J.J. Abrams: 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Had 'Fundamental Story Problems

[Saul]

Re: J.J. Abrams: 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Had 'Fundamental Story Prob

Firstly I enjoyed 'Into Darkness' and thought he did a good job. Liked the story too.

Second, he had 4 years between movies to get the story right and no writers strike to get in the way either. How much more time do you need?

The only problem was things like common sense. Example: The supposed danger of the ship being destroyed if it hit the atmosphere without shields and yet someone they passed through it and were in the clouds.

 

[fireproof78]

Re: J.J. Abrams: 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Had 'Fundamental Story Prob

Maybe they should have written Khan into the Enterprise chamber to give his life for his and the Enterprise crew as redemption for his alternate universe self and victory against the corrupt Admiral. That might have been more interesting and compelling - something akin to "in another life I could have called you friend." Well, they get their chance.

Kirk's story arc demanded that he be the one who sacrificed himself. This story was not about Khan or his redemption (especially for an alternate universe self he knows nothing about).

The movie had an ambitious story, that's for sure. For the most part, in my opinion, they pulled it off. And, STID was no more like TWOK than TVH was. I have no idea why the "fan base" would be pissed off they used Khan. He's hardly an icon or inviolable. Using him was kind of neat because he is now part of crucial times in the development of the lives of both Kirks.

That's the problem... "Kirk's story arc" shouldn't have included doing exactly what Spock did in TWoK. What they could have done to give a nod to that iconic scene, was something like have Spock do everything he did, but Kirk used anti-radiation meds and wore a suit and was OK. Then Spock can stay in character instead of loosing control and blaming Khan for everything.



Got the point across... it wasn't meant to be a critique of ST09, just making a point about the "story".



Obviously many where. Your comment is nothing more than argumentative.



I agree. I actually accepted Cumby's Khan, probably because I didn't have a choice, but if you look at most of the story problems in STID, they all are there as a result of Khan being in the movie and the writer infatuation with TWoK.



You aren't comparing Spock's linking with pure logic coupled with his recent quest to achieve Kolinar in TMP with loosing emotional control, throwing tantrums, running down and beating Khan to an inch of his death in ID are you?



I'm glad you enjoyed it. Personally I shut down when I watched the reversal in the theater. I would argue that that "arc" is WAY to quick in the new timeline. Spocks yelling of Khan was more comical to me that moving.



It makes sense. They could have brought Cold Station 12 into the story etc...



I didn't mean is as a hit on the new team, my cut is that JJ bring lots of energy and ability to the directed/producing part of the pie. I hope we don't see a huge drop off in that department when we watch 'Beyond'.



Again, I don't begrudge anyone for their opinion. Like I said, I was really enjoying the ride until the writers forgot who Spock is. But that's just me.

I too wish Pike was still alive.

I don't think they forgot who Spock was, is my larger point. Spock is dealing with emotional issues that where previously unexplored in Star Trek. The idea of those emotions simmering beneath the surface is something that Nimoy really tried to bring to life in Spock, but was rarely addressed.

Quinto's Spock has gone through two traumatic events-two, that would take anyone to the psychiatric ward. Spock has committed himself to his duty, but has distance himself from his emotions. There is a difference between Vulcan control and disassociation. Only with his mind meld with Pike is he finally able to provide words to previously unexpressed pain.

Spock's arc is him finding his Vulcan control in the face of his painful emotions. That's why I like Nero and Sarek in 09 is because they provide a framework for whom Spock could potentially be. And we see the darker side in STID.

I agree that Kirk's arc was fast, but beyond the pace, it makes sense. He is cocky, undisciplined and doesn't care about the rules. He believes he cannot fail and is shocked when he actually does (I have worked with enough students and trained coworkers who are similar enough for me to understand that).

Aside from the pacing, I find both Kirk and Spock more interesting that their Prime Counterparts. There is much more conflict, much more self-doubt, that I find relatable.

Also, one scene from TWOK doesn't ruin a film for me. If that were the case, First Contact and TWOK ripped of Moby Dick!

 

[Kemaiku]

Re: J.J. Abrams: 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Had 'Fundamental Story Prob

Trekkies couldn't come up with a million angry fans.

