# Star Trek: Into Darkness



## LadyCass (May 30, 2013)

Ok, complete newbie here. But I couldn't find the star trek thread... found one from before it opened. Perhaps I'm the only person who likes Star Trek around these parts. By some chance I'm not... thought I would throw at a thread. 

I was raised on Star Trek and so am a long time fan. But I simply can't get over the writing! It's really amazing what they've done. They've taken the characters that already have a huge following and great core and found a way to rewrite the old stories. They can keep a ton of the old stuff that fans will want while speeding it up with more action and a fast pace to attract new fans.

I've always felt that Star Trek had great characters but crap story lines and action pace. Star Wars had great action pace but crap characters. I feel we're getting the best of both worlds. I just can't stand the waiting years in between films!

Does anyone know how many they are suppose to do?


----------



## The Construct (May 30, 2013)

I don't know how many they're doing, but I just wanted to agree with you that yes, Star Trek is awesome. I saw Into Darkness the day it came out and I can't wait until the next one which I don't even know anything about! I'm also a fan of the serieses(plural of series?) and have seen most of the episodes and the original movies. But the more recent movies surpass them in my opinion.


----------



## kayd_mon (May 30, 2013)

I also grew up watching Star Trek (Next Generation and reruns of Original Series). I've seen all the movies, most of them a few times. 

The new films are excellent. I love that they just call it a parallel timeline and have the "real" Spock as the bridge between the continuities. It makes it ok that they made all these changes. 

I also loved Into Darkness. They figured out a way to remake one of the best movies ever, and still have a good film (which doesn't replace the original. I sincerely hope that JJ Abrams comes back to direct the next one, but he may get tired of sci-fi after doing two Treks and Star Wars. 

By the way, I also grew up on Star Wars, and I was a bigger fan of that than Trek. I thought while watching Into Darkness that if I was a kid right now, I'd be a Trekkie because of how awesome these last two Treks were.


----------



## Ophiucha (May 30, 2013)

I've been watching Star Trek TOS recently, which I really like. Great stuff, especially for the time it came out. I'm not a fan of the current films, but they do have a lot of good action sequences. They just lack the character and philosophy of the original series, which is a shame. I'm not too fond of certain casting choices in this most recent film. I won't say the character's name to avoid spoiling the few who don't know already, but the choice to have Benedict Cumberbatch play him was... baffling. A great actor, but a very bad, uncomfortable choice. The plot was a little blander than it should have been, as well. When this went down in TOS, we'd had a lot more time to learn about these characters. There just isn't the emotional depth to this film.

But yeah, some really solid action scenes, as with the first film, and I kind of like the Spock and Uhura romance. Maybe that's just because I like Uhura. I also really like Simon Pegg's Scotty - he's fantastic in that role, I like him more than the guy who played him originally. But unless they are doing one of my _favourite _TOS stories for the next Star Trek film, I can't imagine I'll end up seeing it.


----------



## LadyCass (May 30, 2013)

I'm glad I'm not the only Star Trek fan. 

I had felt they did great with keeping the depth of the characters. They changed some massive things in Kirk and Spock's timeline. I love that they address that when dealing with the characters. They want to get Spock and Kirk to the friendship that the series is known for but realized with the changes they had to go there a different way. I love the reversal in roles they sometimes do with them.
I also felt the romance with Uhura added depth to her character. She was more a side line character in the originals, kinda like Sulu. 
Casting was great. I can see the hickup with Benedict though, he's nothing like the original. And the original Kahn was amazing.


----------



## Mythopoet (May 30, 2013)

Maybe I just have incredibly high standards because I seem to be the only person out there who was really disappointed with Into Darkness. I'm a big fan of TOS, a big Kirk fan and I think the villain (in his original iteration) that they used in Into Darkness is one of the greatest scifi villains. I also admittedly tend to be a purist (not because I'm against change in adaptations, but because I generally find that the changes made in adaptations diminish rather than expand or improve on the original). Star Trek (the first remake) was enjoyable (though certainly not great) and I was looking forward to Into Darkness, hoping that Abrams would deepen his exploration of the Star Trek universe.

