Everyone knows of it, even if they've never seen the show. It's a hallmark of the science fiction genre. Like Star Wars, it's a benchmark for how the genre should be done. From Gene Roddenberry's original pitch of a "wagon train to the stars", a space age-style looking glass through which the human condition could be viewed through so that we might both be entertained and perhaps learn something about ourselves. A noble prospect if ever there was one. Needless to say, if you're never watched one of the several TV series or the movies, you still know what you're getting into with Star Trek.
The series has run non-continuously since 1966, telling the story of a future in which Earth had joined with several other alien races into a "United Federation of Planets", dedicated to spreading their utopian society across the galaxy. Humans, for once, were not conquerers or soldiers but diplomats, explorers, their mission to "seek out new life and new civilizations" and "to boldly go where no man has gone before." And the series, while moving ever forwards for five series and then far into the past for a sixth, has pretty much stayed within the same continuity.
That all changed in 2009 when JJ Abrams (the most polarizing man involved in Trek since Rick Berman) took over the franchise for a reboot. But unlike many Hollywood reboots, this did not completely disregard the forty plus years of work that went into the franchise before. Instead, he skewed the entire thing into an alternate timeline. While most do not appreciate this, I honestly thought it a stroke of genius, something by which new and different stories could be told using the characters that we know and love. While it didn't disregard the past, it also wasn't hung up on it either.
...no, he saved that for Star Trek Into Darkness.
Oh, boy did he save that for Star Trek Into Darkness.
And no, before someone gets into it that yet another person on the internet is blogging about how much this movie sucks, I'll go ahead and say that it doesn't. Star Trek Into Darkness is definitely not even close to one of the worst Trek movies. It's certainly better than any of the Next Generation films outside of First Contact. However, Into Darkness has a major problem that those films don't have. JJ Abrams had said before that he was going to make a film that totally wasn't anything like The Wrath of Khan. And he didn't...
He made a film that has all of the flash with none of the substance of The Wrath of Khan. I think the best place to start with this would most likely be with the main casts.
Main Cast
Headed by Captain Kirk, seconded by the ever logical Mr. Spock (Leonard Nimoy), Doctor Leonard "Bones" McCoy (DeForrest Kelly), Engineer James Montgomery "Scotty" Scott (James Doohan) Lieutenant Nyota Uhura (Nichelle Nichols), Lieutenant Hikaru Sulu (George Takei), and Ensign Pavel Chekov (Walter Koenig) they were a group whose names and deeds were to be known throughout the galaxy - the crew of the U.S.S. Enterprise. These actors and the characters they portrayed for literally decades, and that makes them very, very tough acts to follow...
...but that isn't exactly to say that everyone was exactly a prize during the Original Series run. And I'll just come out and say it, especially in comparison to later Trek series...the original just isn't that good. I know I'm going to be stoned to death for that, but it really just isn't. The acting, even among the main cast is chock full of ham, some of the plots make absolutely no sense, and the special effects - even for the time - were often laughable at best. But the fact is that it's almost unarguably the incarnation that is best remembered by pop culture, and so my point still stands that they will all be very tough acts to follow...
So I'm going to go ahead and get it out of the way - James Kirk, played by Chris Pine. I see the devilish rake of a man that Kirk was in his youth, which makes sense because he's so young. However, and this is a problem in the first film as well, I don't really see the hero he's supposed to be. He's not the experienced commander we've seen on the television show. He's a twenty-something that happened to get immensely lucky because he knew how to manipulate the system...and had help from his best friend from an alternate timeline. While he does have moments where he shows shades of Shatner's Kirk, he never really seems to fully embrace the role, instead playing only the shallowest bits of it. Shatner's Kirk defied orders when he felt it was the right thing to do, not because of some preconceived notions of challenging authority "because it's totally wrong, brah!"
But then everything in this universe is different because Kirk wasn't born in Iowa, so what do I know?
Then, of course, there's the pragmatic and logical Mr. Spock. I have nothing but good things to say about Zachary Quinto's performance. After all, he was handpicked by Leonard Nimoy to succeed him in the role of Spock...which he also played in the 2009 and 2013 films. I wish I could say the same for the writing...which I can't. Spock in the reboot films - especially Into Darkness - comes off as being less about logic and more about being an asshole. There's following procedure and then there's using the rules as a weapon to smack down the fool who took your command, which is what he does relatively early in the film. Not that I would expect Spock to be overly grateful, but I imagine he wouldn't be included to throw his "best friend" under the bus after he saved his life.
