First-pass thoughts on the new Star Trek movie (2,500 words)

[bironic]

Saw Star Trek: All the Characters Cry Into Darkness last night with a group of local fangirls plus a bonus group ditto who'd picked the same showing. That was a nice follow-up experience to the 2009 Reboot, which I first saw in Boston with my grad school class + significant others + our program administrator. In an attempt to buoy my low expectations, last night I wore my ThinkGeek TOS dress and boots, which ended up garnering a few comments from theater staff and passersby and conveniently indicated that we were the line for the movie. It felt a little silly, especially since there were only two other people in the theater with Trekwear (one of them being ellen_fremedon), but there are only so many times a year that you can go out in public in costume and I'm glad I did it. The only other time I've dressed up for a movie was Prisoner of Azkaban when the NYC Potter fans bought out an IMAX theater.

Anyway, the movie. It was okay. I am having a complicated reaction to it. I didn't hate it as much as giandujakiss did nor love it like pun did. I don't understand the media outlets that call it an excellent movie and I think it had a little more to offer than those who're spilling vitriol all over it allow. I enjoyed it more than Reboot, which I disliked intensely. (I know that puts me in the minority; so many Trek fans cheered the new look and the refreshed cast and storyline in 2009, and so many mainstream viewers appreciated that it worked as an accessible action movie. I thought it failed all over the place on pretty much every level and I generally don't like prequels that de-age characters nor adaptations that replace intellectual dialogue [even if cheesy] with explosions. Grump.) So. Measured against that low bar, I thought Into Darkness delivered a few good things.

Spoilers ahead.


Quick +s
+ Surprise Peter Weller
+ Birth of Section 31
+ Uhura taking on the Klingons
+ Remix of the engine room scene (more on that later)
+ Setup of a moral quandary with the torpedoes and Scotty's resignation, even if the follow-through was less of a climax than a quick decision by Kirk en route
+ Sulu kicking ass from the captain's chair; redeemed him from leaving the conn multiple times in the shuttlecraft while claiming extremely difficult flight conditions over the volcano
+ Some of the visuals and FX: volcano was pretty, hull breach was good and raw
+ I'll give this to the filmmakers: they know how to convey the beauty and grandeur of our own solar system—Jupiter this time, Saturn in Reboot
+ Pike's wounded grunts during the Daystrom attack. Scary.

Quick –s
- Opening scene racism that overshadowed the striking visuals; as a result I've seen at least two professional reviewers already refer to the Nibiru people as "creatures," ick
- Uhura largely serves as a relationship illuminator. Don't like that she suddenly has trouble understanding Spock when she seemed to get him in Reboot. Woman=wants emotion, bleh.
- Electric blue eyes everywhere. It's like Lord of the Rings all over again.
- Three pointless undies shots, incl. the five-second scene that seemed to exist only to show two feline girls in bed with Kirk
- Can't have a single proper conversation without action interrupts
- Dropped plots; for example, never went back to repercussions of Nibiru Enterprise sighting that seemed to be a portent
- Totally gratuitous mass destruction scene that was used to heighten action instead of set up a trauma that needed to be survived or avenged; shallow terrorism "message"
- Pike's sideburns
- Volcanoes don't work that way*
- "Cold fusion" doesn't work that way*
- Gravity doesn't work that way; they should have been in freefall, not in Star Trek: Inception*
- Predictability. So many moves were telegraphed (it's Khan! Pike's dead! Kirk's sacrificing himself to save the ship! Carol's not who she says she is! Kirk's not dead! gasp! oh wait, no) that it sucked most of what little drama there was right out again
- Typical of Hollywood movies these days, everything went way too fast

*Whatever, after "red matter" and the inexplicably unanticipated supernova I don't expect anything approaching plausible science, even technobabble, out of J.J. Abrams & co.

ETA: Ha, rhaegal spells it out here

LOLs that the filmmakers probably intended
- "You're fighting? What's that even like?"
- "I am expressing multiple attitudes simultaneously."
- "I'm running!"
- Spock's fakeout face where he opened his mouth as if deeply moved
- McCoy's—ugh, I can't even call him McCoy, let's say Karl Urban's—aside about bitey Gorn babies

LOLs that the filmmakers probably did not intend (and if they did, then I am mad at them for using blockbuster money to poke fun at a beloved universe)
- Glitter warp
- Self-ratcheting seat belts*
- Klingon uniforms with bumpy forehead helmets and mini codpieces
- Swelling Dramatic Music
- "John Harrison"'s epic Byronic posing
- Admiral Marcus's OH SO SUBTLE line of space shuttle/starship evolution models
- All the ridiculous little Starfleet insignias everywhere (hats, uniform patterns, sickbay gown cutouts...)
- Stargatey warp tube
- So many Single Crystalline Tears

*But at least someone finally put seat belts on the bridge? And yet the solution really should have been to acknowledge that if inertial dampeners fail, you go splat into goo before you know what happened, you don't just fall over.

Can we talk about Khan for a sec

Khan != white guy. Not that having a Latino or East Asian villain would have been an appropriate path necessarily, but calling Benedict Cumberbatch "Khan" felt ridiculous. Why not change the name? Why not, oh, make a whole new villain instead of hijacking one of the best original Trek characters?

