RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,527
Posts: 5,512,532
Members: 25,138
Currently online: 562
Newest member: Bazzzz85

TrekToday headlines

Two New Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Dec 26

Captain Kirk’s Boldest Missions
By: T'Bonz on Dec 25

Trek Paper Clips
By: T'Bonz on Dec 24

Sargent Passes
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

QMx Trek Insignia Badges
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

And The New Director Of Star Trek 3 Is…
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

TV Alert: Pine On Tonight Show
By: T'Bonz on Dec 22

Retro Review: The Emperor’s New Cloak
By: Michelle on Dec 20

Star Trek Opera
By: T'Bonz on Dec 19

New Abrams Project
By: T'Bonz on Dec 18


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 19.20%
A 161 21.47%
A- 101 13.47%
B+ 83 11.07%
B 59 7.87%
B- 27 3.60%
C+ 40 5.33%
C 38 5.07%
C- 25 3.33%
D+ 11 1.47%
D 13 1.73%
D- 10 1.33%
F 38 5.07%
Voters: 750. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old May 21 2013, 12:42 AM   #3316
RAMA
Vice Admiral
 
RAMA's Avatar
 
Location: NJ, USA
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

cbspock wrote: View Post
Starship history..Models on the desk

http://www.qmxonline.com/news/stid-h...flight-models/


-Chris
They could've used the SLS instead of Ares V.

Very cool though.
__________________
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 21 2013, 12:44 AM   #3317
RAMA
Vice Admiral
 
RAMA's Avatar
 
Location: NJ, USA
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

cbspock wrote: View Post
RAMA wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post

I just bought the novelization hoping it makes the Nibiru mission make sense. It is really the only part of the film that I can't make work in my head.
Bob Orci did explain that on Trekmovie, but it's still open to question. The volcano interfered with their transporter lock unless it was line of sight. Apparently between motion and natural disasters, this timeline's transporters are quite finicky.

Also I gathered from Spock's line "that the planet will die" meant the small groups of inhabitants were all near the volcano, not that the planet itself would be destroyed.

RAMA
I took it that it would have killed everyone. In the book, Kirk takes the scroll to get the natives away from the initial blast radius of the volcano, and keep them distracted so they didn't see the shuttle.


-Chris
That's what I meant...the total sum of the population and it's fragile culture was near the volcano. Lots of people thought Spock's line meant the planet would blow up.
__________________
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 21 2013, 01:23 AM   #3318
Hober Mallow
Commodore
 
Location: The planet Terminus, site of the Encyclopedia Foundation on the periphery of the galaxy
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Lapis Exilis wrote: View Post
Therin of Andor wrote: View Post
What's so terrible about "Star Trek flavored action movies"?
Nothing, really. Except that it's part of a grand trend of skinning the symbols of various long running cultural tales and grafting them onto the same generic framework. Now we've got the Robert Downey Jr. Sherlock Holmes movies which are just Sherlock flavored action movies, and Star Trek flavored action movies -but they're all just Hollywood action movies in the end. That's disappointing to me because part of what I've admired about the Trek franchise is its ability to do new things while keeping a unique identity. I believe Ubik said upthread - by making Star Trek flavored action movies, Abrams is playing it safe, working within a formula. It's an entertaining formula, but it doesn't take any risks or do anything that surprises. Maybe it's a consequence of my age, but I've now seen so many this or that flavored action movies that I find action movies boring.
This is my feeling, too. The movie was a fun roller-coaster ride, but it's nothing that's stuck with me. I've probably forgotten a good portion of the film since seeing it last Friday, and I don't intend to ever see the movie again. Most of the film is devoted to action set pieces, which allow only minimal and shallow character development. Nothing wrong with a roller coaster ride if that's all you want. out of it.

What excites me, though, about JJ Abrams doing a Star Trek reboot is that it paves the way for future reboots. Even though I don't think much of his movies, I like that he's at least doing his own thing with characters like Khan. It'll make it easier for future producers of TV or film to be even more creative with Kirk, Spock, and the Enterprise crew, to not be afraid to update things in order to keep Star Trek relevent for the next generations.
__________________
"Beep... beep!" --Captain Pike
Hober Mallow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21 2013, 01:51 AM   #3319
Chicago 103
Captain
 
Chicago 103's Avatar
 
Location: Chicago, IL. USA
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Sorry for the long review, but I wanted to throw in my two cents.

