‘Star Trek 3′: Roberto Orci Wants to Direct

[Franklin]

I just don't see how STID was mindless.

There's a link for that.

Spoiler: @#!*ing short version

I have yet to encounter two viewers of Into Darkness who can come up with the same explanation -- or any explanation, really -- of what Marcus' plan is really supposed to be or why it's built the way it is or why Khan's people are hidden in torpedoes or... well, let's suffice it to say that the problems of narrative coherence here, the illogic of the plot and motivations of the villains by the rules the story itself sets up, are inscrutable on a Phantom Menace kind of level. [. . .] Into Darkness' problem is that it tries for more sophistication than its predecessor but only winds up with more complication, without either more substance or less contrivance.

No, the script is not on par with the average Trek movie, not that the average Trek movie is Citizen Kane or anything.

There's a need for a suspension of disbelief and buying into the universe being created to enjoy almost any movie, science fiction or not. If the line was crossed for you to do that in STID, no biggie. It wasn't for me.

As far as contrivances goes, the number one contrivance in all of Trek for me is still the super machines not being smart enough to give Voyager a quick wash. V-Ger? Really? That's the payoff?

As far as Marcus's plan and Khan and all goes, it boils down to the trope of the loan scientist and the loan general. You want to tell me no one knew that Daystrom used his personal engrams on the M-5 before allowing it to be tested it on the Enterprise? Daystrom worked alone? He wasn't a part of a team of fifteen or twenty like what is more likely in reality. Same thing with Nooian Soong and Data. He developed Lore, Data, and B-4 all by himself? With what funding?

I think Khan's plan was to sneak his people aboard the Vengeance in the torpedo tubes. Once there, he would unfreeze them, and they'd take over the ship. Khan's line, "I have returned to have my vengeance," was cut from the film, but since seeing the movie, I've often wondered if he meant vengeance with a capital "V," as in, "my Vengeance." That is, he was essentially designing the ship for himself, biding his time and taking it over when the time was finally right.

Marcus's plan was not entirely rationale. He's anothe in the list of rogue Starfleet officers apparently accountable to no one with no checks on them. Curtis LeMay run amok. I think he wanted war with the Klingons so bad he didn't care how it happened, and just adapted to any moment that presented itself with the chance of it happening.

At least that's good enough for me.

 

[BigJake]

There's a need for a suspension of disbelief and buying into the universe being created to enjoy almost any movie, science fiction or not.

Yeah sure, I must never have heard of suspension of disbelief, that's the ticket.

I'm sure your theory about Marcus and Khan is just as valid and convincing as any of a hundred other fan theories. But you know narrative logic is failing when the movie offers no single explanation of its own and people have to resort to stuff like that to explain just the most basic elements of its plot. It's kind of a dead giveaway.

If you liked it, you liked it, taste is subjective. Narrative logic, however, isn't. When it's absent, the absence is pretty easy to detect.

As far as contrivances goes, the number one contrivance in all of Trek for me is still the super machines not being smart enough to give Voyager a quick wash. V-Ger? Really? That's the payoff?

That's funny, though.

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

T'ta....

T... oy... ota...

Toyota!

BRAAAAAAAAAAAM!!!

 

[martok2112]

There's a need for a suspension of disbelief and buying into the universe being created to enjoy almost any movie, science fiction or not.

Yeah sure, I must never have heard of suspension of disbelief, that's the ticket.

I'm sure your theory about Marcus and Khan is just as valid and convincing as any of a hundred other fan theories. But you know narrative logic is failing when the movie offers no single explanation of its own and people have to resort to stuff like that to explain just the most basic elements of its plot. It's kind of a dead giveaway.

No disrespect, but that's kinda describing Montal-Khan inexplicably recognizing the face of a crewman who never appeared to him unti TWOK. That was pretty much subject to fan speculation too. . Pretty shoddy writing if you're going to apply that thinking.

 

[BigJake]

No disrespect, but that's kinda describing Montal-Khan inexplicably recognizing the face of a crewman who never appeared

Yes, that is pretty much the example usually reached for when the topic comes up. No, it's not plausibly comparable in any way at all, since it involves a minor side-detail and not the basic mechanics of the main plot. Yes, it always looks pretty desperate to resort to it. Thanks for playing.

