Sfdebris reviews Star Trek into Darkness

[Jeyl]

Like SF said. I think Orci's behavior writing this film and how he interacted with the fans speaks more about the quality of the work than his conspiracy theories.

And if there was one lesson to take away from this review, it's this. What the general audiences wants and what Star Trek fans want are not mutually exclusive. The moment JJ said "This is not a movie for fans. It's a movie for movie fans", he created a needless rift. A rift that painted the fan base in a disingenuous light. Did he think that Star Trek fans only like things that they ask for? That has never been the case, even when the show runners of Star Trek thought that was what they were doing. Is it because he thinks Star Trek fans only watch Star Trek and nothing else? Please. I see a lot of other movies that are both dumber and smarter than anything JJ Abrams has produced. When we go see movies, we ARE the general audience.

 

[fireproof78]

I never took Abrams' comments that way, and don't see the needless riff, any more than I see the need for fans to slam Abrams as "not a Star Trek fan!" Abrams owns the facts that he was not as in to Star Trek, but reading interviews with the man, he wanted to make Star Trek as accessible as possible, and he saw going back to Kirk and Spock as being that way.

I think that is reading too much in to Abrams' comments because he demonstrated a desire to create film for everyone and I think ST 09 demonstrated that very successfully.

 

[Jeyl]

I think that is reading too much in to Abrams' comments because he demonstrated a desire to create film for everyone and I think ST 09 demonstrated that very successfully.

I think making these movies 'for everyone' is what really creates a long term problem for the NuTrek films. You really can't make a film appeal to everyone. It's impossible. No one to this day knows what kind of a movie will bring in the audience and what will scare them away.

Plus, movies that try to appeal to everyone don't normally have much staying power. Like SF said, "These films were loved in their day, until the next big thing came along and was forgotten." Nicholas Meyer wasn't a Star Trek fan when he did Wrath of Khan, but he didn't make the film to appeal to everyone either.

 

[fireproof78]

I think making these movies 'for everyone' is what really creates a long term problem for the NuTrek films. You really can't make a film appeal to everyone. It's impossible. No one to this day knows what kind of a movie will bring in the audience and what will scare them away.

Plus, movies that try to appeal to everyone don't normally have much staying power. Like SF said, "These films were loved in their day, until the next big thing came along and was forgotten." Nicholas Meyer wasn't a Star Trek fan when he did Wrath of Khan, but he didn't make the film to appeal to everyone either.

Perhaps, but that was not my take away. NuTrek may not have the staying power for all, but it has staying power for myself and for those who were introduced to Trek because of it. And, that, I think was Abrams intent. His film was accessible to everyone, those steeped in lore, those unfamiliar and everyone in between.

I have a great deal respect for Meyer, and I love the fact that he did was Abrams did with TWOK. Meyer look at TOS determined what would make a good story and went with it, crafting a story he felt he would enjoy. I think Abrams did the same.

I don't think NuTrek's lack of staying power is more of a reflection of the times we live in than anything else. However, I will grant that ST ID (in particular) succumbed to contemporary issues and had crashing buildings and mass destruction which has defined much of cinema in the 2000s.

I will also agree that you cannot really make a film for everyone, but I don't think that should stop individuals from attempting to make a broad appeal of even a niche product. Which, ultimately, is what I think Abrams did and was successful at it with 09 at least.

 

[Jeyl]

I have a great deal respect for Meyer, and I love the fact that he did was Abrams did with TWOK. Meyer look at TOS determined what would make a good story and went with it, crafting a story he felt he would enjoy. I think Abrams did the same.

I disagree. The difference between how JJ Abrams and Nicholas Meyer handled Star Trek is that Nicholas Meyer actually contributed to the story. JJ did not. He left the writing duties in the hands of his jerky friends who were more interested in appeasing him. And when your director spends every single waking moment on camera to remind audiences that he's not a Star Trek, and you're left with a pretty reasonable impression that this Director does not care about what he is directing.

