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
    "Space Seed" is arguably the most perfect Star Trek story out there?
    I'd argue that "Where No Man Has Gone Before" is better all around, but "Space Seed" ranks right up there.

    Of course the two best Star Trek Movies are "Forbidden Planet" and "Galaxy Quest"

    Comment


    • Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

      Originally posted by Steven R View Post
      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 (maybe except scotty, but he came back and nothing had changed). i very much liked the scene in this thematic rule breaking thing, where spock calls his old self and the older spock says something like "i'm not suppose to ever tell you anything..." then he obviously spilled the beans, thus completely nagating any theme of rule following.
      the only problem is that kirk did the right thing to put his crew in harms way to save that planet. thus negating any lesson learned. had it been for nothing then i could understand why they put that in there. but the lives of a couple of them compared to the lives on a whole planet is a noble tradeoff.

      what cost is too high when the rules are ignored? if that was supposed to be a lesson then they really failed on that one. it seemed to me that pretty much anyone ignored the rules. especially admiral marcus, not to mention spock, who is only too happy to refer to some rule before he thunders through. i don't think anyone actually is shown following rules when they where in a dilemma(maybe except for scotty, only he came back without anything changing). i very much liked the scene where spock calls his old self and the old spock says something like "i was supposed to never say anything about this...", then he spills all the beans on khan anyway, thus completely negating any theme of rule breaking.

      Comment


      • Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

        Originally posted by Steven R View Post
        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.
        Ta da!!
        M.A.G.A.

        Comment


        • Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

          Originally posted by Bananos View Post
          the only problem is that kirk did the right thing to put his crew in harms way to save that planet. thus negating any lesson learned. had it been for nothing then i could understand why they put that in there. but the lives of a couple of them compared to the lives on a whole planet is a noble tradeoff.
          Kirk's job wasn't to save that planet. His job was to survey it. It certainly wasn't to violate the Prime Directive and give those people a new god in the form of the Enterprise in order to save Spock, someone who should not have been put in jeopardy in the first place. And when McCoy calls him on it, Kirk's response was "what's the worst that could happen?"

          Pike reads Kirk the riot act for two reasons: 1) the rules apply to Kirk, even when he disagrees with them and 2) just because Kirk's decisions hasn't gotten anyone killed doesn't mean his decisions never will. Kirk learns right then and there that decisions have consequences, namely that he is relieved of command. But the lesson doesn't stick. When Scotty objects to the torpedoes being on board for safety reasons, Kirk ignores that rule. Result? Scotty resigns and when the Enterprise is sabotaged Chekov doesn't know what he's doing but is put in Scotty's place by necessity.

          This will all come back into play with the next comment.

          what cost is too high when the rules are ignored? if that was supposed to be a lesson then they really failed on that one. it seemed to me that pretty much anyone ignored the rules. especially admiral marcus, not to mention spock, who is only too happy to refer to some rule before he thunders through. i don't think anyone actually is shown following rules when they where in a dilemma(maybe except for scotty, only he came back without anything changing). i very much liked the scene where spock calls his old self and the old spock says something like "i was supposed to never say anything about this...", then he spills all the beans on khan anyway, thus completely negating any theme of rule breaking.
          There's a very interesting dynamic going on in this film. Kirk's story and Spock's story are mirror images of each other. At the beginning of the film Kirk has never heard of the rulebook, he is impulsive, he is arrogant, and he thinks he is indestructible. Spock can't think outside of the rulebook, so much so that Khan even calls him out on it. He is logical to a fault and goes out of his way to not feel, sabotaging his relationship with Uhura in the process. But the area of the story around the capture of Khan both Kirk and Spock start down their respective roads of self-discovery. Kirk accepts an assassination mission because he disagrees with the rules (namely arrest and trial of Khan) until McCoy and Spock show him the light and that their rules are what make the Federation the Federation. Otherwise they are no better than Khan. It isn't until Kirk accepts that the captain is ultimately responsible for his crew and that Kirk can be wrong and get people killed that Kirk finally gets it. To illustrate that he really gets it, Kirk has to die to protect the crew he put in danger in the first place (by not obeying the Federation's rules and taking an assassination mission).

          Spock's story goes in the other direction. Spock follows the rules to the point that he sabotages Kirk's career. He simply cannot see any other way. But once they have Khan captured and Khan outright says Spock is too rule bound that Spock begins to change. He sees Old Spock come right out and break his own rule about interfering with New Spock's life by telling New Spock about Khan. Instead of beaming over the intact torpedoes, Spock has McCoy remove the frozen people and then beams them over to Khan's ship and detonates them. Spock finally gets Kirk's friendship and the emotion that goes along with it and that rulebook goes out the window when Spock chases Khan down.

          It's the whole thesis + antithesis = synthesis paradigm. At the end of it Kirk and Spock finally get that the rules exist for a reason, but sometimes the rulebook needs thrown away. Not always, but sometimes. Both Kirk and Spock also figure out that emotion and logic and impulsiveness and calculation can all coexist. Kirk can still leap before he looks, but he has the capacity to look before he leaps too. Spock doesn't need to fear emotion and he can choose when to file a true report and file one that is a little lacking in details.

          Comment


          • Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

            I'd feel more comfortable with this discussion if any mention of Kirk dying involved irony quotes.

            Comment


            • Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

              Originally posted by Vance View Post
              I'd feel more comfortable with this discussion if any mention of Kirk dying involved irony quotes.
              To illustrate that he really gets it, "Kirk" has to die to protect the crew he put in danger in the first place.

              Comment


              • Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

                I cannot adequately transliterate the half-grudging, half-admiring sound I just made at reading that.

                Comment


                • Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

                  look, i get what kirk and spock's arcs are supposed to be in this film. i just disagree that the movie managed to execute it.
                  first, i don't think kirk did anything wrong in the beginning. and that's a big problem. secondly, i don't think spock did anything wrong in writing that report.

                  this is all underlined in the confusion that everytime we see a consequence, later it is being revoked, thus removing any real effect or lesson. scotty leaves, but then comes back. while he was gone there weren't any real consequence, just a replacement that, presumably, did a slightly worse job. then there's the "death" of kirk. i see what they were trying to do, but they don't deliver. a lesson can't be learned unless there are some irrevocable, irredeemable consequences. that's just a fact.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

                    Originally posted by Vance View Post
                    I cannot adequately transliterate the half-grudging, half-admiring sound I just made at reading that.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X