RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,202
Posts: 5,346,370
Members: 24,604
Currently online: 623
Newest member: LanCo96

TrekToday headlines

Funko Mini Spock
By: T'Bonz on Jul 23

IDW Publishing Comic Preview
By: T'Bonz on Jul 23

A Baby For Saldana
By: T'Bonz on Jul 23

Klingon Beer Arrives In The US
By: T'Bonz on Jul 22

Star Trek: Prelude To Axanar
By: T'Bonz on Jul 22

Abrams Announces Star Wars: Force For Change Sweepstakes
By: T'Bonz on Jul 22

New Funko Trek Figure
By: T'Bonz on Jul 21

Saldana As A Role Model
By: T'Bonz on Jul 21

San Diego Comic-Con Trek Fan Guide
By: T'Bonz on Jul 21

Cumberbatch As Turing
By: T'Bonz on Jul 21


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.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old June 11 2013, 01:24 AM   #61
newtontomato539
Commander
 
Re: My thoughts on and gripes with Star Trek Into Darkness

Bad Robot Trek is still being made. Live action Prime Trek is dead.

People enjoy Bad Robot and Prime Trek.

Should Bad Robot Trek be stopped just because it's not Prime Trek?
newtontomato539 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 13 2013, 03:07 AM   #62
Kanenas
Commodore
 
Re: My thoughts on and gripes with Star Trek Into Darkness

solariabsg25 wrote: View Post
Ok here we go:-

1 There was a lot of character stuff,Spock/Uhura argument, Kirk losing his mentor and father figure and having to grow from that.

2 Kirk was a rulebreaker in TOS, but in this timeline though, he's been promoted too fast and is too arrogant. Yes in TOS he was almost always proven right, but at this point in the new timeline he hasn't earned that, he's just a hothead who ignores rules that do not apply to him. By the end of the movie, he's more tempered.

3 Basically, you're saying Spock shouldn't care because he's only had Kirk as his Commanding Officer and friend for a year?

4 Scotty got more to do this movie rather than being "just gone", Sulu had a period in the spotlight last time, Chekov was still used this time, McCoy has never been the "referee" between Kirk and Spock, so not sure what you were expecting his role to be here.

5 Scotty is responsible for the safety of the ship, and therefore responsible for the ordnance. he doesn't think it's safe, he doesn't have to accept them, period. Arguing that "Romulan ships" or "being underwater" is the same as "72 great big explosive devices stored inside the ship" are the same is, well, odd.

6 I guess you missed the whole reason that Carol Marcus was around was that the Section 31 doctored info on the torpedoes did not pass muster? Also, are you assuming that Starfleet Regs means that Scotty is not allowed to resign?

7 Uhura TRIES and fails, that's the point. They didn't go in all-guns blazing, it was the last resort. I guess it would have been a better sequence if she'd succeeded then Khan just turned up and surrendered.

8 And the battering that characters have taken in past shows and movies are effectively ignored - nothing new there.

9 They may have lived or died it isn't clear - but why would the fact that he claimed earlier in the film he hadn't lost a crewmember make a difference to him losing them now? Is he infallible, or did he just not run a memorial service while he was busy with all the other life-threatening events going on? Remember all those end moments when the bridge crew are laughing and joking at the end of TOS? Yeah, a shame the M5 just killed 430 people, but yeah still the joke was funny.

10 Already been done to death that an exact replica or design of a TOS ship/sets/uniforms would look dated now - it was also never stated anywhere on screen that the wrecked moon was Praxis. Even if it is, has been a new timeline since Kirk's birth, so the Klingons may have overmined the moon earlier.

11 If McGivers hadn't changed her mind, Kirk and probably most of the bridge crew would be dead, and Khan would have been running around the galaxy in the Federations most powerful ship. Nope, he don't sound dangerous at all!

12 Prime Directive has never been consistent. I think in this case Spock was ok as long as they weren't actually seen, being able to save the planet without leaving a "footprint".

13 So, Marcus crewed his ship with loyal members of Section 31, and you're concerned they were going to follow his orders? They wouldn't be on his ship if they weren't going to. As to Kirk transmitting through his ship, he wanted his crew to know the truth of what was going on, if they survived it would be his word against Marcus - having a few hundred witnesses to the conversation would always help!

14 You can't really argue that Section 31 is incompetent because of one security guard who doesn't do his job. By that token, because the security guards were overwhelmed by some miners on Janus IV, therefore the Enterprise crew are all incompetent.

