Which makes sense narratively, but clashes with reality, where the exact opposite is the norm.
It's Star Trek. At what point does reality hold the upper hand?
STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]
- Thread starter Agent Richard07
- Start date
It's Star Trek. At what point does reality hold the upper hand?
As I reflect on the film, I think that having Chekov sub for Scotty actually highlighted a problem with his character in the ensemble...we don't really need two characters to provide manic physical comedy relief. They need to find a new angle for Chekov.
Even nuBSG, with its grittier and more naturalistic approach, couldn't escape the inconvenient dictates of drama...hence the "SuperStarbuck" phenomenon.
You want reality, you might be watching the wrong movies....
Which makes sense narratively, but clashes with reality, where the exact opposite is the norm.
Even nuBSG, with its grittier and more naturalistic approach, couldn't escape the inconvenient dictates of drama...hence the "SuperStarbuck" phenomenon.
I hope there are interviews with the ILM guys soon. I'd love to know what else they changed.
FXGUIDE.com has already got article, interview & podcast up. I don't think CINEFEX comes out for another month. No mention of anything interesting FXwise in the icgmagazine.com piece.
They still publish Cinefex??
Hi - my husband and I just saw STID and I have an initial question - why did Kirk and Spock seem to not really know who Kahn was? I thought the Eugenics Wars still happened in this timeline (in some form or another). Wouldn't there be some information in the Enterprise computers if they input the name Kahn? Or did they just need a reason to bring in Nimoy for a cameo?
We did feel a different type of sadness. Seeing Kirk ask how not to feel, and confess that he's afraid...for these characters, it worked for me. It was less a loss of a long friendship, than seeing a great friendship ended before it's time.
Thanks!
We did feel a different type of sadness. Seeing Kirk ask how not to feel, and confess that he's afraid...for these characters, it worked for me. It was less a loss of a long friendship, than seeing a great friendship ended before it's time.
Thanks!
Last edited:
God knows what results they would get when they input Kahn. Or Khan for that matter.
I find it absolutely plausible that Kirk and co. wouldn't know who Khan was.
Finally saw Into Darkness and my verdict; it is a train wreck! A steaming pile of boiling emotions, illogical actions and threadbare plots.
It doesn't explain too well about Admiral Marcus' reasons for becoming this dictator, so he wants a war fine. But at best he has authority of ships in the Sol system, what about the rest of the Federation?
Spock is way too emotional. The Uhura/Spock romance still doesn't gel and Spock even contradicts his own logical reasons at times.
As for Kirk... The first quarter of the movie kind of destroyed the very reasons why Kirk was promoted to captain in the first movie. I know TOS Kirk broke the rules from time to time, but those were under exceptional circumstances, yet Into Darkness just portrays Kirk as this hothead who recoils at following orders.
Kahn was good, but boy did he make some dumb decisions! He beamed over those torpedoes without checking their contents! I mean if this really is the great masterful Kahn, who sees all and anticipates all, then he didn't cotton onto Spock's Trojan Horse until it was too late.
Kirk's 'death' scene was good but it was ruined by Spock crying and then shouting 'Kahhnnnn!!!' That was really embarrassing! It would have worked much better if Spock took it stoically like all Vulcans did, it would have worked ten times as well if all you could see was the pain in Spock's eyes but that would be the extent of his outward reaction to the death of Kirk. Hell Odo didn't cry once, but you could always tell when that character was in pain. But no, NuTrek Spock is illogically emotional.
While there are references to the first movie NuTrek movie, this movie doesn't come close to being as good as JJ's first Star Trek film. It needed a solid plot, but there were so many holes, inconsistencies and question marks that the plot didn't add up. It was muddled. I mean why aren't the Klingons at war with Starfleet? Didn't humans attack those Klingons on Qo'noS? Also those Klingons looked hideous! Where was the good old TNG and DS9 Klingon make-up? Finally using a tribble as the mechanism to revive Kirk is so embarrassing.
Lastly Into Darkness felt like a very watered-down version of Star Trek. It couldn't go two minutes without some action scene, it couldn't get (or dare to be) a bit ponderous and contemplative without some new threat popping up. Finally this movie tries to give a sense of an 'epic' feel but it doesn't work with Star Trek. This movie was trying to be like the dozen or other epic movies out there: Transformers, the new Batman trilogy, LOTR, Superman Returns and so forth.
This is not reinventing Star Trek, instead this is killing the franchise because Star Trek cannot compete with superhero movies and (epic) origins movies which are big on action, bling and intense emotions but very light on a decent plot, morality and more natural character development.
Again that's the problem with origin movies, you rehash a franchise with more modern themes and 'darkness', and you perhaps get a sequel to but when it comes down to it, how has it really developed that particular franchise? The answer it hasn't, all it has done is kept that franchise in the mainstream for a few months while not really adding anything new or substantial. I fear the same as happened to Star Trek now. It's been diluted to the point where the franchise is no different to the other hundred or so action movies out there competing for box office success. Nothing new has been offered and it's no longer a reboot, it's a dilution of a franchise to the point where it is blurred, generic and unrecognisable.
