Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies: Kelvin Universe' started by Agent Richard07, Apr 18, 2013.
Borg and Earth: Exhibit B
Breen and Earth: Exhibit C
At least Kruge knew exactly what the Genesis planet was. Placing Khan and his crew on some random world wouldn't do anything, because there'd be no reason for passersby to suspect that anything was there.
By having spies deep within the Federation that could access those records. What makes you think those same spies wouldn't exist in the Abramsverse?
Wherever Khan and his cadre are stored, danger exists someone could set them free either intentionally or inadvertently. In the Abramsverse, the Klingons now have had a pair of run-ins a century apart with what seems to be human(s) of exceptional ability.
It may pique their curiosity.
Only because Valkris found out about it for him.
I'd be more optimistic if we had ever seen the Ark of the Covenant unboxed again.
Then again, do we ever actually see where the warehouse is located? For all we know IT could be on Ceti Alpha V. That's even better: rather than let Khan's group loose on an uninhabited planet, put them on ice in a warehouse on said planet.
Well it was partially unboxed in Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.
Finally got around to watching the movie. And made an account here just to complain about it. There were so many bad parts I don't want to list them all, but the one that bothered me the most was that, when I was a kid I really loved the star trek series and watched them all. I liked that Star Trek Voyager had a female captain. I know it wasn't great in its portrayal of females but there were some strong female characters (like Kira and Jadzia from Deep Space Nine).
Anyway, in the star trek into darkness movie the men do all the fighting, do all the exploring, and the women only seem to be there to look at. What is the point of the blonde girl's role except to show her in a short dress and in her underwear (yea I know she is the weapons expert but it seemed kind of token). And then Spock's love interest (I forgot her name but I know she is in the original series). She only seemed to be there to show some lame lovers quarrel with Spock. Except at the end where she was beamed to earth to shoot the bad guy. I felt like the writers were like, oh hang on, we've only portrayed women in the movie as eye candy, we better show one doing something useful.
Anyway it was crap. Somehow I felt like all my childhood dreams were crushed. Maybe cause what I liked in the series is that I felt like it showed anyone can be anything no matter what background they are from if they put in the hard work (which resonated with me because my parents were migrants). But I felt like in the movie it just showed only white men can be anything.
You definitely saw a different edit of the movie than I did.
Because that's not suspicious and/or neurotic in any way.
You are entitled to dislike the film and I am not trying to change your mind about your overall view of it, but I disagree with some of the specifics of your criticism.
First, the Abrams movies are based on the original series, not the series that came after. The result is the characters are set in terms of sex, gender and skin colour. The original series was made in a time of less diversity than more recent television and as the goal was to use the same characters, that is an unavoidable situation. Had the films been based on later series OR presenting entirely new characters, then the complaints about the lack of diversity might be more compelling.
Second, neither Uhura (the character whose name you cannot recall) or Marcus (the blond woman) were in the story purely as "eye candy". Marcus does appear scantily clad for a moment (and it is a brief moment) but the main consequence of that moment is Kirk FAILING to establish his charms on her. Moreover, she is the weapons expert and shows considerable bravery in standing up to her father. Could she have done more? Sure. But she was a tertiary character (Kirk and Spock are the prime characters, Scotty, Sulu, Uhura, McCoy, Chekov are the secondary characters, Admiral Marcus and Harrison/Khan are the main villains, Marcus is a tertiary supporting character). There was not more for her to do because she's not that important.
Uhura was not there just to be a "girlfriend". She has a significant scene with the Klingons, exhibiting a set of skills no one else had (and skills that are neither gender nor sex specific, thus adding to the diversity of the roles assigned to the crew, regardless of gender or sex). She is also instrumental in aiding Spock, one of the two primary heroic characters, to defeat the main villain. Her importance to the film, as a secondary character, is second only to (and, arguably, equal to) Scotty's role. It is more substantial than McCoy (by a little bit) as well as Sulu and Chekov (by a lot).
Third, when Chekov leaves the bridge to go to engineering, he is replaced by a female character--a woman of colour who, while not unattractive (at least to me--I can only speak for myself), is certainly not a conventional "movie babe" in appearance. Her role is not overly important, but it is the kind of role that would have gone to a white male in previous decades.
I find your overall criticism to be similar to others I've read (here and in other fora) wherein the main failings of the film appear to be rooted in an implicit desire to have Abrams' films hew more closely to TNG-era trek, where there was a greater diversity of important roles going to women and visible minorities than what was the case in the original series. But Abrams' did not choose the TNG-era characters for his films. As such, the TNG-style "ensemble" approach you appear to find lacking, simply isn't there. In the original series, it was the Kirk and Spock show. Clearly Abrams found that a satisfactory framework for his films, while still finding a way to give the secondary characters more important things to do than in the original series (especially for Uhura, Sulu and Chekov). Perhaps another creative team will revisit the TOS characters with a more ensemble approach in mind, which might be to your liking.
