All right, all you JJ-haters! Put your money where your mouth is!

[M'Sharak]

one is still free to criticize.

Truth. Some TBBS members seem determined to stamp out any criticism of NuTrek.

Well, you won't find that going on here - criticize away.

Oh, and let's try to avoid making generalizations concerning what "some TBBS members" do. It's outside the focus of the discussion, it's unnecessary, and it's not particularly helpful besides.

Edit:

*stuff*

Dafuq did I just read.

Eh, that's not an especially helpful sort of comment, either.

 

[trevanian]

one is still free to criticize.

Truth. Some TBBS members seem determined to stamp out any criticism of NuTrek.

Well, you won't find that going on here - criticize away.

Oh, and let's try to avoid making generalizations concerning what "some TBBS members" do. It's outside the focus of the discussion, it's unnecessary, and it's not particularly helpful besides.

It certainly affects how the board is perceived, to the point of actually putting a few skids in to impede growth, since at least some folks elsewhere don't see the point of writing an intelligent dissenting post anywhere on trekbbs because of the 'swarm! swarm!' approach of those who 'seem determined to stamp out any criticism of NuTrek.'

Is it that the remark in question was a generalization that is at issue? Or is this more about the content of the remark? Or is asking for clarification on this also 'not particularly helpful?'

 

[M'Sharak]

Is it that the remark in question was a generalization that is at issue? Or is this more about the content of the remark? Or is asking for clarification on this also 'not particularly helpful?'

Talking about the movie (whether in praise or in criticism): fine, OK, good. It's why this forum is here.

Making insinuations about other posters (whether said posters are supportive of or opposed to nuTrek): not fine, not OK, not good. To be avoided, even in such vague terms as "some TBBS members".

This:

Some TBBS members seem determined to stamp out any criticism of NuTrek.

... has no place in discussion here - its only purpose is to bait. I don't want to see it again.

 

[Xavier_Storma]

Is it that the remark in question was a generalization that is at issue? Or is this more about the content of the remark? Or is asking for clarification on this also 'not particularly helpful?'

Talking about the movie (whether in praise or in criticism): fine, OK, good. It's why this forum is here.

Making insinuations about other posters (whether said posters are supportive of or opposed to nuTrek): not fine, not OK, not good. To be avoided, even in such vague terms as "some TBBS members".

Agreed. Let's just agree to disagree. Both opinions are valid.

 

[trevanian]

Is it that the remark in question was a generalization that is at issue? Or is this more about the content of the remark? Or is asking for clarification on this also 'not particularly helpful?'

Talking about the movie (whether in praise or in criticism): fine, OK, good. It's why this forum is here.

Making insinuations about other posters (whether said posters are supportive of or opposed to nuTrek): not fine, not OK, not good. To be avoided, even in such vague terms as "some TBBS members".

Agreed. Let's just agree to disagree. Both opinions are valid.

Cool, just wanted someplace we could all go for ready-reference the next time somebody says this kind of thing aiming in this direction OR the other direction. In theory, this should solve a variety of long-standing ills, if upheld.

 

[Dave Scarpa]

Abrams Direction is fine, the cast is also fine, he needs to get a new team of writers on board because Into Darkness is a mess.

 

[throwback]

A problem I have with this movie and, with certain episodes, of Star Trek is this -

I am living in the present. I know that our government has taken preventive steps to protecting itself from attack. I know that they can't protect everything - there are breaches. However, these breaches are rare, and the government does take partial to full steps to prevent these occurrences from happening again. I am assuming, as a student of history, that a government in the twenty-fourth century will be far more advanced than us in the identifying and quarantining of threats. So, when I see an attack on a government building, I am in a state of disbelief. I know that this wouldn't happen, especially after an attack has already happen. The conference would be held in a secured facility - out of mind, out of sight of the public - and that Khan wouldn't be simply able to fly a gunship to the conference room and kill people. When I see an event in a movie, and it makes it appear that the people are less advanced than us, and this is allegedly the future, I feel the film has lost some of its credibility with me.

I believe that if you are to write a film set in the future, show that the people have actually precedent behind them and that they are working from centuries of acquired knowledge.

