Star Trek Into Darkness (Post-release)

[tgreco]

So you're saying a completely confused, illogical, nonsensical series of events is what makes a story great? That a writer has no obligation to explain what is going on to the audience? That cause and effect has no place in story-telling? That even in fantasy stories, internal logic isn't necessary?

I beg your pardon, but the greatest stories have layers, hold up to scrutiny, and have a consistent internal logic. Into the Darkness has none of these.

 

[Bryancd]

I simply lacked the time as I was running out the door to actually see the movie again. Ironic.

The story synopsis was something I read this morning and was a decent review of the plot. I don't find the plot exceedingly convoluted. My biggest issue with the story is the Marcus character. I think it was a mistake to include him and Section 31 in the story. He distracts too much from Khan who should have been utilized better. The weakest part of the film for me was when Marcus shows up and Kirk is working with Khan. And Khan's exposition was a real info dump. So it's not the tightest of stories but one I can enjoy and follow well enough.

What makes this a very pleasurable Trek film for me is that it has heart. Perhaps it's because I am a new Father but the sequence with the father and daughter I found very emitional. So to was I drawn to the father/son relationship of Kirk and Pike. I also connected strongly with the personal relationships of all the crew, especially Kirk and Spock. I enjoyed the portrayals, the themes of family, the humor, the heart. I'm sorry you find that challenging to accept...well not really, your opinion is meaningless to me.

 

[jlee562]

Uhh...what?

By what stretch of the imagination is one's ability to succinctly state the plot of a film somehow a measure of that film's quality?

Sorry tgreco, while one can make a cogent argument as to why Into Darkness failed to meet expectations, you certainly haven't done anything which approaches that mark with your thought experiment.

 

[Zuiun]

The story synopsis was something I read this morning and was a decent review of the plot. I don't find the plot exceedingly convoluted. My biggest issue with the story is the Marcus character. I think it was a mistake to include him and Section 31 in the story. He distracts too much from Khan who should have been utilized better. The weakest part of the film for me was when Marcus shows up and Kirk is working with Khan. And Khan's exposition was a real info dump. So it's not the tightest of stories but one I can enjoy and follow well enough.

It seems like we are pretty much in agreement on this, then. Marcus + Khan is just too much. It's unnecessary plot complication.

I think the notion of Marcus wanting to militarize Starfleet would have made for a cool story all by itself. Likewise, we *know* that Khan can carry a story by himself.

What makes this a very pleasurable Trek film for me is that it has heart. Perhaps it's because I am a new Father but the sequence with the father and daughter I found very emitional. So to was I drawn to the father/son relationship of Kirk and Pike. I also connected strongly with the personal relationships of all the crew, especially Kirk and Spock. I enjoyed the portrayals, the themes of family, the humor, the heart.

I don't disagree that the character relations of the crew is a pretty strong element. I do somewhat question death scene a bit, but only because it is clearly borrowing from the weight of what we know about their relationship from the previous films. Even so, the actors still do a pretty decent job with it. And as you said, the rest of the crew is coming together well.

But I'd argue that there is more heart in pre-credit scene of '09 Trek and the birth of Kirk than in the entirety of Into Darkness.

 

[Bryancd]

Well, see, we aren't as far apart as it might seem. Heart is going to be a very personal response, I wouldn't presume to challenge what effects you emotionally, I would suggest you reciprocate in kind.

 

[tgreco]

The story synopsis was something I read this morning and was a decent review of the plot. I don't find the plot exceedingly convoluted. My biggest issue with the story is the Marcus character. I think it was a mistake to include him and Section 31 in the story. He distracts too much from Khan who should have been utilized better. The weakest part of the film for me was when Marcus shows up and Kirk is working with Khan. And Khan's exposition was a real info dump. So it's not the tightest of stories but one I can enjoy and follow well enough.

Oh, I can follow it. I know what they were trying to do. They just failed at it making any sense.

I enjoyed the 2009 reboot. I think the actors do a fine job. I think it's a well cast film. But we've already met the new crew. Can we not retread the exact same themes, and characters and plots over and over...