15 We don't know what kind of co-ordinate system the Federation uses, it could be sector, grid, subgrid for all we know.

16 And had Khan acted any other way then in his character (i.e. genetically-engineered superior superman), then this board will be equally filled with rants that they changed Khan.

17 Wait, you have an issue with traffic management in the future? We have almost never seen ANYTHING about the future transport system, except for the fact that when Kirk was a kid you could still drive internal-combustion cars and when he was an adult he rode a motorcycle. Who's the say the swerving and breaking cars were NOT computer avoidance programs?

18 Why not? This isn't TNG with the replicators, there may be waste they cannot recycle at this time.

19 Oh, the old "Why is there no other ship?" argument, that has been done time, and time, and time again. "Only ship in the sector" "You're the only ship in range". Boring, but been the same since forever, will never change. As to the coming out of warp thing, we don't know what kind of effect could have occurred by the Vengeance and Enterprise being in such close proximity, or perhaps Sulu got distracted by all those phaser shots tearing into the ship.

20 Khan waited for the right moment to attack, the Klingons may be busy with wars/conflict elsewhere, the Vengeance only had a small crew, that was stated onscreen. A small crew means no security patrols on every single deck.

21 Kirk has no incentive to fire the torpedoes? Those were his orders from Marcus! He wasn't supposed to try to get Khan back, he was supposed to launch all the torps. Why 72? Because THOSE WERE HIS ORDERS. Marcus expected him to carry the orders out, then be stranded by the sabotaged engines to be destroyed by the Klingons. As to why have the Enterprise destroyed, it was precisely BECAUSE it was the Federation flagshhip, to cause more outrage at home.

22 It could be just as possible that transport beaming TO a location is fine, but transwarp beaming FROM a location isn't. As to contacting Scotty, well I can phone someone on the other side of the world with my mobile phone, and I don't have a 23rd-Centruy starship to boost the signal.

23 We don't know exactly what Khan's plan was, but at the meeting he wasn't planning on killing just Marcus, he was planning on killing every single high-ranking starfleet officer that could have been used to pursue him. He may have had some plan on Kronos, but that was changed when he was informed that the Enterprise was about to fire 72 torpedoes at him.

24 Marcus would assume that Khan was in the brig, so if he decided to try and get him that's where he would be. Kirk then lied saying Khan was in engineering, to give Marcus two places to look. Misdirection, plain and simple, what's the problem? As to Space Seed, Khan had absolutely every intention of taking over the Enterprise the moment he gained consciousness - he was already studying everything he could about the ship before he knew his identity was discovered.

25 And exactly what would have happened had Carol Marcus been off the ship? Oh yeah, they would not have opened the torpedoes, and Admiral Marcus would have trashed the Enterprise without a 2nd thought. I'm glad she wasn't important.

26 Distraction AGAIN (or did you miss the Captain Chekov sequence in Star Trek V?). Kirk knew that Khan would assume someone was after them, so tried to indicate the Enterprise was just going to wait for him to surrender before attacking.

27 It wasn't fixing, it was re-aligning something that had become loose, something that may have required engineering crews with heavy tools to move.

28 We've only seen transwarp beaming send two people at once. Bit difficult to launch an invasion like that. As said earlier, we also don't know if beaming back via transwarp beaming works, so if things go wrong, you can't get your troops home.

29 They'll fly and target, but the warhead isn't very powerful. As he's only intending to killl the occupents anyway, that doesn't matter much.

30 And McCoy knows the blood of just any augment will work exactly the same as Khan's blood how???

31 Can't lock onto a constantly moving and weaving Khan, but can onto a transport that's moving in a straight line at a steady speed. Can't see a problem with that. And then if you got planetside transporters trying to lock onto Khan you got the same problem (weaving, running) except of course the added line-of-sight issue. As to calling someone, a big freaking starship just crashed into San Francisco, I'm pretty sure there'd be a few busy lines.
ALL your points on spot on. The character development was pathetic at best. The meritocracy of the federation is gone and has been replaced by childish cronyism and whining.

The daring of kirk is condemned and the effetness of go along to get along is rewarded.

Just because this poorly written movie bears the name of star trek does not give it a free pass to criticism.
Kanenas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 13 2013, 03:13 AM   #63
Kanenas
Commodore
 
Re: My thoughts on and gripes with Star Trek Into Darkness

newtontomato539 wrote: View Post
Bad Robot Trek is still being made. Live action Prime Trek is dead.

People enjoy Bad Robot and Prime Trek.

