RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,271
Posts: 5,349,733
Members: 24,610
Currently online: 694
Newest member: VST

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: His Way
By: Michelle on Jul 26

MicroWarriors Releases Next Week
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25

Ships Of The Line Design Contest
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25

Next Weekend: Shore Leave 36!
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25

True Trek History To Be Penned
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25

Insight Editions Announces Three Trek Books For 2015
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24

To Be Takei Review by Spencer Blohm
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24

Mulgrew: Playing Red
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24

Hallmark 2015 Trek Ornaments
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24

Funko Mini Spock
By: T'Bonz on Jul 23


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+ 143 19.32%
A 160 21.62%
A- 99 13.38%
B+ 82 11.08%
B 58 7.84%
B- 27 3.65%
C+ 40 5.41%
C 38 5.14%
C- 24 3.24%
D+ 11 1.49%
D 13 1.76%
D- 10 1.35%
F 35 4.73%
Voters: 740. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old June 6 2013, 06:39 PM   #4111
KittyDuran
Lieutenant Commander
 
KittyDuran's Avatar
 
Location: Hungry (like the wolf)
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

AnnLouise wrote: View Post
Yeah. Performance quality and charisma are mutually exclusive.

I think Cumby gave a fantastic performance, but his Khan was no where near as charismatic as Monty's
He gave a great performance as somebody named "John Harrison" as far as that went. But as Khan, not so much. Even if the characters in this timeline know squat about who he is, the audience sure does, and I hoped to see some elements of Khan from TWOK presented in a new way. Why carryover the name if it adds nothing to the story?

Oh, and I still don't understand when Khan and the Admiral fell out.
Probably when he asked for his crew to be relived - or was caught trying to do so...
KittyDuran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 6 2013, 06:51 PM   #4112
Franklin
Rear Admiral
 
Location: In the bleachers
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

I think the entire scene was hyperbole to show just how reckless Kirk and his crew probably were over the last year. To that end, I think it worked marvelously. Think of all the careless, reckless, and not fully thought out things going on (some of which were even called out in the movie). This is where Kirk was relying fully on luck, something that in TWOK, Kirk Prime realized he relied on far too often. In this case, it's still young Kirk probably thinking he's a genius:

-- Enterprise under water. Hey, gotta hide it somewhere. Scotty even thinks it's stupid, which lends some on-screen credibility to it being simply a reckless act by Kirk. Why's the Enterprise under water? There is no good answer,only rationalization. It was stupid, and it was called stupid.

-- Kirk and McCoy's "distraction" of the natives risked the lives of a starship captain and a chief medical officer. Think of how lucky they were that the natives are bad aims or neither of them tripped and fell running through that native grass.

-- Sending Spock down into the volcano. Pike said that was stupid.

-- Sending the shuttle in without extra shielding added to it. They come up with a device to freeze a volcano and a suit to protect Spock, but there's nothing that can add extra protection to a shuttle that's going to hover over an active volcano?

-- The idea that they all willingly take on the mission in the first place. Did anyone think it through? There were no other alternatives?

-- Of course, there's also the problematic nature of the transporter when it would be really useful, which is a Trek storytelling staple and is the reason for all these convoluted events.

I think the point of the entire scene was to show that these were still kids playing with adult things.
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. -- Mark Twain
Franklin is online now   Reply With Quote
Old June 6 2013, 06:58 PM   #4113
indranee
Vice Admiral
 
indranee's Avatar
 
Location: Warrrrrrrrrshington, DC
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Franklin wrote: View Post
I think the entire scene was hyperbole to show just how reckless Kirk and his crew probably were over the last year. To that end, I think it worked marvelously. Think of all the careless, reckless, and not fully thought out things going on (some of which were even called out in the movie). This is where Kirk was relying fully on luck, something that in TWOK, Kirk Prime realized he relied on far too often. In this case, it's still young Kirk probably thinking he's a genius:

-- Enterprise under water. Hey, gotta hide it somewhere. Scotty even thinks it's stupid, which lends some on-screen credibility to it being simply a reckless act by Kirk. Why's the Enterprise under water? There is no good answer,only rationalization. It was stupid, and it was called stupid.

