MysteriaSleuthbedder wrote:

Mary Me wrote:

Merry wrote:

Not to be negative about it, I really did enjoy it, but as a super geeky trekkie, I did think there were some plot holes. For one thing, WHY ON EARTH WOULD HE SMUGGLE HIS CREW INSIDE TORPEDOS? What exactly was the plan there? Seems more than a teensy bit dangerous. 

 

Maybe that was the best- okay let's say 'only' way to hide his crew. I wasn't even trying to get the plot in detail but... umm... I'm sure he had his reasons 
 

Khan designed the huge Starship that he later crashed in.  That ship could be piloted by a single perosn, if necessary.  It seems to me that he designed it for himself, that he was planning to steal it after the new torpedoes he also designed were loaded aboard. Khan then has the only "Dreadnought class" Starship, (I'm assuming he would have destroyed all copies of his plans so they couldn't build another, besides bombing the facility out of existence.) his crew of 72 and his advanced weaponry. 

What would he do, then?  Maybe simply escape and look for a home for himself and his people.  Possibly make war on folks, but that is unclear in the new timeline.  But he was discovered before he could complete his mission.. 

Admiral Marcus was the real villain.  ^^^That's my hero. 

OMG THANK YOU SO MUCH!!! Wow, this makes so much more sense now. I feel so much better.

I was soooooo hoping they would find some way of not making him into a black-and-white villain. I thought maybe once he explained his story to Kirk and Spock, and then he helped them get onto the ship, maaaaybe they were going to make him ambiguous and anti-hero-ish rather than pure evil. He did have reasons for everything bad that he did - so he's got a bit of a temper, big deal. Speaking of which, if I were Spock I think I probably wouldn't have let him believe I killed his entire crew, given that he had *just* explained that that was the very reason he went on a global bombing spree in the first place.

I saw STID twice in the space of 12 hours on the weekend it was released over here... that's too long ago now! I'm desperate to see it again. 

I was born during the middle of the original film franchise, the daughter of a big Star Trek nerd. I stood no chance! By the time I hit primary school, when asked my favourite movie: "Star Trek IV. The one with the whales." (Clarification required for the uninitiated, you see.)

I've never lost that love of Star Trek, although I consider myself to be a big fan rather than a Trekkie (I feel there is a difference although how universally the two are distinguished I don't know), and I was very impressed with what JJ did with the 2009 reboot so I was really looking forward to this one.

Don't get me wrong - I DID enjoy it hugely, but I was also very disappointed. It lost a lot of the spirit of the originals, mostly on a moral level. There's no evidence that Khan was brought to trial or given a chance to defend his actions - he was just put to sleep again. What?! The plot holes were hard to miss.
It had SO much potential, but I feel that JJ & Co. did themselves a disservice by picking up Khan rather than having John Harrison as a new character. With as fine an actor as Benedict playing the villain, they could've created a new character with just as much depth and intrigue as Khan but a bit more originality. I also don't think they gave him enough back story - yes, plenty will be familiar with it from Montalban's portrayal, but if you're not, I think it might've felt a bit empty? The nods to The Wrath of Khan were entertaining but borderline cheesy, and Kirk being resurrected by Khan's blood was far too predictable; it made Kirk's death seem trivial and predictable too.

Carole Marcus.. again, so much potential wasted. She's an awesome character, at least in the original timeline. She's smart, sassy, doesn't take shit from Kirk. Here she's just eye-candy, contributes very little to the plot even though she's got a list of qualifications that make her sound like she could play a pivotal role, and then she's just set up as a future love interest... grrr. And let's not get started on how Uhura has gone from being kickass and pretty professional about her relationship with Spock to being, as Harrison's early voiceover suggests, a liability.

But as with the first film, the casting was impeccable. The spirit of each character was nicely written and portrayed. Visually, it was beautiful. I'm pretty sure I want to have Michael Giacchino's babies for that masterpiece of a score. And I can't be too disappointed in JJ & Co. really, because they've dragged Star Trek from her geeky origins into something that the mainstream can enjoy.

So that's my rant. I know I'm jumping in a bit late with this, and I certainly didn't read back through all 54 pages of discussion... but these are my thoughts Really excited for the DVD/Blu-Ray release.

bohemia wrote:

Don't get me wrong - I DID enjoy it hugely, but I was also very disappointed. It lost a lot of the spirit of the originals, mostly on a moral level. There's no evidence that Khan was brought to trial or given a chance to defend his actions - he was just put to sleep again. What?!

I think the central point is: we don't know.  Maybe he was brought to trial in some way, the last scene takes place a year later.  Or, and this is what makes sense to me, it is finally determined that the Federation doesn't know under what jurisdiction it would charge him.  Who, after all, do these people found in cryo-sleep floating in space belong to?  They are very unlikely to be citizens of Earth at this point.  They were kidnapped, Khan reacted, he did not mindlessly aggress. 

