I
suspect that many old-time Trekkers like me are a wee bit concerned about what
they have been reading and seeing for months regarding the new Star
Trek film: Into Darkness. In short,
the marketing efforts have been incredibly...generic, and therefore underwhelming.
Many
other blogs have covered the details at great length, so I’ll just review them
quickly and get to my point.
The
first
Star Trek: Into Darkness poster we saw reveals the film’s villain, John
Harrison, standing over the monumental wreckage of London. That wreckage forms
the iconic Starfleet emblem.
This
image very closely mirrors the details of the poster for The Dark Knight Rises
(2012), which features another wrecked metropolis, Gotham City. Only this time,
the wreckage forms the iconic Batman crest.
Recently,
a second uninspiring Star Trek: Into Darkness poster appeared. It reveals the U.S.S. Enterprise in ruins,
smoke emerging from it, as the great ship plummets from orbit. This image very closely mirrors the Iron
Man 3 (2013) poster, which showcases Tony Stark (as Iron Man) falling
from the sky -- similar direction, similar smoke, similar color scheme.
Even
the title Into Darkness has many long-time Star Trek fans
concerned.
The
title sounds uncomfortably like many other popular blockbusters of the last
four years or so. The Dark Knight (2008), The
Dark Knight Rises (2012), Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011)
and the upcoming Thor: The Dark World (2014). “Dark” is pretty clearly the descriptor of
choice in Hollywood these days, but it is tremendously disappointing to see Star
Trek tread along so generically in the path of so many previous movie
hits.
And
then there’s what little -- pre-release
-- fans have been told about the story beats. One such beat suggests the film involves “vengeance”
as motivation, the key motivating factor as well in previous franchise entries The
Wrath of Khan (1982), Insurrection (1998), Nemesis
(2002) and Star Trek (2009).
Specifically,
the revenge-desiring mad-man, the aforementioned “John Harrison,” fans know
from clips, is captured mid-way through the film and held in a kind of transparent glass cell for a time, where
he is interrogated by the heroes before presumably masterminding some
fiendishly clever escape, and once more wreaking interstellar terror.
As
you can see from the images posted below, this plot development very closely
mirrors a crucial plot detail in The Avengers (2012) and
Skyfall (2012), whether intentionally or not.
Then
there’s the shuttlecraft chase seen in the previews. We see in a trailer as this small vessel is
pursued by many (Klingon?) ships, and Kirk argues that it will fit through a
tight opening in some kind of high-tech complex. Spock argues that it won’t. The ship flips on its side and survive, and
Kirk and Spock continue to bicker.
The
character interaction here is funny enough -- and pure Star Trek -- but the
small ship turning on its side to escape pursuers (who somehow can’t also turn
their ships on the side…) is pure genre cliché.
We’ve already seen it this summer in Tom Cruise’s Oblivion (2013), not to
mention countless times in the Star Wars saga.
The
overall worry here is that trailers are generally supposed to project the movie’s
best qualities.
Yet many of the moments we’ve seen so far
have been derivative and generic. They
don’t inspire confidence that this new Star Trek is anything other than an
assembly of blockbuster elements extruded through an industrial process (to
misquote the comedian, Harry Shearer).
For
all these reasons, many long-time fans, including myself, are feeling some uneasiness about Star Trek: Into Darkness at
this juncture. The concern is that a
beloved franchise which once prided itself on originality is mutating into
another generic superhero/action series. Popularity is being sought at the expense of
the characteristics that made so many love Star Trek in the first place.
For
an example of creative bravery in Star Trek’s past, I would point to
two films, in particular.
The
first is Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979), which -- love it or
hate it -- came out just two years after Star Wars (1977) and could have
proven an enormous, unquestioned hit by featuring tons of space battles and
freaky aliens. Instead, Gene Roddenberry
and Robert Wise created a lugubrious, grave story of man’s contact with a
mysterious life-form. The film was
still a gigantic financial success. You
can despise the film, but you can’t argue it copied anything of substance from
the immensely popular Star Wars.
The
second such act of bravery is surely The Voyage Home (1986), a
fish-out-of-water comedy rather than the typical sci-fi soap opera. The film was true to Star Trek, and yet it
proves absolutely delightful as a human tale.
It didn’t need WMD, terrorists, or huge space battles to find favor with
blockbuster audiences.
Given
such franchise courage in the past, it is worrisome indeed to see Star
Trek: Into Darkness attempt to succeed on the basis of not what makes Star
Trek so special and individual an entertainment, but rather upon the
surface values it shares with Thor, James Bond, Iron Man, Batman, and the like.
