STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

[Phily B]

Is this Generations that was so bad that Nimoy didn't want anything to do with it? If STID had half the plot holes that Generations had then this thread would be unbearable.

Nimoy didn't want anything to do with Generations because there wasn't enough for Spock to do, as it was a TNG movie.

Also, let's remember the vast difference between 1994 and 2009/2013. Nimoy had wanted to distance himself from Spock since the late 70's, and unless there was a significant role for Spock, he wasn't going to do it. I don't fault him for that.

Nimoy in 2009/2013 is whole different story, not to mention that Spock-prime plays a very minor part in J.J.'s movies, and Nimoy has a relationship with J.J. from Fringe.

I don't think whether or not Nimoy is involved with a movie is any measure of that movie's quality.

It's also because it was a nonsensical and terrible script that only two other TOS cast members came back. Generations is terrible on every single level and it doesn't have the excuse of being a light reboot. Imagine the rage on this forum if the plot was Generations level and they destroyed a beloved ship cause they wanted a movie ship

 

[M'Sharak]

I think it's fascinating that the majority of the people in the "F" category show their location as the United States. Funny ain't it?

I've asked you more than once before to refrain from making digs at other fans or groups of fans. Now knock it off.

 

[dulcimer47]

Yeah, they made a bunch of movies that - bar one - are widely panned by critics and fans alike. I mean Trek fans are pretty hardcore, but I'm pretty sure most of us gave up with Nemesis, the only TNG film I didn't see.

It's true, the TNG films weren't the franchise's best run, but FC is really good, and Generations is underrated, remember, Kirk's death was mandated by the studio, it wasn't really a creative decision. However, I'm not going to discount TNG, DS9, and the occasionally good Voyager or Enterprise episode.

I don't think it's a coincidence that Ron Moore was involved with both scripts, he always seemed to balance out any bad elements brought forth by Braga.

Once again, if our barometer for success is going to be box office results and "mainstream critics", then J.J.'s "Star Trek: Transformers" will always be out ahead.

However, as long as the franchise is on this path, we'll never see another "Measure of a Man" or "Inner Light" or "Far Beyond the Stars" again. For that matter, even something like "Time's Arrow" is probably beyond J.J.'s capabilities...

And when it comes to getting "mainstream" popularity - make good stories and that will come - you need to look no further than 1994, when TNG was one of the most popular shows on television, had already spun-off DS9, and was about to spin-off Voyager, and would be in the theaters in the fall with Generations.

TNG didn't need lens flares and explosions, and to me, their successes went far beyond J.J.'s movies.

J.J.'s movies will be lucky to get 4 made, probably 3. TNG's movie franchise, for being a "failure" made 4, and that was after spending 7 years as a critically acclaimed series that spawned an additional 18 years of episodes after it's conclusion.

I'm reminded of what Picard said about the Stargazer in "Relics": "The first vessel that I served on as captain was called Stargazer. It was an overworked, underpowered vessel, always on the verge of flying apart at the seams. In every measurable sense, my Enterprise is far superior. But there are times when I would give almost anything... to command the Stargazer again."

Sure sounds like he's describing "Prime" Star Trek there, doesn't it? The only difference is that J.J. Trek is only better in one measurable sense: box office results.

I agree with some of what you've said. Abrams Trek is better, but not only when it comes to box office results. Of course, any other sense of gauging its success would be subjective.

Have you considered that Abrams Trek movies could probably be the best Trek movies ever made? The four TNG films, which I consider as being good, aren't nearly in the same league. And comparing a TV show to a movie doesn't work even if it is the same franchise. They're different mediums catering to different audiences. Who knows, if Abrams Trek spins off into a TV show, we could see another Measure of a Man type episode, but perhaps with some more pizzazz.

I think Abrams Trek has struck a balance among wanting to have high box office results, having core Trek material for the long time fan, new ideas and visuals, half-decent plot, and character moments. And all in just 2 hours (or 4 if you take both movies), as opposed to hundreds of hours available in a TV show.

YMMV.