If you are going to show Khan killing people, then do it intelligently. First off, people like Khan wouldn't get themselves dirty. They would hold themselves above the fray, and have others do the work for him. (The father destroying the complex has some verisimilitude.) Leaders who get dirty betray weakness. Secondly, show the process by which Khan's minions overcome Starfleet's defenses and are able to attack the conference. Thirdly, make the attack be less random, and more focused. Fourthly, illustrate how Starfleet has learned who was behind the attack. If you are involving an intelligence group, use that to some advantage. Have them either involved with the attack, or have them be the victims of the attack.

 

[Amaris]

A problem I have with this movie and, with certain episodes, of Star Trek is this -

I am living in the present. I know that our government has taken preventive steps to protecting itself from attack. I know that they can't protect everything - there are breaches. However, these breaches are rare, and the government does take partial to full steps to prevent these occurrences from happening again. I am assuming, as a student of history, that a government in the twenty-fourth century will be far more advanced than us in the identifying and quarantining of threats. So, when I see an attack on a government building, I am in a state of disbelief. I know that this wouldn't happen, especially after an attack has already happen. The conference would be held in a secured facility - out of mind, out of sight of the public - and that Khan wouldn't be simply able to fly a gunship to the conference room and kill people. When I see an event in a movie, and it makes it appear that the people are less advanced than us, and this is allegedly the future, I feel the film has lost some of its credibility with me.

I believe that if you are to write a film set in the future, show that the people have actually precedent behind them and that they are working from centuries of acquired knowledge.

If you are going to show Khan killing people, then do it intelligently. First off, people like Khan wouldn't get themselves dirty. They would hold themselves above the fray, and have others do the work for him. (The father destroying the complex has some verisimilitude.) Leaders who get dirty betray weakness. Secondly, show the process by which Khan's minions overcome Starfleet's defenses and are able to attack the conference. Thirdly, make the attack be less random, and more focused. Fourthly, illustrate how Starfleet has learned who was behind the attack. If you are involving an intelligence group, use that to some advantage. Have them either involved with the attack, or have them be the victims of the attack.

I'm not criticizing, just making a quick point: This issue (a gunship near a secure facility) is addressed in the movie. I won't say what, because I don't know if spoilers are allowed here, but it is addressed, and quite handily.

 

[throwback]

What is a secured facility? Here is an example from the 21st century.

The President Emergency Operations Center (PEOC)

The PEOC was built six stories below ground under the East Wing [ed. of the White House] to provide the President with a secure meeting place in the event of an emergency. Access to the PEOC is by an elevator located behind multiple vault-type doors with biometric access control systems.

http://whitehouse.gov1.info/tunnel/

As a writer, I would start with this as a basis for the room where the meeting would be held. I would do other research and consult experts, and, then, I would envision how an attack might proceed.

 

[Amaris]

What is a secured facility? Here is an example from the 21st century.

The President Emergency Operations Center (PEOC)

The PEOC was built six stories below ground under the East Wing [ed. of the White House] to provide the President with a secure meeting place in the event of an emergency. Access to the PEOC is by an elevator located behind multiple vault-type doors with biometric access control systems.

http://whitehouse.gov1.info/tunnel/

As a writer, I would start with this as a basis for the room where the meeting would be held. I would do other research and consult experts, and, then, I would envision how an attack might proceed.

Who knows? By the 23rd century, an outhouse could be a secured facility depending upon the technology used to protect it. In the case of the movie, having top officers from the fleet in the same room would just about guarantee a level of security above that of a regular office or meeting area.

In this case, security is thrown out the window because of how the act was orchestrated.

 

[throwback]

I think you are describing a situation that will never happen. We have bombs now that can penetrate underground bunkers, yet we still insist on building underground bunkers. I have noticed that human beings, when threatened or under attack, like to cocoon themselves. There is something about having a thick set of walls between you and the outside world. I don't think that will ever change.

I think that electromagnetic shields would be incorporated into a secured facility. These shields would either protect the whole facility, or would section off parts of the facility to isolate and quarantine intruders.

