"Into Darkness" Boldly Goes Where Others HAVE Gone Before (but still well worth return visits)

[revdorothyl]

I finally got around to seeing "Star Trek: Into Darkness" in the theater yesterday and was pretty well satisfied, though it definitely covered some familiar ST:TOS and original series movies territory. Still, it mixed the familiar elements around in some truly interesting and entertaining ways. And I'm fond enough of ALL the new Enterprise

Comments

[anonymous]

...and the 'needs of the many' death scene works even better for me, in some ways, with Spock on the other side of the glass, saying good-bye to his newly-realized (rather than oldest and best) friend Kirk, and doing the "Kha-a-a-a-an!" scream of grief and promised vengeance. I agree, this was a surprise turn-around that really worked. Brilliant writing. I think some of us were dreading a re-do of “The Wrath of Khan,” because it might feel exploitative, but this twist, with Kirk taking the logical role and Spock taking the grief-stricken, revenge role, really worked for me. (Also, it starts me wondering what core themes they will revisit in future movies

[revdorothyl]

(Also, it starts me wondering what core themes they will revisit in future movies.)

Yes, I'm really looking forward to future additions to this series, now, since they seem to have beaten the 'every other Trek movie tends to suck to some degree' curse. (Or maybe they're just making up for the fact that the ST:TNG movies ended with two relative stinkers in a row, in "Insurrection" and "Nemesis", making "First Contact" the only really good, consistently re-watchable entry in their part of the movie franchise.)

...by that point in the movie I was just plain tired of fist-fights...Agreed! At times, the explosions and fist-fights reminded me of the last two ST:TNG movies, in which they kept trying to add more and more 'action' and explosions and fast rides, to make up for the increasing ossification of the characters and the general backwards trend in their relationships. Perhaps I didn't mind the super-abundance of action so much in THIS film because the characters still seem so very fresh and the relationships so full of future

[anonymous]

I actually found [Cumberbatch's Khan] a sympathetic character for a little while, even when I knew his real name, until his essential ruthlessness and savagery came out, scaring me even more than the more romantic, superficially charming, occasionally swashbuckling portrayal offered by Ricardo Montalban in the original series and movie.

Cumberbatch was a terrific villain. And yet I have to admit I missed the swashbuckling Montalban - so often, a villain is effective precisely because he/she is so attractive, seductive, and charming on the surface, so that one is deceived and taken off-guard when the true evilness shows through. Cumberbatch was too cold and calculating to take me off guard. Admittedly, though, Montalban becomes something of a cliché, and sometimes we laugh at his character’s over-the-top Don Juan role; one would never laugh at Cumberbatch’s character.

And of course I enjoyed Scotty disabling the super-ship that was threatening the 'Enterprise'...The new Scotty is delightful. I wasn’t sure I was going to warm up to

[revdorothyl]

...one would never laugh at Cumberbatch’s character.

No, indeed! The sympathy and sneaking admiration I felt so briefly for Cumberbatch's Khan didn't have anything to do with his presenting himself as a romantic or swashbuckling figure, but rather because of the deep and apparently genuine bleakness of his grief when he described his belief that Admiral Marcus had killed his 72 'family' members. In those moments, I could almost see him as sort of the negative image of what Kirk and/or Spock might have felt and become, if their isolation and losses had been just that bit more complete (if Kirk had never met Pike, e.g., and had therefore never entered Starfleet, or if Spock had truly found himself the last Vulcan left alive in the galaxy), and it was on that basis that I could begin to see Khan as somewhat sympathetic, someone whose pain I could recognize and feel for.

That little dude is too much like an Ewok or other Star Wars “cute” character, and he doesn’t do much for me. Maybe I’m missing the point.I think that IS the point of

[anonymous]

(Plus we get a glimpse of what a formidable starship captain Hikaru Sulu will be, as also seen in that 6th TOS film!)

Yes! That was a very impressive Sulu in the captain’s seat! He nailed that scene. The film helped make that delivery all the more amazing because of his initial doubt at being placed in the captain’s chair.

It was also fun to see Chekhov in a big role, having to replace Scotty. All the main characters (except Bones, really) had a bigger, more challenging role to play and some growing up to do.

...Christopher Pike -- whose role as substitute father-figure for Kirk, particularly, comes through even more strongly than in the first film...

Yes, the scenes with Pike as a father figure built on the first movie and took the story further. The theme of Kirk having to grow into his role as captain was very well done. I found it very moving and compelling when Kirk grieves for Pike, and Spock with him. We didn’t really get to know Pike in the original series, and the character has become essential to the new movies.

[revdorothyl]

All the main characters (except Bones, really) had a bigger, more challenging role to play and some growing up to do.

Bones may've gotten short-changed a bit in terms of screen-time, but really he was given a lot to do (relatively speaking) in the first film, and the implication is that he -- like Scotty -- is older and more 'grown up' than Kirk and the rest, including Spock (who, due to the much longer Vulcan lifespan, is really still just a fresh-faced kid among his own people, in spite of his greater years of experience and education).

