Star Trek Into Darkness

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

    Originally posted by MoonHill View Post
    I have to nit-pick one nit-pick:



    That wasn't a starfleet shuttle, it was a something-or-other transport that they seized several months ago during "the Mudd incident"
    Okay, but why was it still onboard the Enterprise? Shouldn't that have been taken off during the servicing of the ship between missions?

    Comment


    • Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

      I enjoyed it. Fun popcorn flick. But, yeah... plot holes galore.

      I'm sure many of you will find this hilarious. Star Trek Into Darkness: The Spoiler FAQ

      Comment


      • Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

        That's absolute rubbish. Wrath of Khan would not have attracted such reviews if it had been released today. Or rather, there may have been one or two outlying reviews such as that (there always are), but that would not have been the prevailing reaction, which I take to be BSR's implication in penning that piece.

        Furthermore, the parallel he's drawing falls flat because the statements he ascribes to his retroactive Web writer are nothing like the actual reactions of anyone in 1982.

        Wrath of Khan is a bona fide classic that has stood the test of time, even as all of the other Trek films before and since have been disappointing at best or risible at worst. It is a genuinely profound film that transcends the genre and has real depth, clever plotting, rich characterization, nail-biting battles, substantial themes, and even moments of awe and wonder. It manages to be an exciting action film, a solid sci-fi yarn, and is even true to the Star Trek legacy, for what that's worth. And although we'll never know, IMO that is how it would have been perceived even today. Quality is still generally appreciated, now as ever, because it is so rare.

        Comment


        • Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

          From the article:

          And then there's the Genesis Device. If you have ANY kind of science background (as in, you skimmed your science textbook in grade school!) the mechanics of this thing will make your head explode. It's a torpedo that can almost instantly terraform a dead moon into a living, breathing planet. In a brief moment of lucidity, the script seems aware of how ludicrous this all is, having McCoy spout that what once took God six days to accomplish can now be done in six minutes.

          Huh. Well, Prometheus did it in about an hour (if we look at the early scene in terms of real time) and I had no problem accepting that part of the story. I recall they gave us a solid visual play-by-play of DNA breaking apart and reforming itself into life.

          Star Trek, I enjoyed it. I like how Abrams is fleshing out the characters we know and love and making them larger and more real. In the old Star Trek episodes (series) much of what we learn about the characters lives before their journey into space is inferred. Whereas this is bringing those ephemeral events to life so I'm cool with it. It's kinda like we're finally getting answers to 30 year old questions...
          life happens
          despite a few cracked pots-
          and random sunlight

          Comment


          • Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

            Liked that Nibiru was portrayed as primitive planet.

            Comment


            • Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

              Originally posted by karsten View Post
              That's absolute rubbish. Wrath of Khan would not have attracted such reviews if it had been released today. Or rather, there may have been one or two outlying reviews such as that (there always are), but that would not have been the prevailing reaction, which I take to be BSR's implication in penning that piece.

              Furthermore, the parallel he's drawing falls flat because the statements he ascribes to his retroactive Web writer are nothing like the actual reactions of anyone in 1982.
              It's not about Wrath of Khan... it's poking fun at the folks that get so honked over breach of certain rules that they miss out on any fun to be found.

              I'm guilty of that at times. Sometimes it's more fun than the movie.
              "Forget it, Jake. It's Hollywood."

              My YouTube channel.

              Comment


              • Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

                Originally posted by Signal30 View Post
                It's not about Wrath of Khan... it's poking fun at the folks that get so honked over breach of certain rules that they miss out on any fun to be found.
                I get that. However, from what I've seen, most of the angry criticisms of Star Trek Into Darkness have largely made sense -- that is, they are plausible and understandable reactions.

                The parallel that the article tries to draw fails, because the reactions it posits are completely implausible.

                It's a false equivalency, because the quality of the two films is at such variance.

                It would be like penning a retroactive Web article about Empire Strikes Back and claiming that a Web audience of 1980 would have been saying things like: "Darth Vader is Luke's father; how stupid is that."

                Nonsense.

                Internet or not, those are not the kinds of reactions that most people would have, even the more jaded cynics out there. Quality is generally met with praise, and lesser material is heaped with scorn.

                Comment


                • Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

                  Originally posted by karsten View Post
                  Internet or not, those are not the kinds of reactions that most people would have, even the more jaded cynics out there. Quality is generally met with praise, and lesser material is heaped with scorn.
                  Bitter's point is that EVERYTHING is met with scorn, quality or not. There were people on Twitter and the blogs and all over the place talking about how stupid this movie was before they'd even seen it. Go through the films forum on DDP and it's the same. People love to criticize, because if you say you love something, there's more risk than if you say you hate it.

