RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,383
Posts: 5,505,063
Members: 25,126
Currently online: 573
Newest member: Captain Allen

TrekToday headlines

Star Trek Opera
By: T'Bonz on Dec 19

New Abrams Project
By: T'Bonz on Dec 18

IDW Publishing March 2015 Comics
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17

Paramount Star Trek 3 Expectations
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17

Star Trek #39 Sneak Peek
By: T'Bonz on Dec 16

Star Trek 3 Potential Director Shortlist
By: T'Bonz on Dec 16

Official Starships Collection Update
By: T'Bonz on Dec 15

Retro Review: Prodigal Daughter
By: Michelle on Dec 13

Sindicate Lager To Debut In The US Next Week
By: T'Bonz on Dec 12

Rumor Mill: Saldana Gives Birth
By: T'Bonz on Dec 12


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 June 6 2013, 03:26 AM   #4081
Shaka Zulu
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Bulawayo Military Krral
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Therin of Andor wrote: View Post
I'm still not understanding why Benedict Cumberbatch has done a disservice to all swarthy male actors of the world by accepting the part of John Harrison, nor why JJ Abrams has committed a crime by hiring who he felt had given the best audition.

Like I inferred by showing the links, you've got to ask those people at said links why this is.
Shaka Zulu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 6 2013, 04:19 AM   #4082
throwback
Captain
 
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

For the flaws of this movie, it has one flaw that I am glad to see is not there. It's not boring. i watched the latest Die Hard film - man, that was boring. It literally put me to sleep.
throwback is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 6 2013, 05:40 AM   #4083
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Shaka Zulu wrote: View Post
Therin of Andor wrote: View Post
I'm still not understanding why Benedict Cumberbatch has done a disservice to all swarthy male actors of the world by accepting the part of John Harrison, nor why JJ Abrams has committed a crime by hiring who he felt had given the best audition.

Like I inferred by showing the links, you've got to ask those people at said links why this is.
No. We really don't.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 6 2013, 01:41 PM   #4084
Therin of Andor
Admiral
 
Therin of Andor's Avatar
 
Location: New Therin Park, Andor (via Australia)
View Therin of Andor's Twitter Profile
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Shaka Zulu wrote: View Post
Like I inferred by showing the links, you've got to ask those people at said links why this is.
I was addressing Ryan8bit, not you - nor "the people at said links".
__________________
Thiptho lapth! Ian (Entire post is personal opinion)
The Andor Files @ http://andorfiles.blogspot.com/
http://therinofandor.blogspot.com/
Therin of Andor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 6 2013, 03:17 PM   #4085
Ryan8bit
Commodore
 
Ryan8bit's Avatar
 
Location: St. Paul, MN
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Of course, I never said that Cumberbatch or Abrams did swarthy people a disservice or a "crime." That's all you, or perhaps actually those links that Shaka's referring to.
Ryan8bit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 6 2013, 03:37 PM   #4086
Shazam!
Rear Admiral
 
Shazam!'s Avatar
 
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Kegg wrote: View Post
Liked the movie (though slightly less than '09's), but like the last one the villain really was one of the weakest things about it.
I liked it more. Red magic stuff that either sends you back in time or destroys things depending on what the plot calls for is infinitely worse than any of STID's flaws.

I wasn't offended by the use of Khan (or the ethnicity of the actor playing him) but I thought it was a shame that having gotten over the hurdle of being burdened by having to distance themselves of what came before they went right back to well at the first opportunity.

I thought it had a good first two thirds but then fell off a cliff in its final act, especially having to put up with an overblown special effects laden fisticuffs battle that ends with Uhura just beaming down right behind and shooting him.

Last edited by Shazam!; June 6 2013 at 04:29 PM.
Shazam! is online now   Reply With Quote
Old June 6 2013, 03:38 PM   #4087
flavaflav
Commander
 
flavaflav's Avatar
 
Location: Illadelph
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Locutus of Bored wrote: View Post
Explain how it is a "plot hole." I can get not liking it, but that doesn't necessarily make it a plot hole.
landing a starship in the the ocean for no good reason other than purposely wanting to be seen by an alien race you're supposed to have no contact with. They could have taken a shuttle down or transported. It's nothing more than an overdone action/fx sequence to get the movie going. The stupidity shown by the crew in that sequence is mindblowing.

As far as a lack of screen time... Checkov was on screeen for what, 2 minutes total if he was lucky? Scotty is off getting drunk for 3/4 of the movie. McCoy is around plenty, but he doesn't do much of anything except get his hand stuck in a torpedo. Overall, the first nuST gave us way more character development. This one, not so much due to introducing a character that brought nothing to the table except eye candy.

