Star Trek Into Darkness discussion (spoilers)

[DIrishB]

He did get to threaten Khan (I remember Bones being impressed) but then the threat was basically pointless and Sulu was put back in the cupboard after Kirk returned.

It would be nice if the next movie gave the others more to do.

I'm drawing a complete blank. Guess I'll have to go see it again.

 

[Captain Canuck]

I'm drawing a complete blank. Guess I'll have to go see it again.

Kirk leaves Sulu in charge and Sulu sends a message to Khan that if he doesn't surrender, he'll fire all the torpedoes at him. Then Bones says "Remind me never to piss you off"

 

[E]

I dunno; it seemed like the script was well-written as far as giving the most screen time to the most interesting or vivid characters. Sulu wasn't in it much but I didn't feel like it needed more of him in it.

 

[Captain Canuck]

I dunno; it seemed like the script was well-written as far as giving the most screen time to the most interesting or vivid characters. Sulu wasn't in it much but I didn't feel like it needed more of him in it.

Don't get me wrong, I really liked this movie. I guess at times it felt more like a buddy-cop movie between Kirk & Spok than an ensemble movie using all the characters to their full potential. But like I said, I didn't even notice until a few days after when I couldn't remember if Sulu had even been in the movie. It was well done and I'm not complaining, but I would like to see the rest of the crew more in the next one.

 

[DIrishB]

Kirk leaves Sulu in charge and Sulu sends a message to Khan that if he doesn't surrender, he'll fire all the torpedoes at him. Then Bones says "Remind me never to piss you off"

Oh that's right. So Sulu got like 2 lines in the movie then.

Jesus, George Takei makes 2 Facebook posts per minute on average.

Jon Cho got shafted.

I dunno; it seemed like the script was well-written as far as giving the most screen time to the most interesting or vivid characters. Sulu wasn't in it much but I didn't feel like it needed more of him in it.

Everything is better with a little more Cho.

 

[TheManWithoutFear]

I dunno; it seemed like the script was well-written as far as giving the most screen time to the most interesting or vivid characters. Sulu wasn't in it much but I didn't feel like it needed more of him in it.

One of the things that immediately come to mind is. Sulu was put in charge. I didn't care if he only got 2 lines or whatever. He was given a big character moment regardless. So without stuffing too much forced scenes I think they used Sulu well. Besides this is supposed to be a franchise and hopefully they spread the spotlight throughout.

 

[E]

One of the things that immediately come to mind is. Sulu was put in charge. I didn't care if he only got 2 lines or whatever. He was given a big character moment regardless. So without stuffing too much forced scenes I think they used Sulu well. Besides this is supposed to be a franchise and hopefully they spread the spotlight throughout.

Totally agreed. It wasn't much but it was meaningful and important.

Same went for Chekov, for that matter.

 

[Bass]

I thought the film was a shameless, lazy enterprise (DO YOU SEE WHAT I DID THERE LOL). I felt it was mediocre and very empty.

However, I do agree: the Sulu "do not test me" scene was very good. The actors did a good job, and the film did have some nice moments, much like the first film did.

 

[Captain Canuck]

So I just watched "Space Seed" and "The Wrath of Khan" so I would know what you guys were all talking about. I was left with a question: did Khan start off as Sikh with an Italian accent in Space Seed and then become white/completely Italian by the time Wrath of Khan happened?

But seriously, I can see why you guys keep saying the new Trek movies ripped off Wrath of Khan. They did. The first Trek reboot movie WAS wrath of Khan except with Nero hunting Spock and using the red matter instead of Khan hunting Kirk and using the genesis device. And Into Darkness just took the whole third act almost verbatim from Wrath of Khan. That said, I found both of the new movies to be better than Wrath of Khan (sorry). Everything about them was better, except Khan's cleavage was better in Wrath of Khan.

I guess it comes down to the fact that I didn't grow up with the original series or the movies from TOS. If they were to remake "The Best of Both Worlds" or "First Contact", I would probably be upset too, but I can't see what makes Wrath of Khan inherently better than the reboot Trek movies except that it came first.

 

[Bass]

Khan was always a Sikh played by a Mexican. He was never Italian. It's just weird but that's want they went with.

