Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof should not Return.

[SeerSGB]

For example, what was the narrative purpose of that moment where Kirk asks McCoy what Spock would do if Kirk was in Spock's position? McCoy said he'd leave Kirk to die as if to imply that Spock would under no circumstance violate any rule even if it meant saving the life of someone important. There is no moment in this film that pays off this exchange nor is there any moment where Spock himself violates any kind of rule to save Kirk in the end. It's a long drawn out moment that never pays off.

It does pay off all the way through the movie. It helps to define the differences in Kirk and Spock.

Another call back to it is Khan's "You can't break rules, how can you be expected to break bones" speech.

Kirk and Spock are both evolving--growing up. Kirk has to learn that you can't always take risks, you can't let your emotions control you, that rules exist for a reason, he needs to be more mature, more serious.

Spock has to learn that you can't stick strictly to the letter of the rules a 100% of the time. You've gotta take risks, sometimes act on your emotions. That sometimes doing moral things mean not following the rules.

You complain when they don't give women anything to do, you complain when they do. Just because Uhura was unsuccessful negotiating with Klingons doesn't mean she sucks at her job.

It reminds me of when Damon Lindelof said that they had talked about an early idea where Uhura has to negotiate with a Klingon fleet that's heading to Earth while Spock is fighting Khan. And some fans got very angry about how such an important job is given to Uhura. I'm sure many of them were the same ones who go on about how "She's just defined by her relationship with Spock."

That would have rocked. Put her in the center-seat, and just have her own the scene.

 

[BillJ]

That would have rocked. Put her in the center-seat, and just have her own the scene.

If one single-cell organism on Earth died as a result of Uhura being in command during such a situation, people would be screaming about her being a failure and why do Orci, Kurtzman and Lindleof hate women.

I don't know whether to or at the ridiculous level of hate some fans show for the Abrams movies.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

Lindelof is already gone from Trek, so there's that. I would like Orci and Kurtzman to step aside not just because I think they're bad writers but because I'd like to see the folks at Bad Robot let someone else get a crack at Trek. After they worked on MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III, they handed the next film to other writers and the result was GHOST PROTOCOL, which happens to by my favorite of the M:I films. Would certainly be great if Brad Bird would direct the next Trek film.

 

[BillJ]

Orci and Kurtzman have been part of a team that has given me two fun movies to watch. I have no problem with them coming back for Star Trek 2016.

 

[Opus]

The story made sense to me.

Yup, really had no problem following any of it, as it seems, everyone else was able to also.

Yes, I agree also. This is one aspect of fan's complaints that befuddles me the most. The story is pretty easy to follow actually.

 

[Jeyl]

Sex is fun. And Prime Kirk is no different, despite fans' attempts to dispel that image. Look no further than "The Conscience of the King" where 34-year-old James T. Kirk beds the 19-year-old daughter of a mass murderer,

No he doesn't. He "courts" her, "kisses" her, but there is nothing to suggest that they actually "did it". Also, her name is Lenore.

or "Requiem for Methuselah" where he gets uncomfortably grabby with an android, then petty and jealous about her, leading to her death.

One example of Kirk genuinely going after the girl, but it still doesn't lead to bedding.

Of course that still doesn't stop people from believing that Kirk is most famous for sleeping with Orion slave girls on the whim. Why else would they stick that very image in Trek09? Funny story. The only episode in the original series where Kirk meets an Orion girl, he doesn't sleep with her! In fact, when she puts the moves on Kirk, he actually resists.

 

[Opus]

1960's TV didn't allow for even the suggestion of sex. Trek did everything it could to push that envelope, from costuming to leaving alluring and suggestive hints to hints of Kirk's past exploits. Heck, in "Wink of an Eye" they have a shot of Kirk sitting on his bunk pulling on his boots after a previous amorous kissing scene. I wonder what happened there?

 

[Makarov]

Into Darkness is a much better written movie than Gravity. I expect that if Gravity is remembered at all it will be for the nice visuals and nothing more. And I was so excited for Gravity before I saw it.

I also don't think conference room scenes are necessarily bad for a trek movie. There's a lot of movies out there that do quite well with scenes that are just people talking. If they were that bad the ratings of the TV series wouldn't have been as good.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Sex is fun. And Prime Kirk is no different, despite fans' attempts to dispel that image. Look no further than "The Conscience of the King" where 34-year-old James T. Kirk beds the 19-year-old daughter of a mass murderer,

No he doesn't. He "courts" her, "kisses" her, but there is nothing to suggest that they actually "did it". Also, her name is Lenore.

By that logic, there's nothing to suggest Kirk had sex with the twins in ID - after all, we only saw them in bed together, in their underwear! We didn't even see them kiss!

or "Requiem for Methuselah" where he gets uncomfortably grabby with an android, then petty and jealous about her, leading to her death.

One example of Kirk genuinely going after the girl, but it still doesn't lead to bedding.

