 |
| Star Trek Into Darkness poster |
Star Trek was born at the tail end of the post-war Sci-Fi boom. Most of the genre at the time was concerned with cold war infiltration (The Thing From Another World), cold war annihilation (The Day the Earth Stood Still), cold war one thing or another, but also social change and upheaval. While Star Trek had its fair share of parallels with contemporary politics (the Klingons and Romulans filling the roles of the Soviets and Chinese respectively), some of the original series' most remembered moments were commentaries on social issues. None more famously than the interracial kiss between Kirk and Uhura. It may have been mitigated by the narrative context and network meddling, but Gene Roddenberry's show was always about a humanist vision of the future. Space went out of fashion with the cancellation of the Apollo programme and tales from the future were put on hold with the economy contracting under stagflation, the oil crisis, domestic political corruption; but the fans of Star Trek seemingly held on to hopes of a return to television.
Star Wars [is] really not science fiction. I loved it, but it's a fairy tale of princes and knights in another galaxy. The technology was improbable, the science impossible.1977 is a date that almost needs no introduction nor explanation. It was of course the release of Star Wars. Episode IV: A New Hope if you want to get picky, and I certainly hope to when Disney starts cranking more out. George Lucas' space opera was a raging success that took the industry by surprise. Overnight, space was big again. There was a rash of new sci-fi such as Battlestar Galactica, which was alleged to have borrowed liberally from Star Wars until it was pointed out how much Star Wars pillaged from cinematic history. Everything now had to be about space, no matter how ill-fitting. Thus there were plenty of turds like Moonraker - so obviously a space cash-in because the previous film declared Bond would return in For Your Eyes Only. At the same time Spielberg's Close Encounters of the Third Kind was released and was something of an anti-Star Wars. Paramount Pictures decided to utilise its own space-based intellectual property and take Star Trek to the big screen rather than the near-realised return to the small screen (Phase II).
-Jesco von Puttmaker, NASA consultant to Star Trek The Motion Picture
Star Trek The Motion Picture was subject to mixed critical reception. I always confused TMP and The Voyage Home due to my dad's retelling of the films as I could only vaguely remember seeing TVH on tv once. Four years ago I decided to start watching the Star Trek films in sequence in preparation for the reboot. What strikes you most is the slow pacing. This is really true of any film before the familiar quick-paced style took hold in the 80s. I had owned 2001: A Space Odyssey on DVD since 2002 so I was patient enough to sit through what was trying to be the pop-culture equivalent. 2001 is famously dialogue-sparse but the 'Beyond the Infinite' sequence was dramatic and not inter-cut with shots of the Enterprise crew staring at the display screen slack-jawed. Half the film feels like it consists of the reveal of the Enterprise on the big screen. Constant fly-by shots and panning around and over and under the model for something like five minutes as Kirk and Scotty sit in a shuttle with beaming smiles occasionally looking at each other and smiling even harder. As poorly executed as it was, the story was intriguing even if lost amongst the interminable special effects shots. It's interesting to think what the Voyager probes might encounter out there two centuries into space - whether they might drift through some civilised star system who would endow one of the craft with sentience. In The Motion Picture one of them comes back with the corrupted name V...ger, still with the child-like mission to find out all it can out there but returned with immense destructive power. In the end it is placated in its desire to merge with its creator by absorbing Commander Decker who is re-united with his already incorporated romantic interest. It reminds me of HAL joining Bowman in the monolith at the end of Arthur C Clarke's 2010: Odyssey Two except that was another three years from publication. It looks fairly dated now, especially DeForest Kelley's introduction as the missing member of the Bee Gees, whereas 2001 for the most part, while not set as far in the future, managed to avoid breaking the cinematic illusion by letting too much of the era it was shot in leak through.
