Star Trek Into Darkness (Post-release)

[Michael Bergeron]

Nah, I think he'll do a better job with Star Wars because it's a franchise he actually cares about.

But I agree personally, I actually prefer ST5 to the recent films. Not because it's a better film, the new ones are indeed well done. Just because they miss the Trek feel for me.

 

[Yellowjacket]

I was entertained, but not moved. This is the problem with putting cliche before story telling.

 

[Jeyl]

When it comes to that "Star Trek Feel" of the classic series and movies, the most obvious absence is the Kirk and Spock relationship. In the original series, there was no doubt that Kirk and Spock were good friends, but it was never done in such a way where every situation the characters were faced with had to have some form of impact on their friendship. The two spent a lot of time figuring problems out without being in each other's faces about whether or not it was the right or wrong thing to do. That's not to say every episode should be like this. Amok Time has Kirk really pulling for Spock in order to get him home to aid in his ailment, and "The Menagerie" has Kirk dealing with Spock who disobeys orders and steals the Enterprise. There are good episodes that showcase these types of conflicts, but they weren't the routine. With these new movies, EVERYTHING that happens has to affect their relationship is some epic way, even on things that in the original series they would just wave their hand at. Violate the prime directive? Inexcusable! Going after Khan? You should know better!

This is what happens when you have writers who take this material for granted rather than what it is. They literally write lines of dialogue telling you that their relationship is special instead of, you know, just making their relationship special. And some of the best relationship moments between these two, or heck, all the characters, are the things that subtle and rare. With the original characters, they were friends but they acted professionally. With these new characters, it's ALWAYS about their friendship.

 

[Solo4114]

When it comes to that "Star Trek Feel" of the classic series and movies, the most obvious absence is the Kirk and Spock relationship. In the original series, there was no doubt that Kirk and Spock were good friends, but it was never done in such a way where every situation the characters were faced with had to have some form of impact on their friendship. The two spent a lot of time figuring problems out without being in each other's faces about whether or not it was the right or wrong thing to do. That's not to say every episode should be like this. Amok Time has Kirk really pulling for Spock in order to get him home to aid in his ailment, and "The Menagerie" has Kirk dealing with Spock who disobeys orders and steals the Enterprise. There are good episodes that showcase these types of conflicts, but they weren't the routine. With these new movies, EVERYTHING that happens has to affect their relationship is some epic way, even on things that in the original series they would just wave their hand at. Violate the prime directive? Inexcusable! Going after Khan? You should know better!

This is what happens when you have writers who take this material for granted rather than what it is. They literally write lines of dialogue telling you that their relationship is special instead of, you know, just making their relationship special. And some of the best relationship moments between these two, or heck, all the characters, are the things that subtle and rare. With the original characters, they were friends but they acted professionally. With these new characters, it's ALWAYS about their friendship.

I think that comes down to the fact that we're dealing with (1) a rebooted series, and (2) films instead of television. Something that I think a lot of people (in particular the JJ team) miss or ignore is the fact that a long-running TV show can help establish relationship dynamics even when you're not dealing with the relationship itself front-and-center. When you've got 2 hours to tell your story, you have to cram a LOT of that stuff into a much tighter space. On top of that, I think JJ & Co. prefer more overtly emotional stories. When you've got the more relaxed pace of the TV show, you don't need every story to be an OMGTEARJERKER moment or whathaveyou. You can indulge in some more mundane or subtle characterization. This is also something that I think comes into play with the show being a reboot. The character relationships are fundamentally different because the characters themselves are different. Spock is FAR more emotional, not least because of the destruction of his homeworld. Kirk is far more reckless and hot-headed because he grew up without his father's more sobering influence. That naturally colors their behavior, and it's all new.

So, on the one hand, we have over 100 hours of time we had with the original cast in various forms (TOS, TAS, the films). On the other, we have a little over 4 hours with the new crew.

100 vs. 4.

In light of that, I can see why they'd approach the new characters more broadly than the old ones. They kind of have to. They don't really have time for a ton of subtlety or relying on the audience's existing knowledge of the characters and their relationships. Now, admittedly, all this goes back to the decision to reboot the timeline and fundamentally change the characters. But if you accept that, then it creates a host of other issues like "How do we establish the relationships in a clear way that keeps things exciting?" I may not always like JJ's answer to that question (I liked it a LOT more in this film than in the last one, though), but I understand the reason behind the answer, at least.

 

[norgs79]

JJ Abrams - legend. Will I still be saying that in 2015?? I hope so.

 

[Bryancd]

Agreed Dan, well said. I often try and point out how fundamentally different film Trek is vs. TV Trek and when you add in the fact that these two films are completely new realizations of the characters, there is no practical way to compare them. And yet everyone continues to try.

 

[Kerr Avon]

Even standing on it's own, without comparing to anything else, it's still crap.

 

[jlee562]

For me:
STID :: Star Trek
Skyfall :: Bond

 

[Solo4114]

Even standing on it's own, without comparing to anything else, it's still crap.

The first one was more mediocre to me than crap. MOstly that's down to the score, some of the logic involving the Narada and Nero's motivations, and the characters seeming not really fleshed out but just sort of placeholders. The second one felt like the characters were really establishing themselves -- albeit within the new continuity. the main drawback was the villain again, who seemed to have a weak or at least underexplored motivation. Carol Marcus, though, was used ineffectively, much the way the characters in the first film were ineffectively used at times (e.g., included just so they could say "We included them!"). Might not be one's cup of tea, but I don't think the movies are crap. Battlefield Earth? THAT'S crap. Transformers? Craptastic. These are just sort of by-the-numbers sci-fi spectacles.

