View Single Post
Old July 17 2014, 10:38 AM   #193
Re: One Year Later: Star Trek Into Darkness

HaventGotALife wrote: View Post
Franklin wrote: View Post
HaventGotALife wrote: View Post

That just makes me want to not show up for the next one. Of course, that would probably lead to stories that "JJ Abrams is what drew fans to the film." So my voice is marginalized as a "fanboy" who worries about characterization and plot, is offended by all the nods, and feels they took a club to the head of the audience with that counter-terrorism storyline that was about 8 minutes of a 2-hour movie. The rest was just a story about revenge, and then tying it up at the end by saying "Don't do what you just saw in this movie." It was stupid, no one lectured the crew about what they were doing, except Scotty, who acts like a child the rest of the film.

I don't long for the days of Rick Berman. I seriously walked out of the movie theater saying "Why should I go to Star Trek 3?" Orci has nothing to do with it. The continuity errors aren't a part of it. The problem is it relies on people to know the Star Trek universe and I want a movie that stands on its own. If that is too fanboyish, then know this: This fanboy isn't going to fanboy movies. I have seen X-Men, X2, Spiderman, The Dark Knight Rises, Man of Steel, The Wolverine, Days of Future Past, the Star Wars Prequels (all three), and the Star Trek movies. That's it in the last 14 years. Star Trek 3 and X-Men: Apocalypse is all that I want to see. Not Batman/Superman. Not Star Wars: Episode VII (I can't stand JJ Abrams). I'm a very bad fanboy if that's all this is. Star Trek's reputation is what is keeping me coming back, not these movies individually, and I am probably one bad movie experience from never attending another Star Trek, and being very skeptical for another television series, if it were to materialize.
-- If STID was almost entirely about revenge, then TWOK was even more so and not much else. Sorry you did miss all the nice character moments, particularly Kirk's character arc.

-- TVH was very thematically shallow. All it did was club us over the head with a broad message to take care of the environment (through the narrow message of saving the whales). It ended with telling the audience, "don't do what you just saw in this movie," that is, don't hunt whales to extinction. TUC was even more thematically shallow. Clubbing us over the head about the effects of prejudice and stereotypes and reminding us at the end that people can be very afraid of change.

-- In STID Kirk got a helluva lecture from Pike for what he did on Nibiru and apparently even before that.

-- Scotty was childish? He provided some comic relief, but he also killed a man, and was a major hero of the story.

-- Continuity errors? How could there be any? This is a new playground. It's true Trek had plenty of continuity errors in the first universe. Pointing them out is a cottage industry among fans.

-- You say the movie requires knowledge of the Trek universe and doesn't stand on its own. Elaborate, please. It stood on its own as well as any Trek movie to me.

-- I'm not sure what nods offended you, but if you are taking offense, maybe you're also taking it a wee bit too seriously. All of the movies you mentioned above are pop culture popcorn movies, after all. It's not like anyone is doing Shakespeare and mangling it terribly.
My thoughts on Star Trek Into Darkness are there. The relationship with Kirk and Spock is not well-defined and, therefore, the movie fails in terms of characterization when it is the centerpiece of the movie. As for the "nods," I was referring to ripping off Star Trek movies from the past for lines at key moments of the movie ("Doctor, the needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few," "KHAAAAAN!!!," etc.). Ultimately, it offends me because this movie doesn't deliver a new interpretation, it's more like the same music played by a different band. If I am drawing the comparison at the theater between Kirk and Spock's death scenes, I don't need to be beat over the head with it. It begs for comparisons that wreaks of using previous continuity (very popular material, btw) to sell tickets and make it "feel" like a Star Trek movie.

I said "it's not continuity errors" and suddenly I have to defend continuity errors? No. I am not nit-picking at this movie's size of the Enterprise or what the Klingons look like in the 23rd Century. I don't care. They got me--new Trek for a new Generation. Hence, the reason I am dissatisfied with the "nods."

As for Kirk's dress down by Pike, it fails to make any impact on the chain of command, or ultimately, have any consequences for Kirk. He is Captain of the ship, demoted to Cadet, Promoted to Commander, and Captain of the ship in, I believe, 12 minutes of the movie. That's a flimsy attempt and horrible plotting.

Just for the record, "taking it too seriously" in the X-Men movies, hasn't stopped me from enjoying X-Men, X2, and Days of Future Past. These movies are just bad movies. I'm not offended that JJ Abrams is directing it. I didn't know what to expect when he was hired. I actually was excited for '09. It caused me to re-sample all Star Trek when my fandom had taken a 10-year hiatus.
okay that is a little bit too harsh
xavier is offline   Reply With Quote