While TMP made a lot of money, reportedly the most inflation-adjusted until the reboot, it was critically disparaged as 'The Motionless Picture' and 'The Slow Motion Picture'. Roddenberry was ousted from creative control, which wasn't necessarily a bad thing as proven when Lucas stepped back into a producer role for The Empire Strikes Back. The sequel, The Wrath of Khan, is generally considered the best Star Trek movie with the original cast, and undoubtedly of the entire franchise. It was not nearly as intellectually lofty as the first film had tried to be and was narratively very rooted in the seven basic plots, being most basically a story of Kirk versus Khan. What was radically different was the competence of the execution and a great demonstration of what can be achieved on a tight budget. The arc started here would continue through The Search for Spock (the spoiler is in the title) and conclude in The Voyage Home. IV is fairly fluffy affair which does engage in a bit of annoying fish-out-of-water comedy relief and the environmental message is heavy-handed in hindsight. It's of course terribly dated by having the crew travel back in time to the year of the film's release. I've skipped talking about III because I haven't seen it aside from watching SFDebris' review series, nor have I seen V: The Final Frontier (dir. W. Shatner) - and probably don't want to from what I've seen. Let's just say Gene Roddenberry reputedly wanted it struck from canon.
Icheb: You're not remembering correctly. The bussard collectors don't produce nadion emissions.The Final Frontier jeopardised the future of the movie series and with the original cast clearly into their 60s work was initially begun on, what we now term, a prequel set in Kirk and Spock's time at Starfleet Academy. This was scrapped for another film with the old cast for the 25th anniversary while contemporary events duly provided a close to the sci-fi allegories of the cold war, though we know the prequel idea would eventually have its day. Parallel to this Star Trek was revived on television in 1987 as The Next Generation which then spun off the vastly underrated Deep Space Nine (forever dogged by accusations of plagiarism and also literally made over Roddenberry's dead body) in 1993 and the monumentally missed opportunity that was Voyager in 1995 (see almost every SFDebris review of Voyager). It's here that Star Trek's worst flaw in the eyes of the public started to creep in - technobabble. Toward the end of TNG's run there was an upturn in reference to never-elaborated yet seemingly able to do anything particles which provided all manner of get-out-clauses to lazy writers. Without sounding too much like a DS9 fanboy, the writing team there was mostly above that kind of thing and especially became known for eschewing the Roddenberry vision with such storylines as the Dominion War arc. Voyager took it far further, hence the above quote, and it ultimately ignored the science part of science fiction. When Voyager ended in 2001 the baton wasn't passed on to a concurrent series as had been the case with TNG and DS9 at the end of their runs. It was a few months until Enterprise came along. While the canon had been progressing chronologically for fourteen years since TNG's début and provided an easily identifiable backdrop for three series, the franchise stumbled by jumping back two centuries - before even the setting of the original series (TOS). Admittedly it had to escape the well-trodden space and bound continuity of the TNG era in order to shake things up before gangrene set in. However; like the original series, Enterprise wouldn't last too long. I never saw an episode.
Neelix: Well the technical details don't matter.
-The Haunting of Deck Twelve, Voyager
When Generations was made in 1994 it was a transitional film between the Kirk era and the Picard era. Again, the death of the franchise was hastened by another misstep by passing the movie torch to the TNG cast. With the exception of The Motion Picture, the movies have always been more action-orientated though not necessarily outright action films. The Next Generation had a reputation for discussion - not discussing issues like TOS, literal discussion. The early days of TNG may have been dodgy to say the least, but the second series episode 'Pen Pals' had an excellent meeting of the ship's officers on the philosophy of the Prime Directive, and the Picard speeches are a part of popular culture. Kirk on the other hand had always been something of an action hero, classically depicted with ripped shirt. The first TNG outing, First Contact, was enjoyable even though the script didn't hold up (the jarring plot-mandated invention of the Borg Queen, the discontinuity over Picard's assimilation ordeal, a Borg invasion right in the middle of the Dominion War, etc). The limitations were evident. There was less reasoned debate and more Picard letting out a war cry as he machineguns several Borg drones and prepares to smash one's face in. TNG had tried action, notably in 'Starship Mine' - aka, Die Hard on the Enterprise. Supposedly Patrick Stewart quite enjoyed running around, hence First Contact was amended so that it would be Picard in command on the Borg-infested ship instead of Riker. The films weren't going to take a box-office chance and step back from the action to provide space for lengthy dialogue. In any case the fatigue set in and the TNG cast were beginning to look quite old just as their predecessors had. Come Nemesis any sense of energy had dissipated and the actors were all looking quite bored. The only time anyone looked alive was when the script indulged Stewart's interest in off-roading with a nonsensical dune buggy chase. The Enterprise-D was similarly out of place in these films - brightly lit beige bridge and psychologist sitting with the top ranking officers, nevermind the thousand or so civilians onboard - it was deliberately driven into a ditch at the end of Generations in order to make way for the overtly militant, sleek, and dark Enterprise-E (explained away, if I recall correctly, as being designed to fight either the Borg or the Dominion).