For me:
STID :: Star Trek
Skyfall :: Bond

Fair explanation, except that it'd be a tighter analogy if, for example, Trek was a novel series and these characters were a lot closer to the characters in the novels.

 

[Michael Bergeron]

For me:
STID :: Star Trek
Skyfall :: Bond

??

Care to elaborate?

 

[Solo4114]

At a guess: "Not Bond/Star Trek."

 

[NakedMoleRat]

I could give them a pass at trying to cram a lot of development into a 2 hours slot, if there wasn't already 47 years of established Trek to draw from!

 

[Jeyl]

In light of that, I can see why they'd approach the new characters more broadly than the old ones. They kind of have to. They don't really have time for a ton of subtlety or relying on the audience's existing knowledge of the characters and their relationships.

I understand the difference between a TV series and a Star Trek movie, but when you look at the Kirk/Spock relationship in TWOK and ignore the TV series, it's still a solid presentation of these two characters' relationship. It's not overt nor is there any real conflict between the two for the sake of drama. Heck, outside of Spock's birthday present, it's fairly down beat. Now you might bring up the fact that this is the crew just starting out, but here's the problem. We already had that "just starting out" story with the last movie. We've already had Spock dealing with his emotions, Kirk dealing with Spock being an unemotional person, the crew coming together in the end and setting out on an epic adventure. Despite making their friendship the focus of these new films, there's not much they're doing with it other than using the same conflicts all over again.

 

[Bryancd]

In regards to the villain, I think the real problem was they tried to make it two different people. Dispose of Marcus entirely and you have a much better story. By the way I just went for fun and the last time to a 10:00am matinee here in Scottsdale, AZ and there were 8 other people in there with me. I was shocked and pleasantly surprised.

- - - Updated - - -

I understand the difference between a TV series and a Star Trek movie, but when you look at the Kirk/Spock relationship in TWOK and ignore the TV series...

Just stop. That's absurd, you can't possibly judge their interaction in a vacuum, of course it was built upon 3 seasons of TOS, a previous film, and a decade of fandom. It is entirely informed by that. Please.

 

[Michael Bergeron]

At a guess: "Not Bond/Star Trek."

In which case I respectfully disagree. :lol

Skyfall was different to much of the modern Bond that people seem to relate to but very much captured the spirit of the older stuff in a modern way IMHO.

Star Trek, while enjoyable, missed that boat.

 

[jlee562]

??

Care to elaborate?

What, SAT analogies don't fly here?

Skyfall, IMHO is the best Bond film in years. It captured all the right things people expect from Bond canon. Brought Q back in, with a touch of gadgets (although not over the top); injected a bit more light heartedness at the appropriate moments; tipped its hat for a little nostalgia (with the DB5); but also took the series to a new place with the characters.

I was really disappointed with Casino Royale, and was totally uninterested in QOS. But Skyfall reinvigorated the franchise in a big way.

STID, I felt took the same approach to the Trek franchise. It hit on the notes that people expect from the franchise (had the character moments for the principle cast); revisited the Trek canon to bring in the Klingons and Khan; and moved the series into a more modern context.

Having said that, I think Skyfall was a better crafted film, but in terms of what each film achieves for their respective franchises, they both moved familiar characters into a coherent 21st century interpretation which was familiar enough, but also had just enough difference.

 

[Michael Bergeron]

What, SAT analogies don't fly here?

They do, I just didn't know if you meant it in a positive way or a negative.

Skyfall, IMHO is the best Bond film in years. It captured all the right things people expect from Bond canon. Brought Q back in, with a touch of gadgets (although not over the top); injected a bit more light heartedness at the appropriate moments; tipped its hat for a little nostalgia (with the DB5); but also took the series to a new place with the characters.

I was really disappointed with Casino Royale, and was totally uninterested in QOS. But Skyfall reinvigorated the franchise in a big way.

STID, I felt took the same approach to the Trek franchise. It hit on the notes that people expect from the franchise (had the character moments for the principle cast); revisited the Trek canon to bring in the Klingons and Khan; and moved the series into a more modern context.

Having said that, I think Skyfall was a better crafted film, but in terms of what each film achieves for their respective franchises, they both moved familiar characters into a coherent 21st century interpretation which was familiar enough, but also had just enough difference.

Ah! I agree with you then for the most part.

I loved CR and didn't think QOS was that bad but Skyfall hit so many notes so well.

STID tried to do the same but for me just wasn't as successful. I see where you're coming from though as both films end setting up a future of the characters as we would expect them in their traditional roles but with a definite 21st century feel.

Sent from my SGH-I317M using Tapatalk 2

 

[Jeyl]

Just stop.

No.

That's absurd, you can't possibly judge their interaction in a vacuum, of course it was built upon 3 seasons of TOS, a previous film, and a decade of fandom. It is entirely informed by that. Please.

I think someone who has never watched the original series can enjoy The Wrath of Khan. Kirk and Spock's friendship is no different than a friendship in a stand alone movie about two friends who have known each other for a long time.

 

[Bryancd]

No.



I think someone who has never watched the original series can enjoy The Wrath of Khan. Kirk and Spock's friendship is no different than a friendship in a stand alone movie about two friends who have known each other for a long time.

And I think someone could watch Into Darkness with no previous knowledge of the characters beyond the '09 film and have the same reaction. And by the way, your Earth in danger complaint features in TMP, The Voyage Home, Generations, First Contact, and Nemesis, so another of your tent poles proves to be ethereal.

 

[Jeyl]

And by the way, your Earth in danger complaint features in TMP, The Voyage Home, Generations, First Contact, and Nemesis, so another of your tent poles proves to be ethereal.

You're wrong. Earth was not in danger in Generations.