So yes, New Spock is an asshole.
Then there's Bones, Dr. Leonard McCoy as played by Karl Urban, another actor that I have nothing but good things to say about in this movie. It's a shame they give him nothing to do besides being response for what may be the stupidest deus ex machima I've ever seen in a movie. But as that's not a statement against him or his performance, I'll just sum up his bit by saying that I think he makes a very good Bones. DeForrest Kelly would be proud.
And now we come to Uhura, as played by Zoe Saldana. You might remember her as being from the greatest science fiction movie of the past few years...oh, and Avatar. Shame that she was better in both of those than she was in the 2009 film or in Into Darkness, but again it's an issue with the writing. Not as though Uhura was given an overabundance of importance upon the original Enterprise, but the Abrams films don't really do anything with her. And when they do, it really makes no sense. For example, in Into Darkness, she knows Klingon. Fluently. And anyone who has seen the original films, particularly Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, knows that Uhura didn't fluently know Klingon at the end of her career, because she had to read from a translation book.
This is another thing I'm going to throw in the "Kirk Wasn't Born In Iowa" bucket, because it's the only way that any of it makes sense. But giving someone abilities out of nowhere does not a character make and before someone points out that the 2009 film did have that line about how skilled she was in xenolinguistics, I'll point out that Uhura in the original timeline was exactly the same and still had to use a reference book to know Klingon. So, no, that is not a point in it's favor.
Then you have Scotty (Simon Pegg), Chekov (Anton Yelchin), and Sulu (John Cho). And if you're wondering why I'm not giving each a paragraph, there's a simple reason - none of them are individually given anything of note to do. Basically, unless you're Kirk or Spock in these movies, you're hardly of note. Scotty does single-handedly save the Enterprise late in the film and Sulu does have a moment that shows more shades of Takei's take on the character than Pine ever does of Shatner's, but that's really it and there's nothing further from either instance. Chekov is there to be the funny accent guy who gets slapped around like a rubber ball by Kirk when he's feeling capricious.
And don't get me wrong, I understand that Kirk and Spock are the two leads, but you never really got the feeling in the original show and films that they were any more important than the rest of the crew. Kirk in the originals would have given his life to save any one of the crew, something with they attempt to do with Pine, but it falls flat. Though Into Darkness is the first time he gets to see the consequences of his less than well thought out actions, nothing ever comes of it, and he never seems to learn anything. Squirrel that thought away for a bit.
But what does this all come down to? Plainly, the group in the first film that was doing something revolutionary and different...is now trying to settle back into the old skins of the original and either overcompensating...or undercompensating in most cases. Thus, a point goes to the original.
Oh, and you're probably wondering why I didn't mention Carol Marcus (Alice Eve)? She's fanservice. Like Uhura, they attempt to give her something more...but it's got all the shallowness of a drainage ditch.
Khan
The second thing I have to go ahead and get out of the way, because of the similarities, is who played the better Khan Noonien Singh.
In this corner the classic Khan, a Spanish man pretending to be an Indian, the late Ricardo Montalban. A veteran actor before he ever stepped into the role of Khan way back in 1967. In-universe, Khan was a genetically augmented human. During the 1990s, he was one of the overlords ruling the planet Earth, but was forced to escape in a ship known as the Botany Bay when his reign was threatened, intended to be woken from cryogenic status on a new world where he could once more rule.
Which is also the backstory of Khan as played by Benedict Cumberbatch in Into Darkness, so that saves me a bit of trouble.
When he was first encountered in the Original Series episode "Space Seed", Khan attempted to take over the Enterprise and begin an intergalactic conquest. Thanks to the valiant crew under Captain Kirk, however, he was stopped and exiled to the planet Ceti Alpha V to live out the rest of his days with a brand new world, devoid of all other human life, to conquer with his people. Mr. Spock even theorized what Ceti Alpha V might be like, given a century of development.
Unluckily for them, they don't have to find out. Wrath of Khan is about fifteen years later, Ceti Alpha V was lain waste by the explosion of Ceti Alpha VI. With his wife dead, most of his people gone, when Khan gets his hands on a spaceship he has a Roaring Rampage of Revenge in mind that will see James T. Kirk dead. Got all that?
Good. Because it has absolutely nothing to do with Khan's motivations in Into Darkness.