 

[fireproof78]

I disagree. The difference between how JJ Abrams and Nicholas Meyer handled Star Trek is that Nicholas Meyer actually contributed to the story. JJ did not. He left the writing duties in the hands of his jerky friends who were more interested in appeasing him. And when your director spends every single waking moment on camera to remind audiences that he's not a Star Trek, and you're left with a pretty reasonable impression that this Director does not care about what he is directing.

Then you and I will disagree since that is not the quotes I have (recently) read from the man regarding his process on creating Star Trek.

But, I'm sure he was just lying to assague hurt Trek fans feelings...

 

[Jeyl]

But, I'm sure he was just lying to assague hurt Trek fans feelings...

Well, JJ did hire two writers who have told Star Trek fans to fu** off.

 

[M'Sharak]

SFDebris' review pretty much mirrors my own. Kirk is just an unlikable character through and through and sacrificing himself does not equate to character growth in my book.

And I'm SO GLAD he brought up the change in Khan's character when NuSpock brought up the out of place "Kill anyone less than superior". And this isn't some 'Oh, that's this universe's version of Khan." No. NuSpock learns this information from PRIME SPOCK, who should know that Khan was not about freaking genocide! That's Archer's claim to fame.

And of course, the Vengeance crashing into Starfleet Headquarters. Not only does no one try to stop it, but no one seems to care about all the destruction it had caused. It's pitiful.

THE ENTERPRISE!

Sure, the Enterprise is battered and limping, but she is still functional. You could have it give chase to the Vengeance and while they're closing in on her, all the easy options to stop her would be unavailable due to the damage. Wapons? Offline. Tractor beam? Not enough power to truly stop it. BUT! What if the Enterprise got above the Vengeance, used the tractor beam from above, and force the vengeance to hit the ocean? The ship comes to a dead stop just as it reaches the ocean with the Enterprise now hovering above the city. With this you have the crew saving Starfleet Headquarters in a battered ship and you can still have your dumb Khan footchase with Spock if you're so inclined.

The whole destruction of Starfleet headquarters just doesn't make any sense. Something that horrendous is played just as a set up to a footchase. Really? This kind of devastation should have had major repercussions!

in fact, I have a theory.

In an interview, Damon Lindelof said that there was supposed to be this scene where the Klingon fleet actually shows up in retaliation for what occurred on Kronos, and the only ship standing between Earth and the fleet is the battered up Enterprise. Uhura, in her second chance to deal with the Klingons, successfully manages to talk them out of attacking Earth. I think the crash into Starfleet Headquarters was meant to put Earth in a bind by throwing the HQ into chaos where they couldn't possibly respond to a massive Klingon fleet that was steadily approaching them. So by destroying Starfleet headquarters, it puts more pressure on Uhura's shoulders to try and diffuse an all out war since no one else can.

But hey, since Abrams, Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof all agreed that Uhura hadn't 'earned' that moment (They much rather have her stab klingons in the groin), they removed that scene but still kept the crash.

Well, I figured that the film does such a terrible job at portraying physics that I just assumed no one would care. I mean, a small hole caused by foam impact was enough to destroy an entire space shuttle on re-entry. And yet the Enterprise, which has several blown out holes spread across the entire ship survives re-entry with only slight burn marks. I think having the ship move forward, use the tractor beam for a few seconds and move down a tiny bit isn't asking for much suspension of disbelief by comparison.

The very fact that you think the Enterprise couldn't do this is precisely the reason why I wanted to see it. This could have been a moment where the crippled ship managed to save the day despite all odds. Not punching or shooting someone, but stopping a horrendous thing from causing catastrophic damage. Let the Enterprise be the dependable ship she was built to be.

Like SF said. I think Orci's behavior writing this film and how he interacted with the fans speaks more about the quality of the work than his conspiracy theories.

And if there was one lesson to take away from this review, it's this. What the general audiences wants and what Star Trek fans want are not mutually exclusive. The moment JJ said "This is not a movie for fans. It's a movie for movie fans", he created a needless rift. A rift that painted the fan base in a disingenuous light. Did he think that Star Trek fans only like things that they ask for? That has never been the case, even when the show runners of Star Trek thought that was what they were doing. Is it because he thinks Star Trek fans only watch Star Trek and nothing else? Please. I see a lot of other movies that are both dumber and smarter than anything JJ Abrams has produced. When we go see movies, we ARE the general audience.

