STID 5th anniversary

LOL. Interesting reaction and critique but I thought it was a lot better and more mature writing to say both that vengeful obsession could be corrupting and also that some threats and opponents are real and really need to be defeated. The Borg really were relentless conquerors and yet just wanting to personally hurt them & refusing to retreat from them could be irrational and self-destructive.

From the speech he doesn't seem to be much of an alternate philosophy at all, let alone a practical one; he says that trying to stop people who do us harm risks making us similarly evil so (maybe, probably, implicitly?) we shouldn't try to stop them at all (?), when those we love are taken from us we should respond by remembering that we are and should be explorers.

I was just responding to from Realist's post his claim that the actors made the characters feel nostalgic, I didn't think they did (at least the writing went very against it).

Well if he had either killed Khan or not brought him along, the conflict, story, film would have ended with Marcus being captured and no more fighting between the ships; Khan being stunned and then surprising Kirk with quick recovery and so taking over the ship is what made the film continue beyond that point; as well as prolonging the film it feels as if with that the writers were punishing Kirk for having restraint. I don't know about escalating the conflict but it very much did continue it.

 

And what should Kirk have done? It was a classified ship project that Khan had some role in developing. His assistance, perhaps unnecessary, provided needed intel that Kirk didn't have. If Kirk had gone without Khan, Khan likely would not have given him more information. So, Kirk goes in, with little knowledge or intel and gets himself captured by Marcus himself. I don't see Kirk getting through to Marcus successfully.

 

Just finished watching it again. As with each previous time, my appreciation of it grows and its position as my favourite Trek movie is further solidified.

 

Not at all what he said.

The only way to interpret it that way, was if you’re the type who thinks crushing necks is the only way to ‘stop’ potential and real threats. To yourself, the things you care about, or the goals that you wish to achieve.

In other words, someone who allows themselves to be motivated solely by unchecked hatred and fear.

aka. Someone like Marcus and Khan.

Also: Boy, that Borg brain which couldn’t even do much as wriggle away, sure was a major threat to people! Picard couldn’t possibly have shoved it into a fishtank, and gotten the exact same result.

Or Lord knows, take her for trial. Considering there was no downside to doing it whatsoever, he’s supposably the principled one, the Queen was literally their representative, and the only Borg thats both culpable and capable of answering for their crimes.

Hell, imagine if they tried to Hugh her. Billions of people saved! And a Voyager finale that HAD to be better than what we got.

 

He did seem to present trying to stop threats and being true to who we are and should be as mutually incompatible, with defending one self having no part in the latter; he and the film also, OTOH, oddly equivocated between/equated being a potential threat and having already actually done harmed. Yes, of course there actually is a middle ground between being brutal and doing nothing (like as he tried to do with Marcus arresting the perpetrator and let a non-brutal punishment be imposed) but the conclusive speech suggested there wasn't or at least the risk of becoming brutal was so great it may be better to just do nothing.

I got the impression that (somewhat contrived but not that bad or unbelievable a contrivance) killing her was necessary to shutting down/killing all the other Borg on the ship, without which they would still control it and be unstoppable.

 

That was not my take away. His speech spoke more to his maturity and recognizing that even in the face of threats, when there is a temptation to use the same brutal tactics, that they must remember who they are and not sink to that level. So, I think he was advocating the middle ground that you note.

 

Where does he say any of that?

There will always be those who mean to do us harm. To stop them, we risk awakening the same evil within ourselves. Our first instinct is to seek revenge when those we love are taken from us. But that's not who we are... When Christopher Pike first gave me his ship, he had me recite the Captain's Oath. Words I didn't appreciate at the time. But now I see them as a call for us to remember who we once were and who we must be again. And those words: Space, the final frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise. Her five-year mission: to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no one has gone before.
​

So basically, ‘He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster . . . when you gaze long into the abyss the abyss also gazes into you. So don’t go out of your way to abyss-stare, you knumbskulls. We‘ve better shit to do!’

We see The Borg are already collapsing as she melts. It’s in between a few shots of Picard swinging around like Tarzan.

Now that’s a sentence that was weird to write.

 

STID was a really fun movie!

 

Might reactions to the film have been even a bit different if it had instead been called (as I think was considered) Star Trek: Vengeance?

I think with that title it would have gotten both a bit less hype and disappointed viewers being a little less disappointed (and it would have made the Khan reveal (even) less of a surprise).

 

I hate the Star Trek: [Shipname] format we've endured since the 90's. Star Trek Into Darkness is my favourite movie name because it dares to be different.

 

No, I don't think so. The hype and mystery box around Khan caused the issue.

 

JJ Abrams Star Trek and it's superior sequel has heart in the continuing development of Spock; he had to see Kirk dying to understand why he did all of those things during the movie for him. Spock at that moment finally got it, I broke down because I was right there with him... it was a moment of clarity for the character. As for the overall movie, well... these movies were focused on spectacle, something TNG movies failed miserably to achieve til it's last disaster of a picture. This movie Into Darkness brought new life to Trek visually, something I believe Roddenberry would've loved but of course he would've had tons of issues with the plot.

 

why was the film even called into darkness? what theme of darkness is in the film.

 

Starfleet was using Khan Noonien Singh as an agent, they built a gigantic mile-long deathship and planned to ignite and win a war with the Klingons. Starfleet Into Darkness may have been more accurate, but the jist is true.

 

Simple. Faced with war Starfleet decided to use darker and more savage tactics, rather than ways that support their values.

 

I guess this makes sense.

 

That is awesome, thank you for sharing.

 

No news on any ST4...just an update on these https://trekmovie.com/2019/03/07/re...gures-from-diamond-select-were-worth-the-wait

 

Looks good to me.