If Khan is Sikh, that can make him Asian or Middle Eastern. Regardless, we're splitting atoms on that issue. He obviously shouldn't be a brooding, monotone Brit. If they would have said, in movie, he had a sex change, I'm fine with that... but they didn't, so the complaint is valid imo.
flavaflav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 6 2013, 04:26 PM   #4088
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

flavaflav wrote: View Post
Locutus of Bored wrote: View Post
Explain how it is a "plot hole." I can get not liking it, but that doesn't necessarily make it a plot hole.
landing a starship in the the ocean for no good reason other than purposely wanting to be seen by an alien race you're supposed to have no contact with. They could have taken a shuttle down or transported. It's nothing more than an overdone action/fx sequence to get the movie going.
And yet, having repeated all that...you still haven't explained how the sequence is in any sense a "plot hole."

Between this and the misuse of words like "misogyny" elsewhere it's looking like the only way some folks can find to criticize the movie is to invent a new language or code which only passingly resembles the look of English.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 6 2013, 04:34 PM   #4089
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

A plot hole, or plothole, a play on the word "pothole," is a gap or inconsistency in a storyline that goes against the flow of logic established by the story's plot, or constitutes a blatant omission of relevant information regarding the plot sometimes even contradicting itself. These include such things as unlikely behaviour or actions of characters, illogical or impossible events, events happening for no apparent reason, or statements/events that contradict earlier events in the storyline.
As cool as I think the "Enterprise rising out of the ocean" bit is, there really is no apparent reason for it to need to happen.
__________________
"...the most elementary and valuable statement in science, the beginning of wisdom, is I do not know." - Lt. Commander Data, "Where Silence Has Lease"
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 6 2013, 04:38 PM   #4090
Ryan8bit
Commodore
 
Ryan8bit's Avatar
 
Location: St. Paul, MN
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

I thought it was pretty cool too, and I understand the criticisms against it, but I think there was a reason, even if the reason is kinda poor. I wouldn't really call it a plot hole.
Ryan8bit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 6 2013, 04:39 PM   #4091
Shazam!
Rear Admiral
 
Shazam!'s Avatar
 
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

I actually think it would fall under 'illogical' as opposed to happening for no reason.
Shazam! is online now   Reply With Quote
Old June 6 2013, 04:41 PM   #4092
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

BillJ wrote: View Post
A plot hole, or plothole, a play on the word "pothole," is a gap or inconsistency in a storyline that goes against the flow of logic established by the story's plot, or constitutes a blatant omission of relevant information regarding the plot sometimes even contradicting itself. These include such things as unlikely behaviour or actions of characters, illogical or impossible events, events happening for no apparent reason, or statements/events that contradict earlier events in the storyline.
As cool as I think the "Enterprise rising out of the ocean" bit is, there really is no apparent reason for it to need to happen.
That's not so, because what's meant by "apparent reason" with regard to plot isn't a question of whether something can be defended in real world terms.

The "apparent reason" that Enterprise needs to surface is because they need to be in the air over the volcano for the transporter to work properly, and they've been submerged to hide from the locals. All of that is explicitly set up and stated.

There's no plot hole there. People can argue about whether they should have been underwater on other terms, but not as a "plot hole."
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 6 2013, 04:41 PM   #4093
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Shazam! wrote: View Post
I actually think it would fall under 'illogical' as opposed to happening for no reason.
I can go either way. With transporters, there was no reason to hide the ship under water. With transporters, there was no logical reason to hide the ship under water.
__________________
"...the most elementary and valuable statement in science, the beginning of wisdom, is I do not know." - Lt. Commander Data, "Where Silence Has Lease"
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 6 2013, 04:42 PM   #4094
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

flavaflav wrote: View Post
landing a starship in the the ocean for no good reason other than purposely wanting to be seen by an alien race you're supposed to have no contact with. They could have taken a shuttle down or transported. It's nothing more than an overdone action/fx sequence to get the movie going.
Wait, isn't that a good thing ?
__________________
And that's my opinion.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 6 2013, 04:48 PM   #4095
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

It's not at all illogical. The arguments against it have to do with how the faux technology of Star Trek works, not the logic of the events themselves.

Logic is built from premises. The premises established here is that Enterprise has to hide from the locals in order to obey the PD, and that the locals are presumably unable to detect the ship under water. So, it's logical to hide the ship under water. Therefore, when an unexpected problem arises and they need a line of sight for an emergency transport they have to surface.

"Oh, but they don't need to/can't do that because we know that the ship can't do that/can do this" is a matter of bringing other continuity to bear on the logic of the events, as if established continuity constitutes a relevant body of fact. That in itself is arguable.

It shouldn't need to be said that challenging anything as being an "impossible event" is completely meaningless in Star Trek or most other fantasy movies.
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 12:57 AM.

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