As for preferring the new films; in time, I'm sure you will notice the new films aging and becoming more and more empty while KHAN becomes more nuanced. When I first saw it I still preferred the newer Trek films and series. But over fifteen years, the others have grown old and KHAN is more brilliant each time because the newer films use spectacle to hide their lack of substance (as most stories do) so they look better at first but are hollow. KHAN on the other hand is a masterpiece of action screenwriting.

 

[TheManWithoutFear]

Same went for Chekov, for that matter.

I didn't mention Chekov because I thought he got a lot more than the other characters in this film.

 

[Ice]

Saw it. Loved it. 4 stars.

 

[Captain Canuck]

Khan was always a Sikh played by a Mexican. He was never Italian. It's just weird but that's want they went with.

Right, Mexican. I'm terrible with accents.

As for preferring the new films; in time, I'm sure you will notice the new films aging and becoming more and more empty while KHAN becomes more nuanced. When I first saw it I still preferred the newer Trek films and series. But over fifteen years, the others have grown old and KHAN is more brilliant each time because the newer films use spectacle to hide their lack of substance (as most stories do) so they look better at first but are hollow. KHAN on the other hand is a masterpiece of action screenwriting.

Is it possible that we just have different taste in movies? I've now watched Wrath of Khan twice and also watched The Motion Picture, Search For Spock, and The Voyage Home for the first time. I just don't get what makes Wrath of Khan have more "substance" than the rest of them. Is it because Khan quotes Moby Dick? Or because Kirk quotes A Tale of Two Cities? Is it because it explores the themes of youth and age? I don't get what makes it a "masterpiece of action screenwriting." I'm willing to say it was a high watermark in the Star Trek franchise and even a groundbreaking film in the sci-fi genre, but I don't see it as a masterpiece or really very full of substance.

I thought the concept in Star Trek: The Motion Picture was more interesting, it just suffered from a lack of anything happening. I thought the way they brought Spock back in The Search for Spock was well set up in Khan and it worked in that movie, although it was farfetched. And I appreciated the bravery to step outside the norm and make The Voyage Home funny, even if the premise was a lame attempt at environmentalism propaganda.

In the reboot Trek, Nero was basically a less interesting clone of Khan, I'll fully admit. But, the red matter was less unbelievable than the genesis device (Yes, I used a double negative, b/c neither of them were believable at all). In 'Into Darkness' Kirk's character arc was a bit cliche, but less so than the "aging hero meets his estranged son" trope from 'Khan'. And the death of Kirk worked better than the death of Spock because it grew both characters. Spock's death grew Kirk's character in 'Khan', but not much. And yes, bringing Kirk back with Khan's blood was really stupid. They did set that up from the beginning, but that doesn't really make it less deus ex machina-esque. But both of these new movies were more FUN than any of the old ones. They're exciting and humerous (without Spock being portrayed as a hippie who burned out his mind on "LDS" or Kirk saying, "double dumb*** on you"). And yeah, I think there's enough character development and growth in them for me to say that it's unfair to call them "hollow enterprises." (yes, I get it. Nicely done).

 

[Bass]

Is it possible that we just have different taste in movies?

No.

I'm just kidding.

But in all seriousness: no.

I've now watched Wrath of Khan twice and also watched The Motion Picture, Search For Spock, and The Voyage Home for the first time. I just don't get what makes Wrath of Khan have more "substance" than the rest of them. Is it because Khan quotes Moby Dick? Or because Kirk quotes A Tale of Two Cities? Is it because it explores the themes of youth and age? I don't get what makes it a "masterpiece of action screenwriting." I'm willing to say it was a high watermark in the Star Trek franchise and even a groundbreaking film in the sci-fi genre, but I don't see it as a masterpiece or really very full of substance.

It took me a long time too. To make it quick: the substance comes from the meaning in the turning points, not in the dialogue or nature of the themes. The film is excellently structured, and the power of the turning points is palpable.

I thought the concept in Star Trek: The Motion Picture was more interesting, it just suffered from a lack of anything happening. I thought the way they brought Spock back in The Search for Spock was well set up in Khan and it worked in that movie, although it was farfetched. And I appreciated the bravery to step outside the norm and make The Voyage Home funny, even if the premise was a lame attempt at environmentalism propaganda.

