- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 23,454
- Points
- 0
Star Trek Into Darkness: 5 Reasons It’s Better Than The Wrath Of Khan
With just under a week to go until Star Trek Into Darkness lands in UK cinemas, and a raft of very positive reviews already pushing expectation levels up to the max, it is important to recognise that the sequel still fits into a wider canon, regardless of how consciously the pre-release marketing campaign has resisted the explicit links between Abrams’ work and the original series.
This remains a Star Trek film, and though we are seeing a rebooted, or more appropriately, an alternate timeline, no Star Trek fan in their right mind is going to walk into the multiplex and willingly suspend that link. Ahead of the release, as Trekkers, we all want to know where the film fits on the quality scale already established by the other Star Trek films.
Logic put it ahead of The Undiscovered Country, and Insurrection, without too much effort, and most reviewers have heralded the film as one of the finest in the entire series.
I would go one further, and suggest that Into Darkness is even better than the film often held up as the greatest Star Trek film committed to film. I may suffer his wrath, but I have to say that Abrams’ forthcoming sequel is better than Nicholas Meyer’s 1982 classic.
And here’s why…
5. The Acting
Star Trek: The Original Series is a kitsch delight, and it was as camp and flamboyant as it was ground-breaking, but it wasn’t ever the most technically impressive TV show of all time. The production quality was actually quite impressive, and strong story-telling often plugged gaps where finances and capabilities struggled, but there’s no denying that the acting on show was more often than not, a crime against the noble art.
By the time Star Trek II: The Wrath Of Khan came out, you might think Shatner and co would have toned it down a notch, having seen their beloved project canned once on the small screen, but in a curious, and ultimately fatal development, the cast seemed to see the opportunity of further films to hone their craft of over-acting.
The Wrath Of Khan itself is dragged up no end by the performance of Ricardo Montalban as Khan, while everyone else continues their iconic, but not all that great brand of theatricality, especially Shatner.
Into Darkness, on the other hand, features a collection of fine performances – Chris Pine is an exceptional Kirk, Zachary Quinto is great as Spock, and John Cho even handles his meagre responsibilities well, which is to say nothing of Benedict Cumberbatch’s grand-standing performance as John Harrison. The acting across the board in Abrams’ sequel makes The Wrath Of Khan look like an amateur production with a few bells and whistles, and though we can love its charm, the two are ultimately incomparable.
This is a more general point, since Abrams’ action set-pieces are one of his chief assets, and the key to selling a Star Trek story that features a minimum of stars and very little actual trekking at all.
From the opening sequence set on a strange new world, which launches the film with a bang, through to the Klingon chase, and the excellent fire-fight that quickly paints a picture of what John Harrison really is, phasers are set to stun, and Abrams deftly guides us through like a sci-fi pro.
Whether he’s shooting on the grandest scale – as with the chase – or framing hand-to-hand combat (such as the emotionally charged fight at the end of the film that pits good vs evil definitively,) Abrams creative decisions are never misplaced, and he remains committed to reinventing the Star Trek ethos with a modern action agenda.
The effects work is astonishing, but the human choreography in each scene is what really sells the action, and the hand-to-hand combat, particularly involving the unexpectedly brutal Benedict Cumberbatch is a joy to watch.
Wrath Of Khan meanwhile is a more personal affair, of good vs evil, without the same sort of scale, and though it is utterly engaging, to see both approaches married together is all the more entertaining.
That Leonard Nimoy offers the definitive Spock is not an issue for debate here or anywhere else – Nimoy is Spock, just as Spock is Nimoy, and Abrams wasn’t stupid enough to try and scrub away the legacy of the actor entirely, casting him in his new universe as the major link between the two iterations.
Abrams also seems to have identified Spock as the heart of change – every other character seems to be at least partly a walking homage to the performances that came before them, and the same can be said of Quinto’s outward performance as Spock. There is certainly something of the mimic in his performance (though of course there is only so much any actor can bring to a Vulcan) but under the surface, Spock is an entirely different animal in Into Darkness.
The events of the narrative give Quinto the opportunity to push Spock’s human side to the front – yes, the decision to explore the relationship with Uhura is less successful, and feels superfluous (though of course necessary thanks to the last film,) but the sight of Spock wrestling with his human emotions late on in the film unleashes a side of the character we have never seen.
