• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Grade the movie...


  • Total voters
    796
I'm wondering about the motives of Section 31 and how it relates to the third film. On reflection it seems that the Klingons would be the obvious choice of villians in the next film. They have every justification to declare war on the Federation given that Starfleet agents violated their space, landed on their homeworld, murdered dozens of their men and destroyed 3 ships.

Could you imagine if a Klingon raiding party just beamed down to Australia and killed a bunch of people in retaliation and just left?

Starting a war because a bunch of people died as a result of a raiding party that was not sanctioned by their own government seems like overkill. But of course that's what we do.
 
I'm wondering about the motives of Section 31 and how it relates to the third film. On reflection it seems that the Klingons would be the obvious choice of villians in the next film. They have every justification to declare war on the Federation given that Starfleet agents violated their space, landed on their homeworld, murdered dozens of their men and destroyed 3 ships.

Could you imagine if a Klingon raiding party just beamed down to Australia and killed a bunch of people in retaliation and just left?

Kirk's actions in this movie alone seems like provocation enough for the Klingons.

I think it depends on who the people are. A lot more was done in the lead-up to the Dominion War before formal declarations were announced. I think because it's the Klingons and they look for an excuse to go to war, that it is most likely this incident will lead to war. I think that's the set-up for the next film, especially with people connected to this film saying they want "someone to do the Klingons."
 
I'm wondering about the motives of Section 31 and how it relates to the third film. On reflection it seems that the Klingons would be the obvious choice of villians in the next film. They have every justification to declare war on the Federation given that Starfleet agents violated their space, landed on their homeworld, murdered dozens of their men and destroyed 3 ships.

Could you imagine if a Klingon raiding party just beamed down to Australia and killed a bunch of people in retaliation and just left?

Kirk's actions in this movie alone seems like provocation enough for the Klingons.

i wonder if they will give Khan to the klingons if Benedict comes back.
 
Well, the Klingons obviously did not do anything right away as the dedication of the repaired Enterprise took place one full year after the... Harrison incident?

Still, I'd imagine, given all the intrigue at the High Council that we saw in TNG and DS9, that the leadership in Qo'nos must be chomping at the bit to get back at the Federation for this insult to their honor and sovereignty.
 
Did anyone else think the Klingon scene felt unnecessary? They were only there because Trek needs its aliens, and maybe because there needed to be another action scene. On that last point we could have figured out Khan was badass later on without it.

Have Kirk show up with a phaser pointed at the back of Khan's head and it would have changed nothing.
 
Seriously, I have seen this movie three times AND I like a nice woman's body as much as the next person. I do not recall any gratuitous ass scenes and if you are saying that you could see her ass because she was walking away from the camera.. SO? You can see everyone's asses in that position. What was gratuitous about it?

Her booty was in the upper right corner as she was walking and the camera followed her with it perfectly staying in that portion of the frame. In my case, I'm not complaining! I was very impressed...with the camera work!

But overall, I felt the same way about this film that I did about Avatar. I loved, loved, loved the first half. But then it just went into typical action flick mode. And that's about when they went overboard lifting dialogue from TWOK, I suppose as an homage, but I just couldn't take it. Too corny. And Spock yelling "Khan..." maybe others thought that was clever, but it didn't work for me. My wife and my buddy who watched it with me were not annoyed because they have the benefit of not having TWOK committed to memory. And what is it with Khan's skull-crushing obsession? Plus, prime Spock's appearance was so random. So I really don't know how to judge this movie since I really liked the first half but was let down by the rest...
 
Did anyone else think the Klingon scene felt unnecessary? They were only there because Trek needs its aliens, and maybe because there needed to be another action scene. On that last point we could have figured out Khan was badass later on without it.

Have Kirk show up with a phaser pointed at the back of Khan's head and it would have changed nothing.

Kind of, but I enjoyed it a lot nonetheless and it was awesome seeing the Klingons again, this time actually appearing tough and competent.

