Isn't that a given? Isn't that what we want? New fans keen to learn what they'd missed?
I spent years tracking down all the TOS and TAS episodes, plus comics and novels after becoming a Trek fan because of TMP.
Last edited:
STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]
- Thread starter Agent Richard07
- Start date
Isn't that a given? Isn't that what we want? New fans keen to learn what they'd missed?
I spent years tracking down all the TOS and TAS episodes, plus comics and novels after becoming a Trek fan because of TMP.
They're way better in 3D! Actually I didn't really notice them all that much in the movie.
Both Abrams movies hit the right balance, you don't need to but if you do then you get a lot more out of it. Honestly, this movie had everything I could possibly want from a Trek movie.
I got into Star Trek by reading Peter David's epic novel Q-Squared.
I didn't pick up a quarter of the references when I first read it, but it made me track down episodes featuring Q, Guinan and Trelane.
From there, I not only appreciated the book a great deal more, but I was also drawn into Star Trek as a whole.
One can only hope that some out there have a similar reaction to this film.
Are you joking ? We've already corrected this.
Still joking, right ?
3D, however, I despise.
No.
I'm humming "Enterprising Young Men" right now.
As opposed to what? A house in the English countryside?
It wasn't.
Utter nonsense.
I don't like the new warp-jump-effect in STID.
You can't like everything.
When I saw 2009 I remember thinking, "wow, JJ really rewards long term fans as well as delivering a kick ass movie for total Trek newbs." I felt catered to, but not at the expense of the wider audience who were seeing the film without all that history.
Last edited:
Personal experiences may vary! Discussions I've had with the casual fans didn't really know the weight of the revelation of Khan (of course, some just needed their memory jogged!) I feel that the Spock cameo actually served that purpose: to let them know: "Hey, this guy will kill you all to advance his goals!"
Also, some of the people I've talked to about it thought there was a possibility that Khan wouldn't necessarily turn "good" but wouldn't cross Kirk. These aren't dumb people, but it seems that those of us who have a more obsessive eye to our entertainment that they miss all the little "tells" in the story that would indicate Khan a true villain.
Perception really is tricky, when I have to curb my tendency to say "How could you miss that?" when TV shows, books and movies give you the answers if you pay attention. Then I come here, and find that I miss things too: themes, ideas, concepts, and just as important, interpretations. Especially on the Literature forum here! I'm the biggest Trek expert I know in real life, but man... I get schooled here!!
I would've been pleasantly surprised if he didn't, and wasn't an actual villain in the movie.
Oh, I stand corrected.
Well, that does sound kind of odd then. But a 40 minute review is probably not much different than say, a 240+ page review thread about the movie. I'm sure all the same points are covered.
I am actually getting very annoyed at people constantly saying that the Kirk/spock warp core scene was a ripoff. Sure, if you look at the scene without thinking about it at all then it could be. But if you actually look at the plot of the movie and why they even put the scene in there in the first place you might begin to realize that MAYBE its not just a ripoff.
The engine seen wasn't just a complete copy of Wrath of Khan. That's just nitpicking, angry fans. It was detrimental to the plot of the movie. Kirk sacrificing his life for his crew basically mirrored how his dad sacrificed his life for his crew. Because of this, Kirk finally lived up to Pike's dare that he could do better than his dad (hence the sound byte played when he wakes up). This wraps up Pike's character arc of "parenting" Kirk and also sets up kirk's character as finally a decent captain that achieved greatness.
Also, the reason spock got so angry was because after Kirk died he finally realized what it was like to have a friend and what he had just lost. Spock also learned why Kirk did what he did in the opening scene, and why emotions are so important. Both Kirk and Spock learned something from this scene. That scene was a HUGE amount of character development. Sure, it was also a blatant copy of Wrath of Khan when it comes to cinematography, but why does that matter when it has completely different character developments and motivations associated with it? Three character arcs are wrapped up in one scene that also happens to be a big reference to wrath of Khan. Why does that take away from the movie?
The engine seen wasn't just a complete copy of Wrath of Khan. That's just nitpicking, angry fans. It was detrimental to the plot of the movie. Kirk sacrificing his life for his crew basically mirrored how his dad sacrificed his life for his crew. Because of this, Kirk finally lived up to Pike's dare that he could do better than his dad (hence the sound byte played when he wakes up). This wraps up Pike's character arc of "parenting" Kirk and also sets up kirk's character as finally a decent captain that achieved greatness.