Should Bad Robot Trek be stopped just because it's not Prime Trek?
Yes, yes it should be stopped.
Kanenas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 13 2013, 05:06 AM   #64
throwback
Captain
 
Re: My thoughts on and gripes with Star Trek Into Darkness

Here is an article on the film. It ties into the theme of this thread. The writer has taken on the persona of the Hulk, which explains the article being in caps. The writer believes that action pieces have become burdened with over-convoluted plots wherein characters do their actions because the story demands it as opposed to an organic need. The writer believes that clarity is being lost in these stories.

http://badassdigest.com/2013/06/12/f...d-blockbuster/

(This is not a JJ Abrams bashing article. The writer treats Abrams as the representative of a trend in storytelling that is occurring now in Hollywood.)

For me, after reading this article, I think one of the aspects I miss most from the older Star Trek films, and older blockbusters generally, was their clarity. Sure, there were plot holes - things that weren't explained. However, I never did leave the theater attempting to put the pieces of what I had seen together and feeling that I was drowning in the process. I bought the novel hoping for answers, and the novel left me feeling unsatisfied.

The article ends,

AS THE RAID HOPEFULLY PROVES, CONVINCING SOMEONE OF A CINEMATIC REALITY CAN BE SURPRISINGLY EASY (AND HEY WE HAVE ENTIRE MILLENNIA OF TRADITIONAL DRAMA TO DRAW ON IN CASE YOU’RE LOST), BUT THAT CLARITY IS ALL THAT TRULY MATTERS. AS AUDIENCE MEMBERS, ALL WE EVER REALLY WANT TO DO CONNECT AND UNDERSTAND THOSE BIG PEOPLE ON THE SCREEN IN FRONT OF US. WE WANT THAT MOVIE SCREEN TO ACT LIKE A PORTAL TO ANOTHER WORLD, ONE WE CAN SIMPLY DRIFT INTO AND BE A PART OF. SURE, YOU NEED VIBRANT VISUALS AND VISCERAL FILMMAKING TO ACHIEVE THAT, BUT YOU REALLY NEED CLARITY TO UNDERSTAND AND EXPERIENCE IT. TO FEEL EXACTLY LIKE THE PEOPLE ON SCREEN. THAT’S ALWAYS THE ENDGAME OF THE STORYTELLING: THE DESIRE TO REACH OUT AND TOUCH OTHER HUMANS IS THE CENTERPIECE OF ARTISTIC INCLINATION, BOTH FOR THE ARTIST AND THE AUDIENCE. IT'S ALL PART AND PARCEL OF THE INNATE DESIRE NOT TO FEEL ALONE IN THIS UNIVERSE. AND TO DO THAT…
WE REALLY NEED TO QUIT IT WITH THE CONVOLUTION.
The Raid is an Indonesian martial arts action film. ([http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Raid:_Redemption)
throwback is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 13 2013, 05:08 AM   #65
Set Harth
Rear Admiral
 
Set Harth's Avatar
 
Location: Gallifrey Falls
Re: My thoughts on and gripes with Star Trek Into Darkness

Alex1939 wrote:
Copying this from a comment on RLM review.

"You totally misunderstood the plot that was all exposed by Cumberbatch.
RLM has a history of totally misunderstanding plots.
__________________
"In the future... do I make it?"
"No."
Set Harth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 13 2013, 07:15 AM   #66
Khaaaaan
Ensign
 
Location: London, UK
Re: My thoughts on and gripes with Star Trek Into Darkness

Finally saw this today at the cinema today (in 2D).

A few points (although not much which hasn't been covered already).

1) It looks brilliant. Genuinely lovely looking sets, depth detail - the mix of CGI/proper props is spot on. I really like the effort made for the Enterprise's interior - especially the engine room/warp cores.

2) Some great acting all round. (Even Pegg has stepped it up as Scotty).

3) Why so much lens flare? Is it supposed to make the conversations more exciting? I didn't think it as overused as the first film but I'm not quite sure what it adds to the film.

4) Super fast paced film. As has been mentioned in previous posts, there are a number of plot holes however the pace of the film is such that you don't really think about them (or rather ignore them) in view of the relentless action.

5) "What are you injecting that Tribble with...?" I think it was fairly obvious what was going to happen after this.

6) Why bother recreating the whole reactor core/WoK situation when 1) We all know Kirk isn't allowed to die 2) We have already predicted how he's going to be brought back to life 3) The relationship hasn't developed enough to portray/sustain the emotionality of the situation. 4) Is this simply a nod to the Trekkies? I like nods/in jokes, but I don't just want a rehash for the sake of it.