Because this movie was a waste of Khan and that felt insulting. He served as a means to an end re: setting the stage for the engine room scene. The movie also glossed over in a few minutes what could have been an interesting build in which a seeming villain became a whistleblower, crew expectations turned upside-down, flip felt deeply by characters and audience. But what really would have made the hijack worth it is if they'd spent some time exploring the potential that in this timeline, awakened and blackmailed by a bloodthirsty admiral, Khan could have different motivations and allegiances than in TOS. More of the "Oh, crap, where'd Khan go, did he double-cross us? But he just saved Kirk. Can we trust him? What's he after?" stuff and less of the menacing ship-to-ship attacks and slamming of the SuperPrise into San Francisco. What if Reboot Khan didn't end up as a black-and-white villain but sided with the Enterprise crew? What if Spock Prime warned Quinto Spock about the incredible danger Khan posed, but Quinto Spock took his own timeline's context into account and gave Khan a chance? What if Khan proved worthy of being given the benefit of the doubt? What if the conclusion was that he and his crew were able to integrate into society or at least form their own brainy-brawny colony somewhere instead of having to be marooned there or kept on ice? I would have enjoyed that movie.

(I would maybe also have enjoyed the movie where Spock switched minds with Khan when they mind-melded on the flying freighter, beamed back aboard in that body and gave Karl Urban all the blood he wanted. A good guy in a superbody, and a supervillain stuck in a mortal one.)

(I would definitely have enjoyed the movie cesperanza asked about where the whole thing was a Kobayashi Maru metaphor, as Wrath of Khan was. It even sounded like we might have been heading in that direction when someone—Pike?—was talking to Kirk about how sometimes you can't get out of a situation without loss, followed later by Spock Prime telling Quinto Spock that Khan could only be defeated "at great cost." But the structure and emotional follow-through for me weren't solid enough, and the pace was too fast, for the metaphor to truly cohere. It felt more like a series of weak, uncoordinated echoes of Wrath of Khan. Maybe on second viewing it will come through stronger.)

(Maybe on second viewing I'll just enjoy picking out more Wrath of Khan references, knowing it's coming this time, like Kirk and Khan being shot out of a torpedo tube instead of Spock's coffin, or McCoy and Marcus working on the torpedo planetside instead of—was it McCoy and Spock?—arming their special torpedo on its way to the Reliant. [Or was that Undiscovered Country? Whoops.] And seeing if there's any improvement in Carol Marcus' characterization, because I liked her more in 1982 when she was a no-nonsense, non-airbrushed, next-gen terraformer; but then again, originally we saw an older, more jaded Carol Marcus, and everyone in Rebootverse is 15 years old. Plus I might enjoy examining the possibility that the movie had a consistent symbolism involving glass dividers, a la thingswithwings's The Glass. Star Trek: Into Queerness, glitter and slash and all.)

(But if most of what there is to enjoy about Into Darkness is Wrath of Khan references, then it fails, because Wrath of Khan works on numerous levels where this one does not, and this one doesn't offer enough of a coherent new take to stand on its own. IMO. As likeadeuce said in ellen_fremedon's DW: "WoK for me is so tied up with the characters having an enormous amount of history, and with Kirk facing aging and the vulnerability that comes with that -- so it seems so disconnected from the rebootverse." ETA: See also lettered's review.)


Assessing aspects of this movie with regard to Reboot

One of the major issues that bothered me about Reboot was that Kirk took the captain's role as his birthright after Spock Prime melded with him, and that Spock Prime supported it without getting to know the altered timeline versions of either Kirk or Quinto-Spock to judge whether his opinion was a valid one. That was a huge lost opportunity to present a TOS remix wherein Spock was captain and Kirk the first officer. Wouldn't that have been fascinating? So Into Darkness appealed to me in that at least we got a tiny taste of such a swap in the engine room scene. I really liked the remix feel of it. The way some lines switched mouths or got transformed (S: "The ship—out of danger?" --> K: "How's the ship?" S: "Out of danger"), the way the scene played with the iconic imagery. Spock screaming "Khan!" got laughter from our fangirl row and applause from elsewhere. Also, personally, I would have preferred if he'd teared up but not cried. Subtlety: I appreciate it.

What didn't work most for me here was a) how little impact the scene had when you knew that Kirk wasn't going to die because McCoy had Khan's magic regenerating blood, and b) how much it relied on you inserting your feelings from Wrath of Khan. However, v_greyson, who doesn't know Wrath of Khan, disagreed on that and said she felt feelings, and ellen_fremedon, who freely acknowledged that Into Darkness "outsourced all its emotion, plot, and tension to Wrath of Khan," didn't mind that it did. So take it as you will. To me, Scotty's "You'd better come down here" fell flat compared to the original, and it felt disrespectful to, for instance, toss off the "needs of the many" line while Spock was in the volcano five minutes into the movie. YOU HAVEN'T EARNED IT, ABRAMS.

ALSO, total hypocrisy that Kirk unseated Spock in Reboot because Spock was "emotionally compromised" after the destruction of his world and the death of his mother, and yet in Into Darkness Kirk was clearly emotionally compromised by the death of his surrogate father right before he retook command but no one gave him crap about it. Grr.

