Also, Kirk is still young and relatively inexperienced in STID, so its believable that he may let his emotions get the best of him from time to time, especially when his surrogate father figure is murdered right in front of him. Picard, on the other hand, is much older and highly experienced. The Picard in FC has gone through seven seasons of the TV show, including his dealings the Borg. So Picard becoming a raving revenge-obsessed lunatic is much less believable, especially when it contradicts events in the TV show.
First Contact vs. Into Darkness
- Thread starter otomo
- Start date
For one thing I don't really agree with the criticism that Picard was out of character in First Contact. Sure, he's in "action movie" mode, which made him a bit angrier than usual. He certainly acted in a different manner in "I, borg" but it's also possible that it was still eating away at him. It could have been boiling up inside him and the events of First Contact are what cause him to snap. In fact it's the scenes with Picard in First Contact that are the most interesting.
That said, I think Into Darkness is the better movie. I feel like it had a deeper message, I mean what is FC trying to say? There's so much going on at once.
They're both good movies though. I love first contact's score.
That said, I think Into Darkness is the better movie. I feel like it had a deeper message, I mean what is FC trying to say? There's so much going on at once.
They're both good movies though. I love first contact's score.
Both movies really are similar in that they ruin a classic villain by ramming them into an action piece that really doesn't capture Star Trek. As stand alone action movies they're both alright, but the acting is forced and the characters are different. Picard and Kirk in these movies are both cliche action heroes and not the thoughtful captains they were in TOS/TNG.
I'm sorry but what version of TOS where you watching where Kirk didn't have action hero moments? Because its sounds pretty different form the one I watched.
I'm not really interested in stating which one is better because they are not really comparable. ID is only a few months out of the theatre and FC is about 17 years old.
I know Picard was out of character in FC but if I'm being honest I have to say that I actually found the FC Picard interesting. At the end of BOBW I liked how they closed out the episode with that scene that let the audience know that he was damaged in a way that would resonate for a long time. If it hadn't been for "Descent" I think the FC Picard would have been pretty accurate. I would have also been ok with the Borg Queen had they not tried to over sensualize her.
Into Darkness was a lot of fun for me. It was pretty much what I expected for an action packed blockbuster. I liked it. I'm looking forward to watching it again as soon as I can snag a copy.
I know Picard was out of character in FC but if I'm being honest I have to say that I actually found the FC Picard interesting. At the end of BOBW I liked how they closed out the episode with that scene that let the audience know that he was damaged in a way that would resonate for a long time. If it hadn't been for "Descent" I think the FC Picard would have been pretty accurate. I would have also been ok with the Borg Queen had they not tried to over sensualize her.
Into Darkness was a lot of fun for me. It was pretty much what I expected for an action packed blockbuster. I liked it. I'm looking forward to watching it again as soon as I can snag a copy.
Last edited:
So what you actually have said is you prefer the underlying concept and thesis of STFC over STID.
I thought we are comparing movies and their execution, however you try to dumb down the themes of STID, the movie is presented in a far superior way, far more polished and the standard of acting and scripting is very well aligned with its peers on the silver screen.
The problem with FC is they carried over the same type of actors, executed the same dialog patterns, and the same technobabble driven scripting which was barely excusable in 90's Television and totally crushed by anything else in Hollywood cinema at that time.
You seem to have put a spin on the themes on STID, welll I could say the cast were so fundamentally bland that the writing put Patrick Stewart / Picard into a desparate situation of going out of character with irrational outbursts of rage against the machines to keep within the 'action and drama' that FC promised, you see the spin goes both ways?
You, aswell as jarod and shazam spend an awful amount of time looking for reasons to dislike STID, when it would be easier to just get over the film and enjoy the back catalog.
Huge difference between having action hero moments and being a cliche action hero.
An example on the womanizer part please.
How exactly is Picard being out of character an argument for ID over FC?
ID turns Spock into Kirk (KHAAAAAAN!), turns Kirk into a Captain who makes bizarre decisions for no reason (Hiding on the ocean against Scotty's recommendations when the ship is just as well hidden in space) and turns Khan into a sentimental daddy figure who is easily controlled simply by threatening his followers. Even after he somehow got his hands on those same followers, and, instead of waking them up and taking Section 31's technology to relaunch his plans for world domination, instead decides to just hide them in torpedoes and keep doing Marcus' bidding.
Both films have significant issues. I wouldn't include either one as among the best Trek films, even though they are both reasonably enjoyable. Ultimately, the quality of the writing for both is, to me, equally dubious. ID of course has better special effects - that's a given, being released 17 years later. But the general execution of both films is more or less on the same level. I would give the very slight edge to FC, simply because the extended fakeout of demoting Kirk at the beginning of ID and then reinstating him without any real consequences rather detracts, for me, from the overall coherence of the story.