It became apparent in the post-production of Nemesis that it would be the last TNG film. I remember speculation on the IMDB forums about a Deep Space Nine or a Voyager film. Both series ended quite resolutely - Sisko moved on (I don't want to spoil it) and Voyager got back home (oops, sorry for spoiling it). The titular DS9 was a virtually immobile space station so it wasn't going anywhere to begin with. Voyager could have gone somewhere but it looked like Starfleet was trying to prevent Janeway from roaming the galaxy when they promoted her to Admiral of all things and gave her a desk job. The only avenues were to continue the TNG era into the 2380s with all the baggage that entailed - dealing with the collapse of the Romulan Star Empire after Nemesis and the state of the galaxy after the defeat of the Dominion at the cost of a billion lives - or take the Enterprise route and go back to an earlier time period and use the blanks in the historical record to get creative. The problem there was that which had hung over the Star Wars prequels - that we knew how things would eventually turn out. The long considered prequel of the Academy days was revived with the added twist that it was a divergent timeline thus freeing the writers of any existing continuity beyond that established in Enterprise.
Star Trek, aka 'Star Trek 2009', was the eventual product of this desire to revitalise business - and let's face it, to paraphrase John Peel: 'Paramount isn't a foundation for the arts'. Red Letter Media has an excellent analysis of the reboot which I won't repeat, suffice to say many elements which alter the previously understood nature of Trek (to the irritation of long-standing fans) were deliberate calculations to increase marketability. Prime example: Starfleet is described as a "peace-keeping armada" by Captain Pike and our cast of Wesleys "enlist" in much the same way modern armed forces recruitment stresses the opportunities to learn skills and forge a career. In contrast, prior to the reboot Starfleet Academy was shown on multiple occasions to be where commissioned officers are trained. Enlisted personnel existed, most prominently Miles O'Brien, but they had a separate rank structure and would not end up in the captain's chair by the end of the film like New Kirk. Admittedly this element of Trek wouldn't be well known to casual audiences, which is exactly why it's glossed over for the masses who are more familiar with the tropes of war films and the aforementioned recruitment practices.
