I realize I’m late to the game on this one, because by now everyone and their brother have weighed in on this movie. However, I’m a publishing author on deadline, so I see movies when I can, versus when they release.
But first, a disclaimer. I am not a huge Star Trek fan. My grandmother was the original Trekker and she loved, nay adored, Star Trek in all its forms. The hubs is also a huge Trek fan. Me — while I’ve seen every movie and all of both the original and Next Generation, along with much of the many other spinoffs — I think they’re merely okay. I like them just fine, but I don’t care about “canon” on this series. Who did what to whom in which of the many versions and iterations of Trek means pretty much nada to me. I care about being entertained. And while I had a couple little niggles about J.J. Abram’s Star Trek reboot, overall I thought it was awesome.
So, now that I’ve finally gotten into the theater to see this movie, what do I think? I think it’s a freaking perfect movie, that’s what I think.
The longer you write, the harder it is to watch movies and TV shows, let alone read other people’s books. Why? Because you spot all the things done wrong — where someone left a gaping plot hole or three, where someone went with a take on a scene you’d have done very differently, when an ending is blah, and so on. But you enter every entertainment experience hoping that it’ll be the one that blows you away and reminds you that it’s still possible to do it all right. This is that movie.
First off, the cast is amazing. I love all the ways they’re different and yet still sort of the same as the original cast, but I love how they’re different more. Chris Pine is great as Kirk, Zachary Quinto is awesome as Spock, and I adore John Cho as Sulu (with all love and respect to the Ambassador of SciFi Cool, George Takai, who we all know is pretty much one of the most awesome people on the planet). I squeed at the “surprise” cameo (which, for the sake of the two people out there who haven’t yet seen the film I will not reveal here). Karl Urban is awesome as Bones. Take the waxing rhapsodic about the rest of the cast as a given.
Next, the story has no plot holes. Let me say that again — NO PLOT HOLES. Every scene works, everything connects back to something prior, there is clear connection to the first movie, and every necessary question is answered, with the questioned unanswered clearly being saved for upcoming movies. But it’s all done organically, so that you don’t realize every box has been checked, every t crossed, every i dotted, until the end.
There is a perfect blend of action, humor, romance, pathos, danger, heartbreak, drama, intelligence, and adventure. And the pacing is spot on. The writing is terrific, the cast’s timing is excellent, and the visuals are great — you never feel like you’re watching something done against a green screen or on a computer, even though you actually are.
I’ve heard some Trek purists complaining about a couple scenes as being sacrosanct and arguing that they shouldn’t have been used in this movie. To which I reply, poppycock. Trek in all its forms is popular entertainment, not a religious text. Stop complaining and boldly go where Abrams is taking us — into a fabulous new future filled with awesome new adventures with the new and, yes, improved crew of the starship Enterprise as they go on their new mission to entertain in a perfectly constructed and executed fashion.
Rating: A+
I’m pretty sure that you didn’t see the same Star Trek Into Darkness as I did. Plot holes abounded, the acting was melodramatic, the plot relied entirely on artificial suspense, the cast had no chemistry whatsoever, every fight scene was twice as long as it needed to be. Outrageously stupid or impossible things happen because the “story” required them to. Any time Abrams decided he needed a close up so his wooden actors could deliver dramatic “dialogue” and “act” he obscures their faces with lens flare. The story was a blatant rip off of not just a previous Star Trek movie, but the latest James Bond film.
And I haven’t even gotten into how badly Abrams handled the Star Trek universe.
Into Darkness wasn’t just a terrible Star Trek movie, it was a terrible movie altogether. I am not even happy that I saw it for free; Abrams should have paid me to sit through his inane, puerile dreck.