I'm sorry you find that challenging to accept...well not really, your opinion is meaningless to me.

I dont' find it challenging to accept. I'm okay with the fact that my opinion is meaningless to you.
Yours is meaningless to me.

There are people here that think the prequels are good too... and I hold their opinions on films with equal disregard.

I can enjoy a well written film with bad effects. And I know there are those that can forgive a poorly written film with good effects.
People enjoy films for different reasons.

I don't expect anyone here to change anyone's mind.

The fact that The Fast and the Furious 6 made 97 million at the box office and has a 72% on the highly touted Tomato Meter tells me all I need to know about the general film going audience and their expectations. That is the audience that Abrams wants. And that's why I'll steer clear of his future films, no matter what the property is.

 

[Zuiun]

Well, see, we aren't as far apart as it might seem. Heart is going to be a very personal response, I wouldn't presume to challenge what effects you emotionally, I would suggest you reciprocate in kind.

Well, I'm pretty sure I've never called anyone out for appreciating the movie for the character moments -- that is what I enjoyed, also. (Well, and I will readily admit that Abrams can direct some dang fine action scenes... ) It's the collapsing weight of the plot that I have issues with.

When I say that I question something like the death scene, what I mean is that I don't think it would be nearly as effective *without* our vast history of Trek. Wrath of Khan earned the emotional impact of the death of Spock by virtue of the history between those two characters. You could not have created a scene like that in the first season of the show. There wouldn't have been enough emotional investment not only between the audience and characters, but between the characters themselves.

That's why I question the scene in Into Darkness. It isn't that it isn't an emotional scene. It's directed and acted well. It's that I can't help but be pulled out of it by the realization that these two characters are trying to have the same moment so early in their relationship that their prime universe counterparts had after 20 years of friendship.

 

[nickytea]

So you're saying a completely confused, illogical, nonsensical series of events is what makes a story great? That a writer has no obligation to explain what is going on to the audience? That cause and effect has no place in story-telling? That even in fantasy stories, internal logic isn't necessary?

I beg your pardon, but the greatest stories have layers, hold up to scrutiny, and have a consistent internal logic. Into the Darkness has none of these.

If this was in response to me, I think it's quite clear I said nothing of the sort. (Is it just me or are there a lot of words being put into a lot of mouths in this thread?) My response was solely to say that undepicted or implied sequences are not inherently a measure of a story's quality -- or lack of quality. (Another note: many seem to be using "story" and "plot" interchangeably. This confuses the issue further than it already is.)

 

[tgreco]

Uhh...what?

By what stretch of the imagination is one's ability to succinctly state the plot of a film somehow a measure of that film's quality?

Sorry tgreco, while one can make a cogent argument as to why Into Darkness failed to meet expectations, you certainly haven't done anything which approaches that mark with your thought experiment.

I think the fact that no one here has simply summed the film up in 10 sentences demonstrates what a complete mess the script is.

 

[Zuiun]

The fact that The Fast and the Furious 6 made 97 million at the box office and has a 72% on the highly touted Tomato Meter tells me all I need to know about the general film going audience and their expectations. That is the audience that Abrams wants. And that's why I'll steer clear of his future films, no matter what the property is.

I've been mostly with you regarding the flaws in the plot of Into Darkness, but this notion is one I will take issue with.

The fact that Fast and Furious 6 makes a boat load of money doesn't in any way prove that audiences don't want or can't handle a smart film. Nor does it suggest the audience that Abrams and the writers were aiming for. I'd argue that they were aiming more toward The Dark Knight than Fast and Furious. I think the *intention* was to create an intelligent and complex (but coherent) plot and it got away from them.

 

[nickytea]

I think the fact that no one here has simply summed the film up in 10 sentences demonstrates what a complete mess the script is.

There are several members in this thread capable of "summing" the movie up from a single word to ten pages, and every length in between. Doesn't change the fact that the reductive act of composing a logline has little to no bearing on the quality of the movie.

 

[jlee562]

I think the fact that no one here has simply summed the film up in 10 sentences demonstrates what a complete mess the script is.