Here's the thing: I don't think he did. I gave the first movie slack for being somewhat shallow since it had to establish so much as well as tell an exciting story in a short period of time. But this movie should have been deeper and it wasn't. It was even more superficial than the first. Science fiction? What science? Now, maybe he shied away from the science since he got so much crap over the red matter in the first movie. (In a franchise where "reversing the polarity" tends to fix everything and fans just laugh and take it in stride.) So I can kind of understand that. But there is one thing that sets the genres of sci fi and fantasy apart from all the others and make them my favorites: worldbuilding. But there was no worldbuilding here, not even on the relatively light level of TOS. (And when there's less worldbuilding than a Star Trek episode, there's a problem, in my book.) This story was shallow. Sure it was thrilling, on the surface. Put some real thought into it and you won't get far before you run into problems. It's an "in the moment" story, a pure action movie featuring space ships. 

And the characters... I can't even express my disappointment in this version of Kirk and Cumberbatch's villain. Both were so... diminished from the originals. Kirk is one of the most beloved characters in all of sci fi and they basically turn him into an immature and hormonal child-man. Shatner's Kirk was a real man and a real captain. Chris Pine's Kirk is destined to start an inter-galactic war because as a leader he's incompetent. The whole movie seems to be asking the question, is Kirk fit to be a Star Fleet captain? The movie acts like that question was answered yes, but in my opinion there is no satisfactory rationale, no support for that answer. 

And Cumberbatch... ugh. He's a good actor, but he was all wrong for this character. The character, the classic villain who earned the admiration of his enemies because of his complexity and greatness, was totally lost in that whitewashed mess. That casting was just purely ridiculous.

So when it comes down to it, Into Darkness was a top notch action movie, a so-so Star Trek movie but a terrible sci fi movie. I'm not looking forward to further entries in this rebooted series (I'm just gonna keep enjoying TOS) and I'm beginning to worry about what Abrams will to do Star Wars. "Anyone is better than George Lucas" might not actually be true.


----------



## Steerpike (May 30, 2013)

I like Star Trek. I liked both of the new movies, but I liked the first one better. I wouldn't call Into Darkness a remake. It has shared characters, but it isn't the same story. There did seem to be one glaring plot hole in Into Darkness (see spoiler below):



Spoiler: Plot spoiler



Near the end, a big thing is they need Khan's blood for its regenerative power. Except they have like 40 other of Khan's people in storage who are also genetically enhanced. Why not get the blood from one of them? Easy to do.


----------



## Penpilot (May 30, 2013)

To try and fill that hole. I have to get my extra big shovel for this one.



Spoiler: Plot spoiler



It wasn't established that the blood of Khan's people had the same properties. Maybe Khan was unique in some way. Also they only know for sure that Khan's blood works.

But regardless, here's a huge plot nugget I like to see them deal with. With Khan's blood, the humans now have a cure-all for everything? Except under extreme circumstances, meaning worse than getting cooked in a warp core, any human (and tribble) can be revived. Vials of immortality for everyone.


----------



## Steerpike (May 30, 2013)

That's true, Penpilot. I would like to have seen them try, though 

As to your second point, I thought that as well. Seems like it would have a substantial effect on the world.

Also, can I say that while I liked the movie generally I was pretty disappointed in the female characters, with the exception of one scene for Uhura.


----------



## Ophiucha (May 30, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> Also, can I say that while I liked the movie generally I was pretty disappointed in the female characters, with the exception of one scene for Uhura.



It's generous to say it had any female characters besides Uhura; I'd call them 'extras' myself.

I'm not sure where they're going with Carol, to be honest. The fact that they'd bring her character into the new movies makes one think they'd want her to serve the same role she did in the TV show, but instead she just sort of lingered, scantily clad in the background for a few scenes. She didn't really get to do anything except get kicked in the gut by Cumberbatch, which is a shame, since she had a lot of potential to be interesting given how she gets on the ship and who her father is. (Given the way they lingered on that kick and the nature of her character on the show, I wonder if there was any significance to that?) Perhaps it's all just setup for character/relationship development for the next film, but she wasn't even prominent enough to qualify as a token love interest character.


----------



## Steerpike (May 30, 2013)

Yeah they blew it with Carol. She had a lot of potential and it was all off-screen or hand-waved. Uhura was mainly there as a vehicle for Spock's development.


