but, I would argue the flaws in wok outweigh the flaws in WOK. wok just almost insults the intelligence of its viewers, whereas ID is a more fluid film. whether fanboys what to admit it or not. the retreading is besides the point.
T.W.O.K vs STID
- Thread starter Infern0
- Start date
but, I would argue the flaws in wok outweigh the flaws in WOK. wok just almost insults the intelligence of its viewers, whereas ID is a more fluid film. whether fanboys what to admit it or not. the retreading is besides the point.
ChowdaHead, you're trying too hard.
(EDIT: I mean, I know you feel like Orci and whathisface are getting a bad rap? But I don't care how much bluster you put into it, there are objectively different problems of plot logic going on in "where was Chekov in Space Seed" and "why is Kirk suddenly a Captain at the end of ST09;" or of "why didn't Khan beam Kirk up with Genesis" and "why does Starfleet need ships when you can teleport from star to star." There's no way to make them into similar problems in the slightest, no matter what BillJ tells you.)
(EDIT: I mean, I know you feel like Orci and whathisface are getting a bad rap? But I don't care how much bluster you put into it, there are objectively different problems of plot logic going on in "where was Chekov in Space Seed" and "why is Kirk suddenly a Captain at the end of ST09;" or of "why didn't Khan beam Kirk up with Genesis" and "why does Starfleet need ships when you can teleport from star to star." There's no way to make them into similar problems in the slightest, no matter what BillJ tells you.)
Last edited:
This....and in 10-15 years when SFX has moved on to something entirely different people will look back and realise just how hollow STID really is. TWOK endures because it's SFX serves to compliment the story only. It was never there to be a tentpole draw for the audience in the same way that STID's is. Of course, with the death of orginality in mainstream Hollywood and the legions of morons who pay to see Michael Bay style "epics", its not surprise that this happened.
Each to his own: each according to his gifts.
haha. apparently im not trying hard enough. not sure about your point regarding billj. personally, khan acknowledging Chekov without ever knowing the man is much harder for me to swallow than kirk in an alternate timeline being made first officer and then squeezing his way into the big chair. him becoming a captain "too quickly" just doesn't bother me in any way given the circumstances. and regarding the ship comment. how do explore new planets by teleporting when you don't know the end coordinates to undiscovered planets? not that hard to grasp pal.
Back at ya', pal. Last I checked, it's an 'I like' thread, not a 'Let me tell you you're OPINION is wrong' thread.
Put me down for liking both. Always have a sweet spot for TWOK, and I love this new movie. It's a blast!
But I'm sure an insult or a scoldin' for being wrong-minded about some unimportant anal-retentive bullshit from some smarmy basement-dweller is a-comin'...
So... Fire away!
... is an easy fix that you're rather desperately trying to inflate into a problem of plot logic. TOS adventures were not particularly linear in in-setting timeline, nor is it ever definitively stated in-universe when Chekov was on Enterprise. It's perfectly possible and breaks nothing in the original episode story to simply postulate that Chekov was on board without being on screen (as indeed a great deal of the action in any episode take place offscreen).
It's just not a comparable problem to "Starfleet suddenly promotes cadets on academic probation to commanding flagships." A fix can be found there, too; it's just mostly, when it comes right down to it -- this problem has been extensively chewed over and many defenses attempted in other threads -- along the lines of "forget about the writing and concentrate on the action." Since a fairly major in-universe detail like that (and many other plot logic problems in the Abrams films) just doesn't have a simple, plausible off-screen fix like the supposed Chekov problem.
Sorry, but however much you want them to be, they're not similar cases.
Last I checked, false comparisons don't work whether they're in an "I Like" thread or not*, and questions of plot logic are not entirely subjective. ChowdaHead is free to like whatever he wants to, but claims about logic problems with a script will likely provoke discussion, since it is in fact possible to make such claims and be wrong.
(*Pretty much the same holds for the venerable rubber-glue defense, BTW.)
Oh do come along. Next you'll be telling us there were toilets on the Enterprise, when they clearly never showed anyone going to pee. I suppose you also think there were more than 20 people on the ship, when we never saw more than that?
