RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,902
Posts: 5,387,555
Members: 24,717
Currently online: 656
Newest member: teriankhoka

TrekToday headlines

IDW Publishing November Trek Comic
By: T'Bonz on Aug 20

Pegg/Wright Trilogy In The Works
By: T'Bonz on Aug 20

Star Trek: The Compendium Rebate Details
By: T'Bonz on Aug 20

Gold Key Archives Volume 2
By: T'Bonz on Aug 19

Takei Documentary Wins Award
By: T'Bonz on Aug 19

Cumberbatch To Voice Khan
By: T'Bonz on Aug 19

Shaun And Ed On Phineas and Ferb
By: T'Bonz on Aug 18

New Ships Coming From Official Starships Collection
By: T'Bonz on Aug 18

Trek Stars Take On Ice Bucket Challenge
By: T'Bonz on Aug 18

Retro Review: Profit and Lace
By: Michelle on Aug 16


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies XI+

Star Trek Movies XI+ Discuss J.J. Abrams' rebooted Star Trek here.

View Poll Results: Grade the movie...
A+ 144 19.38%
A 161 21.67%
A- 100 13.46%
B+ 82 11.04%
B 58 7.81%
B- 27 3.63%
C+ 40 5.38%
C 38 5.11%
C- 24 3.23%
D+ 11 1.48%
D 13 1.75%
D- 10 1.35%
F 35 4.71%
Voters: 743. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old May 17 2013, 12:42 PM   #2521
gornsky
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Location: Sydney, Australia
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

HaventGotALife wrote: View Post
No character steps back from those emotions to show how we should respond, the appropriate response to having someone you loved murdered.
I thought there were a number of occasions where this happened. For instance, Kirk is all gung-ho to follow his orders and "track the bastard down", despite the fact that both Spock and Scotty and to some extent even McCoy "lecture" him that he's wrong.

Spock tells him that hunting someone down and killing them without a trial is against Starfleet directives and morally wrong. Further he tells Kirk he needs to take a little time to think about it to arrive at this conclusion himself. Spock seems to have faith that once Kirk calms down, he will do the right thing. Scotty tells him that they are supposed to be explorers, not military personnel. Kirk is still travelling on the momentum of grief until he sits down in the Captain's chair to inform the crew of their mission. Maybe it was the extra weight of the responsibility of the chair itself, or maybe the echos of Pike's accusations that he was not ready for it finally settle, but almost in mid-sentence Kirk has a change of heart and informs the crew that he will personally go down to Kronos, capture "Harrison" and return him to Earth to face trial.

Is that not exactly a character stepping back from emotions to show how you should respond? (if indeed this is some mandatory requirement of a Trek story.)

No one is wise enough to lecture the crew. And that is very bad for Gene Roddenberry's vision indeed.
I don't know about all this "crew lecturing" and why it's so important, but a number of characters do exactly this.

Pike gives Kirk the ultimate "lecture" at the beginning of the movie. Remember? 'You think the rules don't apply to you because you disagree with them. You use luck to justify playing God. One day you'll get yourself and everyone under your command killed. You don't respect The Chair because you're not ready for it."

Again, Spock lectures Kirk on the morality of what amounts to a government-sanctioned assassination. Scotty lectures Kirk on the merits of exploration over war. Spock lectures Uhura on making assumptions about someone's feelings. Kirk lectures Spock on elevating slavish adherence to rules over friendship. How many more "moral lessons" do you want the characters to impart?

A speech at the end, after using people was the only thing that kept them alive, does not a theme make. This movie is about exactly what NOT to do when someone wrongs you.
I thought the theme of the movie was quite apparent and was referenced in a variety of ways, driving the point home strongly.

Carol Marcus is the only one who doesn't seek revenge. And her reaction is cold as if nothing happened. I know if I saw my father's head crushed, I would be emotional
You didn't think her blood-curdling scream was a reaction?

Kirk's speech about how he "doesn't know what he should do" is what this character is all about. He doesn't have the training necessary to be Captain.
He doesn't have the years of experience Prime Kirk had, that's true, and he feels that lack acutely. But Kirk has intuition and smarts and, as he calls it, his "gut feeling". These attributes have almost always served him well.

