As a Trek-fan I found this movie perfectly entertaining.
Oh, I guess that means I'm not a real fan, right?
STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]
- Thread starter Agent Richard07
- Start date
As a Trek-fan I found this movie perfectly entertaining.
Oh, I guess that means I'm not a real fan, right?
I watched this film a few hours ago with my friend whos more of a casual fan, he seemed to enjoy it but said it didnt have any of the uniqueness of previous star trek films.
I thought the first hour of the film started off quite slowly in build up did disappoint me slightly and some of the logic such as making Kirk go back to the academy then first officer then captain within about 20 minutes all felt.
There was also to many god dam lens flares in this film i seemed to notice it a lot more this time. however I lied a look of the other things in this film.
I liked the inclusion of Section 31 as someone who enjoyed there run in DS9 it was good for me to see them appear in this and i liked the interplay with them and Kahn, I just wish it was used a lot more and built upon.
I'm not to sure on the Kirk ''death scene'' as i kind of like the similarities with the wrath of Kahn but to me as a fan i found it a little to Over the top especially with Spocks ' KAHNNNNN' I was half expecting spock to host the funeral mentioning how he found kirks choice to save the many of the ship the most Vulcan decision he had ever seen.
I found the acting to be of a good standard and I liked the new actors in Cummberbatch as Kahn and Alice eve as Dr Marcus
I thought the first hour of the film started off quite slowly in build up did disappoint me slightly and some of the logic such as making Kirk go back to the academy then first officer then captain within about 20 minutes all felt.
There was also to many god dam lens flares in this film i seemed to notice it a lot more this time. however I lied a look of the other things in this film.
I liked the inclusion of Section 31 as someone who enjoyed there run in DS9 it was good for me to see them appear in this and i liked the interplay with them and Kahn, I just wish it was used a lot more and built upon.
I'm not to sure on the Kirk ''death scene'' as i kind of like the similarities with the wrath of Kahn but to me as a fan i found it a little to Over the top especially with Spocks ' KAHNNNNN' I was half expecting spock to host the funeral mentioning how he found kirks choice to save the many of the ship the most Vulcan decision he had ever seen.
I found the acting to be of a good standard and I liked the new actors in Cummberbatch as Kahn and Alice eve as Dr Marcus
Deck 1 - Bridge
Lieutenant Junior Grade
If you'd read what I wrote instead of getting your knickers in a twist, you'll see I wrote - 'you may find yourself sat there getting increasingly angry.'
'May' is subjective, I can't tell you what you are, don't you know yourself?
Deck 1 - Bridge
Lieutenant Junior Grade
I liked it.
I liked the duality of Starfleet depicted -- it's always had a military role attached, no matter how much they call themselves explorers, and with the serious threats that were shown in the last film that came out of nowhere and were only stopped by unreliable variables, you can see why there'd be people in the organization who see the need to increase its ability to defend itself from the known threats (the Klingons are almost assumed to be a coming war), and those unknown (which are even more frightening, as Narada showed).
With this, it's hard to see the "bad guys" as the bad guys, they just have different goals.
The militarization of Starfleet could very well save the Federation itself, but by doing so could actually destroy it. The duality continues. Heroes aren't a variable to rely on, neither are supermen.
Enterprise and Vengeance are the movie.
I liked the duality of Starfleet depicted -- it's always had a military role attached, no matter how much they call themselves explorers, and with the serious threats that were shown in the last film that came out of nowhere and were only stopped by unreliable variables, you can see why there'd be people in the organization who see the need to increase its ability to defend itself from the known threats (the Klingons are almost assumed to be a coming war), and those unknown (which are even more frightening, as Narada showed).
With this, it's hard to see the "bad guys" as the bad guys, they just have different goals.
The militarization of Starfleet could very well save the Federation itself, but by doing so could actually destroy it. The duality continues. Heroes aren't a variable to rely on, neither are supermen.
Enterprise and Vengeance are the movie.
If you'd read what I wrote instead of getting your knickers in a twist, you'll see I wrote - 'you may find yourself sat there getting increasingly angry.'
'May' is subjective, I can't tell you what you are, don't you know yourself?
What do you make of those fans who not only find this film perfectly entertaining but also don't see any arrogance in Abrams ability to make such good movies.
Deck 1 - Bridge
Lieutenant Junior Grade
If you'd read what I wrote instead of getting your knickers in a twist, you'll see I wrote - 'you may find yourself sat there getting increasingly angry.'
'May' is subjective, I can't tell you what you are, don't you know yourself?
