Fun, but.
Well. There are six points I want to make:
1. Like Iron Man 3: Iron Mannishly with a Vengeance (about which I have already written on this blog), Star Trek Into Darkness (or 'stid!' as we may choose to acronymise, if we don't mind an acronym that sounds like a flying toenail clipping that's just pinged off the doorframe) ... like Iron Man 3, stid! is a film more-or-less about 9/11. The difference is that stid! quarantines all its humour away from the Tragic Deaths and Giant Air(less)planes Flying Into Skyscrapers moments. Those bits are treated with po-faced seriousness, and behind these atrocities there actually is an evil genius. In this respect, Iron Man 3 is immeasurably the better and more interesting pulp-culture response to 9/11.
2. Spoilers, from here on. If such things distress you, I'd be obliged if you stopped reading now.
3. stid! is a remake of Star Trek 2: the Wrath of Khan. Now this latter movie is one of the indisputable greats not just of the Trek franchise but of Hollywood sf more generally. Such a fine film. And there are things that are commendable about the way Abrams has set about remaking it. The way he plays games with allusion and quotation, and more to the point rings large scale changes and inversions on the original picture is neat, although not as neat as Abrams perhaps thinks (Spock yelling 'Khaaan!' is feeble stuff, really). I like the verve of this film; I liked the visuals, the pacing is brisk, the set-pieces are snappy; it's all very prettily done. In these respects it is clearly superior to the original Star Trek 2. But below the surface level, there's a woeful lack of story-logic, character-logic or, you know, logic-logic. Cumberbatch looks about as much like a high-caste Sikh superman as I do myself, but let's swallow that great stone egg of a representational problem for the moment. I'm less worried about that, because there's a much bigger difficulty to swallow, if we're in a swallowing humour, and it's this: there's nothing much for the characters to get cross about. This movie needs to be Star Trek 2: the Wrath of Kumberbatch. And Benedict does his best to emote (to eMOTE!) anger throughout. In the scene where he's in the brig, and we have a right-screen close-up of BC's phizog, with Kirk and Spock blurrily in the background on the left, Khan emooootes so ferociously I was worried his eyes were going fall out. Oh, he's livid. But wait -- why is he so cross?
4. Khan as incarnated by Ricardo Montalbán (and if ever a man deserved an emphatic accent on his surname, this splendid Mexican actor did) hated Kirk because he blamed Kirk for the death of his wife. 1982's Star Trek 2 made you feel his anger, too. But Cumberbatch's Khan has no personal beef with Kirk, whom he barely knows. He hates the whole of Star Fleet—a bigger but necessarily more dilute wrath—because Star Fleet rescued Cumberbatch's people, his 'family', from cold-storage in a drifting spaceship and moved them into cold-storage in a safe Federation facility. The dirty dogs! You believed Montalbán's Khan; you don't believe Cumberbatch's. Khan-2013 is angry because the film being remade had 'wrath' in the title, and the scriptwriters think that's character-motivation enough. It's not.
5. In a move that could have been pretentious, but actually turned out rather wonderfully, Star Trek 2 was based upon Herman Melville's Moby Dick, with the round, white USS Enterprise as the whale. 'From hell's heart I stab at thee!' Khan cries, clinging to the wreckage of his ship and preparing his last harpoon throw. 'For hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee!' The moral is: if you're going to do melodrama, do it full-throatedly; and work with the best. Star Trek 2 is based upon a great American novel; stid! is only based upon Star Trek 2. The consequent diminution is fatal. There's nothing in this film as brilliantly suspenseful as Kirk remote-controlling Khan's ship, tricking it into dropping its shields; or the scenes in the Genesis-device chamber; or the final tactical battle. Or to pick one small detail: there is nothing in the whole of snid! so wonderful as the dramatic business ageing portly Shatner does with his spectacles (turning his head when talking to Khan on the screen, so his adversary doesn't see him using them). The nearest thing we get in this film is Christopher Pike's walking stick. Unlike the spectacles, this prop was like the character using it—lame.
6. Of course, we couldn't have Kirk's spectacles in this movie, because this Kirk is a young thrusting buck. It's probably because I'm getting older myself that I found all this stuff tiresome. Everybody sees 'leadership greatness' in his character, where I, to quote another fictional Captain, wouldn't trust him to sit the right way round on a toilet. Still, I had fun. There was no depth, none of the kitsch grandeur of the earlier movie, no genuineness, but there was fun. And fun is what counts, right?
> It's probably because I'm getting older myself that I found all this stuff tiresome. Everybody sees 'leadership greatness' in his character, where I, to quote another fictional Captain, wouldn't trust him to sit the right way round on a toilet.
