Sign in to follow this  
Vort

Star Trek Into Darkness (spoilers)

Recommended Posts

Watched the new Star Trek movie last night. Not a terrible movie. Entertaining, even. But it shared the same predictable failings that all the Star Trek movies have: shallow characters, "special" science, and relentlessly nihilistic humanist philosophy, coupled with a palpable disdain for religion and religious feeling. I walked in a minute or two late, into a chase scene where Kirk and McCoy are being chased by irate natives. From what I could piece together, these were primitive, ignorant tribal people following their primitive, ignorant tribal religion, which obviously required them to kill Kirk and McCoy. By the end of the scene, they were worshiping the starship Enterprise. Naturally. Who wouldn't? That is, what primitive, ignorant savage wouldn't worship the starship. We in the audience, of course, are much too sophisticated for that sort of thing, and we can laugh and gently mock the ignorant fools who actually worship stuff, like the starship Enterprise or the flying spaghetti monster or the Guy in the Sky.

People talk about how "optimistic" Star Trek is. NEWS FLASH: Star Trek is not optimistic, except in the sense that it shows living humans using advanced technology in two hundred years. I suppose that's optimistic, compared with doomsday scenarios. Rather, Star Trek is relentlessly humanistic and openly hostile to religion and faith. The original series was not so much like that, but the "next generation" had that attitude in spades. It carried through most of the movies, as well, and is well-established in this newest "movie series" reboot.

Star Trek came out when I was a very young child, maybe three. So it has literally been with me almost my entire life. Maybe at fifty, I have become too cynical to appreciate it. Maybe I'm just not willing to suspend my disbelief, not only in ridiculous and absurd physics ideas (there's a reason for the adjective "startrekkian") but moreso for the simplistic portrayal of what it means to be human. Or perhaps -- here is the potential height of hubris on my part -- I have finally outgrown it, and see it for the silly show that it is, preaching its earnest and soulless humanism to an audience too willingly enraptured by explosions and nude aliens to be interested in little things like story integrity, the moral basis of actions, or plain old meaningful scientific believability.

(Scientific? How about engineering? This is a future where such things as testing are obsolete:

- Scotty, what are we going to do about the warp bubble inversion?

- I dunno, cap'n, looks like she's gunna blow! But maybe...if I reroute the phaser array input through the transporter matrix element...and stream the resulting tachyonic particle flow through the warp core with a constant antimatter feedback flux...in theory, it might just work!

- Spock, what do you think?

- It's untested, captain, but theoretically possible.

- Let's do it!

And, miraculously, it always works.

The first time.)

I don't know. I kind of hate to be the spoilsport. This movie carefully hit all the Trekkie buttons, even replicating dialog from previous movies and TV tropes. It should be just a fun old romp. But in the end, it wasn't. It was just...empty. To badly quote Macbeth: "It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

I have never been a huge fan of James Bond movies, and after the most recent embarrassment, I seriously think I might never waste my time or money watching another. But Star Trek is different; I was a Trekkie from a young age, and have never completely lost my taste for it. But this latest movie is eye-opening, in a disappointing way. Either the series has changed or I have, but it's looking like we simply are not compatible any more. I don't want to witness Kirk's sex with multiple aliens. I don't want to see gratuitous fighting, bloodshed, and increasingly unbelievable space explosions. I don't particularly care to watch old and sometimes beloved TV episodes or movies retreaded, squeezing yet another dollar out of Roddenberry's aging and creaky formula.

Bottom line: If you're a Trekkie, you will go see it, so my review is irrelevant. If you're not a Trekkie, much of the movie will leave you feeling lost, but there are lots of shiny lights and explosions and scantily clad pretty girls (human and otherwise), so enough eye candy to keep you entertained. And if you enjoy the nihililstic humanism on which the modern Star Trek canon is firmly founded, bonus!

Edited by Vort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was okay. Not great. In contrast, a couple of years ago I watched a movie I had absolutely no interest in: Iron Man. It was (1) a superhero movie featuring (2) a hedonist for a hero who (3) singlehandedly built his own fantastically advanced technology. Three strikes, you are OUT! Three mind-numbingly stupid and/or offensive ideas, one right after the other. I watched that horrible movie for ONE reason and for ONE reason alone: Sister Vort wanted to watch it with me.

And guess what? It was not a horrible movie at all. Despite everything, it was quite entertaining.

I can only wish the latest Star Trek had been half so good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a die-hard Trekker, have been since I was in diapers.

I hated, loathed, and despised this movie with a passion not even President Obama can stir within me.

I am considering petitioning God to create a special level of Hell just to contain J.J. Abrams and his sycophants.