I think making these movies 'for everyone' is what really creates a long term problem for the NuTrek films. You really can't make a film appeal to everyone. It's impossible. No one to this day knows what kind of a movie will bring in the audience and what will scare them away.

Plus, movies that try to appeal to everyone don't normally have much staying power. Like SF said, "These films were loved in their day, until the next big thing came along and was forgotten." Nicholas Meyer wasn't a Star Trek fan when he did Wrath of Khan, but he didn't make the film to appeal to everyone either.

I disagree. The difference between how JJ Abrams and Nicholas Meyer handled Star Trek is that Nicholas Meyer actually contributed to the story. JJ did not. He left the writing duties in the hands of his jerky friends who were more interested in appeasing him. And when your director spends every single waking moment on camera to remind audiences that he's not a Star Trek, and you're left with a pretty reasonable impression that this Director does not care about what he is directing.

Well, JJ did hire two writers who have told Star Trek fans to fu** off.

@Jeyl , if you're figuring on reciting again your extensive checklist of all the complaints large and small that you've decided you have concerning Abrams Trek — and that is what it very much looks like you're doing in your posts across several threads in this forum over the last day — please don't. Nearly everyone here has heard them all before, many, many, many times over.

Participate in the current conversation, if you like, but save the itemized and re-re-re-re-re-re-recycled litany of grievances and just... archive it, so that you'll be able to gaze upon it any time you want, and no one else will have to.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

I bet Midnight’s Edge is performing somersaults as we speak.

 

[fireproof78]

Well, JJ did hire two writers who have told Star Trek fans to fu** off.

Not sure what has to do with anything so...

Regardless, I can tell you and I will not see eye to eye regarding Abrams, no matter opinions on his work. I think he and Nicholas Meyer added plenty to Star Trek and for that I'll be forever grateful to them.

With that, I bid you cheers

 

[MakeshiftPython]

Come on fireproof, having two of the writers telling fans how shitty they are is pretty bad form and not really good for publicity. You don’t stoop down to that level, you keep your head above it.

 

[fireproof78]

Come on fireproof, having two of the writers telling fans how shitty they are is pretty bad form and not really good for publicity. You don’t stoop down to that level, you keep your head above it.

I was discussing Abrams and his attitude towards working on Star Trek. I made no comment or mention of either writer and I don't agree with their comments or their decisions. Nor do I hold Abrams responsible for them making those comments. I don't know how one could...hence my confusion since it did not track from the prior conversation.

Doesn't change my respect for Abrams and what he did with Star Trek 09 in particular.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

I do think Abrams was a bit too honest with remarks over things like “Star Trek was too intellectual for me” or even bizarre ones like blaming the video game for the movie not doing as well at the box office as they projected. And taglines like “not your father’s Star Trek” is kind of an odd way to promote your movie.

Whether intentional or not, they all drew lines by saying those remarks. The fan base is divided as it is, no need to give more reason to keep it that way (though I’m sure the most staunch haters would find reasons).

 

[F. King Daniel]

It's 2019 and some people are bringing their 2009 problems into this thread

 

[Qonundrum]

STID had a lot of good (NuKhan's origins and the terrorism, triple-cross subplots were good).

And a lot of bad - that magic blood on the magic bus was unworthy of sci-fi aimed at anyone whose IQ is over 50.

I don't always agree with his reviews but, like Plinkett, he never fails to entertain - which is the main goal for review videos.

 

[Qonundrum]

Got through part one and half of part two. He raises a number of great points. Especially when contrasting 1960s TOS clips of Kirk being real Kirk. He pointed out a couple surprising bits about the making-of as well, which I agree with - never mind entertainment is often taken from a real life event and then imagined in whatever direction the scriptwriter wants. I'll still watch "The Enterprise Incident", even with its plot holes, any day of the week to this 2 hour CGI show. I still like admiral robocop for surprising detail in a modern day movie, especially one that also uses "magic blood" and so superfluously. Never mind the lamest dialogue for Khan's laughable reveal, which was woodenly acted too and probably because Cumberbatch knows how egregiously naff it is.