Movie Review - Star Trek - Into Darkness
After 5 separate TV series franchises, and 11 previous movies, it seems stupid to complain that this sequel to a reboot is overly-derivative and unnecessarily cheesy, but it's true.
It's not all bad. John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch), a top Star Fleet agent gone rogue, bombs first a secret weapons installation, and then attacks a meeting of top Star Fleet officers including Admiral Marcus (Peter Weller) and Admiral Pike (Bruce Greenwood), before fleeing to the Klingon moon Kronos where Star Fleet cannot follow without escalating existing diplomatic tensions into war. So Kirk (Chris Pine) and the rest of the crew of the Enterprise have to improvise to go after him.
The basic plot is good, and it's visually spectacular. Director J.J. Abrams also does a lot of great character work in the beginning between Kirk, Spock and Pike, highlighting how troublesome and arrogant Kirk is, and how breaking the Prime Directive is a Big Deal when you're not umpteen sectors away in the middle of a 5-year mission, and don't have 20 years proven experience to trade on for some leeway in interpreting the regulations.
But - the details. The devil is in the details. And they've ripped too many details too blatantly from The Original Series for my taste.
It's not the basic things. Bones' "Dammit Jim, I'm a doctor, not a torpedo engineer" line is a little cheesy, but it's pretty much required. That's what Bones used to say. If you're going to reboot the Star Trek franchise, you have to be true to the original characters, and that's just part of it. Even though that snowclone has been extracted, parodied to death, become a part of the pop-culture background, and turned into a cliché in the 40+ years since the original series first aired, it still fits here.[0]
No, it's more the blatant re-use of plot elements that bugs me. It's not correct to call this a remake of any particular original series episode or film, but of course some of the other characters from that universe are still around to influence events. Now, if they'd wanted to remake a particular story, I could understand that. If they'd wanted to show how a particular story might play out differently in the rebooted universe, OK.
My problem is that they've done it half-way. They've taken the core of an original series story, played the main arc out completely differently, but then awkwardly shoehorned in individual plot elements and scenes from the original story. Only with a twist!!! So it's totally different... except not. The worst example is where, in the original, there is genuine tension and emotion from a thinking that the crew involved really might not get out of the situation they're in. In this version, the way out is so obviously and ham-fistedly telegraphed in advance - with tribbles no less! - that there's almost no sense of real danger at all. It's a flimsy cardboard copy.
Also, [Minor spoiler]Leonard Nimoy's scene is a complete waste of time and space.
Those moments feel clumsy and artificial. It's a pity, because so much else is good. In particular, Benedict Cumberbatch's interpretation of villain John Harrison[1] is admirable. It's a bold change - all the crew of the enterprise are exactly as they were originally, so why not Harrison? - but Cumberbatch manages to carry it off.
I remember reading somewhere that this Star Trek reboot was intended to appeal to people who weren't big fans of Star Trek. I suspect that J.J. Abrams has succeeded. If you don't have the original series and movies to know what's being ripped off, there's probably nothing bad with it, and quite a lot that's good. There's no technobabble and not much in the way of intergalactic politics. It's chases, fights, explosions, double-crosses, and plenty of banter.
[0] I am reminded of the tale of someone reading Dickens, and complaining that right from the very opening line, "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times", that it seemed derivative and clichéd all the way through to the end.
[1] If you don't remember John Harrison, don't look him up. Spoilers.
It's not all bad. John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch), a top Star Fleet agent gone rogue, bombs first a secret weapons installation, and then attacks a meeting of top Star Fleet officers including Admiral Marcus (Peter Weller) and Admiral Pike (Bruce Greenwood), before fleeing to the Klingon moon Kronos where Star Fleet cannot follow without escalating existing diplomatic tensions into war. So Kirk (Chris Pine) and the rest of the crew of the Enterprise have to improvise to go after him.
The basic plot is good, and it's visually spectacular. Director J.J. Abrams also does a lot of great character work in the beginning between Kirk, Spock and Pike, highlighting how troublesome and arrogant Kirk is, and how breaking the Prime Directive is a Big Deal when you're not umpteen sectors away in the middle of a 5-year mission, and don't have 20 years proven experience to trade on for some leeway in interpreting the regulations.
But - the details. The devil is in the details. And they've ripped too many details too blatantly from The Original Series for my taste.
It's not the basic things. Bones' "Dammit Jim, I'm a doctor, not a torpedo engineer" line is a little cheesy, but it's pretty much required. That's what Bones used to say. If you're going to reboot the Star Trek franchise, you have to be true to the original characters, and that's just part of it. Even though that snowclone has been extracted, parodied to death, become a part of the pop-culture background, and turned into a cliché in the 40+ years since the original series first aired, it still fits here.[0]
No, it's more the blatant re-use of plot elements that bugs me. It's not correct to call this a remake of any particular original series episode or film, but of course some of the other characters from that universe are still around to influence events. Now, if they'd wanted to remake a particular story, I could understand that. If they'd wanted to show how a particular story might play out differently in the rebooted universe, OK.
My problem is that they've done it half-way. They've taken the core of an original series story, played the main arc out completely differently, but then awkwardly shoehorned in individual plot elements and scenes from the original story. Only with a twist!!! So it's totally different... except not. The worst example is where, in the original, there is genuine tension and emotion from a thinking that the crew involved really might not get out of the situation they're in. In this version, the way out is so obviously and ham-fistedly telegraphed in advance - with tribbles no less! - that there's almost no sense of real danger at all. It's a flimsy cardboard copy.
Also, [Minor spoiler]Leonard Nimoy's scene is a complete waste of time and space.
Those moments feel clumsy and artificial. It's a pity, because so much else is good. In particular, Benedict Cumberbatch's interpretation of villain John Harrison[1] is admirable. It's a bold change - all the crew of the enterprise are exactly as they were originally, so why not Harrison? - but Cumberbatch manages to carry it off.
I remember reading somewhere that this Star Trek reboot was intended to appeal to people who weren't big fans of Star Trek. I suspect that J.J. Abrams has succeeded. If you don't have the original series and movies to know what's being ripped off, there's probably nothing bad with it, and quite a lot that's good. There's no technobabble and not much in the way of intergalactic politics. It's chases, fights, explosions, double-crosses, and plenty of banter.
[0] I am reminded of the tale of someone reading Dickens, and complaining that right from the very opening line, "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times", that it seemed derivative and clichéd all the way through to the end.
[1] If you don't remember John Harrison, don't look him up. Spoilers.