Abrams On Star Trek Into Darkness Flaws

[JWPlatt]

...All it needed to do with ID was improve the background with some good dialogue and well thought out background but it just wasn't done.

That is said without consideration about what should be removed within a movie with a financial and time budget to compensate for what is added. And if too much needs to be removed while adding the other things, perhaps it's just the wrong story or fundamentally one that won't work.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

In a matter of hours, the Federation literally had one of their largest members near-wiped from existence by one guy with one super weapon. Less than a day later, said guy was minutes away from wiping out Earth.

The Dominion were good at being bad, but even they never managed quiet so much carnage in such a short time. Their greatest achievements were bombarding some major cities and taking over Betazed. On the other hand, if Kirk hadn't snuck aboard the Enterprise and given Pike the heads up about the attack, there's a good chance that most of the Federations core world's would have been gone before anyone could do anything about it.

A reminder of your own impotence like that tends to freak people out, especially those who might not be the most stable, moral, or trusting to begin with - like say, a long-time s31 agent?

Plus the the Federation being on the verge of war with the Klingon Empire probably didn't help.

 

[Jeyl]

In a matter of hours, the Federation literally had one of their largest members near-wiped from existence by one guy with one super weapon. Less than a day later, said guy was minutes away from wiping out Earth.

The Dominion were good at being bad, but even they never managed quiet so much carnage in such a short time.

I'm going to stop you right there because what your describing is at best very vague and at worst disingenious. The Dominion were not about destruction and mayhem they could inflict on their enemies. They were about superiority and control. They wanted to win civilizations over to their side because they believed their way was the best. Almost like the Borg but without the hive mind workings.

And almost wiping out the Earth is somehow a major thing? These are the Star Trek movies. We've been saving the Earth from bad guys on a non-stop basis since Nemises. Everything is about saving the Earth because apparently, Star Trek cannot possibly exist without it. Deep Sace Nine actually made a bold move during the Dominion War when Sisko had to convince the Federation that Earth was not the key to winning the Alpha Quadrant. Sisko, the human Captain just told everyone that Earth isn't important. No other Star Trek 'thing' has ever done that before or after.

As for all the stuff that happened in Star Trek Into Darkness? Its not that impressive when you can describe everything that happens as 'Impractically convenient'.

 

[Dukhat]

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Well, would it be fair to say that Khan's character in general was one of the more criticized parts of Into Darkness? We've got criticisms involving white washing, not getting the character right, and having the character be there at all. Having John Harrison revealed to be Khan certainly got people to latch onto him, just not in the way they wanted it to.

Any "criticisms" about the character were made by people like us who post on these boards and other places on the internet. They weren't made by 90% of the people who actually went to see the movie.

 

[Paradise City]

...All it needed to do with ID was improve the background with some good dialogue and well thought out background but it just wasn't done.

That is said without consideration about what should be removed within a movie with a financial and time budget to compensate for what is added. And if too much needs to be removed while adding the other things, perhaps it's just the wrong story or fundamentally one that won't work.

I don't rate the films on their financial and time budget. That's bizarre standard for rating films, so no, I don't consider that. I simply rate a film on what's presented to me in the cinema and what was presented to me was a sprawling mess. Anyway simply modifying the existing dialogue isn't expensive!

There's no sense nor meaning for going on Marcus rampage over the minor incursions of the Klingons. The immediacy of that threat isn't depicted to the audience at all. And butchering the Enterprise with such casual abandon. It doesn't make one whit of sense. The guy is killing his own people for kicks. The Marcus character is just nonsensical and could've improved with better dialogue and better background. That's what's irritating about this film, the writers just got lazy once they got done with Kirk and Pike. I suppose I should be grateful the brig scene was written at all!

 

[JWPlatt]

It's not about rating a movie on its financial or time budget. It's about making both a suggestion to add something to a film and removing something to compensate, given the film's expense and length, and still have a coherent story.

I don't think adding some conversation is going to fix your issue with the movie; the rest will still be there.

 

[M'Sharak]

There doesn't seem to be any seismic upheaval that warrants Marcus' serial killer conduct which is bafflingly one dimensional and underwritten. He's not plausible in the way Admiral Leyton is in DS9. Now in DS9, there's a society in crisis in pre apocalyptic, mode and Leyton's maverick Admiral act is well-written. All it needed to do with ID was improve the background with some good dialogue and well thought out background but it just wasn't done.

Since you've chosen to use that as a comparison example, do you believe that Leyton could have been as plausible and well-written a character if the situation and background had not already been largely established and set up across the span of many preceding episodes? Could the "Homefront"/"Paradise Lost" story have worked as well had it been a self-contained, two-hour movie, with only the material which had been introduced in the previous film on which to rely for added support?

Would you explain how you would have accomplished that?