They might even be considered their own species.  The Prime Directive might come into play, which means putting them back to sleep and possibly adrift in their ship again could be the only legal option the Federation has.  The legal wrangling could go on for years.

Mostly, I think JJ is preserving Khan because he'd like him back again.  I certainly do.

It had SO much potential, but I feel that JJ & Co. did themselves a disservice by picking up Khan rather than having John Harrison as a new character. With as fine an actor as Benedict playing the villain, they could've created a new character with just as much depth and intrigue as Khan but a bit more originality. I also don't think they gave him enough back story - yes, plenty will be familiar with it from Montalban's portrayal, but if you're not, I think it might've felt a bit empty?

It seems to me that Khan's background is quite possibly left a bit murky so that in future it he can become whatever the filmakers want. In this timeline, nothing has ever happened between Kirk and Khan except what we see.   Khan, himself, may have been fed lies by his creators and not know his true story.  So, now we all have that to look forward to.  I was 15 when Star Trek TOS premiered, so I'm a lifelong Trekkie.  But I LOVE that we get to throw out old models and can start all over again.  I had no problems at all with him being Khan or with his story thus far.

The nods to The Wrath of Khan were entertaining but borderline cheesy, and Kirk being resurrected by Khan's blood was far too predictable; it made Kirk's death seem trivial and predictable too.

I think it was supposed to be predictable (had to be him or Spock for those of us familiar and it wouldn't be at all predictable to the newbies among us) and obviously we knew where his resurrection would come.  We knew, after all, that he wouldn't die forever.  I think we have to kind of keep in mind that JJ isn't making these pictures for Trekkies, but that Trekkies are writing them.  When you look at them from the POV of the uninitiated, they make much more sense. 

Carole Marcus.. again, so much potential wasted. She's an awesome character, at least in the original timeline. She's smart, sassy, doesn't take shit from Kirk. Here she's just eye-candy, contributes very little to the plot even though she's got a list of qualifications that make her sound like she could play a pivotal role, and then she's just set up as a future love interest... grrr. And let's not get started on how Uhura has gone from being kickass and pretty professional about her relationship with Spock to being, as Harrison's early voiceover suggests, a liability.

I thought the whole point was to give her backstory and set her up for future love interest for Kirk.  There's only so much screen time in a movie.  I could have done without the underwear shot, but we now have a backstory for her and I thought her role was quite significant. 

Uhura is also being set up,  to bring Spock more to the one we knew from TOS and maybe explain why Uhura - hot as she always was - never has any romantic relationships.  I suspect in the next movie, assuming such will be made, Spock is going to realize he does have to choose and will decide to eschew all romantic attachments. This leaves the door open for Nurse Chapel to show up and have her lifelong unrequited love for him.

Marcus, now part of the Enterprise family, is set up to open in the next film already in a relationship with Kirk who is so far portrayed as shallow and lothario-like.  But her job in the next pictiure would basically be to get pregnant and to leave Kirk to his Captaincy and fade away with her secret child.  We are at least three pictures away from the full-grown son showing up, if, indeed, they decide to go there in the reboot franchise. After all, the original wasn't so much a weapons expert as a biologist, iirc.

I think she should be gay and having a relationship with the white-blond spikey-haired bridge crewman.  

Last edited by MysteriaSleuthbedder (June 16, 2013 7:33 pm)

Merry wrote:

I'm sorry, Mysteria, did you say something? I couldn't hear you over BENEDICT'S AMAZING FACE.


(P.S. I stole it and avatarred it...is that ok?)

Of course!  The more Ben images in the world the better! 

Last edited by MysteriaSleuthbedder (June 17, 2013 6:45 am)

Wow, guys… really deep (and fun) points.   Especially a bunch of the depth of character/plot points Be and Mysteria made (sorry, too many great ones to quote), and bohemia, despite the difference that I didn't grow up with Trek (but was a fan of just TNG for a while) you said pretty much the bulk of what I was going to say!!  That is… if I hadn't totally dang put this off or forgotten to join the discussion after getting so excited about it when belatedly saw the movie weeks ago and enjoyed finally getting to read back over the numerous pages you guys started.  And really danged lost as to where to start…. there were just so many awesome things, yet things that left me a bit mixed, I wasn't sure how I felt about it as a whole, and it seemed many of you were similar.