I wasn't nearly as upset about the divergence of the timeline as some more hardcore fans. I didn't like it, but it was to be expected. Freed from all obligations to preserve continuity, it was obvious the writers would run amok and do something dramatic - probably kill someone. That was too subtle a motivation for New Spock, so they nuked Vulcan instead. They could have destroyed Earth but that couldn't happen because it was required to both serve as a threat later on and give the audience a reason to care ('hey, aren't we from Earth?'). The next most important civilisation in the Federation and most recognised pop-culturally are the Vulcans. Billions must have died and several thousand refugees scattered throughout Federation space; not that you'd know as it hardly gets mentioned again.Yes, it was fresh and I liked seeing a revival of the Kirk and Spock dynamic. Problem was the constant action on the camera and by the camera was grating (which isn't hypocritical given my defence of Cloverfield (pro. JJ Abrams) for its shaky camera). As has been remarked, it didn't feel like Star Trek. I grew up with teatime repeats of TNG on BBC2 and whatever that was, this wasn't it. That's not to say it had to be TNG to be Trek or emulate any of the other series, it's just that the reboot could have been any space-set action film. Ironically, JJ Abrams is now scheduled to direct Disney's new production line Star Wars films and Star Wars is almost exactly what ST2009 could have been. Certainly would have been an improvement over the dead-on-arrival prequel trilogy. Had it carried any other title it wouldn't have had most of the problems that using the Star Trek moniker brought about, but then the entire point of using that intellectual property is to exploit the pre-existing consumer awareness! It's all about business, which I noticed long ago was more than a little contradictory. Nimoy's appearance makes sense given his previously seen rapprochement with the Romulans; yet like everything else this too was a marketing move, in this case to ease the transition.
Spoilers for Into Darkness
So finally to address the sequel. Had I known US audiences had to wait a week after it opened here to see it I'd have written this sooner and had fun revealing everything - then they'd know what it's like to have to wait and dodge spoilers. I saw Into Darkness in 3D and had listened to some mildly revealing reviews (I didn't care enough about it to walk in virginal) so I didn't flinch when the spear flies out of the screen. Just imagine how disappointed you'd be if you knew that in advance. Here I thought the 3D revival was supposed to steer clear of those kind of 1950s gimmicks. The events of the introduction, which consisted of Kirk wiping his arse with the Prime Directive, lead to some good dialogue scenes between Kirk and Spock. The strongest element in the 2009 film and one of in this sequel is the relationship between Pike and Kirk. When we first see Kirk as a child he's joyriding in an ancient earth automobile listening to classical music and has probably pried the badge off a Volkswagen in the Smithsonian. Pike becomes a father figure to the wayward Kirk and encourages him to "enlist" (see above) in Starfleet. The botched first contact mission in the introduction leads to a severe chewing out of Kirk by Pike as well as some amusing bickering and banter between Kirk and Spock which starts to approach the old relationship of the original series. In private Pike dissects Kirk's personality telling him what his problem is. I liked this promising exploration of Kirk as the strength of The Wrath of Khan had been in exploring Kirk's attitude - namely that his disbelief in the no-win scenario had thus far in his career been borne out by luck or chance. His command of the Enterprise is taken from him as punishment and the now Admiral Pike has Kirk accompany him to an emergency meeting of the top brass to discuss the London bombing.
Seeing the futuristic London skyline made me realise how at home we are in our own time and how disconcerting it would be to leap forward and have to live with the sky blotted out by massive skyscrapers. Thinking during these new fast-paced movies is frowned upon, however. Setting the initial scene in London brings Into Darkness dangerously close to the film adaptation of V for Vendetta for being, as Alan Moore said, too afraid to set its commentary on the US in the US. In fact, blowing up part of London is almost like annihilating Vulcan in the previous film while preserving Earth for the above described plot reasons because the big destruction scene at the end of the sequel is a huge swathe of San Francisco USA(!) being levelled - in keeping with most of American cinematic history like the obliteration of many American landmarks in Independence Day, as if the foreign markets are supposed to be roused by the faces of some presidents being erased from Mount Rushmore.
Anyway, I was peeved that Pike dies, though I suppose the point is that Kirk must now understand himself without his mentor. Classic Hero with a Thousand Faces stuff. When they head off to Klingon space to capture his killer there is a massively unprofessional argument between Spock and Uhura - his love interest for reasons unknown, who has essentially displaced Bones in the triad. It does however finally raise the issue of Vulcan being sucked into a blackhole (or should that be redhole?) which, as nearly everything in this film, must occur leading into or in the middle of an action scene. Whilst a lot of stuff was happening on screen my mind drifted on the topic of Vulcan and I realised I couldn't remember the plot of the reboot. Later on I recalled the stupid Romulan ship that sat around for a quarter of a century to wait for Spock to exit the wormhole rather than use that opportunity to either prevent the plot-driving crisis in the first place or at least use their advanced future technology to bolster the Romulan Star Empire in the past. Once they capture the fugitive the big reveal is that he's Khan Noonien Singh. Surprise.
