Abrams: Star Trek Into Darkness Problems

[Yanks]

Was there any point to this post, apart from being snarky?

It's very apparent. So if you really can't figure it out, explaining it to you will be useless waste of time. I suggest you move on.

Oh yeah, and there's been nothing sarcastic or judgmental about that.

"Judgmental" is obviously a relative term you'll have to deal with.

Being sarcastic doesn't seem to bother you one bit. Do as I say not as I do?

 

[Yanks]

TOS and TNG, mostly - but, you know, I saw the former well before there were hordes of fans on the Internet trying to define for the world what Star Trek is and how we're supposed to think about it.

So did I.

...and I remember what Spock stood for and what he made me think about.

nuSpock ain't that.

 

[Yanks]

It is fine to have an opinion.
It is fine to EXPRESS an opinion.
It is NOT fine to run around constantly jerking your opinion off in everyone else's eye as if they really REALLY need to know why you hated the movie and why their not hating the movie reflects poorly on them as people. It was just a nuisance when it first started, but eight years later, those who engage in such behavior can rightly expect to be mocked and ridiculed for such behavior. For which they should, IMO, count themselves as thankful; in most forums, they would just get banned for trolling.

It's just not fine to discuss problems with STID in a thread titled "Abrams: Star Trek Into Darkness Problems"

You know, if folks have a hard time listening to folks express their issues with STID and nuTrek, maybe they shouldn't frequent such threads?

Jesus, even JJ admits their were issues with the movie.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Agree, but careful, you may hurt some feelings here.

This is pretty clearly a violation of M'Sharak's admonishment to you about not taking personal swipes at others from only a few posts before it.

You then follow that up with multiple posts in a row instead of using the multi-quote function, and quoting a Crazy Eddie post from way back in January seemingly just to pick yet another fight, as if you don't have enough going on already in the present.

Taken all together, you've earned an infraction. Comments to PM.

And this is not an invitation for others to take shots at him in return. Knock off the personal comments and return to the subject at hand.

 

[fireproof78]

NuSpock isn't vintage Spock, he's nuSpock. He's a Spock that's sassing it with Uhura, he's a Spock that was Kirk's superior for a time, he's a Spock that had his planet along with his dad blown up like an overflated beach ball. And I get the point that Spock was caught grinnin' and whatnot in early Trek and there's a bit of an outburst in Amok Time and all that stuff. But nuSpock is a different kettle of fish, he's a guy that's been traumatised and a character that was deliberately taken in a more human direction. But the thing is I know about the humans, I'd rather keep that Vulcan uniqueness. Spock bawling Kahn over Kirk,I burst out laughing. It was such a rip-off and had zero suspense at what was supposed to be a critical moment. It deflated the film completely.

I guess it depends on the person. I find both nuKirk and nuSpock fascinating from a character point of view.

They are any better, or any worse, than their Prime counterparts. Just different.

 

[Longinus]

Just different.

Which some people don't like. If you want different kind of characters, then create new characters and leave the old ones to be. Only reason to use old characters and then mutate them beyond recognition is cheap marketing via name recognition.

 

[fireproof78]

Which some people don't like. If you want different kind of characters, then create new characters and leave the old ones to be. Only reason to use old characters and then mutate them beyond recognition is cheap marketing via name recognition.

"Mutated" is an odd word. I can recognize them just fine, though I see the marketing point.

I think it's more of a "path less taken" and looking at the characters from a different angle. Obviously, as you stated, some will not like it, and that's fine. I'm not demanding that they like them.

My point is, that my personal knowledge of Kirk, Spock, McCoy, etc. adds to my enjoyment of the Abrams' films. I do hope that they use this new universe to create new characters too. I hope that is what the 2017 series is because I enjoy the new universe that much.

 

[Kemaiku]

Yup, third, fourth iterations, they're all fictional and deserve to have other people take a shot at it over time to give us different interpretations of the characters as new productions give new life to them.

 

[JKM]

One of things I like the most about Nutrek is that they have taken these beloved characters into a new Universe and done a 'what-if' scenario. How is Kirk different raised by a loving father versus being raised in an abusive home with an absent mother. I like that they made those changes and the what-if point of view.

 

[plynch]

Indeed. The lynch pin of Kirk's arc in the first two was him accepting responsibility.

That's "linchpin" to you, Bub.