Actually, when J.J. Trek was announced, I was ecstatic. I thought we were going to get "Star Trek: Lost". Instead, we got "Star Trek: Transformers".

I'm all for more "pizzazz", as long as there is a good story and good characters behind it. Unfortunately, in my opinion, there isn't.

I suppose it succeeded in making Trek a viable movie franchise again, at least according to what passes for viability in 2013, but I just lament the lack of any kind of substance.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

I saw ST:XII a second time today and I want to say.. ALL IS FORGIVEN.

I'm ready for the love train.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Stop with the snobby attitude for crying out loud. Bringing in new fans only makes Trek stronger.

Nothing new there, sadly. As I mentioned before, I entered Star Trek fandom in early 1980, with only ST:TMP below my belt - and hit the snobby fan demographic early on. That if only I were a "true fan", whatever that means, I would see their point that TMP was a terrible movie that threatened to kill Star Trek forever by letting in all these "newbies".

By December 1983, I was the club's president, and we grew from 200 to over 1000 members over the next decade. The committee was then about one third original fans and two thirds "newbies" (usually the ones with fresh ideas on fundraising and meeting coordination). Many of the older fans just faded away, more were chased away by ST II "going all military" on us, and lots more ran screaming after ST IV, which was branded by some as "the dumbing down of the franchise". And any of us around in early 1987 should still recall the intense disdain for TNG from some fan quarters, before it even aired!

So the films that polarized the membership would seem to be TMP, ST II, ST IV - and JJ's two films. Coincidentally, all were excellent money earners for Paramount. And those five movies all brought in lots of new fans to keep the franchise alive.

TMP and JJ's films are still my favourite ST movies.

I just lament the lack of any kind of substance.

I've always found the "substance" in Star Trek is often a deliberate series of little gaps that are meant to be filled in by the fans (and the tie-in novelists). The best chemistry between characters is often when no words are exchanged.

I saw ST:XII a second time today and I want to say.. ALL IS FORGIVEN.

I'm ready for the love train.

Hahaha. Glad to say "I told you so."

 

[Borgminister]

I saw ST:XII a second time today and I want to say.. ALL IS FORGIVEN.

I'm ready for the love train.

Had us worried there for a while...

 

[Therin of Andor]

I'm usually the last to say anything positive about B&B, but I'll say this for them: they ever resorted to re-making an existing story.

Huh?

The number of times the USS Voyager got duplicated, or someone from the ship got sent back in a time loop, in the first season drove me crazy! There are many VOY episodes that feel like remakes of previous episodes from other ST series, including the reverse-aging episode of TAS.

 

[Xavier_Storma]

Two hours of aging actors smugly reciting poor dialogue if I remember the first ten of them correctly.

The Hollywood obsession with youth...

Not every hero needs to be in his 30ies...

How does that make for a bad movie? Plus, Pike wasn't in his thirties.

That's why he died.

 

[Xavier_Storma]

For all the bad writing in Nemesis, its biggest sin was that it was BORING AS F***.

Yup. Though I do find that it's aging the best out of the four TNG movie outings.

First Contact is still my favorite of the TNG films, but the one that I've personally found has aged the most gracefully is actually Generations.

Crazy, I know.

NEMESIS and GENERATIONS. Yup. And here is why: Cinematography. NEMESIS and GENERATIONS looked awesome.

 

[Devon]

Once again, if our barometer for success is going to be box office results and "mainstream critics", then J.J.'s "Star Trek: Transformers" will always be out ahead.

Swing and a miss with the insult.

However, as long as the franchise is on this path, we'll never see another "Measure of a Man" or "Inner Light" or "Far Beyond the Stars" again.

Not in a two hour movie, no. People don't want to spend $40 or $50.00 at the movies to see Patrick Stewart play a little flute (oh, but if it's in 3D they might....)

For that matter, even something like "Time's Arrow" is probably beyond J.J.'s capabilities...

J.J. is the director, not the writer, so.....