...or it could just as easily demonstrate that nobody here thinks that your thought experiment is in any way a valid exercise, and we have no need to indulge your ego.

But since you keep insisting it somehow means something:

Admiral Marcus, intent on initiating war with the Klingon Empire, has conspired with Khan on the clandestine construction of a new Federation warship and weaponry. Meanwhile, after a mission gone awry, Kirk is demoted for violating the prime directive; Pike re-takes command of the Enterprise and insists on taking Kirk as his First Officer. Marcus and Khan set the next part of their plan in motion by bombing a Federation facility, which in turn triggers a meeting of Starfleet Command; Khan attacks Federation headquarters, leaving Marcus in control of the fleet. He re-instates Kirk and charges him with hunting down Harrison/Khan with the federation's new long range torpedoes, but has also sabotaged the Enterprise. En route to Qonos, Spock convinces Kirk that Harrison/Khan ought to be captured and put to trial, rather than killed; Kirk eventually agrees and leads a landing party while the engineering crew attempts to fix the Warp Drive. They capture Khan because unbeknownst to the crew of the Enterprise, Marcus has put the cryofrozen crew of the Botany Bay into the torpedoes. Realizing he has been used by Marcus, Khan sets out to rescue his crew by manipulating the crew of the Enterprise, while Marcus realizing that Khan has gone rogue, sets his sights on the enterprise. A battle between the two ships leaves the Enterprise badly damaged, however they gain the upper hand when Spock - who had discovered the Botany Bay crew - transports the torpedoes to the Vengeance and detonates them, Khan steers the ship towards Starfleet headquarters as both ships fall towards earth. Aboard the Enterprise, Kirk sacrifices himself by physically aligning the warp core and suffers fatal radiation poisoning, but is eventually revived when McCoy discovers that Khan's blood has regenerative properties and he is chased and subdued by Spock.

Happy now?

 

[nickytea]

Into Darkness takes place six months after the events in the first movie. .

Curious where you got the six-month figure?

 

[Mola Rob]

Curious where you got the six-month figure?

I originally read it in an interview with one of the writers but you can find it in various articles as well.

Star Trek Into Darkness: 5 Things to Know About J.J. Abrams' Big Summer Sequel | E! Online

 

[nickytea]

I originally read it in an interview with one of the writers but you can find it in various articles as well.

Star Trek Into Darkness: 5 Things to Know About J.J. Abrams' Big Summer Sequel | E! Online

Doesn't seem to be a source in that article; I could've sworn I remember reading it was at least a year in an interview.
Either way, nothing in the movie directly states how much time has passed.

 

[Mola Rob]

Doesn't seem to be a source in that article; I could've sworn I remember reading it was at least a year in an interview.
Either way, nothing in the movie directly states how much time has passed.

There's a lot of stuff not in the movie that's stated elsewhere so that doesn't mean anything.:lol

Just joking.

 

[Bryancd]

1.Oh, I can follow it. I know what they were trying to do. They just failed at it making any sense.

2. I'm okay with the fact that my opinion is meaningless to you. Yours is meaningless to me.

3. There are people here that think the prequels are good too... and I hold their opinions on films with equal disregard.

1. And yet for so many others it did make sense, as opposed to wondering how that can possibly be the case, perhaps you should consider why you find it such a challenge.

2. On that we agree, common ground! And a healthy one.

3. Opps, now you contradict #2. If someone's opinion is menaingless to you, it is niether good nor bad, it simply is. If you hold another opinion in disregard, your words, that's implies you look at their opinion with a bias towards yours being superior. That would make you a bit of a ******. And for the record, I enjoy the prequels, so disregard that.

And although you think your "describe the plot in 10 sentences" theory is clever, no one else in this conversation seems to. Perhaps we should hold that in disregard.

 

[Jeyl]

I think the only thing I liked about STID was that the USS Vengeance was built in space.

 

[Bryancd]

Well, I'm pretty sure I've never called anyone out for appreciating the movie for the character moments -- that is what I enjoyed, also. (Well, and I will readily admit that Abrams can direct some dang fine action scenes... ) It's the collapsing weight of the plot that I have issues with.