My real bother was that the blood was very much an ill thought out (or at least very shortsighted) 'deus ex machina'. So now, death/disease will not be an issue with Khan's blood? That'll revolutionise the future NHS.

7) I wasn't a massive fan of the old Spock scene, seemed a bit of a cop out.

8) Overall, I thought it a good fun film. Looks great, some brilliant action and I think you can forgive its (fairly minor in the scheme of things) failings.
Khaaaaan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 13 2013, 09:31 AM   #67
Charles Phipps
Commander
 
Charles Phipps's Avatar
 
Re: My thoughts on and gripes with Star Trek Into Darkness

I felt this was a vast improvement over Star Trek 2013 because it nicely dovetailed into Star Trek's "high ideals." The first film had better characterization and development but this one did a pretty good amount of social satire. It's not DEEP social satire and it's arguably a decade too late since Enterprise was ALL ABOUT the War on Terror but it did it better than ENT so I can't complain too much.

Ironically, I think a fairly solid film is here that's worthy of the best Star Trek has to offer, it's just drowned by the Wrath of Khan rip-off. Just keep with John Harrison being a Section 31 agent off the reservation trying to prevent a war with the Klingon empire through terrorism and you have a GASP actual moral dilemma.

I wonder why they went with this inferior version.
__________________
Check out the United Federation of Charles:
http://unitedfederationofcharles.blogspot.com/
Charles Phipps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 13 2013, 01:16 PM   #68
newtontomato539
Commander
 
Re: My thoughts on and gripes with Star Trek Into Darkness

Kanenas wrote: View Post
newtontomato539 wrote: View Post
Bad Robot Trek is still being made. Live action Prime Trek is dead.

People enjoy Bad Robot and Prime Trek.

Should Bad Robot Trek be stopped just because it's not Prime Trek?
Yes, yes it should be stopped.
If Bad Robot Trek is dead, then there will be no more Star Trek.

Just because something is not explained, does not make it a Plot Hole. tm

Lastly, Simon Pegg was great as Scotty in the previous film.
newtontomato539 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 13 2013, 01:42 PM   #69
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: My thoughts on and gripes with Star Trek Into Darkness

Khaaaaan wrote: View Post
3) The relationship hasn't developed enough to portray/sustain the emotionality of the situation.
I've heard this a couple of times and really don't get it. When you click with someone you care about them, whether you've known them one year or fifteen.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 13 2013, 02:47 PM   #70
Khaaaaan
Ensign
 
Location: London, UK
Re: My thoughts on and gripes with Star Trek Into Darkness

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
Khaaaaan wrote: View Post
3) The relationship hasn't developed enough to portray/sustain the emotionality of the situation.
I've heard this a couple of times and really don't get it. When you click with someone you care about them, whether you've known them one year or fifteen.
It is to do with the understanding/appreciation the audience have for the relationship.

In WoK, Kirk and Spock had previously been through a lot. We know and appreciate their strong friendship. As such, we can understand the devastation shown by Kirk for Spock's sacrifice.

In the new film, Kirk and Spock seem to be arguing all the time. I'd hardly call them 'friends' as they just about tolerate each other. After only two films of getting to know them, to mimic the famous warp core scene is forced and tbh lazy writing imo.

Is Hollywood so devoid of original stories?
Khaaaaan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 13 2013, 03:26 PM   #71
Ovation
Vice Admiral
 
Location: La Belle Province or The Green Mountain State (depends on the day of the week)
Re: My thoughts on and gripes with Star Trek Into Darkness

Khaaaaan wrote: View Post
King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
Khaaaaan wrote: View Post
3) The relationship hasn't developed enough to portray/sustain the emotionality of the situation.
I've heard this a couple of times and really don't get it. When you click with someone you care about them, whether you've known them one year or fifteen.
It is to do with the understanding/appreciation the audience have for the relationship.

In WoK, Kirk and Spock had previously been through a lot. We know and appreciate their strong friendship. As such, we can understand the devastation shown by Kirk for Spock's sacrifice.

In the new film, Kirk and Spock seem to be arguing all the time. I'd hardly call them 'friends' as they just about tolerate each other. After only two films of getting to know them, to mimic the famous warp core scene is forced and tbh lazy writing imo.

Is Hollywood so devoid of original stories?
Originality is overrated when it comes to entertainment. It can result in something great but it is hardly a guarantee of such.