You know how you get a million Trekkie fans to show up - to anything?
You offer them free Star Wars tickets.

 

[Dales]

Re: J.J. Abrams: 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Had 'Fundamental Story Prob

I think we're ultimately meant to see Spock's reaction as a bad thing- it's why he had to be stopped, remember? The only reason he reacted like he did was because he'd been repressing everything until it damn-near literally exploded out of him, and that reaction nearly resulted in him permanently killing Kirk.

The 'moral' to the story was about '...the darkness looking back at you' after all. In TWOK, Khan killed all his friends on his little quest (and was willing to endanger them in Space Seed). In STID, Kirk and Spock nearly did the same. It's just unlike Joachim, Spock was willing to listen to Uhura.

We already saw spock's reaction when a worse tragedy happened in the first film with the death of his mum and his planet. I will say spock handled it really well even when he lost it with Kirk but with Into darkness he goes completely into full human cry man human child mode. Kirk in TOS acted more like a vulcan/human hybrid in WOK than Young Spock

Spock has also been holding back since he was a kid and Old spock made him see the light by balancing his vulcan and human side. I personally feel Into Darkness took a step backwards with some of the characters.

 

[Trekkin]

Re: J.J. Abrams: 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Had 'Fundamental Story Prob

The point was that he did 'handle' the loss from the first movie, he just didn't handle it well. Like a lot of people who experience trauma, he intellectually knew what he should be doing, but nonetheless ended up falling into a more unhealthy route of coping because at the time it seems easier or less painful (ie. Suppression and denial).

Coz, you know - actually recovering from devastating loss is a difficult and long process. There's no 'Boom! Over it!' moment, where you have some revelation and you're all better. That's the approach the writers took here, as opposed to 'Kirk's brothers dead! He's sad, but then not so sad by the end of the episode. Issue resolved!'

Well, recovery is not like that for a lot of people anyway. There's always exceptions when you're talking about individuals.

 

[fireproof78]

Re: J.J. Abrams: 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Had 'Fundamental Story Prob

The point was that he did 'handle' the loss from the first movie, he just didn't handle it well. Like a lot of people who experience trauma, he intellectually knew what he should be doing, but nonetheless ended up falling into a more unhealthy route of coping because at the time it seems easier or less painful (ie. Suppression and denial).

Coz, you know - actually recovering from devastating loss is a difficult and long process. There's no 'Boom! Over it!' moment, where you have some revelation and you're all better. That's the approach the writers took here, as opposed to 'Kirk's brothers dead! He's sad, but then not so sad by the end of the episode. Issue resolved!'

Well, recovery is not like that for a lot of people anyway. There's always exceptions when you're talking about individuals.

Especially fictional characters

Personally, I'm not sure what the step backwards is for Spock, other than the fact that he flew in to a rage. In a year, he dealt with the loss of his mom, planet, and Captain Pike. All of those, alone, are enough to push someone over the edge. Then Kirk dies doing the very thing that he had been chiding Spock over at the beginning. It's one more death in his life, after a year of death.

You don't see any emotional baggage or emotions coming out in such a crisis?

 

[Cinema Geekly]

Re: J.J. Abrams: 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Had 'Fundamental Story Prob

Like I said, I was really enjoying the ride until the writers forgot who Spock is. But that's just me.

No, you don't like the new creative direction they've taken with the character.

Spock is a half human half vulcan. Outside of that who a person is boils down to their life experience. Mr. Nimoy's Spock was the result of his journey.

Mr. Qunito's Spock has now lived a VERY different life from that of Spock prime. They aren't going to be the same people. I believe that was the whole point of "rebooting" the universe. They can now play with the characters in a way that wasn't possible before.

And I of course have no issues with a more emotional Spock it fits just as well within the pre-defined parameters of his character as anything else.

 

[eyeresist]

Re: J.J. Abrams: 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Had 'Fundamental Story Prob

a Khan reveal that only pissed off the faithful and meant nothing to the new trek fans, super life reviving blood and the rip-off reversal scene in engineering? They could have told the same story with Harri-Khan as an Augment from Enterprise without infuriating the "hard core" fans

Obviously not all Trek fans were pissed off.