For me, the choices characters make, or the questions they are asking is most important in my enjoyment of a movie. I think ďStar Trek Into DarknessĒ has plenty of choices and questions worth seeing play out on screen, and to ponder after itís done.

In the wake of the destruction of Vulcan, Admiral Marcus wonders if they should make a deal with the devil to help make sure the Federation can survive any attack that will come their way. If he does, the population will have a good chance to see a future without major threats, but their ideals may fall by the way side as survival trumps morals. If he doesnít, all that may be left of the Federation is their electromagnetic and subspace signals telling the universe how high-minded they were, while ruthless threats rained down on them. There is no easy answer. Trying to balance physical and ideological survival is a difficult game. Marcus decided they just faced a very close call, and it was time to play. I canít really say I blame him. Khan basically said it himself. Federation citizenís are so morally strong they canít bring themselves down to the same level as their enemies to find ways to outwit them. But if you have access to a monstrous mind that you can control, and use for your protection, the chance at survival may be too great to pass up.

Kirk has to ask himself if he should ignore his gut, or let the opinion of others override what he feels is the right course of action. He most likely views this as a sign of weakness. How can you lead if you canít make a solid decision? Heís smart, courageous, so what that he doesnít know everything. So far, following his gut has kept everyone on the Enterprise alive for six months, saved a primitive civilization, and the Federation outside of Vulcan. Why should he bother with the opinion or ideas of others when heís good enough to save the day taking everyone else along for the ride? He has to decide whether his imperfection, his inability to solve every problem with his mind alone, is a sign of weakness to run from, or a fact of life that gives purpose to the talented crew that he leads.

Vulcan culture is centered on the idea of controlling emotion. Since the destruction of Vulcan and loss of his mother, it seems that Spock has been obsessed with the idea of controlling the emotional pain associated with death. How do you stand the sadness and fear that precedes your death, or that grows in others when you pass on? Heís tried distancing himself from Uhura. Heís risking his life trying to find out if peace is possible just before death. He wonders if anyone else has found it, when he melds with Pike, only to find more of the same.

While these are the big ideas that I enjoyed most in ďStar Trek Into Darkness,Ē there are lots of smaller storylines that help the bigger picture. While Kirk initially takes the chair for granted, believing it should rightfully be his because of his perceived greatness, Sulu and Chekov are more cautious when they are put in positions of authority. Sulu is initially in awe of command, and is unsure if heís ready. But when pushed, he rises to the occasion. Chekov is initially afraid of being made chief of engineering, but heís willing to admit his uncertainties. Kirkís subordinates are building themselves up to meet the challenge of command. Compare this to Kirk who has to deconstruct himself to settle into command. Scotty and Spock are putting their faith in the rules to act as a shield from dangers without and within, compared to Marcus who views the rules as the thing to be protected. Iím sure Spock knows that stopping the volcano on Nibiru is a drastic interference in the destiny of the planet, but after watching Vulcan die, he probably canít stand by and watch more death, especially on a planetary scale, if he can stop it.

Beyond the story, most of the visuals and performances are top notch. I have to join in with the praise for Benedict Cumberbatch. His best scenes are expressing the desperation to be free with the rest of people put in cryofreeze, and of course taking over the Vengeance. I loved listening to him basically say everything is a weapon, including the air you breathe, so one way or another everyone will submit to his will. In 30 seconds itís clear why Admiral Marcus needed Khan to advance Starfleetís weapons, and why it was impossible to keep this genie under control.

Chris Pine also succeeds in portraying a much wider range of emotions for Kirk in the second movie. Sadness over losing his father figure in Pike, fear during his death scene, the disappointment in losing the Enterprise, and many moments of humor. My favorite scene is the ďIím Allowing ItĒ brig confrontation with Khan. About once every week Iíve experienced that slow burn of contained rage in front of people you respect, and then the gradual release toward an explosion before the one you despise.

The space battles were amazing. The Enterprise cart wheeling out of warp knocks me out of my chair every time I see it. The Vengeance was a badass design. Iíd love to see a fleet attacking Klingons in some future movie. The new warp entry effect, especially in 3D, shows off the speeds and distances of interstellar travel.