And when it comes to getting "mainstream" popularity - make good stories and that will come - you need to look no further than 1994, when TNG was one of the most popular shows on television, had already spun-off DS9, and was about to spin-off Voyager, and would be in the theaters in the fall with Generations.

Ironically, many felt that the fall began with Generations.

TNG didn't need lens flares and explosions, and to me, their successes went far beyond J.J.'s movies.

So you're comparing 7 years worth of episodes to 2 films? Really?

J.J.'s movies will be lucky to get 4 made, probably 3.

And that has to do with what?

TNG's movie franchise, for being a "failure" made 4, and that was after spending 7 years as a critically acclaimed series that spawned an additional 18 years of episodes after it's conclusion.

TNG's film series has performed the worst for Paramount, and it was due to the TNG films that we got the reboot, so it's ironic how you want to attribute the TNG film's supposed success but don't realize it was their failures that caused Paramount to want to start over!

"Real" Star Trek is character development and social commentary told through a sci-fi prism, not explosions, CGI, and magic Khan blood.

That was pretty weak. You cherry picked the credentials for supposed "real" Star Trek. I could easily say "'Real' Star Trek is character development and social commentary told through a sci-fi prism, not explosions, CGI and Kirk chopping wood."

So based on your credentials, about 80% of Star Trek is not "real." Hell, what am I talking about, none it is "real." Which makes the "Real Star Trek" thing even more ridiculous to say.

 

[GameOn]

It's also because it was a nonsensical and terrible script that only two other TOS cast members came back. Generations is terrible on every single level and it doesn't have the excuse of being a light reboot. Imagine the rage on this forum if the plot was Generations level and they destroyed a beloved ship cause they wanted a movie ship

I've always thought that Generations was a complete mess of a movie that almost rivals Star Trek 5 in its awfulness.

 

[Pauln6]

Kirk's problem is that he promoted an ensign to chief engineer so they're all off doing something else... evacuating the ship maybe? And it really isn't clear why they have magical glass and inspired transporters but no radiation suits or robotic drones - technologies that we have in the 21st century already, along with greater equality of the sexes.

If there were radiation suits, he probably didn't have time to suit up. I doubt a radiation suit would've helped, even in TWOK Spock didn't bother with one did he? Everyone in engineering appeared to have one on, as far as I'm aware there has never been such a suit in Trek.

The Enterprise crew refused to evacuate, this was made clear when Spock gave the order to abandon ship. I'm not sure on your first point either, he had Scotty and the acting engineering officer at his disposal, would he have ordered them into the warp core to die?

I hope you don't take offense but you are making my point for me. Of course I do accept that as shown on screen Kirk's choices were limited and the writers painted him into that corner deliberately. Kirk is within his rights to order all the engineers out and go in himself but that isn't the most logical choice and, once again, he succeeds purely on the basis of luck.

1. When are engineers ever going to have time to suit up in a radiation leak emergency? That's why from TMP they started to put their engineers IN the suits when the staff are on duty (just need to put a helmet on). They stopped doing it in TNG because they sanitised the engineering section but it was an incredibly sensible design choice alongside giving security guards phaser resistance body armour.

2. If TNG is anything to go by, a commander has to be prepared to order somebody more qualified to their death in order to save the ship - and never mind the ship, to protect civilians on the planet they about to crash into. Much like in ST09 when he stayed too long next to an expanding black hole in order to blow up a ship, his decision, while successful, is not well reasoned. If Kirk arrives with no tools, and limited engineering ability and discovers that he can't kick the ship better? He succeed because of luck - thus showing he learned nothing from the dressing down he took earlier in the movie. This isn't Kirk's fault - it's the writers wanted to make him a very traditional hero. imagine how many 12 year olds who would be in tears if he'd ordered Scotty to his death. In fact, they should both have gone - the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. They aren't just words.

3. I was being a bit facetious about the missing crew. If they were not evacuating then a dozen engineers should have been onsite. The ship has 400+ crew - enough for 3 shifts - and during a red alert they take action stations. showing a deserted engineering. I hate this kind of cheesy plot device where the hero is the only one onsite. The movie 2012 did it worse where an unqualified character ran all the way through the ship past multiple qualified characters despite time being of the essence just so the hero could steal the limelight. It's really poor storytelling.

