Active Users:1121 Time:22/11/2024 03:04:54 PM
I couldn't agree more - Edit 2

Before modification by Isaac at 10/06/2013 05:54:30 PM


View original postIn Wrath of Khan, we have a villain who's pretty believable. We actually feel sympathy for Khan. In Into Darkness, we have a Khan who (although played brilliantly) is an obvious "bad guy" from the start, and the only item of sympathy we have for him--that he misses his crew--is wiped away when Spock reveals that they're all genocidal maniacs.

Cumberbatch played the role well, but the role was not emotional complex. They do achieve some anti-hero flavor, he's not 100% unsympathetic villain, but he comes close and having his entire crew be auto-evil like that was a serious cop-out.


View original postThe best parts of the film were the homages, I think. Everything else felt empty. If you changed the names, it would have been a fairly ho-hum science fiction movie. It's really just riding on the coattails of better films at this point. It's becoming increasingly obvious that Abrams is too shallow to direct Star Trek films. There's no attempt at exploring what it means to be human, which even lackluster Star Trek films like Nemesis tried to do. It's just explosions and needless undressing.

The problem was homages worked well in the first film, as did minimal bad-guy-development, because everyone wanted and expected it from a reboot. You had to jam in their character intro, new universe intro, 'avengers assemble', and a plot, plus "yes, this is Trek, remember this?" homages and 'Explosions!!! Lots of fucking explosions!'.

Now I'm an uber-geek so a homage is never going to bother me, I get the reference and approve of the hat-tip to the original, I think many are lost on newer audiences though and while this film avoided it you can go beyond homage into the zone where you're wondering why C3PO and R2D2 are in the damn film and so obviously shoehorned in.


Return to message