I made it to the theatre to see Star Trek: Into Darkness the other day. Here are my thoughts
Captain, scanners are detecting major SPOILERS ahead. Proceed with caution.
Into Darkness was...a good movie. I...rather enjoyed it.
I enjoyed what was done with the first installment of this reboot. How it allowed itself to do its own thing without throwing away what came before. It was an interesting and fun retelling. This film follows suit.
The casting of the main crew remains exemplary. Every cast member compliments their forebears and manages to be entertaining in their own right. Pine, Quinto, Saldana, Cho, Urban, Yelchin...they all make me smile. And...*sigh* as much as I loathe to admit it given what a douchebag he's revealed himself to be in real life, Simon Pegg still makes me laugh and I have to admit he's very talented (though I wonder if he realizes the irony that he's playing the type of character he's specifically bashed in the past?).
Benedict Cumberbatch is also a welcome breath of fresh awesome. I knew going into it that he was Kahn. No, I wasn't spoiled, but I didn't buy a word of that "brand new character" crap. If it walks like Kahn and quacks like Kahn, it's obviously Kahn.
The soryline was an interesting retelling and reimagining of not only "Wrath," but of Kahn's original appearance on the classic series. Of course, there were some ham-fisted shout-outs to Kahn, including a reversal of the climactic scene and the infamous yell, but it's no worse than similar movies doing similar shout-outs.
It was well-crafted and well directed. All of the choices really worked for Star Trek.
However...
...tickling in the back of my mind the whole time was the feeling that, while right for Star Trek, these choices would be absolutely wrong for a certain other series the director is working on at the moment. And I just hope Abrams realizes that.
Just found your blog, already a fan :). I have never in my life have watched anything Star Trek. I've heard of it, and that people tend to compare to Star Wars, which I don't get? Anyway, the movie does seem interesting. I like some of J.J. Abram's work, the only recent example I can give at the moment is Super 8.
ReplyDeleteThe fundamental difference is that tonally Trek is Jules Verne IN SPACE whereas Wars is J.R.R. Tolkien IN SPACE. If that makes any sense. Abrams' Trek has a more modern feel to it, but its heart is with the classic.
DeleteAlways glad to have new readers.
Trek is actually more Master & Commander, with some Golden-Age Sci-Fi thrown in.
DeleteNever saw M&C. I say Verne because it strikes me a very much one of those fantastical globetrotting adventure tales.
DeleteWhy did they cast a white guy to play a character that was originally Indian and Sikh at that? Are they afraid that audiences would be offended at a white (Kirk) vs. non-white (Khan) story?
ReplyDeleteI think it's just Benedict Cumberbatch. He's pretty hot right now, and frankly I can see why. He has a great presence. It's a hard role for anyone who's not Ricardo Montelban to take.
DeletePlus Kahn's ethnicity isn't really a huge part of his character. Maybe in "Space Seed" (haven't seen it in ages so I wouldn't know for sure), but in the original film I don't even think it's mentioned.
DeleteAs minor as it may seem, the casting choice bothers me as that's considered whitewashing. There were probably Indian fans of Khan that may have seen him as being cool for a villain and despite him being evil liked any for of racial representation in ST.
DeleteHowever, there definitely may have been people offended by Khan. Idk if there is any intentions behind that casting. On a side note, I hate how Hollywood casts certain people in movies based on who is popular that year than who can act. Okay, at least Benedict Cumberpatch is probably a good actor, it's still better than when they cast Katy Perry or Rhianna as a random person or,some rapper as an annoying sidekick. I find it to be too pandering.