----------



## Penpilot (May 30, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> Also, can I say that while I liked the movie generally I was pretty disappointed in the female characters, with the exception of one scene for Uhura.



I feel bad for not really noticing this till now. Carol felt like little Miss Plot Device instead of a character with agency. As for Uhura, are they ever going to make a movie where she isn't mad at Spock for being Vulcan clueless?


----------



## kayd_mon (May 31, 2013)

Carol's one and only point of being in the movie is so that the shot of her standing awkwardly in her underwear could be in the trailers. 

I don't know... The old TV shows had great philosophy and character development. But I'm glad that they didn't try to match that with these new movies - they would have failed (or the fans would have said they failed regardless). Going for something different lets these stand apart and remain entertaining in their own right.


----------



## Devor (May 31, 2013)

My wife and I were going to see Iron Man 3 and Into Darkness last weekend, since her parents had the kids for a couple of days.  We saw Iron Man 3, then I read a brief review posted on Facebook about Into Darkness, and then we saw Iron Man 3 again.

The casting for the villain would just have bothered me way too much.


----------



## LadyCass (Jun 2, 2013)

Mythopoet said:


> Maybe I just have incredibly high standards because I seem to be the only person out there who was really disappointed with Into Darkness. I'm a big fan of TOS, a big Kirk fan and I think the villain (in his original iteration) that they used in Into Darkness is one of the greatest scifi villains. I also admittedly tend to be a purist (not because I'm against change in adaptations, but because I generally find that the changes made in adaptations diminish rather than expand or improve on the original). Star Trek (the first remake) was enjoyable (though certainly not great) and I was looking forward to Into Darkness, hoping that Abrams would deepen his exploration of the Star Trek universe.
> 
> 
> And the characters... I can't even express my disappointment in this version of Kirk and Cumberbatch's villain. Both were so... diminished from the originals. Kirk is one of the most beloved characters in all of sci fi and they basically turn him into an immature and hormonal child-man. Shatner's Kirk was a real man and a real captain. Chris Pine's Kirk is destined to start an inter-galactic war because as a leader he's incompetent. The whole movie seems to be asking the question, is Kirk fit to be a Star Fleet captain? The movie acts like that question was answered yes, but in my opinion there is no satisfactory rationale, no support for that answer.



Great reply. I hadn't thought at all of the lack of true Science Fiction. Maybe me feel a bit shallow for a moment! haha

I do have to disagree with the character complaints on Kirk. I like that they've changed because he's not the same Kirk. They couldn't make the same Kirk and do it justice, they knew that. This Kirk didn't have a Dad growing up, that changes everything about his core. Not being as secure and responsible that seems plausible to me when growing up as a male with no real male influences your life. They bring Pike in as the only real male challenging him in his life from a character stand point. That led me to believe he hadn't been before which would create the man we see now. I found that fascinating from a character stand point.


----------



## LadyCass (Jun 2, 2013)

Ophiucha said:


> It's generous to say it had any female characters besides Uhura; I'd call them 'extras' myself.
> 
> I'm not sure where they're going with Carol, to be honest. The fact that they'd bring her character into the new movies makes one think they'd want her to serve the same role she did in the TV show, but instead she just sort of lingered, scantily clad in the background for a few scenes. She didn't really get to do anything except get kicked in the gut by Cumberbatch, which is a shame, since she had a lot of potential to be interesting given how she gets on the ship and who her father is. (Given the way they lingered on that kick and the nature of her character on the show, I wonder if there was any significance to that?) Perhaps it's all just setup for character/relationship development for the next film, but she wasn't even prominent enough to qualify as a token love interest character.



Star Trek has always been lacking in their female character department. I agree with you guys.


----------



## Mythopoet (Jun 2, 2013)

I don't really understand what people want from Uhura and Carol Marcus. They had a role to play and they played it. They aren't central characters and they never will be. The one who really seemed to get short shrift this time was McCoy.


----------



## Jess A (Jun 2, 2013)

Hmm. I enjoyed both films. Both entertaining. 

The end of _Into Darkness_ was, for me, very weak. I just sighed when it became evident just how predictable it was going to be. The first movie was better in my opinion and I liked the pace more than in the second one.