Were we supposed to feel bad when the unnamed Starfleet review board relieved Kirk of command? Because from where I was sitting, he should have lost the Enterprise after the Nero mission, anyway. Good for Starfleet Command for sending him back to school! …For the thirty seconds in which that almost happened. Oh, Pike, you should have known you were doomed again the second you put yourself between Kirk and the captain's chair.

Sort of a nice touch that Peter Weller called Kirk "son" and didn't realize the nerve he was touching.

The whole "militarization" debate in Into Darkness confuses me on a foundational level. Which is Starfleet supposed to be in this universe, primarily scientific exploration or primarily military? I mean, they are military; Starfleet Academy is a military academy. But I can't get a grasp on the balance between that and the curiosity seeking/intercultural communication because all we're getting are action movies. In Reboot, Pike said, "We are a humanitarian and peacekeeping armada," which made me laugh because, what? Reboot implied that the arrival of the Narada altered Starfleet evolution toward militarization/defense. Now they're talking about militarizing and I can't tell what the baseline is anymore.

Probably I'm just thinking about it too hard.


Assessing aspects of this movie with regard to original Trekverse

Speaking of remixing. Now that I've accepted/resigned myself to the Rebootverse's aesthetics, it was interesting to see its versions of things like Birds of Prey and Klingon makeup (conclusion: stuff has mostly been put on steroids or turned laser blue). Now that I've been able to divorce the Rebootverse's characterizations from those of TOS, it was interesting to see its portrayal of things like Spock's balance of human and Vulcan (conclusion: more drama, less complexity, Quinto is still the best of the cast).

Along the same lines, I'm less frustrated with the fact that the timeline is jumbled—we've got Tribbles, Klingons with ridged foreheads, Harry Mudd and Khan, and the five-year mission hasn't even started yet—and how there's better/different-looking technology than in TOS (holograms, transporters)—than I am head-scratchy in trying to reconcile the movieverse with the rest of the universe.

I thought Into Darkness did an okay job in selecting a classic Trek plot (from the DS9/late TNG era, anyway): crew uncovers a Starfleet conspiracy, works through the ensuing disbelief and disillusionment, and navigates the dangerous, frightening waters of trying to right it. It wouldn't have suited TOS, so it should suit a prequel even less, but given that this prequel is in theaters today, after the '60s and after the other series have aired, I get that it wanted to go dark instead of idealist.





Quotes I agree with from other people's reviews:

A.O. Scott @ New York Times

Maybe it is too late to lament the militarization of "Star Trek," but in his pursuit of blockbuster currency, Mr. Abrams has sacrificed a lot of its idiosyncrasy and, worse, the large-spirited humanism that sustained it.

"Star Trek Into Darkness" does not quite stand by itself as a satisfying movie, but then again it doesn't need to. It is the leg of a journey that has, remarkably, lasted for nearly half a century. I hope we never tire of Kirk, Spock and the others. I also hope that they stick around long enough to find a new civilization, since the one we have now does not fully appreciate their gifts.

Andrew O'Hehir@ Salon

This alternate universe features many of the same characters and a roughly similar reality but all kinds of stuff is different and wildly inconsistent […] The Abramsverse is considered canonical by hardcore fans only because they have no choice; it's "Trek"-flavored, but largely made-up and WTF.

One of the biggest differences "Trek" buffs have noted between the Abramsverse and the "Prime Universe" is the disappearance of moral cost and consequence (as in the destruction of Vulcan in the 2009 film). Here we see an enormous terrorist attack, many times bigger than 9/11, which comes and goes as a plot element [and isn't brought up again.]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with "Star Trek Into Darkness" – once you understand it as a generic comic-book-style summer flick faintly inspired by some half-forgotten boomer culture thing.

Charlie Jane Anders @ io9

Star Trek Into Darkness tries to give fans exactly what they expect, in exactly the right quantities with the right packaging. The result is somewhat insulting to actual Star Trek fans, because nobody enjoys inept pandering. And it falls short of being a good action movie, because it actively lowers the stakes over and over, instead of raising them. […] This is a film that's simultaneously trying too hard and aiming too low. […] probably the best you can say about Star Trek Into Darkness is that it is fun, if you can turn your brain all the way off.

Angela Watercutter @ Wired (Aside from the grr-inducing headline/premise)

A classic line is a classic line, but Bones doesn't need to keep dropping "Dammit man, I'm a doctor…" just to establish his Bones-iness. In short, as io9 points out, at some point in Darkness "fanservice becomes the movie" and it begins to feel more like a tribute than an extension of a broader narrative.

daasgrrl 1

I actually came out of it giggling because I just didn't know how to feel - it felt like some massively meta-AU-prequel-sequel-reboot-crossover-only-in-fandom thing, and at times I found it completely, inappropriately hilarious, while at others I felt shamelessly emotionally manipulated...

J. Bryan Lowder @ Slate

Its preference for violence and political intrigue makes Abrams' vision more Star Wars than Star Trek—which renders his closing use of the classic, soul-stirring promise "to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before" ironically bittersweet. Something tells me that Abrams' crew will be approaching those new worlds and new life forms with phasers in hand far more often than tricorders.

lettered

I'm totally willing to accept that nu!Kirk is not going to act like TOS!Kirk. Nu!Kirk had a completely different childhood and a completely different life. And I'm totally willing to accept that nu!Spock is not going to act like TOS!Spock. Nu!Spock’s whole planet is gone, not to mention that Nero's actions have apparently had an impact on how Starfleet has evolved. But oh God, if you're going to tell me over and over again that they are different people, make them different people. I'm totally not cool with this Kirk getting the same scene as TOS!Kirk, as though they are the same people.