-- Kirk and McCoy's "distraction" of the natives risked the lives of a starship captain and a chief medical officer. Think of how lucky they were that the natives are bad aims or neither of them tripped and fell running through that native grass.

-- Sending Spock down into the volcano. Pike said that was stupid.

-- Sending the shuttle in without extra shielding added to it. They come up with a device to freeze a volcano and a suit to protect Spock, but there's nothing that can add extra protection to a shuttle that's going to hover over an active volcano?

-- The idea that they all willingly take on the mission in the first place. Did anyone think it through? There were no other alternatives?

-- Of course, there's also the problematic nature of the transporter when it would be really useful, which is a Trek storytelling staple and is the reason for all these convoluted events.

I think the point of the entire scene was to show that these were still kids playing with adult things.
That is one of the sanest posts I've read on this board since this madness began. Or you're just one of Abrams' better shills.
indranee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 6 2013, 07:34 PM   #4114
M'Sharak
Definitely Herbert. Maybe.
 
M'Sharak's Avatar
 
Location: Terra Inlandia
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

He's good, that Franklin.
__________________
Dinosaurs are just really, really big chickens.
M'Sharak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 6 2013, 09:18 PM   #4115
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: In the 23rd Century...
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Franklin wrote: View Post

I think the point of the entire scene was to show that these were still kids playing with adult things.
Best explanation I've seen yet.
__________________
"I had no idea you were so... formidable. " - Anan 7 to James T. Kirk, A Taste of Armageddon
BillJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old June 7 2013, 12:11 AM   #4116
Mr. Laser Beam
Fleet Admiral
 
Mr. Laser Beam's Avatar
 
Location: The visitor's bullpen
View Mr. Laser Beam's Twitter Profile
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Guess the fusion device that Spock sets off, couldn't simply have been dropped or beamed into the volcano from above...
__________________
In labor news: Longshoremen walked off the piers today. Rescue operations are continuing.
Mr. Laser Beam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 7 2013, 08:54 AM   #4117
StarMan
Vice Admiral
 
StarMan's Avatar
 
Location: ... in another place.
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

^Good lord, we're not talking about a regular plug and play fusion device here! It's COLD fusion technology. It's a whole different ball game!

Franklin wrote: View Post
I think the point of the entire scene was to show that these were still kids playing with adult things.
So the kids get a pass because Starfleet had the poor judgement to give them the flagship to play with in the first place. Incompetency at the highest levels of SF Command? Well, I guess that does follow tradition. So, whereas in the past Our Heroes™ were the smart ones and the Admirals were stir crazy, now the whole lot are idiots.
__________________
Let's rock!

Last edited by StarMan; June 7 2013 at 09:06 AM.
StarMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 7 2013, 01:06 PM   #4118
CommishSleer
Fleet Captain
 
CommishSleer's Avatar
 
Location: Way back of nowhere
View CommishSleer's Twitter Profile
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

StarMan wrote: View Post
^Good lord, we're not talking about a regular plug and play fusion device here! It's COLD fusion technology. It's a whole different ball game!

Franklin wrote: View Post
I think the point of the entire scene was to show that these were still kids playing with adult things.
So the kids get a pass because Starfleet had the poor judgement to give them the flagship to play with in the first place. Incompetency at the highest levels of SF Command? Well, I guess that does follow tradition. So, whereas in the past Our Heroes™ were the smart ones and the Admirals were stir crazy, now the whole lot are idiots.
So what did nuKirk actually do wrong?

