Tag Archives: Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan

Into Darkness: ‘Star Trek’ past and present

1 Reply

star trek into darkness brig

All weekend, I’ve been trying to find a way to express my feelings about “Star Trek Into Darkness,” the new J.J. Abrams follow-up to his 2009 reboot of the classic TV and movie series.

I really liked the 2009 movie and liked what Abrams did with it:  By rebooting the stories but putting his own stamp on them by playing havoc with the timeline, he made it all seem fresh. True, the movie lacked a compelling villain and took a while to get started, but it was a top-notch effort.

Almost the opposite is true of “Star Trek Into Darkness.”

I should say that I actually liked the  movie pretty well. This being the second film, no long set-up to establish the setting and characters was necessary. The cast has settled into their roles with ease. I could watch Zachary Quinto and Chris Pine play Spock and Kirk until they are as old as Leonard Nimoy and William Shatner.

And what a villain. I’m going to be venturing into spoiler territory here, so be warned. Okay? As “John Harrison,” Benedict Cumberbatch is one of the best “Star Trek” bad guys ever. Half-way through the film, when a captive Harrison announces that he is, indeed, Khan, it seemed perfect and gratuitous at the same time. Cumberbatch matched Ricardo Montalban for arrogant menace. But to what end? While I likewise could watch Cumberbatch play this dangerous but fascinating superhuman in a new movie every few months, there was nothing about the way the character was written that added meaning to the fact that he was Khan. He could have been your garden variety genetically superior bad guy.

In fact, Abrams’ and his screenwriters’ best creation is also, in some ways, their most pointless. The weight of history made the Khan character important in “Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.” This was a superheroic but tragic figure who had a reason to hate Kirk from – in the movie’s timeline – the captain having abandoned him 15 years before. In “Into Darkness,” Khan has a grudge against Peter Weller’s Starfleet admiral. And you know what? Weller’s Admiral Marcus was an asshole. In those scenes in which Khan was working with Kirk and Scotty to take Marcus down – and as much as I appreciated Kirk’s “I think we’re helping him” – I was actively rooting for Khan.

So much about “Into Darkness” seems overstuffed. My son observed after the movie, “It seemed like they were trying too hard.” He had just seen most of “Wrath of Khan” the night before and, while he’s not overly impressed with “Star Trek” in general, took note when “Harrison” introduced himself as Khan. But ultimately the shared plot and characters didn’t have much of an impact, on him or me.

“Into Darkness,” as fun and exciting as it is – and it is – seemed to be too laden with references and plot points and call backs to characters. We get the Prime Directive. Tribbles. All those cryogenic supermen (and not another single one gets thawed out). Carol Marcus, future mother (at least in the old movies/timeline) of Kirk’s son. And the whole sacrifice that doesn’t turn out to be a sacrifice at the end.

star trek II wrath of khan

I still remember going with a group of friends to see “Wrath of Khan” in 1982. We had been delighted to see “Star Trek: The Motion Picture” three years earlier but its leisurely pace (jeez, just dock the shuttle already) and uncharacteristic relationship between Kirk and Spock and McCoy – because of Spock’s efforts to purge his human traits – were disappointing. “Wrath of Khan” was like a rebirth.

And the suspense. Even in those pre-internet days, somehow we all knew the rumors that Spock might be killed off at the end of the movie. Director Nicholas Meyer even teased us when, early on, he has Kirk ask Spock, “Aren’t you dead?” after the training exercise.

By the time the end of the movie rolled around, and we saw Spock’s fate play out in front of us, we were deeply moved.

As affecting as the climax of “Into Darkness” was – and it was – it felt like just another plot twist. Yes, we knew that “E.T.” was going to come back from the dead when Elliott’s flower revived. Same with the tribble here.

I can’t say I didn’t like “Star Trek Into Darkness.” I did. I felt it hit all the right notes – albeit maybe a few too many – and was a great showcase for terrific actors – especially Cumberbatch and Quinto – and rousing action scenes.

But the movie didn’t improve on the original in the ways that really mattered.

Random observations:

As great as Quinto is as Spock, Pine equals him as Kirk. It was cool to see him, by the end of the movie, in the place where Shatner’s Kirk was when the series started.

I miss Bruce Greenwood’s Chris Pike already.

Does Zoe Saldana rock that ponytail or what?

Karl Urban is so good as Bones, I wish he had more to do in these movies. There’s just one scene where the Kirk/Spock/McCoy character triangle plays out as it did in the TV show and movies. I could have used more.