We didn’t really get to know Pike in the original series, ...All we really knew about Pike in the original series was that the unemotional Mr. Spock was willing to risk not only his career but also his LIFE (only death sentence left on the books was for visiting the forbidden planet of Talos IV) in order to give his former captain the chance for a better (if illusory) life than being a brain trapped in a lump of unmoving flesh with only a blinking light with which to communicate his 'yes' or 'no'

[anonymous]

...I love the fact that because of -- or more often, it seems, IN SPITE OF -- her romantic relationship with Spock, this version of Uhura has become an essential part of the core group dynamics, as well as someone who's just as likely to beam down or rush in to save the day as Kirk, Spock, or McCoy. Though I found the Spock-Uhura romance initially shocking in the first movie (I think everyone in the theater gasped when she started kissing him in the turbo lift), the idea has grown on me, and I think it is very well done. Uhura is portrayed as a competent and assertive woman with equal say in the relationship (although see my comments below). I appreciate especially that these films are un-doing a long-entrenched theme in Star Trek that the captain and other main characters cannot have long-lasting love relationships. They are so wedded to their ship and their work that any love interest must soon be broken away. In the original series, Kirk fell in love dozens of times, but the object of his affections (and I use the term “object”

[revdorothyl]

...Scotty’s and McCoy’s love interests also get deep-sixed within the episode, and I don’t recall Uhura ever having a love interest.Yeah, that was the old "Bonanza Syndrome" of episodic television. The regular characters had to maintain their relationships with each other in pretty much the same shape from week to week and remain available for future guest-star love interests, so if it ever got SERIOUS, as in "I might actually make a permanent commitment to you and thereby change many things about my life and living conditions", then the serious love interest had to DIE

[revdorothyl]

But it would be an interesting twist, at some point, to give Kirk a relationship that lasts, and see how that affects the dyads, triads, and other groupings that have been established.Even though they used her for a gratuitous 'girl in her underwear' scene, I was somewhat encouraged by the fact that they introduced Dr. Carol Marcus as a MEMBER of Starfleet, someone who will be serving on the crew in future, apparently. In "Wrath of Khan", Carol's explanation to Kirk about why she'd never told David who his father centered around the fact that she and Kirk inhabited different worlds, with no chance that they'd ever be together, and she'd wanted to keep her son David in her world, rather than encourage him to go into Starfleet and fly around the universe like his dad. The alternate history of THIS universe, with Nero's attacks having so threatened the Federation and done so much damage to Starfleet, seems to have resulted in young Dr. Marcus actually enlisting in Starfleet, following a bit more in her own father's footsteps.

[revdorothyl]

P.S. -- I have a sneaking suspicion that we can put a lot of these films' emphasis on Kirk-as-girl-crazy-adolescent down to the fact that the writers are MALE "Star Trek" fans (no female fans on the writing staff for either movie, as far as I've heard), and therefore seem predisposed to think that young Kirk should be even more of a "Tomcat" in his sexual proclivities than the 30-something Kirk in TOS . . . who was supposedly (according to Kirk's own recollections to McCoy in the "Shore Leave" episode, as well as some of Gary Mitchell's comments in "Where No Man Has Gone Before") a deadly serious book-worm and no-nonsense stickler for the rules when he was an Academy cadet and part-time instructor (though not above reprogramming a test simulator, simply because he doesn't believe in no-win scenarios, according to "Wrath of Khan").

[anonymous]

Plus, there's just something about Zachary Quinto's 'baby-face' version of young Spock that makes me want to pat (or pinch) his cheek at times! So adorable!

Yes, he is adorable. His baby face gives him a youthfulness that even the young Nimoy did not have, because Nimoy’s features are so much more angular. Quinto pulls off being Spock and yet gives us a very young, vulnerable Spock.

At first I wasn’t sure why they dragged Nimoy back into another picture, when his role was simply to say “can’t help you out, but yes, you are in grave danger.” And yet, to see the ancient Spock talking to the young Spock effectively reinforced the theme of Spock’s youth and relative inexperience. By the end of the original series and several movies, we have grown accustomed to Spock being able to do just about anything - he is the Yoda Jedi Master of the new Star Trek movies - and it is helpful to be reminded that the older Spock had to grow into this role, just as the young Spock must grow.

[revdorothyl]

...it is helpful to be reminded that the older Spock had to grow into this role, just as the young Spock must grow.

Good point!

It also serves as a reminder that this younger Spock cannot not grow up to be the same exact person as Spock!Prime, since their early histories have already diverged so much, with Quinto's Spock both more traumatized AND more comfortable with his emotions (to the extent of being able to be accessible and committed to a deeply, mutually satisfying relationship with Uhura, as you noted earlier) than Nimoy's was at a similar age. It took Nimoy's Spock long years of getting comfortable with the ribbing and friendship of Kirk and McCoy and the rest of his friends on the 'Enterprise' (including Uhura!) -- plus an abortive attempt at completing the Kohlinar (sp?) eradication of emotions, if you choose to accept "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" as part of the canon (personally, I do not) -- before he got that comfortable with the human half of his nature, it seemed, no matter how much he still chose to play the "