I am not a purist by any means in fact I’m not even a Shatner-as-Kirk fan and I think Pine is an improvement. So even though I have a few cannon related issues, my main problem is dumb writing. Really bad. Like: We really want you to kill this guy so we want you to shoot 72 proton torpedoes at the Klingon home world but don’t worry it’s an uninhabited area? The crew doesn’t think the Klingons will notice 72 torpedoes coming at their planet? It might not be a plot hole but it is dumb. Plus Earth it appears has no defense against giant space ships falling at them. No other ships trying to do anything. Other things like a “cold fusion” bomb used to freeze things are just embarassing. They say the gravity is out but people are falling all over the place, if there’s no gravity, how are they falling? Especially since the ship is heading straight toward Earth. They should all be in free-fall. I might have bought it if they showed the Enterprise tumbling end over end.
One plot hole. Khan’s blood can bring Kirk back to life so don’t kill him but they have 72 others just like him. Even if there is a reason they can’t revive the others in time, they should at least show them trying in case that can’t get Khan. Other plot hole, Star Fleet now has the ability to beam people to other star systems so why bother sending ships after Khan, just beam the torpedoes there. In fact this super beaming tech that the last movie made up kind of erases the need for star ships.
I did have one cannon issue and that’s Khan’s magic ethnicity change. There was really no reason for the villain to be Khan at all other than for people to say “hey that’s something I already know! Familiar is good!” Also Spock was better in the 09 film. Now they just reduced him to a tattle tale and then had him, for no good reason, turn into a screaming rage monster, lowering himself to human behavior. But Trek has always treated Spock’s superiority as a defect.
It is clear that Trek movies in general are about heroics, the sense of exploration tends to happen more on the TV shows but even some of the most action packed Trek Films, First Contact and Wrath of Khan, were able to balance the action heroics with a sense of wonder. What I get from Abrams/Lindelof trek is just series of excuses to put people in heroic situations, not a well thought out story. Just a shame. My problems came more from being a science fiction fan than specifically a Trek Fan. C-
Hey Skiznot,
I agree that the movie has some issues, But I personally still thought it was a good film.
I do have to counter point your issue with the Kahn blood. We know that Kahn’s blood has that regenerative quality, however that doesn’t mean that any of the other augments have that too. One would assume that being their leader he is some how superior to the superior… 🙂
Yeah, any single issue can be explained away. I do it all the time. I knew they were going to have a white guy play Khan so in my mind I just re-wrote Trek history and Khan was a test tube baby and could have had any name/ethnicity. Even though in Space Seed, they say he’s North Indian just by looking at him. I couldn’t be a fan of science fiction if I couldn’t let some things pass. It’s just when they pile up too high or pull me out of the story. I thought the story was weak to begin with. My main point though is that my reason’s for disliking the film were mainly on it’s own lack of merit rather than attachments to previous Trek stuff.
All good points. the blood was just your one point that I could specifically make a counter argument about.
Remember in both movies they have basically said “who needs ships anymore” but they ignore that fact.
I’m a long time fan of the prime universe but I’m willing to set aside the the new universe differences.
Also it might be nicer to say “I don’t understand the complaining” in stead of “stop complaining.” It sounds like the “get over it” mentality. I do understand, Genie, I have been guilty of saying this kind of thing, really guilty. But I have come to think it’s perfectly ok to be a purist, especially if you feel what is important to you about the property is not being respected. I LOVE the new Batgirl but I understand that people who were vested in the Oracle story line are upset with the change. I can’t even get into the SGU discussion anymore but I just had to realize that the Stargate TV show purists didn’t have to like it and they didn’t change my enjoyment of what I thought was a better show. So I’m actually glad you liked Into Darkness. I went in with an open mind but was disappointed from a story standpoint. And I’m glad the film was successful in that it may open the door to better science fiction. Also I know it will inspire some young people to want to explore space. Everyone goes in with a different set of expectations and a different requirement for success.
I do get over the disappointment. I’m just frustrated that with the technology to tell ANY story in the film medium, science fiction so often comes up short and too watered down for my taste. But I still wait for the next gem, until then I know I can always find good Science Fiction in books.
Gina I loved your line that this film “is popular entertainment, not a religious text.” I am an original Trekkie (Trekker for those johnny-come-lately’s) that goes all the way back to the 1st official letter campaign with Bjo to save TOS and I say to you – Amen sister!