Also, the reason spock got so angry was because after Kirk died he finally realized what it was like to have a friend and what he had just lost. Spock also learned why Kirk did what he did in the opening scene, and why emotions are so important. Both Kirk and Spock learned something from this scene. That scene was a HUGE amount of character development. Sure, it was also a blatant copy of Wrath of Khan when it comes to cinematography, but why does that matter when it has completely different character developments and motivations associated with it? Three character arcs are wrapped up in one scene that also happens to be a big reference to wrath of Khan. Why does that take away from the movie?
Obviously not that much, because you still stuck to your guns on not only the subjective things (which is fine), but also on the things which were just plain factually inaccurate.
You know I was kind of agreeing with you there a little bit, right? Not that the colors are unnatural so much as the orange and teal tints are overused and over-emphasized in big budget films to make skin tones pop out on the screen.
The way it was used was not to be used at all. He never once said "I'm a doctor not an Engineer," much less three times. He said "Damn it, man, I'm a doctor, not a torpedo technician!" once, and never used the "I'm a doctor, not a _______" catch phrase again in the film.
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/I'm_a_doctor,_not_a...
It sort of undercuts your point when you keep insisting that something happened when it didn't.
Too drastically changed from what? This is a new universe with new technology, including things that are more advanced then the technology of the same era in the Prime Trek Universe. It's fine to not like the effect, but you're basing the criticism on an erroneous assumption that this transporter effect's appearance should flow directly from the appearance of the transporter in an entirely different universe.
Not an original idea in the whole damn thing. Lots of plot holes and failures to bring true character development. Cool effects, though. A "gentleman's" C-, at best.
How is that a bad thing? Even I spent numerous moments during my first viewing trying to decide if Harrison was going to help Kirk, hinder Kirk or pretend to help him.
I wouldn't have picked one of the villains in ST VI either, thanks to "Cinefantastique" magazine putting a big spoiler in a caption to a photo before I got to a sneak preview of the movie.
I would've been pleasantly surprised if he didn't, and wasn't an actual villain in the movie.
I think it would have been more in the spirit of Star Trek that Khan stayed in alliance with Kirk and that maybe it was Marcus who compelled Khan to do the killings. And that in the end Khan volunteered his blood to save Kirk.
Then they could just let Khan and his crew go in the crippled Vengeance because like Kirk and co maybe Khan learnt a lesson.
Well of course they would write it a lot better and less lame than I described.
And I'd even probably like Marcus to be less villainous and more pressured by having to defend the Federation from Klingons, Romulans, time-travellers etc. And reluctantly sacrificing Kirk and his crew rather than seeming to take some satisfaction from it.
I didn't say it was! I fact, I hoped my last paragraph of that post reflected that I occasionally have to remind myself of that fact. I guess I was making "meta" commentary on the whole "you could not clearly see what I saw, what are you blind?!" faction that has graced comment sections on places like Slashfilm, Trekmovie, Deadline and the like. And that applies to some who enjoyed or disliked the last movie.
I'm happy to say that doesn't seem to happen here, at least not without moderators who keep it civil.
An example of such civility that comes to mind easily, Therin, are some of the conversations between yourself and Christopher on the Literature board where two people who obviously have a lot of knowledge and Trek can have a discussion debating the finer points without it blowing up! I don't mind "colorful metaphors" themselves in bulletin board discussions, but get a kick about people who can at least back up their claims with how they perceive the evidence before us.
In fact, that type of conflict is what TNG worked very well in, it's entertaining to watch, and we remind ourselves that there are more than one way to be "right", and maybe we all have it a little "wrong". Though not at the forefront of STiD, the questions raised regarding the legality and/or the morality of the characters' actions in the film (drone strikes, killing without a trial, buildup of military in the name of protection, pro-active and reactive philosophies to those who would harm us) are nonetheless there. Within the torrent of non-stop action, those concepts were addressed, and that can make for a good film, especially a Trek film...
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, perhaps the writers could've taken the risk; it's nice to be surprised like that. In any event, Khan may not be able to help it that's he's an over ambitious super-man who is compelled to use his superiority to rule and/or destroy. The "nature/nurture" debate gets a bit muddy when Khan is a genetically modified or created wholly test tube creation that was given his abilities and traits by possibly good intentioned, but flawed 20th century humans. The drama of these concepts can be compelling, but probably more so suited to a Trek TV show rather than the big-budget action movie version of it (not said in a derogatory way, just the nature of a film to has mass market appeal)
But I, (and my party I attended with) were at least able to feel empathy for his plight about having his crew used against him. My suspicions were that Khan had contempt for all the 23rd century people he came across, just some more than others!
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Poll
