Finally saw it last night, and I don’t know that I’ve ever enjoyed a completely idiotic movie more than Star Trek Into Darkness. Up until right around the Khan reveal, I was absolutely loving the ride. And even after that point, it was pretty damn fun, despite the ridiculously convoluted plot. Abrams can shoot the hell out of a movie, and he definitely knows how to keep the pace moving, to the point where you don’t even have time to questions the story’s deficiencies. And I mean that as a compliment. That being said, there were two or three huge issues I just have to vent about, if only to try and make sense of this stuff as I type (though I have a feeling I won’t)...
Cumberbatch did great with the material he was given, but it honestly felt like he initially really was intended to be an original villain named John Harrison, and that Paramount forced the filmmakers’ hand fairly late in the process into having him be Khan. That obviously wasn’t the case, but that’s at least how it felt. He was only a sketch of Khan, with absolutely no depth or sense of history whatsoever. Everything about him was filled out and explained via exposition. Yes, he was super-strong and apparently super-smart, but it was Spock Prime (older Spock) who had to TELL the audience that Khan was the biggest threat they ever faced. We never really got that impression from what we were being shown. I was honestly shocked at how little reverence was given to the character, almost like he was an afterthought. Never mind that he started a war 300 YEARS AGO, and was essentially a fish-out-of-water in the 22nd century. That’s cool. That’s interesting. Yet, they brushed over that entire aspect in a single line of dialogue.
And I wrote this in another thread, but as it pertains to Khan, I think Abrams’ whole “mystery box” schtick finally went to far (and looks like it finally backfired on him at the box-office as well). It was like if Nolan had tried to keep Ledger's identity a secret before TDK came out, for no other reason than he just didn’t want people to know. Fact is, Abrams & co should have never made the identity of Khan a secret in the first place. His reveal served absolutely no purpose. Had we the audience - and especially characters - known the villain was Khan from the beginning, it wouldn’t have affected or changed the outcome of the plot one bit. Now, if it was a surprise reveal in the climax, that'd be one thing. But it wasn’t. Instead, it was Abrams' mystery-box-bullsh* t simply for the sake of needless mystery, and nothing more. What Abrams still hasn't learned is that if you want to keep something a secret, you don't draw attention to the fact that it's a secret. Case in point: the way Shane Black approached this very same issue with Iron Man 3. There was no mystery box he was acknowledging. He simply said from the beginning that a certain character was one person, then revealed he was another. And did so in a way that was absolutely integral to the story. The hidden identity was the point of the whole thing, and played into the theme, the villain’s plan, etc. I appreciate Abrams’ wanting to save everything for the movie-going experience. I get that. But building needless mystery into every single plot for no reason other than adding mystery is just beyond tired at this point. Good thing is, the mystery-box may finally have met its end. Like I mentioned, it definitely played a part in STIP significantly underperforming at the box-office this weekend, and you can bet Lucasfilm won’t use the same tactic with Episode VII (they’ve already acknowledged as much).
But as much as the Khan stuff bugged me, it was nothing compared to the contempt I have for the allegorical BS this movie tried to push. For those who don’t know, Bob Orci, one of the film’s screenwriters, is a HUGE conspiracy theory nut. Like, offensively so. If you follow him on Twitter, every time there’s a shooting, or some government controversy, he’s peddling all these conspiracy links and articles and what not. Like with that TDKR shooting in Denver, Orci’s convinced it was tied in with the government somehow and blah, blah, blah. It really is disgusting. Point is, he’s also a Truther. He believes without a doubt that 9/11 was an inside job. And I’m honestly surprised this hasn’t been mentioned here yet, but STID is blatant and admitted Truther propaganda. Admiral Marcus is Bush/Cheney (Orci confirmed as much on Twitter a couple days ago), a man who “wants his war,” and then uses a terrorist attack as an excuse to perpetuate that war. Khan is bin Laden, the man responsible, but also someone Marcus uses as an excuse to attack the Klingons (i.e. Iraq). Granted, in real life, any of that can be argued as truth. It’s when Orci ties Marcus to Khan with that whole convoluted backstory, that he’s trying allude that our government had ties with the 9/11 attacks/attackers, etc. It’s just utter nonsense, and it almost pisses me off that Orci uses a Star Trek movie to try and make whatever crazy point he was trying make. Granted, filmmakers using their films to push an agenda is nothing new, but when Orci tackles something like 9/11 like he does here, and uses that ridiculously out-of-place title card at the end, it comes off as distasteful, and even disrespectful. And the thing is, the allegory wasn’t even done well. Or subtly. I still don’t know what Orci was trying to say, exactly. I’m sure it had something to do with Kirk’s speech there at the end, but I honestly had stopped paying attention at that point.