No, the movie isnít perfect. My biggest problem is a tired, but I believe valid complaint. At a Star Trek convention a few years ago, Anthony Pascale from TrekMovie said what he, and most of us thought. Why go through the trouble of creating a new universe, just to revisit Trekís greatest hits. It does annoy me that Khan was brought into this story to add weight and danger to a story that was good without him. By having two villains in Marcus and Khan, spending half the movie trying to figure out who is doing what and why, neither is given the screen time needed to really dig into the characters. We all know Khan is a fascinating character who can provide a window into the best and worst of humanity. We only get quick flashes of the true depth of the character in ďSTIDĒ because by the time heís free to be himself, the movie is close to ending. Admiral Marcus could have been more than a stock evil government official, doing bad things with good intentions. While I am disappointed that the villains don't have too much depth, they did serve their purpose, moving Kirk from a know-it-all, to an observant leader.

In most political discussion, there are good and bad points on both sides of the argument. But in "STID," the bad guys are for increased military action to protect the Federation. The good guys are for just being explorers. This is too simplistic for a thorough discussion of how to keep civilization safe in the face of unimaginable threats. The story shouldn't try to answer the question. There is no easy answer. All of the points should be presented. Let the viewer decide where and why they stand on a particular side, and consider the issue from a new perspective. My favorite movies of last year, "Life of Pi," "Sound of My Voice," and "Cabin in the Woods," held up a mirror to the audience, so we could ask why do we believe what we want to believe, or why do we enjoy the things we do? It's good that this movie tried to be about something more than just blowing stuff up real good. Next time, take another step toward a more complete, less preachy look at real world issues. Yeah, I know, Trek has been traditionally preachy. But this is a new world.

On a less serious note, I can't figure out any logical reason for the Enterprise to hide in an ocean at the beginning of the movie. I understand transporters are useless near the volcano because of extreme heat and electromagnetic interference. Did the Enterprise have to come to Spock's rescue from the ocean? Couldn't it have descended from orbit, stop right above the volcano to beam Spock away, and still be seen by the inhabitants? Speaking of the people of Nibiru, I'd love to see a side story that jumps ahead 3000 years when they become interstellar explorers, and find out what their ancient god really was. A few billion people are going to have a really bad day. Thanks Captain Kirk.

There have been a few complaints about the movie that I believe can be explained.

How can a volcano kill an entire civilization? Look up supervolcano. If you live in Wyoming, maybe you shouldn't.

Why go after Khan to save Kirk's life, when you have 72 other genetically engineered people onboard? Was it confirmed that everyone had the same genetic enhancements? We know for a fact the Khan's blood can fix damaged or dead cells. It's possible that they all have the same abilities, or everyone could be slightly different. Or maybe Khan enhanced himself after being thawed and given access to Section 31 knowledge and technology, which would give him healing blood now, when he didn't have it originally. Basically, in the middle of a life and death situation, I don't have a problem with the crew working with certainties instead of assumptions.

Why beam not beam Khan and Spock up during their fight, instead of beaming someone down? One scene in the movie hurts my argument. Someone needs to stand still, have a constant velocity, or when a genius is at the controls, a constant acceleration to be safely transported. Spock and Khan were constantly changing position during their fight, even jumping from one platform to another. Yes, Carol Marcus ran across the Enterprise bridge while being transported to the Vengeance. But Spock's mother died because of her change in velocity. The movie breaks the rules of transporters in the Carol Marcus scene using an advanced, fully operational ship, not this one, when the Enterprise is literally in pieces.

"Star Trek Into Darkness" is easily my favorite movie so far of 2013. As a person with a bit of an ego, and unwillingness to admit my mistakes, Kirk's journey hit a nerve with me. I've never been much of a Kirk fan because he's been presented rather smug, knocked down on occasion, just to be rewarded in the end. It was good to see greater respect for the minds of others and the responsibilities of the chair grow within this version of Captain Kirk. The story itself is fun to follow as the mystery of why Starfleet was attacked unfolds, leading to troubling choices made under difficult conditions. The answers to what-would-you-do are not easy or pleasant. Is "Star Trek Into Darkness" my favorite Trek movie? No. It ranks third on my personal list behind "Wrath of Khan," a great tale about consequences catching up with you, and "The Motion Picture," the closest Trek films got to exploration. But it's a hell of a lot of fun with enough character and social questions to ponder long after the movie ends.

