and the crew. But right before they launch, he suddenly realizes "okay that's wrong, we'll just put him on trial". A lot of the things I thought sounded like good ideas only last for ten minutes. If they had treated space as it should be, during that long trip to "Kronos" the conflict would be taking place. Then the moment finally comes where they encounter him, and it looks like Kirk will kill him, but instead he makes the right choice and places him under arrest to be put on trial. There is growth for Kirk in this film, but it's skirted so quickly it's barely there.

Brad Bird, please take over.

Makes me wonder if the whitewashing aspect is a part of the reason they didn't want to hype up the real identity of Cumberbatch's character.

They shoulda stuck with the original codename. Apparently it was going to be "John Ericson", because that was Khan's name in the first draft of Space Seed when the character was written as a Norse Viking-type, but they figured all the fanboys would catch that and reveal it too early.

I mean Ricardo Montalban wasn't Indian either, but they at least fucking TRIED. Cumberbatch looks nothing like Montalban or a Sikh. Apparently the writers said in an interview that Admiral Marcus gave him reconstructive surgery when he gave him the cover identity, because otherwise peeps would figure it out (like Hitler going around under an assumed name) and that's fine by me but AT LEAST HAVE SOMEONE SAY THAT IN THE ACTUAL MOVIE.

And yeah, PS, your movie just wrecked his entire motivation in TWOK. Also, you have Carol Marcus and do nothing with her, and then they try to give Khan this big family motivation but couldn't even put Marla McGivers into the movie? Another missed opportunity. I mean, it might've been a bit to squeeze in but when his love is a big part of his motives in "Space Seed" and TWOK?

C'mon, the casting's done for you!

http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/news/a483041/star-trek-into-darkness-spoilers-damon-lindelof-talks-john-harrison.html

Right.

Well, I saw it this past weekend and thought it was one of the most poorly paced films I had ever seen. I thought there were some genuinely touching moments, but in general, too much of the action was constantly being interrupted by fake-emotional moments that seemed to pop up every few minutes. The script also sucks, and that includes the many missed opportunities with Marcus and Khan (Cumberbatch, by the way, should get a friggin' medal for making that character incredibly watchable, despite working with a script that is essentially trash). I enjoyed the militarization vs. peacekeeping angle, as well as the exploration and observation aspects highlighted in the first few minutes of the film. It's too bad the they didn't focus more on those elements.

So, I'd say Trek 2009 was a much better film, simply because it was fun and had a nice energetic vibe going on, whereas this one just came off as a tedious to me. Here's to hoping Lindelof, Orci and Kurtzman never work in Hollywood ever again.

So, geek nit-pick moment -- how come there's a Daystrom Institute in 2259 and why does it look like the war room from Dr. Strangelove??

For those unawares, Dr. Richard Daystrom was a brilliant scientist, 2219-2268, featured in the TOS episode "The Ultimate Computer" and the Daystrom Institute is a top research facility often referenced on TNG.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

Hey it's Ceti Alpha V and VI.

I still ain't seen this piece of shit. First time I've missed an opening weekend since I started seeing these movies in the cinema in '94. And before STINO it was always opening day.

JJ Abrams' nose looks disturbingly like a circumsized penis. :shock: