Re: J.J. Abrams: 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Had 'Fundamental Story Prob
One of them being the decision to drop an F-bomb right in the title.
J.J. Abrams: 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Had 'Fundamental Story Problems
- Thread starter Khan 2.0
- Start date
Re: J.J. Abrams: 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Had 'Fundamental Story Prob
Yes, in the age of Linda Lovelace it gave quite the wrong impression.
Yes, in the age of Linda Lovelace it gave quite the wrong impression.
Re: J.J. Abrams: 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Had 'Fundamental Story Prob
I was comparing it to TWOK, where Kirk already knows who Khan is. The scene is STID played out as if Kirk should know what he's talking about.
Khan was like, "it's actually me...Khan! I had plastic surgery to disguise myself as the whitest person on Earth, Benedict Cumbergrowl!" But it was the wrong Kirk.
Cast M. Night Shyamalan...what a twist!
I was comparing it to TWOK, where Kirk already knows who Khan is. The scene is STID played out as if Kirk should know what he's talking about.
Khan was like, "it's actually me...Khan! I had plastic surgery to disguise myself as the whitest person on Earth, Benedict Cumbergrowl!" But it was the wrong Kirk.
Cast M. Night Shyamalan...what a twist!
Re: J.J. Abrams: 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Had 'Fundamental Story Prob
JJ isn't the problem with nuTrek. It's been the writing. STID just amplified what we all blindly accepted in ST09 (25 year revenge story - really?, Vulcan gone - really?, Spock/Uhura romance - really?). The casting was fantastic, the visuals and music were higher than top-notch. They gave us a proper engineering plant and cut down on the shaky cam and lens flares. The problem with STID, as JJ knew all along was the frakin story. Just think how epic ID could have been had we not had to have 72 torpedoes, a Khan reveal that only pissed off the faithful and meant nothing to the new trek fans, super life reviving blood and the rip-off reversal scene in engineering? They could have told the same story with Harri-Khan as an Augment from Enterprise without infuriating the "hard core" fans and the new fans wouldn't have known any difference. ID could have easily been in the "top 3" in my trek movie ranking. All Pegg, Jung & Lin have to do is give us some real writing with a new story and all will be well. I believe Paramount understands this because they canned the writers from the first two, I'm more optimistic that the third will much more enjoyable. I'm afraid actually that we will be saying we miss JJ in the directors chair when it's all said and done.
JJ isn't the problem with nuTrek. It's been the writing. STID just amplified what we all blindly accepted in ST09 (25 year revenge story - really?, Vulcan gone - really?, Spock/Uhura romance - really?). The casting was fantastic, the visuals and music were higher than top-notch. They gave us a proper engineering plant and cut down on the shaky cam and lens flares. The problem with STID, as JJ knew all along was the frakin story. Just think how epic ID could have been had we not had to have 72 torpedoes, a Khan reveal that only pissed off the faithful and meant nothing to the new trek fans, super life reviving blood and the rip-off reversal scene in engineering? They could have told the same story with Harri-Khan as an Augment from Enterprise without infuriating the "hard core" fans and the new fans wouldn't have known any difference. ID could have easily been in the "top 3" in my trek movie ranking. All Pegg, Jung & Lin have to do is give us some real writing with a new story and all will be well. I believe Paramount understands this because they canned the writers from the first two, I'm more optimistic that the third will much more enjoyable. I'm afraid actually that we will be saying we miss JJ in the directors chair when it's all said and done.
Re: J.J. Abrams: 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Had 'Fundamental Story Prob
Yep, and I love it anyway.
There are nits to pick with the Abrams films, there are nits to pick with much of Star Trek that has been produced.
But, overall, it has been a fun ride.
Yep, and I love it anyway.
There are nits to pick with the Abrams films, there are nits to pick with much of Star Trek that has been produced.
But, overall, it has been a fun ride.
Re: J.J. Abrams: 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Had 'Fundamental Story Prob
Maybe they should have written Khan into the Enterprise chamber to give his life for his and the Enterprise crew as redemption for his alternate universe self and victory against the corrupt Admiral. That might have been more interesting and compelling - something akin to "in another life I could have called you friend." Well, they get their chance.
Maybe they should have written Khan into the Enterprise chamber to give his life for his and the Enterprise crew as redemption for his alternate universe self and victory against the corrupt Admiral. That might have been more interesting and compelling - something akin to "in another life I could have called you friend." Well, they get their chance.
Re: J.J. Abrams: 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Had 'Fundamental Story Prob
As much as I'm not a huge fan of this, it's better than Spock balling like a baby over someone he's been at odds with for half the time they've known each other.
As much as I'm not a huge fan of this, it's better than Spock balling like a baby over someone he's been at odds with for half the time they've known each other.
Re: J.J. Abrams: 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Had 'Fundamental Story Prob
Wow, there is a lot to unpack here. First of all, 09 is a fun film, and I have no problems with any of the plot points. Vulcan destroyed was a shock, and Nero is probably one of the most fascinating villains that Trek has had in a long while (save maybe Weller's character in Terra Prime).
Secondly, the TWOK reversal is by and far one of my favorite moments in STID, and (at the same time) one of my few enjoyable moments for me in TWOK. The idea of Kirk going from selfish, immature, jerk to a sacrificial leader is an arc that appeals to me and I find enjoyable.
I agree that Khan was unnecessary, and would have worked as a super soldier Augment that Marcus was producing to fight Klingons-bigger, faster, stronger, etc. Though, Marcus' rationale worked for me as well, so it is a weak point but not a breaking point.
Missing Abrams? No, I have confidence in Lin and his ability to manage a production like this. I think he will do just fine in his production.
STID certainly had some missed opportunities, so I can understand misgivings or negative reaction to it. But, I don't hold 2 seconds of Spock's emotional outburst against it. It's a tale of people discovering themselves-Kirk how to be a leader, Spock how to be in a relationship after a severe loss (both with Kirk as a friend and Uhura as a romantic partner) and the potential extremes those paths can take.
And, I miss Captain Pike. Stupid STID making me cry three times!
Wow, there is a lot to unpack here. First of all, 09 is a fun film, and I have no problems with any of the plot points. Vulcan destroyed was a shock, and Nero is probably one of the most fascinating villains that Trek has had in a long while (save maybe Weller's character in Terra Prime).
Secondly, the TWOK reversal is by and far one of my favorite moments in STID, and (at the same time) one of my few enjoyable moments for me in TWOK. The idea of Kirk going from selfish, immature, jerk to a sacrificial leader is an arc that appeals to me and I find enjoyable.
I agree that Khan was unnecessary, and would have worked as a super soldier Augment that Marcus was producing to fight Klingons-bigger, faster, stronger, etc. Though, Marcus' rationale worked for me as well, so it is a weak point but not a breaking point.
Missing Abrams? No, I have confidence in Lin and his ability to manage a production like this. I think he will do just fine in his production.
STID certainly had some missed opportunities, so I can understand misgivings or negative reaction to it. But, I don't hold 2 seconds of Spock's emotional outburst against it. It's a tale of people discovering themselves-Kirk how to be a leader, Spock how to be in a relationship after a severe loss (both with Kirk as a friend and Uhura as a romantic partner) and the potential extremes those paths can take.
And, I miss Captain Pike. Stupid STID making me cry three times!
Re: J.J. Abrams: 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Had 'Fundamental Story Prob
I felt exactly the same way. it felt more like an inside joke when he says his name is khan because kirk has no idea who he is but the we the audience do or did. The empty box went up in flames with the reveal.
I felt exactly the same way. it felt more like an inside joke when he says his name is khan because kirk has no idea who he is but the we the audience do or did. The empty box went up in flames with the reveal.
Re: J.J. Abrams: 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Had 'Fundamental Story Prob
It felt like every big reveal in the MCU.
I liked it.
It felt like every big reveal in the MCU.
I liked it.
Re: J.J. Abrams: 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Had 'Fundamental Story Prob
He practically looked at the camera and winked.
He practically looked at the camera and winked.
Re: J.J. Abrams: 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Had 'Fundamental Story Prob
Surely you mean "bawling".
Surely you mean "bawling".
Re: J.J. Abrams: 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Had 'Fundamental Story Prob
Dem Vulcan bankrolls. 'Specially with so few of 'em left.
Spock is ballin', yo.
Dem Vulcan bankrolls. 'Specially with so few of 'em left.
Spock is ballin', yo.
Re: J.J. Abrams: 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Had 'Fundamental Story Prob
Kirk's story arc demanded that he be the one who sacrificed himself. This story was not about Khan or his redemption (especially for an alternate universe self he knows nothing about).
The movie had an ambitious story, that's for sure. For the most part, in my opinion, they pulled it off. And, STID was no more like TWOK than TVH was. I have no idea why the "fan base" would be pissed off they used Khan. He's hardly an icon or inviolable. Using him was kind of neat because he is now part of crucial times in the development of the lives of both Kirks.
Kirk's story arc demanded that he be the one who sacrificed himself. This story was not about Khan or his redemption (especially for an alternate universe self he knows nothing about).
The movie had an ambitious story, that's for sure. For the most part, in my opinion, they pulled it off. And, STID was no more like TWOK than TVH was. I have no idea why the "fan base" would be pissed off they used Khan. He's hardly an icon or inviolable. Using him was kind of neat because he is now part of crucial times in the development of the lives of both Kirks.
Re: J.J. Abrams: 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Had 'Fundamental Story Prob
I still don't get how Kirk choosing the save the lives of an entire species instead of religiously worshiping the Prime Directive by letting them die like some sanctimonious asshole is supposed to be a bad then he needs to character develop from.
And I don't buy the lying thing either seeing as Kirk Prime occasionally fudged reports in TOS.
I still don't get how Kirk choosing the save the lives of an entire species instead of religiously worshiping the Prime Directive by letting them die like some sanctimonious asshole is supposed to be a bad then he needs to character develop from.
And I don't buy the lying thing either seeing as Kirk Prime occasionally fudged reports in TOS.
Re: J.J. Abrams: 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Had 'Fundamental Story Prob
(I agree that using Khan can be argued as problematic, but it's not what "broke" the movie. I'd say Khan's sudden hard turn into full-on evil after Prime Spock's unexpected info dump is STID's biggest problem, plot-wise. It's the writer's heavy hand rather than organic character development.)
Saying "really?" is not any kind of cogent criticism.
Obviously not all Trek fans were pissed off.
(I agree that using Khan can be argued as problematic, but it's not what "broke" the movie. I'd say Khan's sudden hard turn into full-on evil after Prime Spock's unexpected info dump is STID's biggest problem, plot-wise. It's the writer's heavy hand rather than organic character development.)
You mean V'ger, right?
Re: J.J. Abrams: 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Had 'Fundamental Story Prob
While I agree that Kirk did the right thing - save people instead of hiding behind inflexible dogma - I don't think the movie was saying Kirk did the wrong thing, or that Spock did the wrong thing with his report. They both did what was right: Kirk followed his conscience and Spock followed his logic by not lying.
I think the opening of the film is really strong, since it shows a clear direction for both the leads: Kirk will learn about responsibility, Spock will learn about loyalty.
Then the movie shits itself and turns into a movie about a bad guy with a big ship getting revenge. Spock's arc is forgotten about and instead he punches Khan in the face a lot. At least Kirk dying, while it was rushed and annoying, tied into his story arc.
While I agree that Kirk did the right thing - save people instead of hiding behind inflexible dogma - I don't think the movie was saying Kirk did the wrong thing, or that Spock did the wrong thing with his report. They both did what was right: Kirk followed his conscience and Spock followed his logic by not lying.
I think the opening of the film is really strong, since it shows a clear direction for both the leads: Kirk will learn about responsibility, Spock will learn about loyalty.
Then the movie shits itself and turns into a movie about a bad guy with a big ship getting revenge. Spock's arc is forgotten about and instead he punches Khan in the face a lot. At least Kirk dying, while it was rushed and annoying, tied into his story arc.
Re: J.J. Abrams: 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Had 'Fundamental Story Prob
I do think there is a fundamental divide, usually not acknowledged, between TOS and TNG fans. Actually, I would say the divide is between the TNG hardcore and everyone else, as the later Berman series in various ways turned their backs on the utopian "evolved sensibility" of TNG.
TOS was not afraid to use action to spice up the story, DS9 famously embraced moral ambiguity, and ENT tried to combine the two (I haven't seen enough of VOY to make a judgement). Fans of these are more likely to enjoy the Nu movies than are fans to whom Trek represents righteous pacifism and legalistic ethics debates.
(Sorry, I may have been carried away by the lure of fancy words there.)
I do think there is a fundamental divide, usually not acknowledged, between TOS and TNG fans. Actually, I would say the divide is between the TNG hardcore and everyone else, as the later Berman series in various ways turned their backs on the utopian "evolved sensibility" of TNG.
TOS was not afraid to use action to spice up the story, DS9 famously embraced moral ambiguity, and ENT tried to combine the two (I haven't seen enough of VOY to make a judgement). Fans of these are more likely to enjoy the Nu movies than are fans to whom Trek represents righteous pacifism and legalistic ethics debates.
(Sorry, I may have been carried away by the lure of fancy words there.)