He saved a pre-Warp civilisation from death instead of watching them die.
He should have thought - What would have Picard done in this situation? He would have let them die and then lectured Data about it.
CommishSleer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 7 2013, 02:55 PM   #4119
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]

Saw it again last night, this time in IMAX 3D on a "real" IMAX screen (one designed for 15/70 film which is the full IMAX resolution--this is a lot rarer than the many Digital IMAX cinemas that have opened up over the past 5-7 years or so). From a story standpoint, IMAX doesn't make any difference but from a sheer spectacle standpoint, the portions filmed with IMAX cameras shine in a way a regular format simply cannot match (as was the case for the second and third Nolan Batman movies). The 3D was not headache inducing, as it usually is for me (only other time it wasn't was another IMAX 3D presentation--The Hobbit), but I didn't find it added anything to the experience (obviously a personal opinion--I know many are very enthused by 3D). Ideally, I'd like to see a 2D IMAX presentation, but there are none to be found anywhere nearby (if anywhere at all). I just hope the Blu-ray release includes a version with changing aspect ratios, like the Nolan movies, though I'm not holding my breath.

So much for the technical notes.

The story holds up to repeat viewing, as any alleged (and real) flaws are not so glaring as to make it fall apart--no more so than the vast majority of films out there (including very highly regarded ones). I could pick a few nits here and there, but I could do that for every single episode and film across all Trek series--what would be the point? In the end, I was even more entertained the second time around (which is good, considering the asking price for a 3D IMAX ticket in these parts) and I look forward to watching it again, as well as any new stuff produced by this team.

As for the reasonable complaints I've seen/heard/read--I think a lot of it results from the two films by this team being a palimpsest (your vocab word of the day, as my English teacher used to say ) of Trek rather than a fully realized exploration of one's particularly favourite aspect of Trek. Large cast, but not an ensemble approach like TNG-era Trek. Better treatment of women than in TOS, but not as egalitarian as in TNG-era Trek. Makes the kind of moral and ethical argument for which TOS is fondly remembered (the stance against drones/targeted killing), but doesn't spend a significant, uninterrupted chunk of the film focused on the debate. Use of "magic tech" but insufficient time spent on explaining how it works "in-universe" so as to frustrate those who like such technical elements. Kirk suffers consequence of too swift promotion, but that is too quickly resolved to seem substantial. I could go on but I think this is enough to make my point. The ideal solution to all this? Probably a TV series. Movies simply don't have the time to explore any of the above in any detail. So we get a sprinkling (it is a lot like the difference between teaching a course called World History and one called The History of Vermont--I've done both and each has its frustrations, as well as its rewards, regarding breadth and depth of discussion and study). And since the filmmakers cannot possibly satisfy everyone's ideal notion of Trek (among those who have such a thing), they've put forth something they enjoy and hope the audience does too. On that score, they appear to have succeeded quite well (given both critical and audience word of mouth reaction).
Ovation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 7 2013, 03:04 PM   #4120
Franklin
Rear Admiral
 
Location: In the bleachers
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

StarMan wrote: View Post
^Good lord, we're not talking about a regular plug and play fusion device here! It's COLD fusion technology. It's a whole different ball game!

Franklin wrote: View Post
I think the point of the entire scene was to show that these were still kids playing with adult things.
So the kids get a pass because Starfleet had the poor judgement to give them the flagship to play with in the first place. Incompetency at the highest levels of SF Command? Well, I guess that does follow tradition. So, whereas in the past Our Heroes™ were the smart ones and the Admirals were stir crazy, now the whole lot are idiots.
Uh, no. No one said incompetent. Green? Yes. Reckless? Yes. A little too fearless? Yes. And no one gets a pass, either. He undoubtedly embarrassed Pike over the year. And, Kirk was finally punished, and he should have been. Not so much for the PD, but for his behavior and lying in his official ship's log (a federal offense in the U.S. in today's world).