I wouldn't even say this is what the audience wants because new movies of this calibre are now virtually the same: intense action scenes, a few heart-throbbing moments and a very thin story with not much going for it. It's what I suspected anyway, once you take NuTrek's bling there is not much going for it.
And finally two more points: Starfleet feels too much like an army and those caps really suck! It looks like something the North Korean army wears for God sake! Finally in that ceremony scene for captain Pike, I swear to God there was an American flag flying in the background.
With that all said I thought the movie was decent, I laughed in many places for how stupid it was and for all the character assassinations. But the bottom line is this; I would not buy this movie for DVD. Hell even Nemesis and Insurrection are better than this train wreck!
What Star Trek needs is not another makeover, it needs to return to the basics: science, politics, spirituality and morality. Yes add in a bit more drama and action, yes have a decent pace, but each movie and (hopefully) new episode needs to have a lot more food for thought. Even with the bad Trek movies and episodes you always stopped to think about what was going on even if that alien race was cheesy or things didn't quite gel.
It doesn't explain too well about Admiral Marcus' reasons for becoming this dictator, so he wants a war fine. But at best he has authority of ships in the Sol system, what about the rest of the Federation?
Spock is way too emotional. The Uhura/Spock romance still doesn't gel and Spock even contradicts his own logical reasons at times.
As for Kirk... The first quarter of the movie kind of destroyed the very reasons why Kirk was promoted to captain in the first movie. I know TOS Kirk broke the rules from time to time, but those were under exceptional circumstances, yet Into Darkness just portrays Kirk as this hothead who recoils at following orders.
Kahn was good, but boy did he make some dumb decisions! He beamed over those torpedoes without checking their contents! I mean if this really is the great masterful Kahn, who sees all and anticipates all, then he didn't cotton onto Spock's Trojan Horse until it was too late.
Kirk's 'death' scene was good but it was ruined by Spock crying and then shouting 'Kahhnnnn!!!' That was really embarrassing! It would have worked much better if Spock took it stoically like all Vulcans did, it would have worked ten times as well if all you could see was the pain in Spock's eyes but that would be the extent of his outward reaction to the death of Kirk. Hell Odo didn't cry once, but you could always tell when that character was in pain. But no, NuTrek Spock is illogically emotional.
While there are references to the first movie NuTrek movie, this movie doesn't come close to being as good as JJ's first Star Trek film. It needed a solid plot, but there were so many holes, inconsistencies and question marks that the plot didn't add up. It was muddled. I mean why aren't the Klingons at war with Starfleet? Didn't humans attack those Klingons on Qo'noS? Also those Klingons looked hideous! Where was the good old TNG and DS9 Klingon make-up? Finally using a tribble as the mechanism to revive Kirk is so embarrassing.
Lastly Into Darkness felt like a very watered-down version of Star Trek. It couldn't go two minutes without some action scene, it couldn't get (or dare to be) a bit ponderous and contemplative without some new threat popping up. Finally this movie tries to give a sense of an 'epic' feel but it doesn't work with Star Trek. This movie was trying to be like the dozen or other epic movies out there: Transformers, the new Batman trilogy, LOTR, Superman Returns and so forth.
This is not reinventing Star Trek, instead this is killing the franchise because Star Trek cannot compete with superhero movies and (epic) origins movies which are big on action, bling and intense emotions but very light on a decent plot, morality and more natural character development.
Again that's the problem with origin movies, you rehash a franchise with more modern themes and 'darkness', and you perhaps get a sequel to but when it comes down to it, how has it really developed that particular franchise? The answer it hasn't, all it has done is kept that franchise in the mainstream for a few months while not really adding anything new or substantial. I fear the same as happened to Star Trek now. It's been diluted to the point where the franchise is no different to the other hundred or so action movies out there competing for box office success. Nothing new has been offered and it's no longer a reboot, it's a dilution of a franchise to the point where it is blurred, generic and unrecognisable.
I wouldn't even say this is what the audience wants because new movies of this calibre are now virtually the same: intense action scenes, a few heart-throbbing moments and a very thin story with not much going for it. It's what I suspected anyway, once you take NuTrek's bling there is not much going for it.
And finally two more points: Starfleet feels too much like an army and those caps really suck! It looks like something the North Korean army wears for God sake! Finally in that ceremony scene for captain Pike, I swear to God there was an American flag flying in the background.
With that all said I thought the movie was decent, I laughed in many places for how stupid it was and for all the character assassinations. But the bottom line is this; I would not buy this movie for DVD. Hell even Nemesis and Insurrection are better than this train wreck!
What Star Trek needs is not another makeover, it needs to return to the basics: science, politics, spirituality and morality. Yes add in a bit more drama and action, yes have a decent pace, but each movie and (hopefully) new episode needs to have a lot more food for thought. Even with the bad Trek movies and episodes you always stopped to think about what was going on even if that alien race was cheesy or things didn't quite gel.