Obviously many where. Your comment is nothing more than argumentative.

Based on this forum, I'd say the haters are very loud but very few.

As much as I'm not a huge fan of this, it's better than Spock balling like a baby over someone he's been at odds with for half the time they've known each other.

You mean V'ger, right?

You aren't comparing Spock's linking with pure logic coupled with his recent quest to achieve Kolinar in TMP with loosing emotional control, throwing tantrums, running down and beating Khan to an inch of his death in ID are you?

Should Spock be more upset that a remorseless killing machine is sad, or that his best friend just died horribly in front of him?

 

[IndyMac]

Re: J.J. Abrams: 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Had 'Fundamental Story Prob

All of my biggest problems with STID (and ST09) have to do with trans-warp beaming and the super transporter.

In ST09 they transport onto the Enterprise lightyears away travelling at warp. (Did Sulu forget how to get back to Earth? It took him like 10 seconds to get from Earth to Vulcan, but it takes him several hours to get back.)

In STID, John Harrison (Khan) transports from Earth to Qo'nos. Despite this, they can't transport Spock out of the volcano from a few miles away, they can't transport Khan up while in orbit.

Scotty should be hailed as the next Zefram Cochrane, making warp travel obsolete. You no longer need to waste time traveling in a starship, you can just transport to any destination. Instead, we are supposed to believe that Starfleet has somehow confiscated his formula and everyone just excepts living with the limitations of the old transporter formula and forgets about all about it. Did Starfleet give Scotty a concussion? In ST09 they clearly showed that all you needed was the new formula and it could be used with the existing transporter hardware.

 

[Yanks]

Re: J.J. Abrams: 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Had 'Fundamental Story Prob

Obviously not all Trek fans were pissed off.

Obviously many where. Your comment is nothing more than argumentative.

Based on this forum, I'd say the haters are very loud but very few.

You mean V'ger, right?

You aren't comparing Spock's linking with pure logic coupled with his recent quest to achieve Kolinar in TMP with loosing emotional control, throwing tantrums, running down and beating Khan to an inch of his death in ID are you?

Should Spock be more upset that a remorseless killing machine is sad, or that his best friend just died horribly in front of him?

"a remorseless killing machine is sad"?

 

[Yanks]

Re: J.J. Abrams: 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Had 'Fundamental Story Prob

Kirk's story arc demanded that he be the one who sacrificed himself. This story was not about Khan or his redemption (especially for an alternate universe self he knows nothing about).

The movie had an ambitious story, that's for sure. For the most part, in my opinion, they pulled it off. And, STID was no more like TWOK than TVH was. I have no idea why the "fan base" would be pissed off they used Khan. He's hardly an icon or inviolable. Using him was kind of neat because he is now part of crucial times in the development of the lives of both Kirks.

That's the problem... "Kirk's story arc" shouldn't have included doing exactly what Spock did in TWoK. What they could have done to give a nod to that iconic scene, was something like have Spock do everything he did, but Kirk used anti-radiation meds and wore a suit and was OK. Then Spock can stay in character instead of loosing control and blaming Khan for everything.



Got the point across... it wasn't meant to be a critique of ST09, just making a point about the "story".



Obviously many where. Your comment is nothing more than argumentative.



I agree. I actually accepted Cumby's Khan, probably because I didn't have a choice, but if you look at most of the story problems in STID, they all are there as a result of Khan being in the movie and the writer infatuation with TWoK.



You aren't comparing Spock's linking with pure logic coupled with his recent quest to achieve Kolinar in TMP with loosing emotional control, throwing tantrums, running down and beating Khan to an inch of his death in ID are you?



I'm glad you enjoyed it. Personally I shut down when I watched the reversal in the theater. I would argue that that "arc" is WAY to quick in the new timeline. Spocks yelling of Khan was more comical to me that moving.



It makes sense. They could have brought Cold Station 12 into the story etc...



I didn't mean is as a hit on the new team, my cut is that JJ bring lots of energy and ability to the directed/producing part of the pie. I hope we don't see a huge drop off in that department when we watch 'Beyond'.