It was just a little strange… it was ticking off most the boxes with an awesome cast, great effects and music, great visuals and action, lots of little references and keeping the old feel of philosophical morality/'grey area' with "good/bad", cool attention-gripping space/planet scenes……  yet I walked out of there just thinking 'whoo…  ok… that was, a whole lot of movie.'   I think it can be left unsaid that I absolutely loved Ben in it.  ;)  ;)   Pegg was hilarious, and Quinto was great with the arc of his character.  And the murkiness of good/bad under the theme of 'there isn't anything some wouldn't do for family'.  I agree the real villain here was Admiral Marcus.  But… there were just too many little things crammed in or glossed over for the sake of the movie (plot holes!) that it left with a mild feeling of something missing.

Maybe it was the fact that, in spite of Carol and Uhura getting to be brilliant and bad-ass on several occasions (standing up to dad, facing the Klingon, being super skilled with helping the ship/crew), the only two female crew members felt saddled with the same 'being there as someone's girlfriend' and 'eye candy' (I maybe wouldn't have hated the underwear scene, as much, if it had been more accidental 'oops, I saw you, now I'm even more attracted for our future dalliance/hey now, ack, don't look at me!' instead of freaking posing). 
Or that in showing the battle of morality and family for the growth of all the characters, Kirk and Spock did a great show in portraying the movement of their relationship, but for being the 'young and rising stars of the Enterprise' in their world, they weren't very… heroic? at times.  Khan at least had solid reasons and following a similar inner 'code', and I see quite a few other reviewers being on the 'anti-hero's' side, too.  Especially with the ambiguity of what happens to him at the end… kinda hard to fully root for the other side, writers…  ;P  (I can just picture one of them saying 'ok, we need to bring him down in a big fight…. but don't kill Khan!  we need him for the sequels!!')  I mean… how could we NOT root for him??  Seriously guys, just go drop him and his crew off on a out-of-the-way not-overly-populated planet to be in peace (except he might somehow cook up a way to still leave and conquer the universe... ;P)

I actually really liked Wil Wheaton's review of it… he often has great little well-written entries, and a former member of the franchise to give that perspective, to boot!      http://wilwheaton.net/2013/06/my-review-of-star-trek-into-darkness/

Wish I could wrestle out some more original points, but you guys already said a lot of it really well, and just gonna leave the enjoyment of movie as it was instead of analyzing any more....   plus I can't seem to think any further, with that picture up there....  ;P  ;)

My friends and I at school were all absolutely mad for Star Trek and we were all girls.

Russell wrote:

@Mysteria -
. But I was just rolling my eyes at the way that 'sexy scene' was handled as an obvious quick eye candy, as opposed to the sexy stuff of the first movie you mentioned, being part of showing Kirk being a ladies' man.

I agree, really.  It was quite gratuitous and a mistake, IMO.  OTOH, I may be a just a hypocrite because I don't think I would have objected at all to some gratuitous showerBatch. 

..... some people have already mentioned this - perhaps it was reasons to rally for them, the 'heros' (especially ones not always taking the high ground), rather than Harrison, whom I sympathized for with his 'good reasons'?

I think I get what you're saying.  You know, maybe it's just "Cumberbatch effect."  You put him next to anyone else and the anyone else tends to take on a certain 2-dimensionality and his character is always in 3D complete with soul. But possibly it has to do with what Cumberbatch himself called "Jungian shadow self."  We are meant to see Khan in Kirk (and Spock) and the hero in Khan. 

I think I set this up right to start at 2:06 where the interview with BC talking about Harrison begins.  It might shed some light on the issue. 

http://youtu.be/4qs568Gr7ME?t=2m6s

I'm not sure if I remembered that fact, and funny happened to say the same thing! I kind of jokingly figured that, actually! But hey... it would kinda be canon, then? And just seemed a strange way to wrap it up.

Yeah, it does. The movie feels more like "part 1 of 2"  - it's like we are left hanging  - we want to know what will become of Khan. 

Khan's story spans ST-TOS where we first meet him and then is continued in the movie Star Trek Wrath of Khan.  So, they do what you said, they leave them on a planet.  That's in the TV show.  Then, in the movie, come to find out, the planet got whacked out of orbit and became a wasteland.  Khan is much more a psychopath in the original versions, BTW. 

And yeah... Wheaton is great, isn't he?

Yeah, I mostly read him about poker.

MysteriaSleuthbedder wrote:

Davina wrote:

My friends and I at school were all absolutely mad for Star Trek and we were all girls.

As was (and am) I.  But in fact the majority of the fan base was male.  I'm not sure that remains true..  It certainly won't if Benedict Cumberbatch comes back.

BTW - boxoffice for STID went over 400m worldwide last week. 

At the last Trek convention I attended (about 3 years ago) there were roughly as many women as men. But when I grew up watching Next Gen when it was new, my friend and I were the only fans at our school at all.

miriel68 wrote:

But I think there could be also a "problem" with the script: some Kirk's and even Spock's decisions seem morally objectable and therefore it is difficult to accept them as unquestionable heroes. Even if we are told by Pike that he sees "greatness" in Kirk, I don't see it. I had the same problem with ST2009, but it only became more evident for me in STiD. In fact, I find it meaningful that many viewers justify Kirk by saying that he has yet to become the Kirk we known from TOS - but what if we didn't know TOS? How would we judge nuKirk, based only on these two films?