Grade: A-
__________________
Make No Little Plans, They Have No Magic To Stir Men's Blood... Daniel Burnham
Chicago 103 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21 2013, 01:58 AM   #3320
RAMA
Vice Admiral
 
RAMA's Avatar
 
Location: NJ, USA
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Chicago 103 wrote: View Post
Sorry for the long review, but I wanted to throw in my two cents.

For me, the choices characters make, or the questions they are asking is most important in my enjoyment of a movie. I think ďStar Trek Into DarknessĒ has plenty of choices and questions worth seeing play out on screen, and to ponder after itís done.

In the wake of the destruction of Vulcan, Admiral Marcus wonders if they should make a deal with the devil to help make sure the Federation can survive any attack that will come their way. If he does, the population will have a good chance to see a future without major threats, but their ideals may fall by the way side as survival trumps morals. If he doesnít, all that may be left of the Federation is their electromagnetic and subspace signals telling the universe how high-minded they were, while ruthless threats rained down on them. There is no easy answer. Trying to balance physical and ideological survival is a difficult game. Marcus decided they just faced a very close call, and it was time to play. I canít really say I blame him. Khan basically said it himself. Federation citizenís are so morally strong they canít bring themselves down to the same level as their enemies to find ways to outwit them. But if you have access to a monstrous mind that you can control, and use for your protection, the chance at survival may be too great to pass up.

Kirk has to ask himself if he should ignore his gut, or let the opinion of others override what he feels is the right course of action. He most likely views this as a sign of weakness. How can you lead if you canít make a solid decision? Heís smart, courageous, so what that he doesnít know everything. So far, following his gut has kept everyone on the Enterprise alive for six months, saved a primitive civilization, and the Federation outside of Vulcan. Why should he bother with the opinion or ideas of others when heís good enough to save the day taking everyone else along for the ride? He has to decide whether his imperfection, his inability to solve every problem with his mind alone, is a sign of weakness to run from, or a fact of life that gives purpose to the talented crew that he leads.

Vulcan culture is centered on the idea of controlling emotion. Since the destruction of Vulcan and loss of his mother, it seems that Spock has been obsessed with the idea of controlling the emotional pain associated with death. How do you stand the sadness and fear that precedes your death, or that grows in others when you pass on? Heís tried distancing himself from Uhura. Heís risking his life trying to find out if peace is possible just before death. He wonders if anyone else has found it, when he melds with Pike, only to find more of the same.

While these are the big ideas that I enjoyed most in ďStar Trek Into Darkness,Ē there are lots of smaller storylines that help the bigger picture. While Kirk initially takes the chair for granted, believing it should rightfully be his because of his perceived greatness, Sulu and Chekov are more cautious when they are put in positions of authority. Sulu is initially in awe of command, and is unsure if heís ready. But when pushed, he rises to the occasion. Chekov is initially afraid of being made chief of engineering, but heís willing to admit his uncertainties. Kirkís subordinates are building themselves up to meet the challenge of command. Compare this to Kirk who has to deconstruct himself to settle into command. Scotty and Spock are putting their faith in the rules to act as a shield from dangers without and within, compared to Marcus who views the rules as the thing to be protected. Iím sure Spock knows that stopping the volcano on Nibiru is a drastic interference in the destiny of the planet, but after watching Vulcan die, he probably canít stand by and watch more death, especially on a planetary scale, if he can stop it.

Beyond the story, most of the visuals and performances are top notch. I have to join in with the praise for Benedict Cumberbatch. His best scenes are expressing the desperation to be free with the rest of people put in cryofreeze, and of course taking over the Vengeance. I loved listening to him basically say everything is a weapon, including the air you breathe, so one way or another everyone will submit to his will. In 30 seconds itís clear why Admiral Marcus needed Khan to advance Starfleetís weapons, and why it was impossible to keep this genie under control.

Chris Pine also succeeds in portraying a much wider range of emotions for Kirk in the second movie. Sadness over losing his father figure in Pike, fear during his death scene, the disappointment in losing the Enterprise, and many moments of humor. My favorite scene is the ďIím Allowing ItĒ brig confrontation with Khan. About once every week Iíve experienced that slow burn of contained rage in front of people you respect, and then the gradual release toward an explosion before the one you despise.