                  I've got no problem with people criticizing something if they truly hate it. But it seems that with any high profile release, the first thing anyone wants to do is rip it apart with glee, whether or not it was warranted. WOK is largely considered to be a great film, but at the time of its release, in today's world, people would have picked it apart the way they pick everything apart.

                  That was what Bitter was pointing out through satire.
                  Chicks Who Script podcast

                  Comment


                  • Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

                    Originally posted by emily blake View Post
                    Bitter's point is that EVERYTHING is met with scorn, quality or not. There were people on Twitter and the blogs and all over the place talking about how stupid this movie was before they'd even seen it. Go through the films forum on DDP and it's the same. People love to criticize, because if you say you love something, there's more risk than if you say you hate it.

                    I've got no problem with people criticizing something if they truly hate it. But it seems that with any high profile release, the first thing anyone wants to do is rip it apart with glee, whether or not it was warranted. WOK is largely considered to be a great film, but at the time of its release, in today's world, people would have picked it apart the way they pick everything apart.

                    That was what Bitter was pointing out through satire.
                    Again, I understand that this was his point. And I think he's wrong.

                    Into Darkness is being picked apart because it has colossal flaws. The poorer a film, the more it's picked apart.

                    I am not at all persuaded by BSR's assertion that if it were released in today's world, Wrath of Khan would be picked apart nearly as much as Into Darkness, because Wrath of Khan is by many measures the superior film.

                    Broadly speaking, the worse a film, the more it gets picked apart, the better a film, the less it gets picked apart.

                    BSR's implication that quality films and poor-quality films get picked apart just as much is not persuasive, particularly because the items in Wrath of Khan that BSR singles out for critique are not, I contend, what would broadly be picked apart by modern audiences, just as they were not picked apart in 1982, but praised. E.g., you would generally not have had people criticizing Wrath of Khan for drawing elements from Paradise Lost, Moby Dick, etc., because it deploys those elements in a successful and compelling way.

                    Films are generally picked apart for their disappointing aspects, not their favorable aspects.

                    As for the forums here, there was a thread not too long ago about Braveheart. For the most part, the reactions were positive, not scornful. Quality attracts praise, and poorer quality attracts critique. Into Darkness is being picked apart because it is vulnerable to critique.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

                      Originally posted by MacG View Post
                      Okay, but why was it still onboard the Enterprise? Shouldn't that have been taken off during the servicing of the ship between missions?
                      My first thought was "Whadda I look like, Starfleet BuShips or something? COME AAAHHHHNNNN!" as a sort of agreement with the silliness.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

                        Originally posted by karsten View Post
                        Quality attracts praise, and poorer quality attracts critique. Into Darkness is being picked apart because it is vulnerable to critique.
                        I've been confidently informed that the only reason anyone ever criticizes anything here is because that person hates fun and is incapable of enjoyment.

                        Which I find racist towards anhedonics, myself.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

                          Originally posted by MacG View Post
                          -- Opening sequence: the Enterprise is on a mission to observe & report on a primitive culture...and Kirk feels the best way to do that is by hiding his ship under the ocean? It's called a starship for a reason, dude....
                          It's a character-defining moment. You have to realize that Kirk was stripped of command after the mission, and it was for reckless behavior just like that. The movie tells us that he is not ready for command. The opening scene shows us one reason why.

                          Originally posted by MacG View Post
                          -- There's no way Spock would have volunteered to detonate the cold fusion bomb inside the volcano. If the "Prime Directive" of their mission included not to interfere with the inhabitants in any way, I don't buy Spock would be okay with, in essence, playing God by preventing them from being wiped out.
                          I don't recall precisely, but I know they made a pretty big stink about not letting an entire civilization be wiped out while standing idly by. You can't really observe the species if they're boiling in lava, but I'd have to see the scene again to refresh my understanding of it.

                          Originally posted by MacG View Post
                          -- Soooo...you can teleport Spock OUT of the volcano but you couldn't teleport him in? (Yes, I know they "technically" couldn't teleport him in because the ship was under the water at the time. But please see Point #1 as to my counter argument.)
                          I seem to recall something said about not being able to lock onto his position without direct line of sight once he was inside. So, if the starship was in orbit, the white dudes would have probably thought 'Hey, what's that strange-looking object in the sky?'. Cover blown.