Before
anyone accuses me of being negative or hostile, there is another side to all
this. I fully recognize that Paramount
isn’t marketing Star Trek: Into Darkness to me. Frankly, I’m going to see the movie no matter
what. I even saw Star Trek V (1989) something
like six times in the theater, after all.
Rather,
the marketing department’s job is to convince non-Star Trek fans that this
movie is an exciting, action-packed spectacle that they must see, one very much like Skyfall, Iron Man 3 or The
Dark Knight Rises.
With
its underwhelming and derivative poster images, at least, the marketing
department seems to be reminding folks that Star Trek: Into Darkness
is the very thing you loved before. You
loved it as The Dark Knight and Skyfall, and you’re loving it RIGHT
NOW as Iron Man 3. Why not go
to the theater on May 17, 2013, and love it one more time?
From
that perspective, the marketing tactic makes absolute sense. Sure, this strategy gives me a pit in my
stomach and sows uncertainty, but it makes sense that Paramount wants to
protect its 190 million dollar investment and market Star Trek to the widest
possible audience.
What
counts, ultimately, is the movie itself.
If
Paramount must market Star Trek as the fourth or fifth
coming of James Bond/Batman/Iron Man/Transformers to put butts in theaters, it’s
a devil’s bargain I can live with as a Star Trek fan.
Where
I will not rubber stamp the movie, however, is if indeed -- as the John Harrison imprisonment scene
superficially suggests at this point -- the movie proves as derivative in
narrative and content of the aforementioned blockbusters as the Into
Darkness posters are in terms of design.
If
that happens, then Star Trek has indeed been sacrificed to the altar of big money,
and the sooner it returns to television (on HBO or AMC, preferably), the better
off the franchise will be.
Obviously,
I have not seen the movie at this point, so I can’t make any conclusions about
how good it is, how original it is, or how generic it is.
But I want to end this essay on a positive
note. I want to note again that I liked and
enjoyed Star Trek 2009 tremendously, and felt that the new cast was
wonderful. The cast exceeded all my
expectations and really brought the beloved characters to life in a wonderful
way. I loved the pacey, jaunty feel of
the movie, and felt it honored the original Star Trek experience. So
of course I would love to see the same talented cast bantering and bickering
its way through another exciting adventure.
If Into Darkness can make the characters click, and avoid too
closely copying other recent blockbusters (and The Wrath of Khan), it
could very well be a great movie experience.
That’s
what I’m hoping for. I’ll post my review
next Tuesday morning, and I’ll report on whether the generic marketing reflects
the movie…and Into Darkness is therefore the hackiest of cinematic hack jobs.
But
as a Trekker who wants to like the movie, I’m hoping instead to report that the
Star
Trek magic again shines through, only on a bigger budget -- and on a bigger
playground -- than ever before in its history.
We caught it yesterday and it has some really rather cool nuances. Leave preconceptions at the door and enjoy the spectacle. I think you might be somewhat surprised as to what happens....
ReplyDeleteI'm still hopeful, to be sure. I hope I get to write a review next week about what a GREAT, brilliant, original movie Star Trek Into Darkness is...
DeleteThanks for a great comment!
John very insightful analysis. You are so right about Roddenberry made Star Trek:The Motion Picture(1979) not to be a borrower of Star Wars(1977) winning elements, but to be what made Trek great. I am still optimistic that Star Trek Into Darkness will be Trek because I can see elements that I will not mention to be spoilers.
ReplyDeleteSGB
Hi SGB:
DeleteThank you for your excellent comment, my friend.
I want to believe in Into Darkness. The marketing has been underwhelming to some extent, but like I said in my analysis, I can live with that sense of disappointment if it doesn't extend to the movie itself. I'm crossing my fingers...
best,
John
How about the use of the Inception/Prometheus, ominous horn motif throughout the early teasers (same approach to the latest Who trailer too for the series finale). Marketing is VERY safe these days. Too safe.
ReplyDeleteJames,
DeleteOh my goodness, yes. That is exactly the kind of thing this post is about. Thank you for bringing it up. Everything about Into Darkness looks very canned, and familiar, and indeed...it worries me.
Great addition to the conversation, James!
I've also caught Into Darkness already, and have to say I very much enjoyed it for what it was. I think you will find that some of your fears may be borne out, sadly, but would agree with the previous advice to leave your preconceptions at the door and go along with the ride, and for the pure spectacle. It's a great action movie in that context, even if I would argue that it does not rank as a great Star Trek movie—an opinion with which you may or may not agree! I will say no more for now, but look forward to your own review...
ReplyDelete