 

[Paradise City]

There doesn't seem to be any seismic upheaval that warrants Marcus' serial killer conduct which is bafflingly one dimensional and underwritten. He's not plausible in the way Admiral Leyton is in DS9. Now in DS9, there's a society in crisis in pre apocalyptic, mode and Leyton's maverick Admiral act is well-written. All it needed to do with ID was improve the background with some good dialogue and well thought out background but it just wasn't done.

Since you've chosen to use that as a comparison example, do you believe that Leyton could have been as plausible and well-written a character if the situation and background had not already been largely established and set up across the span of many preceding episodes? Could the "Homefront"/"Paradise Lost" story have worked as well had it been a self-contained, two-hour movie, with only the material which had been introduced in the previous film on which to rely for added support?

Would you explain how you would have accomplished that?

All that's needed is dialogue that the Klingon's conquered significant parts of a neighbouring species and that there's intelligence suggesting that they are prepared to mount an invasion of the Federation. The other Starfleet brass are doves who are livin' in cloud cuckoo land but Marcus is on the ball with this.

You could also depict Marcus as being more conflicted about destroying the Enterprise but then deciding he has to do it. In the film, Marcus is havin' a swell time murdering the young crew! He ain't doin' much wrestling with his conscience that's for darn sure.

The idea that you need slabs of episodes beforehand to flesh out a strong background for a film is a weird idea to say the least. All you need to do is have a couple of minutes dialogue to strengthen these characters or modify the existing dialogue.

 

[Trekkin]

In a matter of hours, the Federation literally had one of their largest members near-wiped from existence by one guy with one super weapon. Less than a day later, said guy was minutes away from wiping out Earth.

The Dominion were good at being bad, but even they never managed quiet so much carnage in such a short time.

I'm going to stop you right there because what your describing is at best very vague and at worst disingenious. The Dominion were not about destruction and mayhem they could inflict on their enemies. They were about superiority and control. They wanted to win civilizations over to their side because they believed their way was the best. Almost like the Borg but without the hive mind workings.

And almost wiping out the Earth is somehow a major thing? These are the Star Trek movies. We've been saving the Earth from bad guys on a non-stop basis since Nemises. Everything is about saving the Earth because apparently, Star Trek cannot possibly exist without it. Deep Sace Nine actually made a bold move during the Dominion War when Sisko had to convince the Federation that Earth was not the key to winning the Alpha Quadrant. Sisko, the human Captain just told everyone that Earth isn't important. No other Star Trek 'thing' has ever done that before or after.

As for all the stuff that happened in Star Trek Into Darkness? Its not that impressive when you can describe everything that happens as 'Impractically convenient'.

Of course it's vague. I summed up the actions of a 6-ish season multi-tiered antagonist in one sentence. And I was speaking of whether the Dominion was every shown as having any actual, lasting success.

And no, completely wiping out Vulcan was the major thing. The introduction of new tech and enemies that literally appear out of nowhere to successfully destroy worlds in minutes. Marcus wasn't in the Prime universe, so why would he be jaded by past movies? (a ridiculous idea when you're talking about human motivation anyway.)

Let's not kid ourselves - Star Trek has been saving Earth as far back as TMP. Except back then, the heroes were doing the insane things like permanently changing time (and taking on all the possible consequences of that).

 

[T'Girl]

Could the "Homefront"/"Paradise Lost" story have worked as well had it been a self-contained, two-hour movie, with only the material which had been introduced in the previous film on which to rely for added support

You mean if the Dominion and the Founders had been introduced back in the 1960's and we'd seen over a hundred examples of them through the years? Could Admiral Leyton THEN give a short fiery speech (perhaps to Sisko) on why he needed to do what he was doing, making the whole plot make sense?

Yes, somewhere in the course of a two hour long Homefront movie he likely could have, it would have all come together.

Problem is Admiral Marcus never given just that speech, it was completely missing.

Right after the Death Star ... err, the Vengeance shot up the Enterprise would have been a excellent opportunity, to Kirk, or maybe face to face to his daughter on the Vengeance's bridge.

But it never happen.

 

[Trekkin]

He has a rant at Kirk when Kirk's trying to take him into custody. He sees himself as the only person strong or smart enough to 'save' the Federation from all future enemies, which he's quiet convinced are coming.

Then Khan popped his head like a zit.

I actually thought part of the point was that we didn't know if Marcus was completely justified in his paranoia about the Klingons. It's just his actions crossed the 'there's shit you just don't do' line regardless.

 

[fireproof78]

He has a rant at Kirk when Kirk's trying to take him into custody. He sees himself as the only person strong or smart enough to 'save' the Federation from all future enemies, which he's quiet convinced are coming.

Then Khan popped his head like a zit.

I actually thought part of the point was that we didn't know if Marcus was completely justified in his paranoia about the Klingons. It's just his actions crossed the 'there's shit you just don't do' line regardless.

That's why I like Marcus. He is doing what he thinks is necessary to protect the Federation and doesn't believe anyone else is capable of doing it.

I personally don't need much more. There are plenty of real world examples for me to understand where he is coming from.

