STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

[F. King Daniel]

Not trying to convince you of anything. Pointing out that they had uniform hats. It's fun trivia, and fact.

 

[PKerr]

Not trying to convince you of anything. Pointing out that they had uniform hats. It's fun trivia, and fact.

OK, but they did away with various things from the un-aired pilot, that was obviously one of them as we never saw it again.

I'm just pointing out that I'm being sent links to a picture of a hat on a table, It's not going to change my opinion that I suddenly like it.

 

[SeerSGB]

Not trying to convince you of anything. Pointing out that they had uniform hats. It's fun trivia, and fact.

OK, but they did away with various things from the un-aired pilot, that was obviously one of them as we never saw it again.

I'm just pointing out that I'm being sent links to a picture of a hat on a table, It's not going to change my opinion that I suddenly like it.

We did see it: Menagerie has footage with the hat in it. And the cage is less "unaired" and more "delayed". It was first shown on TV in '88 and has been in and out of the syndication run since then, and was included in the remastered run.

Anyways: The STID dress uniforms strike me more as a retro-future look based on someone trying to take a modern day Marine dress uniform and sci-fi it up. See a lot of Forbidden planet (majority of it FP), The Cage, anime and Marine dress uniform style rolled up in the look.

 

[M'Sharak]

I can't really take you seriously with that avatar. Just saying.

Congtratulations: you got sucked in by a political troll image nearly two years old, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the thread topic or forum.

Given your acknowledgement of it in the manner quoted above, he then feels he's justified in responding thus:

I can't really take you seriously with that avatar. Just saying.

Pot meet kettle..Just saying...

Which amounts to "Nyah, same to you!"

(Great, we're really operating on a high level now, aren't we?)

And also leaves things open for a third party to chime in, not entirely unpredictably:

I can't really take you seriously with that avatar. Just saying.

I think he has the best avatar on the forum .

Neat, but that's completely off-topic, and it's out of place in this forum.

To reiterate: NO politics in this forum unless it's relevant to the topic, please. PKerr, maybe it's time you got an av image that's a little more current.

All of you guys ought to have known better, so knock it off now. (Take it to PM at the very least, but keep it out of here.)

And Nazis, too? Swell.

 

[trevanian]

Not trying to convince you of anything. Pointing out that they had uniform hats. It's fun trivia, and fact.

Pretty sure Pike had an old TV in his quarters too. But that doesn't legitimize the VIC 20 that Kirk has in his home in TWOK.

If you're trying to justify hats in Starfleet, just go to the goofy things in TSFS ... they look just as bad as the ID ones, though they don't give off the STARSHIP TROOPERS vibe that I get from most of 09 and ID ('enlisting guarantees ... a free replicator, i guess.')

 

[suarezguy]

He seemed overly cavalier about his decision compared to how others regarded the Prime Directive and it didn't make sense that Spock wouldn't have objected, let alone to the point of playing the major role, and then not try to defend the decision later.

You think Spock would happily a planet full of innocents die?

That seemed the way that not only Pike but almost all of the other leaders felt; Spock having such esteem for the PD in not being observed but not caution against a mission that would greatly risk them being observed seemed illogical.

Spock didn't think Kirk would cover up the mission.

Then he should have tried more to defend the mission to the brass; you don't have to spell everything out but it seemed too much like he really did a back-stabbing and/or naively didn't anticipate how anyone else would react.

There's a difference between reusing a story and thematic idea and blatantly trying to remake much of a story; I thought Enterprise "Terra Nova" and Nemesis were much too close to past works and thus some of my least favorite (although "Friendship One" was very recent and bad to begin with).

As for the Eve in underwear scene, it seemed pointless but worse because I didn't like Kirk ignoring her telling him to turn around; the original Kirk would never do that but it seemed, unfortunately, like only a small stretch for Abrams version.

Take a look at the nasty red marks Shatner's Grabby Kirk left on Reyna's arms in "Requiem for Muthuselah" - Pine's Kirk would never do something like that.

Saw the episode, don't remember the scene, hope it wasn't so jerky.

Did you find it believable that Uhura would love Spock but be so unaccepting, almost not even understanding, about his reserved, logical nature

She was bothered by his willingness to put himself in danger and his post-Vulcan lack of communication, not his Vulcan nature. As was explained on the ride to Kronos.