His love for Spock is never explained, as a mind-meld transference from Prime Spock, to his sympathy over losing his mother, whatever. We are left to guess.
No, it's not really explained in words, but I felt their burgeoning affection was apparent in a number of their scenes. When Kirk tells Spock he'll miss him. When, even having been assigned to other ships, their eyes seek out each other during the Harrison briefing (not in a homoerotic way, just because each has become used to getting the others' feedback). Kirk's hand on Spock's shoulder after Pike's death. Their effective and often complementary working relationship, despite their philosophical hurdles. Spock's belief in Kirk's reaching the right decision on his own. Spock's familiarity with Kirk's deflecting his valid arguments with name-calling. Kirk's seeking Spock's approval when he finally makes the right decision to arrest rather than obliterate Khan. Spock's ability to accurately guess Kirk's decisions without words, based only on his familiarity with Kirk's thought processes.

Really, I thought all these things were very clearly telegraphed in the movie.

The relationships--the loyalty, love, and comradery among the crew--never hinted at, never given a character-building scene. They just are loyal and we are to accept it.
Seriously? I thought the whole movie was one character-building scene after another. Obviously I was getting a lot more out of it.

There are no good guys in this movie, it relies on lore and sentimentality of the past to explain who we are supposed to be cheering for. They don't do anything noble. Kirk isn't concerned about anyone else in that room except the one he cared about. He's selfish.
Giving up your life for your crew without a second thought is selfish? You have awfully high standards then.

Spock is willing to push away emotions but can't do it when it counts.
But that's the thing about strong emotions. They evade your control.

Scotty is the only redeeming figure in the whole movie. He is capable at his job, tries his hardest to do what is right, and has training to handle these situations. And he gets busted off the Enterprise for it.
Okay, well, at least somebody impressed you.

Now, for the nit-picks:
NOW for the nit-picks? O.M.G. I thought they WERE the nit-picks!
gornsky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 17 2013, 01:03 PM   #2522
Irishman
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Charlotte, NC
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

J. Allen wrote: View Post
T J wrote: View Post
Love how the Enterprise has torpedo tubes on the side of the secondary hull. She can fire broadsides like an ancient galleon! Just one of the many many cool aspects of the film.
See, that just makes sense to me, too. Having weapons only in the fore or aft of the ship is silly, and leaves much of your ship unprotected.
I'm still on the fence about the broadside tubes. In the old galleon days they made sense because most combat happened close, and a cannon fired a dumb projectile.

The torpedoes in Star Trek are smart, in the sense that they can be aimed in various ways (preprogrammed to hit a target a certain way). I think the only advantage of the torp launchers shown in STID is the sheer number of projectiles that can be fired off simultaneously. We've gone from 2 front and 1 rear in the prime universe, to 2 front, 1 rear, and 6 on each side.
Irishman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 17 2013, 01:09 PM   #2523
HaventGotALife
Fleet Captain
 
HaventGotALife's Avatar
 
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

gornsky wrote: View Post
HaventGotALife wrote: View Post
No character steps back from those emotions to show how we should respond, the appropriate response to having someone you loved murdered.
I thought there were a number of occasions where this happened. For instance, Kirk is all gung-ho to follow his orders and "track the bastard down", despite the fact that both Spock and Scotty and to some extent even McCoy "lecture" him that he's wrong.
Kirk doesn't listen. He goes full-boar into seeking revenge. Scotty is mentioned in my review. And his consequence for speaking out? He's kicked off the Enterprise.