What do you make of those fans who not only find this film perfectly entertaining but also don't see any arrogance in Abrams ability to make such good movies.
If that's the opinion they hold then that's fine. Why would I see it any other way, it's just a film, why are you looking for consensus on something that people will all see differently?
You seem a bit narky mate, may I ask why? I've already explained that 'may' was used in a subjective context and you're still banging on, get it off your chest and share it.
If you'd read what I wrote instead of getting your knickers in a twist, you'll see I wrote - 'you may find yourself sat there getting increasingly angry.'
'May' is subjective, I can't tell you what you are, don't you know yourself?
What do you make of those fans who not only find this film perfectly entertaining but also don't see any arrogance in Abrams ability to make such good movies.
If that's the opinion they hold then that's fine. Why would I see it any other way,
Because you do.
You see arrogance where I just see a desire to make a very good and entertaining film.
In terms of story telling, I thought it was pretty weak. I'll probably end up having a bit of a rant, so long post ahead. Also, spoilers.
First of all, we've got that black guy with the sick daughter. What was the point of that? What did that entire sequence accomplish? The only things it did was to establish that Khan's blood could (somehow, it was never properly explained) cure illnesses, and that there was a bombing. None of this needed that family that we never saw again. The "Khan's blood is a magical cure" bit was better explained by the tribble sequence. And as for the bombing? Why did Khan go to all the trouble of having this guy plant the bomb if Khan was going to actually be there in the aftermath (as Kirk saw in the meeting)? Instead of going to all this pointless storytelling, just have Khan sneak in, showing how clever he is. Get's caught, has to fight a few guards (showing how strong he is). Plants the bomb, blows the place up. Establishes his character, shows his intelligence and strength. Sure, it doesn't do the "blood is a cure to whatever disease you might have" thing, but that was explained later in the movie anyway.
The first bit was good. Show Kirk saying, "Fuck you" to the rules, and then BAM he gets demoted. Force him to live with the consequences of his arrogance. That was a lot like Kirk from TOS. Making him a commander was also good. But then, as soon as Pike is killed, Starfleet says, "Oh well, we'll just make you a captain again and give you back the Enterprise." WTF is this? What was the point of demoting him in the first place? It would have been far better to have Kirk as Pike's XO (with Spock staying as Enterprise science officer), and then have Pike killed later. That way, Kirk has to EARN his command back instead of Starfleet telling him he might as well just have it back. Maybe have Pike die trying to fix the reactor. That would give Kirk a HUGE motivation to go after Khan.
Or, have Admiral Marcus take command of the Enterprise. He wants Khan dead, so why is he sending out Kirk to do it? Marcus takes command, goes after Khan, and then sends Kirk on the away mission to kill him. Marcus tells Kirk to kill Khan, but Kirk refuses, thus getting Marcus to turn on Kirk and revealing Marcus to be the bad guy.
And seriously, that scene with kirk fixing the reactor in the bit that they cut 'n' pasted from tWoK was just pissing on it. You actually telling me that something which KILLS a Vulcan in a horrific manner just makes a much weaker Human "just a little dead"? Seriously, WTF is this? And then, Khan's blood cures him. Did they stop off at Miracle Max's? "To BLAVE!"
This is so cheap. It's like when they are fighting the neural parasites in TOS and blind Spock - But Spock has a magical inner eyelid so everything's okay! Or when they try to give Worf a new backbone and he dies on the table - But Klingons have redundant body systems, so everything's okay! Last time someone died this way, they had to spend a whole movie trying to get him back, at great cost. Now they fix it in five minutes.
Which brings me to that whole big fight thing. It's Kirk's movie. He's the one who gets demoted. He's the one in command. and yet, in the big finale, Kirk's on his back and Spock's the one solving the problem. Why? I mentioned before that you could have had Pike die in the reactor (and stay dead). Then you could have had Kirk fighting Khan instead of Spock, and no need for that crappy, "We need him alive" stuff either. It's a movie, Kill the bloody villain.
A few final thoughts...
Why was Khan using a fake name anyway?
How does Kirk, sitting in Klingon space, talk to Scotty, in the Terran system on a freaking communicator? Seriously, what is the range on these things?
And that big ship, Vengeance or whatever... That was the biggest fanwank I;ve ever seen.
All in all, I was quite disappointed.
