STAR TREK: INTO DARKNESS? More Like Star Trek: Into Lameness

star-trek-2-into-darkness-poster

Another delayed review, although this one was delayed because I put off seeing this movie for that perfect afternoon of having nothing better to do and there being nothing better at the theater. I am not sorry I waited so long to see this new Star Trek movie, unless you want to count being sorry that I did not wait longer. Like forever. This second movie in the Abrams reboot annihilated my interest in the new series.

I don’t say this simply to be a contrarian who refuses to like what is popular or different from the original; my complaints are based on what I perceive as lazy storytelling and overeager pandering to the casual fandom. As per my usual reviewing policy, I warn ye: Warp spoilers ahead.

What I liked about the new movie: they brought back Khan. And cast Benedict Cumberbatch to play him.

*crickets chirp*

Yes, those are about the only two real positives I can come up with for this one. First, I didn’t like the way the movie was marketed. The trailer made it look like an action flick – and while, yes, Star Trek as a whole has plenty of action, it is not known as being an action flick per se. The trailer was nothing but one grandiose effect and near-escape after another, designed to appeal to the same crowd that keeps showing up at Transformers movies and allowing Michael Bay to keep making movies. If I had not heard Khan was in the film, I probably would have waited for DVD and maybe even not bothered to watch it at all. But, I thought, maybe they are just showing us ALL the action moments to get that demographic in, when really the film is deeper than that (I mean, it has Khan, for fuck’s sake!). From the glowing write-ups I saw amongst my friends on social media, I thought that was even likely the case.

It was not. This movie betrayed both the spirit of the original series and all principles of good storytelling.

First of all, I am tired of Emo Kirk. I get that this franchise is a reboot, a retelling, and that the experiences and attitude Kirk brought to his captaincy in the original series is not the path this Kirk has trod, therefore we are not necessarily going to get the same Kirk. But what we’re given is someone who does not think the same way Kirk thinks, rather than someone who weighs his thought process against different life experiences. I didn’t mind his emotion-based decisions in the first movie, because he was so young and untried, but I felt like he learned nothing from that experience. Throughout this film he makes his decisions based on his feelings, NOT on his instincts. Huge difference. Kirk sometimes followed a path that seemed illogical, but was actually highly logical – it just relied on data that Spock did not have at his disposal, and that was Jim’s sense of tactics and knowledge of human nature, which is driven by irrationality, so it sometimes seemed illogical. And Kirk did not flinch away from feeling the emotional impact of his decisions, but – and this is the lynch-pin but here, HE DID NOT USE THE POTENTIAL EMOTIONAL IMPACT OF THOSE CHOICES TO MAKE HIS DECISION.

That is the key difference. Emo Kirk can’t do anything that will make him feel bad. So he violates pretty much the only rule he is given as an officer in order to avoid the guilt and sense of loss he would feel if he watched a promising life form perish, and he goes haring off to enemy space and risks starting a civil war merely because he wants revenge. About the only logical choice he makes is to sacrifice himself to save his vessel and his crew at the end, but I read even that one as emotion-based: he couldn’t bear the guilt of not saving them. It was not a noble sacrifice to orchestrate his singular death in order to save hundreds of lives; it was a guilt-based decision because he would feel bad if he didn’t. Aw.

And that sacrifice? Was a complete bullshit sacrifice. Remember my rant about how World War Z had no consequences? Neither did this Star Trek. Viewers who had seen the original movie with Khan knew that Spock kills himself to save the ship, and so Emo Kirk’s choice was a parallel to that, the way almost everything else in this reboot is so predictably role-reversed. I didn’t necessarily mind that decision, even if it was obvious film-making, except for this: the writers/producers/director didn’t have the balls to actually let Kirk die. The audience could not be allowed to think, even for one movie, that Kirk was gone. I would have liked this movie if Kirk stayed dead – especially if it really is the last in the reboot (which I sincerely doubt is the case).  I don’t say that to be macabre or because I like sad and depressing stories (I don’t; I write and primarily read romance for a reason!) but because his actual death would have lent consequences to the story that, thus far, it had pretended were there but had not demonstrated. Instead, with the injection of Khan’s magic rejuvenating blood, we have a hero who cannot be allowed to die, and so no future movie can ever hold true narrative tension again.