ID turns Spock into Kirk (KHAAAAAAN!), turns Kirk into a Captain who makes bizarre decisions for no reason (Hiding on the ocean against Scotty's recommendations when the ship is just as well hidden in space) and turns Khan into a sentimental daddy figure who is easily controlled simply by threatening his followers. Even after he somehow got his hands on those same followers, and, instead of waking them up and taking Section 31's technology to relaunch his plans for world domination, instead decides to just hide them in torpedoes and keep doing Marcus' bidding.
Both films have significant issues. I wouldn't include either one as among the best Trek films, even though they are both reasonably enjoyable. Ultimately, the quality of the writing for both is, to me, equally dubious. ID of course has better special effects - that's a given, being released 17 years later. But the general execution of both films is more or less on the same level. I would give the very slight edge to FC, simply because the extended fakeout of demoting Kirk at the beginning of ID and then reinstating him without any real consequences rather detracts, for me, from the overall coherence of the story.
In my opinion, First Contact achieved with ease what Abrams & Co were always talking about with Trek 2009 and STD.
You didn't need to know anything about Trek to get excited by First Contact. A much faster pace, a completely new visual style, more action, an exciting space battle, that closer-to-earth approach with 21st century characters bouncing against the 24th century characters. And it's LOADED with references to previous Trek without being annoying or contrived. References to DS9, TOS, VOY, previous TNG episodes (like Dixon Hill episodes), Klingons, Romulans, Vulcans, Zephram Cochrane. Holy heck, even Barclay is in it.
First Contact condenses the ENTIRE franchise into one film. First Contact is the very first choice when I want to introduce someone to Trek.
It IS the same as Star Trek 2009 regarding all intentions. But I like the execution of First Contact a lot more.
You didn't need to know anything about Trek to get excited by First Contact. A much faster pace, a completely new visual style, more action, an exciting space battle, that closer-to-earth approach with 21st century characters bouncing against the 24th century characters. And it's LOADED with references to previous Trek without being annoying or contrived. References to DS9, TOS, VOY, previous TNG episodes (like Dixon Hill episodes), Klingons, Romulans, Vulcans, Zephram Cochrane. Holy heck, even Barclay is in it.
First Contact condenses the ENTIRE franchise into one film. First Contact is the very first choice when I want to introduce someone to Trek.
It IS the same as Star Trek 2009 regarding all intentions. But I like the execution of First Contact a lot more.
I don't get the complaint that Picard was out of character, let alone enough to ruin the film (although this may be a little bit from watching it before "I, Borg" and finding that a less satisfying TBoBW sequel); encountering the Borg briefly twice (the latter time being Lore's pretty different version) in seven years doesn't seem enough for him to not want vengeance against them, especially when they seem increasingly likely to take over his ship and assimilate all of humanity.
How did Spock grow in ID?
The technobabble seemed pretty minimal in FC and the writing overall a lot better than most blockbuster films (including from 1996).
How did Spock grow in ID?
The technobabble seemed pretty minimal in FC and the writing overall a lot better than most blockbuster films (including from 1996).
Last edited:
That are my feelings as well. At the beginning of First Contact the Borg have completely assimilated Earth. The temporal wake let's Picard see this before he goes back in time. The stakes are super high for him. This is probably his worst fears come to life. And would anyone really just be "over" what happened to him. Sure he's dealt with it somewhat in the past, but that doesn't mean it's just gone from him now. The film shows how human he is.
If we really look at those other episodes after BOBW we have one injured Borg with emotions and in Decent we have a splintered group that are chaotic and emotional, doing none of the things they did in the past. First Contact is the first time we have the same Borg from BOBW.
Exactly.
He understands the value and meaning of friendship. His cavalier attitude towards life and death have changed. He admits his choice to be stoic comes more from not wanting to deal with the emotions of losing Vulcan than from simply adhering to the philosophical aspects of being a Vulcan. That's a big personal admission.
I don't think there's even a comparison. ID is basically a TWOK reworking without the intelligence or wisdom of the original, plus Kirk as an uber-cocky bastard, plus a decent, but half-baked, not to mention undercooked social commentary. Basically terrible. FC is still a great Star Trek film, that also a great film.
I don't think that ID is anything like TWOK except for the villain(who's very different personality-wise) and the 5 minute death scene which is deliberate. Otherwise the plots are nothing alike.
I love both. They're hugely enjoyable.
