Star Trek Into Darkness (Post-release)

[tgreco]

and one final note before I attempt to cleanse my brain of that abomination I watched

While I think Benedict Cumberbatch is a damn fine actor, the reason anyone would like Khan at all is the Ricardo Montalban portrayal.

If you didn't have that character, and that performance firmly cemented in your head, and had never heard of Khan before, and that movie had to stand up on it's own merits, you would have seen Cumberbach's portrayal as the hollow, fast food slinging pile that it was.

 

[Proper]

[Abrams] was flat out LAZY.

Ahhh, yes, I see... another "non-disparaging" Abrams epithet. Nice work. I am then to assume that Nicholas Meyer was also "lazy" in his ST:TWOK "pile of BS." I get it, now.

 

[niennumb1]

I am not a big fan of the older Trek works and not a "Trekkie", but I did enjoy some of the original films made over the years.

For me, I think Abrams breathed new life into the franchise and I really love what he's done with it. I could see that if you were a hardcore TOS fan with the original Khan that there's bound to be a lot of backlash against the new Khan. Similar to that if it was a Star Wars re-telling I would be angry if someone re-introduced Boba Fett looking and being different than he ever was the way I remember it. I guess it's all subjective and how much of a fan you are of the old ones to be able to detach and see the new ones.

I personally loved the film (and the first one), but I know there's varying levels of feelings from all degrees of fans all around. I think this is one of those things you will never be able to please all audiences with.

 

[The Mad Professor]

I am not a big fan of the older Trek works and not a "Trekkie", but I did enjoy some of the original films made over the years.

For me, I think Abrams breathed new life into the franchise and I really love what he's done with it. I could see that if you were a hardcore TOS fan with the original Khan that there's bound to be a lot of backlash against the new Khan. Similar to that if it was a Star Wars re-telling I would be angry if someone re-introduced Boba Fett looking and being different than he ever was the way I remember it. I guess it's all subjective and how much of a fan you are of the old ones to be able to detach and see the new ones.

I personally loved the film (and the first one), but I know there's varying levels of feelings from all degrees of fans all around. I think this is one of those things you will never be able to please all audiences with.

For some reason, your avatar makes this entire post hilarious...

 

[tgreco]

Ahhh, yes, I see... another "non-disparaging" Abrams epithet. Nice work. I am then to assume that Nicholas Meyer was also "lazy" in his ST:TWOK "pile of BS." I get it, now.

There's a big difference to continuing an existing story which Meyer did, and repeating it which is what Abrams did.

And not only did he repeat it, but he stripped out all of the elements that made it work in the first place. The idea of seeminly moral decisions that come back to haunt you was at the very heart of WOK.

I enjoyed the reboot in 2009. But this?

It would have been better if Abrams had just redone Space Seed.
And returned later to redo the Wrath of Khan. Without the angst built up against Kirk specifically, Abrams made Khan a plot device. Not a character.

So yes, He was lazy.

 

[Proper]

I am not a big fan of the older Trek works and not a "Trekkie", but I did enjoy some of the original films made over the years.

For me, I think Abrams breathed new life into the franchise and I really love what he's done with it. I could see that if you were a hardcore TOS fan with the original Khan that there's bound to be a lot of backlash against the new Khan. Similar to that if it was a Star Wars re-telling I would be angry if someone re-introduced Boba Fett looking and being different than he ever was the way I remember it. I guess it's all subjective and how much of a fan you are of the old ones to be able to detach and see the new ones.

I personally loved the film (and the first one), but I know there's varying levels of feelings from all degrees of fans all around. I think this is one of those things you will never be able to please all audiences with.

I'm a 54-year old original "Trekkie." The original series is my favorite of all Trek series/movies.

At the same time, I very much liked the JJ movies, this one in particular, and I agree 100% with your assessment.

 

[Zuiun]

Abrams lacked the ability to come up with his own cool villian, so he had to steal one created by better writers.

I don't agree with this. If he isn't supposed to have access to *all* of previous Trek canon, then what is the sense in being OK with him "stealing" the characters of Kirk, Spock, McCoy, etc.?

The first film already told us that it was going to allow specific secondary characters to have a place in this new universe (Pike, Archer, etc.), so I don't see any reason why Khan should be off the table.

 

[Proper]

There's a big difference to continuing an existing story which Meyer did, and repeating it which is what Abrams did.

So yes, He was lazy.

I don't agree with this allegation. Abrams did not "repeat" anything. It's a completely different story within a different timeline.

So, no, he was not lazy. In fact, quite the opposite is true.

 

[tgreco]

obviously he would have access to secondary characters, that's not my beef.

Why khan?

With all of the great villians in ST universe, why do you think he specifically zeroed in on Khan?

He chose Khan because he was the coolest villian in the Star Trek Universe, and definitely the most well known.

Abrams can't do villians worth a darn. Nero was the weakest link in the first film, and Abrams knew it. So he went to the top of the list, so he could borrow some of the angst created by Meyer, and Montalban's perfect performance.