----------



## Sheriff Woody (Jun 8, 2013)

Penpilot said:


> To try and fill that hole. I have to get my extra big shovel for this one.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




My reply:


Spoiler: Plot spoiler



Well, any cure for radiation poisoning, at least, and transfusions are indeed a common treatment for radiation poisoning, as the major damage from radiation poisoning is tissue necrosis, and clean blood is one of the best ways of cleaning out dead tissues (that's one of its biggest jobs, after all).

There are several explanations about why they could have only used Khan's blood. It would have taken 2 seconds of dialogue, so it's funny how they left that part out. Blood type, maybe? That's the easy one. They could have had Bones test one of the frozen crew members, or explain that it would take too long to thaw them out, or something else. Plenty of reasons that make sense within the context of the story, so that's not a big deal for me. 

That fact that logical explanations exist is what counts. I don't mind adding 2 + 2. Sometimes, it's better than being given 4. But one of my main beefs with this movie is that it moves almost too fast for its own good, and key plot elements are overlooked. Not necessarily plot holes or logical inconsistencies, but little things that actually make sense when you think about them. You just need to take the time to think, and most people don't do that, so they crap on the movie thinking it was stupid. That bothers me a bit.


----------



## Sheilawisz (Jun 8, 2013)

I have never been a true fan of Star Trek, but I like it enough to sometimes watch _The Next Generation_ and I like the movies as well, so I watched _Into Darkness_ with high hopes and I enjoyed it more than I had expected.

The movie is really fast-paced and packed with adventure and action, which is good for me because I do not like excessive dialogue. My favorite parts were the beginning (when the Enterprise comes out of the water!) and when the two ships fight nearby the Earth, as well as the part when Captain Kirk repairs the Warp Drive.

The Vengeance crashing in San Francisco was also one of the best parts of the movie!

I believe that they needed Khan's blood to cure Kirk because he was already available, while the others were still deep frozen. I was surprised to see that Spock was able to take on Khan in a fight (are Vulcans super strong and resistant, too?) and the fact that the Vengeance could withstand all those torpedoes exploding together _inside it_ was a little strange, as well.

Quick question: The Klingons in this movie looked very different to TNG Klingons... why is that??


----------



## Devor (Jun 8, 2013)

Sheilawisz said:


> Quick question: The Klingons in this movie looked very different to TNG Klingons... why is that??



There was a makeup change for klingons between the original series and TNG to make them more alien.  In one episode of TNG, the klingon Worf goes back in time and one of the characters asks him about it.  All he says is, "We do not speak of it."  But Into Darkness takes place back with the Original Series, so they needed to show that weird part of the lore, somehow.


----------



## ThinkerX (Jun 8, 2013)

I have the (dubious???) distinction of having watched all of the series and seen all of the movies.  So...



> I was surprised to see that Spock was able to take on Khan in a fight (are Vulcans super strong and resistant, too?)



Vulcans are notably stronger than humans, and in certain ways, tougher.  However, alcohol is a literal poison to vulcans.



> and the fact that the Vengeance could withstand all those torpedoes exploding together inside it was a little strange, as well.



1) The Vengeance was military grade.  Or in other words, built d*mn tough.

2) The warheads that went off were much smaller than the ones which would normally be present (because that space was taken up by the hibernation capsules.  Possibly, these were just the detonators...the small charges used to trigger the 'real' explosion.



> Quick question: The Klingons in this movie looked very different to TNG Klingons... why is that??



Answered in the last TV series, 'Enterprise', commanded by Archer, who was mentioned as an Admiral in the previous movie.  Essentially, we have Khan to thank for this.  Hmmm...

1) In that timeline (roughly our present or near future), Khan's bunch of supermen fought and lost a devastating war to take over the earth.  Some (Khan and company) fled, others were killed, but a large amount of genetic material - everything you need to build a superpowered psychopath - was put into a facility in deep space.

2) Klingons originally looked like the TNG Klingons.  They saw themselves as supreme warriors...but were not above improving themselves.  Shortly after encountering humans, they learned of the deep space facility where the souped up DNA was stashed and raided it.  The original intent was a sort of serum to make them even tougher.  Instead, they ended up with an out of control plague which did that AND altered their appearance.  This has been largely (and brutally) 'fixed' by TNG times.


----------