gornsky wrote: View Post
Spock tells him that hunting someone down and killing them without a trial is against Starfleet directives and morally wrong. Further he tells Kirk he needs to take a little time to think about it to arrive at this conclusion himself. Spock seems to have faith that once Kirk calms down, he will do the right thing. Scotty tells him that they are supposed to be explorers, not military personnel. Kirk is still travelling on the momentum of grief until he sits down in the Captain's chair to inform the crew of their mission. Maybe it was the extra weight of the responsibility of the chair itself, or maybe the echos of Pike's accusations that he was not ready for it finally settle, but almost in mid-sentence Kirk has a change of heart and informs the crew that he will personally go down to Kronos, capture "Harrison" and return him to Earth to face trial.
Well, that theory is all good until he decides to beat the crap out of Harrison on Kronos. Super strength is the only reason he doesn't kill him. Then he proceeds to tell Harrison, full of rage, that the only reason he isn't ending him is because is "allowing it." He's playing god. He then uses Harrison after he proves himself to be competent in his information. That's what keeps Harrison alive. And then he orders his death, or at least subdued on the Vengance. Military, indeed.

gornsky wrote: View Post
HaventGotALife wrote: View Post
No one is wise enough to lecture the crew. And that is very bad for Gene Roddenberry's vision indeed.
I don't know about all this "crew lecturing" and why it's so important, but a number of characters do exactly this.

Pike gives Kirk the ultimate "lecture" at the beginning of the movie. Remember? 'You think the rules don't apply to you because you disagree with them. You use luck to justify playing God. One day you'll get yourself and everyone under your command killed. You don't respect The Chair because you're not ready for it."

Again, Spock lectures Kirk on the morality of what amounts to a government-sanctioned assassination. Scotty lectures Kirk on the merits of exploration over war. Spock lectures Uhura on making assumptions about someone's feelings. Kirk lectures Spock on elevating slavish adherence to rules over friendship. How many more "moral lessons" do you want the characters to impart?
Every one of those characters, when they are tested, in action, gives the same response. And I covered that in the previous post. For instance, when Spock is tested, his motivation for getting Khan is not to eliminate the threat, that is secondary, to seeking revenge for Kirk dying. Uhura stops him from killing him out of vengeance simply because they need his blood. Spock sought revenge. I don't care what he said earlier in the film, when tested, he came unglued. There was no variation on this theme. We never saw an appropriate response. One is what is on paper, the other is experience. Their training said "this is bad," but when they had the chance to learn why, they just tried to kill as much as they could.

As for Kirk and Spock, there is no reason for it given. They just love each other, nothing hinted as to why. No explanation even as they are seeing each other in Kirk's last moments. We see the love, we don't see why. I want to know why they bonded.
__________________
"Cogley was old-fashioned, preferring paper books to computers. He had an extensive collection of books, he claimed never to use the computer in his office."
HaventGotALife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 17 2013, 01:09 PM   #2524
CommishSleer
Fleet Captain
 
CommishSleer's Avatar
 
Location: Way back of nowhere
View CommishSleer's Twitter Profile
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Irishman wrote: View Post
J. Allen wrote: View Post
T J wrote: View Post
Love how the Enterprise has torpedo tubes on the side of the secondary hull. She can fire broadsides like an ancient galleon! Just one of the many many cool aspects of the film.
See, that just makes sense to me, too. Having weapons only in the fore or aft of the ship is silly, and leaves much of your ship unprotected.
I'm still on the fence about the broadside tubes. In the old galleon days they made sense because most combat happened close, and a cannon fired a dumb projectile.

The torpedoes in Star Trek are smart, in the sense that they can be aimed in various ways (preprogrammed to hit a target a certain way). I think the only advantage of the torp launchers shown in STID is the sheer number of projectiles that can be fired off simultaneously. We've gone from 2 front and 1 rear in the prime universe, to 2 front, 1 rear, and 6 on each side.
Looks like Starfleet has been arming up (in the wake of Nero).
CommishSleer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 17 2013, 01:14 PM   #2525
Austin 3:16
Commander
 
Austin 3:16's Avatar
 
Location: Tampa, Florida USA
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

I saw it yesterday in IMAX and I loved it. Better than the first movie!
__________________
What?
Austin 3:16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 17 2013, 01:59 PM   #2526
RAMA
Vice Admiral
 
RAMA's Avatar
 
Location: NJ, USA
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

More on the movie; the new Imax theater was awesome but the theater was surprisingly empty. as I left I saw that more people came in, but I saw ST09 3 times and the theater was always full. Perhaps this is not a good way to gauge.