                          Originally posted by MacG View Post
                          -- Kirk is surprised that Spock sold him out to Starfleet Command? Really? Did you two just meet or something?
                          It's part of their character journey. Kirk wants Spock to be his friend. Uhura wants Spock to show he cares for her. You can't have a character arc without starting at the base and going somewhere else.

                          Originally posted by MacG View Post
                          -- Carol Marcus is the Admiral's daughter. She pointedly says to him at one point that he raised her. So why the **** does she have a British accent while he's 100% American?

                          (And don't tell me we should infer that maybe she was born in London and they lived in London so that's why she has the accent and blah-blah-blah. You can't not address things like this.)
                          You addressed it by raising the question. Do you think she didn't go to British schools, have British friends, grow up around the British accent? The Admiral wasn't a stay-at-home dad. I have no idea why this is a problem for you.

                          Originally posted by MacG View Post
                          -- Soooo...Scotty resigns his post as engineer of the Enterprise and Kirk feels appointing Chekov -- a dude who, in his own words, has only "shadowed" Scotty a bit -- to head of that department is the best move?
                          Yes. He was the most qualified.

                          Originally posted by MacG View Post
                          -- Soooo...Spock has a problem killing John Harrison without him first standing trial by launching torpedos at the abandoned Klingon planet he's hiding; but he's perfectly willing to risk an all-out war with the Klingons by willfully invading their territory to arrest Harrison?

                          (This goes back to my point of Marcus being stupid to allow Spock to be Kirk's second-in-command again, since this sort of "logic" bullshit would invariably come up.)
                          Spock was only okay with the mission when Kirk said they were going to capture Khan alive through surreptitious activity, not "invasion".

                          Originally posted by MacG View Post
                          -- Soooo...your bright idea is to disguise yourselves as outlaws in case you run into Klingons, even though you're transport vehicle is clearly a Starfleet Shuttle?
                          Not a Starfleet shuttle. Please pay attention.

                          Originally posted by MacG View Post
                          -- Am I really listening to Spock and Uhura having a lovers' spat? She's really mad at him because he's emotionally unavailable? Bitch, he's half Vulcan!
                          Again, part of the character arc and the journey of their character relationship. Not every movie is Inception; some actually have character development.

                          Originally posted by MacG View Post
                          -- Soooo...the pasty-white British guy is actually Khan? Isn't that, like, an Indian name?
                          Dude, look at what people are naming their kids today. If you have a problem with names, you should be asking why someone in the future is names James. Get real.

                          Originally posted by MacG View Post
                          -- How in the hell was Kirk supposed to launch those 72 torpedos if their fuel tanks had been replaced with cryo-tubes in which Marcus hid Khan's crew?
                          I don't recall the specifics of this moment, so I cannot comment at this time.

                          Originally posted by MacG View Post
                          -- I'm all for Alice Eve stripping down to her bra and panties. But when even I'm saying, "Um...what was the point of that scene?" you know you've got problems.
                          Pretty pointless scene, I'll give you that, but it's gracefully short and has a mostly-nude woman in it. Perhaps it's a hint at a future relationship in the next movie. A set-up for a coming pay-off. Pure speculation, but it works under that logic.

                          Originally posted by MacG View Post
                          -- How nice that Scotty is able to rent a Starfleet shuttle for the day to take a leisurely trip out to Jupiter.
                          I don't think it would be too difficult. He still had his uniform, after all. This is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000X more believable than Bruce Wayne getting from India to Homeland Security lockdown Gotham with no resources whatsoever, yet instead of complaining about that, everyone is dusting off their cop-out excuses and raising new pedestals for Nolan as they proclaim his brilliance. Abrams does a better job with a similar situation and gets only flak. Typical of today's audience.

                          Originally posted by MacG View Post
                          -- Khan demands the return of his crew, which are still hidden in the torpedos. Spock agrees. Within a couple seconds, they're transported over to Khan's ship...but in the brief time, all 72 of their cryo-tubes were taken out?
                          I don't believe we're told when Bones started removing the people from the tubes, so you can't attach an obvious incorrect timeframe to that action. That's just stupid.

                          Originally posted by MacG View Post
                          -- Kirk looks pretty damn good for a dude who was just exposed to lethal amounts of radiation.
                          Get your vision checked. Mine is 20/15 and he looked as sick as some of your complaints.


                          Originally posted by Deion22 View Post
                          But when I see people bashing Nolan all the time for his logic, and then praising this mess? It's laughable.

                          Nolan is a far superior director.
                          Care to explain the reason for your delusion, or are you going to settle with a blanket statement that could have only come from the end of a crack pipe?

                          Nolan couldn't direct Jared to Subway.