In that, we go back to more of how he was in "Space Seed", with Khan being woken in this universe by Admiral Marcus (Peter Weller) in order to design and build weapons for the Federation following the big battle against Nero in the 2009 film. He doesn't know Kirk, he has no reason to go after Kirk, or anyone else besides Marcus...who he kills late in the film. This is a guy who was screwed over by a warmonging psychopath and wants to save his family, who are being held hostage thanks to said psychopath. So, that definitely makes this Khan more sympathetic.
And to give Cumberbatch his due credit, I do see the savage more in his performance than I do in Montalban's. The classic Khan appears as a gentleman on the surface with heavy ego and barbarism not far below it, but is always measured and tactical. In Into Darkness, Khan's superior. He's better than you, he knows it, and he doesn't even bother to look down on you because even that is beneath him. He manages to turn the tables on his captor and go back to what he was genetically modified to do, conquer.
So, he's a far more direct version of Khan than Montalban's, but you do see more of a Genghis Khan than an Alexander the Great. You see the savage, not the calculating tactician...which sadly kind of dumbs it down. And that's a shame, because Cumberbatch gives an excellent performance. But, in the end, by being more like Khan should be, we get a character who is ironically the inferior version. Besides the motivation to save his family, there's no reason for Khan to even be here. You could replace the seventy-two torpedo tubes holding Augments with seventy-two scantily clad women and Harcourt Mudd and it would pretty much be the same.
...okay, that's not fair. Replace him with Garth of Izar.
No better is the lack of weight to Khan being around highlighted than in Into Darkness when his identity as John Harrison is seen through and he reveals himself...and nobody reacts any differently because of it. One of my favorite scenes in Wrath of Khan is, after the Reliant decimates the Enterprise and Khan hails the Enterprise to discuss terms of surrender...and the screen coming on to reveal Khan, standing triumphant on the bridge of the Reliant and you can see and hear the fear in Kirk's eyes and voice as he realizes just how screwed he is (yes, I'm praising a Shatner performance, I don't believe it either).
The fact is that Khan's story of revenge in Wrath is just more compelling. He has reason to be there, there's actual tension in scenes as he does all he can to destroy Kirk, caring nothing for the lives of his crew or even his own life in the attempt - up to destroying his own ship just to see that Kirk gets killed. He hits Kirk where it hurts, pulls no punches, and is determined to do "far worse than kill" him. Khan in Into Darkness? He's there for fanservice, which is a shame as Cumberbatch puts in a hell of a performance.
Nevertheless, Montalban is, after much deliberation, the superior Khan.
Themes
And now, the themes. Wrath of Khan actually has a couple, namely the aforementioned revenge as well as life and death. Since we've already touched upon it, let's look at revenge. By the time of Wrath of Khan, Khan has been marooned on Ceti Alpha V for fifteen years. Thanks to the destruction of the neighboring Ceti Alpha VI, the planet is nearly devoid of life and that which remains has killed all but a handful of the seventy-two people he was set there with by Kirk and the rest. His wife has died, and he's a bitter and angry man who wants nothing more than a chance to avenge himself upon Kirk. Even his original thoughts of conquest - something which, again, he was genetically augmented to do - are tossed aside simply for his desire to see James T. Kirk dead. This is subtly referenced in the set design with a copy of Moby Dick - in addition to other novels - being seen within Khan's shelter early in the movie.
Into Darkness has a theme of family, as demonstrated in Khan's determination to save his family from Robocop...and how he later kills him, which traumatizes his daughter Carol Marcus who is later inducted into the cult of James T. Kirk after having virtually no time to grieve over her dead father.
...umm...ouch?
Wrath of Khan has the secondary theme of life and death, particularly for Kirk. In the beginning, we get introduced to the Kobayashi Maru test as Lieutenant Saavik (Kristie Alley) takes it. It's a test of character more than anything, with the simulation being a no-win scenario...which Kirk having been the only one to have ever actually won it by reprogramming the test so it was possible to rescue the titular ship. While this is turned into a joke in the 2009 film, with Pine's Kirk coming off as a complete asshole who we're supposed to like because he's the main character, in Wrath of Khan it's Kirk's desire to never say die (yes, Kirk's a Goonie). That belief that he can save everyone, that there is no cost because it'll never have to addressed.
Mind you, death comes up quite a few times in the Original Series...including Kirk's own brother...but as your average moviegoer isn't going to know that not-oft remembered bit of minutia, I'll let that go.
