Abrams On Star Trek Into Darkness Flaws

That is said without consideration about what should be removed within a movie with a financial and time budget to compensate for what is added. And if too much needs to be removed while adding the other things, perhaps it's just the wrong story or fundamentally one that won't work.

 

Plus the the Federation being on the verge of war with the Klingon Empire probably didn't help.

 

I'm going to stop you right there because what your describing is at best very vague and at worst disingenious. The Dominion were not about destruction and mayhem they could inflict on their enemies. They were about superiority and control. They wanted to win civilizations over to their side because they believed their way was the best. Almost like the Borg but without the hive mind workings.

And almost wiping out the Earth is somehow a major thing? These are the Star Trek movies. We've been saving the Earth from bad guys on a non-stop basis since Nemises. Everything is about saving the Earth because apparently, Star Trek cannot possibly exist without it. Deep Sace Nine actually made a bold move during the Dominion War when Sisko had to convince the Federation that Earth was not the key to winning the Alpha Quadrant. Sisko, the human Captain just told everyone that Earth isn't important. No other Star Trek 'thing' has ever done that before or after.

As for all the stuff that happened in Star Trek Into Darkness? Its not that impressive when you can describe everything that happens as 'Impractically convenient'.

 

Any "criticisms" about the character were made by people like us who post on these boards and other places on the internet. They weren't made by 90% of the people who actually went to see the movie.

 

I don't rate the films on their financial and time budget. That's bizarre standard for rating films, so no, I don't consider that. I simply rate a film on what's presented to me in the cinema and what was presented to me was a sprawling mess. Anyway simply modifying the existing dialogue isn't expensive!

There's no sense nor meaning for going on Marcus rampage over the minor incursions of the Klingons. The immediacy of that threat isn't depicted to the audience at all. And butchering the Enterprise with such casual abandon. It doesn't make one whit of sense. The guy is killing his own people for kicks. The Marcus character is just nonsensical and could've improved with better dialogue and better background. That's what's irritating about this film, the writers just got lazy once they got done with Kirk and Pike. I suppose I should be grateful the brig scene was written at all!

 

It's not about rating a movie on its financial or time budget. It's about making both a suggestion to add something to a film and removing something to compensate, given the film's expense and length, and still have a coherent story.

I don't think adding some conversation is going to fix your issue with the movie; the rest will still be there.

 

All that's needed is dialogue that the Klingon's conquered significant parts of a neighbouring species and that there's intelligence suggesting that they are prepared to mount an invasion of the Federation. The other Starfleet brass are doves who are livin' in cloud cuckoo land but Marcus is on the ball with this.

You could also depict Marcus as being more conflicted about destroying the Enterprise but then deciding he has to do it. In the film, Marcus is havin' a swell time murdering the young crew! He ain't doin' much wrestling with his conscience that's for darn sure.

The idea that you need slabs of episodes beforehand to flesh out a strong background for a film is a weird idea to say the least. All you need to do is have a couple of minutes dialogue to strengthen these characters or modify the existing dialogue.

 

Of course it's vague. I summed up the actions of a 6-ish season multi-tiered antagonist in one sentence. And I was speaking of whether the Dominion was every shown as having any actual, lasting success.

And no, completely wiping out Vulcan was the major thing. The introduction of new tech and enemies that literally appear out of nowhere to successfully destroy worlds in minutes. Marcus wasn't in the Prime universe, so why would he be jaded by past movies? (a ridiculous idea when you're talking about human motivation anyway.)

Let's not kid ourselves - Star Trek has been saving Earth as far back as TMP. Except back then, the heroes were doing the insane things like permanently changing time (and taking on all the possible consequences of that).

 

You mean if the Dominion and the Founders had been introduced back in the 1960's and we'd seen over a hundred examples of them through the years? Could Admiral Leyton THEN give a short fiery speech (perhaps to Sisko) on why he needed to do what he was doing, making the whole plot make sense?

Yes, somewhere in the course of a two hour long Homefront movie he likely could have, it would have all come together.

Problem is Admiral Marcus never given just that speech, it was completely missing.

Right after the Death Star ... err, the Vengeance shot up the Enterprise would have been a excellent opportunity, to Kirk, or maybe face to face to his daughter on the Vengeance's bridge.

But it never happen.

 

He has a rant at Kirk when Kirk's trying to take him into custody. He sees himself as the only person strong or smart enough to 'save' the Federation from all future enemies, which he's quiet convinced are coming.

Then Khan popped his head like a zit.

I actually thought part of the point was that we didn't know if Marcus was completely justified in his paranoia about the Klingons. It's just his actions crossed the 'there's shit you just don't do' line regardless.

 

That's why I like Marcus. He is doing what he thinks is necessary to protect the Federation and doesn't believe anyone else is capable of doing it.

I personally don't need much more. There are plenty of real world examples for me to understand where he is coming from.

 

For the WIN!

The story was relevant to our times, because terrorism [Harrison/Khan] is on everyone's minds. Doing wrong in the name of good [Marcus] is a legitimate motivation for an antagonist in many excellent stories. It seems the plot is sufficient for the people who watched the movie, except for the very vocal minority complaining.

It is one of the most successful Star Trek movies worldwide, yet some still say, "It ain't Trek". Good grief, no wonder people still think Trekkies are off their rocker.

 

Because how much money the movie makes is what defines whether or not it's "Star Trek."

{not}

.

 

I don't get a say in their opinions, but i get plenty of say in HOW they express them, which is generally pretty one-note and pointless.

 

Awesome use of biting sarcasm... until the obvious clarifier.

Nope. Not even. The moderators do that, such as to you, previously, for the very same quote of yours that you've just conveniently recalled. All we get to do is reply to what others say and how they say it.

 

Well, if 90% of movie audiences who saw this movie don't care that it's Khan, what was the point in having a character like ,Khan to latch onto? It's not like Khan was 'advertised' as being in the movie.

 

That nebulous 'general public' wouldn't have know who he was in TWOK either. Which going by your logic, makes it seem even stranger that they'd use his name to advertise the movie. 'The Wrath of Some Guy from One Episode of a Show You Probably Didn't Watch!' How was the poor average noob meant to latch onto that?

Also, why do you keep trying to say there is ever a situation where writers (purely from a creative perspective) 'need' to to make a certain choice about a character? It's a piece of fiction - none of it is necessary.

 

Great points all around.

I am of the opinion that good writing and a good story is where the characters make their own choices, so to speak, and not the writer really making the choice for them; i.e., organic, without bias. "We have to kill Kirk at the end" is not good writing; he just dies at the end of a good story because that's how it flowed. Someone is going to ask, "What about how Spock died at the end of Wrath of Khan? They wanted that to happen!" No, they didn't. They wanted it to happen near the start. It got pushed back as the story was developed.

 

I can't actually imagine Spock dying near the start of TWOK. When you hear of him getting critically injured by the first fight, it sounds like they were Worf-ing Spock.

Damn you hindsight!