I was doing some research. The Pentagon has two levels that are underground. In affiliation with the Pentagon, there is the Raven Rock Mountain Complex. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven_Rock_Mountain_Complex) This facility is described as having five buildings, each three stories tall, computer filled caverns, and a water reservoir. I think the key points in secured facilities is that they are not visible to the public, that they have communication links with the outside world, and that information about them is classified.

If I was a high ranking Starfleet officer, and I was told that I would be meeting in a conference room in a skyscraper for an emergency conference, I would be immediately suspicious of the circumstances.

I think showing this facility in the movie would have been a plus. I think it would make the Federation and Starfleet seem more real, that somehow these entities have a connection to our world. I was hearing one review where the reviewer felt after watching the two reboot films that the nature of the Federation, and Starfleet, was ambiguous. I feel that showing this facility might have given us some insight into both. When I think of people meeting in a conference room in a skyscraper, i think of board members belonging to a corporation.

 

[Amaris]

I think you are describing a situation that will never happen. We have bombs now that can penetrate underground bunkers, yet we still insist on building underground bunkers. I have noticed that human beings, when threatened or under attack, like to cocoon themselves. There is something about having a thick set of walls between you and the outside world. I don't think that will ever change.

I think that electromagnetic shields would be incorporated into a secured facility. These shields would either protect the whole facility, or would section off parts of the facility to isolate and quarantine intruders.

I was doing some research. The Pentagon has two levels that are underground. In affiliation with the Pentagon, there is the Raven Rock Mountain Complex. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven_Rock_Mountain_Complex) This facility is described as having five buildings, each three stories tall, computer filled caverns, and a water reservoir. I think the key points in secured facilities is that they are not visible to the public, that they have communication links with the outside world, and that information about them is classified.

If I was a high ranking Starfleet officer, and I was told that I would be meeting in a conference room in a skyscraper for an emergency conference, I would be immediately suspicious of the circumstances.

I think showing this facility in the movie would have been a plus. I think it would make the Federation and Starfleet seem more real, that somehow these entities have a connection to our world. I was hearing one review where the reviewer felt after watching the two reboot films that the nature of the Federation, and Starfleet, was ambiguous. I feel that showing this facility might have given us some insight into both. When I think of people meeting in a conference room in a skyscraper, i think of board members belonging to a corporation.

Scotty has a line in the movie where he states:

Spoiler: Not A Spoiler really, but still...

that the special torpedoes being loaded into the cargo bay remind him too much of the military, and that Starfleet was supposed to be about exploration.

 

[throwback]

Starfleet is the military branch of the Federation. This has been the case since the first series.

 

[Amaris]

Starfleet is the military branch of the Federation. This has been the case since the first series.

This is a new set of movies that doesn't really follow the same canon as the Star Trek TV series.

 

[Dave Scarpa]

Paramount has just hired you, due to your intense hatred of lens flares and JJ Abrams decision making, to replace JJ Abrams as head of the new Star Trek to follow Into Darkness.

You are free to reboot the series with whomever you feel is fit to play the roles of Kirk and Spock, or you can stick with Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto. But, Paramount wants you to post your casting ideas along with your plot synopsis.

Let's hear it! You're sick of Abrams, Kurtzman, Orci and Lindelof, let's hear YOUR ideas! You claim you can do better, Paramount is listening! Don't be shy!

After having seen INTO DARKNESS, I see the problem now. It is not JJ Abrams. In fact cinematography, direction, set design, effects etc look superb. Never looked better... no, it is the authors. Orci and Kurtzman are simply unable to write an original story... at least to the end.
The first hour of the film works and you are about to forgive stupid plotholes and logical mistakes simply because it is so dense... sadly, after 60 minutes the film simply copys TWOK and that is where it falls apart.

I would defineatly keep Abrams (lense flares decreased in this film, the camera works now really good, seems they cured the cameraman's Parkinson since 2009, or at least treated it accordingly (since you cannot cure that disease).

Throw out Orci and Kurtzman and get someone of the calliber of the Nolan brothers to write TREK 3, and everyone will be happy.

In fact if it was not for the second half of the film, I would really rate it as a good solid Sci-Fi Action film... and I really hated almost everything about TREK 09.