Again, I don't begrudge anyone for their opinion. Like I said, I was really enjoying the ride until the writers forgot who Spock is. But that's just me.

I too wish Pike was still alive.

I don't think they forgot who Spock was, is my larger point. Spock is dealing with emotional issues that where previously unexplored in Star Trek. The idea of those emotions simmering beneath the surface is something that Nimoy really tried to bring to life in Spock, but was rarely addressed.

Quinto's Spock has gone through two traumatic events-two, that would take anyone to the psychiatric ward. Spock has committed himself to his duty, but has distance himself from his emotions. There is a difference between Vulcan control and disassociation. Only with his mind meld with Pike is he finally able to provide words to previously unexpressed pain.

Spock's arc is him finding his Vulcan control in the face of his painful emotions. That's why I like Nero and Sarek in 09 is because they provide a framework for whom Spock could potentially be. And we see the darker side in STID.

I agree that Kirk's arc was fast, but beyond the pace, it makes sense. He is cocky, undisciplined and doesn't care about the rules. He believes he cannot fail and is shocked when he actually does (I have worked with enough students and trained coworkers who are similar enough for me to understand that).

Aside from the pacing, I find both Kirk and Spock more interesting that their Prime Counterparts. There is much more conflict, much more self-doubt, that I find relatable.

Also, one scene from TWOK doesn't ruin a film for me. If that were the case, First Contact and TWOK ripped of Moby Dick!

Star Trek the TV series was based on Horitio Hornblower. TWoK was loosely based on Moby Dick, they didn't rip them off.

There's a difference.

There is no reason Spock shouldn't be Spock. Nero's incursion didn't change who Spock is.

Look, I'm glad you see it the way you do and I'm glad it pleases you.

For me, when Spock screamed "Khan" and went all incredi-hulk on Khan, it was obvious to me the writers were just fan-wanking the character.

... although I enjoyed the running scenes

 

[Franklin]

Re: J.J. Abrams: 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Had 'Fundamental Story Prob

Obviously many where. Your comment is nothing more than argumentative.

Based on this forum, I'd say the haters are very loud but very few.

You aren't comparing Spock's linking with pure logic coupled with his recent quest to achieve Kolinar in TMP with loosing emotional control, throwing tantrums, running down and beating Khan to an inch of his death in ID are you?

Should Spock be more upset that a remorseless killing machine is sad, or that his best friend just died horribly in front of him?

"a remorseless killing machine is sad"?

Remember, in TMP, Spock realized that the one thing V'Ger lacked was feeling, that its perfect knowledge and logic were not enough without a sense of purpose and place. V'Ger wasn't "happy." I'd say largely because of the meld with V'Ger, Spock gave up on pure logic and began a journey in the TOS movies where he became more and more comfortable with his human half, recognizing that it did have strengths.

In TWOK, Kirk called him the most human soul he'd ever encountered.

Let's not forget Spock's last words in the TOS movies were, "If I were human, I believe my response would be, go to hell. If I were human."

Spock is a very complex, conflicted, and contradictory character. Quinto's rendition of him based on the life his Spock has led brings that out even more clearly than in Nimoy's more subtle portrayal of Spock's inner self.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

Re: J.J. Abrams: 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Had 'Fundamental Story Prob

It wasn't what Kirk did on Nibiru, it's how he did it. No Kirk we know would've let those people die. However, Kirk's plan in STID was reckless and foolhardy, disguised by bravery and hubris.

As opposed to talking a computer god to death, then beaming up and flying away to let the natives deal with the aftermath of their society being turned upside down on their own.

Further, I'm not sure of a specific example of TOS Kirk "fudging" a captain's log, at least not so blatantly and flippantly.

does basically covering up the whole crew member gaining godlike power and having to be put down after he went nuts ring a bell.

kind of way more important then the Enterprise being fodder for the Nibirian version of Ancient Aliens in a few millennia.

