Sorry I meant Spock didn't need to be an engineer to do what he did in TWOK. Just a Captain with 20 odd years experience on the Enterprise.
And if he had todo some calculations he probably could have.
Nicholas Meyer Chimes in About Into Darkness
- Thread starter Kruezerman
- Start date
- Status
And if he had todo some calculations he probably could have.
Got it, my bad.
Yeah, and there's more where that came from: Marcus' manipulation of Khan, and how it represents a literal attempt to regress to humanity's bellicose past; the question of whether Khan was more sinned against than sinning (and since Khan was put back into suspended animation rather than more directly punished, the film doesn't equivocate and comes down hard on the "yes" side); the way the otherized depiction of the Klingons-no cuddly Worf to be found-is undermined by the fact that the real antagonists are all human; I've got no problem with folks thinking that the film doesn't accomplish its aims, but I'm left scratching my head at the argument that it's got nothing on its mind.
Indeed. Obviously, ID attempted many different themes, succeeding at some and lacking in others. But, the idea that it is a mindless action film or that it is a complete rip off of TWOK rings a bit hollow to me.
While I have a great deal of respect for Nicholas Meyer, and the work that he did for Star Trek, I do think that ID is a movie that is a little outside of his sensibility, and missing some of the nuances that are present in the film. For that, I do not fault him and understand his criticism, but I do not agree that ID added nothing in regards to TWOK.
Meyer was already a pretty old fashioned kind of guy when he came to Trek and admits he didn't get it until he changed it to Horatio Hornblower. I don't fault him either. Star Trek as the Navy was interesting in its day but it does explain why he may be out of touch today.
Well, it matches a theme of Spock choosing what he wants, his needs, over the needs of the many, that of saving his friend. Obviously, Spock, with his strength matching Khan's, could kill Khan, and satisfy his need for revenge but at a cost?
Not at all. The scene just went from "punching Khan is bad" to "punching Khan is good". I'm starting to get the sense that the people making these movies have no idea or interest on how to resolve a conflict without violence.
So, the same people who did Treks 2-10 then?
I'd like to see what Joss Whedon could do with Trek.
Firefly was, arguably, a masterpiece of space opera. I think he gets it. Also, in my opinion he did a tremendous job with Avengers.
It might be great, and it might not. I'd like to see it anyway. Just sayin'.
Firefly was, arguably, a masterpiece of space opera. I think he gets it. Also, in my opinion he did a tremendous job with Avengers.
It might be great, and it might not. I'd like to see it anyway. Just sayin'.
Looking back now I did not like the spock vs khan fight scene at all. the fact that they had to give us an unnecessary action sequences of khan vs spock was a no no for me. the fight scene only proved right what some fans of tos complain about in STID. excessive action sequences in favor of story.
Well, I'm not sure I follow as that is not how I read the scene. But, that's fine. No argument here.
I agree 100,000%
Joss does well with ensemble casts and I think Trek would be right up his alley. I would love to see him take on this franchise.
I feel compelled to say that I generally liked STID overall.
But...yeah. You can't really make an effective anti-violence statement (as Bob Orci seems to want the film to be perceived) with an action tentpole movie that delivers thrills and excitement via explosions, punching, shooting, killing, and people beating each other senseless. Into Darkness is basically Do Not Do This Cool Thing: The Movie.
Seeing as how the beatings accomplished little in terms of stopping the villain, I do not see the message as being "pro-violence." However, I do tend to have a different take on most film work
I'm not saying there is not lot of explosions and violence and such, I'm just not arriving at the conclusion that the film is saying "solve your problems with shooting."
This is why ID is so endearing to me. Our heroes are flawed people, who make decisions, both good and bad. This film actually bears out the consequences of those decisions. Kirk's choice to go after Khan, and then to help him, as well as Spock's decision to pursue Khan, putting himself, and many others at great risk.
The shoot-em-up may be a part of it, but it was not my take way message.
Agree. It isn't very organic and seems like out of nowhere. Spock suddenly decides that he has to go to engineer and fix the reactor. It is isn't very well set up or motivated. The STID version puts Kirk in in the situation where he must make a decision, take action, which is very much in keeping with him being the lead. In TWOK, Kirk is passive in the climax of the movie. He's reacting and not acting.
If Whedon had directed STID, Kirk would have stayed dead.
And Spock would have died in the Volcano.
And Carol would have died in Bones's arms.
And Spock would have died in the Volcano.
And Carol would have died in Bones's arms.
This not encouraging news for people under 30. It suggests that they could become just as out of touch as Meyer, who was 37 when TWOK came out, and 46 when TUC was released. So enjoy life while you can before hitting 35, because it's all over by then.
And Sulu would be captain. I would be sobbing buckets by the end but at the same time, I would be ok with that, if it flowed from the theme of the film. Which, in this case, I could see that working.
Ok, what's next?
- Status
Similar threads
