I've enjoyed all of the Star Trek movies, all the way back to the poorly concieved Motion Picture. That one was a snoozefest trying to be the next Space Odyssey, but it had its merits.
There will never be another Ricardo Montalban as Khan Noonien Singh. Ever. Hearing that the latest installment was a Khan reworking, with a skinny British guy stepping into the role, I was very wary. Then again, I wasn't very enthusiastic about the franchise relaunch with new actors taking on old, dear and familiar roles to begin with. I was rooting for the grandson of Kirk and son of Spock (and Lt Saavik) carrying on where the old folks left off. I was fully prepared to hate it. But I didn't.
I'm usually a stickler for time travel and the grandfather paradox. I can't STAND how they ended the Voyager series with the Captain going back and changing the past. If she changed the past, she wouldn't exist to go back and change the past. Not as they presented it. If they'd written it in with Janeway knowing that even though the ship returned early and everybody was fine, she'd still have to go back and sacrifice herself, in the altered timeline, I could have lived with that.
That said, I was even able to accept the whole alternate universe premise in the Star Trek reboot. I still squint a bit at the notion of old Spock existing in the new alternate universe, but I forgive it because it lets us visit with Leonard Nimoy in pointy ears now and then. Besides, he was caught in the vortex, so that could have protected him from all the changes in the space/time continuum.
What? No I am NOT geek.
I like Chris Pine as Kirk and adore Karl Urban as McCoy. I frown at the way they've treated Uhura, though. Nichelle Nichols was dignified and composed as a bridge officer, while Zoe Saldana's version is rather a hot mess. Most of all, the more I see Zachary Quinto as Spock, the less I like it. He looks the part, without any doubt. It's obvious that he's studied Leonard's expressions, mannerisms and body language. Props to him for that. But his dialogue sucks. The way he delivers his lines is exactly the same from one to the next. It's deadpan, decidedly not Spock-like. The first movie wasn't as bad as the second, and I hope it improves by the third.
I also hope they trim the hair on the back of Kirk and Spock's necks for the third. It's a wall of hair back there, and these guys are supposed to be officers.
As for Khan, I have mixed emotions. If I'd seen Benedict Cumberbatch's rendition first, i would have loved it. He committed to it completely and didn't back down from it. He did an amazing job with a pretty big role. Problem is, I've relished Ricardo Montalban's personification of that madman for quite a long time, and it holds sentimental value. Benedict was committed (as well his Khan should be) but Ricardo was downright psychotic. Benedict shed a tear as Khan. Ricardo never did.
The biggest problem I had with "into darkness" were the ridiculous and glaring inconsistancies. If they could beam Spock out of the volcano in the opening segment, they could have beamed the cold-fusion device in. He never needed to be in harm's way and the natives never needed to see the ship.
Another issue is Scotty's kvetching that you can't hide a star ship on the bottom of the ocean. I mean, come on. After the crushing void of space, a ship can't handle the pressure under water? And how were there air bubbles coming from the ship under water? Isn't that bad boy airtight if it travels in space?
Nobody ever explained to me why none of the other 300 year old people's blood couldn't save Kirk if they were genetically engineered the same way as Khan, why they could all of a sudden remove a crew member from a cryo-tube ("and keep him in a drug-induced coma!") to put Kirk in when they claimed earlier that they didn't know how to open the ancient tubes without killing the crew, or how there were only 72 cryo-tubes, yet there seemed to be an extra one for Khan at the end. Even taking Kirk out of it, there was still the other member of Khan's crew to put back in it.
Details, I know, but they nag at me.
I look forward to seeing more films in the Star Trek franchise. I hope they tighten up those details, and I hope somebody has a serious talk with Quinto about his line delivery. I just wonder what old story lines they'll revisit. Will we see more familiar notions? Will Carol Marcus bear Kirk's son, David? Has she already? The very end of the movie took place a year after the events, and Carol made some quip about how "It's nice to have a family." There could be a lot of continuing adventures with the bridge crew's offspring.