(and if you're so upset about the desctruction of your homeworld, and you've gone back in time 25 years, why not... oh I don't know... contact your homeworld and tell them the sun is going to go Super Nova... just an example of Abrams weak villian)

He could have taken any villian from 75 other episodes. He could have had a whole new villian. He could have had a survivor of the eugenics war that wasn't Khan.

He lazily cashed in on the brand name.

 

[tgreco]

I don't agree with this allegation. Abrams did not "repeat" anything. It's a completely different story within a different timeline.

So, no, he was not lazy. In fact, quite the opposite is true.

The timeline diverged when Kirk's father was killed. Even in THIS movie a model of the NX-01 sat on the Admiral's desk. So then, why did the Klingons look different? And that being said...

At the beginning of the film Kirk just "Know's that they're getting assigned to the five year mission" That's why they're being called to Pike's office. And Khan was set adrift 300 years prior. Funny... as the Botany Bay wasn't discovered until the second year of that very same five year mission....

And if it's ALL completely different, then why contact Spock Prime and ask him about Khan? And why would his information about Khan be relevant at all?

 

[Proper]

Why khan?

He could have taken any villian from 75 other episodes. He could have had a whole new villian. He could have had a survivor of the eugenics war that wasn't Khan.

He lazily cashed in on the brand name.

Why NOT Khan? Khan is a favorite villain of fans. Perhaps the most favorite and infamous one of all! And the fans wanted more of Khan! I know I did. We got what we wanted and Abrams and company made lots of money. He smartly did what the fans wanted and opened up the door for more movies! Everybody is happy!

Well, almost everybody.

 

[tgreco]

and yet if Abrams had any real creativity at all, he could have taken any of the lesser known villians from TOS and turned him into the next Khan... you know, like Nicholas Meyer did.

In the TOS universe, Khan in Space Seed was a minor villian. Meyer turned him into the ultimate bad ass.

Abrams is incapable of doing the same.

If you enjoyed it, more power to you. But at this point, in my mind, Abrams is one step up the ladder from Michael Bay. He just get's better properties to screw up.

 

[jlee562]

That he didn't, is not proof that he can't.

 

[Proper]

...at this point, in my mind, Abrams is one step up the ladder from Michael Bay. He just get's better properties to screw up.

Well, like you point out: in your mind.

 

[Jeyl]

No to all of the above except what 's your name?

The name's Van Duyn. Ted Van Duyn.

So yes, He was lazy.

And that's not even the most laziest part of the film. The crew needs to get to Qo'nos without looking like Federation personal. Now this is obviously an obstacle that Kirk did not expect and he and his crew need to figure out what to do in order to pull it off. Oh, never mind. They just happen to have a Civilian ship in their hanger from the Mudd Incident complete with fully loaded, non-confiscated weapons and whole stock of civilian clothing... How did this happen?

Something to do with Mudd. Oh, right! The Mudd Incident. Remember that one? I sure as heck don't. It's this kind of writing that makes the Bird of Prey from Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home look ingenious writing... which even on it's own it sort of was. For a Star Trek story that involved time travel, it was a ship that could go to warp, run with a small crew, become invisible and actually land on a planet. And as for it traveling in time, the former owner was Christopher Lloyd. And they didn't even have this in mind when they were making Star Trek III. But here? Screw it. They just happen to have everything they need.

Also, it was very nice of the film to establish those two red shirts (one of them was cubcake if you missed it) and completely forget about them the moment the fighting started.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, like you point out: in your mind.

And mine! He did write Armegeddon after all.

 

[Proper]

I think Robert Wise was lazy, also. And Nicholas Meyer. And Harve Bennett. And Rick Berman. And maybe even Gene, come to think of it.

And of course, I loved Armageddon.

 

[Bryancd]

Nice to meet you Ted! I'm Bryan, this is Jensen. Nice MIB prop! T Mudd thing was from the prequel comic.

 

[Bryancd]

And of course, I loved Armageddon.

Opps, I was with you up until right there.

 

[Jeyl]

View attachment 188294 Nice to meet you Ted! I'm Bryan, this is Jensen. Nice MIB prop! T Mudd thing was from the prequel comic.

Nice to meet you Bryan.

While I love the expanded universe stories and was pleasantly surprised to see some references to them in this film, this does not really qualify as a "pass" in my book. I know that's an odd thing to say since a lot of good Star Trek material base their stories on ones that have come before, but I don't see this being the case with STID. It's most likely the case that they just came up with that Mudd line as a "wink" to the fans of Trek and only wrote it into the comic as a complete after thought. Do I dare bring up Nero and how he had not one, but two completely dedicated stories based around his character's origin, motivation and what the heck he was doing for 25 years?

Also, did McCoy perform a c-section on a Gorn in the Star Trek video game?

 

[Bryancd]

No, I played the game, well almost finished, and the game implies this was their first encounter with the Gorn, so there is no continuity. I think you are belaboring the throw away reference of Mudd in STID, it was hardly required to follow the story. Complaining about Mickey Mouse stuff like that is silly.