Loved Imax 3D...not sure 2D will ever be enough now. lol

I'm going to see the movie again Sunday. Imax it is. Fandango reports 55% of people are going to see it more than once.

I forgot to mention I loved the ending.... Loved it... the crew prepping for a 5 year mission!? great stuff.... cool bridge crew with Carol and an android on board.
__________________
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Carl Sagan
RAMA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 17 2013, 02:14 PM   #2527
Locutus of Bored
Furfallin'
 
Locutus of Bored's Avatar
 
Location: Huntington Beach, California
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Irishman wrote: View Post
J. Allen wrote: View Post
T J wrote: View Post
Love how the Enterprise has torpedo tubes on the side of the secondary hull. She can fire broadsides like an ancient galleon! Just one of the many many cool aspects of the film.
See, that just makes sense to me, too. Having weapons only in the fore or aft of the ship is silly, and leaves much of your ship unprotected.
I'm still on the fence about the broadside tubes. In the old galleon days they made sense because most combat happened close, and a cannon fired a dumb projectile.

The torpedoes in Star Trek are smart, in the sense that they can be aimed in various ways (preprogrammed to hit a target a certain way). I think the only advantage of the torp launchers shown in STID is the sheer number of projectiles that can be fired off simultaneously. We've gone from 2 front and 1 rear in the prime universe, to 2 front, 1 rear, and 6 on each side.
I didn't look at it in the sense of delivering side by side broadsides like galleons, I thought of it more like the high capacity vertical launch missile cells on modern destroyers, cruisers, subs, and so forth. If the torpedoes are capable of maneuvering to hit the target, why restrict them to a couple of forward or rearward facing tubes with a limited fire rate when you can have dozens of redundant launchers each capable of being loaded individually? That way you have a much higher rate of fire, and if some launchers are incapacitated, you have several more still operational.

On the flipside of that, and going back to your original point, if you are in an up close and personal battle with a nearby ship (which is not realistic in actual space battle terms, but fits within Star Trek), having fore, aft, port, and starboard facing torpedo tubes allows you to fire in all (horizontal) directions (unless they have vertical tubes too) while requiring little maneuvering by the torpedoes, which means they can conserve fuel and attack at higher speeds since they haven't been turning to reach the target.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
Locutus of Bored is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 17 2013, 02:21 PM   #2528
teacake
Admiral
 
teacake's Avatar
 
Location: Militant Janeway True Path Devotees Compound. With Sehlats.
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

When I saw the film again tonight I noticed that the archive is called The Kelvin Archive, that was cool.
__________________

"Damnit Spock. God damnit!" Kirk ST:V
■ ■ ■
Janeway does Melbourne
teacake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 17 2013, 02:26 PM   #2529
SalvorHardin
Rear Admiral
 
SalvorHardin's Avatar
 
Location: Star's End
View SalvorHardin's Twitter Profile
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

teacake wrote: View Post
When I saw the film again tonight I noticed that the archive is called The Kelvin Archive, that was cool.
Yep

__________________

SalvorHardin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 17 2013, 02:40 PM   #2530
topas
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
topas's Avatar
 
Location: Warsaw, POLAND
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Must be some Kelvin-fixation on the writers' side. One of the main characters of Fringe (same writers/producers as Star Trek) used to run a company named Kelvin Genetics.
topas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 17 2013, 02:44 PM   #2531
SalvorHardin
Rear Admiral
 
SalvorHardin's Avatar
 
Location: Star's End
View SalvorHardin's Twitter Profile
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

topas wrote: View Post
Must be some Kelvin-fixation on the writers' side. One of the main characters of Fringe (same writers/producers as Star Trek) used to run a company named Kelvin Genetics.

