From: Lucian Mogosanu Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2013 07:23:27 +0000 (+0300) Subject: posts: 011 X-Git-Tag: v0.3~10 X-Git-Url: https://git.mogosanu.ro/?a=commitdiff_plain;h=6b5353d78eded1244a246d3f5ed877085ff4f151;p=thetarpit.git posts: 011 --- diff --git a/posts/y00/011-star-trek-into-darkness.markdown b/posts/y00/011-star-trek-into-darkness.markdown new file mode 100644 index 0000000..2ec2969 --- /dev/null +++ b/posts/y00/011-star-trek-into-darkness.markdown @@ -0,0 +1,190 @@ +--- +postid: 011 +title: J.J. Abrams tried to pull a Wrath of Khan and failed +author: Lucian Mogoșanu +excerpt: An analysis of Star Trek: Into Darkness. +date: October 6, 2013 +tags: video +--- + +The Star Trek series have been a milking cow for almost half a century now, +which if we rest on the thought for a moment, is a pretty amazing thing. And +all the credit for that goes to the fans, many of them maybe in their sixties +or more now; none due for producers, writers, or whatever, with the notable +exception of the late Gene Roddenberry. + +As you probably already know, earlier this year Paramount launched the motion +picture called *Star Trek: Into Darkness*, directed and produced by the same +guy who directed and produced the prequel *Star Trek*, namely J.J. Abrams, who, +by the way, will also produce Star Wars films soon, further adding to the +confusion of the science-fiction illiterates. The actors from the previous +movie are also back, so the viewer is expected to be familiar with the +characters, setting and whatnot. Basically, Into Darkness is a movie for the +fans, new or old. + +I'll be blunt and state that Into Darkness is in my humble opinion mostly a +piece of crap, which was to be expected after seeing the 2009 Star Trek, also +bad, which I saw immediately after Star Trek Enterprise, which well, let's just +not get into any more details. I will, for the record, share with you the +reasons behind my firm belief. + +## The Federation-USA analogy + +The tale starts with an obvious TOS copycat scenario as an exposition. Then, as +the plot unfolds, Abrams starts pissing on basically everything that Star Trek +was in Roddenberry's vision. Strong, proud, Federation, principled from admiral +to simple citizen? To hell with that. Trying to reason with the enemy? Fuck +that, kill the bastard. Cultural diversity? Humans are zee best, who cares +about the rest[^1]. + +What especially bothers me is that today's mainstream political bullshit is +brought knee-deep into the story: a significant part of the movie is about +terrorism and the American hypocrisy[^2], something which one might think the +human race would have surpassed until 2200. The only reason, I suppose, for +making this the basis for a story is the topic's rising popularity in the +United States, something the rest of the world doesn't really give a damn +about. In fact, the more "terrorism" becomes a part of American (pop) culture, +the more uninteresting and irrelevant said culture becomes. Well, that's their +problem. + +Another purely American trait is the sheer antagonism concerning the enemy, +"John Harrison", turning the whole terrorism thing into a personal vendetta. +Again, Abrams tries to illustrate how Starfleet/USA heads will simply disregard +every rule, regulation and principle to catch a guy they won't like, that +immediately after lecturing poor young Jim Kirk on the importance of such +rules, regulations and principles. At the same time Kirk, who's once again +portrayed as a brilliant guy, pisses once again on regulations by pursuing the +vendetta despite his health (at least that's what Bones says), a fact motivated +by the death of his mentor. I don't know, if I were his superior, I would have +suggested him a week of vacation or something. + +Finally, Abrams jumps the shark one more time by hitting a ship into Starfleet +headquarters (I think). Basically, what he means to say is that at least two +hundred years from 9/11[^3], bad people will enjoy crashing stuff into +important American buildings. Looks like simple-minded paranoia to me, and +what's worse is that many US citizens are buying it. + +## Plot devices + +Abrams attempted, as I was saying, to pull a Wrath of Khan. I'm not saying that +he tried to make a movie as successful as Star Trek II; well, he did try, but +that's not the point. He wanted to make a movie that is also very similar to +the old one, and the first and most obvious sign of that is the movie's main +antagonist, John Harrison, also known as Khan. + +Other copied characteristics are more subtle. For example, in many Star Trek +episodes, regardless of the serie, one of the characters breaks or bends some +rule or another, because well, rules are not perfect and sometimes the greater +good is above them. Sure, unlike Into Darkness, classical Star Trek has no +"good guys" and "bad guys", and unlike Into Darkness, the "greater good" is +some obvious moral and ethical virtue, not mindless reciprocation or sheer +stupidity. But Into Darkness writers integrated the small-but-not-so-small +mistakes into their characters anyway, maybe in the hope that they'll bring +some of the humanity of the original Star Trek shows and films into this one. + +The rest of the plot devices are more or less stupid, or just not thought out +very well. For example, Kirk, among all the Starfleet's big guys, figures out +that someone's going for Starfleet people, and by some weird coincidence he +does that too late and almost everyone else dies. After killing almost +everyone, bad guy Khan teleports to Qo'noS, but there's no explanation given as +to *how* he pulls out that rabbit out of the hat, since long-range +teleportation wasn't possible in Star Trek settings as far as I can +remember[^4] [^5]. + +Then Kirk is sent to find the bad guy, who, by the way, saves them, because he +actually wanted to save his genetically-enhanced buddies. All's nice and good, +but all this charade was meant to start a war with the Klingons, and from that +point to the end of the film (and after it), I didn't understand the point +behind all this. Ok, so what was Marcus trying to achieve there? Except killing +Khan, I mean. + +So then it becomes apparent that one of the good guys, Marcus, is actually a +bad guy. The problem with this is, the viewer is never given a clear reason +why; all we know is he comes in a big bad ship (USS Vengeance), and then when +the Enterprise enters warp, manages to follow it and *magically* pull it out of +warp. Seems legit. + +At some point in the movie, after sending Kirk to certain death, Spock decides +that it would be a good idea to have a discussion with himself (his +alternate-universe self, that is) about this Khan guy, which is, you know, +fairly stupid and definitely illogical, as he could have done that way earlier. +And then he finds out that Khan is indeed the bad guy and that he must kill him +or something, only near the final he finds out from Uhura that he mustn't. + +Finally, Kirk dies. Really. The way of dying and the actual death scene are +copied piece by piece from Wrath of Khan, only the roles are reversed, which +was somehow supposed to create a parallel between this movie and that one. Only +I'm not sure it did; I don't feel like it did. Do you? + +## Jim grows up, and maybe J.J. will too + +At the end, James Kirk is another man. Which means that Into Darkness was not +only a tale of swashbuckling adventures in space, but also Kirk's +Bildungsmovie. And that's pretty sweet, I'm not kidding. + +The actors are pretty damn good, with the exception of Yelchin (Chekov) and +Pegg (Scotty), who are mostly there for comic relief. I still can't figure out +why they chose Yelchin, since he speaks an [impecable US English][2]; Pegg's +got a pretty good personality, but he overdoes it. Pine is good, although he's +no Shatner, while Cho and Saldana are from the small number of actors who seem +to make absolutely no effort to immitate the ones from the original series. + +I was pleasantly impressed by Quinto's Spock; he seems to get into it better +than in the previous movie. My favourite was however Benedict Cumberbatch, who +does a mean Khan, one that, in my opinion, at times manages to get at the same +level with Montalban's. + +## Hollywood and The Problem™ + +Despite it being mostly a piece of crap, I enjoyed Into Darkness. What I mean +is, I enjoyed the action, the 3D stuff. I also enjoyed the comic relief, some +of the witty replies coming from the more or less stereotypical portrayal of +some characters (Bones, for example). + +However, while the funny moments were welcome, I wasn't there for the action, +and while viewers don't really express it, I'm fairly sure many of them weren't +there for that either; and no, I am not speaking *solely* of die hard Star Trek +fans. This, I think, manages to expose the underlying problem of the American +film industry. + +If you ask me, this movie isn't worth buying, despite it being Star Trek and +despite the millions of dollars spent to make it happen. If you ask me again, I +think that Hollywood should be grateful of the fact that people are even +pirating the movie and watching it. It's not good, even by Star Trek movie +standards[^6], which makes Abrams' effort almost useless. + +[^1]: Seriously, as far as I could tell all the leading positions in Starfleet +are occupied by humans, like the ethically-superior Vulcans never existed. +Which reminds me: only one Vulcan appears in the movie; Spock, obviously. It +might have something to do with the destruction of Vulcan in the previous +movie, I'm not quite sure. + +[^2]: At least they got one thing right. America trains guys, guys become +enemies, hit America's ass; Starfleet trains guy, guy becomes enemy, kicks +Starfleet's ass. Yep, there's your pattern. + +[^3]: Americans refer so much to 9/11 simply because they haven't had that many +important events in their history. I mean, Romans subdued the entire Europe, +Germans under Hitler killed millions of people, Soviets under Stalin even more, +and suddenly Americans come with this particular piece, which supposedly +"rocked the western world". I'm not sure whether it's in reference to the event +itself or the invasion of middle-eastern countries, or justifying it to impose +absurd laws and spy on people. Only history will tell. + +[^4]: Most of them? All of them? I don't remember, but I do remember that this +transportation thing was furiously debated by Star Trek nerds, so the show +producers usually tried to make them seem at least remotely plausible. Well, +not in this case, it seems. + +[^5]: [Memory Alpha][1] says that it's a "Portable transwarp beaming device". +This screams "bad plot device" all along, since there would have been much more +advanced stuff that the Federation could have done with it. Rather than letting +it slip in the hands of a criminal, I mean. + +[^6]: The reader might probably feel inclined to argue this, but I don't think +any of the Star Trek movies were particularly good, mostly due to them being +Hollywoodized versions of the series. Integration with "action" and harsh plots +never went well for a story so... settled, as Star Trek's is. + +[1]: http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Portable_transwarp_beaming_device +[2]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LsFdM9Xipg