Hollywood Into Darkness
Christopher Nolan has ruined everything.
The success of The Dark Knight – now bested by its own sequel, The Dark Knight Rises – has caused a shift in big-budget movies, particularly in the comic book superhero genre. Its sense of grittiness has so reverberated through Hollywood that more and more films seem to be adapting a “darker is better” attitude.
Case in point: the upcoming Superman reboot, Man of Steel. First came this poster:
Then came a teaser trailer that made me wonder if director Zack Snyder (Watchmen, 300) and producer Nolan aren’t a little, well…dark for the Last Son of Krypton.
Christopher Nolan’s Bat-films were a breath of fresh air after the high camp of Joel Schumacher‘s Batman & Robin sucked all the air out of the cineplex. And the darkness works for Batman, a character with a tragic history and grim agenda.
And honestly, it has worked for other movies as well. I just recently came out of my first viewing of Skyfall, possibly the grimmest title in James Bond‘s 50-year-old resume. (Even over Quantum of Solace, which was grim by necessity, given its revenge-driven plot.) From the frankly apocalyptic main titles to the almost unrelenting violence of the film’s denouement, I was quite hooked.
But James Bond is a guy not unlike Batman. (Plus, my fellow Flickcharter, Travis McClain – our resident expert on all things 007 – tells me how Ian Fleming’s original novels are much less campy than the films.) Both characters seem versatile enough to handle a wide variety of genres. It’s why you can have the heroes being portrayed by actors as varied as Adam West and Roger Moore to Christian Bale and Daniel Craig. Why you can have Arnold Schwarzenegger one-lining his way across the screen in a neon suit of armor and have Heath Ledger twitch and terrify in an oily green wig. Why Moore can ham his way to victory while Craig gets his down-and-dirty Jason Bourne impression on.
A character like Superman, who stands for optimism and the betterment of mankind, might not fare so well under the Dark Knight treatment. A new trailer for Man of Steel is due to be released alongside The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, and at that point, I suppose we’ll know more.
However, Superman isn’t the only franchise succumbing to a Dark Knight aesthetic. And the phenomenon is not localized to comic book movies.
After three and a half years, we are finally rounding the last corner and heading for the home stretch to next summer’s release of the sequel to J.J. Abrams‘ 2009 hit, Star Trek (currently ranked the #2 of 2009 on Flickchart), a movie that reinvigorated a franchise on life support. They’ve taken their time with it. J.J. has gotten Super 8 out of his system, and the writers had lots of time to make certain the story for their sequel is just right.
J.J. Abrams projects are notorious for their veil of secrecy, but as we approach the release of a 9-minute preview of the Star Trek sequel attached to The Hobbit in IMAX theaters, some tidbits have come to light. The writers have been on record as stating that they’ve looked to The Dark Knight for an example of how to do a sequel right. Laudable, since The Dark Knight is one of very few sequels to arguably improve upon its predecessor, but the release of the Star Trek sequel’s full title led me to believe that the creators may have taken this idea a little too seriously.
And now, there’s a poster:
Star Trek Into Darkness. A title that makes me realize just how much Hollywood has taken the “darkness” to heart. Did The Dark Knight really have such an impact? Or has evidence of this darker trend been building since 9/11? Star Trek Into Darkness is the most blatant plugging of the word “dark” into a title since Transformers: Dark of the Moon.
I’m not opposed to a bit of grimness in a film; I have films like The Dark Knight and Se7en in my Top 20, after all. There’s a place for this kind of thing in entertainment, and it can be a great way to exorcise some demons.
But here’s the thing: Star Trek is not Batman.
(It’s not The Expendables, either.)
Crumbled-building logos are cool.
Star Trek was built upon an innate sense of optimism. The idea that, in the future, mankind will have bettered itself and come together in a common goal of peaceful exploration. None of that is evident in this poster for Star Trek Into Darkness, particularly given the official synopsis that Paramount has released:
“When the crew of the Enterprise is called back home, they find an unstoppable force of terror from within their own organization has detonated the fleet and everything it stands for, leaving our world in a state of crisis. With a personal score to settle, Captain Kirk leads a manhunt to a war-zone world to capture a one man weapon of mass destruction. As our heroes are propelled into an epic chess game of life and death, love will be challenged, friendships will be torn apart, and sacrifices must be made for the only family Kirk has left: his crew.”
It doesn’t promise boldly going to strange new worlds, that’s for sure. The recently-released teaser trailer would seem to confirm my suspicions:
[youtuber youtube=’http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSoIs4wfaeM’]
So, basically, Captain Kirk and crew go to hell and battle the devil, who is bent on destroying the Earth. There’s even a few shots suggesting they go to lava-torn Mustafar for a grand final battle, a la Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith.
The 2009 film brought this crew together for a new generation. One might think it was time to get exploring; instead, there’s a very Dark Knight Rises-flavored threat to homeworld security. Of course, a sense of conflict is crucial to good storytelling. One of the best of the previous ten Trek films, The Wrath of Khan, featured a strong villain with a personal vendetta against Kirk, after all. But other attempts have been made to ape Khan‘s success, and haven’t met with such success (notably, the box-office bomb, Star Trek Nemesis, in 2002).
