Thursday, May 30, 2013
So,
as one of our first posts here on Non-Ram, Alex thought it would be
cool to sit down with me and have a discussion about the new Star Trek
film, Star Trek Into Darkness.
Just
as a little background, I have only a passing familiarity with Star
Trek. I mostly grew up on Star Wars and have only really seen the new JJ
Abrams Trek films. This is a whole new world that I am learning about
as we go.
Alex,
on the other hand, grew up with Star Trek, watching reruns of The
Original Series (TOS) with his mom, and even watching some original runs
of The Next Generation (TNG.) He told me how he remembers the first
time he saw Wrath of Khan and how he fell in love with everything about
it. He’s been a huge fan ever since, and will always love Star Trek.
Alex
thought it would be fun to get the opinion of a Trek fan as well as a
non-Trek fan to see exactly how Abrams' films work for both sets of
viewers. I agreed and below you will find some excerpts from our
conversation. I hope you enjoy.
*WARNING: THERE BE SPOILERS AHEAD*
AA:
I'm not exactly sure where to start, since I've never really done this
before, so let's just start with the basics: What is your background
with Trek? I think that should get the ball rolling.
DS:
When it comes to "Star" stuff I've always been a "Wars" guy. I first
saw Star Wars when I was 10 years old, so I assume that it was around
this time that I heard of Star Trek. I remember seeing an episode of TNG
and thinking it was incredibly boring, as any 10 year old hearing
adults blabber on about philosophy should think. I didn't see any laser
swords, spaceships dog-fighting, or exploding space stations. I was out.
AA: Have you only seen the new Abrams series?
DS:
To this day, the only Star Trek things I've seen all the way through
have been Abrams’ two movies and one episode of The Original Series
(TOS). I've read some summaries of a few of the other movies and watched
some reviews of them on RedLetterMedia.com and
ThatGuyWithTheGlasses.com, but I wouldn't really count that as being
intimate with the material. I just was never interested in sitting down
and watching it.
AA: So, you probably weren't very familiar with Khan going into this film, then?
DS:
I was as familiar with Khan as a non-Trek fan could be. I know about
the famous "KHAN!!!" yell, Spock dying, "Live long and prosper," and the
"Dammit Jim, I'ma Doctor, not a blah blah." Pretty much all the famous
things from Trek that they threw into the reboot, I was aware of. I
didn't know Khan's back-story or why everyone is so grumpy around him.
I'm aware that he's the biggest bad that ever big badded in Trek
history. Or at least I think he is. I know the Borg and Klingons are
jerks too.
AA:
So, as someone who comes from Star Wars fandom, how did you feel all of
those Trek references played out in the film? From a screenwriting
perspective, did you think any of them felt forced or out of place?
DS:
The thing with the references is that they are typically tied to a
person. For example, everyone knows "Use the Force, Luke" or "I love
you." "I know" or "Do or do not, there is no try" from Star Wars. All of
those are attributed to a specific character(s), same as the Trek
references. Going into the Wars prequels I wasn't expecting to hear
those quotes and I didn't, save for "May the Force be with you." but
that is more like a universal world building greeting, so whateves. This
is mostly because we were seeing new stories with mostly new
characters. Since in Trek, this is a reboot, it's almost expected from a
casual audience to hear these familiar characters say their familiar
lines.
Of
the few that I can remember from Into Darkness, "KHAN!!!", "The needs
of the many outweigh the needs of the few", "Dammit Jim I'ma doctor not
a...", the two formers felt a little out of place. Spock yelling Khan
was something that I could recognize as a role reversal, especially
after Kirk's reversed death. It felt like a good characterization choice
for Spock to get emotional over the loss of his friend, but just
yelling "KHAN" at nothing felt a little... off. Forgive me if I'm wrong
but didn't Kirk yell it AT Khan? Or at least when he was on the bridge
after talking to Khan? I think because it had been 10-15 minutes since
we had seen Khan, and even longer since Spock had even interacted with
Khan, it felt like they were making the reference just to make it.
Once
again, I'm not sure of the context, but Spock's "needs of the many"
line. I'm pretty sure in the original it was after Spock had made a
large sacrifice that the audience saw. He didn't just beam into a
volcano to save a few hundred people. He made a sacrifice to save
millions (like I said I'm not sure exactly what happened, if I'm wrong
please correct me, I'm just going off what I think happened). I this new
movie it felt like, well we gotta say it!
Bone's lines were played for comedy, so I'm all good with that. When Kirk told him to stop with the metaphors? Hehe, nice.
