USS Vengeance & Mass Destruction.

[Gojira]

If this has been discussed before please just lock this thread. I couldn't fine this topic.

I watched STiD this weekend again and when the USS Vengeance crashes it taked down several buildings. Considering that they did not have time to evacuate them I am sure there were massive casualties.

The Man of Steel movie was critisized for Superman/Zod causing mass casualties and destruction and not addressing that in the film.

Do you think such mass destruction needs to be acknowleged and adressed within the movie?

 

[Bad Thoughts]

If this has been discussed before please just lock this thread. I couldn't fine this topic.

I watched STiD this weekend again and when the USS Vengeance crashes it taked down several buildings. Considering that they did not have time to evacuate them I am sure there were massive casualties.

The Man of Steel movie was critisized for Superman/Zod causing mass casualties and destruction and not addressing that in the film.

Do you think such mass destruction needs to be acknowleged and adressed within the movie?

From what I have been told, this is a fun movie that breaks free of the moral and scientific issues that weighed down Star Trek in the past and made it a loser at the box office. So, no.

 

[M'Sharak]

If this has been discussed before please just lock this thread. I couldn't fine this topic.

I watched STiD this weekend again and when the USS Vengeance crashes it taked down several buildings. Considering that they did not have time to evacuate them I am sure there were massive casualties.

The Man of Steel movie was critisized for Superman/Zod causing mass casualties and destruction and not addressing that in the film.

Do you think such mass destruction needs to be acknowleged and adressed within the movie?

There was another thread about this, and I think the following post, taken from it, sums up an answer to your question pretty neatly:

It was one of the more egregiously absurd parts of the movie. At least 100,000 dead and no mention is made of it whatsoever. The icing on the cake was the 'one year later' scene where they have that ceremony to rechristen the Enterprise. Yeah we slapped some new impulse engines on the ship, that's awesome... no need to mention that horrific act of terror that wiped out several city blocks.

Kirk mentioned that the ceremony was a rechristening of the Enterprise and to honor the dead - presumably both Starfleet and civilian - from the attack one year earlier. He also talked about how they shouldn't compromise their principles in the face of such an attack, so that was acknowledging it too. The audience was a mix of Starfleet and civilians. It is a year later, so I'm sure there have been several more elaborate and dedicated memorials for the victims in the past 12 months.

The movie was supposed to end on a hopeful note about going on a five-year mission of exploration and reclaiming their guiding principles. I don't see how it would have been improved with a more extensive memorial sequence than what was shown. But it certainly didn't gloss over the incident entirely as you suggest.

 

[Khan444]

Yeah, they had a memorial service/rechristening at the end of the movie, so they didn't gloss over it. The ending is supposed to be hopeful and optimistic, not dreary and depressing.

 

[YellowSubmarine]

The incident was not glossed over, the ceremony is right there.

On the other hand, it could have been handled a little bit better. Show 10 seconds of personal drama, have a man run in horror towards the destruction, past police, screaming "my child is there, my goodness, let me through!!!!!!!!!!!!!", have Kirk explicitly highlight the civilians in his speech as their deaths are much more inexcusable than the people from his crew that (I assume) were in the coffins that had their moment.

 

[OpenMaw]

Yeah I do think there should have been something with the crew of the Enterprise as that event happened. Like I mentioned elsewhere... We know Sulu is FROM Frisco. He especially should have had something to say.

It happens, and nobody says anything about it! Yes, it is glossed over. The reference in the speech is really not enough for the magnitude of deaths on display.

 

[BillJ]

Do you think such mass destruction needs to be acknowleged and adressed within the movie?

No.

 

[austen_pierce]

Yeah I do think there should have been something with the crew of the Enterprise as that event happened. Like I mentioned elsewhere... We know Sulu is FROM Frisco. He especially should have had something to say.

I like the Sulu angle. This could be picked up in the next film, potentially adding some depth to his character.

 

[OpenMaw]

Do you think such mass destruction needs to be acknowleged and adressed within the movie?

No.

...Really?

 

[ComicGuy89]

I personally don't think that the mass destruction is as shocking as say, Man of Steel or GI Joe: Retaliation. That said, I do hope filmmakers dial down mass destruction scenes in the future, it is getting uncomfortable.

Yeah I do think there should have been something with the crew of the Enterprise as that event happened. Like I mentioned elsewhere... We know Sulu is FROM Frisco. He especially should have had something to say.

It happens, and nobody says anything about it! Yes, it is glossed over. The reference in the speech is really not enough for the magnitude of deaths on display.

On the other hand, I think such a thing would be unnecessarily sentimental. A recent movie I know off that has similar levels of destruction was The Avengers. Like the Avengers, STiD opted for a short memorial service that showed the hopes of the people, yet acknowledged the sadness and tragedy of the destruction. That is sufficient and gets the message across. Anything added on would feel like ending fatigue.