There were plenty of other dumb, inexplicable choices made, like the fact that this is now a world in which DEATH HAS BEEN CURED, and man can now apparently transport anywhere in the galaxy with a single device that fits in a gym bag. As mentioned in another review I read, because of that device, they don’t even need spaceships anymore. Not to mention all the other transporter inconsistencies, or inconsistencies like Kirk being able to just CALL Scotty on his flip-phone halfway across the galaxy, in real time. Yet Spock needs Uhura to use the Enterprise to establish elaborate communications with New-Vulcan. There were SO MANY stupid things like that. As if Abrams & co just stopped giving a sh*t. Which may very well have been the case, since the film’s basic plot was nearly identical to that of the last one. Think about it. In each movie, the Enterprise leaves Earth on an urgent mission, arrives at its destination just outside a planet, only to face-off against a much larger ship, as ship debris floats around them. Both movies then utilize death-defying space jumps as means to render the larger ship’s weapons inert. Finally, it becomes a race back to Earth between the two ships, as both villains seek climactic revenge on Starfleet/San Francisco. Seriously, STID is the Hangover II of the Star Trek universe. Same basic plot, same characters, with only a few different locations and slightly tweaked motivations. Even the final scenes were identical. Hadn’t the crew essentially overcome their differences and come together in a happy montage aboard the Enterprise in the last movie?
And yet, like I mentioned above, despite all of these gripes... I somehow still REALLY enjoyed this movie. I feel so confused. Like I’ve been completely duped, and liked it. More than anything, it’s obvious my enjoyment is due to these characters, and these actors, hands down. I LOVE this cast, and the one thing above all that Abrams & co get right is the character relationships and interactions. The phenomenal chemistry of the crew, at the very least, takes my mind off the plot holes as I’m watching. Which is a pretty incredible feat. It’s just kind of lame that it took TWO movies to get the crew to a place of mutual respect and understanding via nearly identical plots. They’ll obviously always have conflict and tension among them - that’s what makes them so fun to watch - but at least now, in the third film, they can FINALLY boldly go where no man has gone before. I just hope Kurtzman, Orci & Lindelof don’t make the trip.
[This message has been edited by TCTTS (edited 5/20/2013 10:27a).]
Cumberbatch did great with the material he was given, but it honestly felt like he initially really was intended to be an original villain named John Harrison, and that Paramount forced the filmmakers’ hand fairly late in the process into having him be Khan. That obviously wasn’t the case, but that’s at least how it felt. He was only a sketch of Khan, with absolutely no depth or sense of history whatsoever. Everything about him was filled out and explained via exposition. Yes, he was super-strong and apparently super-smart, but it was Spock Prime (older Spock) who had to TELL the audience that Khan was the biggest threat they ever faced. We never really got that impression from what we were being shown. I was honestly shocked at how little reverence was given to the character, almost like he was an afterthought. Never mind that he started a war 300 YEARS AGO, and was essentially a fish-out-of-water in the 22nd century. That’s cool. That’s interesting. Yet, they brushed over that entire aspect in a single line of dialogue.
And I wrote this in another thread, but as it pertains to Khan, I think Abrams’ whole “mystery box” schtick finally went to far (and looks like it finally backfired on him at the box-office as well). It was like if Nolan had tried to keep Ledger's identity a secret before TDK came out, for no other reason than he just didn’t want people to know. Fact is, Abrams & co should have never made the identity of Khan a secret in the first place. His reveal served absolutely no purpose. Had we the audience - and especially characters - known the villain was Khan from the beginning, it wouldn’t have affected or changed the outcome of the plot one bit. Now, if it was a surprise reveal in the climax, that'd be one thing. But it wasn’t. Instead, it was Abrams' mystery-box-bullsh* t simply for the sake of needless mystery, and nothing more. What Abrams still hasn't learned is that if you want to keep something a secret, you don't draw attention to the fact that it's a secret. Case in point: the way Shane Black approached this very same issue with Iron Man 3. There was no mystery box he was acknowledging. He simply said from the beginning that a certain character was one person, then revealed he was another. And did so in a way that was absolutely integral to the story. The hidden identity was the point of the whole thing, and played into the theme, the villain’s plan, etc. I appreciate Abrams’ wanting to save everything for the movie-going experience. I get that. But building needless mystery into every single plot for no reason other than adding mystery is just beyond tired at this point. Good thing is, the mystery-box may finally have met its end. Like I mentioned, it definitely played a part in STIP significantly underperforming at the box-office this weekend, and you can bet Lucasfilm won’t use the same tactic with Episode VII (they’ve already acknowledged as much).