                          See? I can do that, too.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

                            Originally posted by karsten View Post
                            Again, I understand that this was his point. And I think he's wrong.

                            Into Darkness is being picked apart because it has colossal flaws. The poorer a film, the more it's picked apart.

                            I am not at all persuaded by BSR's assertion that if it were released in today's world, Wrath of Khan would be picked apart nearly as much as Into Darkness, because Wrath of Khan is by many measures the superior film.

                            Broadly speaking, the worse a film, the more it gets picked apart, the better a film, the less it gets picked apart.

                            BSR's implication that quality films and poor-quality films get picked apart just as much is not persuasive, particularly because the items in Wrath of Khan that BSR singles out for critique are not, I contend, what would broadly be picked apart by modern audiences, just as they were not picked apart in 1982, but praised. E.g., you would generally not have had people criticizing Wrath of Khan for drawing elements from Paradise Lost, Moby Dick, etc., because it deploys those elements in a successful and compelling way.

                            Films are generally picked apart for their disappointing aspects, not their favorable aspects.

                            As for the forums here, there was a thread not too long ago about Braveheart. For the most part, the reactions were positive, not scornful. Quality attracts praise, and poorer quality attracts critique. Into Darkness is being picked apart because it is vulnerable to critique.
                            Again, this has nothing to do with either Wrath of Khan or even Into Darkness, really. It's a satire on the relatively recent rise of the culture of negativity. Satire works on absurdity and it's absurd to get that nitpicky about Wrath, probably the only movie in the canon considered above reproach. That's why the author chose it to make his point.
                            "Forget it, Jake. It's Hollywood."

                            My YouTube channel.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

                              Originally posted by Biohazard View Post
                              It's a character-defining moment. You have to realize that Kirk was stripped of command after the mission, and it was for reckless behavior just like that. The movie tells us that he is not ready for command. The opening scene shows us one reason why.



                              I don't recall precisely, but I know they made a pretty big stink about not letting an entire civilization be wiped out while standing idly by. You can't really observe the species if they're boiling in lava, but I'd have to see the scene again to refresh my understanding of it.



                              I seem to recall something said about not being able to lock onto his position without direct line of sight once he was inside. So, if the starship was in orbit, the white dudes would have probably thought 'Hey, what's that strange-looking object in the sky?'. Cover blown.



                              It's part of their character journey. Kirk wants Spock to be his friend. Uhura wants Spock to show he cares for her. You can't have a character arc without starting at the base and going somewhere else.



                              You addressed it by raising the question. Do you think she didn't go to British schools, have British friends, grow up around the British accent? The Admiral wasn't a stay-at-home dad. I have no idea why this is a problem for you.



                              Yes. He was the most qualified.



                              Spock was only okay with the mission when Kirk said they were going to capture Khan alive through surreptitious activity, not "invasion".



                              Not a Starfleet shuttle. Please pay attention.



                              Again, part of the character arc and the journey of their character relationship. Not every movie is Inception; some actually have character development.



                              Dude, look at what people are naming their kids today. If you have a problem with names, you should be asking why someone in the future is names James. Get real.



                              I don't recall the specifics of this moment, so I cannot comment at this time.



                              Pretty pointless scene, I'll give you that, but it's gracefully short and has a mostly-nude woman in it. Perhaps it's a hint at a future relationship in the next movie. A set-up for a coming pay-off. Pure speculation, but it works under that logic.



                              I don't think it would be too difficult. He still had his uniform, after all. This is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000X more believable than Bruce Wayne getting from India to Homeland Security lockdown Gotham with no resources whatsoever, yet instead of complaining about that, everyone is dusting off their cop-out excuses and raising new pedestals for Nolan as they proclaim his brilliance. Abrams does a better job with a similar situation and gets only flak. Typical of today's audience.



                              I don't believe we're told when Bones started removing the people from the tubes, so you can't attach an obvious incorrect timeframe to that action. That's just stupid.



                              Get your vision checked. Mine is 20/15 and he looked as sick as some of your complaints.




                              Care to explain the reason for your delusion, or are you going to settle with a blanket statement that could have only come from the end of a crack pipe?

                              Nolan couldn't direct Jared to Subway.

                              See? I can do that, too.

                              actually I'm bigger then that. Good luck, Bio.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

                                Originally posted by Deion22 View Post
                                actually I'm bigger then (sic) that. Good luck, Bio.
                                Didn't think so.

                                You can talk the talk, but when it comes to walking the walk, you walk away.

                                "I'm right, but I won't tell you why!"

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X