Of course that still doesn't stop people from believing that Kirk is most famous for sleeping with Orion slave girls on the whim. Why else would they stick that very image in Trek09? Funny story. The only episode in the original series where Kirk meets an Orion girl, he doesn't sleep with her! In fact, when she puts the moves on Kirk, he actually resists.

Then there are episodes like "The Gamesters of Triskelion" where Kirk teaches Shahna how to love...

 

[Jeyl]

It does pay off all the way through the movie.

Where in the film does it establish that using Khan's blood to save Kirk was in violation of a Starfleet Directive? I don't think there was any.

 

[BillJ]

It does pay off all the way through the movie.

Where in the film does it establish that using Khan's blood to save Kirk was in violation of a Starfleet Directive? I don't think there was any.

Just plain "wow".

 

[Jeyl]

By that logic, there's nothing to suggest Kirk had sex with the twins in ID - after all, we only saw them in bed together, in their underwear! We didn't even see them kiss!

If you have any evidence from the episode that would clearly indicate that Lenore and Kirk had sex, I'll gladly take it into account. But since this is "hollywood", all characters can have sex in their underwear.

 

[BillJ]

By that logic, there's nothing to suggest Kirk had sex with the twins in ID - after all, we only saw them in bed together, in their underwear! We didn't even see them kiss!

If you have any evidence from the episode that would clearly indicate that Lenore and Kirk had sex, I'll gladly take it into account. But since this is "hollywood", all characters can have sex in their underwear.

Carol Marcus didn't.

 

[Jeyl]

It does pay off all the way through the movie.

Where in the film does it establish that using Khan's blood to save Kirk was in violation of a Starfleet Directive? I don't think there was any.

Just plain "wow".

All I'm saying is don't set something up if you're not going to have a pay off.

 

[BillJ]

Where in the film does it establish that using Khan's blood to save Kirk was in violation of a Starfleet Directive? I don't think there was any.

Just plain "wow".

All I'm saying is don't set something up if you're not going to have a pay off.

There was a payoff: It is part of Spock's journey. It is used to make Spock understand how Kirk saw him, how important Kirk thought he was.

Have you even seen the movie?

 

[Opus]

Where in the film does it establish that using Khan's blood to save Kirk was in violation of a Starfleet Directive? I don't think there was any.

Ummm... what?

 

[Jeyl]

There was a payoff: It is part of Spock's journey. It is used to make Spock understand how Kirk saw him, how important Kirk thought he was.

So all that stuff about Spock being genuinely emotional about those closest to him in the last movie was all a lie? Didn't the last movie establish to both the audience AND Kirk that Spock does indeed have emotions and he does understand the concept of wanting to protect those closest to him? It sounds like you're praising these writers for purposefully forgetting important character moments for the sake of recycling them. But that's not surprising since ID recycles a lot of the last movie anyways.

 

[Opus]

There was a payoff: It is part of Spock's journey. It is used to make Spock understand how Kirk saw him, how important Kirk thought he was.

Kirk: I wanted you to know why I couldn't let you die. Why I went back for you. (referencing opening scene of the movie, and later scene before the command meeting)

Spock: Because you are my friend. (Aha! Spock finally gets it!)

<hands press against glass>

That's the payoff.

I simply don't understand how one could miss this.

 

[Opus]

So all that stuff about Spock being genuinely emotional about those closest to him in the last movie was all a lie? Didn't the last movie establish to both the audience AND Kirk that Spock does indeed have emotions and he does understand the concept of wanting to protect those closest to him? It sounds like you're praising these writers for purposefully forgetting important character moments for the sake of recycling them. But that's not surprising since ID recycles a lot of the last movie anyways.

Way to move the goal post!

So the writers either didn't give a payoff on the Spock scene, or they rehashed it. Which one is it? And don't give the lame excuse of "Well, they did it already in the last movie so it's no payoff!" crap. That wasn't what you have been arguing. You said they didn't give a payoff to the "What would Spock have done in your place" line at the beginning of the movie.

Which one is it?

 

[BillJ]

There was a payoff: It is part of Spock's journey. It is used to make Spock understand how Kirk saw him, how important Kirk thought he was.

So all that stuff about Spock being genuinely emotional about those closest to him in the last movie was all a lie? Didn't the last movie establish to both the audience AND Kirk that Spock does indeed have emotions and he does understand the concept of wanting to protect those closest to him? It sounds like you're praising these writers for purposefully forgetting important character moments for the sake of recycling them. But that's not surprising since ID recycles a lot of the last movie anyways.

Keep moving those goal posts.

You said there was no payoff for a scene from the beginning of the film, I've countered that there is. That doesn't mean I'm praising the writers for it, it means that there is a payoff to the scene from the beginning of the film.

Whether you like the payoff or think it's similar to something that happened in a prior film really has nothing to do with the conclusion you came too about the existence of a payoff.