I have to agree with most of Vort's comments.

The "Trek buttons" were pushed all-right; but only in the sense of "peeing down your neck and telling you it's raining".

Setting that aside, this movie (like it's predecessor) is a good Saturday afternoon popcorn flick.

It is ideal for people with short attention spans and/or who want an escapist romp without a lot of character development a/o substance.

If you're into eye candy (cinematic a/o scantily clad) you will enjoy this movie.

If you like Michael Bay-type explosion fests, are easily distracted, a/o have sucked down 32 Pixie sticks, ten Slurpees, and a five pound bag of sugar, you will enjoy this movie.

If you prefer that your movies are internally consistent, stay true to beloved characters, and that your villains have more depth than tying Miss Lucy Trueheart to the railroad tracks, you will NOT like this movie.

It was trite, cliched, predictable, and formulaic in whiz-bang, the-audience-is-too-stupid-to-realize-we're-insulting-them sort of way.

Credit where it's due: Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Carl Urban, Bruce Greenwood, and Simon Pegg did wonders for their characters (Greenwood especially).

The rest of the cast were either sordidly under-used, unfathomably shallow, or were cardboard cutouts of great actors. Peter Weller and Benedict Cumberbatch are great actors: but in this script they made Bond (or for that matter, Austin Powers) villains look realistic by comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oi.

I haven't seen it yet. I know I will, but I do like character depth and inter-woven plot lines.

The general public's IQ is lowering, and that's the new low for movies. I haven't gone to see a movie since Atlas Shrugged Part II. I just have no interest in them.

As for Star Trek being 'anti-religion'... yep, it is. Since Star Trek V: The Final Frontier and blowing up the super alien trapped on a planet in the middle of the galaxy... it's been 'anti-God'.

It teaches tolerance and collaboration with other races within and outside the human race (a good thing). Still remember the same-sex attraction TNG episode and still don't like it or the message it portrayed.

I really liked the character development of Capt. Benjamin Sisko in DS9. Particularly "In the Pale Moonlight" when bringing the Romulans into the Dominion War. DS9 also has a much stronger religious theme with it through the Bajorans.

Vort, if you haven't checked out Deep Space Nine, you might want to give it a whirl. It's all on Netflix.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Credit where it's due: Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Carl Urban, Bruce Greenwood

By far the most sympathetic character, perhaps the only truly sympathetic character, in the entire film. I saw no reason to kill him. He could have done wonders for the future movies as Kirk's remote but occasionally present mentor, a father figure, or at least a Yoda figure, to Kirk. He would have added to the Kirk character, not detracted. Very bad script choice, imo. And my credibility is proportional to all the successful multimillion-dollar blockbusters I've made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really liked the character development of Capt. Benjamin Sisko in DS9. Particularly "In the Pale Moonlight" when bringing the Romulans into the Dominion War. DS9 also has a much stronger religious theme with it through the Bajorans.

Vort, if you haven't checked out Deep Space Nine, you might want to give it a whirl. It's all on Netflix.

I'd second that suggestion. It's a show for lost souls. The uber-capitalist Ferrengi Quark's unfolding moral nature, the story of the fallen Cardassian assassin/spy Garek, the struggles of the changeling yearning for home only to find home is peopled with evil jerks, and poor Bajor inches away from getting the short end of the stick again, but for the efforts of Sisko.

But on the other hand, Vort said the new StarTrek had nude aliens...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By far the most sympathetic character, perhaps the only truly sympathetic character, in the entire film. I saw no reason to kill him. He could have done wonders for the future movies as Kirk's remote but occasionally present mentor, a father figure, or at least a Yoda figure, to Kirk. He would have added to the Kirk character, not detracted. Very bad script choice, imo. And my credibility is proportional to all the successful multimillion-dollar blockbusters I've made.

I've said it before, I'll say it again.

We need the means to both "thank" and "laugh" at a particular post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My wife & I saw the movie today, and we both enjoyed the romp. And we're glad we didn't have to "witness Kirk's sex with multiple aliens".

What movie was Vort watching?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

My wife & I saw the movie today, and we both enjoyed the romp. And we're glad we didn't have to "witness Kirk's sex with multiple aliens".

What movie was Vort watching?

Into darkness.., and they had tails. Lol.