Acerbics aside though, nothing wrong with agreeing to disagree. I promise not to send the Canon Police after you. Incidentally, do you mind if I borrow your reference to Dennis and wisdom for totally out-of-context sigquote purposes? I promise to use it tastefully.

 

[martok2112]

No disrespect, but that's kinda describing Montal-Khan inexplicably recognizing the face of a crewman who never appeared

Yes, that is pretty much the example usually reached for when the topic comes up. No, it's not plausibly comparable in any way at all, since it involves a minor side-detail and not the basic mechanics of the main plot. Yes, it always looks pretty desperate to resort to it. Thanks for playing.

Acerbics aside though, nothing wrong with agreeing to disagree. I promise not to send the Canon Police after you. Incidentally, do you mind if I borrow your reference to Dennis and wisdom for totally out-of-context sigquote purposes? I promise to use it tastefully.

They're all just movies, dude. In the end, it's all "Pigs In Space"

Lol....sure, feel free to use my reference of Wisdom as a sig. I'll have my agent get in contact with yours about royalties.

 

[BigJake]

They're all just movies, dude.

Who was it said that, Socrates? No, actually I think it was Aristotle. Anyway, that's deep, dude, sure am glad we have you to impart such bold insights.

Lol....sure, feel free to use my reference of Wisdom as a sig. I'll have my agent get in contact with yours about royalties.

Eeeeexcellent, I thank you.

 

[martok2112]

They're all just movies, dude.

Who was it said that, Socrates? No, actually I think it was Aristotle. Anyway, that's deep, dude, sure am glad we have you to impart such bold insights.

. Think what you will about me. Advantages of being a non-fan. I really just don't care.

Lol....sure, feel free to use my reference of Wisdom as a sig. I'll have my agent get in contact with yours about royalties.

Eeeeexcellent, I thank you.

"Killearn will draw up papers....and I shall expect the terms to be met.".

 

[BigJake]

Think what you will about me.

I think you are a wizard riding a unicorn on a rainbow in space.

Warm? Cold?

 

[martok2112]

Think what you will about me.

I think you are a wizard riding a unicorn on a rainbow in space.

Warm? Cold?

Close. I am a self-proclaimed knight riding a jackass tilting at windmills.

 

[BigJake]

Careful with that, I'm told the unquiet spirit of Cervantes has very strict views on continuity.

 

[martok2112]

Careful with that, I'm told the unquiet spirit of Cervantes has very strict views on continuity.

So noted.
(good to end on a laugh)

 

[BigJake]

Cheers!

 

[martok2112]

To be honest, when I first saw Into Darkness, I too was a bit put out by their recycling of material from TWOK. I WASN't even going to give it a second viewing until it hit blu-ray. It wasn't that I didn't enjoy the movie...I did...but there was that minor irk.

But then I decided to give it a second big screen chance, and I found I did indeed enjoy it.

I can recognize when there a story points that somehow just don't quite add up, but if I allowed it to be an overriding Or even simply present factor, well...that's a lot of movies I'd be dissin'. I have a philosophy that allows me to deal with movies that might have glaring errors or holes....but it is not a philosophy I lean on when I do my own stories. That philosophy is: "Logic and physics will always yield to the needs of dramatic storytelling.". If you'd like some expansion on that philosophy, I'll be happy to elucidate.

I guess I watch movies on a rather primal level. Does the movie inspire me to laugh, cheer, cry, etc? On a subsequent viewing, I'll give it a more analytical consideration. But even then, any conclusions I come to might only temper my enjoyment...but not completely squelch it.

Make sense?


Apologies for any typos....sent via iPad.

 

[F. King Daniel]

^ Forget that people routinely attempt the gambit "an irrational movie review once existed in the Eighties, therefore all reviews that disagree with me are irrational"? How could they? I see it about once a week on this board alone.

You assume the review to be irrational because you don't agree with it. Could it possibly be that there's no real difference beyond your being on the wrong side of the fence this time?

 

[Belz...]

If so, then our story tellers can do no wrong (hurrah!).

That does not follow from my post. Just because YOU don't think this is "true" Trek doesn't mean anyone who disagrees about the current state of affairs could never agree with you if things went "too far". You are using your own point of view as some sort of standard, here.