And in Quinto’s hands, that Spock is irresistible, and just as in The Wrath Of Khan it is he who propels the narrative towards its conclusion, though in entirely different ways.
The Wrath Of Khan is a superficially emotional story – it is a very traditional tale of good vs evil, and the clash of two heavy-weights, but there isn’t a great deal at stake (albeit until Spock decides to save the Enterprise) for the audience. As a spectacle, there is little to really criticise the film, but in comparison to Into Darkness, the narrative is detached, and without that tangible emotional element that gives Abrams’ sequel the edge.
There is way too much humour, admittedly, and the presentation of Scotty (not necessarily the performance) cheapens some of the emotional impact of the finale, but Abrams’ sequel is a world way in emotional terms from the relatively light-hearted romp that was his original Star Trek. And rather than simply going darker, and more detached, as Nolan did for The Dark Knight Rises, Abrams gave us something to really care about, and the result is a Star Trek film that at times really gets under the skin of the audience, and even threatens to inspire a few tears.
The blend between mature content and the explosive set-pieces adds depth, and there is nothing superficial about how entertaining the film is.
This is the big one. Before Into Darkness, Montalban’s Khan sat atop the pile of Star Trek villains without much of a challenge from any direction – there have been other, notable villains and villainous species, but none could challenge Khan in terms of enduring appeal and downright menace.
That was until Benedict Cumberbatch arrived and made Star Trek Into Darkness his own. He is a bristling, cold villain with classical impact and the kind of presence that makes the very best villains so irresistible. And most importantly of all, his snarling outward appearance is matched by a hugely powerful physical threat, that breaks out with stunning effect through the cool, seemingly detached surface.
Harrison is perversely likable, thanks to his professed agenda, and the very personal note to his quest for vengeance, and he definitely skirts the line between anti-hero and villain, just as Hannibal Lecter and Darth Vader did before him. And that is his most enduring and endearing quality, just as it was with Khan before him.
Montalban’s Khan was exceptional, but he was never quite the caged animal, nor the one-man threat that Harrison is, and his plan didn’t quite match Harrison’s for scope and boldness.
With just under a week to go until Star Trek Into Darkness lands in UK cinemas, and a raft of very positive reviews already pushing expectation levels up to the max, it is important to recognise that the sequel still fits into a wider canon, regardless of how consciously the pre-release marketing campaign has resisted the explicit links between Abrams’ work and the original series.
This remains a Star Trek film, and though we are seeing a rebooted, or more appropriately, an alternate timeline, no Star Trek fan in their right mind is going to walk into the multiplex and willingly suspend that link. Ahead of the release, as Trekkers, we all want to know where the film fits on the quality scale already established by the other Star Trek films.
Logic put it ahead of The Undiscovered Country, and Insurrection, without too much effort, and most reviewers have heralded the film as one of the finest in the entire series.
I would go one further, and suggest that Into Darkness is even better than the film often held up as the greatest Star Trek film committed to film. I may suffer his wrath, but I have to say that Abrams’ forthcoming sequel is better than Nicholas Meyer’s 1982 classic.
And here’s why…
5. The Acting
Star Trek: The Original Series is a kitsch delight, and it was as camp and flamboyant as it was ground-breaking, but it wasn’t ever the most technically impressive TV show of all time. The production quality was actually quite impressive, and strong story-telling often plugged gaps where finances and capabilities struggled, but there’s no denying that the acting on show was more often than not, a crime against the noble art.
By the time Star Trek II: The Wrath Of Khan came out, you might think Shatner and co would have toned it down a notch, having seen their beloved project canned once on the small screen, but in a curious, and ultimately fatal development, the cast seemed to see the opportunity of further films to hone their craft of over-acting.
The Wrath Of Khan itself is dragged up no end by the performance of Ricardo Montalban as Khan, while everyone else continues their iconic, but not all that great brand of theatricality, especially Shatner.
Into Darkness, on the other hand, features a collection of fine performances – Chris Pine is an exceptional Kirk, Zachary Quinto is great as Spock, and John Cho even handles his meagre responsibilities well, which is to say nothing of Benedict Cumberbatch’s grand-standing performance as John Harrison. The acting across the board in Abrams’ sequel makes The Wrath Of Khan look like an amateur production with a few bells and whistles, and though we can love its charm, the two are ultimately incomparable.