We never saw the young Kirk Prime. We don't know how his judgement evolved. Twice in his older life he was critical of himself. He said once he relied too much on luck thinking it was skill, and another time he said he was the "fools rush in" type.

As far as the volcano goes, a more mature Kirk or Kirk Prime would've saved that world, too, but his methods would've been more thought through and "conventional," I'm sure.
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. -- Mark Twain

Last edited by Franklin; June 7 2013 at 04:36 PM.
Franklin is online now   Reply With Quote
Old June 7 2013, 04:31 PM   #4121
The Stig
Rear Admiral
 
The Stig's Avatar
 
Location: Dunsfold Aerodrome, Surrey
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Shazam! wrote: View Post
KittyDuran wrote: View Post
About the starship underwater... I just assumed that they somehow warped into the ocean like the Enterprise did into the atmosphere of Titan in ST09 then rising out of the clouds in front of Saturn. Anyhow, that is my unscientific take... .
And caused a tsunami the size of the USS Vengeance.

Given the casual nature of transporter technology I'd be more inclined to believe that they beamed the Enterprise down there. Scotty did it with some hand waving over a console.
I'm not at all convinced that 'warp speed' has any kind of momentum during the deceleration. There was virtually no disturbance to the atmosphere of Titan when the Enterprise 'landed.' It's more of a "We're done distorting the fabric of the universe" kind of thing, rather than "We just applied the brakes at a thousand times the speed of light."

I hadn't considered that the Enterprise had actually dropped out of warp in the ocean, but that would have been fantastic to watch. I think it's more likely they arrived under the cover of darkness after observing the local population to ensure that no one was watching.

As for the whys and wherefores, as metioned by several people (including the screenwriters) there are several in-universe reasons that could have factored into the decision to bring the Enterprise down to the planet's surface. Having them explicitly spelled-out doesn't really have an upside and would have put the brakes on an otherwise thrilling cold-open.
__________________
Some say that he was the first choice to play the new Doctor but turned it down when he couldn't put racing stripes on the TARDIS.

All we know is, he's called The Stig.
The Stig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 7 2013, 04:47 PM   #4122
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

The Stig wrote: View Post
...there are several in-universe reasons that could have factored into the decision to bring the Enterprise down to the planet's surface. Having them explicitly spelled-out doesn't really have an upside and would have put the brakes on an otherwise thrilling cold-open.
Yep.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 7 2013, 04:55 PM   #4123
Franklin
Rear Admiral
 
Location: In the bleachers
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

OK. Here's how Kirk Prime would've done it. Easy peasy, and not at all as entertaining. Remember, no transporters.

As Stig said, use the cover of darkness. Send a shuttle down from orbit. The shuttle is reinforced to withstand the heat being put out by the volcano. Scotty has even added extra thrusters and stabilizers to cope with any turbulence.

Once in place, Spock uses his tricorder to scan the maw of the volcano for an appropriate spot to deliver the freezing device. Once found, the device is attached to a probe and delivered to the spot by Spock using a fly-by-wire system. Once there, the timer is activated, the shuttle leaves, and the device detonates.

That requires only two concessions: I would think 23rd century technology would be good enough for a fly-by-wire system to deliver the device (considering we have it now), and also good enough for activating devices by remote control from short distances even inside a volcano (considering we can already activate devices on other planets remotely).

Now let's say that took nine minutes. Which nine minutes would you like to see? That, or the original?
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. -- Mark Twain
Franklin is online now   Reply With Quote
Old June 7 2013, 05:11 PM   #4124
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Pfft.... OldKirk would have phasered the volcano from orbit.
__________________
And that's my opinion.

The Onmyouza Theatre: an unofficial international fanclub dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 7 2013, 05:19 PM   #4125
beamMe
Fleet Captain
 
beamMe's Avatar
 
Location: Europa
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Belz... wrote: View Post
Pfft.... OldKirk would have phasered the volcano from orbit.
The only way to be sure.
beamMe 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 04:45 PM.

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