I'm a giant Star Wars fan so I'm obligated to hate Star Trek... Unfortunately, I enjoyed this one, simply for the great interplay between Kirk and Spock. But then Nemoy had to show up and ruin it all..,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I really enjoyed Into Darkness, I'm getting tired of the new Kirks anti-rules attitude being in the forefront, making him 'whiney'. He's now been fired and reinstated more times than the whole rest of Star Trek known history. I thought the need to break the prime directive needed more depth and wasn't 'accidental' enough. I utterly loathe Spock having a girlfriend. Khan wasn't from India this time... Why did we have to even do Khan again? Why are the star ships getting even better than the ones we knew in the future? ...and I've 'hated' thos damnable tribbles since I first saw them at 8 years old.

(breath)... In all, too simple and relied on material already written with just a few tweaks added. I wonder if William Shatner coud have done better? Still, it wasn't the first Star Trek movie, or saving the whales or looking for god.

I'm gonna go see it again... :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you like Michael Bay-type explosion fests, are easily distracted, a/o have sucked down 32 Pixie sticks, ten Slurpees, and a five pound bag of sugar, you will enjoy this movie.

Oh good, we are going to see it Monday, should be awesome!:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dravin is the Trekkie of the family. I'm a Star Wars girl, myself. I enjoyed the villain in this movie--I thought the actor did a perfect job of portraying a brilliant, evil man who cared for his "family." I also love Karl Urban and Simon Pegg tremendously (well, I admit that much of my admiration for Karl stems from LOTR).

It is a popcorn movie. I guess I never considered something like Star Trek to be a deep movie. And while I am not overly familiar with the Trek series or movies (despite my husband's efforts), I never thought of them as something to discuss philosophically. They've always been an entertainment type of plot, IMO.

And I liked the little homage to the old Trek series in this movie. I was surprised by how many of them I recognized despite my ignorance of such.

But, I do agree with those criticizing Kirk's antics--his childish rebellion, his Lothorio lines and conquests, and his never ending plain ol' luck (although that "failed" him in this movie--but not quite). But, if I remember correctly, he had that "luck" in the original series.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a popcorn movie. I guess I never considered something like Star Trek to be a deep movie. And while I am not overly familiar with the Trek series or movies (despite my husband's efforts), I never thought of them as something to discuss philosophically.

By "philosophical", I do not mean "deep". I mean "core values". Star Trek is relentlessly and naively humanist and quite openly antireligious.

Your link doesn't work, Vort. Check the address, I suspect it may be due to "profanity" and the filters on this site.

Huh. Works for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Your link doesn't work, Vort. Check the address, I suspect it may be due to "profanity" and the filters on this site.

It works for me.

And yep! That review about sums it up. I was willing to be swept away, forget logic,and suspend reality for a while but young Spock asking old Spock who Khan is was just.... too much... that the movie fell apart for me at that point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By "philosophical", I do not mean "deep". I mean "core values". Star Trek is relentlessly and naively humanist and quite openly antireligious.

For the record, while I find the Star Wars movies more inoffensive in terms of sexuality and language, I have much stronger philosophical objections to them than to Star Trek. Where Star Trek has a mindless, humanistic antagonism toward religion, Star Wars embraces religion (or pseudoreligion) and morphs it into nothing more than moral relativism. This is possible because the characters are so starkly (absurdly) black-and-white. The final Star Wars movie was an embarrassment to pretty much everybody over the age of sixteen. And the redemption offered -- for the Star Wars saga seeks to be nothing less than an epic tale of redemption -- consists of a man responsible for murdering millions "redeeming" himself by dying to save...wait for it...his own son.

How noble. Even Mussolini loved his mistress, and Hitler himself was said to have been quite fond of children. Darth Vader probably speaks German, and as we know, no one who speaks German could be an evil man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd second that suggestion. It's a show for lost souls. The uber-capitalist Ferrengi Quark's unfolding moral nature,

Quark aside, the Ferengi portrayed all the worst things that capitalism can become when it is the tool of a completely amoral, misogynistic race. Roddenberry should stick to scifi and leave his weird politics out of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watched the new Star Trek movie last night. Not a terrible movie. Entertaining, even. But it shared the same predictable failings that all the Star Trek movies have: shallow characters, "special" science, and relentlessly nihilistic humanist philosophy, coupled with a palpable disdain for religion and religious feeling. I walked in a minute or two late, into a chase scene where Kirk and McCoy are being chased by irate natives. From what I could piece together, these were primitive, ignorant tribal people following their primitive, ignorant tribal religion, which obviously required them to kill Kirk and McCoy. By the end of the scene, they were worshiping the starship Enterprise. Naturally. Who wouldn't? That is, what primitive, ignorant savage wouldn't worship the starship. We in the audience, of course, are much too sophisticated for that sort of thing, and we can laugh and gently mock the ignorant fools who actually worship stuff, like the starship Enterprise or the flying spaghetti monster or the Guy in the Sky.

