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. BillJ

    BillJ Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    alt.nerd.obsessive.pic
    I understand what they wanted to do originally. But, in the end, they blew that off pretty quickly. Gary Mitchell becoming a God has no basis in any science fact or theory I'm aware of.

    But then to me, Star Trek is science fiction to a degree but it is of the very lite variety. It gave me a love of sci-fi but I want it to be fun, first and foremost. I want to go on a thrill ride with these characters (Kirk, Spock and the rest) every chance I can. Because they are fun characters. I think Abrams understood that to a large degree.

    My first exposure to Star Trek was at a very young age and I understand that that exposure colors my views to some degree. Anytime I want hard sci-fi, my Kindle and bookshelves are just a few steps away. When I want a sci-fi thrill ride, I grab a disc that has Kirk and Spock adventures on it.

    So, magic blood doesn't bother me. Neither does transwarp beaming. Nor magic transporters from the Prime timeline nor a realm of the universe with giant snowflakes nor the heroes battling a giant lizard head as the Enterprise spirals down from above. Because from 1966-1969, a lot of people with a lot of imagination got together and made the most entertaining TV show I have ever been exposed to. They weren't too concerned with how it all fit together. If that was good enough for them, then it is good enough for me.

    As in all things, others mileage may vary.
     
  2. BillJ

    BillJ Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    alt.nerd.obsessive.pic
    This is a point I've tried to get across in this discussion. You said it much better than I have. Thank you.
     
  3. BigJake

    BigJake Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2013
    Location:
    No matter where you go, there you are.
    No, I'd say some of them were uniquely awful, they aren't all created equal. "Threshold" for instance was a great example of setting up a story whose resolution was, by the rules it set up, just broken. "The Alternative Factor" was... well, what it was. And so on.
     
  4. Zaminhon

    Zaminhon Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2014
    Location:
    SoCal
    I have to agree with that, however it's like they're trying to have it both ways and it just doesn't work for me.. hi- tech 3d readouts, non-stop references to the "parallel timeline", it's just all a gimmick, and the tech is almost unrecognizable. (Where the heck are the phasers? We get stun balls instead.) At least the engine room looks like it can brew a pretty damn good beer.
     
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2015
  5. BigJake

    BigJake Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2013
    Location:
    No matter where you go, there you are.
    That would be one way to recruit people to Starfleet. ;)
     
  6. Zaminhon

    Zaminhon Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2014
    Location:
    SoCal
    I was wondering what the quadrotriticale is used for besides Tribble food. :)
     
  7. BillJ

    BillJ Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    alt.nerd.obsessive.pic
    I guess we know the origin of Scotty's alcoholism! :lol:
     
  8. Ovation

    Ovation Vice Admiral Admiral

    And I'd say Maurice makes a far more compelling argument. An argument that absolutely allows one to respond to a criticism of Abrams' Trek by referring to precedents from prior Trek. That you disagree is fine. That you therefore presume that yours is the only applicable perspective (something you do repeatedly) is not so fine.
     
  9. BigJake

    BigJake Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2013
    Location:
    No matter where you go, there you are.
    Enterprise-brand scotch would be a pretty solid merch item, for that matter. :techman:

    Yes, I'm unsurprised that you would say that. I think you're wrong, obviously, but it's okay.
     
  10. Ovation

    Ovation Vice Admiral Admiral

    Why "wrong"? Trek is fiction and thus open to multiple interpretations. There is no one correct way to interpret a work of fiction. To think otherwise is the height of arrogance (or ignorance, though I would not presume the latter for you on this topic). You're not wrong because you have a different reading of Trek than mine, you're wrong to suggest, implicitly or explicitly, that holding a different reading from yours makes me (or anyone else) "wrong".
     
  11. BigJake

    BigJake Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2013
    Location:
    No matter where you go, there you are.
    Because IMO it's a mistake to suppose that subjectivity means that everything is indistinguishable from everything else and it's not possible to evaluate anything at all, especially when you're talking about specific elements of a work of fiction and not "interpreting" it in some loose, vague sense. You can value or not value consistency in a work of fiction, for instance, or the self-consistent use of scientific elements in a work of sci-fi, but that's not the same thing as saying that all such works are on equal footing as regards that kind of consistency. Actually that's a bizarre thing to say because it's patently untrue.

    Short version: what you value in or what "meaning" you extract from fiction is subjective. That doesn't mean its contents are "subjective" or impossible to describe. For all the virtues of postmodernism and reader-response criticism, it's a mistake to confuse those things.

    Even shorter version: taste is subjective. Narrative logic isn't.
     
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2015
  12. Ovation

    Ovation Vice Admiral Admiral

    In that case, you've failed to marshal a persuasive rebuttal to Maurice and are therefore wrong. :p
     
  13. BigJake

    BigJake Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2013
    Location:
    No matter where you go, there you are.
    I knew it wouldn't persuade you, it's okay. :techman:
     
  14. Maurice

    Maurice Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Location:
    Walking distance from Starfleet HQ
    To my way of thinking "magic blood" is a far more believable contrivance than the Genesis Effect, yet both are purple.
     
  15. BigJake

    BigJake Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2013
    Location:
    No matter where you go, there you are.
    I think the Genesis Effect is a fairer comparison, particularly the version of it that was pressed into service for resurrection. About all I can say for that as a virtue is that at least they picked a unique circumstance for that... and it brought Nimoy back for the fourth movie. :D
     
  16. JWPlatt

    JWPlatt Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2008
    And sufficiently magical script is indistinguishable from inconsistency.
     
  17. Zaminhon

    Zaminhon Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2014
    Location:
    SoCal
    The Genesis Effect wasn't successful, if Spock stayed on the planet he would have destabilized with the planet and died. It was a one-use mulligan for Spock and thankfully Genesis never raised its head again.
     
  18. urbandefault

    urbandefault Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2013
    Location:
    Sickbay, dammit
    I'd be happy if there was an alternate cut of STID that just left out the scream.

    You know, one where you see the buildup to it on Spock's face but instead of letting it out he summons a medical team to engineering and then takes off after Khan.

    That would be good.
     
  19. FrankT

    FrankT Lieutenant Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2015
    Location:
    In Swingin' England
    I'll be honest - STID chilled my blood. Personally, I can see why Into Darkness can be seen as the worst Trek sequel out of all 12 - not because of that silly opening or seeing Carol in her underpants or anything - but because it's enough to cause PTSD! Watching the Vengeance crash, in particular, felt like watching the Hindenburg disaster times fifty. I could FEEL the trauma it inflicted. And don't even get me started on Khan smashing the Admiral's face in (I'd say try watching footage of another film with the audio, but I don't think it'd be allowed; besides I'd have to answer for the trauma it'd cause)! Or shooting Pike for that matter!
    I cannot in good conscience give it any grade.
     
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2015
  20. Set Harth

    Set Harth Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Location:
    Morrowind
    But wouldn't that be considered a point in favor of the film? Isn't that the kind of thing movies are supposed to do, in theory?