ReplyDeleteHa! Glad to see that I'm not the only one to have that reaction to watching a 21 year old kid pretending to command a starship. Now that I'm in my 40s, I have no problem picturing a 20 year old leading a platoon or a 30 year old leading a company, but one really does expect some gravitas, or - failing that - at least age, from someone nominally in command of a huge piece of hardware and thousands of lives.
I'll caveat my comments by saying that my favourite ST film is Undiscovered Country, followed by ST 4, ST3, ST2, ST6 and The Motion Picture. That isn't to say that I don't like ST2 but it's not one I hold dear.
ReplyDeleteI must admit that when the big reveal of Khan was made by him saying he was Khan it was initially a shock; and then disappointing. Frustratingly it's turned the movie into a conflict between my head and my heart. My heart liked it. I welled up. I laughed. I enjoyed the spectacle. I liked how the cast interacted.
But it is, in essence, what if JJA filmed ST2 but left out all what made it clever. The quoting from great literature as you've said - is one reason I like UD is because of the Shakespeare in the original Klingon. It had an mix of originality (or at least it felt original).
This time around we have a talented cast, who unlike the 2009, don't get time to shine unless they are Kirk or Spoke or the villain. Poor Chekov, he gets to run around like a loon and that's it. Sulu fairs a little better getting the Captain's chair.
Khan's motivation is lacking as you've said and how and why he does what he does really doesn't make sense. Does he want his people back? Doesn't he fixate on Kirk in the first ST2 to the detriment of all else? Cumberbach does it for 'family' if he truly wanted genocide then he'd have found a way to secure his people another way if he was that clever. It's just an excuse.
The lack of conviction means that the characters are superficial. They hit all the emotional beats at the time. The famous death scene being inverted is sweet but is diminishes both the original and the scene itself. Cannibalising of the best moments of ST2 and skimming from other places. Shows that JJA is a wonderful borrower. But he admits to not being a fan and for that matter could only get excited about ST by doing it his own way. Light flare on the bridge??
The dialogue is snappy, the acting of Quinto is great. Pegg is an odd choice. Not because he's bad but his history is to take the piss out of stuff. And it gives the impression that JJ is too. It's a fine line between homage and parody.
I was glad to see the five year mission mentioned at the end and then I thought well we're just going to get a war with the Klingons so my expectations are low.
I thought JJ might be cleverer than this but he's not, as you say, clever. He's just a showman, unoriginal, but masterful.
I'm going to see it again and I think I'll enjoy it but not for the story I'll be enjoying it for the chemistry of the cast and the spectacle.
There are more issues but the lack of originality and the homage/parody line are the main ones. And the one that means that it's not going to be anything like the classic that ST2 will remain to be.
This is just the article I wanted to read after seeing the film. I was entertained-ish while actually watching it, but I've got more and more annoyed since.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to believe/imagine I'm young enough to say that irritation with Kirk's "greatness" is not a sign of age. In the first film, the entire universe bends over backwards to collude with one bratty white boy's self-regard. In this film, it's taken to yelling "KIRK! You are the awesomest of all the space captains. KIRK! You need to learn humility. KIRK! You are the specialest snowflake. KIRK! You need to tone it down a notch. (PS NOT REALLY <3)". Still, he is a little more tolerable by virtue of not actually and overtly bullying his way to narrative victory, but his supposed "leadership skills" continue to amount, like Jake Sully's to GO FOR IT!
I think one can make even more comparisons with Iron Man 3, in which Stid! (awesome shorthand) suffers. Firstly, while both franchises have cocky, arrogant heroes, IM isn't afraid to hurt and punish its protagonist for his hubris -- indeed, it's integral to the character -- which gives his sacrifices and triumphs a measure of solidity. Kirk's "punishments" come with immediate reassurance that he was right all along, and is still the greatest, and are immediately undone without his having to break a sweat for it. "Bad Kirk! No Enterprise!" "But PLEASE?" "...Awww, I can't resist that face."
Second, IM3 had learned from the failure of IM2 that, as you say, there's no point invoking emotion and melodrama if you're not willing to actually go there. Between all the running and exploding, quite a significant amount of time was found to focus on feelings and relationships. Stid! sets up its big emotional climax and then gets oddly embarrassed and coy over it, without the earnestness of the original script and performance the big radiation reversal scene is less "I have been, and always shall be, your friend" and more How to be an Alien's invocation of English courtship: "I say... I don't object to you, you know."
And finally, Iron Man 3 has enough honest love for its source to challenge it and expand on it, rather than mindlessly reproduce its least meaningful and most conservative mannerisms. The treatment of gender, race and mental illness may not be actually revolutionary but they're at least refreshing, and aren't stuck in the prejudices of the 60s. But Stid! gives us girls with nothing to do but wear minidresses or underwear and worry about their boyfriends, minorities who aren't there, and all the while wears a weary air of "What? This is presumably what you wanted. Y'know. Star Trek stuff."