But there is hope again...

I would go the route of a game like "Judgment Rites" or "A Final Unity".

Add an archeological adventure for example, a race towards a huge discovery, a competition with Klingons for example, where the audience first thinks they are the bad guys and then in the end, let them work together with Kirk and his crew to solve a problem (in best TREK tradition).
There does not need to be an essential bad guy in the film. Mix it with cool locations (XI and ID have them already), add some action scenes (Kirk and Spck getting intel from hostile party, having a spy on board or something) and voila.

Just avoid: Time travel, remakes of iconic scenes and plot holes. It ain't that hard. If I had more time I would sit down and write a draft or two.

I agree I liked the movie upto about the Reveal of Khan, if the Film had focused on the renegade operation of Section 31 and gave us a Harrison with a decent Modus Operandi then I would have been fine with it, and take out the rediculous WOK Ending

 

[Xavier_Storma]

Paramount has just hired you, due to your intense hatred of lens flares and JJ Abrams decision making, to replace JJ Abrams as head of the new Star Trek to follow Into Darkness.

You are free to reboot the series with whomever you feel is fit to play the roles of Kirk and Spock, or you can stick with Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto. But, Paramount wants you to post your casting ideas along with your plot synopsis.

Let's hear it! You're sick of Abrams, Kurtzman, Orci and Lindelof, let's hear YOUR ideas! You claim you can do better, Paramount is listening! Don't be shy!

After having seen INTO DARKNESS, I see the problem now. It is not JJ Abrams. In fact cinematography, direction, set design, effects etc look superb. Never looked better... no, it is the authors. Orci and Kurtzman are simply unable to write an original story... at least to the end.
The first hour of the film works and you are about to forgive stupid plotholes and logical mistakes simply because it is so dense... sadly, after 60 minutes the film simply copys TWOK and that is where it falls apart.

I would defineatly keep Abrams (lense flares decreased in this film, the camera works now really good, seems they cured the cameraman's Parkinson since 2009, or at least treated it accordingly (since you cannot cure that disease).

Throw out Orci and Kurtzman and get someone of the calliber of the Nolan brothers to write TREK 3, and everyone will be happy.

In fact if it was not for the second half of the film, I would really rate it as a good solid Sci-Fi Action film... and I really hated almost everything about TREK 09.

But there is hope again...

I would go the route of a game like "Judgment Rites" or "A Final Unity".

Add an archeological adventure for example, a race towards a huge discovery, a competition with Klingons for example, where the audience first thinks they are the bad guys and then in the end, let them work together with Kirk and his crew to solve a problem (in best TREK tradition).
There does not need to be an essential bad guy in the film. Mix it with cool locations (XI and ID have them already), add some action scenes (Kirk and Spck getting intel from hostile party, having a spy on board or something) and voila.

Just avoid: Time travel, remakes of iconic scenes and plot holes. It ain't that hard. If I had more time I would sit down and write a draft or two.

I agree I liked the movie upto about the Reveal of Khan, if the Film had focused on the renegade operation of Section 31 and gave us a Harrison with a decent Modus Operandi then I would have been fine with it, and take out the rediculous WOK Ending

Nevertheless... this film works much better than the IMHO incredible mess that TREK 2009 was.
The visuals are stunning, the cast does a solid job (I was surprised with PEgg's performance since I though he really ruined the part in 2009) and we have some really good action scenes (the Enterprise falling from orbit is great).

 

[trevanian]

Add an archeological adventure for example, a race towards a huge discovery, a competition with Klingons for example, where the audience first thinks they are the bad guys and then in the end, let them work together with Kirk and his crew to solve a problem (in best TREK tradition).

Not bad at all. Sounds not just like THE CHASE (which I and some other folk think should have been the GEN movie), but also Phil Kaufman's unmade STAR TREK movie, PLANET OF THE TITANS. Didn't exactly have klingons and feds teaming up, but was going to have Toshiro Mifune as a Klingon captain opposite Nimoy's Spock so you'd have had respect at least among antagonists, against the backdrop of Ken Adam (!!) sets, Derek Medding miniatures and Jordan Belson (drool) opticals.