And I absolutely loved Into Darkness.
Here is why:
|
| Benedict Cumberbatch |
|
One of the reasons people took Star Wars seriously from the start was the caliber of actors involved. Alec Guinness, Peter Cushing, James Earl Jones...these were highly respected thespians who gave the movie credibility. You had to figure if these guys saw something in the script, there had to be some gravitas to the story.
By way of contrast, what did the Star Trek movies have? Um...uh...the original casts? (Tom Hardy doesn't count because he was still a kid.) I love Ricardo Montalban, but he isn't exactly Marlon Brando. But featuring one of the greatest actors of our generation gives Into Darkness a classic vibe. Years from now his scenes will be viewed as legendary and reflect very well on the series. Same thing with Michael Fassbender as Magneto. |
|
| Spock In Love |
|
One of my favorite episodes from the original series was "This Side of Paradise", which featured, among other things, Spock revealing and displaying his love for Leila. It really showed the constant struggle the Vulcan goes through to tamp down emotions that are always just below the surface.
But some fans (see: codgers) are screaming, "Spock and Uhura can't be in love!!!" To me this makes no sense. Sarek, Spock's father, married a human woman. And he is 100% Vulcan. Why in the world would it be hard to believe that a half-Vulcan would give in to his emotions? I think it's great and the relationship adds entire levels of complexity and twists to the story that benefit all concerned. |
|
| Action |
|
Up until the J.J. Abrams movies, the Star Trek films had a fatal flaw: they were boring.
And I reiterate...I am a massive Trekker. Of the TV shows. The movies - not so much. Star Trek as a TV series has always been very cerebral. And that works in the framework of a TV show. For 22 episodes a year, stories can be slowly developed and allowed to mature organically. But a 2-hour movie? Forget it. Viewers need to be drawn in and stimulated early on to be come emotionally invested into the story. Into Darkness performed this task to perfection. |
Jeffrey Dale Starr is a whiskey enthusiast, oil painter, and owner of mobile software company Purple Falcon.
"Oh Reginald...I disagree!!"
ReplyDeletePre-emptive strike: Born in the Eighties, grew up on The Next Generation and lived the finale of the original cast films and survived the faulty launch into TNG films. Take from that what you will. :-)
Here are some reasons why "Into Darkness" is fundamentally flawed:
1) JJ Abrams is not a Trekkie, and he took sweeping liberties with the material to make a fun space sci-fi with only echoes of the original story, along with an array of homages to unrelated films (The Godfather III and Firefly to name a couple). The multitude of twists were uneven, and I had to try very hard not to laugh at the updated "Khaaaaaaaan!!!" It just killed the scene.
2) Khan's threat was twofold: Intellectual and physical. "Into Darkness" serves us with a flash of his deductive abilities, which is immediately countered, and a bit of cruel manipulation early on. But for the most part we get repeated doses of mindless beat downs. In "The Wrath of Khan", he is always ahead intellectually and gets beaten only when a small flaw is exploited (2D thinking).
Granted, Abrams is at liberty to re-envision the franchise due to the "First Contact" divergence that spawned the "Enterprise" series and the first reboot film. But he took the greatest Star Trek villain and reduced him into a brawler with magic blood, concocted a thin plot, and took more interest in having fun than adding substance to the reboot. This is why "Into Darkness" feels more like "Nemesis" (which I happened to enjoy as a sci-fi popcorn flick and not as a respectable Star Trek movie).
Cumberpatch is a suitable actor for the role, but I fault the script writer for excluding the great quotes from Melville. "He tasks me...he tasks me, and I shall have him!!"
This is why I love movies of this ilk...they spawn such intense and interesting conversations!
DeleteI won't rehash my own arguments, and I know that I'm probably in the minority with my opinions. But it's a lot of fun to talk about.
I will agree with the Melville quotes.
But I still think Shakespeare's "cry havoc" quote from Star Trek VI is pretty lame... might as well have One Direction quote William Butler Yeats in a song ^_^