Aside from that fatal storytelling flaw, the film also made too-obvious references as a sop to casual fans. First, the parallel with The Wrath of Khan where Jim and Spock have traded places was, again, obvious. I saw it coming the moment we learned “nothing can save” the ship. Neither the moment nor the switch felt like clever storytelling; they felt like lazy storytelling, where the writers were trying to force the narrative back to a handful of origin-film plot points, and that was one of them. (In fact, going back to my previous point – the very existence of an “out” from that scenario of certain destruction made this film seem like it had no consequences.)  Second, the Tribble inclusion. What was that doing there? It served no narrative purpose – any number of alien lifeforms could have been on McCoy’s dissection table and gotten reanimated with Khan’s blood – and so the only reason for its inclusion was to make people squee and say “Tribbles! I GET it! I get the joke!”

That the writers used Tribbles for this says they were not aiming that joke, that sense of inclusion – AND THEREFORE THIS MOVIE – at true fans of the show. There are countless other episodes that could have been referenced, that are not among the most famous three episodes from the original series, that would have felt like a nod to true fans. The obviousness of this one gave me the same distaste I feel for The Big Bang Theory, which is not a show for actual nerds but people who like to think of themselves as nerdy because they watch a really popular SF series or two.

I have nothing against dropping references. In fact, I adore it.

versus1

Francis Crawford of Lymond is my favorite fictional character ever because he basically speaks in quotations, but they are always apt and often so obscure no one he’s talking to understands that he’s quoting someone. My husband and his friends, and to a lesser extent he and I, communicate with quotes and references from movies and TV. The entirety of Tumblr is a giant conversation among fans that relies on prior knowledge of the canon(s) being referenced. But if you’re going to use a reference, you should use it appropriately – and that, to me, is to aim it at people in the know. If you can explain to me why this caption is wrong, then you feel the way I do:

eleven words too far dude

The basis of this joke is actually great. The problem? Whoever wrote it explained it. The caption should be “Ain’t no party like a Timelord party cuz a Timelord party don’t stop.” PERIOD. If you know the reference, you know why a Timelord party wouldn’t stop. The explanation ruins the joke, because it aims it at people who don’t know the reference.

This is what the new Star Trek did. It made really obvious references that proved the movie wasn’t aimed at actual fans, just those hangers-on who consider Star Trek to be one of the few SF series they’ll watch sometimes, and that pretty much violated the prime directive of this reboot existing in the first place, as far as the real fans go.

In fact, much as Khan made me curious to see the thing, his inclusion as the villain was yet another reference anyone only vaguely familiar with the series should get. And going back to my lack of consequences point? This Khan was not angry at Kirk because of actions Kirk took against him; this Khan was angry at modern humanity in general, and Kirk just happened to be the one who stood up against him. Thus there was no heft, no momentousness to Khan and Kirk fighting one another. And the whole thing about Khan working with them at first, and being maybe not the villain, was just more role reversal of “hey this is a parallel universe so everything’s opposite! Isn’t that original?!” that was neither surprising nor original (nor was it surprising when he then turned out to be the villain, after all).

On the whole this movie just left me really annoyed. It was an unsatisfying narrative with no consequences and way too many gratuitous explosions, and no emotional impact because no one in the franchise will let this veer away from summer blockbuster fare and into actual darkness.

Advertisements

5 Comments

Filed under Film

5 responses to “STAR TREK: INTO DARKNESS? More Like Star Trek: Into Lameness

  1. Well, I liked it. BUT – I’m not an old series fan, I’m a JJ Abrams fan. That’s what made me go see it. And my other half nagging me. But mostly the Jabrams thing. And it was a bit of fun, I can appreciated some good action sequences in and of themselves, and Benedict is quite awesome.

    I do appreciate your brain dump though. I really disliked Miracle Day (Torchwood) for similar reasons. While the premise of the story was great, it now has the Torchwood story sitting outside the Whoniverse, where previously all spin offs have been really consistent. And the ending of it was complete rubbish. Now there’s two part-human part-time lord anomalies running around? The whole point of Jack being Jack was that he was unique, he had something new and different to offer Earth that put him in a position of being able to help and interact with the cosmos. But now there’s two of them???? And I read somewhere in the recesses of the internet Jack is potentially making an appearance in Matt Smith’s last ep, this year’s Christmas special. How in the world are they going to reconcile that? A retcon? It all took place during the time bubble universe in series 6 and therefore never really happened?

