STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

[doubleohfive]

I would strongly advise anyone who hasn't done so already to listen to Mission Log's podcast interview and roundtable with Bob Orci.

John and Ken discuss Into Darkness, the 2009 film, and the decisions made writing and making the film as well as the influence TOS, TNG, etc. had on the process. Highly informative stuff that might change your mind about some things.

The podcast can be found on Mission Log's website, Facebook page and on iTunes. It's just under 2 hours, but well worth the listen, especially for those of us so impassioned over Into Darkness (one way or the other.)

 

[doubleohfive]

I disagree with your blog.

The transwarp transporter makes starships no more obsolete than the transporter makes shuttles obsolete.

The transwarp transporter is a bit like the Iconian Gateway. If it can really take objects and people from A to B, in the galaxy, in a blink of an eye then it considerably reduces the purposes of starships.

How do they know they place they're going isn't just empty space, or how do they know they are materializing in a all or something, or that the place has a atmosphere they can breath, or that it isn't irradiated or something, and most importantly how do they get back since they can't take the transporter with them?

I'm sure the device has to interface with a larger computer/control system in some manner. Perhaps it's meant to link with a 'normal' transporter.

Or, God forbid, in a motion picture it's a MacGuffin. Perish the thought!

 

[Captain_Amasov]

Not that it was needed, but it'd have been neat if transwarp beaming was mentioned having dangerous effects on humanoid tissue with prolonged use, like the folded-space transporter technology did. Then a possible reason for Khan being able to use it freely, would be due to him being immune to such effects thanks to his augmented Human DNA.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I would strongly advise anyone who hasn't done so already to listen to Mission Log's podcast interview and roundtable with Bob Orci.

John and Ken discuss Into Darkness, the 2009 film, and the decisions made writing and making the film as well as the influence TOS, TNG, etc. had on the process. Highly informative stuff that might change your mind about some things.

The podcast can be found on Mission Log's website, Facebook page and on iTunes. It's just under 2 hours, but well worth the listen, especially for those of us so impassioned over Into Darkness (one way or the other.)

That was fascinating, thank you!

I like that their Khan placeholder character was codenamed "Robert April" - it explains a lot of the early rumours, as well as why Khan's weapon on Kronos was called "April's gun" in concept art.

 

[Set Harth]

I had forgotten all about April's gun.

 

[ComicGuy89]

Now that I have seen it on Blu-ray I think I can finally make a better assessment, and I give it an A. I'm not sure if I like it better than 2009 or not. Basically, it boils down to this:

• Into Darkness was a stronger film overall. A strong message, stronger characterization, stronger emotional resonance and a more interesting story overall. Now that the characters are acquainted with each other, you see them actually relate to each other as a team, and as I've always said, THIS camaraderie is what makes Star Trek. Star Trek lies and stands on character interaction and this movie delivers in spades! The only character I wished they did more with was Chekov, but he was pretty decent too.
• On the other hand, ironically enough, 2009 had more pew pew! I really wish we had more action in this movie, as I couldn't get enough of what we already had. Every action scene was exhilarating!

Huh, I guess I do like Into Darkness better overall. So there's that!

Other things I noted:

• The death scene was surprisingly less of a direct lift from TWOK than I thought. The script flowed smoothly and naturally, and a person who had not watched TWOK would not feel anything was left out of place. Even Spock's scream felt natural, and definitely more warranted than Kirk's in TWOK.
• Quinto and Pine seem to have great chemistry! I grew to really appreciate them as Spock and Kirk.
• I'm loving the diverse Enterprise crew! It's almost like I could tell who's on the bridge by the end of the movie and the faces became very recognizable.
• Man, the Enterprise is a beautiful ship in HD. I'm loving the shots we got in this outing, definitely more eye candy compared to before.
• Carol Marcus is a much better character than I remembered. She's competent, confident and brave. I look forward to her being part of the main crew.
• I love the emphasis of Starfleet as explorers. Although that's more of a TNG-era thing than TOS (especially the movies), it's something I always liked about Trek.
• The Carol Marcus underwear scene is still totally unnecessary in my opinion, but it stood out much less than I remember. It didn't bother me too much.
• Sadly the warp from Kronos to Earth seems to more obviously take just minutes than I remembered. This is fine, since I can come up with some headcanon, but the most obvious interpretation would be that the trip took mere minutes. Still not a dealbreaker.

All in all, a terrific viewing the second time, over an already amazing first viewing. Yeah, I think I can confidently place this as my second favourite Trek film of all. Due to admitted nostalgia lenses, nothing beats Wrath of Khan for me, but in time, this is close.

 

[Kemaiku]

Why on earth are people still saying "Earth to Kronos".