I believe Kelvin is the name of Abrams' grandfather. The registry of the USS Kelvin was his birthday.
__________________

SalvorHardin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 17 2013, 03:02 PM   #2532
cbspock
Rear Admiral
 
cbspock's Avatar
 
Location: San Antonio, TX
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

I have seen the film 2 times so far, once as a double feature with the the first movie, then in 3D IMAX last night. I liked the film. I thought the first half worked better than the last half. While it was cool to see Old Spock, they could have done without it. It just serves to ramp up how dangerous Khan is if you couldn't already tell. Reversing the TWOK engine room scene was a risk. I thought it actually worked pretty well given the story they were telling, although it felt more like Kirk saving the Enterprise in Generations, then Spock saving the Enterprise in Wrath of Khan. The use of the famous "Khan" line was a risk, it could have played as a joke line since that what is has become in pop culture. I thought it worked in the scene, but it could have gone the other way.

I really enjoyed the Pike / Kirk / Spock scenes in the beginning of the film. Also with Pike's death, Kirk's reaction was like his reaction in Obsession when they encountered the same creature that attacked the USS Farragut, and killed another Captain who Kirk looked up to and Kirk was determined not to make the same mistake this time around.

The Budweiser engineering didn't bother me as much this time around.


I'm looking forward to Star Trek 3, for the next story I hope they decide to explore new territory and not re-work an old mission into a story. If they want to make an old episode the pre-title opening that would be a cool callback but the story itself needs to be a new adventure.


One question, where was shuttle bay 2??? Looks like the ship left from the side of the secondary hull??

-Chris
__________________
"It's important to give it all you have while you have the chance."-Shania
cbspock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 17 2013, 03:03 PM   #2533
shatastrophic
Commander
 
Location: Mile High City
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

RAMA wrote: View Post
More on the movie; the new Imax theater was awesome but the theater was surprisingly empty. as I left I saw that more people came in, but I saw ST09 3 times and the theater was always full. Perhaps this is not a good way to gauge.

Loved Imax 3D...not sure 2D will ever be enough now. lol

I'm going to see the movie again Sunday. Imax it is. Fandango reports 55% of people are going to see it more than once.

I forgot to mention I loved the ending.... Loved it... the crew prepping for a 5 year mission!? great stuff.... cool bridge crew with Carol and an android on board.
When I saw it we got in line and such but when they finally sat us I noticed the theater wasn't full either. It wasn't until the movie started that it was getting filled in, then I read some dumb article on IMDB that stated its wed opening was tepid and that half of the gross was IMAX 3D. In 09' there was way more people at the opening. I think the weekend will be better though. I loved it and am seeing it again tomorrow, repeat visits will help too.
__________________
LCARS
shatastrophic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 17 2013, 03:03 PM   #2534
Mr Awe
Rear Admiral
 
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

A- Really enjoyed this one! Mostly positives. The characters were great. Unlike ST09, I can really buy into them as the characters they are portraying (except perhaps Scotty). There were great moments between the characters too.

The story was great. Definitely lots of interesting things going on. The SFx, as expect, were superb. No problems there.

I was expecting to really enjoy Cumberbatch, and I did. However, all the comparisons to TWOK really reminded me that I just preferred Montablans (sp?) portrayal of Khan over Cumberbatch's.

There were so many references to the original series, and movies, that they definitely treated the franchise with respect.

In the end, this movie was probably the best it could be with the rebooted characters. I don't mean that as a slight at all. I was impressed with how much I could connect with them after just 2 movies.

However, it's just hard to compete with characters/actors that we've watched for decades vs just 2 movies. Some of the meaningful moments just meant less because with just a few hours of screen time, I was less invested in the characters.

So, great movie! Really enjoyed it! Can't quite compete with the best of the non-reboot movies through no fault of their own.

Mr Awe
Mr Awe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 17 2013, 03:09 PM   #2535
Mr Awe
Rear Admiral
 
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Jeyl wrote: View Post
indranee wrote: View Post
I don't understand. You have five series, ten movies and a ton of other stuff to play with. Why do you miss it? It's all right there, waiting for you to watch.
I think it's the sad fact that Star Trek is now essentially a movie only franchise rather than a continuous series. Four years just for a two hour long adventure doesn't really offer much variety that gives Star Trek it's heart and soul. Not saying you can't have some of that in the movies, but with a series you can take more chances in doing something different.
Yep, totally agree with this!

Mr Awe
Mr Awe is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
benedict cumberbatch, grading & discussion, jj abrams

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:17 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.