Well, this morally objectionable action issue is what makes them real people, I think.  There are no heroes (ask Sherlock!) at least - the way we have been conditioned to see them in some TV and film.  People are complex and have layers and they evolve.  Kirk trying to beat up Khan when he is a prisoner, or betraying him after using him by having Scotty stun him, doesn't make his willingness to die for others less heroic. 

As far as TOS, Kirk and Spock were what they were able to be in those days - here are a few of the top rated TV shows in 1962 in the U.S.: 

Wagon Train
Bonanza
Gunsmoke
Perry Mason
The Andy Griffith Show
Ben Casey

None of the heroes of these shows had a single morally ambiguous moment.  They weren't real people. Kirk and Spock had no morally ambiguous moments, either.  Not in the 1960s on TV.   Audiences are more sophisticated now, characters have to be more three-dimensional.  As Cumberbatch says in the video included above, they reflect each other - Kirk/Khan.

Kirk came unglued on Chronos at Khan because Pike was his father figure, not just because Khan killed a bunch of Starfleet people.   Kirk has Scotty stun him because he feared him and felt it was in the best interests of the Enterprise.  Spock did the dumb thing by letting Khan believe he had killed his friends, thus reaping the whirlwind for Starfleet HQ.  Spock's behavior is hardest to understand, he could have told him as soon as they detonated.  I put it down to pride.  Why would Marcus awaken Khan just for his intelligence? (I am intelligent thinks Spock.)  Now Spock will outsmart Khan and "win."  Mostly he just got a lot more people killed. Then,  Spock is going to kill Khan because he blames him for Kirk's death.  So everyone is being flawed.

I like flawed.  I'm flawed.  I thought Kirk's speech at the end was suppposed to redeem our heroes. Maybe it's meant to tell us that they won't do that revenge thing anymore and learned a lesson. 

Benedict Cumberbatch said that Khan is not a "cookie-cutter" villain, opposing the hero simply by his presence.  Our heroes aren't cookie-cutter, either.

 

Last edited by MysteriaSleuthbedder (June 20, 2013 9:55 pm)

miriel68 wrote:

Oh, I like flawed heroes, as well. May be the problem is what kind of flaws do they have? Kirk's actions you mentioned in your post are morally wrong, but I think I could understand them (even if he is a CAPTAIN. You would expect more maturity from a person in this position).

I agree.  He is immature, at least at the start.  Too immature to be Captain.  The writers and Admirals Pike and Marcus agree with us, also.  But - then Pike was killed and Marcus wanted a "stealth mission" and Kirk is dispensible. So, he was Captain again, instead of being a First Officer which would give him time to mature. 

1. His propensity for cheating without any remorse (He not only lied about Niburu, but didn't understand why it was wrong)
2. His hmm... sexual attitudes. I know I am a bit old fashioned, but going to bed with two girls at the same time is not something that I admire in man, even relatively young (but Kirk is not an adolescent any more, he must be at least 25!)

Well, Niburu was a series of errors that compounded one another.  And yes, he really didn't get it.  Immature, as we have agreed.  Not sure about the two girls at once, possible that species can only mates in pairs, human girls may still be had in single file.  

 

3. His arrogance and his feeling superior. He is arrogant while speaking with Pike, who is his superior and friend. Worse that that, I've got an impression he decided not to give Khan to Marcus not out a sense of justice, but simply because he didn't like to be forced to do this.

I don't think it was either justice or rebelliousness.  I think he believed Khan and knew Marcus was a bad guy.  I think he just wanted to get away safely, not just with Khan, but with the 72 other frozen people and his crew. 

4. I am seriously in doubt about his leadership abilities: he doesn't seem to have taken a single good decision in the whole STiD. His sacrifice is fine, but hardly qualifies, as Spock would say.

Leadership implies people will follow you and be loyal to you and he inspires that.  As for decisions, he did choose to not use the torpedoes, and he chose that as soon as they started, so that was good.  He learned to listen to counsel, no matter where it came from.  He put Spock in charge when he knew he was the best choice. 

But we were discussing the nature of the hero initially, and flaws really aren't predictors or definers of heroism. You can find someone completely repulsive and they can still be heroic.  No version of Captain Kirk was ever someone I admired in Star Trek from the first TV episode to this last movie.  But he does have the stuff of heroes, which includes never giving up and always being willing to do whatever has to be done to obtain a goal in service and duty.

Last edited by MysteriaSleuthbedder (June 21, 2013 6:03 am)