I think Kirk Prime would've saved the people without them knowing it,

And yet he never did.

and in the logic of the TOS prime directive. After all, the only time the PD is quoted (that I remember) in TOS is in "Bread and Circuses" where Spock says, "No identification of self or mission. No interference with the social development of said planet." Plus, no references to space or more advanced civilizations. The key there is no interference in the social development of the people.

Which Kirk had no problem violating occasionally.

In the opening, I always thought Pike came across as pissed that Krik didn't take responsibility for his actions, as opposed to just being annoyed about the rule-breaking call. Even when Pike tells him his specific actions (not the general decision to save the Nuburians) were what was particularly stupid and reckless,

Then why does Pike take the time to lecture Kirk about how his mission was to observe only and how stopping the volcano was playing god? He even shot down Spock's idea of saving them without them knowing as a technicality and still violating the Prime Directive.

 

[M'Sharak]

Re: J.J. Abrams: 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Had 'Fundamental Story Prob

All of my biggest problems with STID (and ST09) have to do with trans-warp beaming and the super transporter.

In ST09 they transport onto the Enterprise lightyears away travelling at warp. (Did Sulu forget how to get back to Earth? It took him like 10 seconds to get from Earth to Vulcan, but it takes him several hours to get back.)

In STID, John Harrison (Khan) transports from Earth to Qo'nos. Despite this, they can't transport Spock out of the volcano from a few miles away, they can't transport Khan up while in orbit.

Scotty should be hailed as the next Zefram Cochrane, making warp travel obsolete. You no longer need to waste time traveling in a starship, you can just transport to any destination. Instead, we are supposed to believe that Starfleet has somehow confiscated his formula and everyone just excepts living with the limitations of the old transporter formula and forgets about all about it. Did Starfleet give Scotty a concussion? In ST09 they clearly showed that all you needed was the new formula and it could be used with the existing transporter hardware.

Since at no time was trans-warp beaming depicted as anything but a risky proposition at best suitable for sending one or two people, the "making warp travel obsolete" and "no need to waste time traveling in a starship" things are still exaggeration. The long-distance transport was also depicted as possible, based on theory, yet not entirely reliable.

SPOCK PRIME: You are, in fact, the Mister Scott who postulated the theory of transwarp beaming.
SCOTT: That's what I'm talking about. How'd you think I wound up here? I had a little debate with my instructor on the issue of relativistic physics and how it pertains to subspace travel. He seemed to think that the range of transporting something like a, like a grapefruit, was limited to about a hundred miles. I told him that I could not only beam a grapefruit from one planet to the adjacent planet in the same system, which is easy by the way, I could do it with a lifeform. So, I tested it on Admiral Archer's prized beagle.
KIRK: Wait, I know that dog. What happened to it?
SCOTT: I'll tell you when it reappears. I don't know. I do feel guilty about that.

Neither experimental technology seems in any imminent danger of replacing starships or warp travel. The Trekverse has not been broken by them.

(Transcript excerpt from here.)

 

[The Wormhole]

Re: J.J. Abrams: 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Had 'Fundamental Story Prob

In STID, John Harrison (Khan) transports from Earth to Qo'nos. Despite this, they can't transport Spock out of the volcano from a few miles away, they can't transport Khan up while in orbit.

Actually, both these make sense. The problem with beaming Spock out of the volcano is that they couldn't get a lock on him. It doesn't matter how far your transporter can beam, unless you can acquire a lock on the subject needing to be beamed they're not going nowhere.

And the Enterprise was never in orbit of Qo'nos. They waited at the border to Klingon territory while the away team took the captured freighter to Qo'nos. For all we know, the freighter might not even have a transporter. And even if it did, Khan was likely somehow keeping himself hidden from sensors and might have even had a transporter scrambler with him. Otherwise, why didn't the Klingons locate him and beam him out?

Scotty should be hailed as the next Zefram Cochrane, making warp travel obsolete. You no longer need to waste time traveling in a starship, you can just transport to any destination. Instead, we are supposed to believe that Starfleet has somehow confiscated his formula and everyone just excepts living with the limitations of the old transporter formula and forgets about all about it. Did Starfleet give Scotty a concussion? In ST09 they clearly showed that all you needed was the new formula and it could be used with the existing transporter hardware.