But as much as the Khan stuff bugged me, it was nothing compared to the contempt I have for the allegorical BS this movie tried to push. For those who don’t know, Bob Orci, one of the film’s screenwriters, is a HUGE conspiracy theory nut. Like, offensively so. If you follow him on Twitter, every time there’s a shooting, or some government controversy, he’s peddling all these conspiracy links and articles and what not. Like with that TDKR shooting in Denver, Orci’s convinced it was tied in with the government somehow and blah, blah, blah. It really is disgusting. Point is, he’s also a Truther. He believes without a doubt that 9/11 was an inside job. And I’m honestly surprised this hasn’t been mentioned here yet, but STID is blatant and admitted Truther propaganda. Admiral Marcus is Bush/Cheney (Orci confirmed as much on Twitter a couple days ago), a man who “wants his war,” and then uses a terrorist attack as an excuse to perpetuate that war. Khan is bin Laden, the man responsible, but also someone Marcus uses as an excuse to attack the Klingons (i.e. Iraq). Granted, in real life, any of that can be argued as truth. It’s when Orci ties Marcus to Khan with that whole convoluted backstory, that he’s trying allude that our government had ties with the 9/11 attacks/attackers, etc. It’s just utter nonsense, and it almost pisses me off that Orci uses a Star Trek movie to try and make whatever crazy point he was trying make. Granted, filmmakers using their films to push an agenda is nothing new, but when Orci tackles something like 9/11 like he does here, and uses that ridiculously out-of-place title card at the end, it comes off as distasteful, and even disrespectful. And the thing is, the allegory wasn’t even done well. Or subtly. I still don’t know what Orci was trying to say, exactly. I’m sure it had something to do with Kirk’s speech there at the end, but I honestly had stopped paying attention at that point.
There were plenty of other dumb, inexplicable choices made, like the fact that this is now a world in which DEATH HAS BEEN CURED, and man can now apparently transport anywhere in the galaxy with a single device that fits in a gym bag. As mentioned in another review I read, because of that device, they don’t even need spaceships anymore. Not to mention all the other transporter inconsistencies, or inconsistencies like Kirk being able to just CALL Scotty on his flip-phone halfway across the galaxy, in real time. Yet Spock needs Uhura to use the Enterprise to establish elaborate communications with New-Vulcan. There were SO MANY stupid things like that. As if Abrams & co just stopped giving a sh*t. Which may very well have been the case, since the film’s basic plot was nearly identical to that of the last one. Think about it. In each movie, the Enterprise leaves Earth on an urgent mission, arrives at its destination just outside a planet, only to face-off against a much larger ship, as ship debris floats around them. Both movies then utilize death-defying space jumps as means to render the larger ship’s weapons inert. Finally, it becomes a race back to Earth between the two ships, as both villains seek climactic revenge on Starfleet/San Francisco. Seriously, STID is the Hangover II of the Star Trek universe. Same basic plot, same characters, with only a few different locations and slightly tweaked motivations. Even the final scenes were identical. Hadn’t the crew essentially overcome their differences and come together in a happy montage aboard the Enterprise in the last movie?
And yet, like I mentioned above, despite all of these gripes... I somehow still REALLY enjoyed this movie. I feel so confused. Like I’ve been completely duped, and liked it. More than anything, it’s obvious my enjoyment is due to these characters, and these actors, hands down. I LOVE this cast, and the one thing above all that Abrams & co get right is the character relationships and interactions. The phenomenal chemistry of the crew, at the very least, takes my mind off the plot holes as I’m watching. Which is a pretty incredible feat. It’s just kind of lame that it took TWO movies to get the crew to a place of mutual respect and understanding via nearly identical plots. They’ll obviously always have conflict and tension among them - that’s what makes them so fun to watch - but at least now, in the third film, they can FINALLY boldly go where no man has gone before. I just hope Kurtzman, Orci & Lindelof don’t make the trip.
[This message has been edited by TCTTS (edited 5/20/2013 10:27a).]