4. I am also aware that it is traditional Trek to have Kirk Spock and McCoy doing things that they aren't really best qualified to do. It's always annoying.

I am surprised that people are still criticising the movie for Uhura stealing McCoy's screen time. I thought she had less of a screen presence than he did, all her scenes were relevant to her (although they should probably have used a volcanologist or geophysicist on the shuttle - I couldn't see why uhura was there) and McCoy got loads to do.

I would have used Chekov for the missile scene personally - He's a maths genius, has tactical training, has very precise manual dexterity (as shown by his transporter use in the last movie) and he becomes the tactical officer in TMP. I thought the use of Chekov was probably the worst in the film. He just delivered dialogue and his personality didn't come though at all. Assigning him to engineering was a mistake. Making Carol an engineer could have made more sense.

 

[F. King Daniel]

In the novel The Valiant, the Stargazer's captain and first officer were killed, and Picard took command. He kept it.

Ditto Dax on the USS Aventine in the post-series novels.

But... But.... But.... Enterprise's Captain, Captain Pike, was not killed. And Enterprise returned to Earth after the mission. Kirk was a cadet about to be reprimanded for cheating. Not to mention being a stowaway. But as long as he ends up Captain, it doesn't matter how he gets there.

Spoiler: SPOILER

Even in the new film, he ends up commanding Enterprise in the end. Despite the fact I've seen nothing that suggests he learned anything from what got him demoted in the first place. He simply saves Earth. Again..

He gave his life for his crew without a second thought. He did not save Earth, he didn't even stop Khan, but he saved those important to him.

He did not do it for shits and giggles.

 

[Orac Zen]

I think some people are desperate to hate this movie.

I can only speak for myself, of course, but this ridiculous generalisation certainly doesn't work for me. I enjoyed the hell out of '09 and hoped to enjoy this movie just as much. The fact I didn't has nothing whatever to do with me being "desperate to hate" it; it has to do with it being one of the more vacuous excuses for a movie I've seen. If you see it differently, that's great, but you'd be best to avoid assuming that people who didn't like it all had preconceived notions that it would be garbage.

It just grates on me when someone acts like Trek was this model series for enlightened people and that J.J. Abrams films are just fluff that shit on Roddenberry's vision.

I've never had much time for the Trek's-a-masterpiece, Roddenberry's-vision-rules viewpoint myself. Roddeneberry, with the help of a great many other people whose input seems to be overlooked as often as not, made a TV show so he could make a living. The rose-tinted glasses view of it as some work of genius that's ascended to holy writ and must go unchallenged has always struck me as absurd. So once again, my lack of enthusiasm for this movie has nothing to do with me being one of those clichéd TOS-uber-alles types.

[Abrams and co] created an alt timeline ripe for new stories and new adventures so stick with it.

Bingo. This is one of my biggest issues with this movie: '09 did away with so much of the baggage that had weighed Trek down...and the first thing they did with their baggage-free timeline was to make some sort of TWoK-lite pseudo-remake. Among other things, this movie is a wasted opportunity.

This movie isn't for me (this review linked to above, while harsher than I'd be about it, nonetheless covers several of the reasons I didn't care for it), but if it works for others that's great. As in all things, to each their own.

 

[Commishsleer]

Is this Generations that was so bad that Nimoy didn't want anything to do with it? If STID had half the plot holes that Generations had then this thread would be unbearable.

"Real" Star Trek is character development and social commentary told through a sci-fi prism, not explosions, CGI, and magic Khan blood.

True, I should have specified new episodes of a show like TNG and/or DS9.

Who was it recently who said that Star Trek is a TV show and best done in that format? Ron Moore I believe.

So the real Star trek is just TV episodes or DS9 and TNG. No TOS, TAS, VOY, ENT or any movies.
As for magic blood, there were plenty of 'magical' non-scientific things through all the series including TNG

Is this Generations that was so bad that Nimoy didn't want anything to do with it? If STID had half the plot holes that Generations had then this thread would be unbearable.