I myself didn't get why he would put himself in danger but, once he was in it, the reasons for his reserve were clear.

or that Spock wouldn't alert Kirk about Carol's identity earlier (or that he would contact his alternate self from the bridge)?

Yes and yes.

Both seemed reckless to me.

The dialogue of the protagonists was mediocre, the action boring and the plotting very convoluted and unbelieaveable.

You pretty much just described every Trek film in a nutshell.

TWoK and TUC had some contrivances; what was contrived about FC, and how were any of the three convoluted?

Maybe Simon Pegg is just annoyed that these people will never shut up about how much they hate the movie not matter how much time passes

The film and reactions are some three months old, not a long time passage, and some people (myself included) watched it later than opening day. And thinking it's worse than the other films or even giving it an F isn't crass ire.

as well as the fact that they will just randomly bring said hatred up in conversations that have nothing to do with said movie

That would be inappropriate and annoying while criticizing it in conversations about films, let alone sci-fi or blockbusters, would be neither.

 

[JarodRussell]

I love it every time someone says stuff like "You think STD is bad? Well, every Trek has been bad."

It's like "If you don't like my favorite Trek, you shouldn't enjoy your favorite Trek!!!"

 

[Therin of Andor]

I't funny how a few people are trying to convince me of the whole hat thing that was a flash on the screen of an original un-aired pilot that no one in the show ever actually wore.

I know I can't convince you of anything. I just thought others might be interested in a trivia factoid. I, myself, was thrilled to recognize its inspiration.

 

[SeerSGB]

I love it every time someone says stuff like "You think STD is bad? Well, every Trek has been bad."

It's like "If you don't like my favorite Trek, you shouldn't enjoy your favorite Trek!!!"

It isn't that. It's more like you can't hold the newer part of the franchise to a higher standard than you do the older parts--and vice versa. If you're willing to let one slide, then you should let the other slide. Not saying you have to enjoy both or nothing, just be fair about being critical.

 

[JarodRussell]

I love it every time someone says stuff like "You think STD is bad? Well, every Trek has been bad."

It's like "If you don't like my favorite Trek, you shouldn't enjoy your favorite Trek!!!"

It isn't that. It's more like you can't hold the newer part of the franchise to a higher standard than you do the older parts--and vice versa. If you're willing to let one slide, then you should let the other slide. Not saying you have to enjoy both or nothing, just be fair about being critical.

Why not? Standards change, as we're talking taste here.

 

[SeerSGB]

I love it every time someone says stuff like "You think STD is bad? Well, every Trek has been bad."

It's like "If you don't like my favorite Trek, you shouldn't enjoy your favorite Trek!!!"

It isn't that. It's more like you can't hold the newer part of the franchise to a higher standard than you do the older parts--and vice versa. If you're willing to let one slide, then you should let the other slide. Not saying you have to enjoy both or nothing, just be fair about being critical.

Why not? Standards change, as we're talking taste here.

Again, simple fairness. You can't bust JJ Abrams nuts over some of the sillier things he's done with the reboots and let Gene Roddenberry, Berman, Braga, all have a pass for equally silly/same things.

 

[BillJ]

Again, simple fairness. You can't bust JJ Abrams nuts over some of the sillier things he's done with the reboots and let Gene Roddenberry, Berman, Braga, all have a pass for equally silly/same things.

Simple fairness doesn't come into play when one has an ax to grind.

Star Trek has always played fast-and-loose with the laws of physics. If you hate this movie because of that then there's no way possible you can like the rest of Trek.

 

[JarodRussell]

It isn't that. It's more like you can't hold the newer part of the franchise to a higher standard than you do the older parts--and vice versa. If you're willing to let one slide, then you should let the other slide. Not saying you have to enjoy both or nothing, just be fair about being critical.

Why not? Standards change, as we're talking taste here.

Again, simple fairness. You can't bust JJ Abrams nuts over some of the sillier things he's done with the reboots and let Gene Roddenberry, Berman, Braga, all have a pass for equally silly/same things.

Of course you can. Since when is taste fair? If you don't like the overall film, of course you find flaws in it. Sole nitpicks are never the reason people don't like a film, they are only symptoms picked as examples in discussions.