The space battles were amazing. The Enterprise cart wheeling out of warp knocks me out of my chair every time I see it. The Vengeance was a badass design. Iíd love to see a fleet attacking Klingons in some future movie. The new warp entry effect, especially in 3D, shows off the speeds and distances of interstellar travel.

No, the movie isnít perfect. My biggest problem is a tired, but I believe valid complaint. At a Star Trek convention a few years ago, Anthony Pascale from TrekMovie said what he, and most of us thought. Why go through the trouble of creating a new universe, just to revisit Trekís greatest hits. It does annoy me that Khan was brought into this story to add weight and danger to a story that was good without him. By having two villains in Marcus and Khan, spending half the movie trying to figure out who is doing what and why, neither is given the screen time needed to really dig into the characters. We all know Khan is a fascinating character who can provide a window into the best and worst of humanity. We only get quick flashes of the true depth of the character in ďSTIDĒ because by the time heís free to be himself, the movie is close to ending. Admiral Marcus could have been more than a stock evil government official, doing bad things with good intentions. While I am disappointed that the villains don't have too much depth, they did serve their purpose, moving Kirk from a know-it-all, to an observant leader.

In most political discussion, there are good and bad points on both sides of the argument. But in "STID," the bad guys are for increased military action to protect the Federation. The good guys are for just being explorers. This is too simplistic for a thorough discussion of how to keep civilization safe in the face of unimaginable threats. The story shouldn't try to answer the question. There is no easy answer. All of the points should be presented. Let the viewer decide where and why they stand on a particular side, and consider the issue from a new perspective. My favorite movies of last year, "Life of Pi," "Sound of My Voice," and "Cabin in the Woods," held up a mirror to the audience, so we could ask why do we believe what we want to believe, or why do we enjoy the things we do? It's good that this movie tried to be about something more than just blowing stuff up real good. Next time, take another step toward a more complete, less preachy look at real world issues. Yeah, I know, Trek has been traditionally preachy. But this is a new world.

On a less serious note, I can't figure out any logical reason for the Enterprise to hide in an ocean at the beginning of the movie. I understand transporters are useless near the volcano because of extreme heat and electromagnetic interference. Did the Enterprise have to come to Spock's rescue from the ocean? Couldn't it have descended from orbit, stop right above the volcano to beam Spock away, and still be seen by the inhabitants? Speaking of the people of Nibiru, I'd love to see a side story that jumps ahead 3000 years when they become interstellar explorers, and find out what their ancient god really was. A few billion people are going to have a really bad day. Thanks Captain Kirk.

There have been a few complaints about the movie that I believe can be explained.

How can a volcano kill an entire civilization? Look up supervolcano. If you live in Wyoming, maybe you shouldn't.

Why go after Khan to save Kirk's life, when you have 72 other genetically engineered people onboard? Was it confirmed that everyone had the same genetic enhancements? We know for a fact the Khan's blood can fix damaged or dead cells. It's possible that they all have the same abilities, or everyone could be slightly different. Or maybe Khan enhanced himself after being thawed and given access to Section 31 knowledge and technology, which would give him healing blood now, when he didn't have it originally. Basically, in the middle of a life and death situation, I don't have a problem with the crew working with certainties instead of assumptions.

Why beam not beam Khan and Spock up during their fight, instead of beaming someone down? One scene in the movie hurts my argument. Someone needs to stand still, have a constant velocity, or when a genius is at the controls, a constant acceleration to be safely transported. Spock and Khan were constantly changing position during their fight, even jumping from one platform to another. Yes, Carol Marcus ran across the Enterprise bridge while being transported to the Vengeance. But Spock's mother died because of her change in velocity. The movie breaks the rules of transporters in the Carol Marcus scene using an advanced, fully operational ship, not this one, when the Enterprise is literally in pieces.

"Star Trek Into Darkness" is easily my favorite movie so far of 2013. As a person with a bit of an ego, and unwillingness to admit my mistakes, Kirk's journey hit a nerve with me. I've never been much of a Kirk fan because he's been presented rather smug, knocked down on occasion, just to be rewarded in the end. It was good to see greater respect for the minds of others and the responsibilities of the chair grow within this version of Captain Kirk. The story itself is fun to follow as the mystery of why Starfleet was attacked unfolds, leading to troubling choices made under difficult conditions. The answers to what-would-you-do are not easy or pleasant. Is "Star Trek Into Darkness" my favorite Trek movie? No. It ranks third on my personal list behind "Wrath of Khan," a great tale about consequences catching up with you, and "The Motion Picture," the closest Trek films got to exploration. But it's a hell of a lot of fun with enough character and social questions to ponder long after the movie ends.