The comics actually help explain this. Scotty and his nephew (a cadet at the Academy) continued to experiment with the transwarp beaming until one such experiment ends up endangering Starfleet Command. The two of them are slapped with a heavy reprimand, forbidden further experiments and Starfleet confiscates all technology and research related to it.

 

[fireproof78]

Re: J.J. Abrams: 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Had 'Fundamental Story Prob

That's the problem... "Kirk's story arc" shouldn't have included doing exactly what Spock did in TWoK. What they could have done to give a nod to that iconic scene, was something like have Spock do everything he did, but Kirk used anti-radiation meds and wore a suit and was OK. Then Spock can stay in character instead of loosing control and blaming Khan for everything.



Got the point across... it wasn't meant to be a critique of ST09, just making a point about the "story".



Obviously many where. Your comment is nothing more than argumentative.



I agree. I actually accepted Cumby's Khan, probably because I didn't have a choice, but if you look at most of the story problems in STID, they all are there as a result of Khan being in the movie and the writer infatuation with TWoK.



You aren't comparing Spock's linking with pure logic coupled with his recent quest to achieve Kolinar in TMP with loosing emotional control, throwing tantrums, running down and beating Khan to an inch of his death in ID are you?



I'm glad you enjoyed it. Personally I shut down when I watched the reversal in the theater. I would argue that that "arc" is WAY to quick in the new timeline. Spocks yelling of Khan was more comical to me that moving.



It makes sense. They could have brought Cold Station 12 into the story etc...



I didn't mean is as a hit on the new team, my cut is that JJ bring lots of energy and ability to the directed/producing part of the pie. I hope we don't see a huge drop off in that department when we watch 'Beyond'.



Again, I don't begrudge anyone for their opinion. Like I said, I was really enjoying the ride until the writers forgot who Spock is. But that's just me.

I too wish Pike was still alive.

I don't think they forgot who Spock was, is my larger point. Spock is dealing with emotional issues that where previously unexplored in Star Trek. The idea of those emotions simmering beneath the surface is something that Nimoy really tried to bring to life in Spock, but was rarely addressed.

Quinto's Spock has gone through two traumatic events-two, that would take anyone to the psychiatric ward. Spock has committed himself to his duty, but has distance himself from his emotions. There is a difference between Vulcan control and disassociation. Only with his mind meld with Pike is he finally able to provide words to previously unexpressed pain.

Spock's arc is him finding his Vulcan control in the face of his painful emotions. That's why I like Nero and Sarek in 09 is because they provide a framework for whom Spock could potentially be. And we see the darker side in STID.

I agree that Kirk's arc was fast, but beyond the pace, it makes sense. He is cocky, undisciplined and doesn't care about the rules. He believes he cannot fail and is shocked when he actually does (I have worked with enough students and trained coworkers who are similar enough for me to understand that).

Aside from the pacing, I find both Kirk and Spock more interesting that their Prime Counterparts. There is much more conflict, much more self-doubt, that I find relatable.

Also, one scene from TWOK doesn't ruin a film for me. If that were the case, First Contact and TWOK ripped of Moby Dick!

Star Trek the TV series was based on Horitio Hornblower. TWoK was loosely based on Moby Dick, they didn't rip them off.

There's a difference.

There is no reason Spock shouldn't be Spock. Nero's incursion didn't change who Spock is.

Look, I'm glad you see it the way you do and I'm glad it pleases you.

For me, when Spock screamed "Khan" and went all incredi-hulk on Khan, it was obvious to me the writers were just fan-wanking the character.

... although I enjoyed the running scenes

Spock is still Spock-with a years worth of death and pain bearing down on him. So, he is still Spock, yes, but how much must he endure before he loses control?

To me, these films dealt far more with psychological pain and PTSD in an interesting way than other films who ignore the logical consequences of watching your entire planet get destroyed.

Also, as a notes, Star Trek was based upon Horatio Hornblower, Forbidden Planet, Space Cadet and several other science fiction works. I don't give TWOK or First Contact a pass on Moby Dick quoting just because its classic literature.