First of all, we've got that black guy with the sick daughter. What was the point of that? What did that entire sequence accomplish? The only things it did was to establish that Khan's blood could (somehow, it was never properly explained) cure illnesses, and that there was a bombing. None of this needed that family that we never saw again. The "Khan's blood is a magical cure" bit was better explained by the tribble sequence. And as for the bombing? Why did Khan go to all the trouble of having this guy plant the bomb if Khan was going to actually be there in the aftermath (as Kirk saw in the meeting)? Instead of going to all this pointless storytelling, just have Khan sneak in, showing how clever he is. Get's caught, has to fight a few guards (showing how strong he is). Plants the bomb, blows the place up. Establishes his character, shows his intelligence and strength. Sure, it doesn't do the "blood is a cure to whatever disease you might have" thing, but that was explained later in the movie anyway.
The first bit was good. Show Kirk saying, "Fuck you" to the rules, and then BAM he gets demoted. Force him to live with the consequences of his arrogance. That was a lot like Kirk from TOS. Making him a commander was also good. But then, as soon as Pike is killed, Starfleet says, "Oh well, we'll just make you a captain again and give you back the Enterprise." WTF is this? What was the point of demoting him in the first place? It would have been far better to have Kirk as Pike's XO (with Spock staying as Enterprise science officer), and then have Pike killed later. That way, Kirk has to EARN his command back instead of Starfleet telling him he might as well just have it back. Maybe have Pike die trying to fix the reactor. That would give Kirk a HUGE motivation to go after Khan.
Or, have Admiral Marcus take command of the Enterprise. He wants Khan dead, so why is he sending out Kirk to do it? Marcus takes command, goes after Khan, and then sends Kirk on the away mission to kill him. Marcus tells Kirk to kill Khan, but Kirk refuses, thus getting Marcus to turn on Kirk and revealing Marcus to be the bad guy.
And seriously, that scene with kirk fixing the reactor in the bit that they cut 'n' pasted from tWoK was just pissing on it. You actually telling me that something which KILLS a Vulcan in a horrific manner just makes a much weaker Human "just a little dead"? Seriously, WTF is this? And then, Khan's blood cures him. Did they stop off at Miracle Max's? "To BLAVE!"
This is so cheap. It's like when they are fighting the neural parasites in TOS and blind Spock - But Spock has a magical inner eyelid so everything's okay! Or when they try to give Worf a new backbone and he dies on the table - But Klingons have redundant body systems, so everything's okay! Last time someone died this way, they had to spend a whole movie trying to get him back, at great cost. Now they fix it in five minutes.
Which brings me to that whole big fight thing. It's Kirk's movie. He's the one who gets demoted. He's the one in command. and yet, in the big finale, Kirk's on his back and Spock's the one solving the problem. Why? I mentioned before that you could have had Pike die in the reactor (and stay dead). Then you could have had Kirk fighting Khan instead of Spock, and no need for that crappy, "We need him alive" stuff either. It's a movie, Kill the bloody villain.
A few final thoughts...
Why was Khan using a fake name anyway?
How does Kirk, sitting in Klingon space, talk to Scotty, in the Terran system on a freaking communicator? Seriously, what is the range on these things?
And that big ship, Vengeance or whatever... That was the biggest fanwank I;ve ever seen.
All in all, I was quite disappointed.
Last edited:
If you'd paid attention you'd have noticed that all this ties in with the theme "what would you do for your family".
Again you weren't paying attention. Marcus gave Kirk the Enterprise back, because he thought he could use the hot-head youngster as the perfect fall-guy for his war-plans.
This wouldn't make much sense.
Marcus operates from a position of strength. Why would he sacrifice that position by placing himself in the centre of things?
He tries to use Kirk and the Enterprise to instigate his war with the Klingons.
Who says this is Kirk's movie alone?
Besides, they killed the villain last time, and people where complaining.
Now the keep Khan alive, and people start complaining about that.
It's a warship built for Marcus' planned war against the Klingons. What's so fanwank-y about it?
So what? It's completely unrealistic. Are you telling me that Khan, instead of acting in a way that was more likely to succeed, instead chose a complicated plan because he was doing something for his family and wanted everyone involved in that needlessly complicated plan was also involved in a similar moral dilemma?
So? The same would have been accomplished with my idea. Marcus was saying that they were going to kill Khan. Kirk was in charge of the mission sent to do it. Whether it's Marcus in the meeting and Kirk sent out on the Enterprise, or Marcus on the Enterprise and Kirk in the stolen ship, it's still all the same thing. Just put in different places.