[...] for me, Star Trek is about ethics, morality, optimism, cultural understanding and acceptance. It's an earnest wish for a better future. It's about the joy of exploring new places and learning new things and meeting new people. Star Trek is not actually about Tribbles. Star Trek is not actually about Klingons; Klingons are about how to deal with a culture that is vastly different and people who may want to kill you. Star Trek isn't about Khan; Khan is about the evils of racism and racial superiority; Khan is about the ethical treatment of criminals; Khan is about the mistakes of our past—both the distant past and the immediate past; Khan is about loyalty and friendship and revenge. Star Trek isn't a piece of glass; that piece of glass is about years of friendship and trust and overcoming difference and learning to understand each other; it’s about sacrifice and loss and love.

liviapenn for a laugh-out-loud rant

The end of this movie is Kirk & Spock & the gang FAILING to stop Khan from crashing a GIANT SPACESHIP into a populated city and destroying Starfleet academy, AND PLUS they don't even tell us whether or not they averted the war with the Klingons, BUT IT'S OKAY, because we have the medical ethics of a Stargate Atlantis episode and Kirk's going to be okay. YAYYYYYY.

Also for reference, because I am getting lazy:

daasgrrl 2
musesfool
thingswithwings
oliviacirce


Please feel free to counterargue, echo, link, whatever!

Comments

[laurashapiro.livejournal.com]

I really appreciate your deep thinkiness here. I am now 100% certain I am not gonna pay actual money to see this movie -- and indeed, I hope to avoid it altogether. But it was really great to have you unpack it all for me like that.

[bironic.livejournal.com]

Cool, I'm glad it was helpful, even if it means you will not be giving the movie a try just yet. Reviews have been all over the place and so often polarized that I wanted to work out in my own head some of what worked and what didn't, at first blush.

[laurashapiro.livejournal.com]

That's exactly why I appreciate this -- you aren't going in with guns blazing, in either direction. Just working it all out. I like that kind of review. It's the most helpful.

[bironic.livejournal.com]

Between this and the Fifty Shades review I guess I am setting a precedent here of late. :)

[laurashapiro.livejournal.com]

I don't wanna be all entitled, but I am tempted to say "keep it comin'!"

Or as we say, I am intrigued by your opinions and wish to subscribe to your newsletter. (:

[daasgrrl.livejournal.com]

I just skimmed though this for the moment - I'm going to see it again today and now that I know what to expect, will be thinking about it more rather than just sitting there with my eyes wide open *g*

But "all the characters cry" lol, truth. That bordered on absurdist for me. And Spock yelling "KHAN!!!!!!" made me giggle, which was all wrong but I couldn't help it. It was like a total Shatner parody with the extreme closeup and all - I'm on the verge of giggling now just thinking of it. I just couldn't with that entire scene. But as for the scene in general, haaate. So much hate. I just kept flashing back to TWOK and gritting my teeth, while I was still moved by Spock crying BECAUSE I'M NOT MADE OF STONE. So very conflicted.

...do I get the vibe that you don't like KU? Because I don't either. He's not Bones. I liked him better this time around... but he's still not Bones. Chris Pine was also very... Chris-Piney. LOL.

Oh, yes, and I have totally made the JUST MAKE HIM A NEW VILLAIN FFS rant elsewhere. Because it's a bind - make him noticeably 'ethnicitised' and you have the brown people are terrorists trope, which actually could have worked if his character had been fleshed out more so that we felt his position, his dilemma, if he'd been made into a character every bit as sympathetic as Kirk's. BUT HE WASN'T. If you just want a random white dude causing trouble and causing things to explode, it might as well be John Harrison. Incredibly underwritten villain, and I'm not just saying that because it was BC. I'm actually saying even he couldn't save it from being woefully underwritten. Marcus was a far cooler villain, tbh.

Whoops, I clearly have too much pent-up ranting, since I've only had a handful of other people to discuss with thus far. I should probably do this in my own journal - later *g*

[bironic.livejournal.com]

(This is supposed to be my convention icon but whatever, it is appropriate right now.)

He's not Bones.

Sigh. Yeah. And I acknowledge that I may feel that way because McCoy was my first crush and I appear to be in the minority as well for my opinion of Reboot Bones, but also what KU has been given to work with comes across like a caricature, as one of the reviewers said. *grumpy face* It caused me great pain, ha, to absorb all the new interpretations of the crew in '09. Some I think have succeeded better than others in making the roles their own while still respecting and reflecting the original.

/snob

make him noticeably 'ethnicitised' and you have the brown people are terrorists trope [...] If you just want a random white dude causing trouble and causing things to explode, it might as well be John Harrison

YES. Thank you, I was having trouble articulating that while drafting the post.

Come by to rant anytime. :)

[bironic.livejournal.com]

p.s. Hey, you might enjoy lettered's just-posted rant-review that starts with a discussion of the KHAAAAN yell: http://lettered.dreamwidth.org/159281.html

[deelaundry.livejournal.com]

JJ Abrams was on The Daily Show and said he didn't like Star Trek when he was growing up because it had "too much philosophy."