Yeah, I agree with all of that. Though, I don't mind the propaganda really.

In the reboot Trek, Nero was basically a less interesting clone of Khan, I'll fully admit. But, the red matter was less unbelievable than the genesis device (Yes, I used a double negative, b/c neither of them were believable at all). In 'Into Darkness' Kirk's character arc was a bit cliche, but less so than the "aging hero meets his estranged son" trope from 'Khan'. And the death of Kirk worked better than the death of Spock because it grew both characters. Spock's death grew Kirk's character in 'Khan', but not much. And yes, bringing Kirk back with Khan's blood was really stupid. They did set that up from the beginning, but that doesn't really make it less deus ex machina-esque. But both of these new movies were more FUN than any of the old ones. They're exciting and humerous (without Spock being portrayed as a hippie who burned out his mind on "LDS" or Kirk saying, "double dumb*** on you"). And yeah, I think there's enough character development and growth in them for me to say that it's unfair to call them "hollow enterprises." (yes, I get it. Nicely done).

The death of Kirk in INTO DARKNESS grew nothing. Kirk and Spock are precisely where they were at the beginning of the film. At the beginning of the film, Spock rats Kirk out to Pine and this hurts Kirk because they're friends. At the end, they're still friends. At the beginning, and throughout, they are friends who are willing to die for the other. Their friendship never deepens, never changes. Spock doesn't change though. He's the same Vulcan he was in the first movie; really calm and then he explodes with violent anger when he loses someone he cares about. The change that does happen is that Kirk matures, which I agree, does work. I thought Kirk saying, "I'm scared" was very touching. However, that change is kinda washed away by the cheap resurrection. But yes, there is some element there, I agree.

The death of Spock, in the WRATH OF KHAN, however, is an entirely different matter: the entire film is built around Kirk's education plot (arcing a character from a negative look on life towards the positive) and the literary device used is this "no-win scenario", that Kirk thinks he's faced, but never has. The death of Spock is the thematic fulfillment of the entire story and drastically progresses the story.

The new TREK films are not more exciting than KHAN. They just look like they are. KHAN sacrifices some of its excitement to generate the emotional heft needed for an education plot, but it's genuinely exciting. The only exciting bits from the TREK films are specifically moments that they ripped off from KHAN, then added more CGI and frenetic camera movements to compensate for the lack of emotional build-up and pay-off to those scenes. The excitement is superficial, which is why I presume it to wear off in time, once the novelty wears off.

But, I don't mean to say, "in time, you'll agree with me because I'm so right and you'll hate DARKNESS like I do." To get back to your tastes – yes, of course we may have different tastes. But I'm not really regarding preference here. I think it's quite possible that in ten years, you may still enjoy DARKNESS more than KHAN. There are films I adore a great deal more than others that are of better quality; especially depending on what mood I'm in.

But what I'm referring to here is critical appreciation (though I didn't really explain that well – this is what I write about every day, so sometimes I talk in shorthand, forgive me). Here's the difference: in five years time, you're watching a film for the tenth time, and the enjoyment you get is not from the quality of the film, but from your own personal tastes of its aesthetics. When I watch TRANSFORMERS: THE MOVIE, my enjoyment is not because of the skill of the 80s soundtrack or voice-acting, but from my love of that particular style and my intimacy with the film over the years. When I watch KHAN, my enjoyment comes from the masterful ways in which the film is made, and upon each subsequent viewing, my appreciation of it's craftsmanship is further deepened.

So in five years, you may watch KHAN and go, "Hey. This is actually quite smart. It's very considered." and go, "DARKNESS is kinda shameful" and still prefer DARKNESS. And you wouldn't necessarily be wrong to do so. Personal taste is personal taste. But, I think, you would be wrong to say, "I prefer DARKNESS because it is a better crafted piece of work" because I think it's demonstrably not the case. But, "I prefer DARKNESS because Kirk's death moved me more than Spock's did" to me is fine.

It's a hair to split. I try to stay on the "critical" side, but sometimes I falter.

But I don't think, unless you are an artist or critic, that's it's worth making the distinction. Just enjoy what you enjoy and accept that I'm always right about everything in ways you can't possibly imagine.