They even specifically point out in the film that there are in the Neutral Zone, lightyears from the planet. All the maps at Starfleet HQ show the Neutral Zone and Kronos' relative positions, and the planet is much deeper into Klingon space.

We don't know how long the Mudd ship was in warp flight there and back for.
​

 

[ComicGuy89]

Why on earth are people still saying "Earth to Kronos".

They even specifically point out in the film that there are in the Neutral Zone, lightyears from the planet. All the maps at Starfleet HQ show the Neutral Zone and Kronos' relative positions, and the planet is much deeper into Klingon space.

We don't know how long the Mudd ship was in warp flight there and back for.
​

Hmm very good point. Could you give me a link to these maps? This could solve a lot more questions!

 

[JarodRussell]

Why on earth are people still saying "Earth to Kronos".

They even specifically point out in the film that there are in the Neutral Zone, lightyears from the planet. All the maps at Starfleet HQ show the Neutral Zone and Kronos' relative positions, and the planet is much deeper into Klingon space.

We don't know how long the Mudd ship was in warp flight there and back for.
​

Hmm very good point. Could you give me a link to these maps? This could solve a lot more questions!

The events of the film between the Enterprise's take off and the battle next to the Moon take place within less than a day, Scotty says so. So whatever they did, they got from Earth to the Neutral Zone to Kronos and back to the Neutral Zone and back to Earth in 24 hours.

 

[ComicGuy89]

Why on earth are people still saying "Earth to Kronos".

They even specifically point out in the film that there are in the Neutral Zone, lightyears from the planet. All the maps at Starfleet HQ show the Neutral Zone and Kronos' relative positions, and the planet is much deeper into Klingon space.

We don't know how long the Mudd ship was in warp flight there and back for.
​

Hmm very good point. Could you give me a link to these maps? This could solve a lot more questions!

The events of the film between the Enterprise's take off and the battle next to the Moon take place within less than a day, Scotty says so. So whatever they did, they got from Earth to the Neutral Zone to Kronos and back to the Neutral Zone and back to Earth in 24 hours.

I don't trust Scotty's word, but 24 hours is more than enough for me.

 

[Kemaiku]

Scotty was pretty drunk and hardly keeping track of time. And the "one bloody day" thing is an expression, it may or may not be accurate in any way.

Don't forget, when the Enterprise departs its still in the early hours of the day, Kirk phones Scotty in the middle of the night, they return to Earth in what could be the late afternoon.

More like 36 hours.

Plus "advanced warp capability". Done.

 

[Set Harth]

The Enterprise doesn't have that advanced warp capability, though.

They even specifically point out in the film that there are in the Neutral Zone, lightyears from the planet.

I'm not so sure anymore. We do know they changed plans, though that raises the question of how they were planning on capturing Harrison without a means of hiding their presence such as a cloaking device. They are said to be 20 minutes from their destination when they are stopped, and it is said that this is 20 minutes in enemy space they weren't planning on. How are we to make sense of this? If they're talking about warp speed, and they're planning to sit and wait while the possibly warp-capable Mudd ship goes to Kronos, captures Harrison, and comes back, shouldn't they be talking about a duration of at least 40 minutes + however long it takes to apprehend Harrison? Also, later it is said that the Vengeance pursued them into, as opposed to out of, the Neutral Zone, but I know that can be interpreted in different ways.

All the maps at Starfleet HQ show the Neutral Zone and Kronos' relative positions, and the planet is much deeper into Klingon space.

There's a map visible in a certain video ( but not really visible in the film itself as far as I know ) which does seem to indicate that Kronos is, as we might expect, not right on the border and thus not accessible from the KNZ at sublight speeds in any reasonable amount of time. I'm just not entirely convinced that the content of the film agrees with that map. Also, I'm just assuming that the most prominent feature in the Klingon-space portion of the map is supposed to be Kronos, but it isn't labeled.

We don't know how long the Mudd ship was in warp flight there and back for.

Even though it's possible to assume the K'normian ship went to warp in a certain cut, the film seems to imply that the far-off object it's already aiming at when it leaves the Enterprise is Kronos. The background depiction of local space is the same, for example. However, I know this doesn't explain why the Enterprise was umolested by Klingon ships if it was so close to Kronos.

 

[SeerSGB]

They're on the edge fo the Zone. Kirk says so when Marcus shows up to take Khan. I think the 20 minute thing refers to them having to go it on impulse. Sulu saying that they're going to take longer than they planned to get in and out.

 

[Set Harth]

Right, but that could still mean they're on the Klingon side.

 

[SeerSGB]

Right, but that could still mean they're on the Klingon side.

The lines are vague enough to work two ways:

1, They're on the Federation side; either with a toe on the line, oe hugging it close in friendly space

2, they're on the farside of the Zone hugging the Klingon edge of it.