Also, I would disagree that TWOK is "loosely based" upon Moby Dick, as many of the themes from that book (as well as Paradise Lost) are woven within the story.

Then why does Pike take the time to lecture Kirk about how his mission was to observe only and how stopping the volcano was playing god? He even shot down Spock's idea of saving them without them knowing as a technicality and still violating the Prime Directive.

Because Kirk showed a flagrant disregard for both the rule as well all rules. Pike's point isn't just Kirk's actions the mission, but his underlying attitude towards rules and orders in general.

 

[eyeresist]

Re: J.J. Abrams: 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Had 'Fundamental Story Prob

Then why does Pike take the time to lecture Kirk about how his mission was to observe only and how stopping the volcano was playing god? He even shot down Spock's idea of saving them without them knowing as a technicality and still violating the Prime Directive.

The whole set-up was an example of the Prime Directive at its worst (even though it's a cool sequence and the alien planet is great). Hopefully the new film won't be so ridiculous.

 

[drt]

Re: J.J. Abrams: 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Had 'Fundamental Story Prob

In STID, John Harrison (Khan) transports from Earth to Qo'nos. Despite this, they can't transport Spock out of the volcano from a few miles away, they can't transport Khan up while in orbit.

Actually, both these make sense. The problem with beaming Spock out of the volcano is that they couldn't get a lock on him. It doesn't matter how far your transporter can beam, unless you can acquire a lock on the subject needing to be beamed they're not going nowhere.

Which is consistent with how the transporter is presented in '09 as well, it seems to be relatively easy to beam folks down, but beaming them up requires more finesse around achieving a transporter lock. Recall that they also couldn't beam up Khan from San Francisco for similar reasons (too much random moving around).

 

[Trekkin]

Re: J.J. Abrams: 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Had 'Fundamental Story Prob

The latest transporters seem to have trouble 'latching on' to people that are moving. Whereas when they're beaming down, the coordinates for the 'landing point' are static. You also generally have to be more accurate when picking a specific object up, as opposed to placing said object in a general area.

For eg. They could probably beam Uhura down to the vehicle because it was moving more-or-less predictably and they had some leeway if their calculations were a little wrong (for eg. If she landed a foot in the wrong direction). As opposed to getting a lock on Spock (heh, say it out loud), who was moving all over the freaking place and who they had to precisely lock onto lest they just beam up empty air.

You can tell its exam time when I start theorising on the mechanics of transporters. Anything to procrastinate, I suppose.

 

[Khan 2.0]

Re: J.J. Abrams: 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Had 'Fundamental Story Prob

J.J. Abrams Admits ‘Star Trek Into Darkness’ Had Too Many ‘Wrath of Khan’ Nods

J.J. Abrams has a number of regrets when it comes to Star Trek Into Darkness. In the past, the director pointed to his borderline obsessive use of lens flares and how he wished he wasn’t so secretive about the true identity of Benedict Cumberbatch’s John Harris. During his Celebrity Nerd-Off with Stephen Colbert in Newark, New Jersey, this weekend, he further bemoaned overdoing it on the Wrath of Khan nods.
“We got in trouble on the second Star Trek film with some of the fans,” he admitted (as quoted by Rolling Stone). “There were too many nods to The Wrath of Khan. I’ll cop to that.”
The biggest nod, of course, is the fact that John Harris is really Khan, and the simple act of using the name brings forth numerous comparisons. Examples include Spock’s “needs of the many” line, the Khan scream, the inclusion of Carol Marcus (played by Alice Eve in Into Darkness), and the reversal of fortune with Kirk’s sacrifice. The blogosphere went to town further solidifying these comparisons with features like BuzzFeed’s “10 Classic Star Trek References in Star Trek Into Darkness.”

This route didn’t work in the film’s favor and instead flew too close to one of the franchise’s greatest installments and looked worse by comparison. Fans at a Las Vegas Star Trek convention voted it the worst film in the entire canon. Abrams, however, is working to remedy his ways. He spoke to Wired earlier this year about using his past work as a guideline to making Star Wars: The Force Awakens

http://collider.com/jj-abrams-star-trek-into-darkness-wrath-of-kahn/