STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

[GMDreia]

I took my best friend to see STID on Monday. It was his first time and my third.

We are the same age (39) and he's a diehard Trekker like I am.

He was in awe the whole time - laughing at all the little in jokes (like the scene with Chekov and "put on a red shirt") and gripping his seat handles during the action. He is thoroughly a fan of Cumberbatch's portrayal and felt that Cumberbatch as Khan was genuinely terrifying and inhuman, like someone conceived in a Petri dish should be, and he also expressed that the Kirk death scene for him had *more* emotional resonance than the original scene in TWOK.

 

[Ovation]

I'm not going to specifically name posters, but there is this as an exammple:

"But the issue with their argument is, is that the original show and movies on which this reboot was based have THE EXACT SAME PROBLEMS. And for some reason, you can ignore those issues, but when it comes the the reboots, because you don't like how they were done, they are now "legitimate criticizes"'

As though any nu-Trek criticism is in need of a disclaimer providing a detailed justification of why you are accepting of flaws in previous Trek adventures but not this one, because it's obviously a simple black-and-white thought process...

If the criticism of the new Trek is something that is specific to it and has no precedent in previous Trek, then no "disclaimer" is needed. But if people are going to pick at the new Trek for exactly (or nearly so) the type of shortcoming/flaw/error/etc. that was common enough in previous Trek, and yet is NOT picked on in prior cases, then yes, it is legitimate to ask why this case and not the earlier case(s)?

Case in point:

Complaint: In Abrams Trek, warp speed and travel time are inconsistent and way too fast--this is a serious flaw that takes me out of the film, etc.

Rebuttal: In TOS, warp speed and travel time are inconsistent and way too fast and that doesn't seem to bother anyone too much.

Complaint: Just because they did it before doesn't mean it's ok now.

Rebuttal: But why was it not a big deal then and is a big deal now? (surely a fair question if one is seizing on this element as worthy of particular criticism)

OR

Complaint: In Trek 2009, they destroyed Vulcan. This was far too drastic a change, in my view, to the Trek universe and I think the story would have been better served by not doing so. Here are 3 reasons why…

Rebuttal: I don't agree because… (but no reference to previous series).

The first complaint is typical of many (though not all) levelled at the Abrams films. It is only fair to include examples from prior Trek in rebuttals.

The second complaint is specific to Abrams films (Vulcan was never destroyed in previous Trek). Pointing to prior Trek in rebuttal is probably not going to be effective.

The issue is the ratio of the first type of complaint to the second. As there are many of the first type, one should not be surprised when prior Trek is called upon in rebuttal.

 

[BillJ]

Great post, Ovation.

 

[Shazam!]

But why do people condemn one version of Trek for doing something that another version they liked did?

My favourite movie and my least favourite movie both have actors in. I guess it's hypocritical to favour one over the other.

 

[Ovation]

But why do people condemn one version of Trek for doing something that another version they liked did?

My favourite movie and my least favourite movie both have actors in. I guess it's hypocritical to favour one over the other.

No. But you are making a specious argument.

 

[BillJ]

But why do people condemn one version of Trek for doing something that another version they liked did?

My favourite movie and my least favourite movie both have actors in. I guess it's hypocritical to favour one over the other.

The sad thing is, you likely believe that is what everyone is talking about.

 

[Shazam!]

Ovation: Nit-picking stuff such as warp speed/travel time in Abrams' Trek but giving TOS a pass is symptomatic of wider concerns that are far too nebulous to provide any real basis for argument. It's widely accepted that "I didn't like it, erm, because" just doesn't hold water so it's easy to nit-pick specific items that may not hold up in isolation due to movies being more than the sum of their parts.

 

[Shazam!]

But why do people condemn one version of Trek for doing something that another version they liked did?

My favourite movie and my least favourite movie both have actors in. I guess it's hypocritical to favour one over the other.

The sad thing is, you likely believe that is what everyone is talking about.

You're right. I'm most likely an idiot.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

If the poster holds previous Trek films up as something that nuTrek should aspire to, then criticism of the current movies for "flaws" that are evident in the old movies is irrelevant.

 

[BillJ]

My favourite movie and my least favourite movie both have actors in. I guess it's hypocritical to favour one over the other.

The sad thing is, you likely believe that is what everyone is talking about.

You're right. I'm most likely an idiot.

Nope. But when you dig in on a certain position, it becomes harder and harder to dig out. Trust me I use to be a master at digging the hole so deep that no argument, no matter how rational, could drill its way though my thick skull.

I can understand the argument that the story doesn't work, the actors don't fit the part, dislike the set designs, dislike the spaceship designs, dislike lens-flares...

But when we're nitpicking things that have happened in pretty much every incarnation of Trek, I think perspective has been lost. We're down to some posters complaining about Spock running because it looks awkward. Nimoy looked awkward when he ran and I've never seen a single person lodge that as a complaint against TOS.

 

[Ovation]

Not to mention that Quinto and Cumberbatch both resemble track runners a lot more than most actors I've seen in similar situations (all out run).

 

[johnjm22]

I think the Red Letter Media review of STID sums up my feelings about the movie pretty well.

Don't know if it's been brought up already, but here it is: http://redlettermedia.com/half-in-the-bag-star-trek-into-darkness/ (45 Minutes long)

 

[BillJ]

I think the Red Letter Media review of STID sums up my feelings about the movie pretty well.

Don't know if it's been brought up already, but here it is: http://redlettermedia.com/half-in-the-bag-star-trek-into-darkness/ (45 Minutes long)

I'm not watching a forty-five minute review of a two-hour movie.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

It's been posted on the board somewhere, already.

 

[johnjm22]

I think the Red Letter Media review of STID sums up my feelings about the movie pretty well.

Don't know if it's been brought up already, but here it is: http://redlettermedia.com/half-in-the-bag-star-trek-into-darkness/ (45 Minutes long)

I'm not watching a forty-five minute review of a two-hour movie.

It's more of a discussion.

 

[M'Sharak]

I think the Red Letter Media review of STID sums up my feelings about the movie pretty well.

Don't know if it's been brought up already, but here it is: http://redlettermedia.com/half-in-the-bag-star-trek-into-darkness/ (45 Minutes long)

There is, in fact, a whole thread covering that (as Shazam! could no doubt have told you.) But rather than simply posting a link to a lengthy review with which some may not be familiar and saying "There - that's what I think," why not describe your feelings about the movie in your own words?

 

[Shazam!]

But when we're nitpicking things that have happened in pretty much every incarnation of Trek, I think perspective has been lost

But we can't qualify every complaint. Unless we literally start accepting "because!" as a reasonable argument there will always be holes and / or elements or hypocrisy in anyone's opinions.

We're down to some posters complaining about Spock running because it looks awkward. Nimoy looked awkward when he ran and I've never seen a single person lodge that as a complaint against TOS.

Probably because they like TOS / Nimoy more - why would anyone moan about the thing they like? I just read criticism such as that as "and here's another thing..." type of a minor nitpick that of course doesn't hold up to scrutiny but is indicative of the poster's feelings of the movie as a whole.

 

[johnjm22]

But rather than simply posting a link to a lengthy review with which some may not be familiar and saying "There - that's what I think," why not describe your feelings about the movie in your own words?

I already did.

It's just that they sum it up better than I do. Some of us aren't as good as others at articulating our thoughts. There's also a laziness factor.

 

[M'Sharak]

There's also a laziness factor.

I can relate.

 

[Belz...]

running down the street like a dork

Did not Chekov run along a navy vessel like a dork in ST IV, complete with Russian-themed chase music?

How does one run like a dork, anyway ?