Nick: J.J. Abrams loves ‘em.
Dustin: Once you notice them, it’s hard to unnotice them. I compare it to the shaky cam. A lot of competent filmmakers are using these kinds of techniques that would have gotten you kicked out of film school to make their movies appear more amateurish and documentarian.
Nick: The lens flares didn’t bother me. I thought they worked well within the context of the film.
Dustin: I didn’t really mind them either. They gave the impression of everything being new and shiny. Sometimes I thought it was too much when you couldn’t make out what was happening. But I understand Abrams’s artistic decision for them. Do you think the lens flares were computer generated?
Nick: Yes.
Dustin: Still, the film was very well made. The CGI looked great, and I never felt like I was watching a cartoon. What did you think of the movie?
Nick: I enjoyed it for the most part. Like its predecessor it had many false endings, each film-worthy, where you think the film is going to wrap up but there is always another sequence.
Dustin: I agree. There were several moments in the last 30 minutes or so where I felt like the movie was coming to its natural conclusion, but then a new sequence began. But in the end, I was glad the movie kept going and didn’t stop at any of those places.
THE FOLLOWING SECTION CONTAINS SPOILERS
Nick: I won’t say what happens as to remain spoiler-free. But one of those false endings had a huge moment that really tried to give the outcome some emotional depth. Then you recall earlier in the film they set up how to correct this and they do just that and it plays as if that moment never happened. The whole scene now becomes meaningless. So on a second viewing that 10 minutes will mean a whole lot less.
Dustin: Which scene are you talking about? I can edit out the spoiler.
Nick: The death of Captain Kirk. You recall earlier when Bones extracts some of Khan’s blood and mentions how quickly he is able to heal.
Dustin: Yeah. I figured that would be how they resolved that problem. That’s why I felt bored in that scene. All the excitement was taken out of it because I knew Kirk wouldn’t really die.
Nick: I hoped they would do something daring and actually kill him off. They almost had me believing they would, which kind of makes me angry they didn’t.
Dustin: Or they could have had a different scene that conveyed emotion for Spock that didn’t involve Kirk’s potential death. I think making a character die is one of the laziest ways to evoke sympathy from the audience.
Nick: But without Kirk the writers would have to write from a whole different perspective for the next film and not have a plucky hot shot who gets lucky every time while leading the crew.
END OF SPOILERS
Dustin: Did you like the dynamic between Kirk and Spock?
Nick: My three favorite things about this movie are the CGI, Benedict Cumberbatch’s performance as Khan and Zachary Quinto as Spock. My three least favorite things are the script, character consistency and Chris Pine as Kirk.
Dustin: I actually like Chris Pine as Kirk better than Zachary Quinto as Spock. Quinto doesn’t have Leonard Nimoy’s voice, which I think is a bit of a drawback.
Nick: I didn’t mind either of them as either of their characters, but I didn’t like the screenwriters’ ideas involving both of the characters. All of the characters act within the universal idea of what their characters represent. Like Scotty will at one point say, “Can’t do it, Captain,” in a thick Scottish brogue, or at one point Spock will say, “It’s not logical.” Actually, more like 70 points for the latter. This ruins the evolution of the new Star Trek films. If you strip away the cartoonish fighting and hire great actors, why can’t you also change the dialogue to be more organic and realistic?
Dustin: The characters did come off as caricatures of their 1960s versions, and not as evolving personalities growing from the 2009 Star Trek. I thought the character arc from the first film was undone at the outset of this one in order for them to have similar character developments.
Nick: Couldn’t agree more! Spock and Kirk seemed to understand each other at the end of Star Trek and now at the beginning of Into Darkness they are up to their old shenanigans of Kirk putting his friends’ lives in danger and Spock saying its illogical to save them! Hysterical!
Dustin: I liked their good cop, bad cop dynamic. Kirk is the one who doesn’t do things by the book, but by God, he gets the job done. Spock is the straight-arrow who can’t reconcile breaking the rules with positive outcomes. I think Kirk is a very American character in that sense, which is why I relate to him so well.
Nick: Would you please tell me what makes you like James T. Kirk in that American way?
Dustin: He is decisive. He is willing to break the rules in order to maintain the spirit of the rules. His actions are distinctly Western. In fact, I think he is more logical than Spock. Spock’s strict adherence to the rules puts lives in danger for no good reason.
Nick: Spock only says it’s illogical to save someone after Kirk puts someone’s life in danger “for no good reason.” But I agree that Kirk is more logical because, like you say, he is able to understand more nuanced meanings when it comes to the rules.
I really like the casting in this series. They did a smart thing by hiring actors who know how to give a comedic performance, which I appreciate since the comedy is the strongest quality of Abrams’s Star Trek films.
Dustin: I hear he’s involved in Star Wars: Episode VII.
Nick: He’s directing.
Dustin: I have high hopes. It can’t be worse than the prequels.
I thought Star Trek Into Darkness was a solid continuation of the rebooted series, but it wasn’t as refreshing as the last film. I just really enjoyed the last one. Even with the plot hole where the two Spocks somehow randomly run into each other in a cave on a barren ice planet, it was still a quality film. Would you recommend Into Darkness?
Nick: Yes, although I believe they are basically the exact same film. The only difference being that I loved the main bad guy in this film whereas Eric Bana was truly forgettable in the last one. Therefore I liked this film more than its predecessor.
I have to disagree with Cumberbatch as Khan because he completely failed to capture the debonair spirit of Ricardo Montolban. Either he didn't do his homework, or the director didn't do his homework because the most obvious thing about Khan is that the character himself is not that interesting; it's the actor's performance. Cumberbatch has to force himself to sound evil, and that's exactly what we got. As John Harrison, however, he was a decent villain. Not as good as Chang or real Khan though.
ReplyDeleteI have far more problems with the ending though. Deus ex Blood is a perfect example of writing out of a hole. "We want the dramatic climax of Kirk's death without the consequences of it!" And that defeats the whole purpose of that climax. Also, the whole radiation death scene sucks for two massive reasons:
1. Spock yells "Khan!" It's as bad as Darth Vader saying "NOOOO!" and from a Star Wars perspective, it's just awful. J.J. Abrams basically sat down and saw the scene performed live, ordered to print it and move on to the next scene, went into the editing room, decided to keep the scene, and then cleaned it up for the final cut. At no point did he say "Ehhh, this line is just awful and melodramatic."? That's a lot of steps to keep something that just looks like plagiarism and sounds like a prequel mistake.
2. False endings fuck up the pacing of the final act. A basic understanding of how a plot is constructed is that once the climax is reached, everything needs to slow down in order to tie up loose ends. The climax also dictates the tone of all the scenes after it. A straight transplant from another movie doesn't work because the scene was designed to be slow and somber, with heavy emotions. ID fucked it up by having a fast-paced chase scene with lots of punching in it. If anyone wanted to see the film equivalent to a ruined orgasm, this is it. The very fact that it has "no rising action" is proof that there is no real drama going on in the story, meaning that it's a collection of scenes played out in a sequence.
Thanks for your comment! A year has gone by since I've seen this film, and as time goes on, I don't feel as favorable toward it as I did when we reviewed it. (Might edit down to 3.5 stars) J.J. Abrams's Star Trek films feel more Star Wars, which was probably why he was chosen to direct the sequels. - Dustin
DeleteOh yeah, definitely. I would argue that the Star Wars stuff is actually the best parts of the entire movie. If only if it was written better, it probably could have been the best Star Trek movie ever.
Delete