There is a Star Trek television episode in which one character asks another, “Without the darkness, how would we recognize the light?” This is true enough, but I’m just concerned that some of popular fiction’s greater beacons of light will get dragged down into the mud with Batman. Superman and the crew of the starship Enterprise might, in a sense, be a bit more limited in their range than Batman or James Bond, in terms of how to write them and remain true to their characters. But sometimes great creativity in storytelling is born of limitation. There’s a place for conflict, and challenges for heroes to overcome, but I don’t think some of film’s most optimistic characters should have to dirty their camera lenses to draw in viewers. With any luck, next summer’s going to prove me wrong.
Then again, if the darkness keeps selling tickets…the shadows may just be here to stay.
Yeah. At first I was pretty jazzed about the trailer for Into Darkness (which I maintain was edited well), but then I thought about the promise of upbeat adventure that we were given in the previous film and now I’m feeling less than enthused.
I’ve yet to be interested in the new Superman film. Just seems WAY too dark when the subject matter is based on a hopeful and bright future of truth, justice and the American Way.
I’m hopeful the Man of Steel trailer coming with The Hobbit will give us something different.
I still very much look forward to Into Darkness…but my enthusiasm is now tempered with concern.
The values of Superman should be tested, just as the values of Star Trek should be. So long as the thesis is that there’s still a place in our world for those values, then the story can work.
I like Superman, I really do, but of all his screen adventures, the only ones that completely satisfy me are the 1941-1943 animated shorts by Fleischer Studios and Famous Studios.
I love those animated shorts.
I don’t mind the run he’s getting in the New 52 all that much.
You’re right. As long as the theme is that there’s a place in our world for those values it might work. Maybe I’m just worried due to Zack Snyder being a part of the whole thing that it might just be Sucker Punch dressed up like Superman. Or maybe it will just be dark for no reason and it will just be a dreary mess.
OR
Maybe it will be Tree of Life dressed like Superman. Now THAT would be interesting. It wouldn’t work…but it would be interesting. :)
American soldiers have been in Afghanistan for a decade now. That kind of thing changes the tone of what we as a society find palatable and in good taste. On some level, we need a certain kind of darkness in our entertainment because it just wouldn’t feel right to spend two hours in a theater being shown stories where everything is all okay but could be a little better.
People worry about their loved ones. Parents and spouses wake up daily fearing that today may be the day they learn the worst has happened. Surely we can ask that much of Batman and Captain Kirk, no?
As for Star Trek and Roddenberry’s vision, Deep Space Nine proved that it can stand up to being challenged. DS9 was essentially a crucible for the entire core values of the franchise. Beliefs need to be tested; that’s what distinguishes faith from hope.
At the risk of indulging in cynicism, Roddenberry’s vision is pretty lofty for our society at present. I bought into those values – egalitarianism, tolerance, duty to others – in the 90s when things were generally good. For me, the 21st Century so far has been a test of the viability of those values. For younger viewers, though, who have only come to Star Trek in the last decade (let’s be honest; the last three years), I can see where the earlier episodes and movies may seen a little…naive.
What matters most isn’t the tone of the story, but what shape the Roddenberry vision is in at the end of it. If Star Trek Into Darkness shows us that those values endure, then it will likely be a hit. If it tries to tell us that it’s time to outgrow that hope for the future, then we’re in trouble.
I just wonder if perhaps our tentpole movies have forgotten that you can create solid drama without going the route of Dark Knight Rises. I get that the darker content is reflective more of this generation of filmmaking, but I fear that it will be the only method we know in terms of telling a good story. What about the inevitable part 3 of this franchise? Will that go darker or will they maybe try something more interesting?
At least The Dark Knight Rises managed a positive ending, Jon. Its predecessor is pretty bleak.
True.
Culturally, I don’t know if we really can go back. We’ve spent a decade now threatened at every turn by terrorists, campus shooters and a tyrannical president who wants us to have health insurance. Can audiences ever again accept a hero in a benign story?
We know the bogeyman is out there. We need to be comforted that someone is out there in the shadows fighting to keep us safe from him. That’s what helps us continue to function as a society.
I would say this, though: Anyone who wants to send a message to Hollywood about tone should make a point to go support The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. That’s our collective one chance to show that light is still viable.
Oh, I plan to watch the heck out of The Hobbit films for that very reason!
Star Trek history predicted a third world war before things got better. In a way, it’s almost about asking how bad things have to get before they get better.
Deep Space Nine is my personal favorite Star Trek series, so yeah, I like the darker aspects. But even in that vision of Star Trek’s future, humanity has come together.
I think it would be nice if a Star Trek film could actually get back to the franchise’s roots and be about the thrill of exploring those strange new worlds. Rather than this internalizing and dealing with such a significant threat to Earth (which, indeed, is something the ’09 Star Trek movie dealt with), why can’t we pull ourselves out of the Sol system and face the dangers of the Final Frontier?