Discussions here usually go this way:

Person 1: I fucking loved it.
Person 2: Yeah, it was great.
Person 3: I want babies with it.
Person 4: Meh, I didn't like it.
Person 1: Why?
Person 2: Why?!
Person 3: WHY?!?!
Person 4: Yeah, you know, because of this and that and those and these.
And the shitstorm begins where Person 4 has to defend his opinion down to the tiniest detail against those other people. And eventually Person 4 gets bullied into argument corners and then labelled as butthurt or extremely nerdy, who "can't enjoy something for what it is", or who is on a hate quest against the director/cast/writer.

It also goes the other way round when the majority dislikes a film and someone comes in saying he liked it.

 

[SeerSGB]

Why not? Standards change, as we're talking taste here.

Again, simple fairness. You can't bust JJ Abrams nuts over some of the sillier things he's done with the reboots and let Gene Roddenberry, Berman, Braga, all have a pass for equally silly/same things.

Of course you can. Since when is taste fair? If you don't like the overall film, of course you find flaws in it. Sole nitpicks are never the reason people don't like a film, they are only symptoms picked as examples in discussions.


Discussions here usually go this way:

Person 1: I fucking loved it.
Person 2: Yeah, it was great.
Person 3: I want babies with it.
Person 4: Meh, I didn't like it.
Person 1: Why?
Person 2: Why?!
Person 3: WHY?!?!
Person 4: Yeah, you know, because of this and that and those and these.
And the shitstorm begins where Person 4 has to defend his opinion down to the tiniest detail against those other people. And eventually Person 4 gets bullied into argument corners and then labelled as butthurt or extremely nerdy, who "can't enjoy something for what it is", or who is on a hate quest against the director/cast/writer.

It also goes the other way round when the majority dislikes a film and someone comes in saying he liked it.

There's a difference between "Well I didn't like the story/cast /SFX" and

"It's stupid case of XYZ! TOS would have never done XYZ!"

"Well TOS did do XYZ"

"Uh well that was TOS, that's different,"

"How?"

"Cause TOS was sci-fi!"

If the story or the cast didn't appeal to you, fine. If you think it's a rehash or an all flash no substance movie, fine. But don't bust on them when they do the same bullshit we laud the other series for. Just cause the bullshit is from a different supplier doesn't make it any less bullshit.

 

[AUbricklogic]

Again, simple fairness. You can't bust JJ Abrams nuts over some of the sillier things he's done with the reboots and let Gene Roddenberry, Berman, Braga, all have a pass for equally silly/same things.

Of course you can. Since when is taste fair? If you don't like the overall film, of course you find flaws in it. Sole nitpicks are never the reason people don't like a film, they are only symptoms picked as examples in discussions.


Discussions here usually go this way:

Person 1: I fucking loved it.
Person 2: Yeah, it was great.
Person 3: I want babies with it.
Person 4: Meh, I didn't like it.
Person 1: Why?
Person 2: Why?!
Person 3: WHY?!?!
Person 4: Yeah, you know, because of this and that and those and these.
And the shitstorm begins where Person 4 has to defend his opinion down to the tiniest detail against those other people. And eventually Person 4 gets bullied into argument corners and then labelled as butthurt or extremely nerdy, who "can't enjoy something for what it is", or who is on a hate quest against the director/cast/writer.

It also goes the other way round when the majority dislikes a film and someone comes in saying he liked it.

There's a difference between "Well I didn't like the story/cast /SFX" and

"It's stupid case of XYZ! TOS would have never done XYZ!"

"Well TOS did do XYZ"

"Uh well that was TOS, that's different,"

"How?"

"Cause TOS was sci-fi!"

If the story or the cast didn't appeal to you, fine. If you think it's a rehash or an all flash no substance movie, fine. But don't bust on them when they do the same bullshit we laud the other series for. Just cause the bullshit is from a different supplier doesn't make it any less bullshit.

Honestly you're both describing the extremist corner of both views. There are a handful who exist there, but its a very small percentage.

One thing I think we can agree on is that extremists with radical bias of anything is usually detrimental to any discussion.