 |
| Benedict Cumberpatch as Khan, promotional image |
[...] they are on their way in, and no one can bring them back. For the sake of our country, and our way of life, I suggest you get the rest of SAC in after them. Otherwise, we will be totally destroyed by Red retaliation. Uh, my boys will give you the best kind of start, 1400 megatons worth, and you sure as hell won't stop them now, uhuh. Uh, so let's get going, there's no other choice. [...]Mentioning Section 31 was a nice reference at the start, though the whole part about rogue elements of Starfleet was where the film started to unravel as I am certain it's been done before - perhaps in The Undiscovered Country when some members of Starfleet demonstrate just how opposed they are to peace with the Klingon Empire. Building a big ship without anyone noticing it was already a plot hole in Nemesis and that film had tried to retread The Wrath of Khan (TWoK) too. During their co-operation with Khan to stop the renegade Admiral we get a glimpse of Khan's raw strength and a look in his eyes that betrays the fact he was engineered to enjoy combat despite the suave exterior. Khan betrays them and takes control of the massive ship and sets out to destroy the Enterprise. Spock sees this coming because he phones Nimoy and Old Spock spills several beans about events transpired in the alternate timeline. I really wish that cameo had been cut. Nimoy's presence in the reboot was to bridge the gap and bring in the Trek fans. Now it looked like Quinto's Spock was resting on a crutch rather than demonstrating his character's intellect and outwitting Khan independently.
Thus they do defeat Khan, but as foretold, at great cost. Events till now had been loosely divergent from TWoK giving us an idea of how the story with these same characters could have occurred under differing historical circumstances. The film then indulges in a pretty ill-advised paralleling of the end of TWoK but adds a twist by switching characters. Damaged after the battle with Khan, the ship is unable to manoeuvre and adrift it and Khan's ship fall under Earth's gravitational pull. No-one can enter the engine reactor compartment but Kirk makes a sacrifice to save the ship and her crew by venturing in and kicking the drive system into alignment. Fatally poisoned by the radiation, he dies. Spock screams Khan's name. I stifled a laugh. You just can't. It's been parodied too much in the intervening thirty years. Khan is still alive after his ship ploughs into San Francisco killing many many many people (but enough about them) because he is superhuman (well he is). A chase, then a fight atop a cargo freighter or something ensues and they capture him alive. Prior to this McCoy had been doing experiments with Khan's blood on tribbles and discovers his superpowers include curing illness (as seen at the start) and raising the dead. At one point I had the feeling the tribble would be a plot device and became caught between fear and laughter at the idea that Kirk's 'katra' might be transferred to one.
Kirk is revived. They give a rousing speech about pre-emptive war being bad several years too late to be relevant to talking about the Bush presidency. And then they go off on a five year mission to "rape the natural world" in the words of Dr. Malcolm. It is a total cop-out and completely defeats the dramatic weight that comes from killing a major character. You can go crazy and wipe out Vulcan but the old rules about main-character-immunity are still standing. Why not keep Kirk dead at the roll of the credits? It was aiming to be darker after all - it's even in the name. The power of Spock dying at the end of TWoK was that it was intended to be permanent. Nimoy changed his mind afterwards and they found a way to bring him back, and indeed made a sequel that crafted a story out of that difficult circumstance. TWoK was a great film that emerged from financial restraint. Into Darkness was entertaining, amusing, and thrilling. It was better than the four TNG films. But not great. And it still can't be Star Trek with this approach. If Abrams is off to do Star Wars then the next film will look too similar if it continues along these lines. Distinguish your brand if you dare, Paramount.
Written 20th and 21st of May
[4437 ; 8]
No comments:
Post a Comment