That's not called for. If one wants to register an account and complain about the movie, then this thread is the place to complain.
TOS was what the film was based on. For us TOS fans (of which there are a lot still); the TNG/VOY era stuff you liked and grew up on WAS 'retconned Star Trek' to us fans of the original series. I completely understand then why you dislike STID; but as a fan who grew up with TOS, it's why STID is so popular with us because it's more like the Star Trek we loved when we grew up.
Yes I realize that the movie was based on the tv series based in the 60's. That doesn't mean it has to represent the values of that era.
I did a quick google of "Star Trek: Into Darkness females" and see quite a few posts from women who feel the same.
I think the worst part for me is that I felt like they made a half assed effort to give the women some kind of important role to try and cover the fact that they were 2 dimensional characters with no purpose. Blonde girl was meant to be a super smart weapons specialist but she neutralizes the torpedo by ripping out its wires (yea right). Uhara I don't know what she is meant to be but all she does is whine at Spock until the end when she is beamed down for 2 seconds and shoots Khan. It is just so lame.
The other things that bugged me were, why are people still using laptops and mobile phones 300 years in the future. Why is there always a magic button in the midst of everything going to shit that if pressed saves everyone (this happened twice). If the core was out of alignment, why wasn't there some machine that could align it inside the core, without Kirk having to go in and kick it. His death scene was so cheesy I was rolling my eyes. And the dumbest part, the 911 reference at the end.
worst star trek movie ever!
edit: and the whole kirk and spock thing was somewhat homeoerotic.
Do we even know the warehouse is on a planet? They could have stuck them in another automated ship and sent them sailing back into deepspace.
These two sentences seem to contradict each other to some extent.
You mean like the Padds and communicators that were still in fairly common use in every other Star Trek ever made? When you go to see a film based on a franchise, the implication is that it will contain the basic, familiar elements of that franchise. Even if those elements, despite having been originally designed as highly futuristic, now somewhat resemble things that people already use in their daily lives.
I'm sorry, I love 90's era trek - so far a great deal more than these new films - but criticizing a Star Trek movie for using 'mobile phones' is just lame. Especially since the '22nd century' style communicators were designed decades *before* mobile phones even existed...
Um, yeah, I guess you were asleep when Uhura volunteered to go out on the surface of Q'Nos and parley with the Klingon warriors ready to fill them all. <--- Yep, Uhura was real 'whiney' in that scene.
Yeah there were no PADDs in TNG...oh, wait... Also, there were plenty of 'magic particle fixes the situation in the last 30 seconds' of episodes of TNG/DS9 where they had spent the past 40 minutes trying to resolve the situation. Boy, you must hate TNG too.
Um, why is the Galaxy Class Warp Core ejection system ALWAYS offline when they need it the most? -- especially in Generations - and a myriad of TNG episodes.
Hell, in STII:TWoK; why does Spock need to go in and manually reset the 'Mains'? Also, why is there NO OTHER engineer in the Main Engineering (aside from Scotty, who, while suited up in a radiation suit seems completely out of it -- UNTIL Spock enters the 'Mains' area (and I'm calling what was reset the 'Mains' as that what Scotty had to take offline.) <--- All this, yet I don't see STII:TWoK considered one of the worst Star Trek films.
Hardly, that would either be:
Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (And I say that as a TOS fan.)
Star Trek: Generations
Star Trek: Insurrection
Star Trek: Nemesis
I am a perfectly modern, extremely feminist woman, and I have no problem with Into Darkness. Star Trek as a series has done wonderful things for feminism.. Yes, to a modern audience, TOS seems a bit sexist from time to time, but the truth is that from the perspective of the 60s it was incredibly avant grade. Saying that Star Trek should completely rearrange its story structure and characters for a modern audience is completely unrealistic and would piss off a bunch of Trekkies (including myself). It's also just over-sensitive. Women don't have to be the hero of every story... Neither do men. It's not some ploy to repress the female species.. Star Trek (TOS and new movies) just happens to be a story whose plot focuses on two men. It's that simple.
P.S. Kirk and Spock have always been borderline homoerotic (that's being generous).. and they always will be. It's the nature of their relationship-- T'hy'la-- and taking that out would be another breach of character.
I would have preferred that they kept the dynamic from TOS, with Kirk, Spock and Bones at the forefront, Scotty being the intermediary, and Uhura, Sulu and Chekov being the background characters. Never cared for what they did for Uhura in these new films, I thought she has been worthless from the start. I'm sure her increased presence is because of producers wanting to appeal to the female demographics by giving her something to do other than hang around in the background saying "hailing frequencies open, sir", and of course Zoe Saldana making demands for character to have more to do.
If they really wanted a Spock romance that bad just to establish that he has a case of the notgays, then it should have been with Nurse Chapel as that has been something established in TOS.
Separate names with a comma.