RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,915
Posts: 5,388,831
Members: 24,717
Currently online: 560
Newest member: fanshere

TrekToday headlines

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old June 21 2013, 03:24 PM   #16
Charles Phipps
Commander
 
Charles Phipps's Avatar
 
Re: Wesley Crusher reviews Star Trek Into Darkness

General_Phoenix wrote: View Post
The problem with the Enterprise being under water (for me..anyway) is it's never really explained why it is there, we just have to accept that it's just..well..under water. Why not simply be in orbit like any other mission? Why risk exposing a primitive society to an advanced technological achievement like the Enterprise? There are tons of questions, but I guess in the end we just have to accept the fact is was there for a cool shot of the Enterprise coming out from an ocean.
What is actually shocking is I THINK JJ Abrams was trying to show Kirk didn't actually know what he was doing. He WAS underqualified for his position and needed more training. It's just, without Pike, he needs Spock and his crew to reign him in.
__________________
Check out the United Federation of Charles:
http://unitedfederationofcharles.blogspot.com/
Charles Phipps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 21 2013, 03:28 PM   #17
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: Wesley Crusher reviews Star Trek Into Darkness

General_Phoenix wrote: View Post
The problem with the Enterprise being under water (for me..anyway) is it's never really explained why it is there, we just have to accept that it's just..well..under water. Why not simply be in orbit like any other mission? Why risk exposing a primitive society to an advanced technological achievement like the Enterprise? There are tons of questions, but I guess in the end we just have to accept the fact is was there for a cool shot of the Enterprise coming out from an ocean.
You just answered your own question. The movie explained quite well why the ship was underwater, and I don't really understand why so many people keep asking that question.

The ship was under water because it served the plot of the movie. If Kirk had the ship in orbit, then there would be no chance for the natives to see it. The whole point of them being able to see the ship was proof that Kirk was an inexperienced captain whose command should be taken away from him for recklessness. I mean, that was half the freaking movie's plot!

Edit: Charles Phipps above me essentially says the same thing I did.
__________________
“Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.”
– Benjamin Franklin
Dukhat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 21 2013, 03:30 PM   #18
Charles Phipps
Commander
 
Charles Phipps's Avatar
 
Re: Wesley Crusher reviews Star Trek Into Darkness

I believe the official answer is that they needed to be ultra-close in order to do beaming.
__________________
Check out the United Federation of Charles:
http://unitedfederationofcharles.blogspot.com/
Charles Phipps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 21 2013, 04:18 PM   #19
mos6507
Captain
 
mos6507's Avatar
 
Re: Wesley Crusher reviews Star Trek Into Darkness

The ship was under water because it served the plot of the movie.
You have it backwards. The plot of the movie was constructed in order to rationalize a "cool visual". It's the George Lucas school of thinking, which is fine for SW, but out of place in Trek.
__________________
Fem Trekz on Facebook
mos6507 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 21 2013, 04:31 PM   #20
Lance
Fleet Captain
 
Lance's Avatar
 
Location: The Enterprise's Restroom
Re: Wesley Crusher reviews Star Trek Into Darkness

CaptainDave1701 wrote: View Post
So why are we giving credit to the opinion of Sheldon Cooper's mortal enemy here....

As for what he thought was wrong with the film perhaps he should he should dissect his own body of work in The Next Generation.
Um... he already has.
Lance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 21 2013, 04:54 PM   #21
Charles Phipps
Commander
 
Charles Phipps's Avatar
 
Re: Wesley Crusher reviews Star Trek Into Darkness

Yes, Will Wheaton's "Memoirs of the Future" is some of the most damning criticism of Wesley Crusher there is. It's pretty vulgar in places but hilarious all the same. It makes me want to see him as Wesley in the future, only for Wes to be a complete jerk.
__________________
Check out the United Federation of Charles:
http://unitedfederationofcharles.blogspot.com/
Charles Phipps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 21 2013, 06:40 PM   #22
Cinema Geekly
Lieutenant Commander
 
Cinema Geekly's Avatar
 
View Cinema Geekly's Twitter Profile
Re: Wesley Crusher reviews Star Trek Into Darkness

TOS was always male dominated and Women centric action films just don't do great business, not enough cross over, and not a lot of Women alone who dig action films.

That being said, Zoe's Uhura did more in this film than any previous incarnation of Uhura put together between TOS and the films. To me , on a 99% male dominated premise, that is a big leap forward.
Cinema Geekly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 24 2013, 04:21 PM   #23
Kpnuts
Commodore
 
Kpnuts's Avatar
 
Location: London
Re: Wesley Crusher reviews Star Trek Into Darkness

I could have done without the whole beginning, which felt gratuitous and largely disconnected from the rest of the film to me
Congrats Wil, you managed to completely miss the entire point of the Kirk/Spock storyline.
Kpnuts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 24 2013, 07:20 PM   #24
Silversmok3
Commander
 
Silversmok3's Avatar
 
Re: Wesley Crusher reviews Star Trek Into Darkness

The Enterprise being underwater wasn't a problem for me.If a ship can withstand FTL travel,it can probably withstand a brief stint as a submarine.

