Star Trek Into Darkness

Collapse

Announcement

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

  • Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

    Yeah, saw this today, and io9's take on it is exactly correct.

    However, I did enjoy it a lot more than the first one. And I have no idea why...actually, it's probably 'cause of Cumberbatch, and that the story was basically a remake.

    ETA: I love Bio's half-hearted attempt to address an earlier poster's concerns. I didn't get through them all, but I liked his meager defense of "line of sight", i.e. the primitives might accidentally see the Enterprise if the ship needed line of sight in the opening scene. I guess Bio's eyes are a lot sharper than the rest of us since he can see the satellite(s) that beam the signals to those of us with satellite tv.

    Comment


    • Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

      Originally posted by Richmond Weems View Post
      ETA: I love Bio's half-hearted attempt to address an earlier poster's concerns. I didn't get through them all, but I liked his meager defense of "line of sight", i.e. the primitives might accidentally see the Enterprise if the ship needed line of sight in the opening scene. I guess Bio's eyes are a lot sharper than the rest of us since he can see the satellite(s) that beam the signals to those of us with satellite tv.
      Just going by what the movie told us.

      If you want to pick something apart, I know a lot of people slept on some chris nolan films. If that's the case, you have a lot of catching up to do. Star Trek should be the least of your concerns.

      Comment


      • Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

        I enjoyed the film. I thought there were some funny bits (especially whenever Scotty or Bones opened their mouth), got some T&A and a gratuitous and unnecessary underwear scene, chases, all kinds of action, and some morality play stuff.

        Comment


        • Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

          I can't believe how much I HATED this movie. It is blueprint for lazy screenwriting.

          Lots of Spoilers, but going to see this is the worst spoiler of all.

          Kirk's arc: Starts off being punished for taking brash actions and defying orders. End of the film, he is rewarded for taking brash actions and defying orders.

          All of John Harrison's (I refused to call him Khan) plans made no sense. He blew up an underground lab and shot up a room full of admirals/captains. How does that rescue his people? Then he teleported to Chronos, the home planet of the race this evil admiral is trying to start a war with. Huh? He puts his crew in torpedoes. What exactly was the purpose of that?

          You resurrect the biggest villain of the 20th century because the human race no longer knows how to make weapons? Really?

          Does Star Fleet only have two ships? Why when they were under attack from the evil admiral would they call Old Spock for tips instead of contacting Star Fleet and letting them know one of their leaders was trying to start a war? And the damaged Enterprise falls to Earth. Was this battle happening that close to the planet? Did no one else notice?

          Why remake arguable the most perfect Star Trek story out there? There's no way you're going to top it. Especially with the Bad Robot writing team. Rewrite the radiation chamber scene. Do you even understand why it is iconic? Wrath of Khan built the whole movie leading up to that scene. It was important because a beloved character died. No miracle blood to save him. He didn't come back until the next movie.

          One other thing Wrath of Khan had: well thought out battles. A key element in defeating the real Khan was that he didn't think three dimensionally. The battles felt like submarines fighting. Into Darkness had a teleporter that could send you across the universe (why even have ships anymore) and ships that could fight while warped (we'd wipe the Klingons out easily).

          Horribly stupid writing. Go work on Star Wars JJ. We don't want you in our Star Trek universe anymore.

          Comment


          • Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

            If you're going to criticise the writing at least be accurate:

            Kirk's arc: Starts off being punished for taking brash actions and defying orders. End of the film, he is rewarded for taking brash actions and defying orders.
            Kirk was chastised for putting his entire crew a risk. At the end, he had done everything he could to protect them from harm and sacrificed himself instead.
            M.A.G.A.

            Comment


            • Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

              Originally posted by SundownInRetreat View Post
              If you're going to criticise the writing at least be accurate:


              Kirk was chastised for putting his entire crew a risk. At the end, he had done everything he could to protect them from harm and sacrificed himself instead.
              Really? Is that what he was getting chastised for? Seemed to me they were a lot more angry about them revealing the Enterprise to an undeveloped culture and getting involved with their volcano in the first place.

              Comment


              • Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

                That was thrown in but the main thrust was his recklessness and lack of care for the ship and its crew. Hence his sacrifice.
                M.A.G.A.

                Comment


                • Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

                  Originally posted by SundownInRetreat View Post
                  That was thrown in but the main thrust was his recklessness and lack of care for the ship and its crew. Hence his sacrifice.
                  Well the fantastic writing really got that point across to me.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

                    It wasn't the fault of the writing that you didn't understand what was clearly stated and that Kirk had a completed arc. There's been fair game in this thread, such as Khan's magic blood, but Kirk's arc isn't one of them. That's simply error on your part.
                    M.A.G.A.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

                      "Space Seed" is arguably the most perfect Star Trek story out there?