People talk about how "optimistic" Star Trek is. NEWS FLASH: Star Trek is not optimistic, except in the sense that it shows living humans using advanced technology in two hundred years. I suppose that's optimistic, compared with doomsday scenarios. Rather, Star Trek is relentlessly humanistic and openly hostile to religion and faith. The original series was not so much like that, but the "next generation" had that attitude in spades. It carried through most of the movies, as well, and is well-established in this newest "movie series" reboot.

Star Trek came out when I was a very young child, maybe three. So it has literally been with me almost my entire life. Maybe at fifty, I have become too cynical to appreciate it. Maybe I'm just not willing to suspend my disbelief, not only in ridiculous and absurd physics ideas (there's a reason for the adjective "startrekkian") but moreso for the simplistic portrayal of what it means to be human. Or perhaps -- here is the potential height of hubris on my part -- I have finally outgrown it, and see it for the silly show that it is, preaching its earnest and soulless humanism to an audience too willingly enraptured by explosions and nude aliens to be interested in little things like story integrity, the moral basis of actions, or plain old meaningful scientific believability.

(Scientific? How about engineering? This is a future where such things as testing are obsolete:

- Scotty, what are we going to do about the warp bubble inversion?

- I dunno, cap'n, looks like she's gunna blow! But maybe...if I reroute the phaser array input through the transporter matrix element...and stream the resulting tachyonic particle flow through the warp core with a constant antimatter feedback flux...in theory, it might just work!

- Spock, what do you think?

- It's untested, captain, but theoretically possible.

- Let's do it!

And, miraculously, it always works.

The first time.)

I don't know. I kind of hate to be the spoilsport. This movie carefully hit all the Trekkie buttons, even replicating dialog from previous movies and TV tropes. It should be just a fun old romp. But in the end, it wasn't. It was just...empty. To badly quote Macbeth: "It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

I have never been a huge fan of James Bond movies, and after the most recent embarrassment, I seriously think I might never waste my time or money watching another. But Star Trek is different; I was a Trekkie from a young age, and have never completely lost my taste for it. But this latest movie is eye-opening, in a disappointing way. Either the series has changed or I have, but it's looking like we simply are not compatible any more. I don't want to witness Kirk's sex with multiple aliens. I don't want to see gratuitous fighting, bloodshed, and increasingly unbelievable space explosions. I don't particularly care to watch old and sometimes beloved TV episodes or movies retreaded, squeezing yet another dollar out of Roddenberry's aging and creaky formula.

Bottom line: If you're a Trekkie, you will go see it, so my review is irrelevant. If you're not a Trekkie, much of the movie will leave you feeling lost, but there are lots of shiny lights and explosions and scantily clad pretty girls (human and otherwise), so enough eye candy to keep you entertained. And if you enjoy the nihililstic humanism on which the modern Star Trek canon is firmly founded, bonus!

Yup! I felt the same way. Disappointing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quark aside, the Ferengi portrayed all the worst things that capitalism can become when it is the tool of a completely amoral, misogynistic race. Roddenberry should stick to scifi and leave his weird politics out of it.

I wouldn't stick my reputation on that:

It gets interesting at 5:44 into that video clip. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Scientific? How about engineering? This is a future where such things as testing are obsolete:

- Scotty, what are we going to do about the warp bubble inversion?

- I dunno, cap'n, looks like she's gunna blow! But maybe...if I reroute the phaser array input through the transporter matrix element...and stream the resulting tachyonic particle flow through the warp core with a constant antimatter feedback flux...in theory, it might just work!

- Spock, what do you think?

- It's untested, captain, but theoretically possible.

- Let's do it!

And, miraculously, it always works.

The first time.)

Star Trek is unabashedly soft science fiction* and has been from the beginning. Though I will grant that TOS wasn't as prone to technobabble by my recollection, and was more likely, compared to latter series, to have Kirk out-witting the opponent in a less techy manner. Considering that the scripts for TNG (and probably later series) basically just told the actor to pull out some technobabble rather than having something plausible and researched you tend to get stuff like the above. Technobabble is Trek's Applied Phlebotinum and by this time about as much a part of the universe as Klingons, Volcans, and Romulans (I'm not arguing this is a good thing). Now as far as it always working, well that's the power of plot. Protagonist's plans have an uncanny knack for working out somehow.

*And occasionally seems to have a vendetta against science.

And yep! That review about sums it up. I was willing to be swept away, forget logic,and suspend reality for a while but young Spock asking old Spock who Khan is was just.... too much... that the movie fell apart for me at that point.

What bugged me is that it was completely unnecessary, Quinto-Spock could have handled things on his own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this