Basically, Kirk feels older, but even at this point is confident that he'll never lose and never have to say goodbye to any of his loved ones.
...which is why when Khan decimates his crew and then, to top it off, Spock dies, it's all the more devastating. People die, but life goes on. Kirk learns this, and he learns to never forget his best friend...who he later goes and effectively resurrects in the next movie (getting to that). Now, back when I was talking about the main cast, you might remember the passing mention I had about Kirk in the reboot. What does Kirk learn in the reboot?
Absolutely nothing.
And that's a problem. Because in the end, Kirk is still the same jackass that he was in beginning of Into Darkness. Again, they try to have moments where it seems like Kirk cares, but there's no weight to it at all. Ultimately, he doesn't care about anyone outside of his main crew, even though Khan kills scores of them - and all because he trusted the crazed conquering psychopath to not be a crazed conquering psychopath! Which is part of the reason why I don't care for Chris Pine's portrayal of Kirk beyond the fact that he just hasn't had time to develop the character beyond two films.
Then again, the film is also written and produced by two of the guys responsible for two of the four the Transformers movies - one of who hilariously claims that Into Darkness has more social commentary than Raiders of the Lost Ark - which really puts a big piece of the puzzle into your lap when you look into it more. Like the Transformers films, all flash and no substance. Because modern audiences don't want to actually think about anything, they just want their happy endings, no problem. And the main reason I know this, beyond the depth of a drainage ditch that I've spoken of beforehand, is the way that Kirk is resurrected at the end of Into Darkness...
Khan's "superblood", a much rightfully maligned plot device introduced relatively late in the film in a very anvilicious manner that ended up saving the day. It's completely ridiculous all on it's own, but when you also bring it up while stacking it up against Wrath of Khan, it becomes almost offensive in how much of a complete inversion it is of the themes of life and death seen in that movie. Spock wasn't magically brought back to life by some stupid magic potion in a universe whereas before Gene Roddenberry would have dismissed it as nonsensical sorcery. And this guy, I remind you, is the guy who decided that Kirk could defeat computers by talking to them...four times.
Consider also, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock, where Spock was resurrected, but it took an entire movie to get there, with it's own trials and tribulations. Here...McCoy just injects Kirk with magical superblood, and all is well. Yay! There's no build up, no cost to it. Kirk's back, because we can't very well help the audience to learn anything. "How we deal with death is just as important as how we deal with life"? Bullshit! Let's do some explosions and only scrape at the surface of what Gene Roddenberry set out to do!
Summing Up
The writers, the producers...they didn't try. I'm not even getting into how stupid it is that they've basically rendered space travel completely pointless with the device that Khan uses to jump from Earth to Qo'noS that's about the size of a boombox - which completely destroys all of the exploration and discovery that the original and later series were known for. Khan's blood being used to bring Kirk back from the dead is just a complete lack of actual thought and caring.
Everything in Into Darkness could have been made to work, and even without directly copying from Wrath of Khan. But where the first reboot was at least an attempt to do something different, something bold with the potential to explore new possibilities, all Into Darkness was was taking the easy way out. It was either a lack of caring, or responding to the backlash from the diehard fans of the original series and films and then not caring.
Instead, they took the easy route. They took the tiniest parts of what made Wrath of Khan great to try and desperately appeal to the fans who felt betrayed, threw together what would appeal to the lowest common denominator without actually trying, and presented it to everyone as though it were a golden goose egg and instead you gave us a pile of fingernail clippings and expected us to be impressed.
Well, I'm not. And it should surprise no one that Wrath of Khan, without a doubt in my mind, is the superior film. While Into Darkness does have some good things to it's credit, it's not enough to stand on it's own as a good Star Trek film and it completely crumbles when you put it up against the film that JJ Abrams insisted he wasn't going to make and then made anyway but very, very poorly.
If you're going to rip it off, rip it off well. You can't just take just the lettuce and tomato from a BLT to make the perfect BLT. You have to bring the bacon. You didn't bring the bacon, you brought the turkey cold cuts.
Nobody likes the turkey cold cuts, Mr. Abrams. Nobody.
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan and Star Trek Into Darkness are now available from Paramount Pictures on DVD and Netflix Instant Streaming.
For the latest from the MadCapMunchkin, be sure to follow him on Twitter @MadCapMunchkin.
No comments:
Post a Comment