    • Hi Jenna!

      I think you are voting with the majority here – everyone I know liked it. As far as popcorn films go it wasn’t bad (not BAD bad, as Tom Hardy as Bronson would put it), and if you weren’t looking at it with any real knowledge of the original Star Trek then there was no reason to be so annoyed by this film. About the only criticism is the lack of consequences…there always being an out, and Kirk not dying at the end….but those are basically every Hollywood hero movie these days, so it’s hardly a unique or compelling criticism on its own since obviously the movie-going public seems no to mind those flaws at all in anything. 🙂

      The funny thing is, I’m not *actually* a big fan of the old series. (I like it, I just haven’t seen more than 10% of it.) But I know enough about it to see the divergences and dislike them because they occur on such a fundamental level. I think Emo Kirk actually represents part of the cultural shift that has taken place between 1970 and now, so he’s the Kirk for his time and place – I just prefer the old Kirk, where something more than emotional dissonance was necessary for decision-making.

      I…can make no comment on the Torchwood/Dr thing. I am familiar with Dr Who but have never managed to fall in love with it, and have only passing familiarity with Torchwood. I can sympathize with your “how are they going to reconcile these” fears though…went through that for the entire final season and a half of the Battlestar reboot. To be disappointed in the end. i hope Whoniverse pulls it together better. 🙂

  2. ABE

    My take (long time physicist, never got Star Trek much):

    Don’t annoy writers, because they will take to the words.

    Excellent rant. I chuckled all the way through it.

    The offspring have a complex set of shows they watched (Firefly + The Simpsons + the Disney Pooh cartoons + Lord knows what else), and they talk in quotations, too, so I get that. It’s fun.

    Reminds me of the brouhaha over petite Tom Cruise playing the 6’7″ (?) Jack Reacher, not pulling in many new people, and annoying the true fans who stayed away in droves.

    But then I literally won’t watch a second of the bastardizations of Sherlock Holmes, movies or TV – The Complete Sherlock Holmes sits on my bedside shelf.

    Want to do a story? Invent your own characters – leave other people’s characters alone. But then, I’m a purist.

    • Ha! Your kids sound fun. I grew up on the Simpsons and love me some Firefly. And yes, quoting things IS fun!

      I am not a purist, but I do think films made of books need to do one of two things: either be faithful to the source material, or transcend it – by which I mean, do something better than a straight adaptation could have. Movies that accomplish this include Bladerunner, Children of Men, There Will Be Blood. But all of those are movies that were made with so much care and craft; they are art, and greater for having a multiplicity of perspectives instead of just one. I am extremely sympathetic to the re-mix/viral idea notion of art. Most stories ARE retellings of one type or another. If Shakespeare insisted on telling his own stories only, we would not have Romeo and Juliet or any of the history plays. But I think if you’re going to take a story and adapt it to your own tastes when you tell it in a new medium, that you have to tell a BETTER story than the original (or at least an equal one). What this Star Trek, and World War Z, didn’t do was tell an equal story to the source material. For that alone they fail as adaptations.

      I do understand the purist perspective, though. I hold it on a few things. For example, I refuse to watch any adaptation of Pride and Prejudice. Any other Austen, fine, but P&P? No. Nothing will ever equal what is in my mind, and I do not want that ruined.

  3. ABE

    I LOVE Bladerunner. Rutger Hauer is one of my all-time favorite actors, as is Harrison Ford, especially the early movies. “Time to die.”

    I generally don’t want the things of my childhood ruined, or the ones I held onto through some turbulent period. Or the ones that got me out of a funk.

    Movie adaptations are fine – if they hew to the original. After all, it IS a new medium.

    Since I write mainstream, sometimes I can place an obsession or a phobia with a character. My daughter sometimes sees these bits and says only she knows what I’m talking about.

    If I use anything someone has actually said, I asked permission at the time. It’s fun.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s