I was pleased there were so many space scenes in the movie, particularly since the trailers and commercials made it look like the plot revolved around urban (not Karl) action in London and San Francisco.

It was good to see Leonard Nimoy although his scene was perhaps the most gratuitous moment in the film if you don’t count Alice Eve showing off Carol Marcus’ “holy moley” figure. I didn’t mind either, but Nimoy’s scene in particular seemed pointless.

khan!!!!!!

Still no Shatner. I’ve come to accept that William Shatner will probably never appear in these movies. Apparently there was a nice Classic Kirk scene – mostly voice over, a holographic recording from beyond the grave – considered for the end of the first movie. I mourn that didn’t happen.

The geek years of our lives: 1982

Leave a reply

I’ve noted before in this space that 1977 was a pivotal year for movies. Two words: “Star Wars.”

But just as 1939 is a golden year for movie lovers, 1982 is a golden year for geeks. Maybe never before and maybe never since have so many milestone movies been released in a single year, many of them in the summer months alone.

I was reviewing movies that year — I had begun four years earlier and did it for another eight years, so it was prime moviegoing time for me — and even then I realized we were seeing something special.

As the 30th anniversary of this pivotal year rolls around, the Alamo Drafthouse Cinema is holding screenings of many of the movies. I can’t make those showings, but I’ll probably watch a few on disc. In the meantime, here’s my little look back.

“Conan the Barbarian” — The Arnold Schwarzenegger movie was one of the first movies I saw through the press junket process, going to Chicago to see it and interview the cast and filmmakers. But even without that, I recognized the movie for what it was: The rare moment when Hollywood got the sword-and-sorcery genre right. There are some cheesy effects, to be sure. But the world of the pulp barbarian hero came to life.

“The Road Warrior” — I had seen George Miller’s “Mad Max,” the dire action thriller starring Mel Gibson as a cop in a lawless land, but it was small in scope compared to “The Road Warrior.” Like “Conan,” “The Road Warrior” quickly defined its genre. All the elements were in place: A nihilistic hero with a heart; truly menacing bad guys; a varied and fascinating collection of good guys; stunts like movies had never seen before.

“Poltergeist” — This movie, directed by “Texas Chainsaw Massacre” director Tobe Hooper and produced by Steven Spielberg, was like the “Mirror Mirror” universe take on the suburban world given to us a few weeks later when director Spielberg released “E.T.” After decades of old dark house horror movies, the “haunted ranch house” tale told in “Poltergeist” seemed as fresh as could be.

“Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan” — While I really enjoyed the J.J. Abrams “Star Trek” reboot from a couple of years ago, the fact remains that Abrams, other moviemakers and all of fandom still believes that Nicholas Meyer’s take on Gene Roddenberry’s classic space opera is the one to emulate. And why not? Meyer brought a sharp military take to the familiar characters, pushed them through their paces in a quick-witted, thrilling plot, injected a ton of humor and tragedy and gave us one of the most heart-pounding climaxes ever. To this day, I remember the “Does Spock really die?” rumors before the movie opened, with fans eagerly anticipating/dreading the answer.

“E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial” — Sure the ending is marred by one of those “ohmygod he’s dead, no he’s not” resurrections. But time has probably dimmed our recollection of how simultaneously sweet and tart this movie is. The kids were cute but had realistic anti-sibling mean streaks, the mom (Dee Wallace. Sigh.) was a barely-hanging-in-there abandoned woman and E.T. himself was a great creation. It deserved to make a ton of money.

“The Thing” — Man, what a great horror flick. Director John Carpenter was on a roll with “Halloween,” “Escape from New York” and this, making him the most subversive director working and one of the most crowd-pleasing. Think about the endings to those movies for a minute: “Halloween” ended by establishing the boogeyman really existed. “Escape” ended with the protagonist, played by Kurt Russell, deciding “the hell with it” and destroying a tape that could save the world. And “The Thing” ended its cold and nightmarish story with a man versus alien creature showdown — featuring Russell and Keith David — that couldn’t have been more harsh.

The two last movies of the summer of 1982, “Tron” and “Halloween III,” were lesser lights, but how could they not be? “Tron” left enough of an impression to spawn a sequel nearly 30 years later. And “Halloween III” was a noble experiment that ultimately failed. Rather than try to top John Carpenter’s original, the movie’s producers went for a whole new story, about a fiendish plot to sacrifice millions of children with Halloween monster masks. “Three more days to Halloween!” was the earworm TV commercial jingle of the year. I just wish the movie had found an audience.

What a year.