Just because this is the world we live in doesn’t mean our entertainment has to be mired in it. What’s wrong with a little old-fashioned optimism?
Leave the paranoia to Batman. It really suits him.
That said, if Into Darkness can perform a DS9-like examination of our beliefs and principles, it could be a very fine movie indeed. And maybe the third chapter could give us something new.
The fixation on Earth under attack reflects our post-9/11 mindset. We frankly don’t care what happens in another part of the world, unless it directly affects us.
The best science-fiction has always been allegorical. In that sense, any planet could be a stand-in for America (and let’s not kid ourselves; Earth in Star Trek was always really America). I’m with you that it’s disappointing they don’t have enough confidence in audiences making the connections on their own and instead have to put Earth itself on the screen for us.
Though, in fairness, even though the TV shows very rarely visited Earth, it’s been in jeopardy in a few of the movies. V’Ger was en route to Earth in The Motion Picture, the Probe came here to speak with humpback whales in The Voyage Home and the Borg went back in time to assimilate Earth in First Contact. These two “Star Trek 2.0” movies bring the total to five out of twelve in the series.
“Just because this is the world we live in doesn’t mean our entertainment has to be mired in it. What’s wrong with a little old-fashioned optimism?”
Optimism doesn’t have to cheerful to still be optimism. This is a point I’ve come to understand in living with Crohn’s disease. I’m always optimistic that there’ll be a major breakthrough, but that doesn’t mean I haven’t been completely overwhelmed by my health problems at times.
I can avoid Crohn’s no easier than storytellers can disregard the nature of our world. If they didn’t acknowledge our real life fears and anxieties, their stories would feel out of step.
If anything, the fact that they still believe in Star Trek after the last decade’s real world events is itself a sign of optimism.
Yet The Avengers made more money than the Dark Knight Rises. I personally consider the Avengers a much worse movie. If anything, I think Avengers will be a lot more influential than the Dark Knight though.
That’s a good point about the box office take, though part of that is that The Avengers had a 3D release and The Dark Knight Rises did not.
It will be influential for the foreseeable future because Marvel has created the paradigm for universe-building in movies. Warner is already scrambling to make a Justice League movie even though they have yet to make a single DC superhero movie that was thoroughly satisfying that doesn’t feature Batman.
It’d be nice if more tentpole movies borrowed the lighter tone from The Avengers, but then again, do we really want to spend half of any given movie just watching the good guys fight each other? Is that any more appealing than “darkness”?
It’s the lighter tone that I prefer, not necessarily the squabbling.
Certainly. But realistically, we need to accept that influence is rarely confined to just the elements of something that we like or appreciate. Protagonist A meets Protagonist B and they fight before deciding to be on the same team; it’s a very old storytelling trope. The Avengers breathed new life into it and I fear we’re going to have to see that a lot more than we have in recent years.
Though even at that, just to bring us back to Nigel’s post, Kirk and Spock were at each other’s throats in Star Trek and that was in 2009.
Let my try this again, perhaps in a way I should have in the article:
Star Trek is unique in science fiction is that it does not present a dystopian future. There has been no nuclear holocaust that has wiped out most of the planet. We are not plugged into the Matrix. This is not to say that there cannot be villains, or bad things happening, even on Earth. But Roddenberry’s vision was that mankind as a whole will have bettered itself. Most threats portrayed in Star Trek were external, i.e. extraterrestrial. (Yes, my favorite series, Deep Space Nine, turned this on its head with the idea that there is no paradise without somebody behind the scenes getting their hands dirty.)
Nothing will make me happier than to be wrong about Star Trek Into Darkness. Maybe this is just the marketing to draw people in, and the movie will show us that, yes, there is a brighter future ahead; sometimes we just have to fight for it.
I guess I’m slightly disappointed that this movie (yes, like many of the past Star Trek movies; that’s part of my problem, give us a change) features a villain who is human (by all appearances). I’m slightly disappointed that it features such a direct threat to Earth when the same thing seemed to happen in the previous movie.
I just want that Roddenberry optimism to be apparent. Of course, we haven’t seen the movie yet, so it certainly could be. I hope so.
Remember, though, that Roddenberry envisioned World War III as a necessary catalyst for that progress as a species. I think your real position is that you miss having a lighter tone to Star Trek and on that, I tend to agree with you.
The problem is that even though the very lighthearted Voyage Home was at the time the most profitable of the series, most of the successful films in the series have been darker: The Wrath of Khan and First Contact, certainly, but I think a case could be made that The Undiscovered Country is pretty dark, too.
Insurrection was the last light Star Trek movie and it was met with a resounding yawn. The most common complaint was that it felt like a two-part episode, not a movie. I’m sure you heard that criticism at the time. You may even have expressed it yourself. We, then, as the audience sent the message that we like our Star Trek movies to be dark.
Sure, Nemesis was dark and it tanked. Paramount misinterpreted that failure as evidence that they’d oversaturated the market with the franchise, rather than simply accepting that the movie was much too thin to satisfy. (Still, I have to admit that I love the space battle. Picard actually crashing the Enterprise into the Schimitar out of desperation? Awesome!)