That crystalized for me why JJ Abrams wasn't the right person to re-boot Star Trek.

[bironic.livejournal.com]

When he says stuff like that it makes me want to :'(. As others have said, Star Wars suits him so much more. I can't think too much on what these two Trek reboots might have been like if he'd been given Star Wars instead (rather than in addition) and someone who loved Trek but had room for invention had been at the helm in his place. And had hired a screenwriter who wasn't Damon Lindelof.

p.s. If you haven't read the above-linked Wired article:

While reblogging a GIF of the [Abrams-Stewart] exchange on Tumblr, Wheaton added, ”Sigh. The whole point of Star Trek is that it’s philosophical… Philosophy is part of Star Trek’s DNA, and if you’re given the captain’s chair, you’d better damn well respect that.”

[lettered.livejournal.com]

YOU HAVEN'T EARNED IT, ABRAMS.

I feel like he never earns anything. Everything I've ever watched by him just feels like a bunch of really quite interesting stuff someone put in a blender.

Those reviews are great; thank you for linking them.

[bironic.livejournal.com]

Sure! I spent part of the morning skimming Google and clicking on splatty reviews at Rotten Tomatoes. I just read and really enjoyed your post as well, and am about to follow the link over to liviapenn's.

[lettered.livejournal.com]

I spent part of the morning skimming Google and clicking on splatty reviews at Rotten Tomatoes

What a good idea. I've just been moping about it for days, and partly I just feel bad that I feel this way. It's nice to hear other people say the same things, but I also don't want to harsh anyone's squee.

[bironic.livejournal.com]

Yeah, it's tough, and people's reactions have been clustered at the... poles... of the opinion magnet... uh. They are divided, anyway, and since I fell somewhat in the middle, though closer to the *facepalm* end, reading well-thought-out reviews helped confirm some of my reactions and articulate why do I feel this way.

/probably incoherent comment - bedtime

[lettered.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I totally understand people liking this film! I mean, the whitewashing element is never going to be okay, and there are all these moral and ethical issues with it, but if you're willing to allow it to build on your ST feelings, instead of expecting the movie to earn it all over again, then I totally see enjoying this film. But I'm not willing to do that when they've stated diegetically that this is a different universe, and made it quite explicit that it's not your mama's Kirk.

[bironic.livejournal.com]

Like they want to eat their Kirk and have him too.

[lettered.livejournal.com]

Exactly! This Kirk is cannibalized.

[bironic.livejournal.com]

*high-fives you*

[bironic.livejournal.com]

if you're willing to allow it to build on your ST feelings, instead of expecting the movie to earn it all over again

You helped me articulate something: It's perfectly fine for STID (or Reboot) to be enhanced by my rest-of-Trek feelings; but it is lazy filmmaking to solely rely on them.

[lettered.livejournal.com]

Well, honestly, I don't think the original films are all that great either. TOS is awesome, but the films kinda disappoint me. I don't think TWOK is phenomenal filmmaking either, and it does rely on emotions from TOS and TMP. But I'm kinda alright with that, because they're the same characters. But reboot has made it explicit both diegetically and through characterizations that they're not the same characters, which I'm totally okay with, but it does mean you have to earn my feelings again. I'm not going to care about two random people just because you called them Kirk and Spock.

[lettered.livejournal.com]

ALSO YOUR ICON. hahahaha omg I love him so.

[cold_clarity]

I really love this review!

I have mostly a fond-nostalgia-type connection to Star Trek. I watched most of NextGen as a kid with my dad (and I saw a few episodes of DS9 and Voyager because of him)--but I don't think I started watching TOS until I was in college (I saw The Voyage Home in middle school though; mostly I was amped about THE MOTHERFUCKING WHALES), and I only just started revisiting the Next Generation fairly recently. I'm mostly throwing all this background out there to say: I'm aggressively fond of the entire Star Trek universe, I love that I get to explore all the material over again now that I'm older, and I actually really do identify as a Star Trek fanespecially as it applies to TOS), or just the plain old experience of participating in the fandom that a lot of fans have.

so that's how I walked into the 2009 film--and it's pretty much how I walked into STID. although, after Reboot, I think my expectations for STID were pretty low, given how banal (or maybe straight up anti-intellectual?) Reboot's premise was. the marketing for STID also shot my hopes to hell and made me think that this whole movie was going to be about the lionization and subsequent beatification of I-don't-play-by-the-rules-nu!Kirk ("starfleet isn't about revenge" "maybe it should be"--NO IT SHOULDN'T). given this, I was actually pleasantly surprised that the film 1. didn't go the route of completely valorizing Kirk-as-the-hotshot-hero who just Straight White Mans his way through every problem (and honestly, I really do think it easily could have gone there); 2. made some attempt at sparking conversations about ethics. jumbled worldbuilding aside, the conversations about a culture's move towards aggressive militarization following a violent attack (and the preponderance of reactionary attitudes that would condone condemnation-without-trial) were topical in a way that I really didn't expect, but ultimately appreciated. for me, the most interesting part of STID was the film's brief glance at the question of what constitutes an "appropriate response" to a violent and/or traumatic event (especially when the targets/victims/survivors of said event are participant in a broader hegemonic power structure). I really hoped the film would get more into issues of militarization, violence, retaliation, and loss...but it didn't, sadly. like the io9 quote pointed out, the film was fun, and the attempt at ethical intellectualism was welcome/unexpected...but somewhere down the line it all just devolved into swashbuckling action. and I liked it (or rather, I didn't mind it; action sequences don't really blow my mind--but whatever), but it wasn't what I wanted.

