I'm thinking "plot hole" now = "It was made by JJ Abrams, in his own style, and sense of storytelling". Or - "I don't like it, so it must be wrong".
But that just comes from observing these boards for an extended period of time.
Plot hole city: Part 3!
- Thread starter William Wallace
- Start date
- Status
I'm thinking "plot hole" now = "It was made by JJ Abrams, in his own style, and sense of storytelling". Or - "I don't like it, so it must be wrong".
But that just comes from observing these boards for an extended period of time.
I was thinking more of a blue girl, but whatever floats your boat.
I think the "problem" is more that the movie needed to use these characters, as the writers felt the "franchise demanded" this. For the same reason, Kirk becomes Captain of the Enterprise at the end, and so on. The movie does beat you over the head with a huge "these characters are important!!!!!!" sign a little bit.
Had this been a completely new story, the transporter chief would have been the hero instead of Chekov (or Chekov would have been at that position to begin with), and Kirk would have gotten his medal and then been promoted to Lieutenant at the end under thunderous applause. I call this "natural" character development. Others would perhaps call it "organic".
The Phantom Menace had a similar problem. I liked Qui Gon and Darth Maul, but they had to die because the franchise kind of dictated it.
Had this been a completely new story, the transporter chief would have been the hero instead of Chekov (or Chekov would have been at that position to begin with), and Kirk would have gotten his medal and then been promoted to Lieutenant at the end under thunderous applause. I call this "natural" character development. Others would perhaps call it "organic".
The Phantom Menace had a similar problem. I liked Qui Gon and Darth Maul, but they had to die because the franchise kind of dictated it.
Saquist
Commodore
It's not as complicated as all that.
JJ Abrams was interested in CLICHE TREK. And what is a cliche' but an instantly recognizable excessively used stereotype of the series.
Yeoman Rand wasn't part of the cliche'. thus not in this movie. Checkov and his ascent were. That's why I think it's highly probable that Khan will be in the next fillm.
One thing I know for sure: The "idealized" Star Treks being proposed here would bore the shit out of me.
So I take the opening scene was boring because it didn't feature Kirk, Spock and McCoy?
They are not. You pre-define Ensign Ricky as not interesting and base your argument on that.
If Ensign Ricky were interesting then the show's focus was on him...the point that has been made here is that there should be time for each individual crewman to make his appearance...
So when the transporter has to be used in a difficult maneoveur we meet Chief whoesit and when there's a fire on the bridge, Spock can't grab an extinguisher because that's a job for the fire-fighters and when the warp manifold has to be realligned Non-Com susan has to do it because it's too much of grunt-work for Scotty to do...or when Kirk needs an innoculation Nurse McWhoesit has to do it because McCoy's a doctor and it's beneath his station...
We went to watch a Star Trek film...so we expect to see the big 3 saving the day, and the big 4 supporting them and other minor characters contributing, but the spotlight is on the 7 because they're the heroes...
So when the transporter has to be used in a difficult maneoveur we meet Chief whoesit and when there's a fire on the bridge, Spock can't grab an extinguisher because that's a job for the fire-fighters and when the warp manifold has to be realligned Non-Com susan has to do it because it's too much of grunt-work for Scotty to do...or when Kirk needs an innoculation Nurse McWhoesit has to do it because McCoy's a doctor and it's beneath his station...
We went to watch a Star Trek film...so we expect to see the big 3 saving the day, and the big 4 supporting them and other minor characters contributing, but the spotlight is on the 7 because they're the heroes...
They'd also—once every old friend or noteworthy figure from each of the main characters' back stories had put in an appearance or been name-checked; once every background character had been shown making a special contribution to the crew effort; and once every last plot detail had been nailed down securely, explained thoroughly and interrogated to within an inch of its miserable little life—be seventeen-hour movies, though which none but the most dedicated and self-flagellating* of Trek fans would ever dare to suffer.**
* And catheterized, one would hope.
**Allow an additional forty-five minutes for sitting through the voluminous closing credits to see whether any humorous deleted scenes might have been appended.
Very well. Put the five-minute beauty shots and the big Bollywood-style song and dance extravaganzas back in, if you won't have it any other way.
Exsqueeze me.
I don't have the exact summation of the running times of all 79 episodes, but I believe TOS is well over 60 hours long. Star Trek is more uber than anything Jackson could do (though Roddenberry versus Tolkien is another matter).
I don't have the exact summation of the running times of all 79 episodes, but I believe TOS is well over 60 hours long. Star Trek is more uber than anything Jackson could do (though Roddenberry versus Tolkien is another matter).
Some of it has to do with the cost of the actors and some of it has to do with the perception of the writers. Just watched Contagion and the movies played wonderfully with our expectations of 'heroes' and what we expect them to achieve in a movie.
Plus it's different strokes for different folks. Personally, I found it cringeworthy when McCoy was helping Spock modify a torpedo in STVI. Neither of them are engineers and while Spock is a know-it-all who can do everything (including understanding Romulan) McCoy certainly isn't.
- Status
Similar threads