Other movies that I can think of that are similar:

Lord of the Rings: One of the most drawn out series of movies in recent years and it still keeps any memorials short and simple, considering the damage done.

Harry Potter: Lots of deaths, and while it is acknowledged, it is not dwelt on.

The Dark Knight Rises: Huge disruption of Gotham and continuous, horrifying acts of terrorism. Short memorial service.

Star Wars: A whole planet is destroyed and there isn't even a memorial service.

I'm not saying memorials are bad, I'm just saying that they should be appropriate to the tone and pace of the movie. A drawn out memorial at STiD might make it grim and full of despair, when the message was hope. Yes, in real life it doesn't work that way, but movie editing exists to communicate the messages the writers want to convey.

I liked what the Marvel universe has done though. In Iron Man 3 and Thor: The Dark World, the attack on New York in The Avengers is referenced and shown to have repercussions. Tony now has PTSD and Jane Foster is still angry about that attack. I hope this is similar in the next Star Trek movie, and I'm hopeful because STiD did not just let the destruction of Vulcan slide. In fact, it was the catalyst of the plot, and Spock is shown to not have recovered from it.

 

[OpenMaw]

It didn't have to be a whole scene, though. Just 30 seconds or a minute from the crew. Some reaction shots. Have Sulu hesitate to take his order.

"Scan the enemy vessel for signs of life."

-Sulu is frozen at his console.-

"Mr. Sulu!"

"There's no way anyone survived that..."

Ya know? Personally, if I had edited it, I would have intercut the destruction with some reaction shots from the Enterprise crew, some people covering their mouths, shock, murmuring. Just a little more oomph.

 

[JarodRussell]

By now, it would be normal to them. 6 billion Vulcans here, 100,000 San Francisconians there, who cares?

As the Joker said, it's all part of the plan.

 

[Khan444]

I'd imagine that Pike's death might be what's weighing on Kirk's mind in ST 3.

 

[Jeyl]

I think I'm more annoyed by the fact that the driving force behind Star Trek is now death.

 

[JarodRussell]

Seeing all these city wide destruction scenes in films lately, I keep wondering if it's not ILM that writes the scripts based on their pipeline. "Hey guys, we already have all those fluid and particle sims ready to go, just let something crash into a building for an exciting action scene. Everything else will have to be made from scratch and will be more expensive." - "Oh, ok, let's do that."

 

[Hartzilla2007]

I think I'm more annoyed by the fact that the driving force behind Star Trek is now death.

What just because the planets the are attacked or destroyed are ones we care about now instead on the god knows how many one shot planets that were obliterated in TOS that the audience wasn't given much reason to care about other than the scary thing this episode is destructive.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I think I'm more annoyed by the fact that the driving force behind Star Trek is now death.

Isn't attempting to prevent death the driving force in almost all of Trek?

 

[Jeyl]

I think I'm more annoyed by the fact that the driving force behind Star Trek is now death.

What just because the planets the are attacked or destroyed are ones we care about now instead on the god knows how many one shot planets that were obliterated in TOS that the audience wasn't given much reason to care about other than the scary thing this episode is destructive.

I think I have an idea on how to respond to your post, but I don't want to right now because I might misinterpret what you were trying to say. Could you elaborate your points a more structured manner?

 

[Jeyl]

Isn't attempting to prevent death the driving force in almost all of Trek?

Yeah, and this new take sucks at it. Try to save everyone in the meeting room? Nope. Khan kills a good chunk of them. Try to reason with the Klingons? Nope. Khan starts a fight which leaves all of the Klingons dead. Try to capture Admiral Marcus alive? Nope. Khan brutally kills him. Try to stop the Vengeance from crashing into San Francisco after restoring power to the Enterprise's system? Nope. We don't even get a "There's not much power!" or anything as to why the Enterprise didn't try and prevent the Vengeance from crashing. They just sit there.

 

[ComicGuy89]

Isn't attempting to prevent death the driving force in almost all of Trek?

Yeah, and this new take sucks at it. Try to save everyone in the meeting room? Nope. Khan kills a good chunk of them. Try to reason with the Klingons? Nope. Khan starts a fight which leaves all of the Klingons dead. Try to capture Admiral Marcus alive? Nope. Khan brutally kills him. Try to stop the Vengeance from crashing into San Francisco after restoring power to the Enterprise's system? Nope. We don't even get a "There's not much power!" or anything as to why the Enterprise didn't try and prevent the Vengeance from crashing. They just sit there.

Doesn't this simply show that the stakes are horribly high, and that the Enterprise and her crew are against insurmountable odds?

I really wonder what the Enterprise, even at full power and structural integrity, could do to stop a ship more than 3 times its size from crashing. No tractor beam could haul the Vengeance in. And the Enterprise was already severely battered, it's unfair to say the crew just sat there when minutes ago they weren't sure if they were going to live.

I think above the others, this jab against the Enterprise not trying to prevent the Vengeance from crashing is ridiculous and unfair.