When I say that I question something like the death scene, what I mean is that I don't think it would be nearly as effective *without* our vast history of Trek. Wrath of Khan earned the emotional impact of the death of Spock by virtue of the history between those two characters. You could not have created a scene like that in the first season of the show. There wouldn't have been enough emotional investment not only between the audience and characters, but between the characters themselves.

That's why I question the scene in Into Darkness. It isn't that it isn't an emotional scene. It's directed and acted well. It's that I can't help but be pulled out of it by the realization that these two characters are trying to have the same moment so early in their relationship that their prime universe counterparts had after 20 years of friendship.

Sorry, mate, that wasn't directed at you.

The death scene, yeah I knew it was in there, a beat for beat recreation, and before seeing the film I was very upset/concerned about that. It had such an emotional impact on me in 1982 and I thought I would have a hard time with it but as it unfolded, I was touched. Certainly no where near as devastated when Spock died, or even more so Kirk's eulogy after, but I was moved. The film had earned that from me after watching the Kirk and Spock banter in front of Pike, or when Kirk tells Spock he will miss him and Spock starts to say something and then closes his mouth and Kirk is exasperated, all of these character moments they built up for me so that scene and impact.

 

[RougeAvenger81]

Ok, here are my thoughts. Not that they will mean much to some, but simply bringing up good and bad.

GOOD: The pacing and action over all. Regardless if you feel things were out of order, or were thrown in, the pacing of the film and it's overall delivery was done rather well in my opinion. Yes, you may go home afterwards and begin to think, "Well, wait a minute..." I had a couple of those moments in the theater, but they were not so overpowering that it ruined the film.

The acting. Khan, although different from the original was played to near perfection for this universe. I couldn't think of one point where the character seemed out of place because of the acting. Kirk and Spock in the death scene, was one of the best I feel those two have had in either film. Although id dubbed the scene in a sense, it couldn't have been much better.

Character development. Although some points were rushed (Kirk's demotion/promotion/promotion again) throughout the film each character, save maybe Chekov and Marcus seemed to really find themselves growing, both in friendships and working though their moral struggles while building their own relationships.

The constant nods to the OS/films. You have to admit that there was an over abundance of times (at least for me) where you were like, they finally had Kirk call Spock names and insult his intelligence, or joking openly about the red shirts, showing Marcus for the first time and giving a glimpse as to how Kirk and her meet. The Tribbles. Just to name a few.

BAD: Ok, I say bad just because they are holes that didn't make sense, but again, for me they didn't ruin the film, just made me kind of like, ehhh come on.

The fact that you can't beam Spock out of the volcano without line of sight, yet you can beam someone (with a hand held device or not) across a galaxy from planet to planet, or to a ship during warp with no problem. Or, later in the film you have enough power to beam Spock down to the surface, but not to beam someone up.

You need to capture Khan alive for his blood, but you have 72 other popsicles you could have chosen from. Or just the mere fact that Khans blood is the holy grail and revives the dead.

You made the comment that you can't unfreeze any of the other crew members because you don't know the sequence, but you froze Kirk in cryo sleep in a matter of 3 button pushes.

Kirk gets demoted/promoted/and promoted again in a matter of 5 minutes without anyone blinking.

An Admiral reviving a 300 year old warrior for battle tips and designs a far superior battleship even though technology is far advanced from 300 years prior. Could have easily revived Khan, built him a ship and revived his crew and simply had them be the bad*** of the Starfleet battle plans.

You are having a battle near the moon and Starfleet yet no other starship was near enough or could be called to assist.

Conclusion: Yes, there were some issues. I won't deny them and I'm sure I forgot one or two, but the fact remains. The film was enjoyable, satisfying, and as long as you can look past little things as they are minor mistakes or oversights that JJ didn't think of then you will enjoy the film for what it is. A new revision of Star Trek in the universe JJ and crew have created. I liked it. Would love to see it in theaters again if not for the new baby, but look forward to the Blu Ray to see it all again.