Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies: Kelvin Universe' started by serenitytrek1, Jan 15, 2013.
Especially comparatively speaking, yes.
But the Narada did not actually raise her shield so maybe these people know what they're doing. Not mentioning that narrative time doesn't work like real time and that the Narada doesn't actually exist (while kisses definitely do).
Yeah, the dash to turbolift to make out with Spock probably necessitated a stunt double.
All the officers are potentially action characters because they are trained officers. The trick is using them in scenarios where they are useful and not shoe-horning them in.. So no, Uhura should not be sent on a mission instead of security staff (unless as the officer in charge) but yes, she should be sent on a mission where her skills (computer expertise and fluent Romulan) might be of vital importance.
I'm also an advocate of Janice Rand being given some air time. She could well be Kirk's Yeoman and would therefore have a reason to accompany him on missions but give her security training as well and she becomes a potential action character. They've done this in the comics, although at the moment we've never seen Rand actually function as Kirk's Yeoman so their close relationship from TOS has yet to develop.
McCoy will always have a reason to be there since every away team needs a medic e.g. if Pike is injured. I think they missed a trick to use all four characters on the Narada.
Right. The trick is not to put them into a situation that seems unbelievable for that character and his or her position and expertise. Giving McCoy a phaser and telling him to go shoot some Klingons doesn't make sense. Or, suiting him up to space jump down to a Romulan drilling rig would be ludicrous.
That said, McCoy certainly seems to have an action scene in the first nine minutes of the movie, but it's also one more suited to his character and wasn't intended to turn out as it did. But, I'd expect to see Sulu or Chekov, or even Uhura on Kronos with Kirk and Spock before McCoy.
Parenthetically, am I right to think that the only time we saw McCoy fire a weapon was when he killed the salt monster in "The Mantrap"?
A clasic example is Star Trek VI - despite having a ship full of engineers including some weapons experts and including Chekov who functioned as the ship's tactical officer during the second 5 year mission, Spock asks McCoy to help him modify the photon torpedo. Ok, we love McCoy but he had plenty to do in the movie - asking for his help was... illogical! Mind you they were not kind about Chekov's Knowledge of security protocols more generally. I don't think he made a good tactical officer...
Illogical, yes. Unless Spock just needed a pair of fast and deft hands used to working under pressure to simply follow his instructions, and McCoy was around at the right time. (See, there's an explanation for everything. )
Still, it really doesn't pass the "sniff test." That is, in 2013, could you imagine a ship's surgeon on a submarine assisting a technician in modifying a torpedo? Still, for sentimental reasons (last movie and giving McCoy a role in the climactic scene) it's never really bothered me.
I'm fine with Uhura apparently being bumped up in terms of action and interaction with Kirk and Spock. There's room for everyone. But in that context, her relationship with Spock should pass the sniff test, too.
In the "Star Trek Guide" for writers (from TOS), it asked the reader (potential script writer) to spot the format error in a teaser where the ship faced destruction. In the final seconds, the captain turns and hugs his female yeoman, who was standing next to him. That turned out to be the format error. The standard of believability for the producers was whether or not you could imagine something like that happening on a real naval vessel in the 1960s. That is, would it seem perfectly normal for a captain whose ship looked like it was about to be destroyed to turn to a WAVE on the bridge and give her a hug?
Based on that test, I can't imagine the scene with Uhura and Spock in the turbolift or the one on the transporter pad (which was worse IMO) because I can't see it playing out on an aircraft carrier, today in a similar time of crisis. Can you see a female sailor in 2013 whose friend is seconds from embarking on a dangerous mission come up to him and say good-by to him in front of everyone the way Uhura did to Spock? But that's just me. And of course, producers can just reformat things.
There may have been more, but at least one other time comes readily to mind.
But not in the transporter room.
In fact, I think McCoy kills more creatures/people with a hand phaser than Kirk did.
Kirk (1) In that ep also.