Honestly, that whole part of the movie was tacked on. Nothing came of it. You never saw the Klingons again. You could have had Khan hiding on a completed uninhabited planet, removed the war with the Klingons thing and it would have been the same movie. If you need a justification for Marcus to want to develop weapons, then just say that the Klingons are getting more and more aggressive after Nero escaped from Rura Penthe. The way they did it was to turn marcus into just another warmonger. Give him a legitimate cause for concern and you make him much more sympathetic. As it is, it's just a prick who wants a war so he can play with his toy guns.
Sure, it's not just about Kirk, but he's the hero, and yet he's completely absent from the big finale.
[/QUOTE]
It's an uber ship. It's no different to a teenage fan who designs a starship ten kilometers long with a zillion phaser banks and a zillion heavily armed fighter shuttles.
beamMe, the "guess I'm not a real fan" response was unnecessary—that's bait you didn't need to take. Deck 1 - Bridge, you could also have let it drop, and yet didn't.
If you'd read what I wrote instead of getting your knickers in a twist, you'll see I wrote - 'you may find yourself sat there getting increasingly angry.'
'May' is subjective, I can't tell you what you are, don't you know yourself?
What do you make of those fans who not only find this film perfectly entertaining but also don't see any arrogance in Abrams ability to make such good movies.
If that's the opinion they hold then that's fine. Why would I see it any other way,
Because you do.
You see arrogance where I just see a desire to make a very good and entertaining film.
Now, I don't need to see this sort of thing going on here, and neither does anyone else. Knock it off - both of you.
Edited to add:
Why "If you'd paid attention," when "Yes, but remember that... " would have worked just as well?
Again, unnecessary - just rebut the content without making a point of throwing it in the person's face.
Last edited:
Why couldn't they just have built some robot to plant and detonate the bomb? I didn't get the bit with the father sacrificing his life like that.
See this is where the plot is at its weakest and least original. It's like "lets kill off someone senior to make Kirk captain AGAIN as he was kicked out/suspended/demoted AGAIN. All in the space of about 5 minutes.
Would have been better if clever Spock or Scotty find some way to beam Kirk out of there and while he may be very ill, Khan's blood could save him? I don't know just a thought.
So fans couldn't moan that it was very unoriginal.
However the special effects are great but I just kept thinking - it took them 3-4 years to come up with this?
Starfleet was militarized in Kirk's era. This point is raised in several episodes of the original series. There was a major conflict in the mid-23rd century which led to a peace mission to Axanar. It irks me that people talk about this era who show their ignorance. "Starfleet needed to militarize". Really? Starfleet is identified as the military in the original series and in ST II.
Starfleet was militarized (one of its roles), but not to the extent that Marcus envisioned in the film. They don't operate dedicated warships at the time the movie takes place, rather multi-role ships that aren't made for the one sole mission of killing as best as possible. As written and stated, Vengeance is only there to kill the enemy in war, and all the effort and technology put into it was for that reason, whereas Enterprise could do such (nowhere near as good), but it's not its intent; it was built to explore the galaxy and beyond with a tertiary ability of defending itself and others.
I'm sure Marcus would want the majority of Starfleet's shipbuilding and doctrine to switch over from multi-role vessels and scientific exploration to dedicated warships and fighting skills.
The difference between the two is astounding.
I'm sure Marcus would want the majority of Starfleet's shipbuilding and doctrine to switch over from multi-role vessels and scientific exploration to dedicated warships and fighting skills.
The difference between the two is astounding.
Well, to my ears, for someone to say that Starfleet has to militarized it sounds wrong. Starfleet is already the military. For me, it's like going from zero to ten, when Starfleet is already a ten, so to speak.
Without a script of the film handy, I can't say for sure what Marcus wants. However, from what I have read in your reply, I am reminded of a situation that arose during the Cuban Missile Crisis. President Kennedy and Chief of Staff Curtis LeMay had differing views on how to resolve this crisis. The president was in favor of a blockade, and the chief of staff was in favor of bombing the missile sites. Curtis would later say the peaceful resolution of this crisis was the greatest defeat faced by our nation.
Without a script of the film handy, I can't say for sure what Marcus wants. However, from what I have read in your reply, I am reminded of a situation that arose during the Cuban Missile Crisis. President Kennedy and Chief of Staff Curtis LeMay had differing views on how to resolve this crisis. The president was in favor of a blockade, and the chief of staff was in favor of bombing the missile sites. Curtis would later say the peaceful resolution of this crisis was the greatest defeat faced by our nation.
Deck 1 - Bridge
Lieutenant Junior Grade
I've just seen the moderation intervention directed at me, in addition to you, for the narky tone you took with my review and someone else's post.
Another moderation tour de force!!
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Poll