But in its day, Star Trek was alert and engaged and progressive. It was supposed to be about the future.
TJIC. I asked that Kirk to get off my lawn. He ignored me.
ReplyDeleteGav: the parody/pastiche angle is interesting. The original movies traded on our knowledge of the TV serires; the players were all older and didn't have to work to establish their relationship dynamic. But there's a tension in the new movies between (a) the fact that, on the level of the story, these characters have all only just met one another, and (b) the fact that on the level of fannishness we all know and love them. So Kirk and Scotty, say, banter and argue like decades-old friends even though, in the world of the story, they've only just met. It feels off.
Sophia: one might almost consider it to be in dubious taste, coming to a chap's blog and posting a comment in the thread that's wiser, wittier and altogether better than the original blogpost!
Kirk and Scotty, say, banter and argue like decades-old friends even though, in the world of the story, they've only just met.
ReplyDeleteIf you remember from the first movie, they meet on the Shuttle to the academy and are friends throughout their training - so if not decades-old, they are at least years-old friends.
I have to say, I agree with most of the above (post and comments) especially with gav's head and heart point. I enjoyed the film but the moment I enjoyed most was the end, where the "Space..." speech FINALLY rang out and the "proper" music FINALLY played.
ReplyDeleteSo on reflection I wonder if, as a fan of the original Start Trek, I wasn't strung along, kept engaged by references and nods (most obviously, the death scene) and distracted from the actual film - like a very good con trick.
Nick: Kirk and Bones meet on the shuttle on the way to training. Kirk and Scotty only meet in the middle of the movie when, randomly, Pegg is snatched out of his posting and randomly promoted to fourth-in-the-chain-of-command for no very good reason.
ReplyDeleteDavid: What we all really want to original series over again, but new, don't we. *sigh*
'What we all really want to original series over again, but new, don't we'
ReplyDeleteWhich is what JJA thinks we want and gave us and if you're not a fan well those iconic moments are classics so worth repeating. I wonder what they can save instead of Whales in the fourth one?
What I really want is a TV series again. I think that Star Trek works much better as a TV series than as a film. And to me this film did seem like a set-up for a new TV series, not a 3rd film. The 5 year mission - much less film-suitable, surely?
ReplyDeleteBut I'm not sure that Abrams' rebooted universe - or the original one as embroidered over the years - would be a good jumping off point for that. The beauty of the original series was that Starfleet and Earth were remote and pretty irrelevant. Once you have too much interaction with them the Enterprise's crew become little better than pawns, which rather takes away the point. Or you get "Starfleet goes bad" which undermines the whole optimistic premise.
David,
DeleteOddly enough I think the issue of the new universe is one area that the script hardly explores at all, except for a few off-hand mentions!
It's a terribly odd movie alright folks!
ReplyDeleteSurface it's great, it's a roller coaster ride! But everything underneath is lacking substance, like you ate a mcdonalds and two hours later your feel hungry!
It offers flashes of potential but never realises them: so for instance the idea that the female characters might be used for something more than attractive decoration, but then making them pretty useless even when pretending they are useful.
But it's the plot that lets it down the most and I thoroughly agree the motivations of Khan are at the centre, but with them the motivations of Marcus which make absolutely no sense! Like anyone would stop Marcus building a warship with the Klingon threat about and after some nut job has destroyed an entire planet an come close to repeating the task on earth?? The slide from hard-nosed admiral to psycho willing to destroy the 2nd newest ship in the fleet and kill hundreds of Star Fleet crew? Totally unrealistic. As a villain he looks good, but when you think about him, he makes no sense!
As for Khan, if he really wanted to destroy starfleet, seems to me there were far smarter, more effective ways to do it than the way he went about it? Like he's a superspy/superhuman/betterperson surely he can conceive a masterstroke that doesn't involve such idiocy as fleeing to Kronos? How does that help him?
As for Scotty, I rather like what Pegg has done, crafted something fresh from a character we know well. It reflects badly on others, Bones while enjoyable is a reshoot of the original McCoy in many ways. Spock while supremely acted doesn't add much to the original. Kirk on the other hand is a disaster. So stupid, which the original kirk, while never the smartest man in the room, never was. His admission that he really doesn't have a clue what he's doing isn't noble or vulnerable is just an acknowledgment of what any moron can see from the beginning, this Kirk is thoroughly underprepared to be captain. The problem I see is that, as written and acted, the original kirk was rash, was rule bending but he was a top notch leader with a great vision of actions that would deliver his desired result, Pine's Kirk is just flash, emotion (occasionally restrained) and bluff!
Still, movie looks great and if you ignore all that, it's fun!
Eoin
Here's a question, would anyone want to the current Kirk? I wouldn't!
ReplyDeleteCoz loads of people would lie to be Shatner's Kirk!
Oops, duh! and sorry...
ReplyDelete