 

[PKerr]

Why not? Standards change, as we're talking taste here.

Again, simple fairness. You can't bust JJ Abrams nuts over some of the sillier things he's done with the reboots and let Gene Roddenberry, Berman, Braga, all have a pass for equally silly/same things.

Of course you can. Since when is taste fair? If you don't like the overall film, of course you find flaws in it. Sole nitpicks are never the reason people don't like a film, they are only symptoms picked as examples in discussions.


Discussions here usually go this way:

Person 1: I fucking loved it.
Person 2: Yeah, it was great.
Person 3: I want babies with it.
Person 4: Meh, I didn't like it.
Person 1: Why?
Person 2: Why?!
Person 3: WHY?!?!
Person 4: Yeah, you know, because of this and that and those and these.
And the shitstorm begins where Person 4 has to defend his opinion down to the tiniest detail against those other people. And eventually Person 4 gets bullied into argument corners and then labelled as butthurt or extremely nerdy, who "can't enjoy something for what it is", or who is on a hate quest against the director/cast/writer.

It also goes the other way round when the majority dislikes a film and someone comes in saying he liked it.

Slow clap, well said sir, well said.

 

[DalekJim]

Discussions here usually go this way:

Person 1: I fucking loved it.
Person 2: Yeah, it was great.
Person 3: I want babies with it.
Person 4: Meh, I didn't like it.
Person 1: Why?
Person 2: Why?!
Person 3: WHY?!?!
Person 4: Yeah, you know, because of this and that and those and these.
And the shitstorm begins where Person 4 has to defend his opinion down to the tiniest detail against those other people. And eventually Person 4 gets bullied into argument corners and then labelled as butthurt or extremely nerdy, who "can't enjoy something for what it is", or who is on a hate quest against the director/cast/writer.

 

[BillJ]

And the shitstorm begins where Person 4 has to defend his opinion down to the tiniest detail against those other people. And eventually Person 4 gets bullied into argument corners and then labelled as butthurt or extremely nerdy, who "can't enjoy something for what it is", or who is on a hate quest against the director/cast/writer.

It also goes the other way round when the majority dislikes a film and someone comes in saying he liked it.

This is just utter bullshit. Lots of people in here have had no issue articulating why they like the two Abrams films.

When all you do is come in and scream that Abrams raped your childhood, don't be surprised when someone asks you why you dislike (hate) the movie. Also, don't be surprised when you answer "poor science" that people laugh at you as that is as common a staple of Star Trek as outer space or the transporters.

 

[M'Sharak]

Why not? Standards change, as we're talking taste here.

Again, simple fairness. You can't bust JJ Abrams nuts over some of the sillier things he's done with the reboots and let Gene Roddenberry, Berman, Braga, all have a pass for equally silly/same things.

Of course you can. Since when is taste fair? If you don't like the overall film, of course you find flaws in it. Sole nitpicks are never the reason people don't like a film, they are only symptoms picked as examples in discussions.


Discussions here usually go this way:

Person 1: I fucking loved it.
Person 2: Yeah, it was great.
Person 3: I want babies with it.
Person 4: Meh, I didn't like it.
Person 1: Why?
Person 2: Why?!
Person 3: WHY?!?!
Person 4: Yeah, you know, because of this and that and those and these.
And the shitstorm begins where Person 4 has to defend his opinion down to the tiniest detail against those other people. And eventually Person 4 gets bullied into argument corners and then labelled as butthurt or extremely nerdy, who "can't enjoy something for what it is", or who is on a hate quest against the director/cast/writer.

It also goes the other way round when the majority dislikes a film and someone comes in saying he liked it.

Well, no, they don't usually go that way, and you know it. Buuut you got your agreements from all-too-predictable quarters, so score yourself a point, give yourself a smug pat on the back, and sit down. I'd really like to not see you needling for a while, Jarod.

Now everyone can please get back to making the discussion about about the movie instead of about other fan groups.

 

[Flake]

I noticed that before the Space Jump from ship to ship Scotty says: They will have full weapons in 3 minutes.

More like 15-20 minutes until they finally take the ship !

Only when Kirk gets to the bridge do the weapons come online.

So... I guess Scotty got it wrong, but it is a line that should have been excised from the final cut or changed !