So, I watched Star Trek: Into Darkness on Monday evening. I went, I saw, I conquered a medium popcorn.
I went knowing very little beforehand; I refused to purposely watch any trailers or read any reviews....simply because this is Star Trek! It's something sacred, that just shouldn't be messed with.
Well, about an hour in, it got dark. Damn dark. Like Frank Miller Batman dark. It was messed with.
I don't have a problem with "Frank Miller Dark"....I love Sin City, The Dark Knight, etc, etc...it's that J.J. Abrams decided to dabble in dark and apply it to Star Trek. *facepalm*
Now, I had this idea come to me in the shower, so it's scribbled in some cryptic form of grease-marker shorthand all over my bathroom wall, so it may only be partially developed. I need to release it to the world though so I can move on without letting my Nerd show too much. (5 accusations in 7 days....I think I need to tone it back or get out more often...)
Back to Frank Miller--Batman is completely acceptable for "Dark". I mean, look simply at the character development. Here's a guy who's seriously disturbed.
Now paralleling Bruce Wayne to the J.J. Abrams Star Trek, ok...I will concede that Kirk is allowed to be a little "dark". In TOS, or at least according to the 2009 movie reboot, Kirk's parents lived to see him graduate from Starfleet. In the reboot parallel universe his father died a fiery death is a battle against the Romulan, so Kirk was stuck in Iowa as a spoiled kid that drives his uncle's 67 Stingray Convertible (awesome car btw) recklessly over a cliff. From this, I can accept that Kirk himself will lean a little bit towards the troubled side of the spectrum. But the whole movie.....wait....wut?
I found a review that pretty much sums up where I stand on the movie. I also had and discussion (although not heated, we seemed to see eye-to-eye on most things) with a friend about how the reboot pulled too far from the TOS.
My take-home: If you have 2.5 hours to kill, and you want to see some explosions, some romantic plot lines (between Spock and Uhura...ewwww--no spoiler, you knew that was coming), some reasonably witty writing (it's no Joss Whedon, but I'll take it), then go and see it.
If you want what Star Trek: TOS is known for: discovery, SCIENCE!, exploration, peace love and freedom, etc....then go watch the reboot, but accept that it's no TOS. Not at all.
My favorite part of the movie (spoiler alert) was about 1/2 an hour in, when Scotty and Kirk have a pretty heated argument about the ethics and responsibilities of a Starfleet mission, eventually leading to Scotty's resignation. I was kind of expecting the remaining 2 hours to take that turn. They didn't. I was sad. The Esquire article I posted covers this argument pretty solidly. Honestly, I think the debate and moral argument was the most exciting part of the entire Star Trek franchise. (...which I think is why TNG is my favorite...)
One thing that was done very well (and I mean very well) was the character development. We got to see Spock's "human side". We got to see a little more of McCoy's smart-ass demeanor. Kirk, well, he wasn't so much of a ladies man (as in the OS), and seemed more like a spoiled brat with an expensive spaceship to do damage with, but there were still more dimensions to his character in a 2.5 hour movie than I think there were in 79 one-hour episodes (I know I'm opening up a huge can of worms here, but I'm willing to take that risk). At least we got to see a little more of what makes the crew tick. I appreciate that.
Bottom line: I much preferred the original 1982 Wrath of Khan. :P
Parallel universe or not, but it was still worth the watch. I'm just wondering if it's worth the thought investment of the past three days.
No comments:
Post a Comment