[cold_clarity]

ALL THAT SAID--I never gave much thought to the characterization/mischaracterization of the main cast. probably because I don't have a very strong idea of the ways in which the crew of the enterprise were characterized in TOS (in spite of having seen most of it, and several of the films, at this point). I really like getting your perspective on that! and, after reading through your writeup, as well as lettered's, I have to agree that it really would have made so much more sense to build up nu!crew as...new people, with different lives, different histories, and different relationships to one another than the TOS crew (as opposed to just using them to puppet out fanservice-y moments--not that I minded those moments, necessarily).

speaking of fanservice (or failed fancservice): I was really annoyed with the recycling of Khan. I just. why go to all the trouble of creating an alternate timeline if you're going to just sort-of port villains across universes. whyyyyy. I spent most of the movie being like HE'S NOT KHAN and then having a 'fuck you, JJ' moment when he finally announced that his name was Khan. that said, someone on my flist pointed out that nu!Khan is not necessarily the same person as Khan Noonien Singh--that, in fact, Benedict!Khan may have just taken on the name as a title, and that Khan Noonien Singh is a different person altogether (ostensibly still in cryosleep). I don't know if I can work out the logic behind all of that, because I don't know the mythos of Khan Noonien Singh all that well, but the idea helped me feel better about nu!Khan? I think?

anyway, thanks for all your thoughts. I'm sorry you got an essay in return? I think I'll probably end up seeing STID again because I did have fun watching it--and also because I felt like I couldn't actually form too many interesting or meaningful critical opinions in the first viewing (although I can definitively say that I just don't need fifty million action sequences to make a movie feel worthwhile jfc). your thoughts, though, helped me get a little deeper into my own feelings about the film. so yeah, thank you!

[bironic.livejournal.com]

I am also planning to see it again, and it's funny because I think we have exchanged thinking points. I tend to come up from the details first toward theme second, so I picked out all these little ways in which something worked or didn't work, including characterization, and it's only been after reading people's reactions that the themes are taking form, like what you say here:

2. made some attempt at sparking conversations about ethics. jumbled worldbuilding aside, the conversations about a culture's move towards aggressive militarization following a violent attack (and the preponderance of reactionary attitudes that would condone condemnation-without-trial) [...] the film's brief glance at the question of what constitutes an "appropriate response" to a violent and/or traumatic event (especially when the targets/victims/survivors of said event are participant in a broader hegemonic power structure).

This will be really interesting to pay more attention to next time and see how coherently the movie tries to come at this question; the first time around, I didn't give the movie enough credit (maybe) and assumed that everyone was on board with Starfleet's knee-jerk reaction to hunt down and destroy the archive saboteur without looking into his motivation etc. (since I guess even that early in the story I was on Kirk's side of asking questions about who was really the villain and suspecting that there was something more going on than the Admiral revealed). I filed it under "Kirk uncovers Starfleet conspiracy" and "evil Admiral is trying to subsume scientific exploration under military action" rather than "movie is trying to make a larger point about ethics and current politics" because the Admiral was just so over the top, and, granted, because I had a hard time parsing themes when the pace was so fast. The whole Bush-era metaphor escaped me until the giant crash at the end, but I get it in retrospect with the manhunt across borders and the "weapons of mass destruction," although muddied by the bodies in the weapons themselves, and it'll be interesting on second watch to see if it still feels as disrespectful and ham-handed as the first time, coopting this imagery of recent mass trauma without addressing the fallout (of Khan's final crash, anyway) or making a new or deep point.

why go to all the trouble of creating an alternate timeline if you're going to just sort-of port villains across universes. whyyyyy. I spent most of the movie being like HE'S NOT KHAN and then having a 'fuck you, JJ' moment when he finally announced that his name was Khan.

YES. I literally put my face in my hands as BC started to say the line.

that said, someone on my flist pointed out that nu!Khan is not necessarily the same person as Khan Noonien Singh

I would have loved if the movie had argued that. Right now it seems to me like a way to go LA LA LA YOU ARE NOT REALLY KHAN (an understandable reaction!) but honestly, given the superhuman cryo background, the inclusion of Spock Prime's advice, and the repeat of the engine room scene, I don't see how the movie leaves room to argue that Khan was another Khan. Alas.

[cold_clarity]

I filed it under "Kirk uncovers Starfleet conspiracy" and "evil Admiral is trying to subsume scientific exploration under military action" rather than "movie is trying to make a larger point about ethics and current politics" because the Admiral was just so over the top, and, granted, because I had a hard time parsing themes when the pace was so fast. The whole Bush-era metaphor escaped me until the giant crash at the end, but I get it in retrospect with the manhunt across borders and the "weapons of mass destruction," although muddied by the bodies in the weapons themselves, and it'll be interesting on second watch to see if it still feels as disrespectful and ham-handed as the first time, coopting this imagery of recent mass trauma without addressing the fallout (of Khan's final crash, anyway) or making a new or deep point.

it's interesting--I never got the sense that it was meant to read as Kirk-versus-Starfleet (mostly because Spock spent the whole trip to Qo'noS/Kronos being all like I REALLY DON'T THINK THIS IS AN ETHICALLY SOUND PLAN), but I can totally see how and why it might read that way, especially since the film was moving at such a breakneck speed.