                      Comment


                      • Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

                        Also, kudos on the sheer cheek of claiming to be the "we" that doesn't want Abrams in "our" Star Trek Universe, while complaining about Star Fleet not having many ships around Earth.


                        Not having any ships available near Earth except the Enterprise has been Star Fleet's whole schtick since at least Robert Wise.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

                          Originally posted by SundownInRetreat View Post
                          It wasn't the fault of the writing that you didn't understand what was clearly stated and that Kirk had a completed arc. There's been fair game in this thread, such as Khan's magic blood, but Kirk's arc isn't one of them. That's simply error on your part.
                          actually kirk's arc is not clear. how was he putting his crew at risk in the beginning? maybe i missed something here, but all i got from it was that he was just a rule breaker. i don't think he was selfish or even that arrogant. that's why i think the ending of him being altruistic was no arc.

                          the mayor problem for me was the relationship with spock. because spock's reaction to kirk's death was way out of proportion. you would think that all that was happening, and all those people being killed by khan's terrorism and lunacy, would evoke a bigger reaction from him than kirk, who he hardly knows. there's very little relationship building between them. in order to build a strong relationship with someone, or in fact any relationship of some depth, both needs to reveal something private or revealing about themselves to the other. that's how humans work. but they don't do nothing of the sort. i found spock's "khan"-yell to be funny.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

                            It was clear to me.
                            M.A.G.A.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

                              Originally posted by UnequalProductions View Post
                              I can't believe how much I HATED this movie. It is blueprint for lazy screenwriting.

                              Horribly stupid writing. Go work on Star Wars JJ. We don't want you in our Star Trek universe anymore.
                              I get a lot of the critcism for the story. Had one of us submitted this script to the Blacklist with names/places changed, we would've been eaten alive by the reviewers. Objectively, the script/story was meh.

                              But, Abrams brought it to life. This is what great directors do. They take the mundane and make it epic. This is why they want him for Star Wars. Yes, the script/story will likely suck, but he can bring it to life.

                              This is what frustrates amateurs. We get beaten to a pulp for mistakes the pros make, and when/if we do write a perfect script, it never gets sold/produced because the mundane scripts are working just fine for Hollywood.
                              I'm never wrong. Reality is just stubborn.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

                                Originally posted by Bananos View Post
                                actually kirk's arc is not clear. how was he putting his crew at risk in the beginning? maybe i missed something here, but all i got from it was that he was just a rule breaker. i don't think he was selfish or even that arrogant. that's why i think the ending of him being altruistic was no arc.
                                They were only supposed to observe the planet with the red trees. That's all they were tasked to do. Instead Kirk drops Spock into a volcano, puts Sulu and Uhura at risk to fly a shuttle into said volcano to help Spock and when it all went pear-shaped, Pull the Enterprise out of the ocean in full view of the aliens (who then start worshiping the Enterprise). When called in on it, Kirk just shrugs his shoulders because it worked out. That's what Pike called Kirk on, the cavalier attitude about breaking the rules and putting people at risk on a whim. Kirk figured because it had never ended with people in a body bag it never would.

                                Kirk's arc is that he ends up having to send his crew in harm's way and that some of them get killed in the process, even when he does the right thing. It's a harsh lesson for him to learn, but he learns it to the point that he will risk anything (even his own life) to keep them from that danger, at least as much as he can. The rules do apply to him because the cost is too high when the rules are ignored.

                                the mayor problem for me was the relationship with spock. because spock's reaction to kirk's death was way out of proportion. you would think that all that was happening, and all those people being killed by khan's terrorism and lunacy, would evoke a bigger reaction from him than kirk, who he hardly knows. there's very little relationship building between them. in order to build a strong relationship with someone, or in fact any relationship of some depth, both needs to reveal something private or revealing about themselves to the other. that's how humans work. but they don't do nothing of the sort. i found spock's "khan"-yell to be funny.
                                Spock doesn't get the loyalty thing at the beginning of the film. That's why he rats out Kirk to Pike. He also chooses not to feel because he is afraid of those feelings. He outright tells that to Uhura. And he has the whole feeling of fear that he got from Pike when Pike was dying. It all adds up to a breaking point when his friend is killed saving him (and the rest of the crew). That's Spock's arc: understanding loyalty and getting control over his feelings. It took Kirk's dying to make it all sink into Spock's head.

                                The relationship issue, or the perceived lack thereof, is because we already know the characters are two sides of the same coin. Kirk is action emotion, and impulse, Spock is logic and calculation. We see Kirk willing to go to any extreme to save Spock and we see Spock have a Come to Jesus talk with Kirk concerning killing Khan with the torpedoes. They already have that connection in place. We just don't get the "becoming friends" montage with Lisa Loeb song or the sharing of innermost feelings scene. The relationship between Spock and Kirk is subtle and understated, but it's there. It just isn't overt. Sam and Frodo they ain't.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X