I'm wondering if Marcus had Starfleet database references to Khan wiped?
With the exception of morality, when was Star Trek: The Original Series about those things?
science -
politics - check
spirituality -
morality - check
drama - check
action - check
pace - check
Five out of seven, not bad for STID.
The name's Khan, btw.
To clarify, you thought it was a decent movie, but a poor Star Trek movie? I'm just trying to wrap my head around your post because you seem to dislike the movie so much more than me and yet you gave it a C+ compared with my C-.
^^You can throw in a little spirituality...the volcano aliens.
Just like some scenes can take you out of a movie, some statements can take you out of a critique:
Just like some scenes can take you out of a movie, some statements can take you out of a critique:
Who the heck is trying to be like Superman Returns? (Not Man of Steel, that's for sure....) If you'd name-dropped Spider-Man, Iron Man, or The Avengers, I wouldn't have blinked. But I don't think that other films trying to copy Superman Returns is a problem that we have to worry about....
Actually I thought it explained it quite well. May be easier to catch on a second viewing.
Did you see the first movie ?
I don't agree. I think he did the right thing. Living aliens worshipping Enterprise or dead aliens. Which is best ?
Isn't that typical of villains, though ? It's not like he could check the contents, anyway. Scotty and Carol tried before and couldn't surmise what was inside until they opened one.
You are aware that Vulcans have more emotions than humans, right ?
Mechanism ? The tribble was the guinea pig.
Yeah but that's not really Trek's or Abram's fault, is it ? A sign of the times, I'm afraid.
I prefer that to Starfleet being explorers. Leave that to scientists and actual explorers, and protect the Federation, sirs.
Please, no. The basics didn't work anymore. That's why Star Trek was on pause for all that time. And we're not out of the woods, yet.
I'd disagree only in the sense that if the Eugenics Wars still happened, then not knowing about Khan, especially for a member of Starfleet, would be like me not knowing who Stalin or Hitler were. Possible, but kind of odd. My husband also thought of Marcus wiping the record, but Khan was so (in)famous - nobody would know about him?
Last edited:
I think that they deliberately tried to stay light on the details of the Eugenics Wars in order to not reinvent them (contradicting TOS) or introduce an event that's supposed to have already happened in our time but didn't, confusing general audiences. The offscreen attempts to portray the Eugenics Wars as a secret conspiracy, while clearly contradictory of the exposition given in "Space Seed", would fit this timeline nicely.
It was a good movie for what it was. It was definitely not the best Trek. It was too chessy when Spock yells out "Khan!!" I don't why he was, it was Admiral Marcus who crippled the ship and caused the power loss. Khan had just taken control of the Vengeance. I just cant get used to that Beer factory engineering section. There is too much going on with it for a future space ship. Maybe theyre a starship/micro brewery.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
If you've got the glass ball that lets you see they don't turn into a world full of Reavers or Breen or Imperial space nazis, that can justify intervention, assuming you are willing to play God with history. But revealing the giant metal bird to them at an impressionable time is monstrous.
Kirk might be condemning them to millions of years of religious strife, and I don't know that is better than letting life evolve anew there after the volcano plays out (assuming it really killed everyone, which sounds a little O-T-T ... is the volcano going to cause non-nuclear winter for the whole world?)
EDIT ADDON: I should acknowledge that I personally find TREK's prime directive ridiculous, utterly unenforceable with respect to outsiders (what good does it do if Starfleet can't interfere, when other humans and any other race can trot in and interfere with any of these worlds? None at all. And if Starfleet actually cordons off these systems, then that is a full-time operation with everything they have, just to keep these natives from getting poached by Ferengi.)
The real bullshit aspect to it is the cavalier way THIS Kirk dismisses it, like don't worry about it. So this is the GENIUS Kirk talks about in the first one? And yet he doesn't understand the potential consequences and certainly doesn't appear that he is going to be haunted by them either? If Kirk is all that intelligent in this timeline, then you shouldn't be playing him for a dummy.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
I hope there are interviews with the ILM guys soon. I'd love to know what else they changed.
FXGUIDE.com has already got article, interview & podcast up. I don't think CINEFEX comes out for another month. No mention of anything interesting FXwise in the icgmagazine.com piece.
They still publish Cinefex??
In 2000 the published told me he intended to close up shop by 2005, but I guess there is just way too much in ad revenues for them to give up.
After a long stretch of abstaining, I finally broke down and picked up a few used copies in the last couple of years and wasn't terribly impressed. There isn't enough traditional effects work to justify making-of pictures in most cases and they still don't go all nuts&bolts on how to do CG, so it seems to be lists of 'we used ___ to render.' That's only based on a few issues though.
Pretty far cry from the genuinely interesting coverage of THE RIGHT STUFF and ALTERED STATES, which seemed to inform as much about creative points of view as about tech stuff.
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Poll