I think it will absolutely seem ham-handed in a rewatch--which, actually, isn't the part that would potentially upset me. and I don't think that handling an issue with ham-handed obviousness is the same thing as handling an issue in such a way that it begins to seem like the writers have a trivial or shallow take on the matter (though they do tend to correlate quite a bit). that said, I do think that the discussion-of-topical-issues will ultimately read as trivial in a rewatch because the film doesn't seem to have much interest in investigating the questions it brings up in a deep way? it's interesting that they work to point out that Khan, regardless of the things he's done, should maybe still have a right to a trial! it's interesting that they problematize the issue of the military industrial complex! and the fact that both of those questions are even extant in the film is a step up from ST: 2009. but. the questions get lost and somewhat muddled in the rollercoastering of the rest of the movie--and it just generally feels like Abrams is more interested in filming swashbuckling action sequences than he is in discussing the problems that he brings up at the start of the movie (and sort of mentions again at the end? kinda?).

[cold_clarity]

...this also leads me to recall the New Caprica arc on Battlestar Galactica, which really did upset and offend me, because it felt so transparently like a sloppy and disposable reference to the various conflicts/U.S. occupations in the Middle East that never bothered to present any meaningful insights into said conflicts. I'm not sure why that bothered me so much, but the thematic overtones of STID didn't really bother me at all.

so yes. running with this free-association train: my brother asked me if this movie dealt with "deep questions" in the way that Prometheus dealt with its existential questions--which is to say, he wanted to know if STID was as completely incoherent and disjointed in its presentation and subsequent examination of its themes as Prometheus. and I'm still thinking about this question, because I don't know how to answer it. I walked out of Prometheus feeling much more strongly that the scriptwriting was a complete and total disaster than I did when I walked out of STID, but I'm actually beginning to think that the movies handled their themes in pretty much the same, messy way, and the only reason I liked STID better was because I like Star Trek as a whole, and I'm generally disposed to have an affection for the overall franchise.

I don't know if you saw Prometheus, but I'd love to hear your thoughts on that comparison? if you have any, of course.

I would have loved if the movie had argued that. Right now it seems to me like a way to go LA LA LA YOU ARE NOT REALLY KHAN (an understandable reaction!) but honestly, given the superhuman cryo background, the inclusion of Spock Prime's advice, and the repeat of the engine room scene, I don't see how the movie leaves room to argue that Khan was another Khan. Alas.

I think you're totally right on this. which, unfortunately, leaves me in the awkward place of being SO FUCKING UPSET WITH HIM BEING KHAN UGH WHY JJ ABRAMS WHY.

...but hey, I guess this is why fandom exists.

[bironic.livejournal.com]

I don't think that handling an issue with ham-handed obviousness is the same thing as handling an issue in such a way that it begins to seem like the writers have a trivial or shallow take on the matter (though they do tend to correlate quite a bit). that said, I do think that the discussion-of-topical-issues will ultimately read as trivial in a rewatch because the film doesn't seem to have much interest in investigating the questions it brings up in a deep way?

Good distinction, and good follow-up point! I'm going to have to see the movie again to be able to comment further.

it's interesting that they work to point out that Khan, regardless of the things he's done, should maybe still have a right to a trial! it's interesting that they problematize the issue of the military industrial complex! […] but. the questions get lost and somewhat muddled in the rollercoastering of the rest of the movie

I'll say—I don't even remember the line about the trial nor recall how much explicit attention was paid to the military-industrial complex. :D See also: the above.

I don't know if you saw Prometheus, but I'd love to hear your thoughts on that comparison? if you have any, of course.

Ha, I actually have an outline for a follow-up post because I think it'll be illuminating—er, for me, anyway—to compare my reaction to STID to my reactions to Prometheus (which I just saw a few weeks ago) and the new Superman trailer. (1) Because basically I gave Prometheus more leeway on the sloppy messaging and ridiculous pseudoscience, which I suspect is related to my level of canon devotion (infinitely lower Alien series than for Star Trek) as well as my tendency to look for something good (or bad) in a media source if popular opinion is skewed far in the other direction. There is also a difference there in that the original canon creator made the Alien prequel, whereas for Trek there's more of a feeling of the canon being hijacked by someone who doesn't seem to love or want to stay true to its origins. And (2) because as a casual fan of Superman I am not as invested in what they repeat or "ruin" in the latest rehash, beyond general annoyance at Hollywood's shrinking lag time between reboots and its aversion to doing something new; I'm happy to try it out and enjoy Michael Shannon as what looks like Zod. Which is probably how a lot of people felt about STID & Benedict Cumberbatch.

…Well, there, that is half the post I'm planning to make. :)

[cold_clarity]

Ha, I actually have an outline for a follow-up post because I think it'll be illuminating—er, for me, anyway—to compare my reaction to STID to my reactions to Prometheus (which I just saw a few weeks ago) and the new Superman trailer.

I'm excited to read it!