As for the scene vs length of friendship issue, I didn't read Spock's anguish as forced. He's mourning the loss of what might have been, having had just enough of a taste of its potential. Add to that all the other things he's had to cope with in the two films (and the revealing statement he makes in the civilian ship) and it becomes clear that this Spock is facing emotional trauma on a scale unmatched by Nimoy's Spock--and at an earlier, less experienced and mature point in his life. His inability to reign in the emotions--more powerful than human versions--is thus quite understandable.
Ovation is online now   Reply With Quote
Old June 13 2013, 04:06 PM   #72
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: My thoughts on and gripes with Star Trek Into Darkness

Ometiklan wrote: View Post
I have been a Star Trek fan forever and it is my favorite fictional universe. I really enjoyed Star Trek (2009), still anticipate rewatching it over and over, and have been looking forward to Into Darkness since 2009. As a pure summer actiony movie, Into Darkness is good. As a Star Trek movie (even a rebooted universe movie) it is terrible...
tl;dr

You're gonna have to realize, sooner or later, that despite our impressions 40 years after the fact, the original Star Trek was neither especially deep nor highly intellectual. The last two Star Trek movies capture the TOS feel more faithfully than you realize: fancy special effects, cool space battles, scary-looking aliens and crazy bad guys with incomprehensible motives who must be stopped at all cost. Admiral Marcus, for example, would look more familiar to you if he'd been named "Admiral Garth" or "Admiral Tracey," for example.

TOS, in its day, was simplistic and shallow in an age where science fiction had a tendency to BE simplistic and shallow. Since that hasn't changed much in the movie industry, guess what? Star Trek Into Darkness is ALSO simplistic and shallow. But you must remember that it wasn't the scientific depth and worldbuilding that drew the original fans to Star Trek. It was Kirk, Spock and McCoy.

Maybe they'll do something different when they reboot Voyager or TNG, but TOS was always known for strong characters, not strong storylines.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 13 2013, 04:11 PM   #73
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: My thoughts on and gripes with Star Trek Into Darkness

Khaaaaan wrote: View Post
In the new film, Kirk and Spock seem to be arguing all the time. I'd hardly call them 'friends' as they just about tolerate each other.
You're right. That sounds more like marriage.

Is Hollywood so devoid of original stories?
Star Trek probably is.

Then again, the core scene works well in the context of the movie itself. They did, after all, spend pretty much the entire movie developing Kirk and Spock's relationship, not to mention expanding on Spock and Uhura. Towards the end, they argue more like brothers than like friends.

Charles Phipps wrote: View Post
I felt this was a vast improvement over Star Trek 2013 because it nicely dovetailed into Star Trek's "high ideals." The first film had better characterization and development but this one did a pretty good amount of social satire. It's not DEEP social satire and it's arguably a decade too late since Enterprise was ALL ABOUT the War on Terror but it did it better than ENT so I can't complain too much.

Ironically, I think a fairly solid film is here that's worthy of the best Star Trek has to offer, it's just drowned by the Wrath of Khan rip-off. Just keep with John Harrison being a Section 31 agent off the reservation trying to prevent a war with the Klingon empire through terrorism and you have a GASP actual moral dilemma.

I wonder why they went with this inferior version.
Because moral dilemmas are vague and abstract. Khan, as a human being specifically created for war and conquest, is the personification of that moral dilemma. Thus defeating Khan and also Marcus effectively solves the moral dilemma (though not the strategic one involving the Klingons) and leaves us with a relatively satisfying conclusion.

The moral dilemma is whether or not it is acceptable to indiscriminately deploy weapons to destroy your enemies without due process, without considering collateral damage, without considering the broader consequences of what you're about to do. In that sense, Khan is effectively a walking box of unintended consequences.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!

Last edited by Crazy Eddie; June 13 2013 at 04:25 PM.
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 13 2013, 05:53 PM   #74
newtontomato539
Commander
 
Re: My thoughts on and gripes with Star Trek Into Darkness

I agree.

Constantly whining that it's not Prime Trek but later admitting that if it was Prime Trek, it would be accepted is getting old. Fast.
newtontomato539 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 13 2013, 06:15 PM   #75
M'Sharak
Definitely Herbert. Maybe.
 
M'Sharak's Avatar
 
Location: Terra Inlandia
Re: My thoughts on and gripes with Star Trek Into Darkness

newtontomato539 wrote: View Post
I agree.

Constantly whining that it's not Prime Trek but later admitting that if it was Prime Trek, it would be accepted is getting old. Fast.
Warning for spamming. Comments to PM.
__________________
Dinosaurs are just really, really big chickens.
M'Sharak is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

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 06:11 AM.

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