 

[M'Sharak]

Spelvis Presley, ladies and gentlemen - give him a round of applause!

 

[fireproof78]

That's "linchpin" to you, Bub.

O_o
Um, thank you for correcting a mistake I made almost a month ago...?

Also, I could have been making a reference to David Lynch...you never know.

 

[Jedman67]

I just finished watching STID, and well...disappointing. Not a bad movie, just...mediocre. A shootemup pewpewpew action flick with the name star trek.
The basic plot was ok- terrorist threatens earth, double agents exposed etc. What bothered me more was the character development - Pike dresses Kirk down (a military captain FALSIFYING reports? Did he never take Starfleet Ethics? Yes, Sisko and Picard have done this on occasion, but theyre experienced so extenuating circumstances etc).
Kirk and Spock acting like emo teenagers, arguing in front of a superior, arguing in front of the bridge crew, shouting at each other, and the complete lack of consequences for kirk - "you're going back to the acadamy" (weird punishment, he should never have been promoted that quickly), "wait, all is forgiven, you're now my XO" and then "Hah i'm captain again, losers!".
All the characters shouting at each other with no decorum or discipline - it just rubbed me the wrong way.
Then putting a 19 year old navigator as the new chief engineer - what happened to the chain of command, asst engineer, deputy engineer, engineer 1st class etc WHO TRAINED FOR THIS JOB??? I could see bumping Scotty up in the first movie, he seemed to have been a competent engineer shoved off to the armpit of starfleet for a prank, but was skilled at his job. Chekov is a different story altogether.
Then you have Spock Sr. who made a pointless appearance in the movie. "I can't tell you the future...what the hell, this is what you need to know to defeat Khan."

The plot failure here is that when Spock had the torpedoes prepped to beam onto the Vengeance, he didn't bother loading them with proper warheads - they damaged the ship but didn't do enough to destroy it outright.
=======
Other nitpicks I had:
Fisticuffs
Kirk kicking the warp core to fix it. "Here is millions of dollars worth of specialized equipment. Don't worry, if it breaks, just kick it back into alignment."
Gratuitous underwear scene with Carol Marcus.

 

[Disco]

I appreciated the Carol Marcus underwear scene.

 

[mos6507]

I appreciated the Carol Marcus underwear scene.

So Into Darkness has about as much memorability as...a Victoria's Secret Catalog?

 

[Disco]

So Into Darkness has about as much memorability as...a Victoria's Secret Catalog?

No, the rest of the film was quality. I just appreciated that scene.

 

[jamestyler]

I appreciated the Carol Marcus underwear scene.

In all honesty.... I kind of appreciated that scene. Though not for what it was blasted for. With them already showcasing Kirk's sexual immaturity earlier in the film (and the first one), having a woman who's above the immaturity made sense to foreshadow something more.

I assumed that was a 'step one' to getting from strangers to their relationship, but she seems to have been dropped altogether and alas, it'll go nowhere :/

 

[Paradise City]

I wouldn't say the Carole scene was "gratuitous". It was more odd and suspicious. I suspect that scene was included in the film to spice up the trailer.- rather than something that had any impact on the film itself.

 

[Jedman67]

In all honesty.... I kind of appreciated that scene. Though not for what it was blasted for. With them already showcasing Kirk's sexual immaturity earlier in the film (and the first one), having a woman who's above the immaturity made sense to foreshadow something more.

I assumed that was a 'step one' to getting from strangers to their relationship, but she seems to have been dropped altogether and alas, it'll go nowhere :/

I could have done without the sex scenes, they didn't really add much to the movie. But at least that was demonstrating Kirks immaturity as a skirt chaser. Carol's underwear scene didn't add anything except 'eye candy'.

I wouldn't say the Carole scene was "gratuitous". It was more odd and suspicious. I suspect that scene was included in the film to spice up the trailer.- rather than something that had any impact on the film itself.

exactly. In the trailer it suggests the exact opposite of what happened in the movie.

 

[Yanks]

The plot failure here is that when Spock had the torpedoes prepped to beam onto the Vengeance, he didn't bother loading them with proper warheads - they damaged the ship but didn't do enough to destroy it outright.

I think if Spock would have had additional warheads/explosives put into Khan's torpedoes, Khan's scans might have picked that up. Probably to big a risk.