Prescriptively, however, in our discussion not of what "is" but what should be, we might find that a particular Trek story does not quite fit normatively within that set we call Star Trek. We might quibble over the particulars, but I think we can satisfactorily arrive at a list of features such as the general "facts" of the Star Trek universe (e.g., the UFP, Prime Directive, Warp travel, phasers), and the outlook of Star Trek (e.g., humanism, optimism, pluralism).

And yet Trek has played with all of these concepts over the years. Face it: "True" Trek, to you, is what you want it to be, not what it is objectively.

 

[martok2112]

Trek means many different things to many different people.

Some folk embrace only certain aspects of Trek, others embrace the whole package, whether it comes at them"whole package" or only parts at a time.

Trek is action. It is adventure, It is a commentary on the human condition. It is comedy. It is drama. It is a study of the relationships of people, be they the principal characters, or supporting ones. It is a delve into psychology. It is allegory. It is retranslation. It is science (when applicable). It is exploration. It is IDIC. It is what it is in whatever form it takes upon release.

Trek is all of this. And Trek is nothing.

In whatever form Trek holds for any and all of you, Long Live Trek.

Apologies for typos....sent via iPad.

 

[The Doctor]

There's a need for a suspension of disbelief and buying into the universe being created to enjoy almost any movie, science fiction or not.

Yeah sure, I must never have heard of suspension of disbelief, that's the ticket.

I'm sure your theory about Marcus and Khan is just as valid and convincing as any of a hundred other fan theories. But you know narrative logic is failing when the movie offers no single explanation of its own and people have to resort to stuff like that to explain just the most basic elements of its plot. It's kind of a dead giveaway.

If you liked it, you liked it, taste is subjective. Narrative logic, however, isn't. When it's absent, the absence is pretty easy to detect.

No, narrative 'logic' is just as subjective as every other part of storytelling. I didn't have any problems following the plans of either Marcus or Khan, despite several elements being left up to the audience to fill in. And that's OK.

I'm reminded of a couple of things that Nicolas Meyer said during the TWoK commentary:

“Only movies, the 20th century art medium, has the hideous capacity to do it all for you. An din doing so, it tends to render the audience passive. The great commercial directors who make movies are taught to put everything in. And the result, I find myself sitting in those movies, which are visually stunning. Every image is perfect. There is no distinction in priority between what is an important image, what is an unimportant image. It’s all perfect. Everything is in it. And as a director, I’m always looking to leave things out.”

"It's not my job to supply answers."

And, of course, in the words of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle:

“It has always seemed to me that so long as you produce your dramatic effect, accuracy of detail matters little. I have never striven for it and I have made some bad mistakes in consequence. What matter if I hold my readers?”

I know it's fun for you to proclaim that STiD is incoherent in new, empirical and specific ways, but it just ain't so. You were simply not swayed by the dramatic effect, leaving nothing but the seams to pick over. For many, many, (like, quite a few) others, the film captured the characters of their youth with such aplomb that the missing plot threads didn't matter at all.

These are all, of course, matters of opinions. Do try and not make them matters of fact.

That's my job.

 

[YARN]

If so, then our story tellers can do no wrong (hurrah!).

That does not follow from my post.

So, there is such a thing as "wrong Trek" after all?

Just because YOU don't think this is "true" Trek doesn't mean anyone who disagrees about the current state of affairs could never agree with you if things went "too far". You are using your own point of view as some sort of standard, here.

That's funny. I don't recall making any particular claim about the truth of nuTrek in this thread. I am simply committed to the notion that we can substantively raise the idea.

 

[Smellmet]

Trek means many different things to many different people.

Some folk embrace only certain aspects of Trek, others embrace the whole package, whether it comes at them"whole package" or only parts at a time.

Trek is action. It is adventure, It is a commentary on the human condition. It is comedy. It is drama. It is a study of the relationships of people, be they the principal characters, or supporting ones. It is a delve into psychology. It is allegory. It is retranslation. It is science (when applicable). It is exploration. It is IDIC. It is what it is in whatever form it takes upon release.

Trek is all of this. And Trek is nothing.

^This. Couldn't have worded it better myself. This is why you will always have a small yet vocal group slagging Trek off because it doesn't suit their idea of how it should be.

I love and hate aspects of every iteration of Trek, it's never going to be perfect just for me.