(1) Because basically I gave Prometheus more leeway on the sloppy messaging and ridiculous pseudoscience, which I suspect is related to my level of canon devotion (infinitely lower Alien series than for Star Trek) as well as my tendency to look for something good (or bad) in a media source if popular opinion is skewed far in the other direction.

it's funny; I didn't dislike Prometheus--I actually paid to see it twice. I enjoyed the sci-fi-thriller-horror aspect of it, and I had fun cheering for the xenomorph monsters at certain points (maybe this says something about me?). I didn't really get frustrated with the film until I started discussing it with other people, and we tried to hash out the various thematic explorations that it carried out (or failed to carry out). and, interested though I am in the examination of faith, divinity, and wonder, those themes felt pretty inelegantly stitched into a franchise that already had a lot of dense material to explore vis-a-vis the nature of horror, the grotesque, gender, sexuality, rage, violence, and the phenomenology of the body.

...actually, now that I say this, I don't want to imply that investigations of faith, divinity, wonder, or awe is somehow mutually exclusive from the issues of grotesquerie and the soma (in fact, given a certain lens, they could be seen as inextricable)--but Prometheus seemed to have a hard time weaving those topics together and struck me as being more interested in the divinity/awe question, leaving the psychosexual horror stuff to just get sort of...tacked on because it's expected of the Alien franchise.

There is also a difference there in that the original canon creator made the Alien prequel, whereas for Trek there's more of a feeling of the canon being hijacked by someone who doesn't seem to love or want to stay true to its origins

this is actually a fascinating point! Ridley Scott was the director on Prometheus, but Damon Lindelof was one of the two main writers credited on the project. given that Scott never exhibited much interest in the divinity/awe/wonder stuff in the original Alien (though I can't speak for the Alien sequels, since I never saw them), I'm going to assume (and have been told by others who know his work better than I do) that Lindelof is responsible for the questions of faith and belief popping up throughout the story. Lindelof is also credited as one of the main writers for STID, and he and Abrams have a relationship going back at least as far as Lost (both of them worked as executive producers, as well as writers, for that series)...and I'm nnnnot really sure what point I'm trying to draw out here, except that maybe jarring scriptwriting is typical of Lindelof and/or Abrams?

who knows, really. either way, I'm excited for your post!

[cold_clarity]

also, I'm sorry that I keep leaving you mile-long replies! I hope I'm not coming off as...overly argumentative (or just straight-up obnoxious). I tend to uncover my own thoughts better through conversation, so...here I am? thanks for letting me chatter on, at least!

[daasgrrl.livejournal.com]

Hee, back for more thorough reading and contemplation.

- you wore a Trek dress? LOL, awesome!
- I think it says something that I can't remember a thing about Reboot, or very little. Small things like Kirk playing 'chicken' in the opening scene, and some massive Starfleet lecture hall thing. Yeah, that little. Eric Bana was in it, right? I really don't remember a thing. I do remember enjoying it, all shiny and pretty, but nothing stayed with me *g*
- Peter Weller was great, but you know how I feel about that reactor scene! Grrr.
- Yeah, pretty much everyone else I've discussed this with mentioned how the opening just went quietly away and never came back, which is a good point. It would have been much more satisfying if it had been tied in somehow.
- That gravity thing was somewhat confusing, lol. I tried to rationalise it by thinking the gravity field generator was working intermittently as well as malfunctioning severely (because you'd think any gravity field produced generally always orient towards 'floor'). Or... something.
- epic Byronic posing lolol.

...Harry Mudd? What did I miss?

Eh, Khan. One of the joyous things about TWOK for me was how elegantly structured it was - you could feel it even without analysing it. This movie was not... elegant. I have to agree with you and other people who say the scene was playing off an emotion that was essentially "unearned", and that was the a problem with it.

[bironic.livejournal.com]

(This dress (http://www.thinkgeek.com/product/d7a3/?srp=1), hee.)

how the opening just went quietly away and never came back, which is a good point. It would have been much more satisfying if it had been tied in somehow.

For a minute there I thought Marcus was somehow harnessing/exploiting a power the Nibiru people had and turning it into supertorpedoes, so that what the crew dismissed as primitivism was a convenient facade put forth by the Nibiru or by Starfleet. But no. Different conspiracy.

(That is another version of the movie I might have enjoyed!)

I tried to rationalise it by thinking the gravity field generator was working intermittently as well as malfunctioning severely (because you'd think any gravity field produced generally always orient towards 'floor').

I tried that too, ha! It's the best possible explanation besides "not knowing how gravity works." But then, I mean, if the Enterprise was trying to figure out which way was "up" and kept compensating, then that doesn't make sense either, because in space there is no "up." So, we are back to the "just plain broken" explanation. I just wonder why the ship would have gravity generators directed anywhere other than the floor.

Another case where the movie doesn't justify my trying to figure it out...!

[coneyislandbaby]

Hi, would it be okay to link this from metanewsfandom?

[bironic.livejournal.com]

Sure!

[coneyislandbaby]

Thanks!

[cincodemaygirl.livejournal.com]

Wow, this is awesome. I went to see it again last weekend, and I think I liked it less the second time, although I didn't laugh inappropriately as much as I did the first time (I also took small naps during the sequences I really hated, so maybe that's where the unintended lols were located). "Abrams hasn't earned it" really boils it all down nicely, for me.

[browngirl.livejournal.com]

This is a really excellent analysis. *makes notes*