this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2024
27 points (96.6% liked)

Star Trek

1009 readers
68 users here now

/c/StarTrek: Your safe harbored Spacedock in these Stellar Seas!

Fire up the inertial dampeners, retract all moorings and clear space dock. It's time to boldy go where no one has gone before!

~ 1. Be Civil. This is a Star Trek community and lets keep that energy. Be kind, respectful and polite to one another.

~ 2. Be Courteous. Please use the spoiler tags for any new Trek content that's been released in the past month. Check this page for lemmy formatting) for any posts. Also please keep spoilers out of the titles!

~ 3. Be Considerate. We're spread out across a lot of different instances but don't forget to follow your instances rules and the instance rules for Lemmy.world.


founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS
 

With the benefit of 11 years of hindsight, lets talk about Star Trek Into Darkness. Cards on the table: I don't like this movie at all. It's probably my least favorite Star Trek story across the entire canon.

While this movie was being promoted, no one would confirm that Cumberbatch was Khan despite rampant speculation. He's not even introduced as Khan, for the first half of the movie he's "John Harrison," and the Khan reveal is played as a big dramatic moment.

JJ Abrams' entire shtick is that he crafts "mystery boxes." So... is that it? Is Star Trek Into Darkness just a mystery box where the identity of the villain is the mystery, and Abrams & co. just worked backwards from there?

Lets be generous and say that's not it: Into Darkness had something to say. We have a conspiracy, a rogue admiral, an automated super-warship, the death of a mentor... it seems like we can pull something out of here, right?

... right?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Stamets 7 points 3 months ago

I love this take. Especially calling out the growth of the character. I've always seen the Kelvin movies as one trilogy, not individual movies. I never watched them individually which might help with that. If you see them all together you can really see the growth of all the characters. If they marketed it as a trilogy maybe people wouldn't be as bothered by it. I'm not super surprised that what I see to be the middle of the trilogy is the most disliked though. Most trilogies have this problem with the middle movie being vastly underwhelming to the others. Even the Star Wars Original Trilogy had that problem. When Empire Strikes Back came out the reviews were clowning on it for that reason. The story didn't really go anywhere.

Into Darkness feels like that to me. A second movie in the trilogy that spins its wheels on everything except for the character development. Nothing feels particularly awful to me, just sort of... okay. The only real problems I have is, as you mentioned, Pike being fridged almost immediately and how little buildup there was to Khans special blood. If you wanted to have the blood revive Kirk, go for it. I legitimately don't care. We've resurrected people for less in Star Trek and I'm more than happy to suspend my disbelief over the tech, medical or otherwise, in Star Trek. If you can turn into a salamander if you go fast enough or if spaceships can become pregnant, then you can do basically anything else. I'm fine with that. But there was no buildup for it. I think there's like two scenes from what I remember. One where Bones takes Khans blood and tests it and mentions that it's weird, and one where he injects it in a tribble. Basically zero attention drawn to it until the tribble randomly starts breathing again and suddenly it's a huge deal. If they had given like... 3-5 more minutes of random scenes throughout the movie of Bones talking about the weird blood or something I would not have given a fuck.