STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies XI+' started by Agent Richard07, Apr 18, 2013.

?

Grade the movie...

  1. A+

    18.7%
  2. A

    20.7%
  3. A-

    13.1%
  4. B+

    11.1%
  5. B

    8.0%
  6. B-

    4.2%
  7. C+

    5.4%
  8. C

    5.1%
  9. C-

    3.5%
  10. D+

    1.5%
  11. D

    1.6%
  12. D-

    1.3%
  13. F

    5.7%
  1. beamMe

    beamMe Commodore

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2011
    Location:
    Europa
    :lol:

    It's twenty-seven planets.

    Never, ever use "Dr" when talking about Doctor Who ;)
    But, yeah, the "science" in Doctor Who conforms to the stories, just like it does in Star Trek.
     
  2. Belz...

    Belz... Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    May 19, 2013
    Location:
    In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
    Dr Who has more in common with fantasy than fiction.
     
  3. beamMe

    beamMe Commodore

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2011
    Location:
    Europa
    I don't see the difference. :)
     
  4. throwback

    throwback Captain Captain

    Joined:
    May 27, 2011
    Star Trek has never been consistent with its technology nor how the crew used that technology. In an episode of TNG, the audience learns that the windows were made of transparent aluminum. Yet, when the primary hull of the Enterprise crashed into planetary surface, the windows shattered like they were made of glass. In that same movie, the crew, once they knew their shields had been compromised, didn't change the shield frequency rotation, like Tuvok did in one episode of Voyager.
     
  5. Zeppster

    Zeppster Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2006
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    How about the consistency of transporting through shields? Basically whenever the plot called for it they could do it. When ever it called for not transporting through shields they couldn't do it.
     
  6. Belz...

    Belz... Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    May 19, 2013
    Location:
    In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
    They didn't transport through shields in STID.
     
  7. johnjm22

    johnjm22 Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2013
    Location:
    California
    Nice to hear them be a little critical of nuTrek, but to be fair, the TNG movies pretty much ditched the whole moral/social/philosophical aspect of trek as well.

    They always tried to force more action into the TNG movies and it just didn't work most of the time. The cast wasn't meant for it.
     
  8. throwback

    throwback Captain Captain

    Joined:
    May 27, 2011
    I couldn't understand much of what was said by Sirtis and Burton. Is there a transcript of what they were saying?

    TrekWeb.com has one of the statements from Burton on ST:ID.

    http://trekweb.com/articles/2013/06...n-JJ-Abrams-Interpretation-of-Star-Trek.shtml

    When reading this press release, I remembered what Wil Wheaton wrote,

    http://wilwheaton.tumblr.com/post/50514989060/jenniferdeguzman-he-said-star-trek-is-too
     
  9. Opus

    Opus Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2003
    Location:
    Bloom County
    Berman Movie Trek was pseudo-intellectual at best.
     
  10. Ovation

    Ovation Vice Admiral Admiral

    What a load of pretentious twaddle. Sheesh. :rolleyes:
     
  11. Locutus of Bored

    Locutus of Bored The Mod Awakens Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Location:
    Huntington Beach, California
    I haven't listened to Burton's remarks (nor do I really care to), but in regards to the Jon Stewart interview in the Wil Wheaton link, I do have to admit that there are times (and that interview was one of them) when I wish JJ Abrams would just shut up about how much of a non-fan of Star Trek he was.

    Not that you're obligated to be a fan to be a good director. Some of the best Trek writers and directors have not been fans at all, and some of the worst have been huge fans, so it's no guarantee of quality. Nor do I want him to lie and pretend to be something he's not. But you don't have to place sooooo much emphasis on the fact that you weren't a fan and bring it up on your own in every other interview you do. It's kind of bad PR and rubbing it in --especially when his direction is such a divisive issue among certain fans.

    Also, while Star Trek is a lot less philosophical than some fans build it to be in their heads (it certainly has its moments, but most of the time it's pretty basic space opera), going into interviews and essentially saying "Star Trek was too thoughtful for me" (admittedly when he was a kid, but he's still talking about it now) is not really a great move when one of the primary fan criticisms of your direction is that you've made the films too shallow and focused on style over substance.

    Ironically, I think this film has plenty of depth to it and philosophical moments/themes (I know many disagree), so it was strange to me to see him emphasize that when it's not really what the film was about. Of course, like he says, it was a collaboration between him and the writers (who were Trek fans and did like some of the more intellectual stuff) and they each brought their own perspective to the table and combined their talents to balance things out between more accessible action and more intellectual drama.
     
  12. M'Sharak

    M'Sharak Definitely Herbert. Maybe. Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Location:
    Terra Inlandia
    Copy/pasting from the previous thread in which Wheaton's remarks were mentioned:
     
  13. CorporalClegg

    CorporalClegg Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2001
    Location:
    Land of Enchantment
    Because that one episode where Wesley gets sauced to the gills and commandeers the Enterprise is just oozing with profound wisdom and ideology...
     
  14. Admiral Buzzkill

    Admiral Buzzkill Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2001
    Yes, but Abrams isn't speaking to dedicated Star Trek fans. When he speaks to the mass media he's sensibly inviting non-fans to identify with him and to follow him along a rhetorical path. Orci, OTOH, dedicates a surprising amount of time to tracking down trekkies in their online gathering places and identifying himself as one of them.

    In any case, fannish criticism of these films has proven to be impotent and of little consequence.
     
  15. BillJ

    BillJ Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    alt.nerd.obsessive.pic
    Burton, Sirtis and the rest would love Abrams Trek if they were collecting pay checks from it.
     
  16. Amasov

    Amasov Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2001
    Location:
    Somerville, MA
    That's what I don't understand. It's not as if all the Trek before them had the Roddenberry "vision" in there either.
     
  17. CorporalCaptain

    CorporalCaptain Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2011
    Location:
    "Who are you?"
    Sounds sorta like good cop/bad cop. :shifty:
     
  18. Ryan8bit

    Ryan8bit Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Location:
    St. Paul, MN
    I dunno, Sirtis and Frakes were pretty frank about some of their later film blunders. I'd imagine most of them understand that pretty well. And Burton initially praised the movie, despite these later criticisms. It's obvious that he enjoyed it on some level.
     
  19. Devon

    Devon Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2005
    I lost a little respect for Burton when he made the absolutely misinformed and made-up remark that J.J. Abrams was telling people that his Star Trek was the "only" Star Trek. Ironic that someone who used to host "The Reading Rainbow" doesn't take time to read things that people have said.

    Then the other day he declared that it wasn't "okay" with him that "Gene Roddenberry's Vision" [All Rights Reserved] was "missing." :guffaw: Okay LeVar, time to go back to your Reading Rainbow App now.
     
  20. Set Harth

    Set Harth Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Location:
    Morrowind
    To be fair, I'm sure the visor doesn't help.