Nimoy didn't want anything to do with Generations because there wasn't enough for Spock to do, as it was a TNG movie.

I've seen Nimoy at a convention and he basically said to Shatner that he was stupid to be in GEN. And what a really stupid way to die. He said if he Spock was in it Kirk wouldn't have died. He said it again and again.
Not that there wasn't enough to do - that the Kirk/TOS part of it was stupid. Thats the reason he says he didn't want to be in it.

 

[Xavier_Storma]

It's also because it was a nonsensical and terrible script that only two other TOS cast members came back. Generations is terrible on every single level and it doesn't have the excuse of being a light reboot. Imagine the rage on this forum if the plot was Generations level and they destroyed a beloved ship cause they wanted a movie ship

I've always thought that Generations was a complete mess of a movie that almost rivals Star Trek 5 in its awfulness.

Not quite as much as XI's mess... and the characters and their story were much more credible. Central themes like coping with Death, chosing a life went through the film. It felt epic in scope... condamn me... it is still my favorite TREK film to date.

 

[Xavier_Storma]

The point is not the magic blood... it is the whole setup.

Why do they need to capture Khan to get that blood sample, if they have 72 (!!! ) other augements waiting ON BOARD there.

Plus... this magic blood leads to something, they have created with that transwarp transporter.
Essentially you do not need starships in this reality anymore. Every single person, who watches the movie (as is capable of logical thinking) will ask him/herself the essential question: why didn't Starfleet use the transwarp transporter to follow Khan to Kronos?
The same problem occurs when you think the return from the dead through to the end: You now have the magic blood... death is history.

So, in essence TREK 3 doesn't need starships, nor doctors. The heroes cannot die anymore. That's loss of impact, loss of drama, although I am sure, that Orci and Kurtzman will simply forget that ridiculous plotpoint in the sequel.

Just lay back and enjoy the SFX, action ride, and do not pay to close attention to logic.
New TREK is like TRANSFORMERS and G.I. JOE. Simple, absolutely dumb, loud entertainment which is in essence about nothing but nice visuals and SFX.
Enjoy it as such, or leave it alone.

 

[SalvorHardin]

Once again, if our barometer for success is going to be box office results and "mainstream critics", then J.J.'s "Star Trek: Transformers" will always be out ahead.

Ok. How about the opinions of TrekBBS members then? Or are they also not good enough a success barometer for you?

So far
A+,A,A- -->77/136
B+,B,B- -->35/136
C+,C,C- -->13/136
D to F -->11/136

 

[Xavier_Storma]

Once again, if our barometer for success is going to be box office results and "mainstream critics", then J.J.'s "Star Trek: Transformers" will always be out ahead.

Ok. How about the opinions of TrekBBS members then? Or are they also not good enough a success barometer for you?

So far
A+,A,A- -->77/136
B+,B,B- -->35/136
C+,C,C- -->13/136
D to F -->11/136

The internet... it's not representative. Neither are polls etc.
You will have the box office as one of the few really objective parameters to level the success of the film.

This again does not lead to a film being good or bad.

Example:

X-MEN THE LAST STAND. Hated among the internet community.
Yet the most successful of the X-MEN films to date.

Sometimes the internet simply falsifies the whole picture.

But in the end, it does not matter... as long as you are able to enjoy it... why do you care what other people think?

Example: I love X-MEN ORIGINS WOLVERINE. That film is considered the worst of the X-MEN films... I don't care.

I love NEMESIS. This film is considered as one of the worst TREK films... I don't care.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Why do they need to capture Khan to get that blood sample, if they have 72 (!!! ) other augements waiting ON BOARD there.

They have absolutely no way of knowing if their blood has the same qualities. Harrison may have undergone changes thanks to Section 31.

why didn't Starfleet use the transwarp transporter to follow Khan to Kronos?

Didn't the film mention that it was a one-use prototype?