I had a discussion about this a long time ago on the TOS newsgroup. It included such fasssscinating minutia such as did the Klingon he shot in "Errand of Mercy" survive that long fall. And did Kirk have his phaser set on kill near the end of ST III.
Meanwhile NuKirk in his very first appearance offs about 15 guys.
re the kissing scene: Guys, guys...that kind of thing is simply Abrams weakness. Alias and Lost were rife with that sort of thing. We simply have to accept it and move on....just be glad that Paula Cole didn't start playing in the background.
Meh. I've seen little of either show but, as was pointed out upthread, it's not uniquely an Abrams thing - just a movie thing.
It's not as if real-world elapsed time and in-story elapsed time are moving at a 1:1 synch rate, anyway. That 28-second(?) kissing scene? In actuality, it occupies only 5 seconds of story time - tops. Consider the "tense and dramatic countdown to near-certain oblivion" sequence which, in countless movies and Star Trek episodes, takes as much as three and a half real-world minutes to play out (not counting the interruption for station break/adverts) - it's same deal. In story time, it really is a sixty-second or thirty-second or ten-second countdown, and not one second more than the time being counted off. It just requires more real-world screen time to fit in all of the meaningful looks and drama and stuff, right?
To quote nuSpock: "That is not it".
Well that's gone and ruined the whole movie for me (again).
Actually I feel that it's a fairly relevant point. Discussing hypotheticals is fun, but it ventures into the absurd once you start bashing movies for the potential consequences of a character's action, consequences which did not actually happened onscreen or anywhere else. "How can they spend those 28 seconds kissing? The Narada could have raised shields!" "But it didn't. Why are we talking about that?"
I think the derision of the scene is just a way of expressing, "Why is this woman cockblocking the Bromance damnit??!!"
The Narada's crew reading the script is a relevant point? Shields or not, they could have stared drilling at any time. There wasn't a moment to lose. Hurry hurry, mush mush, action, tension and what-not!
Then this forum is in big trouble mister. By the way, if they had happened, we wouldn't need to bash them for being "potential consequences".
It goes to believability m'Lord.
Then you're watching the wrong franchise altogether. The history of Star Trek is rife with unbelievable character behavior.
QFT. Some episodes hinge on it.
Lol - Nitpicker's guides to Trek are hilarious. For the record I really enjoyed the movie despite a few nitpicks but I also enjoy poking fun at the nitpicks.
Let's not forget that one of our favourite movies could have been very different if Kirk had had the common sense to raise shields or if Khan had seen through Spock's cunning ruse that hours could seem like days (wow Spock is sharp). :P
This is true. And, it will especially happen in a TV series (cripes, look at the inconsistencies in the characters in M*A*S*H, and that's a TV classic). With many writers submitting stories, or strict shooting times when a script has to be let go before it's as polished as it could be, some unbelievable character behavior across stories has to be forgiven as the nature of the beast.
The problem for me is when within a story, a writer has obviously written himself into a corner, and the only way out is to have a character do something completely unbelievable for that character or situation.
Just to be devil's advocate (and kind of prove your point about being able to pick these nits forever):
About Kirk: Kirk admitted his lapse of judgement in the movie. It was a failure to do the routine. But was it out of character or unbelievable? Well, there is some arrogance and hubris in Kirk. And, Kirk seldom follows routine. I think that scene actually pointed out Kirk's flaw quite well.
About Khan: Khan may be superintelligent, but maybe he lacks the common sense to see the simplicity of Spock's ruse (intelligence and common sense do not always go together). And, there is arrogance and hubris in Khan, too. Plus, he was target-fixated on Kirk, so it's hard to say how clearly he was thinking about every little detail. I'd also say that as the movie went on, he was slipping into madness.
I just watched an ep of Who where the Dr. yells at Martha that they should not waste time hugging. Their "I am glad you are alive hug" gave the Daleks an advantage. Loved it.
Separate names with a comma.