AA:
I completely agree. Spock's line seemed out of place, and to me, it
seemed out of character as well. I understand that they are trying to
humanize Spock, but that line seemed to cross the line from "humanizing"
into "irrational." And for a character that is completely built on the
idea of acting rationally, that just seems wrong. I don't think they
should be changing his character quite so much. That line felt
enragingly out of place for me.
Spock's
"needs of the many" line, on the other hand, didn’t feel quite as
awful, but still didn't quite work for me. Like you said, his sacrifice
in Wrath of Khan
led to that line meaning a hell of a lot more. I think that line would
have worked for me if they had hearkened back to it by having Kirk say
it in the end when he, eventually, makes a huge sacrifice.
Overall I think you really hit the nail on the head, though. This is a reboot and you expect to hear some things, but you don't want these things to feel force like they were at certain points in this film.
Seeing
as how you have, albeit limited, experience with Star Trek before this
series, how do you think this iteration has improved on what the
original did?
DS: Since I saw Into Darkness
I went back and watched Space Seed to see Khan’s first appearance. This
was the first episode of Trek I've ever watched all the way through and
I have to say that I was pretty impressed. More so than I thought I
would be. Comparing the two, I'm impressed how they managed to keep some
of the moral/ethical aspects. In TOS, they end the episode not by
killing Khan, but diplomatically sending him off to live his life. The
whole middle portion of Darkness dealt with Khan/the crew posing
questions to Kirk about Khans family and comrades/killing Khan. To look
at Star Wars again, this is rarely something that gets brought up. Most
things are black and white. Will you be good or evil. Light or Dark
side. There are a lot more grey areas in Trek. I think they handled this
pretty well. I'm not sure if this is an improvement over the original,
but it's nice to be included.
Obviously
the movies have always been more geared towards action, and the action
sequences in this movie were slick and engaging. Judging from the
Kirk/Khan fight scene in Space Seed, these are a big improvement over a
show with a shoe-string budget.
AA:
I couldn't agree more! I think that the films have done a great job of
taking the morality issues that are addressed in Space Seed and Wrath of Khan and rolling them out in the movie.
DS:
Something that is interesting about movies vs a TV show, in general, is
that movies have to fit in a character arc in under 2 hours. TV shows
have the advantage of having an extended amount of time to explore these
characters. You can have an episode dedicated specifically to the
evolution of a character. Due to this, I feel like some characters in
Darkness received less time than the two big players: Kirk and Spock.
Uhura's character for example. She had little to no arc herself. Her
actions and emotions only served to further Spock's character.
AA: I think you touched on the biggest issue right there: time. With only 2 hours and change, Into Darkness
doesn't have the opportunity to flesh out everything it wants to do.
Instead they have to focus on one or two characters and give them a
decent story arc. Yes, we get to see Uhura and Bones and all the usual
crew there, but they don't get anywhere near the same treatment as Spock
and Kirk in this film. I found it irritating how Uhura was only really
used as a catalyst for humanizing Spock a little more. I wanted her to
be a little more of a character in the film.
You
said that you didn't really like what little you saw of Star Trek when
you were young...so what was so different about these films to finally
grab your interest?
DS:
What made me want to watch these films was the trailers. They made them
seem epic and grand. I had faith they they would be updated in a way to
appeal to me.
AA:
I do agree that the films have been more epic than TOS, but I also
think that all of the films were like that. I know you haven't seen
(m)any of them, but Abrams has really captured the feel of the original
films that Trekkies like me hold so dear.
Seeing
as how you have now seen Space Seed, I have to ask if you see any issue
with Benedict Cumberbatch's casting as Khan. I think it was a really
odd choice to cast a pasty British guy as this character, but maybe it
is because I have grown up revering this cunning, superhuman and just
didn't think that the physical casting worked. That isn't to say he
didn't play the character well, I just have this visual image in my head
that doesn't mesh.
DS:
I've been a big fan of Cumberbatch since I saw him in Sherlock. I think
he did a very good job portraying this version of Khan. Before they
actually named him Khan, they did a great job as setting him up as both
an intellectual and physical threat. Orchestrating a complex plan to
kill Star Fleet captains was impressive and made sense. Him mowing down
the Klingons was a sight to behold. Not initially revealing that it was
him doing the fighting made it so once he actually was show fully, I
could accept this physically unimposing man was doing these actions.