As much as I love DS9, if Kirk was beating up Klingons left right and center like Sisko regularly seemed to do then there would be hell to pay on these boards :guffaw:
 
Did anyone else think the Klingon scene felt unnecessary? They were only there because Trek needs its aliens, and maybe because there needed to be another action scene. On that last point we could have figured out Khan was badass later on without it.

Have Kirk show up with a phaser pointed at the back of Khan's head and it would have changed nothing.

I think they added a Klingon scene to set up a potential conflict for a third film, if there is going to be one.
 
a little off topic but why do you think Nurse Chapel apparently written out of this movie series? There were a few Sickbay scenes where it would have been easy to give her a cameo, instead of being said to have left the ship.
 
Did anyone else think the Klingon scene felt unnecessary? They were only there because Trek needs its aliens, and maybe because there needed to be another action scene. On that last point we could have figured out Khan was badass later on without it.

Have Kirk show up with a phaser pointed at the back of Khan's head and it would have changed nothing.

Nope, the more of the Trek universe they show in movie land, the better... no series to do this in, so they gotta squeeze as much as they can in movie land, I'm all for it.
 
Did anyone else think the Klingon scene felt unnecessary? They were only there because Trek needs its aliens, and maybe because there needed to be another action scene.

I dunno, I think it depends on how you look at it. Their appearance in the film *feels* unnecessary, I agree, but actually they are important because the primary motivation of Admiral Evil is starting a war with them.

I thought the Klingons probably should have felt more involved in the proceedings. But at least they did appear.

As much as I love DS9, if Kirk was beating up Klingons left right and center like Sisko regularly seemed to do then there would be hell to pay on these boards :guffaw:

The Sisko is Klingon Kryptonite. It is known :klingon:
 
Is it just me or did they say that Khan's people want to destroy all inferior life? That's not what they want to do. They wanted to conquer it. I'm pretty sure they said "destroy" in the movie, which is stupid.
 
I didn't find it at all unnecessary. It established several things:

1] The Klingon presence in this universe [Kronos, Birds of Prey, et al].
2] The look and behavior of the Klingons in this universe [Forehead ridges, Klingon language, Warrior castes]
3] Uhura develops further character growth involving how she communicated and dealt with the Klingons.

And it sets up what may be a large storyline for the next movie.
 
Is it just me or did they say that Khan's people want to destroy all inferior life? That's not what they want to do. They wanted to conquer it. I'm pretty sure they said "destroy" in the movie, which is stupid.

Destroy, detonated (the fleet!), challenged, torn apart, one man weapon of mass destruction. It's the movies.
 
Yeah, not a piece of dialogue that I'm concerned by. I'm sure that three hundred years later there are varying characterizations of an historical figure. I've even seen people argue about just how nuts Caligula was or wasn't.

Saw it again this evening and enjoyed it even more the second time. The characters, speaking of, are all great. Pegg and Cumberbatch are the standouts. Urban really isn't given much material, really, that would give him a chance to break out of that gritted-teeth-damn-I'm-irritated faux-Kelley delivery; it does get a little monotonous.
 
You know one moment that got to me was Scotty looking at the fish. These are explorers, right? "Look, Captain, weird fish!" It wasn't going to eat the ship. Why was he weirded out by that?
 
You know what I am beginning to hate? Star Trek fans. I can see not liking this movie for legitimate reasons, too fast to action packed, too much fun. Not enough staff meetings and mapping stars and studying nebluea. But I am reading things online like “McCoy said he delivered baby Gorn! Starfleet didn’t have first contact with the Gorn until 2267!”
That was a reference to the tie-in video game in which the Gorn were the major enemy (there's a line of dialog in the game where the landing party is forced to stun several attacking gorn, one of which turns out to be a pregnant female. McCoy, in a fit of misplaced compassion, performs an emergency c-section on female, only to have the newborn lizard almost bite his hand off).
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top