Grade: A-
http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?...postcount=3317
__________________
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 21 2013, 02:03 AM   #3321
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

RAMA wrote: View Post
Bob Orci did explain that on Trekmovie, but it's still open to question. The volcano interfered with their transporter lock unless it was line of sight. Apparently between motion and natural disasters, this timeline's transporters are quite finicky.
And yet they can beam a man from Earth to Qo'Nos. Plot-driven !

Lapis Exilis wrote: View Post
Now we've got the Robert Downey Jr. Sherlock Holmes movies which are just Sherlock flavored action movies, and Star Trek flavored action movies -but they're all just Hollywood action movies in the end.
Yeah, except that the Holmes movies are quite close, content-wise, to the original source. Closer, in fact, than anything I've seen on screen before. A bit OT, of course.
__________________
And that's my opinion.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21 2013, 02:06 AM   #3322
DarthPipes
Vice Admiral
 
DarthPipes's Avatar
 
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Chicago 103 wrote: View Post
In most political discussion, there are good and bad points on both sides of the argument. But in "STID," the bad guys are for increased military action to protect the Federation. The good guys are for just being explorers. This is too simplistic for a thorough discussion of how to keep civilization safe in the face of unimaginable threats. The story shouldn't try to answer the question. There is no easy answer. All of the points should be presented. Let the viewer decide where and why they stand on a particular side, and consider the issue from a new perspective. My favorite movies of last year, "Life of Pi," "Sound of My Voice," and "Cabin in the Woods," held up a mirror to the audience, so we could ask why do we believe what we want to believe, or why do we enjoy the things we do? It's good that this movie tried to be about something more than just blowing stuff up real good. Next time, take another step toward a more complete, less preachy look at real world issues. Yeah, I know, Trek has been traditionally preachy. But this is a new world.
Very well-said.

Last edited by M'Sharak; May 21 2013 at 05:35 AM. Reason: missing quote attribution restored
DarthPipes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21 2013, 02:21 AM   #3323
flemm
Fleet Captain
 
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

DarthPipes wrote: View Post
Chicago 103 wrote: View Post
In most political discussion, there are good and bad points on both sides of the argument. But in "STID," the bad guys are for increased military action to protect the Federation. The good guys are for just being explorers. This is too simplistic for a thorough discussion of how to keep civilization safe in the face of unimaginable threats. The story shouldn't try to answer the question. There is no easy answer. All of the points should be presented. Let the viewer decide where and why they stand on a particular side, and consider the issue from a new perspective. My favorite movies of last year, "Life of Pi," "Sound of My Voice," and "Cabin in the Woods," held up a mirror to the audience, so we could ask why do we believe what we want to believe, or why do we enjoy the things we do? It's good that this movie tried to be about something more than just blowing stuff up real good. Next time, take another step toward a more complete, less preachy look at real world issues. Yeah, I know, Trek has been traditionally preachy. But this is a new world.
Very well-said.
Admittedly, one reason I like the Section 31 concept is the challenge it provides to the main idealist and rather utopian tendencies of Star Trek.

DS9 was very good at that kind of thing. Here the idea is introduced and dismissed a bit lightly, it's another one of those aspects of the movie that has more impact if you already get the reference. Otherwise it's just the Evil Admiral trying to start a war.

Ultimately the movie doesn't come down on the side of inaction, but on what it perceives to be the more humane and ethical action.

Last edited by M'Sharak; May 21 2013 at 05:37 AM. Reason: quote attribution
flemm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21 2013, 02:23 AM   #3324
davejames
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Sac, Ca
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

RAMA wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post
flemm wrote: View Post

Visually, I thought the film was amazing, yeah.
I just bought the novelization hoping it makes the Nibiru mission make sense. It is really the only part of the film that I can't make work in my head.
Bob Orci did explain that on Trekmovie, but it's still open to question. The volcano interfered with their transporter lock unless it was line of sight. Apparently between motion and natural disasters, this timeline's transporters are quite finicky.