Seeing Kirk lose it and wail on him with no effect was another good way
to imply his strength. Are Vulcans a lot stronger than humans? Spock was
able to stand more toe-to-toe with Khan later in the movie. That was a
little weird.
AA:
Yea, I really thought that, if you ignore the fact that he was given
the name of Khan by the writers, the character was really well written
and had great motivations, but I have a lot of trouble looking past the
fact that he looks nothing like the character should.
DS:
I will admit that once he was named Khan, I taken out of it a little
bit. Mostly this was because Khan is, well, Khan. Even casual sci-fi
fans know the name. One thing that is a little strange about this
version is why did
he look so different. Everyone else, Kirk, Spock, Scotty, all look VERY
similar to their TOS counterparts. Khan being British was a little
strange. The name didn't fit at all. Regardless, I think with what he
was given, Cumberbatch did amazing. You felt for him when he talked
about his 72 superhuman friends. He was intimidating when he was killing
the Admiral and breaking Marcus' leg.
AA:
You're absolutely right that all of the other cast members look like
their TOS counterparts...so why doesn't Khan? I think it was just a lazy
oversight by the casting director. But other than that, I think that
Cumberbatch did a great job with the material he was given. I did find
it a little odd at how much monologuing he did, but I can always listen
to that man's beautiful voice.
The
last thing I really want to touch on is the difference between how they
used Nimoy in Star Trek vs how they used him in Into Darkness. I think
that they really erred by including him in this film at all, but I'd
rather hear an outside opinion before I rant about this anymore.
DS:
Nimoy's cameo in Darkness was cool, but ultimately unnecessary. "I can
never tell you about the future... That said, let me tell you about the
future." It was purely for fan service and done just in case this Nimoy
dies before the next Trek thing. I wouldn't have minded if he was
involved in the story, but the way he was included didn't mesh well. It
was abrupt. Maybe if they had established that Spock 2 and Prime Spock
had kept in contact then it would have worked. But just to involve him
in a cameo where he didn't even need to wear pants... Eh. Obviously his
use in Star Trek
worked much better because he was pretty much a co-star in that film.
The movie/plot wouldn't have happened without him. Because he basically
created this Trek timeline I agree that we should see more of him.
However, give him a real role, or don't use him at all.
AA:
Exactly. I think the way they used him was more of a big middle finger
to fans than anything else. They just threw him in there to be a head on
a screen that does nothing. He doesn't advance the story, he doesn't
give our characters any knowledge that they actually use. They just waste
Nimoy. If they wanted to use him, they should have actually written in
some scenes with some substance for him to actually prove important.
This scene disgusted me in the film, almost as much as the Epilogue to Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. It was that level of awfulness.
So,
as a bit of a wrap up, what do you think it is about the new Trek films
that make them work, not only for Trekkies, but for outsiders like
yourself, or people with even less knowledge about the Trek universe?
DS:
I think what makes the new Trek work is a lot of things. For the
average movie-going viewer it has explosions, hot chicks, action,
adventure, and all the other makings of a typical Hollywood blockbuster.
For the Non-Trek, but genre fan like me, it has J.J.
Abrams/recognizable actors behind it, cool space-ness, respect for the
genre, and a good sci-fi story. For the classic Trek fan, it's more
Trek. Even if they hate it, it's still something for them to see that is
in a universe/brand that they love. Even if they hate it, I'm sure it
gives them pleasure to tear it apart and I promise you that they will
still go see the next one.
AA:
Very well put. I think that perfectly sums up just what makes the Star
Trek franchise not just summer blockbusters, but really good films.
DS: Abrams managed to make Star Trek accessible to a wide audience. It is successful in that it made me want to go actually watch some Trek TV. I can't stress enough that you can feel the love and respect that the people making this film have for Star Trek. It's infectious and makes you want to love it too.
I've been a star trek fan (mainly TOS characters) for my whole life and I must say that I was extremely impressed with this latest installment. Best movie I've seen all summer so far. Better than Iron Man 3, Fast 6, and The Great Gatsby so far. Plus, it was even better in IMAX theaters. I know my opinion may be a little biased but as far as movie QUALITY goes, this was A+.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, thanks for commenting!
DeleteI agree to a certain extent on what you said. While I don't think it is quite as good as Iron Man 3, I do think it was quite well executed. I don't want to go off on all of my qualms with the film, and while some are included in this article, I think (as a TOS fan) you might enjoy reading my spoilery review on my personal blog. Here is the link if you are interested: http://alexthedinosaur.blogspot.com/2013/05/star-trek-into-darkness-spoiler-filled.html.