Somehow, whatever canon they revisit, I doubt they'll travel back in time to pick up a couple of whales.
There will never be another Ricardo Montalban as Khan Noonien Singh. Ever. Hearing that the latest installment was a Khan reworking, with a skinny British guy stepping into the role, I was very wary. Then again, I wasn't very enthusiastic about the franchise relaunch with new actors taking on old, dear and familiar roles to begin with. I was rooting for the grandson of Kirk and son of Spock (and Lt Saavik) carrying on where the old folks left off. I was fully prepared to hate it. But I didn't.
I'm usually a stickler for time travel and the grandfather paradox. I can't STAND how they ended the Voyager series with the Captain going back and changing the past. If she changed the past, she wouldn't exist to go back and change the past. Not as they presented it. If they'd written it in with Janeway knowing that even though the ship returned early and everybody was fine, she'd still have to go back and sacrifice herself, in the altered timeline, I could have lived with that.
That said, I was even able to accept the whole alternate universe premise in the Star Trek reboot. I still squint a bit at the notion of old Spock existing in the new alternate universe, but I forgive it because it lets us visit with Leonard Nimoy in pointy ears now and then. Besides, he was caught in the vortex, so that could have protected him from all the changes in the space/time continuum.
What? No I am NOT geek.
I like Chris Pine as Kirk and adore Karl Urban as McCoy. I frown at the way they've treated Uhura, though. Nichelle Nichols was dignified and composed as a bridge officer, while Zoe Saldana's version is rather a hot mess. Most of all, the more I see Zachary Quinto as Spock, the less I like it. He looks the part, without any doubt. It's obvious that he's studied Leonard's expressions, mannerisms and body language. Props to him for that. But his dialogue sucks. The way he delivers his lines is exactly the same from one to the next. It's deadpan, decidedly not Spock-like. The first movie wasn't as bad as the second, and I hope it improves by the third.
I also hope they trim the hair on the back of Kirk and Spock's necks for the third. It's a wall of hair back there, and these guys are supposed to be officers.
As for Khan, I have mixed emotions. If I'd seen Benedict Cumberbatch's rendition first, i would have loved it. He committed to it completely and didn't back down from it. He did an amazing job with a pretty big role. Problem is, I've relished Ricardo Montalban's personification of that madman for quite a long time, and it holds sentimental value. Benedict was committed (as well his Khan should be) but Ricardo was downright psychotic. Benedict shed a tear as Khan. Ricardo never did.
The biggest problem I had with "into darkness" were the ridiculous and glaring inconsistancies. If they could beam Spock out of the volcano in the opening segment, they could have beamed the cold-fusion device in. He never needed to be in harm's way and the natives never needed to see the ship.
Another issue is Scotty's kvetching that you can't hide a star ship on the bottom of the ocean. I mean, come on. After the crushing void of space, a ship can't handle the pressure under water? And how were there air bubbles coming from the ship under water? Isn't that bad boy airtight if it travels in space?
Nobody ever explained to me why none of the other 300 year old people's blood couldn't save Kirk if they were genetically engineered the same way as Khan, why they could all of a sudden remove a crew member from a cryo-tube ("and keep him in a drug-induced coma!") to put Kirk in when they claimed earlier that they didn't know how to open the ancient tubes without killing the crew, or how there were only 72 cryo-tubes, yet there seemed to be an extra one for Khan at the end. Even taking Kirk out of it, there was still the other member of Khan's crew to put back in it.
Details, I know, but they nag at me.
I look forward to seeing more films in the Star Trek franchise. I hope they tighten up those details, and I hope somebody has a serious talk with Quinto about his line delivery. I just wonder what old story lines they'll revisit. Will we see more familiar notions? Will Carol Marcus bear Kirk's son, David? Has she already? The very end of the movie took place a year after the events, and Carol made some quip about how "It's nice to have a family." There could be a lot of continuing adventures with the bridge crew's offspring.
Somehow, whatever canon they revisit, I doubt they'll travel back in time to pick up a couple of whales.