Also I gathered from Spock's line "that the planet will die" meant the small groups of inhabitants were all near the volcano, not that the planet itself would be destroyed.

RAMA
To me the bigger question is, if they were so worried about the Enterprise being seen by the natives, why did they park it underwater in the FIRST place-- and so freakin close to their temple??

Have they never heard of "standard orbit" in this universe?
davejames is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21 2013, 02:24 AM   #3325
RAMA
Vice Admiral
 
RAMA's Avatar
 
Location: NJ, USA
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Belz... wrote: View Post
RAMA wrote: View Post
Bob Orci did explain that on Trekmovie, but it's still open to question. The volcano interfered with their transporter lock unless it was line of sight. Apparently between motion and natural disasters, this timeline's transporters are quite finicky.
And yet they can beam a man from Earth to Qo'Nos. Plot-driven !

Lapis Exilis wrote: View Post
Now we've got the Robert Downey Jr. Sherlock Holmes movies which are just Sherlock flavored action movies, and Star Trek flavored action movies -but they're all just Hollywood action movies in the end.
Yeah, except that the Holmes movies are quite close, content-wise, to the original source. Closer, in fact, than anything I've seen on screen before. A bit OT, of course.

Well the transwarp transporter was a secret weapon developed by Khan, only a few people including Scotty would really know the concept behind it and it was not widely available. Perhaps it was even a prototype or held in reserve by Khan himself unknown to Starfleet.

The Sherlock Holmes movies bear little resemblance to Sherlock to me, though that's not a deal breaker exactly. BBC's Sherlock show is quite different but way better than the movies.
__________________
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 21 2013, 02:26 AM   #3326
Ovation
Vice Admiral
 
Location: La Belle Province or The Green Mountain State (depends on the day of the week)
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

ConRefit79 wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post
Human being human? Whodathunkit?
People today are quite different from 1813. Wouldn't you expect them to be different in the 2250's?
As any reasonably competent historian would tell you (as it is my profession I've met a few over the years)--no, not really. Whatever differences you perceive are mostly superficial.
Ovation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21 2013, 02:27 AM   #3327
flemm
Fleet Captain
 
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

davejames wrote: View Post
Have they never heard of "standard orbit" in this universe?
LoL. I think "standard orbit" has gone the way of ethical debates in the Captain's ready room

I must say, on a similar topic, that one of the greatest things about this era of Trek is the fancier window/viewer combo thing. I always hated the viewscreen.
flemm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21 2013, 02:27 AM   #3328
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

RAMA wrote: View Post
Well the transwarp transporter was a secret weapon developed by Khan, only a few people including Scotty would really know the concept behind it and it was not widely available.
Transwarp beaming was a concept developped by Prime.Scotty in the future and told to Alt.Scotty by Prime.Spock. Section 31 just appropriated it and Khan used it.
__________________
And that's my opinion.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21 2013, 02:28 AM   #3329
RAMA
Vice Admiral
 
RAMA's Avatar
 
Location: NJ, USA
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

davejames wrote: View Post
RAMA wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post

I just bought the novelization hoping it makes the Nibiru mission make sense. It is really the only part of the film that I can't make work in my head.
Bob Orci did explain that on Trekmovie, but it's still open to question. The volcano interfered with their transporter lock unless it was line of sight. Apparently between motion and natural disasters, this timeline's transporters are quite finicky.

Also I gathered from Spock's line "that the planet will die" meant the small groups of inhabitants were all near the volcano, not that the planet itself would be destroyed.

RAMA
To me the bigger question is, if they were so worried about the Enterprise being seen by the natives, why did they park it underwater in the FIRST place-- and so freakin close to their temple??

Have they never heard of "standard orbit" in this universe?
My only guess is that it was easier to hide the shuttle close to the surface rather than from higher in the atmosphere, minimizing how often they could to be seen in the sky. Or maybe Kirk had it in his head already as an emergency way to rescue Spock or anyone on the mission if there was a problem...contrary to Spock's objections.
__________________
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 21 2013, 02:31 AM   #3330
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

RAMA wrote: View Post

Also I gathered from Spock's line "that the planet will die" meant the small groups of inhabitants were all near the volcano, not that the planet itself would be destroyed.

Not necessarily just nearby.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supervolcano#VEI_8
Admiral Buzzkill 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 04:38 PM.

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