STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

[Zaminhon]

I was wondering what the quadrotriticale is used for besides Tribble food.

 

[BillJ]

At least the engine room looks like it can brew a pretty damn good beer.

That would be one way to recruit people to Starfleet.

I guess we know the origin of Scotty's alcoholism!

 

[Ovation]

Star Trek is full of technobabble solutions to problems which ought to have huge implications for future stories but are conveniently swept under the rug. To single out one of them as somehow being uniquely awful is to say "it's bad because it's mauve" when looking at the entire spectrum of purples.

No, I'd say some of them were uniquely awful, they aren't all created equal. "Threshold" for instance was a great example of setting up a story whose resolution was, by the rules it set up, just broken. "The Alternative Factor" was... well, what it was. And so on.

And I'd say Maurice makes a far more compelling argument. An argument that absolutely allows one to respond to a criticism of Abrams' Trek by referring to precedents from prior Trek. That you disagree is fine. That you therefore presume that yours is the only applicable perspective (something you do repeatedly) is not so fine.

 

[BigJake]

I guess we know the origin of Scotty's alcoholism!

Enterprise-brand scotch would be a pretty solid merch item, for that matter.

And I'd say Maurice makes a far more compelling argument. An argument that absolutely allows one to respond to a criticism of Abrams' Trek by referring to precedents from prior Trek.

Yes, I'm unsurprised that you would say that. I think you're wrong, obviously, but it's okay.

 

[Ovation]

I guess we know the origin of Scotty's alcoholism!

Enterprise-brand scotch would be a pretty solid merch item, for that matter.

And I'd say Maurice makes a far more compelling argument. An argument that absolutely allows one to respond to a criticism of Abrams' Trek by referring to precedents from prior Trek.

Yes, I'm unsurprised that you would say that. I think you're wrong, obviously, but it's okay.

Why "wrong"? Trek is fiction and thus open to multiple interpretations. There is no one correct way to interpret a work of fiction. To think otherwise is the height of arrogance (or ignorance, though I would not presume the latter for you on this topic). You're not wrong because you have a different reading of Trek than mine, you're wrong to suggest, implicitly or explicitly, that holding a different reading from yours makes me (or anyone else) "wrong".

 

[BigJake]

I guess we know the origin of Scotty's alcoholism!

Enterprise-brand scotch would be a pretty solid merch item, for that matter.

And I'd say Maurice makes a far more compelling argument. An argument that absolutely allows one to respond to a criticism of Abrams' Trek by referring to precedents from prior Trek.

Yes, I'm unsurprised that you would say that. I think you're wrong, obviously, but it's okay.

Why "wrong"? Trek is fiction and thus open to multiple interpretations. There is no one correct way to interpret a work of fiction.

Because IMO it's a mistake to suppose that subjectivity means that everything is indistinguishable from everything else and it's not possible to evaluate anything at all, especially when you're talking about specific elements of a work of fiction and not "interpreting" it in some loose, vague sense. You can value or not value consistency in a work of fiction, for instance, or the self-consistent use of scientific elements in a work of sci-fi, but that's not the same thing as saying that all such works are on equal footing as regards that kind of consistency. Actually that's a bizarre thing to say because it's patently untrue.

Short version: what you value in or what "meaning" you extract from fiction is subjective. That doesn't mean its contents are "subjective" or impossible to describe. For all the virtues of postmodernism and reader-response criticism, it's a mistake to confuse those things.

Even shorter version: taste is subjective. Narrative logic isn't.

 

[Ovation]

In that case, you've failed to marshal a persuasive rebuttal to Maurice and are therefore wrong.

 

[BigJake]

I knew it wouldn't persuade you, it's okay.

 

[Maurice]

To my way of thinking "magic blood" is a far more believable contrivance than the Genesis Effect, yet both are purple.

 

[BigJake]

I think the Genesis Effect is a fairer comparison, particularly the version of it that was pressed into service for resurrection. About all I can say for that as a virtue is that at least they picked a unique circumstance for that... and it brought Nimoy back for the fourth movie.

 

[JWPlatt]

And sufficiently magical script is indistinguishable from inconsistency.

 

[Zaminhon]

I think the Genesis Effect is a fairer comparison, particularly the version of it that was pressed into service for resurrection. About all I can say for that as a virtue is that at least they picked a unique circumstance for that... and it brought Nimoy back for the fourth movie.

The Genesis Effect wasn't successful, if Spock stayed on the planet he would have destabilized with the planet and died. It was a one-use mulligan for Spock and thankfully Genesis never raised its head again.

 

[urbandefault]

I'd be happy if there was an alternate cut of STID that just left out the scream.

You know, one where you see the buildup to it on Spock's face but instead of letting it out he summons a medical team to engineering and then takes off after Khan.

That would be good.

 

[FrankT]

I'll be honest - STID chilled my blood. Personally, I can see why Into Darkness can be seen as the worst Trek sequel out of all 12 - not because of that silly opening or seeing Carol in her underpants or anything - but because it's enough to cause PTSD! Watching the Vengeance crash, in particular, felt like watching the Hindenburg disaster times fifty. I could FEEL the trauma it inflicted. And don't even get me started on Khan smashing the Admiral's face in (I'd say try watching footage of another film with the audio, but I don't think it'd be allowed; besides I'd have to answer for the trauma it'd cause)! Or shooting Pike for that matter!
I cannot in good conscience give it any grade.

 

[Set Harth]

I could FEEL the trauma it inflicted.

But wouldn't that be considered a point in favor of the film? Isn't that the kind of thing movies are supposed to do, in theory?

 

[FrankT]

Now you mention it, yes. But I don't think I was expecting it, that's all.

 

[BigJake]

The Vengeance crashing just looked to me like another digital spaceship crashing into another largely-digital landscape, and carried about as much emotional weight. Certainly there's little in the aftermath to suggest extraordinary horror and trauma. Maybe all the buildings in its path just happened to be empty that day.

 

[BillJ]

I know this doesn't count because everyone obviously hates the movie and it has no legs...



Average 4.3/5 stars rating from 3 million Netflix viewers.

 

[FrankT]

Well there - everyone's happy.

 

[BillJ]

Well there - everyone's happy.

I'm never happy and I gave it five stars!

Seriously, Star Trek Into Darkness is a highly entertaining movie with some flaws.