 

[Sector 7]

Any "criticisms" about the character were made by people like us who post on these boards and other places on the internet. They weren't made by 90% of the people who actually went to see the movie.

For the WIN!

He has a rant at Kirk when Kirk's trying to take him into custody. He sees himself as the only person strong or smart enough to 'save' the Federation from all future enemies, which he's quiet convinced are coming.

Then Khan popped his head like a zit.

I actually thought part of the point was that we didn't know if Marcus was completely justified in his paranoia about the Klingons. It's just his actions crossed the 'there's shit you just don't do' line regardless.

That's why I like Marcus. He is doing what he thinks is necessary to protect the Federation and doesn't believe anyone else is capable of doing it.

I personally don't need much more. There are plenty of real world examples for me to understand where he is coming from.

The story was relevant to our times, because terrorism [Harrison/Khan] is on everyone's minds. Doing wrong in the name of good [Marcus] is a legitimate motivation for an antagonist in many excellent stories. It seems the plot is sufficient for the people who watched the movie, except for the very vocal minority complaining.

It is one of the most successful Star Trek movies worldwide, yet some still say, "It ain't Trek". Good grief, no wonder people still think Trekkies are off their rocker.

 

[T'Girl]

It is one of the most successful Star Trek movies worldwide, yet some still say, "It ain't Trek"

Because how much money the movie makes is what defines whether or not it's "Star Trek."

{not}

.

 

[RAMA]

Honestly, 5 minutes of STII parallels from a different timeline hardly seems like sacrilege. Purists get over yourselves. Get out of your basements.

RAMA

You don't get a say in what others like or dislike or where to live. It used to be that lens flares were the effects of amateurish photography. Now it's like pissing in a bottle and calling it art. Also, the basement meme is tired. You might as well go for the whole spectrum of prejudicial jokes and phobias when you say things like that about individual preferences.

I appreciate that Abrams is listening and showing some introspection. It would seem to run counter to the artists, and even the consumers, who do not think the audience is worth considering.

I don't get a say in their opinions, but i get plenty of say in HOW they express them, which is generally pretty one-note and pointless.

 

[JWPlatt]

It is one of the most successful Star Trek movies worldwide, yet some still say, "It ain't Trek"

Because how much money the movie makes is what defines whether or not it's "Star Trek."

{not}

Awesome use of biting sarcasm... until the obvious clarifier.

Honestly, 5 minutes of STII parallels from a different timeline hardly seems like sacrilege. Purists get over yourselves. Get out of your basements.

You don't get a say in what others like or dislike or where to live. It used to be that lens flares were the effects of amateurish photography. Now it's like pissing in a bottle and calling it art. Also, the basement meme is tired. You might as well go for the whole spectrum of prejudicial jokes and phobias when you say things like that about individual preferences.

I appreciate that Abrams is listening and showing some introspection. It would seem to run counter to the artists, and even the consumers, who do not think the audience is worth considering.

I don't get a say in their opinions, but i get plenty of say in HOW they express them...

Nope. Not even. The moderators do that, such as to you, previously, for the very same quote of yours that you've just conveniently recalled. All we get to do is reply to what others say and how they say it.

 

[Jeyl]

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Well, would it be fair to say that Khan's character in general was one of the more criticized parts of Into Darkness? We've got criticisms involving white washing, not getting the character right, and having the character be there at all. Having John Harrison revealed to be Khan certainly got people to latch onto him, just not in the way they wanted it to.

Any "criticisms" about the character were made by people like us who post on these boards and other places on the internet. They weren't made by 90% of the people who actually went to see the movie.

Well, if 90% of movie audiences who saw this movie don't care that it's Khan, what was the point in having a character like ,Khan to latch onto? It's not like Khan was 'advertised' as being in the movie.

 

[Trekkin]

That nebulous 'general public' wouldn't have know who he was in TWOK either. Which going by your logic, makes it seem even stranger that they'd use his name to advertise the movie. 'The Wrath of Some Guy from One Episode of a Show You Probably Didn't Watch!' How was the poor average noob meant to latch onto that?

Also, why do you keep trying to say there is ever a situation where writers (purely from a creative perspective) 'need' to to make a certain choice about a character? It's a piece of fiction - none of it is necessary.

 

[JWPlatt]

Great points all around.

I am of the opinion that good writing and a good story is where the characters make their own choices, so to speak, and not the writer really making the choice for them; i.e., organic, without bias. "We have to kill Kirk at the end" is not good writing; he just dies at the end of a good story because that's how it flowed. Someone is going to ask, "What about how Spock died at the end of Wrath of Khan? They wanted that to happen!" No, they didn't. They wanted it to happen near the start. It got pushed back as the story was developed.

 

[Trekkin]

I can't actually imagine Spock dying near the start of TWOK. When you hear of him getting critically injured by the first fight, it sounds like they were Worf-ing Spock.

Damn you hindsight!