I'm inclined toward Marcus blowing out the engines when they're closer to the farside, but still in the Neutral Zone; close enough not to be "in violation of the treaty" but far enough along it makes more sense to keep going with the mission and make repairs on route. Marcus--as most of his plans seems to be--is likely figuring on Kirk being cocksure and (frankly) stupid enough to continue on with a wounded ship. It works better with his plot to start a war.

 

[Set Harth]

I think the 20 minute thing refers to them having to go it on impulse.

Right. That was the point: Kronos is now 20 minutes away on impulse from the Neutral Zone, which is amazingly close.

 

[crazyfingers]

Well it's my first post on this discussion board. I'll admit to being very surprised how many people here actually think that the movie is one of several shades of A. I think that it's bad and I was very disappointed.

I grew up on Star Trek TOS being old enough to have appreciated the 3rd season still in its first run on TV. And then subsequent years in syndication. I have loved all of the other series and have all TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT on DVD and pretty much watch them all the time. It did take me a while to get to know DS9 but now I love it.

I liked most of the movies.

We got the Into Darkness DVD when it was released a bit over a week ago. The kids like it so I've seen it three times.

I really don't like it and I was curious what other star trek fans actually thought as opposed to the general public. So I googled a bit and found this forum.

I guess I'm in the minority and I'm really surprised. Though I'm not here to say anyone is right or wrong. I am surprised.

To me it's just not Star Trek.

Military hats for Star Fleet officers? What? I understand that this is a "reboot" and a new timeline as of some 25 years from the time of the movie but millitary hats?

And I'm sorry but Klingons would not have different DNA as a result of a changed timeline from 25 years ago.

I liked Star Trek 2009 because I think it still had the star Trek feel. And no I don't know how better to describe that feel. That's even though it's preposterous to make a Star Fleet cadet who hasn't even graduated a full Captain. But I liked it.

I don't like Into Darkness. To me the whole feel is just off.

 

[BillJ]

I grew up on Star Trek TOS being old enough to have appreciated the 3rd season still in its first run on TV. And then subsequent years in syndication. I have loved all of the other series and have all TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT on DVD and pretty much watch them all the time. It did take me a while to get to know DS9 but now I love it.

I rated the film an 'A-', I found it flawed but fun too watch.

For me, Abrams brought back a sense of fun and adventure to the franchise that I feel Rick Berman completely sucked out. I started watching The Original Series in 1975 and like you own it all on DVD (the complete franchise) and everything that is available on Blu-ray.

 

[Ln X]

Well it's my first post on this discussion board. I'll admit to being very surprised how many people here actually think that the movie is one of several shades of A. I think that it's bad and I was very disappointed.

I grew up on Star Trek TOS being old enough to have appreciated the 3rd season still in its first run on TV. And then subsequent years in syndication. I have loved all of the other series and have all TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT on DVD and pretty much watch them all the time. It did take me a while to get to know DS9 but now I love it.

I liked most of the movies.

We got the Into Darkness DVD when it was released a bit over a week ago. The kids like it so I've seen it three times.

I really don't like it and I was curious what other star trek fans actually thought as opposed to the general public. So I googled a bit and found this forum.

I guess I'm in the minority and I'm really surprised. Though I'm not here to say anyone is right or wrong. I am surprised.

To me it's just not Star Trek.

Military hats for Star Fleet officers? What? I understand that this is a "reboot" and a new timeline as of some 25 years from the time of the movie but millitary hats?

And I'm sorry but Klingons would not have different DNA as a result of a changed timeline from 25 years ago.

I liked Star Trek 2009 because I think it still had the star Trek feel. And no I don't know how better to describe that feel. That's even though it's preposterous to make a Star Fleet cadet who hasn't even graduated a full Captain. But I liked it.

I don't like Into Darkness. To me the whole feel is just off.

Welcome on board crazyfingers! Likewise I must agree with your assessment, but as you rightly said we're in the minority here.

For me at least what really cheesed me off was how STID's ending fizzled out and how such potential in the first half of STID was squandered.

Also I know what you mean by the feeling being off, it's like something is missing or Star Trek is trying to be something it isn't and it ain't working out.

 

[BillJ]

Also I know what you mean by the feeling being off, it's like something is missing or Star Trek is trying to be something it isn't and it ain't working out.

Aren't you someone who admits to not having watched all of TOS? Star Trek: The Original Series and Modern Trek are two distinct animals. Star Trek was action-adventure and Modern Trek was more of a straight drama. So if you hold the Abrams films against Modern Trek, obviously something will feel 'off'.

Whether or not a person likes or dislikes the films, I don't think there's much argument that they were built in the image of TOS, not the spin-offs.