As far as the opening scene goes,Kirk had to be established as a reckless hothead in order for his actions as a character to make sense.Considering stinkers like Nemesis still haunt the franchise I think we should be quite happy this movie is as good as it is.
__________________
There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under Heaven:A time to heal, A time to break down, and a time to build up.
-Ecclesiastes 3:3
Silversmok3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 26 2013, 02:16 AM   #25
sonak
Vice Admiral
 
Location: in a figment of a mediocre mind's imagination
Re: Wesley Crusher reviews Star Trek Into Darkness

Shaka Zulu wrote: View Post
Well, not really. But Wil Wheaton has some things to say about the new movie:

I could have done without the whole beginning, which felt gratuitous and largely disconnected from the rest of the film to me, but I suppose they needed a way to set up Spock putting the needs of the many ahead of the needs of the one, or the few. I had a very hard time accepting that the Enterprise could sit underwater, but I’m willing to accept it and get over it. The makeup on those aliens was awesome, though.
I’ve read a lot of online criticism that Uhura didn’t do anything useful and was just there to weep and be weak around Spock. I honestly didn’t get that at all. She bravely faces down the fucking Klingons, knowing that she’s risking her life, and then is a badass during the climax when Spock and the ship need her the most. I suppose you can make an argument that she had no business bringing up relationship stuff with Spock in the middle of an important mission, but in a high stress situation maybe things bubbling beneath the surface just come up.
So on the other end of the writing-for-women spectrum is the profound failure to do awesome stuff with Doctor Marcus. I was disappointed, and I imagine that there must be deleted scenes that make her much more interesting (I have no problem with Alice Eve’s performance. I thought she did a fine job with what they wrote for her). She’s so goddamn smart, and we know that she ends up inventing the goddamn Genesis device, so it’s a huge waste to make her little more than eye candy for Kirk. Putting her in her underwear was embarrassing to me as a member of the Star Trek Family, and served absolutely no purpose other than to make teenage boys feel weird, like when they climb the rope in gym class.
My review of Star Trek Into Darkness

Interesting take on it, although I'm still not getting the outrage over seeing Marcus in her undies.

Yeah, that criticism is really making me

I've heard it described as "sexist," and Abrams apologized for it, releasing a scene of Cumberbatch in the shower as a "compensation."


So... is a woman in her underwear in a movie automatically sexist now? And why wasn't it sexist when it was Saldana in XI? Or even Pine in XI in the same scene?
sonak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 26 2013, 08:10 AM   #26
Kabraxal
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Re: Wesley Crusher reviews Star Trek Into Darkness

I think the problem some have with the underwear scene is that they felt it had no reason except for "sex". I thought it was a funny little moment myself and really... this is built off a series that had the women in tiny mini skirts sooooo...yeah.
Kabraxal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 26 2013, 10:15 AM   #27
Gep Malakai
Vice Admiral
 
Gep Malakai's Avatar
 
Send a message via AIM to Gep Malakai Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Gep Malakai
Re: Wesley Crusher reviews Star Trek Into Darkness

Shaka Zulu wrote: View Post
I'm still not getting the outrage over seeing Marcus in her undies.
I think at least part of it is the way they shot the thing – that low camera angle and full frontal pose really gave the shot a pervy vibe. You'll note that the two Caitians in Kirk's bed earlier in the film and Uhura's disrobing to change in ST'09 haven't generated nearly as much discussion, IMO because they were staged far more naturally and so didn't call attention to themselves.
__________________
"From the darkness you must fall, failed and weak, to darkness all."
-Kataris
Gep Malakai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 26 2013, 01:12 PM   #28
Kamdan
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: Wesley Crusher reviews Star Trek Into Darkness

Lance wrote: View Post
CaptainDave1701 wrote: View Post
So why are we giving credit to the opinion of Sheldon Cooper's mortal enemy here....

As for what he thought was wrong with the film perhaps he should he should dissect his own body of work in The Next Generation.
Um... he already has.
He's only done this extreme criticism of the character just so he remains relevant to fans, which I believe came around when he was dubbed the "Jar Jar Binks of Star Trek." Personally, I find the character of Neelix more baffling than Wesley Crusher, but you don't see Ethan Phillips or even Ahmed Best for that matter bad mouthing the way their characters were written or for the shows that they were paid to act in. Sure, the first season of The Next Generation isn't great, but at least you got paid to say your lines. Wheaton loved every minute of attention he got on the show, because he was a fan himself of the original show and it was a fantasy fulfilled to be a part of the crew of the Enterprise, just like Justin Long's character in Galaxy Quest. Wheaton should feel lucky to have been given the opportunity, because his part was originally written for a young woman and I seriously doubt that a real female Star Trek fan of his nature would have been chosen for the role.
Kamdan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 26 2013, 02:28 PM   #29
CommishSleer
Fleet Captain
 
CommishSleer's Avatar
 
Location: Way back of nowhere
View CommishSleer's Twitter Profile
Re: Wesley Crusher reviews Star Trek Into Darkness

Gep Malakai wrote: View Post
Shaka Zulu wrote: View Post
I'm still not getting the outrage over seeing Marcus in her undies.
I think at least part of it is the way they shot the thing – that low camera angle and full frontal pose really gave the shot a pervy vibe. You'll note that the two Caitians in Kirk's bed earlier in the film and Uhura's disrobing to change in ST'09 haven't generated nearly as much discussion, IMO because they were staged far more naturally and so didn't call attention to themselves.
I agree.

I think the pose was intended to show that Marcus didn't really care that Kirk was looking at her but it also came out looking as you say 'pervy'.
CommishSleer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 26 2013, 02:36 PM   #30
Charles Phipps
Commander
 
Charles Phipps's Avatar
 
Re: Wesley Crusher reviews Star Trek Into Darkness

I don't mind throwing sex into the mix and appreciate it, actually, because sex is amongst what separates Star Trek from Star Wars.

Even I felt that was a badly shot scene.
__________________
Check out the United Federation of Charles:
http://unitedfederationofcharles.blogspot.com/
Charles Phipps 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 04:40 PM.

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