This is a fair point.
haha. youre simply picking and choosing, sir. this argument is so awful. youre trying a bit too.... hard. there is no fix. because according to canon, they never met. in no previous episode did they MEET. EVER. this is fact. hence why afterwards the cast and everyone involved acknowledged it was something they looked over. it was LAZY. but, this doesn't render it a bad movie. its an enjoyable movie. but its got plenty of problems. your opinion simply isn't going to change that. but feel free to rant and ill continue to refute.
I like both but prefer Into Darkness.
I watched TWOK about 2 months ago and while it was still awesome it felt dated and kind of cheesy, IMO. I still think RM was great, but I think BC was great in his own right as well.
And I am a huge fan of the Augment/Khan storylines. I loved the books by Greg Cox and how they included Gary Seven (one of my favorite characters) and his work during the Eugenic Wars.
I watched TWOK about 2 months ago and while it was still awesome it felt dated and kind of cheesy, IMO. I still think RM was great, but I think BC was great in his own right as well.
And I am a huge fan of the Augment/Khan storylines. I loved the books by Greg Cox and how they included Gary Seven (one of my favorite characters) and his work during the Eugenic Wars.
Well struck, sir. Unfortunately, I believe we have already established that it is I who am rubber, and you who are glue, infinity-plus-one-no-backsies-punchbuggies-no-returns. Q. To the E. To the mother-@#!$in' D.
I'll see you at the bike racks next Recess.
Pretty much.
I've never once said "forget about the writing and concentrate on the action." But movies often bend logic to tell the story they want to tell. Too hold Star Trek Into Darkness to a standard that The Wrath of Khan has never been held to is hypocritical at best.
The Wrath of Khan needs Spock to die heroically so they ignore the fact that they have dozens of engineers who have access to radiation gear in order for Spock to go down and save the ship. It seems they have more command grade personnel (Kirk, Spock, Sulu) than competent engineers. They need Kirk to defeat Khan so they ignore the fact that Khan wanted to kill Kirk ten seconds after beaming up the Genesis device so they switch what his endgame is mid-stream (then switch it back). Then there's the fact that the Enterprise can track Reliant on the other side of the Regula planetoid, yet Reliant doesn't seem to know where the Enterprise is at when they come around expecting Enterprise to be at Regula I.
There aren't many movies that could stand up to the scrutiny that Star Trek Into Darkness has been put through. The movie is new and it is different from what some want from Star Trek so that makes it a convenient punching bag.
The script was clearly a mess of several drafts, and was a loosely connected bunch of set-pieces. Wrath of Khan was a lot more coherent in its themes, especially the stuff about getting old which was genuinely moving and interesting. Uhura acting bratty to Spock about being a bad boyfriend.. wasn't.
But if that's taken away from her, all she'll have to do is sit there and say "hailing frequencies open", which she would still do terribly.
Really?
I'll never understand the allergic reaction that some fans have to relationship drama. I found the tension between Spock and Uhura fascinating. It felt like a genuine development of their relationship after Spock's trauma. I reacted exactly like Kirk did in the turbolift when Uhura voiced her frustrations about Spock's behavior.
"You're fighting? What must that be like?"
The relationship between Uhura and Spock is fertile ground for conflict and contrasts between the outwardly reserved Spock and the assertive and confident Uhura. Neither one of them likes to be wrong, but Spock has to couch his arguments in logic and affected calm while Uhura can go right to the point. Their relationship is probably the best 'change' in the new series.
I actually quite like the Spock-Uhura relationship and I rather like that it effectively makes Uhura the third point of the triumvirate originally formed by Kirk, Spock and Bones. And one thing I do like about Abramstrek is that they realized Uhura was a glorified switchboard operator and try to give her more to do.
I also think Trek, being an action-adventure format, is at its best when action is in the foreground and relationship drama is in the background, played subtly (part of why later Bermaga-era Trek started out to outstay its welcome with me was how consistently they forgot this). ST09's touch on the Uhura-Spock relationship was light, and it worked pretty well as a character beat. OTOH I had to groan in STiD when Uhura makes the bizarre decision to have it out with Spock in the midst of a commando mission to the Klingon homeworld. It looks foolish, petty and ridiculous... and the writers knew it. It's one of their many low moments in the film that has to be lampshaded by another character in dialogue, in this case Kirk impotently wondering aloud why they're doing this now.
If that's going to be what the Spock-Uhura relationship is used for, pass.
Similar threads
- Locked