This is a more general point, since Abrams’ action set-pieces are one of his chief assets, and the key to selling a Star Trek story that features a minimum of stars and very little actual trekking at all.
From the opening sequence set on a strange new world, which launches the film with a bang, through to the Klingon chase, and the excellent fire-fight that quickly paints a picture of what John Harrison really is, phasers are set to stun, and Abrams deftly guides us through like a sci-fi pro.
Whether he’s shooting on the grandest scale – as with the chase – or framing hand-to-hand combat (such as the emotionally charged fight at the end of the film that pits good vs evil definitively,) Abrams creative decisions are never misplaced, and he remains committed to reinventing the Star Trek ethos with a modern action agenda.
The effects work is astonishing, but the human choreography in each scene is what really sells the action, and the hand-to-hand combat, particularly involving the unexpectedly brutal Benedict Cumberbatch is a joy to watch.
Wrath Of Khan meanwhile is a more personal affair, of good vs evil, without the same sort of scale, and though it is utterly engaging, to see both approaches married together is all the more entertaining.
That Leonard Nimoy offers the definitive Spock is not an issue for debate here or anywhere else – Nimoy is Spock, just as Spock is Nimoy, and Abrams wasn’t stupid enough to try and scrub away the legacy of the actor entirely, casting him in his new universe as the major link between the two iterations.
Abrams also seems to have identified Spock as the heart of change – every other character seems to be at least partly a walking homage to the performances that came before them, and the same can be said of Quinto’s outward performance as Spock. There is certainly something of the mimic in his performance (though of course there is only so much any actor can bring to a Vulcan) but under the surface, Spock is an entirely different animal in Into Darkness.
The events of the narrative give Quinto the opportunity to push Spock’s human side to the front – yes, the decision to explore the relationship with Uhura is less successful, and feels superfluous (though of course necessary thanks to the last film,) but the sight of Spock wrestling with his human emotions late on in the film unleashes a side of the character we have never seen.
And in Quinto’s hands, that Spock is irresistible, and just as in The Wrath Of Khan it is he who propels the narrative towards its conclusion, though in entirely different ways.
The Wrath Of Khan is a superficially emotional story – it is a very traditional tale of good vs evil, and the clash of two heavy-weights, but there isn’t a great deal at stake (albeit until Spock decides to save the Enterprise) for the audience. As a spectacle, there is little to really criticise the film, but in comparison to Into Darkness, the narrative is detached, and without that tangible emotional element that gives Abrams’ sequel the edge.
There is way too much humour, admittedly, and the presentation of Scotty (not necessarily the performance) cheapens some of the emotional impact of the finale, but Abrams’ sequel is a world way in emotional terms from the relatively light-hearted romp that was his original Star Trek. And rather than simply going darker, and more detached, as Nolan did for The Dark Knight Rises, Abrams gave us something to really care about, and the result is a Star Trek film that at times really gets under the skin of the audience, and even threatens to inspire a few tears.
The blend between mature content and the explosive set-pieces adds depth, and there is nothing superficial about how entertaining the film is.
This is the big one. Before Into Darkness, Montalban’s Khan sat atop the pile of Star Trek villains without much of a challenge from any direction – there have been other, notable villains and villainous species, but none could challenge Khan in terms of enduring appeal and downright menace.
That was until Benedict Cumberbatch arrived and made Star Trek Into Darkness his own. He is a bristling, cold villain with classical impact and the kind of presence that makes the very best villains so irresistible. And most importantly of all, his snarling outward appearance is matched by a hugely powerful physical threat, that breaks out with stunning effect through the cool, seemingly detached surface.
Harrison is perversely likable, thanks to his professed agenda, and the very personal note to his quest for vengeance, and he definitely skirts the line between anti-hero and villain, just as Hannibal Lecter and Darth Vader did before him. And that is his most enduring and endearing quality, just as it was with Khan before him.
Montalban’s Khan was exceptional, but he was never quite the caged animal, nor the one-man threat that Harrison is, and his plan didn’t quite match Harrison’s for scope and boldness.
